HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-13 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
April 13, 2015
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
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.
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
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 6:00-6:10 PM
Oral Communications 6:10-6:25 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 6:25-6:30 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
1. Approval of Contract Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C12142825
in the Amount of $668,000 with NV5, Inc. for Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Newell Road/San
Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Capital Improvement
Program Project PE-12011, Approval of Amendment No. Two to a Cost
Share Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District Providing
Local Matching Funds in the Amount of $235,074 for Design and EIR
Preparation for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge
1 April 13, 2015
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.
Replacement Project, and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance
in the Amount of $668,000 to CIP Project PE-12011, Newell Road/San
Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project
2.Approval of Contract No. C15156501 with SP Plus to Provide Online
Permit Sales Hosting for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking
District in the Amount of $284,068 and a New Parking Website;
Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance Transferring $43,813 to
the Residential Parking Permit Program Fund and Appropriate $28,230
to the Planning and Community Environment Department Operating
Budget Offset with a Reduction of $72,043 from the General Fund
Budget Stabilization Reserve
3.Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract C14151310 with Ghirardelli
Associates, to Add $68,000 for a Total Not to Exceed $706,600 for
Construction Management of the California Avenue Streetscape
Improvements Project (CIP- PL-11002)
4.Approval of and Authorization for the City Manager or His Designee to
Execute a Consent to Change of Control Agreement with Frontier
Solar, LLC. and Amendment No. 1 to the City's Power Purchase
Agreement with Frontier Solar, LLC.
5.Staff Recommendation to Initiate a Special Recruitment to Fill One
Unscheduled Vacancy on the Architectural Review Board
6.SECOND READING: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees:
Adoption of Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.58 Implementing NewPublic Safety Facility and General Government Facility Impact Fees
and Direction to Draft Resolution Setting Initial Impact Fee Rates at 75
Percent of Levels Identified in Nexus Study (First Reading: December
15, 2014 PASSED: 9-0)
7.Approval of a Construction Contract with Express Sign & Neon, Inc.
Not to Exceed $327,558 for the Wayfinding Portion of the City Hall
Remodel Project PE-12017
Action Items 6:30 PM
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
8.Hearing on Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Residents Association’s
Appeal of Hearing Officer’s Decision Relating to Mitigation Measures
2 April 13, 2015
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.
Letter from City AttorneyOutside Attorney Letters
Proposed by Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Owner in Connection with
Mobilehome Park Closure Application
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
3 April 13, 2015
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
Council and Standing Committee Meetings
Sp. City Council Meeting- Buena Vista Hearing Continued April 14, 2015
Sp. City Council Meeting- Board And Commission Interviews April 15, 2015
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
National Public Safety Telecommunicator's Week
Public Letters to Council
Set 1
4 April 13, 2015
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 of Palo Alto (ID # 5549)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/13/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Emergency Preparedness
Summary Title: Amendment No. 2 to Newell Road Bridge Design Contract
Title: Approval of Contract Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C12142825
in the Amount of $668,000 with NV5, Inc. for Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Newell Road/San Francisquito
Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Capital Improvement Program Project PE-
12011, Approval of Amendment No. Two to a Cost Share Agreement with the
Santa Clara Valley Water District Providing Local Matching Funds in the
Amount of $235,074 for Design and EIR Preparation for the Newell Road/San
Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project, And Adoption of a Budget
Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $668,000 to CIP Project PE-12011,
Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute
Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C12142825 with NV5, Inc.
(Attachment A) in a not-to-exceed amount of $668,000 for preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to review screened feasible
alternatives for Newell Road Bridge replacement and determine the
preferred alternative for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge
Replacement Project (CIP PE-12011), including $607,730 for basic services
and $60,270 for additional services; and
2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Amendment No. Two to the cost share agreement with the Santa Clara
Valley Water District (District) (Attachment B) in the amount of $235,074,
providing that the District will contribute a total of $314,119 as the local
match to the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant for the design and EIR
preparation for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge
Replacement Project; and
3. Approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of
$668,000 (Attachment C) to provide an additional appropriation for the
Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project (CIP PE-
12011).
Background
The abutments of the existing Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek are
located within the creek bed, causing a flow constriction in the channel that
prevents it from accommodating the estimated 1% (100-year) flow event. The
Newell Road Bridge is one of the bridges under study by the San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that needs to be removed or replaced in order
to provide 1% flood conveyance capacity in the creek and increased flood
protection to area residents and businesses. Furthermore, the bridge was
constructed in 1911 and is considered functionally obsolete. The traffic lanes are
substandard, the sight distances from the bridge are poor, and the bridge has no
provision for bicycle or pedestrian traffic. On July 11, 2011, Council approved a
budget appropriation for a new capital improvement project to replace the
Newell Road Bridge and authorized staff to accept Caltrans Highway Bridge
Program grant funds to pay for the majority of project costs. On April 9, 2012,
Council approved a contract with Nolte Associates, Inc. in the amount of $519,177
for the design and environmental assessment of the replacement bridge (Nolte
Associates, Inc. has since changed its corporate name to NV5, Inc.). Council also
approved a cost share agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(District) providing for contribution of local matching funds to supplement the
Caltrans grant funding.
Staff and NV5, Inc. developed preliminary design alternatives for replacement of
the existing Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek bridge. Staff presented the
preliminary bridge designs at a joint meeting of the Crescent Park and
Duveneck/St Francis neighborhood associations, at a special community meeting,
City of Palo Alto Page 3
and at a study session of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). During those
meetings, members of the public expressed concern regarding the potential
impacts of the project on the surrounding neighborhood. Their concerns included
potential increased traffic speeds and volumes along Newell Road, the visual
impact of a larger bridge structure, and privacy issues for properties abutting the
bridge. There was widespread public desire for staff to identify and analyze
multiple bridge alternatives, including various bridge widths and alignments,
varied levels of accommodations for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians, and a
non-replacement option, before proceeding with project design and
environmental assessment.
On January 8, 2013, staff held a community meeting at the Lucie Stern
Community Center attended by over 200 residents of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto.
At that meeting, the City Manager committed to pausing the project development
process in order to conduct a thorough analysis of potential project alternatives
and a full environmental impact report (EIR) analyzing potential project impacts.
On June 3, 2013, Council approved a contract with NV5, Inc. in the amount of
$167,000 to conduct an alternatives analysis and associated traffic study to
evaluate and select feasible project alternatives for inclusion in the full
environmental impact report (EIR) review process.
The following eight project alternatives were analyzed and screened for inclusion
in the EIR review process:
No project (leave existing bridge in place)
Removal of existing bridge without replacement
New bicycle/pedestrian bridge
New bicycle/pedestrian bridge with limited emergency vehicle access
New bi-directional, one-lane vehicle bridge with traffic signal access control
New two-lane vehicle bridge using existing bridge alignment
New two-lane bridge with a partial realignment
New two-lane vehicle bridge realigned to line up with Newell Road in East
Palo Alto
On February 27, 2014, staff presented the results of the alternatives screening
process at a community meeting at Palo Alto City Hall, during which staff
City of Palo Alto Page 4
identified the following five alternatives to be carried forward into the project’s
EIR review process:
No project (leave existing bridge in place)
New bi-directional, one-lane vehicle bridge with traffic signal access control
New two-lane vehicle bridge using existing bridge alignment
New two-lane bridge with a partial realignment
New two-lane vehicle bridge realigned to line up with Newell Road in East
Palo Alto
In response to comments made at the community meeting, the EIR process will
also evaluate potential lower profile bridge elevations that would accommodate
less than the estimated 1% (100-year) flow event.
At the request of the District, the project has been modified to incorporate
channel improvements, approximately 900 feet downstream of the bridge, to
widen a narrow segment of San Francisquito Creek that creates a localized flow
restriction. The north bank of the creek will be regraded in order to increase the
capacity of the creek downstream of the Newell Road bridge and thereby lower
the water surface elevation of the creek at the bridge during storm events.
Elimination of the existing channel capacity bottleneck and the resultant lowering
of creek levels will allow the profile of the Newell Road bridge to be lowered. The
lower bridge will in turn lower the roadway approaches to the bridge and thereby
reduce aesthetic and access impacts on neighboring properties.
Discussion
Staff has been coordinating with the City of East Palo Alto, the District, the JPA,
and Caltrans to develop the scope and cost for the attached contract amendment.
Staff from the participating agencies concur that the tasks outlined in the contract
amendment comprise the logical next steps in the project development process
for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project. The proposed scope of work
includes the environmental services required to complete the environmental
documentation for the project.
All five feasible project alternatives identified during the alternatives screening
process will be evaluated at an equal level in the EIR process. The environmental
evaluation process will provide the information needed for staff, our agency
City of Palo Alto Page 5
partners, and the community to select a preferred alternative for
implementation. It should be noted that since the Newell Road Bridge literally
bridges the boundary between the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, the
project must ultimately be approved by both jurisdictions. Consequently,
outreach for the community meetings will include mailings to residents in both
Palo Alto and East Palo Alto in an effort to gather valuable input from both
communities and to reach mutual consensus on the preferred alternative to be
selected during the project’s environmental document preparation process.
Staff has coordinated with Caltrans Office of Local Assistance representatives over
the past year to request that they amend the existing Highway Bridge Program
grant for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project to include the cost of the
EIR study. Highway Bridge Program grants typically reimburses the grantee
88.53% of eligible project expenses. Following multiple iterations of comment
and review, Caltrans has approved an amendment to the existing grant that
would cover the cost of the expanded scope of work for the EIR, but they declined
to fund the design and environmental review of the downstream channel
modifications. Staff has reached agreement with District staff on an amendment
to the existing City-District cost share agreement under which the District will
cover the local share (11.47%) of the cost of the EIR and 100% of the cost for the
design and environmental review of the downstream channel work. As a result of
our funding partnership with Caltrans and the District, the cost of the proposed
contract amendment with NV5, Inc. will be fully reimbursed.
Timeline
The EIR will be completed within approximately one year and presented to
Council for certification in Spring 2016. The final plans, specifications, and cost
estimate (PS&E) for the bridge replacement project will be completed by the end
of 2016. Regulatory permits from state and federal resource agencies will be
secured by early 2017. The construction of the Newell Road Bridge replacement
project, which will require a road closure for the duration of construction, is
planned for Spring/Summer 2017. This timing is consistent with the planned
execution of the JPA’s related flood control improvements. The District/JPA
project to replace the Pope-Chaucer Street/San Francisquito Creek bridge is also
tentatively scheduled for construction during Spring/Summer 2017. Current plans
are to keep Pope-Chaucer Street open during that bridge work, avoiding the two
City of Palo Alto Page 6
bridges being closed to traffic simultaneously.
Resource Impact
Funds for this contract amendment will be added to the project budget from the
Infrastructure Reserve via the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO).
The Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant will provide reimbursement for
88.53% of the cost of the project EIR and related studies. The District will
reimburse the City for the remaining project costs not covered by the Caltrans
grant, including the full cost of the design and environmental review of the
downstream channel modifications. Reimbursement to the Infrastructure
Reserve will be accomplished through progress payments provided by Caltrans
and the District.
Environmental Review
Because the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant funds originate from the
federal government, the environmental assessment of the Newell Road/San
Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project must be conducted to comply
with both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The original contract contained provisions for
NV5, Inc. to conduct the special technical studies required for the Caltrans
Highway Bridge Program and to prepare a mitigated negative declaration as the
CEQA compliance document for the project. Due to the heightened level of
community concern surrounding the project, however, staff is preparing a full
environmental impact report (EIR) in order to ensure a robust consideration of
the potential environmental impacts of the project.
cc: Brent Butler, City of East Palo Alto Planning Division
Kamal Fallaha, City of East Palo Alto Public Works Division
Len Materman, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
Saeid Hosseini, Santa Clara Valley Water District
Norman Beamer, Crescent Park Neighborhood Association
Karen White, Duveneck/St. Francis Neighborhood Association
Attachments:
A - Contract Amendment No. Two with NV5, Inc. (PDF)
B - Amendment No. Two to SCVWD Cost Share Agreement (PDF)
C - Budget Amendment Ordinance (PDF)
AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO CONTRACT NO. C12142825
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND NV5, INC.
This Amendment No. Two to Contract No. C12142825 (“Contract”) is entered into
March 10, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal
corporation (“CITY”), and NV5, Inc., a California Corporation, located at 2025 Gateway Place, Suite
156, San Jose, CA 95110 (“CONSULTANT”).
R E C I T A L S:
A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of
professional engineering design and environmental assessment services in connection with the
Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project (“Project”); and
B. The parties wish to amend the Contract to increase the scope of services to
include preparation of an environmental impact report and design of downstream channel
improvements, increase compensation, and extend the contract schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section 1, SCOPE OF SERVICES, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in the attached Exhibit “A-2”
as an addition to the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A” of the original Contract and Exhibit
“A-1” of Amendment No. One to the Contract, 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. Section 2, TERM, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through the
duration of the construction support services rendered by CONSULTANT for the
Project.”
SECTION 3. Section 4, NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
“The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Basic
Services described in Exhibit “A-2”, in addition to the Basic Services described in Exhibit “A” of the
original Contract and the Basic Services described in Exhibit “A-1” of Amendment No. One to the
Contract, including payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
one million, two hundred thirty-one thousand, six hundred thirty-six dollars ($1,231,636). In the
event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Basic Services and Additional
Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed one million, three hundred fifty-four thousand,
one hundred seventy-seven dollars ($1,354,177). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are
set out in Exhibit “C” (“COMPENSATION”) of the original Contract, Exhibit “C-2”
(”AMENDMENT NO. ONE COMPENSATION”), Exhibit “C-3” (“AMENDMENT NO. TWO
COMPENSATION”), and Exhibit “C”-1” (“HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE”) of the original
Contract, which are attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services for this Contract Amendment, if any, shall be authorized in
accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibits “C”, “C-2”, AND “C-3”. 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 not 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”, Exhibit “A-1”, or Exhibit “A-2”.”
SECTION 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read
as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference:
a. Exhibit “A-2” entitled “AMENDMENT NO. TWO SCOPE OF SERVICES”.
b. Exhibit “B-2” entitled “AMENDMENT NO. TWO SCHEDULE OF
PERFORMANCE”.
c. Exhibit “C-3” entitled “AMENDMENT NO. TWO COMPENSATION”.
SECTION 5. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract,
including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Amendment on the date first above written.
2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
NV5, INC.
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:________________________
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A-2": AMENDMENT NO. TWO SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT "B-2": AMENDMENT NO. TWO SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT “C-3”: AMENDMENT NO. TWO COMPENSATION
3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
Parag Mehta
Senior Vice President
EXHIBIT “A-2” – Amendment No. Two Scope of Services
City of Palo Alto
Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project
Additional Preliminary Engineering, Environmental
Documentation and Final Design Services
Scope of Work
As determined in the Alternatives Screening Analysis Report prepared for the Newell Road/San
Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project (Project) and as presented at Palo Alto’s public meeting
held for the Project on February 27th, 2014 at the City of Palo Alto (City) Council Chambers and
subsequent inclusion of additional Project alternatives, the following five (5) Alternatives will be carried
forward into the Project’s environmental document, which will be a combined document constituting an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and an Environmental Assessment (EA) for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
• No Build (keep existing bridge)
• New one lane bridge with two-way traffic on existing alignment of Newell Road
• New two lane bridge on existing alignment of Newell Road
• New two lane bridge on partial realignment of Newell Road
• New two lane bridge on full realignment of Newell Road
Per the City’s understanding with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the Project will also
now incorporate additional improvements to widen a bottleneck segment of San Francisquito Creek that
stretches approximately 900 feet downstream of the bridge. The creek widening, which will involve only
the north bank of the creek, will increase the capacity of the creek downstream of the bridge and allow a
lower bridge profile and reduced impacts on the roadway approaches to the bridge. The creek widening
design will utilize a plantable bank slope stabilization technique or retaining wall system.
Based on public input received at community meetings held for the Pope/Chaucer Street and Newell Road
Bridge Replacement Projects, it is anticipated that consideration of a low profile grade alternative in
addition to the original high profile grade bridge concept will be developed for the bridge replacement
alternatives.
At the request of the City, this scope of work also includes preliminary and final landscape architectural
design services to provide visual screening for private properties adjacent to the elevated bridge roadway
approaches.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
This scope of work includes the preliminary engineering and environmental services required to complete
the environmental documentation for the project, as well as additional effort needed to prepare the final
Plans, Specifications, and Estimate of Probable Construction Cost (PS&E) documents for the Project.
The primary tasks are organized in relation to the Tasks in the original contracted scope of work as
follows:
Task 1 Project Management
Task 1.1 Project Management
NV5 will continue to provide uninterrupted communication and coordination with the City and the project stakeholders to provide for a complete and successful project. Public concerns about the Project
have created controversy and raised the complexity and duration of the Project, resulting in a depletion of
the original project management budget. The additional budget for this task will allow for uninterrupted project management activities from completion of the EIR/EA throughout the completion of the project.
Task 1.1.3 EIR/EA Project Management
NV5 and ICF International (ICF) will provide the additional project direction and communication with
the City and project stakeholders specifically needed to complete the EIR/EA documentation. This task
also includes time for providing the City with strategic advice on the environmental process for CEQA/NEPA clearance and communications.
Task 1.2 Meetings
This task includes the additional meetings that will be required during the EIR/EA process. NV5 will
meet with City staff and other team members and agencies as required for up to eight (8) in-person meetings total.
The initial “kickoff” meeting will be to:
• Refine the project description
• Develop the purpose and need
• Discuss the required technical studies
• Address ongoing concerns related to schedule and the environmental document
It is anticipated that NV5 staff will also attend other in-person meetings including but not limited to:
• One (1) meeting with Caltrans to discuss purpose and need/Preliminary Environmental Studies
(PES)
• One (1) Scoping meeting
• One (1) EIR/EA “kickoff” meeting
• One (1) Document Circulation Period Meeting
• One (1) Public Hearing
This task includes regular meetings/conference calls for project management and coordination activities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
Task 1.5.3 EIR/EA Public Outreach Support
NV5 will continue to provide basic outreach services to CPA to ensure that accurate, timely, and consistent information is available and shared with all interested parties. This will include providing input
and review of all public notices and preparing summaries of public meetings. This task includes
attendance at up to four (4) meetings in a support capacity to City outreach/public information staff. While City staff will remain the outward facing contact to the public, ICF outreach staff will be available
to answer questions, prepare and provide input on exhibits, and provide strategic guidance to the City in advance of and after public meetings.
Task 3 - Utility Coordination
Task 3.0 Utility Coordination
NV5 will provide additional utility coordination services with the objective to obtain all data on the various utility encroachments within the project limits as needed for the downstream creek
widening.
Task 4 – Environmental Clearance Documents
The following scope of work replaces the original environmental clearance scope of work included in
Task 4 of the original May 2012 contract (Contract #C12142825). None of the activities or deliverables mentioned in the original environmental clearance documents task carries forward into this current scope of work.
Task 4.1: Prepare Technical Studies
ICF will provide scoping period support and prepare (or augment and update) technical studies
(memoranda, evaluations, and reports) identified in the following Task 4.1 subtasks for the Project.
The technical studies described in Task 4.1 will analyze alternatives at an equal level. The results of the
technical studies will be summarized in the CEQA and NEPA environmental document prepared for the
project (see Task 4.2 below) that will also analyze alternatives at an equal level. A traffic study that addresses permanent and construction-related traffic impacts in regards to pedestrian, vehicular, and
bicycle travel (including a figure showing planned bicycle routes) will be prepared by TJKM under
separate contract to NV5. ICF will review this traffic study for adequacy for the purposes of the CEQA and NEPA and will summarize the results of the traffic study in the environmental document as described
in Task 4.2.
To the extent possible, ICF will use information that has been previously gathered in earlier technical memoranda, evaluations, and reports and that are being collected as part of other City or San Francisquito
Creek Joint Powers Authority projects (specifically the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project). Reviews of all technical studies by NV5 and the City will be concurrent (any reviews by the City of East Palo Alto [EPA], Santa Clara Valley Water District
[SCVWD], and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority [SFCJPA] will be coordinated and consolidated by the City and are expected to occur concurrently as well).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
This scope of work assumes that Caltrans Office of Local Assistance (Caltrans) will only review each
technical report once as indicated in Table 1 below.
ICF and their sub-consultant (BASELINE) will prepare the multiple deliverable versions of the technical studies listed in Table 1 below. Anticipated review timeframes between drafts are estimated to be up to
7-14 calendar days (1-2 weeks) for NV5/CPA and up to 30 calendar days (4 weeks) for Caltrans.
Refer to Table 1 for a brief description of the anticipated review order and timeframes.
Table 1. Technical Studies
Deliverable
Version
Reviewers Review
Timeframe
Description and Next Steps
Draft 1 NV5/City 7-14 calendar days (1-2 weeks) NV5/City will review and provide comments on Draft 1 of the technical studies. ICF will revise and prepare Draft 2 for Caltrans review.
Draft 2 Caltrans 30 calendar (4 weeks) Caltrans will review and provide comments on Draft 2 of the technical studies. ICF will revise and prepare a Screencheck Draft.
Screencheck Draft NV5/City 7-14 calendar days (1-2 weeks) or less
NV5/City will review and provide comments on the Screencheck Draft of the technical studies. The assumption is that comments on the Screencheck Draft will
be minimal. ICF will revise and prepare the Final Draft of the technical reports.
Final Draft Caltrans/NV5/City N/A All parties will be sent hard copies and CDs of the Final Draft of each technical report.
**All NV5/City reviews will be concurrent and comments will be consolidated.
**If necessary to address comments by Caltrans/NV5/City, excerpts or interim versions of the technical studies may be circulated. Additional deliverable versions/extended reviews will have implications on budget and schedule. ** Draft and Screencheck versions of the technical studies will be transmitted to NV5/City (and partner agencies) electronically (Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format). **Electronic copies of Draft 1 will be provided to NV5/City. Hard copies of Draft 2 will be provided to Caltrans (electronic to NV5/City). Hard copies and CD’s of the Final Draft of technical studies will be provided to NV5/City/Caltrans. Interim drafts and the Screencheck draft will be provided electronically only.
Hard copies and CDs will be provided in the following quantities: -2 hard copies of Final Draft for City -2 hard copies of Draft 2 and Final Draft for Caltrans -2 consolidated CDs of the Final Draft of technical reports will be provided to NV5/City/Caltrans, each.
For the approximately 8 topical areas, this includes a total of up to 48 hard copies of technical reports and 6 CDs will be prepared.
4.1.1 Public Outreach
The original contract scope of work included Outreach Assistance. Scoped activities included
development of an outreach protocol memorandum, informal meetings with property owners, formation of an ad hoc Community Advisory Committee, update to and maintenance of the City’s website,
preparation of meeting minutes, attendance and preparation for public meetings. ICF will provide basic outreach support services to City to ensure accurate, timely, and consistent
information is available and shared with all interested parties. This will include providing input and
review on public notices and providing strategic guidance. This effort does not include attendance at any meetings by ICF public outreach staff. City staff will continue to remain the outward facing contact to the
public.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
4.1.2 Project Management and Meetings
The original contract scope of work included Project Management and Coordination. Scoped activities included attendance at up to six (6) meetings, provision of monthly status reports on task and schedule status, and invoicing.
As part of this scope of work, ICF will meet with NV5 and the City (and other agencies as the
City requires) for up to eight (8) in-person meetings, attended by at least one (1) member of ICF
staff.
The initial “kickoff” meeting will be to:
• Review and refine the existing project description (including establishment of the
project’s independent utility and logical termini per Caltrans guidance)
• Develop the purpose and need
• Discuss the CEQA and NEPA (Caltrans) required technical studies that will inform the
environmental document
• Address ongoing concerns related to schedule, the environmental document, and anticipated permitting
It is anticipated that at least one (1) member of ICF staff will also attend other in-person meetings
including but not limited to:
• One (1) meeting with Caltrans to discuss purpose and need/update of PES/project description
• One (1) EIR Scoping meeting
• One (1) EIR/EA “kickoff” meeting (refer to Task 4.2)
• One (1) Environmental Document Circulation Period Meeting
• One (1) Public Hearing This task also includes the following project management activities:
• Monthly status reports to document tasks, schedule status, and critical path issues.
• Provide monthly invoices indicating current and remaining budget and tracking the project
budget.
• Using a document control/filing system to be applied to all tasks of the project in maintaining
working files and the project administrative record required under CEQA.
4.1.3 Prepare Project Description/Purpose and Need/Notice of Preparation (NOP)
The original contract scope of work included preparation of a Purpose and Need Statement and Project Description.
ICF will update the existing project description and purpose and need drafted under the original scope of work with project details from the Alternatives Analysis (AA), and per City direction. A brief cohesive project description shall be used in the introduction of the technical studies and will be the basis for the
project description of the environmental document (this project description will include up to six [6] project figures – this will likely include modification of existing NV5 exhibits of the alternatives]). ICF will transmit the updated project description/purpose and need to NV5/City/Caltrans for review and
approval prior to commencement of technical reports.
As the environmental document level has changed from preparation of an Initial Study/Categorical
Exclusion to an EIR/EA, a notice of preparation (NOP) will be required. ICF will prepare a NOP for the
City. The City will be responsible for distribution of the NOP. It is assumed that an Initial Study will not
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
be prepared and that the City will be responsible for public outreach activities (i.e., coordination of the
scoping meeting) related to the release of the NOP.
4.1.4 Land Use and Community Impacts Assessment (Technical Report)
The original contract scope of work included a Land Use and Community Impact Assessment Technical
Memorandum.
Per the May 2013 Preliminary Environmental Study (PES), a more comprehensive Land Use and
Community Impacts Assessment (CIA) Technical Report than included in the original contract scope of
work will be required. The drafted CIA Technical Memorandum developed as part of the original scope
of work will serve as the basis of an updated and expanded CIA Report.
The CIA Report will address all alternatives carried forward in the AA. This CIA Technical Report will
build upon the prior Technical Memorandum and include a demographic profile of the community as well
as types of land uses that exist in the surrounding community (to census tract/urban area block group
transecting or immediately adjacent to the bridge). The CIA Report will evaluate consistency with
regional and local plans. The CIA Report will include an evaluation of the Project’s impacts on the local
community both during construction and permanently, including disruption of bicycle and pedestrian
access, loss of trees and landscaping, and effects on nearby residences due to loss of parking. Other
impacts discussed in the traffic, air quality, noise, and hazardous materials technical reports will also be
referenced in this CIA Report. The results of this CIA Report will be summarized in the EIR/EA.
4.1.5 Visual and Aesthetic Conditions (Abbreviated Visual Impact Assessment)
The original contract scope of work did not include any stand-alone visual/aesthetic study.
Per the 2013 PES, an Abbreviated Visual Impact Assessment (AVIA) will be required. This AVIA will include a systematic assessment of the potential visual effects associated with construction and operation
of all Project alternatives. This AVIA will include a photographic set of existing views and preparation of up to eight (8) visual simulations (including one [1] round of revisions); the exact simulation viewpoints will be determined in coordination with City staff. Additional visual simulations can be provided under
separate scope and budget.
Work completed under this task will include coordination with NV5, data collection and review, conducting one (1) site visit, and completing site photography of the project site from key public
viewpoints.
The visual assessment presented in the AVIA will be based on site reconnaissance and review of ground level and aerial photographs, public policies regarding visual quality, project drawings, GIS data, and
other descriptive project data. The results of this AVIA will be summarized in the EIR/EA.
Task 4.1.5 Assumptions
For the preparation of the AVIA, ICF will:
Employ professionally accepted visual analysis methods and procedures including Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) methodologies
Address criteria as required by the CEQA Guidelines regarding visual impact assessment
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
Provide representative photographs to document existing visual conditions in the project area and a
photo viewpoint location map
4.1.6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) (Technical Memorandum)
The original contract scope of work did not include a stand-alone air quality or GHG technical
memorandum or report.
Per the 2013 PES, an Air Quality Technical Memorandum will be required. In addition a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) analysis will be prepared. The Air Quality and GHG analyses will evaluate impacts during
short-term construction and long-term operations for all Project alternatives. All impact analyses will be performed consistent with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and Caltrans technical requirements and methodologies.
As indicated in the 2013 PES, the project is exempt from transportation conformity requirements per 40 CFR 93.126, and therefore analysis of an evaluation of regional and localized conformity is not required.
However, the Air Quality Technical Memorandum will include PM2.5 interagency consultation. As part
of the Air Quality analysis, ICF will assist the City in fulfilling project-level PM2.5 analysis requirements. ICF will answer the six PM2.5 conformity screening questions in MTC’s FMS Air Quality
Module. If the answers to the six screening questions indicate the project is required to undergo
interagency consultation (IAC), ICF will prepare and submit MTC’s Project Assessment Form for PM2.5 Interagency Consultation form to the City for uploading to the FMS Air Quality Module. The Project
Assessment Form for PM2.5 Interagency Consultation form will be used by MTC’s Air Quality
Conformity Task Force IAC process to determine whether the project is or is not considered a Project of Air Quality Concern (POAQC). This scope of work assumes the project will not be found to be a POAQC
and that a PM2.5 hot-spot analysis is not required. In the event the project is found to be a POAQC, ICF can, under separate scope and cost, perform the quantitative PM2.5 hot-spot analysis consistent with the US. EPA’s 2010 Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and
PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas guidance document.
ICF will evaluate air pollutant and GHG emissions generated by construction activities and increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) during construction detour using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District’s Road Construction Model and Caltrans’ CT-EMFAC emissions model based on construction data and traffic data provided by the City/NV5/TJKM. ICF will also evaluate the air quality
emissions generated during operation of the Project. Because the project will change local traffic
distribution and traffic levels, ICF will quantitatively evaluate air quality, mobile source air toxics (MSAT), and GHG impacts during operation.
The results of this AQ/GHG memorandum will be summarized in the EIR/EA. The EIR/EA will also
evaluate the localized health risk impact caused by the construction activities using BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. A stand-alone health risk assessment will not be prepared.
4.1.7 Noise (Technical Report)
The original contract scope of work included a Construction Noise Technical Memorandum.
Per the 2013 PES, a more comprehensive Noise Study Report (NSR) than included in the original
contract scope of work will be required. The drafted Construction Noise Technical Memorandum
developed as part of the original scope of work will serve as the basis of an updated and expanded NSR.
ICF will update and expand the Construction Noise Memorandum and prepare a NSR which will evaluate
operational and construction noise and vibration impacts associated with implementation of the Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
alternatives. As indicated in the 2013 PES, the Project is not considered a Type I project, and therefore
analysis of operational noise is not required under 23 CFR 772.5(h). However, this NSR will include a
discussion of the anticipated operational noise impacts based on changes in traffic on surrounding
roadways for each alternative based on traffic data provided by TJKM in order to provide necessary
information for the EIR/EA.
Traffic volumes on any given street are predicted to increase by no more than 10%. This corresponds to
an increase in traffic noise of less than 0.5 dB (10 log [1.10] = 0.4 dB) which would not be perceptible.
Given this, noise measurements and more detailed noise modeling is not considered necessary and is not
included in this scope of work. The results of this NSR will be summarized in the EIR/EA.
4.1.8 Hazardous Materials (Asbestos and Lead Report)
The original contract scope of work included a Hazardous Materials Technical Report.
Per the 2013 PES, a Hazardous Waste Technical Memorandum that addresses asbestos and lead will be required. It is anticipated that the Asbestos and Lead Report that was prepared prior to March 2013 will
sufficiently address potential hazardous materials impacts of the Project. However, BASELINE will review the 2013 report and provide minor updates, if needed, to describe the current Project. The results
of this Asbestos and Lead Report will be summarized in the EIR/EA.
4.1.9 Biological Resources/Wetland Delineation (Technical Report, Technical Memorandum)
The original contract scope of work included a Natural Environmental Study (NES), California Red-
Legged Frog (CRLF) Site Assessment, Wetland Delineation, and Biological Assessment (BA) for submittal to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Per the 2013 PES, an NES (that addresses water quality and discusses invasive plants), a BA (for NMFS),
and an essential fish habitat (EFH) evaluation will be required. ICF will update the original NES, CRLF Site Assessment, take work done to establish the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and use for development of a jurisdictional wetland delineation, and NMFS BA to reflect the current Project
description and address all Project alternatives. A BA for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is not included in this scope of work and is not anticipated to be necessary, but should one be
required, it can be prepared under separate scope and budget.
In addition, ICF will prepare a tree survey and report. The tree survey will include all trees 6” or greater in diameter at breast height that includes affected trees in the immediate vicinity of the bridge and at the proposed channel modification site 900 feet downstream from the bridge. This scope of work assumes
that the wetland delineation and tree survey will be informed by work conducted for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Project, which overlaps the Newell Road
Bridge project area. Up to two (2) site visits by up to two qualified biological resources staff (e.g.,
wildlife biologist, botanist, or other biological resources staff under certified arborist supervision) may be conducted to support the wetland delineation and tree survey. The results of biological resources reports
will be summarized in the EIR/EA and will be used to support Project permitting.
In addition to the work described above, ICF will also conduct up to two (2) floristic surveys during the blooming period for special-status plant species with potential to occur in the project area. Time is also
budgeted to visit reference populations to support negative findings. ICF will prepare a technical memorandum summarizing the results of the survey and a map with the location of any special-status plants observed.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
4.1.10 Water Quality Assessment Report (Technical Report)
The original contract scope of work included a Water Quality Assessment.
Per the 2013 PES, a Water Quality Assessment will be required. ICF will update and expand the previously prepared Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR), to reflect the current Project description
and to address all Project alternatives. ICF will (1) identify and describe the current and upcoming laws that relate to water quality; (2) describe the beneficial uses for all potentially affected waters; (3) discuss water quality objectives for all potentially effected waters; (4) collect and present any monitoring data
from other agencies; (5) list potential sources of pollutants; and (6) describe the watershed, existing drainage and hydrologic conditions. The results of this WQAR will be summarized in the EIR/EA.
4.1.11 Section 106 (Technical Reports)
The original contract scope of work included preparation of cultural resources documentation; including an Area of Potential Effects (APE) Map, Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), Historic Property Survey
Report (HPSR) and Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER).
Per the 2013 PES, an APE Map, HRER, HPSR, and ASR will be required for the Project. ICF will update the cultural resources technical reports already prepared to reflect the current Project description,
and to address all Project alternatives. It is not anticipated that additional archaeological or historic resources will be identified. The results of the cultural resources reports will be summarized in the EIR/EA.
Task 4.1 Meetings/Site Visits
Attendance by public outreach staff at up to two (2) meetings
Attendance of Project Team at up to eight (8) in-person meetings
One (1) site visit for AVIA
Two (2) site visits for wetland delineation and tree survey
Two (2) site visits for floristic survey
Task 4.1 Deliverables
MS Project schedule (updated up to eight [8] times over course of project)
Draft and Final Project Description, including up to six (6) project figures
Draft and Final Purpose and Need
Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Technical Reports (Admin Draft, Draft, Screencheck Draft, and Final Draft)1
Land Use and Community Impacts Assessment (CIA Technical Report)
Abbreviated Visual Impact Assessment (AVIA) – inclusive of eight (8) visual simulations
Air Quality and GHG (Technical Memorandum)
Noise Study Report
Hazardous Materials Report (Asbestos and Lead Report)
Biological Resources Technical Reports (NES, CRLF Site Assessment, Wetland Delineation, NMFS BA, Tree Survey, Floristic Survey Memorandum).
Water Quality Assessment Report (Technical Report)
1 Many of the technical reports and studies may not require all iterations (i.e., Admin Draft, Draft, Screencheck Draft, and Final
Draft). To the extent possible, ICF will limit (reduce) the number of iterations/versions that have to be prepared (e.g., the CRLF Site Assessment that was prepared for the original project will not likely require substantial update). ICF will prepare up to 48 copies of technical reports and 6 CDs.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
Cultural Resources/Section 106 Technical Reports (DPR forms, APE maps [three {3} versions],
ASR, HRER, and HPSR).
Task 4.1 Assumptions
All in-person meetings in Task 4.1 are assumed to occur in Palo Alto or Oakland, CA (Caltrans
District Office), and all meetings would have an approximate duration of two (2) hours.
Site visits will range from two (2) to eight (8) hours and may be attended by up to two (2) ICF staff
ICF assumes that NV5/City will provide:
Location Hydraulic Study
Geotechnical Study (as needed)
Project description details as needed and mapped location of all construction work, including
work areas, roadways, intersections, utility relocations (as available);
Detailed project engineering maps, aerial photographs as required, and topographic mapping that shows project boundaries, rights-of-way, ownership, and land that would be used for temporary
construction easements (TCE).
Construction information (type and number of equipment, schedule, phasing)
Design information sufficient to determine the area of effect for tree removal/vegetation removal,
as well as area of disturbance for cultural resources.
To the extent possible, ICF will minimize the number of hard copy deliverables prepared to meet
budget and schedule constraints and reduce unnecessary waste.
As stated in the 2013 PES, there are no right-of-way acquisitions as a result of the project; however, temporary construction easements (TCE)/utility easements are considered likely.
NV5 (and the project traffic consultant TJKM) will be responsible for providing the necessary traffic reports (as specified in the May 2013 PES) and raw data information for air quality and noise analysis. TJKM will be responsible for senior peer-review of the traffic section of the EIR/EA
(discussed in Task 4.2).
City is the lead agency for CEQA, and Caltrans is the lead agency for NEPA. The technical reports
described in Task 4.1 will be prepared in accordance with the latest Caltrans templates and/or
guidance.
No other meetings, site visits, or surveys (except where explicitly described above) are included in this scope of work. Prior to any project site visits, ICF will inform NV5 and City at least 5 days in
advance.
Task 4.1 does not include a stand-alone Section 4(f) resource analysis, however Section 4(f) resources
will be discussed qualitatively in the EIR/EA as described in the 2013 PES.
Task 4.2: Prepare CEQA and NEPA Environmental Documentation
(EIR/EA)
The original contract scope of work did not include preparation of an EIR/EA.
The results of the technical studies prepared under Task 4.1 will be used to determine, in consultation with NV5, the City, and Caltrans staff, the appropriate CEQA and NEPA documentation for the Project. For the purposes of this scope of work and associated budget, and based on the conclusions of the 2013
PES, ICF assumes that the CEQA and NEPA document will be an EIR/EA. Per the City’s request, the EIR/EA will analyze all Project alternatives at an equal level.
4.2.1 EIR/EA Kickoff Meeting/Activities
ICF will meet with the City and NV5 to “kickoff” the EIR/EA. This meeting (which is included in Task 4.1.1) will also be used to revisit communication and review protocols from Task 4.1 and update the
schedule assumptions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
As described in Task 4.1.3, ICF will have updated the project description/purpose and need for use in the
technical reports and the EIR/EA. ICF will prepare an Annotated Outline of the EIR/EA (sections and
format). ICF will transmit the EIR/EA Annotated Outline to City/NV5 (City will send to Caltrans) electronically for review and approval prior to commencement of the sections of the EIR/EA.
4.2.2 Prepare Draft EIR/EA
The Draft EIR/EA will summarize the results of the technical studies and analyses completed as part of Task 4.1, identify the significance of potential impacts under CEQA, and include all feasible measures to
mitigate CEQA impacts to a less-than-significant level.
ICF will prepare an Administrative Draft 1 EIR/EA for review by NV5 and City staff. The EIR/EA will include all required sections to comply with CEQA and NEPA, as well as with City and Caltrans policies
and procedures. Following NV5 and City staff review of Administrative Draft 1, ICF will prepare Administrative Draft 2 EIR/EA for Caltrans review. Following Administrative Draft 1 and 2, ICF will
prepare a Screencheck Draft for Caltrans/NV5/City final review prior to preparation of the Public Draft of
the EIR/EA.
Refer to Table 2 for a description of the reviews.
Anticipated review timeframes are 21 calendar days (3 weeks) for NV5/City reviews, 45 calendar days (6
weeks) for Caltrans review of Administrative Draft 2, and 21 calendar days (3 weeks) for Caltrans review of Screencheck Draft (refer to Table 2).
Table 2. Environmental Documentation (Draft and Final EIR/EA)
Deliverable Version Reviewers Review Timeframe Description
Admin Draft 1 NV5/City 21 calendar days (3 weeks) NV5/City will review and provide comments on the Admin Draft 1 of the environmental document (ED). ICF will revise and prepare Administrative Draft 2 for
NV5/City review.
Admin Draft 2 (Draft) NV5/CityA/Caltrans 45 calendar days (6 weeks) NV5/City/Caltrans will review and provide comments on Admin Draft 2 of the ED. ICF will revise and prepare the Screencheck Draft for NV5/City/Caltrans review.
Screencheck Draft Caltrans/NV5/City 21 calendar days (3 weeks) Caltrans/NV5/City will review and provide comments on the Screencheck Draft of the ED. ICF will revise and prepare the Public Draft of the ED.
Public Draft Caltrans/NV5/City n/a All parties will be sent hard copies and CDs of the Public and Final Draft environmental document.
**All NV5/City reviews will be concurrent and comments will be consolidated.
**If necessary to address comments by NV5/City/Caltrans, interim versions of the ED may be circulated. Additional deliverable versions/extended reviews of the ED will have implications on budget and schedule. **Hard copies of the Public Draft EIR/EA and Final Draft EIR/EA (Response to Comments) will be provided to NV5/City/Caltrans. Interim drafts (Admin Draft 2, Screencheck Draft) will be provided electronically (via email). For the Public Draft EIR/EA and Final EIR/EA there would be: -2 hard copies/2 CDs for NV5 -26 hard copies/16 CDs for City -2 hard copies/2 CDs for Caltrans
This assumes up to up to 60 hard copies and 40 CDs of the EIR/EA (Public Draft and Final) will be prepared.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
NV5 sub-consultant TJKM will provide senior review of the Traffic/Transportation section of the
EIR/EA (including cumulative impacts analysis) for consistency with their technical report. Similarly,
ICF will have their own sub-consultant, BASELINE, conduct senior review of the Hazardous Materials section of the EIR/EA.
4.2.3 Distribute Public Draft EIR/ EA and Noticing
Once Caltrans/NV5/City have approved the Draft EIR/EA for public distribution and review, ICF will provide hard copies and CDs of the environmental document to the City for publication and distribution
to responsible and trustee public agencies and other interested organizations and individuals as identified by NV5 and the City. ICF will develop a mailing list in consultation with NV5 and City staff. The City will be responsible for distributing the document to the public and for noticing in local newspapers.
ICF will prepare the text for public notices. This includes the draft and final Notice of Preparation (NOP) (refer to Task 4.1.3), Notice of Availability (NOA), Notice of Public Hearing, Notice of Completion
(NOC), and Notice of Determination (NOD). It is assumed that any filing/distribution of notices will be
performed by the City. The Draft EIR/EA will be circulated for public review and comment for 45 days, and it is assumed that up one (1) public meeting (refer to Task 4.1.3) will be held during the public
review period. The City’s community outreach staff will take the lead in organizing the public workshops
on the Draft EIR/EA.
4.2.4 Prepare Final EIR/EA, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP)
Once the 45-day public review period has been completed, ICF will assemble and organize the comment
letters received by the City for distribution to members of the project team, including the traffic
consultant, for review and response. With assistance from NV5 and City staff and technical consultants, ICF will prepare a Final EIR/EA that identifies the preferred alternative, and responds to environmental
issues raised in the public comments on the Draft EIR/EA. The public comments and responses to those
comments will be included in the Final EIR/EA. (Note: it is assumed for the purposes of the cost proposal that not more than 100 individual comments2 will be received and that comments will not require
additional research or technical analysis). Form letters/repeated comments will be consolidated and responded to together. The Final EIR/EA will also identify corrections and revisions to the text of the Draft EIR/EA that may be required in response to public comments and review.
Similar to the Draft EIR/EA - ICF will prepare two (2) Administrative Drafts, a Screencheck Draft, and a
Final Public Draft of the Final EIR/EA (Response to Comments). Anticipated review timeframes are 14 calendar days (2 weeks) for NV5/City review, 45 calendar days (6 weeks) for Caltrans review of
Administrative Draft 2, and 21 calendar days (3 weeks) for Caltrans review of the Screencheck Draft (refer to Table 2).
As part of the Final EIR/EA tasks, ICF will prepare a Draft and Final Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) as required by CEQA for review by NV5 and City staff. ICF will also prepare/coordinate with Caltrans to prepare a draft and final NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI).
2 ICF anticipates responses to up to 100 unique, individual, comments as part of the Final EIR/EA. It is anticipated that many comments may be repeated and can be addressed with a master response. If there are over 100 unique, individual comments, or if comment requires additional research or technical analysis, it can be accommodated under separate scope and budget.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
4.2.5 Distribute Final EIR/EA, FONSI, MMRP, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations
As described in Table 2, ICF will provide hard copies and CDs of the Final EIR/EA. ICF will prepare the
Notice of Determination (NOD) for signature by the City. Once the FONSI is signed by Caltrans, ICF will prepare a draft NOA-FONSI for CPA to file with the State Clearinghouse. As necessary, ICF will
prepare the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Task 4.2 Deliverables
Draft and Final Annotated Outline of the EIR/EA
Admin Draft, Draft, Screencheck Draft, Public Draft EIR/EA3
Admin Draft, Draft, Screencheck Draft, Final EIR/EA
Draft and Final Notices (NOP, NOI, NOA, NOC, NOD, and NOA-FONSI)
Draft and Final MMRP
Draft and Final Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (as necessary)
Task 4.2 Assumptions
All in-person meetings in Task 4.2 are assumed to occur in Palo Alto or Oakland, CA (Caltrans District offices) and all meetings would have an approximate duration of two (2) hours
Changes in the project description and/or changes to the substantive details of the alternatives will have implications on the scope of work, budget, and schedule
City will be responsible for publishing any newspaper notices, filing of any required CEQA/NEPA
notices
Task 5 Survey
Task 5.1.2 Confirm Downstream Creek Topography
It is our understanding that SCVWD will provide NV5 the existing topographical survey of the creek
needed to design the creek improvements downstream from the bridge. Per discussion with SCVWD staff, the existing survey information is approximately seven years old and needs to be confirmed with
additional field survey. NV5 will perform supplemental topographic ground surveys of the downstream creek widening, sufficient to confirm SCVWD’s existing creek topography and complete the design. The limits of the supplemental survey will be approximately 900 ft downstream from the bridge (measured
along the centerline of the creek) and extend up to five feet from the top of the existing creek bank. NV5 will utilize existing project survey control (provided by SCVWD) to establish ties between the previous
survey and those performed by NV5. Once completed, NV5 will reduce recovered field data and
incorporate that data with previous survey data to compile a single coordinated topographic base map.
Task 6 Location Hydraulic Study/Bridge Hydraulic Report
Task 6.1.2 EIR/EA Hydraulics Analysis and Technical Memorandum
The existing hydraulic model will be modified based on the proposed bridge alternatives and
configurations and the District’s draft channel improvement plans. Iterative refinements will be made to the hydraulic model that reflect problematic areas wherever shear forces, velocities and water surface elevations are out of acceptable ranges. The final version of the model will be used as the basis for the
3 ICF will prepare up to 60 hard copies and 40 CDs of the Public Draft and Final EIR/EA, in total.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
bridge replacement and downstream creek widening design. A summary of the results of the hydraulic
model will be presented in a technical memorandum.
Besides a technical memo to document the findings from hydraulic analysis, the task also includes
coordination with the City, SCVWD, Caltrans and other stakeholders on determining channel conveyance
capacity, selecting appropriate design criteria, and evaluating bridge hydraulic performance under flow conditions that exceed the natural channel capacity.
Task 6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis & Memo for Downstream Creek
Widening
A sediment transport analysis will be conducted to determine sediment transport behaviors under proposed and existing conditions and to determine scour depths for the downstream creek widening design to ensure adequate channel bed and slope protection for the proposed creek
widening.
The analysis will update and refine the existing preliminary sediment transport analysis model developed for the channel which will be supplied by the SCVWD. NV5 will review the existing model and modify the creek geometry based on proposed conditions.
The sediment transport option of the HEC-RAS program will be used to perform the sediment
transport analysis. Utilizing the proposed geometry and fluvial geomorphologic principles, a feasible initial geometry and slope will be determined for the downstream reach. After characteristics of upstream and downstream conditions are achieved, selected storm hydrographs
will then be simulated to assure that these conditions will persist for single events. The resulting
geometry will be input to the hydraulic model to ensure conformance with hydraulic
performance criteria. If significant changes are required to meet the hydraulic criteria or adjustments required for the creek widening design, those changes will be input to the sediment transport model and checked for sediment continuity. This overall iteration will be performed
until the Project goals are achieved. Results of the sediment transport analysis will be
documented in a technical memorandum.
6.6 Scour Analysis for Downstream Creek Widening
The task includes a detailed scour analysis for the downstream creek widening improvements to ensure adequate protection of the slope protection or retaining wall system. Design criteria and results of the
analysis will be provided to the bank stabilization product vendor to provide specifications and provisions on creek foundation and slope design. Bank stabilization product vendor submittals will be reviewed and coordinated to ensure consistency with the Project requirements and constraints.
Task 8 Preliminary Engineering and Type Selection
Task 8.1 Bridge and Wall Type Selection Report
NV5 will plan, design, and coordinate the required preliminary engineering needed to define the scope of each project alternative. This task will include the development and analysis of the four project “build”
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
alternatives (Alternatives 5, 6, 7 & 8) as described in the Newell Road Alternatives Screening Analysis
Report. In addition, a conceptual alternative for routing bicycle and pedestrian traffic separately from
vehicular traffic will be investigated for Alternative 5. Similarities between the impacts of the various alternatives will be carefully considered when determining the extent of analysis required for each
alternative.
The final vertical profile requirements for the bridge and roadway will be dependent on the hydraulic
requirements associated with the 1% flood protection project for the creek. The preferred alternative for achieving 1% flood protection in the creek is currently being determined by the SFCJPA and is not established at this time.
The final profile for the bridge will also depend on the potential to achieve a design exception for Caltrans’ freeboard requirements. The preliminary engineering performed under this task will include
development of two potential bridge profile alignments, a “high profile grade” and a “low profile grade”, in order to determine the potential environmental impacts of the profile alternatives under consideration at this time.
The high profile grade alternative will be based on the design criteria of passing the potential future one
percent (100-year) flood event of 9,300 cubic feet per second (based upon a scenario under which all flow
from the upper watershed passes beneath the Newell Road bridge) without pressure flow under the bridge. The low profile grade alternative will be based on the design criteria of passing a flow rate of 7,000 cubic
feet per second (based upon a scenario under which the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
achieves the design goal for its currently funded Flood Protection Project’s [i.e. to eliminate channel constrictions and modify bridges at Newell Road and Pope/Chaucer Street in order to allow the channel to
contain flood waters equal to the channel’s capacity of 7,000 cubic feet per second ]) without pressure flow under the bridge. As part of the low profile grade alternative, the bridge would be designed to be adaptable to accommodate the full 9,300 cubic feet per second flow under pressure flow conditions.
NV5 will coordinate with the City, SFCJPA and the SCVWD to determine the hydraulic requirements for the bridge during the preliminary engineering phase with the goal of minimizing the bridge profile and
related roadway approach impacts. Conceptual roadway plan and profiles for each of the four project “build” alternatives will be prepared.
The existing Bridge General Plan Sheet will also be updated to be representative of the four Project alternatives. Exhibits needed to convey the impacts of retaining walls required adjacent to private
properties and options for driveway and pathway conforms will also be developed. A narrative
description addressing pertinent information about each bridge and road alignment alternative will be provided in the type selection report and a preliminary planning study cost estimate for each alternative
will be prepared.
In Coordination with the City, NV5 will provide the necessary additional analysis and type selection
services necessary to select the most appropriate road alignment and bridge replacement type. Upon completion of our analysis and approval of the environmental document, we will produce and submit an updated Bridge Type Selection Report recommending the preferred roadway alignment and bridge
replacement type to City and Caltrans for review and approval before developing the 35% design plan set.
NV5 will develop the downstream creek improvements based on SCVWD’s preliminary design plans for
this segment of the creek. It is expected that the downstream creek improvements will widen the north bank of the creek utilizing a plantable slope protection or retaining wall system.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
NV5 will review the existing SCVWD plans and coordinate with the bank stabilization product vendor to
determine design parameters for the foundation anchorage design criteria for the system. It is assumed
that all geotechnical information needed to prepare the final design and construction bid documents for the Creek improvements will be provided by SCVWD. Based on this information, the existing plans and
details will be updated as needed.
NV5 will develop up to four (4) concepts for the bank slope protection or retaining wall design needed to
achieve the bank widening. The concepts provided will include sufficient cost, constructability and other information needed for the SCVWD to make a final selection of the bank stabilization or wall type to be used for the final design. Design of the downstream creek widening will not include any elements above
the top of bank, or related to retaining walls, fencing, or floodwalls that may be required for future enhanced flood protection.
Task 8.1.2 Equipment Staging Technical Memo
Under this task, NV5 will prepare an Equipment Staging Technical Memo as required for the EIR/EA.
The memo will describe the proposed staging areas to be utilized during the construction of the Project and how potential impacts to the surrounding environment, traffic patterns and nearby residents will be
minimized.
Task 8.2.3 EIR/EA Traffic Study Update
This task includes the anticipated effort required to support completion of the traffic study for the
environmental documentation for the Project. Additional efforts are expected to include:
• Scenario 5: One Lane Bi-Directional Vehicle Bridge Option
o More detailed signal operations analysis
o Evaluate impacts of adding pedestrian/bike barrier
• Additional details on pedestrian crossing layouts at the off-set Newell Road intersections on
Woodland Avenue
• Support for PES
o TJKM will include additional discussions on the various Newell Road Bridge alternatives
in support of the City’s Bike Master Plan o Additional discussions would be added to address Safe Route to School concerns
• Work with ICF in reviewing and completing traffic section of EIR/EA
• Attendance at one community meeting
Task 8.3 35% Preliminary Plans and Estimate
Upon receipt of written documentation from the City identifying the preferred bridge type and road alignment for the Project, and the approval of the Bridge Type Selection Report, a complete 35% plan set
and estimate of probable construction cost for the preferred Project alternative (one alternative) will be
developed. The preliminary plans will include:
Title Sheet
Preliminary Typical Sections
Preliminary Roadway Plan and Profile Sheet
Preliminary Retaining Wall Plan Sheets
Preliminary Bridge General Plan Sheet
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
Preliminary Creek Widening Plan and Profile (including trees, utilities and demolition)
Preliminary Creek Widening Cross Sections
Preliminary Creek Survey Control Sheet
Preliminary Creek Widening Details
These preliminary plans will provide enough data to convey a complete scope of the Project. Concurrent
with the development of the 35% plan set, NV5 will prepare a preliminary estimate of probable construction cost. Costs will be estimated for approximate quantities of roadway materials and structural
items.
Task 8.3.2 Preliminary Landscape Architectural Design
This task will include preliminary design of the landscape elements of the project including project management and meetings, existing document review, development of residential conform concepts, coordination with ICF on project mitigation requirements and preparing exhibits for public meetings.
After the preferred bridge replacement and creek widening alternatives are selected, a 35% submittal of the landscape plans and estimate will be prepared and will include:
• Residential conform planting plan – 1”=20’ (2 sheets)
• Revetment planting plan – 1”=20’ (1 sheet)
• Residential conform irrigation plan – 1”=20’ (2 sheets)
• Revetment irrigation plan – 1”=20’(1 sheet)
• Mitigation planting plan – 1” =20’ (up to 2 sheets)
• Mitigation irrigation plan – 1” = 20’ (up to 2 sheets)
• Construction details – various scales (4 sheets)
• Preliminary estimate of probable construction costs
Task 9: Final Design & PS&E Development
Task 9.1 65% Bridge/Structural Design
If the “low profile” bridge is selected as the preferred alternative for the bridge replacement, there is a
chance that, depending on the SFCJPA’s final determination of the preferred method for achieving the 1%
level of flood protection throughout the watershed, the bridge would need to be modified in the future to
accommodate an increased 1% creek flow rate under pressure flow conditions. In order to address this
potential this scenario, the bridge deck will be structurally designed to withstand the potential pressure
flow conditions and to accommodate the future addition of taller headwalls to retain the increased creek
flows. The additional effort to design the bridge to accommodate the future headwalls and buoyancy
forces of the pressure flow condition were not considered in the original contract scope and cost and are
now included in the scope of this modified task.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
Task 9.4 65% Plans, Special Provisions, & Construction Cost Estimate
Preparation
This scope and cost under this task is additional to the original contract scope and cost, and includes the
65% design and preparation of PS&E for the 900’ of downstream creek widening. The creek widening design will be coordinated to reflect any changes to the SCVWD’s creek improvement project plans and
will be incorporated into the creek widening plans.
Task 9.6 Bridge Independent Check Calculations
Similar to Task 9.1, this task includes the additional effort to design the bridge to accommodate the future headwalls and buoyancy forces of the pressure flow condition were not considered in the original contract
scope and cost and are now included in this additional task effort.
Task 9.10 Landscape Architecture Final PS&E Design
Based on comments received on the 35% submittal, the landscape plans will be developed into construction documents to a 65% level of completion. An updated cost estimate and technical
specifications will be prepared for landscape-related items of work. Subsequent submittals will be made at the 90%, 100%, and Final PS&E levels in order to address comments and update the landscape architectural plans.
Task 10 Regulatory Agency Permitting
The original contract scope of work included obtaining permits for the Project, which included work in the creek immediately above and below the footprint of the bridge (~100 feet above and below), but did not include downstream creek widening. The original scope included obtaining permits with a) the Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) – Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 for linear crossings, b) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – Section 401 Water Quality Certification, c) Fish and Game Code 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, and d) a BCDC Development Permit. As part of the initial project work, it has been determined that a BCDC Development Permit is not required.
Introduction of 900 feet of downstream improvements as part of the revised Project will likely result in
changes in the permits that will need to be obtained and the effort needed to support permitting. Specifically, with creek widening and creek bank alteration, it is likely that an individual permit will be
required from the Corps and supporting alternative analysis (AA/Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative [LEDPA] analysis) will be needed for the Corps permit and the RWQCB permit.
ICF recommends that the City consult with the resource agencies early in the EIR/EA development
process concerning both the bridge and creek improvement elements to identify an alternative that could be permitted by the agencies and that can be determined to be the LEDPA by the Corps and the RWQCB.
If possible, concurrence should be sought before release of the Draft EIR. The RWQCB delayed approval of the permit applications for downstream work on lower San
Francisquito Creek due to design disagreements. It is possible that RWQCB may not accept separate permitting of the creek widening/bank stabilization element or the bridge element of the Project separately from the SFCJPA’s program EIR and/or permitting for the SFCJPA’s program EIR may hold
up, change, and redirect the permitting effort for the Project. This scope presumes separate permitting for the Project can be conducted in parallel with the SFCJPA’s permitting efforts.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
Task 10.1 Permitting Support
ICF will support the City in obtaining the following permits as described below. This scope presumes that the proposed creek widening/bank stabilization will be implemented as conceived presently. If the
creek improvement project description changes substantially, then there may be need for additional budget for the permitting task. For all submissions noted below, this scope includes up to four (4) rounds of document reviews: Administrative Draft for City/NV5 review, Draft for Agency 1st review, 2nd Draft
for City/NV5 review, and Final for agency submittal.
• Section 404 Individual Permit: o Meetings/Coordination: ICF would conduct up to two (2) meetings, including one (1) site visit, with the Corps, RWQCB, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) concerning project permits. o ICF would prepare an application for an Individual Permit (IP) to the Corps. It is presumed that there would be up to two requests for further information.
o Section 404(b)(1)Alternatives Analysis(AA) – ICF would prepare an alternatives analysis that would analyze the bridge alternatives (using information developed for the EIR/EA)
and creek improvement alternatives (including the proposed widening/bank stabilization
as well as a geomorphic alternative and a creek layback/terracing alternative. It is presumed that NV5 will provide conceptual design for up to 2 alternatives to be used for
the AA analysis. ICF will prepare a draft 404(b)(1) AA analysis for City/NV5 review, a
revised draft for Corps review, and a final version responsive to Corps comments. o Habitat Management Reporting and Monitoring Plan (HMRMP): At this time, it is
premature to know what the ultimate creek design will be and whether mitigation will be
required. Thus, this scope does not include a HMRMP. ICF can prepare one, if requested, subject to additional budget.
o Public Notice Preparation: ICF will prepare the draft public notice for the IP and final
public notice responsive to Corps comments. o Response to public comments: ICF will prepare responses to public comments on the
draft public notice. o USFWS Section 7 Consultation: This scope does not presume any need for USFWS consultation.
o NMFS Section 7 Consultation: Preparation of the BA is included in Task 1 above. This task includes responding to information requests from NMFS concerning listed salmonids
and review of draft Biological Opinion language, terms and conditions.
o SHPO Section 106 Consultation: This scope does not presume any need for Section 106 consultation.
o Mitigation Design: This scope includes identification of the need for mitigation, but not
the actual mitigation design. As mitigation needs are identified, ICF can identify a specific mitigation design scope for City consideration, including estimated additional
costs.
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC)
o Meetings/Coordination: ICF would conduct up to four (4) meetings, including one (1) site visit, with the RWQCB. It is presumed that CPA and the consultant team will work
with RWQCB to identify the LEDPA prior to release of the Draft EIR. Two (2) of the
four (4) meetings would be combined with Corps and CDFW and two would be with RWQCB only.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
o ICF would prepare an application for a Section 401 WQC. It is presumed that there
would be up to two requests for further information.
o RWQCB Alternatives Analysis – It is presumed that the 404(b)(1) analysis can be used as the alternatives analysis for the RWQCB. It is presumes that the AA can be circulated to
Corps and RWQCB at the same time and revised at the same time. o Habitat Management Reporting and Monitoring Plan: At this time, it is premature to know what the ultimate creek design will be and whether mitigation will be required.
Thus, this scope does not include a HMRMP. ICF can prepare one, if requested, subject to additional budget. o Mitigation Design: This scope includes identification of the need for mitigation, but not
the actual mitigation design. As mitigation needs are identified, ICF can identify a specific mitigation design scope for City consideration including estimated additional costs.
• 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA)
o Meetings/Coordination: ICF would conduct up to two (2) meetings, including one (1) site visit, with the CDFW that would be combined with meetings with Corps and RWQCB.
o ICF would prepare an application for a section 1600 SAA. It is presumed that there would be up to two requests for further information. o Habitat Management Reporting and Monitoring Plan: At this time, it is premature to
know what the ultimate creek design will be and whether mitigation will be required. Thus, this scope does not include a HMRMP. ICF can prepare one, if requested, subject to additional budget. o Mitigation Design: This scope includes identification of the need for mitigation, but not the actual mitigation design. As mitigation needs are identified, ICF can identify a
specific mitigation design scope for Cityconsideration including estimated additional
costs.
Task 10 Meetings/Site Visit
Up to three (3) permitting site visits with agencies, to be combined as possible
Up to two (2) meetings for Section 404 Permit, up to four (4) meetings for Section 401 WQC, up to two (2) meetings for 1602 SAA, to be combined as possible
Task 10 Deliverables
Admin Draft, Draft, Screencheck Draft, and Final permit submittals for Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW
Task 10 Assumptions
The permitting scope of work does not include mitigation design work or preparation of an HMRMP.
The permitting scope includes permitting of a single alternative consisting of a bridge alignment and a
creek widening/bank stabilization option.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
EXHIBIT “B-2” AMENDMENT NO. TWO 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 term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed.
Milestones Completion No. of Weeks
From NTP
1. Project Management 96
4. Environmental Clearance Documents 60
5. Survey 10
6. Location Hydraulic Study/Bridge Hydraulic Report 18
8. Preliminary Engineering and Type Selection 28
9. Final Design & PS&E Development 80
10. Regulatory Agency Permitting 96
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
EXHIBIT “C-3” AMENDMENT NO. TWO COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed
in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the
budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate
schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A-2” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$607,730. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the
maximum compensation shall not exceed $668,000. Any work performed or expenses
incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of
compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY’s project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget
amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total
compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed
$607,730 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $60,270.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $ 26,812
(Project Management)
Task 3 $ 3,740
(Utility Coordination)
Task 4 $298,284
(Environmental Clearance Documents)
Task 5 $ 5,352 (Survey and Base Mapping)
Task 6 $ 34,264
(Location Hydraulic Study/Bridge Hydraulic Report)
Task 8 $ 85,663
(Preliminary Engineering & Type Selection)
Task 9 $ 96,873
(Final Design & PS&E Development)
Task 10 $ 56,742 (Regulatory Agency Permitting)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
Sub-total Basic Services $607,730
Reimbursable Expenses (included in total above)
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $607,730
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $ 60,270 Maximum Total Compensation $668,000
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses.
CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost.
Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of
travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $500 shall be approved in advance
by the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of
services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum
compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set
forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum
compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional
services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
Principal Project Discipline Senior Associate Assistant Junior Survey One Two CADD Project Nolte
In Manager Lead Engineer Engineer Engineer Staff Manager Man Man Tech Administrator Labor Nolte
Charge Engineer Crew Crew Total Subconsultants Total
TASK TASK DESCRIPTION $252 $225 $205 $149 $105 $95 $105 $193 $140 $238 $105 $91 Fee Reimbursable Fee Fee
Phase I - Preliminary Engineering , NEPA / CEQA Documentation
1 Project Management $0
1.1 Project Management 0402400000000 0 $13,920 $0 $13,920 $0 $13,920
1.1.2 Alternatives Project Management 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.1.3 EIR/EA Project Management 024000000000 0 $5,400 $0 $5,400 $0 $5,400
1.2 Meetings 08080000000 0 $2,992 $0 $2,992 $0 $2,992
1.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.4 Project Schedule 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.5 Public Outreach 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.5.2 Alternatives Analysis Public Outreach 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1.5.3 EIR/EA Public Outreach Support 08000000000 0 $1,800 $0 $1,800 $0 $1,800
1.6 Agency Coordination 012000000000 0 $2,700 $0 $2,700 $0 $2,700
Subtotal - Task 1 0922480000000 0 $26,812 $0 $26,812 $0 $26,812
2 Existing Document Review
2.0 Existing Document Review 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Task 2 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
3 Utility Coordination
3.0 Utility Coordination 008080000012 0 $3,740 $0 $3,740 $0 $3,740
Subtotal - Task 3 008080000012 0 $3,740 $0 $3,740 $0 $3,740
4 Environmental Clearance Documents
4.1 Prepare Technical Studies 016008000000 0 $4,440 $0 $4,440 $146,883 $151,323
4.2 Prepare CEQA and NEPA Environmental Documentation (EIR/EA)04004000000 0 $1,320 $0 $1,320 $145,640 $146,960
Subtotal - Task 4 0200012000000 0 $5,760 $0 $5,760 $292,524 $298,284
5 Survey and Base Mapping
5.1 Topographic Survey 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5.1.2 Confirm Existing Creek Topography 000000080160 0 $5,352 $0 $5,352 $0 $5,352
5.2 Right-of-Way Constraints Map 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
5.3 Acquisition Plats and Legal Descriptions 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Task 5 000000080160 0 $5,352 $0 $5,352 $0 $5,352
6 Location Hydraulic Study/Bridge Hydraulic Report
6.1 Preliminary Design/Hydraulics Analysis 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6.1.2 EIR/EA Hydraulics Analysis/Technical Memo 0083232000000 0 $9,768 $0 $9,768 $0 $9,768
6.2 Location Hydraulics Study 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6.3 Bridge Hydraulic Report 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6.4 Contract Plans & Details 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis & Memo for Downstream Creek Widening 00164064000000 0 $15,960 $0 $15,960 $0 $15,960
6.6 Scour Analysis for Downstream Creek Widening 00162416000000 0 $8,536 $0 $8,536 $0 $8,536
Subtotal - Task 6 004096112000000 0 $34,264 $0 $34,264 $0 $34,264
7 Geotechnical Investigations
7.1 Research and Data Collection 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
7.2 Field Exploration 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
7.3 Laboratory Testing 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
7.4 Soil Analysis / Evaluation 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
7.5 Prepare Draft Foundation Report 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
7.6 Prepare Final Foundation Report 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Task 7 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
March 10, 2015
NEWELL ROAD at SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - CITY OF PALO ALTO
FEE ESTIMATE FOR AMENDMENT No. 2: Additional Engineering and Environmental Documentation
Nolte Associates, Inc. 3/10/2015 - 1:29 PM N:\SJB036700\Administration\Change Orders\EIR - 2014 Proposal\EIR Amendment Fee 3-10-15.xls - Sum Fee Estimate Page 1 of 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
Principal Project Discipline Senior Associate Assistant Junior Survey One Two CADD Project Nolte
In Manager Lead Engineer Engineer Engineer Staff Manager Man Man Tech Administrator Labor Nolte
Charge Engineer Crew Crew Total Subconsultants Total
TASK TASK DESCRIPTION $252 $225 $205 $149 $105 $95 $105 $193 $140 $238 $105 $91 Fee Reimbursable Fee Fee
March 10, 2015
NEWELL ROAD at SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - CITY OF PALO ALTO
FEE ESTIMATE FOR AMENDMENT No. 2: Additional Engineering and Environmental Documentation
8 Preliminary Engineering and Type Selection
8.1 Preliminary Engineering and Bridge Type Selection 01688060000001002 $34,142 $100 $34,242 $0 $34,242
8.1.2 Prepare Cost Justification Memo for Downstream Creek Widening 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
8.1.3 Equipment Staging Technical Memo 01080000008 0 $2,257 $0 $2,257 $0 $2,257
8.2 Traffic Study 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
8.2.2 Alternatives Analysis Traffic Study 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
8.2.3 EIR/EA Traffic Study Update 04000000000 0 $900 $0 $900 $5,775 $6,675
8.3 35% Preliminary Plans and Estimate 010040160000056 4 $16,134 $100 $16,234 $0 $16,234
8.3.2 Preliminary Landscape Architecture Design 00880000000 0 $2,832 $0 $2,832 $23,423 $26,255
8.4 Alternatives Analysis - Alternatives Development 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Task 8 0311613676000001646 $56,265 $200 $56,465 $29,198 $85,663
Phase II - Final Design & Permitting
9 Final Design & PS&E Development
9.1 65% Bridge / Structural Design 01603200000040 0 $12,568 $0 $12,568 $0 $12,568
9.2 Roadway Design 0002006000000 0 $8,680 $0 $8,680 $0 $8,680
9.3 Traffic Control/Construction Staging Plans 000401600000 0 $2,116 $0 $2,116 $0 $2,116
9.4 65% Plans, Special Provisions, & Construction Cost Estimate Preparation 06048812000064 2 $17,384 $100 $17,484 $0 $17,484
9.5 First (65%) PS&E Submittal 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
9.6 Independent Design Check 001200000008 0 $3,300 $0 $3,300 $0 $3,300
9.7 Response to Review Comments / 90% PS&E Submittal 08036032000040 0 $14,404 $0 $14,404 $0 $14,404
9.8 Second (90%) PS&E Submittal 0001202400000 0 $4,068 $0 $4,068 $0 $4,068
9.9 Third (100%) PS&E Submittal 08022012000016 0 $7,898 $0 $7,898 $0 $7,898
9.10 Landscape Architecture Final PS&E Design 00800000000 0 $1,640 $0 $1,640 $24,715 $26,355
Subtotal - Task 9 03812174815600001682 70,418 $100 $70,518 $24,715 $96,873
10 Regulatory Agency Permitting
10.1 Regulatory Agency Permitting 04080000008 0 $2,932 $0 $2,932 $53,810 $56,742
Subtotal - Task 10 04080000008 0 $2,932 $0 $2,932 $53,810 $56,742
11 Construction Bid Assistance
11.1 Bidding Assistance 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
11.2 Construction Support Services 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Task 11 00000000000 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTALS 0 185 100 422 216 156 0 8 0 16 352 8 $205,543 $300 $205,843 $400,247 $607,730
Nolte Associates, Inc. 3/10/2015 - 1:29 PM N:\SJB036700\Administration\Change Orders\EIR - 2014 Proposal\EIR Amendment Fee 3-10-15.xls - Sum Fee Estimate Page 2 of 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4A5D3DDC-554C-4D92-A1C0-FAB116EE2080
Amendment No. Two to Cost Share Agreement Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara Valley Water District July 2014 Page 1 of 2
AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO COST SHARE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
REGARDING NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
This Amendment No. Two (“Amendment”), effective as of the date it is fully executed by the parties, amends the terms and conditions of the Cost Share Agreement Between City of Palo Alto (“City”) and Santa Clara Valley Water District (“District”) Regarding Newell
Road Bridge Replacement Project dated April 9, 2012 (“Agreement”).
R E C I T A L S:
WHEREAS, the Agreement was entered into between the parties to memorialize the District’s agreement to pay City the local matching funds associated with planning and design
and the City’s agreement to manage the engineering and environmental assessment phase of the
Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, City received a Caltrans Highway Bridge Program Grant for preliminary engineering for the Project and the District agreed to fund 11.47% of the Grant as local matching
funds as required by the Grant; and
WHEREAS, City and its design consultant are amending their agreement to add scope in
response to public input regarding analyzing various alternatives for the Newell Road Bridge replacement and preparing a full Environmental Impact Report to identify and analyze the
potential impacts of the Project and corresponding mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, City and its design consultant are amending their agreement to add scope in
response to a request from the District to augment the Project scope to include the design and environmental assessment of San Francisquito Creek channel improvements needed to eliminate
a channel capacity bottleneck downstream of Newell Road Bridge; and
WHEREAS, City and District desire to amend the Agreement to provide for District to
increase its financial contribution of local matching funds correlating to the increased compensation to be provided to City’s design consultant.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Amendment No. Two and notwithstanding anything to the contrary stated in
the Agreement, City and District hereby agree as follows:
1. Section II, DUTIES, 2.1 is hereby amended to increase District’s local matching
portion to an amount not to exceed $314,119 as invoiced by the City.
2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not otherwise amended as stated in this Amendment No. Two remain in full force and effect.
Amendment No. Two to Cost Share Agreement Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara Valley Water District July 2014 Page 2 of 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set forth below their consent to the terms and conditions of this Amendment No. Two to Agreement #A3581S through the signatures of their
duly authorized representatives.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
By: ____________________________
City Manager
Date:___________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Director of Public Works
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
By:__________________________ Chief Executive Officer
Date:_________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________
Senior Assistant District Counsel
1
5335/mb Revised September 20, 2013
Ordinance No. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
FUND, INCREASING THE NEWELL ROAD/SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PE‐12011) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$668,000, OFFSET BY A REDUCTION TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto, the Council on June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and
B. On July 11, 2011, the Council did adopt Budget Amendment Ordinance Number
5122 in the amount of $360,000 to establish CIP Project PE‐12011, Newell Road/San
Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement. The Council also authorized staff to accept Caltrans
Highway Bridge Program grant funds and local matching funds from the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (District) to pay for the design of the replacement bridge; and
C. On April 9, 2012 the City Council approved a contract with Nolte Associates, Inc. in
the amount of $519,177 for the design and environmental assessment of the replacement
bridge (Nolte Associates, Inc. has subsequently changed its name to NV5, Inc.); and
D. On January 8, 2013 staff held a community meeting, at which the City Manager
committed to pausing the project development process in order to conduct a thorough
analysis of potential project alternatives and a full environmental impact report (EIR)
analyzing potential project impacts; and
E. On June 3, 2013 the City Council approved a contract amendment with NV5, Inc. in
the amount of $167,000 to conduct an alternatives analysis and associated traffic study to
evaluate and select feasible project alternatives for inclusion in the full environmental
impact report review process; and
F. On February 27, 2014, staff presented the results of the alternative screening process
at a community meeting at Palo Alto City Hall, during which staff identified five alternatives
to be carried forward into the project’s EIR review process. At the request of the District,
the project has been modified to incorporate channel improvements, approximately 900
feet downstream of the bridge, to widen a narrow segment of San Francisquito Creek that
creates a localized flow restriction; and
G. Amendment Two to the Contract with NV5, Inc. will allow for the preparation of the
EIR to review screened feasible alternatives for the Newell Road Bridge replacement and
2
5335/mb Revised September 20, 2013
determine the preferred alternative for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge
Replacement Project; and
H. After coordination with City staff, Caltrans has approved an amendment to the
existing grant that would cover the cost of the expanded work for the EIR, but not the
design and environmental review of the downstream channel modifications. Staff also
reached an agreement with the District to amend the existing cost share agreement under
which the District will cover the local share of the cost of the EIR, as well as 100% of the cost
for the design and environmental review of the downstream channel work. As a result, the
cost of the proposed contract amendment with NV5, Inc. will be fully reimbursed.
SECTION 2. The net sum of Six Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand Dollars is hereby
appropriated to the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project (PE‐
12011) in the Capital Improvement Fund. The expenditures in this new project will be offset
by a reduction to the Infrastructure Reserve, with the funds subsequently being reimbursed
by Caltrans ($432,926, or 88.53% of the cost of bridge replacement design and EIR) and the
District ($235,074, or 11.47% of the cost of bridge replacement design and EIR, plus 100% of
the cost of design and environmental review of the downstream channel modifications).
SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this
ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
SECTION 4. Because the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant funds originate from
the federal government, the environmental assessment of the Newell Road/San
Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project must be conducted to comply with both the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
3
5335/mb Revised September 20, 2013
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
____________________________
Director of Public Works
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5308)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/13/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Online Parking Permit Sales Hosting and related Budget
Amendment Ordinance
Title: Approval of Contract No. C15156501 with SP Plus to Provide Online
Permit Sales Hosting for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking
District in the amount of $284,068 and a New Parking Website; Adoption of a
Budget Amendment Ordinance Transferring $43,813 to the Residential
Parking Permit Program Fund and Appropriate $28,230 to the Planning and
Community Environment Department Operating Budget offset with a
reduction of $72,043 from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a three year contract (Attachment B) with SP
Plus in the amount of $284,068 to create a new public parking website for the City and
develop an online permit sales portal for the new Downtown Residential Preferential
Parking District.
2. Approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) transferring
$43,813 from the General Fund to the Residential Parking Permit Program Fund for the
Downtown Residential Parking Program and appropriating $28,230 to the Planning and
Community Environment Fiscal Year 2015 Operating Budget offset with a reduction of
$72,043 to the Budget Stabilization Reserve.
Executive Summary
In late December 2014, the City Council adopted a resolution approving establishment of a
residential parking program for the Downtown neighborhoods. The program will be rolled out
during a two-phase trial period, and in the initial phase, an unlimited number of permits will be
offered free to residents and for sale to individuals who work in downtown.
To make permit sales and data collection about who is buying permits possible, the City is
proposing to contract with a team of private vendors who will host the online permit sales
City of Palo Alto Page 2
system, provide a kiosk in the lobby of City Hall, and train personnel in the City’s Revenue
Collections group, who will be able to answer questions as needed. The vendors will also create
an updated parking website for the City.
Background
As part of ongoing efforts to improve management of Downtown parking supply and resources,
staff has been working in earnest since early 2014 to execute a number of parking programs
which regulate parking in on and off-street spaces. The programs are a part of a multi-pronged
strategy to ensure that parking facilities are efficiently utilized and that the available parking is
prioritized for the appropriate use (e.g. parking near residential areas is prioritized for residents
and parking in the Downtown commercial core is prioritized for employers and businesses).
Figure 1 provides an update on several current and near-term parking strategies which involve
the Downtown commercial area and surrounding neighborhoods.
Figure 1: Current Downtown Parking Strategies and Status
Downtown RPP Program Council directed staff to move forward with a
Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program
for Downtown on December 2, 2015. Staff is in
the process of implementing program
components including onboarding vendors
who will be involved in the launch of the
program, determining contract enforcement,
and establishing signage installation and
online permit sales (discussed in this staff
report).
Downtown Parking Wayfinding and Parking
Brand/Identity
Staff recommended award of a parking
wayfinding design and contract to Hunt Design
on February 23, 2015. The design team is
expected to begin work in March.
Parking Technology – design contract for
PARCs and PGS equipment and
implementation
Staff posted an RFP for design of Parking
Access and Revenue Controls (PARCs) and
Parking Guidance System equipment (PGS) in
January. Bids for design of the work will be
due back in February, and staff expects to
award a contract to the successful bidder in
March.
Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, January 2015
As part of an exercise to look globally at parking challenges within the Downtown core and
potential solutions, the City engaged with SP Plus, the parking management firm responsible for
the Lot R valet-Assist program, to provide some consulting services on potential parking
solutions which could help regulate Downtown parking more effectively. SP Plus met with city
City of Palo Alto Page 3
staff and members of the parking committee in April and May of 2014 to discuss parking
challenges in the Downtown core and potential solutions, and developed a final report with
several recommendations. The report was shared with Council on August 18, 2014 (see staff
report 4972).
One of the recommendations of the report included the development of an improved parking
website which could be navigated quickly and easily by residents and visitors. The website was
envisioned to include information on all public parking facilities, permits and programs, in one
location. While the City does currently have parking information online, the pages and not
easily navigable and do not include updated information about the City’s parking programs and
strategy. Staff envisions that the parking brand/logo developed as part of the parking
wayfinding design work (see staff report 5516) could be echoed on improved parking signage,
website material and other parking information to provide clarity and legibility to elements of
the City’s parking plan.
Another recommendation of the report was that the city move to selling parking permits online
to streamline the permit purchase process and improve the permit database. Selling permits
online is consistent with the City’s focus to move to online services in general, for customer
ease-of-use and convenience. In addition, the new RPP program, scheduled to begin
implementation in May or June of 2015, will potentially double the permit sales currently sold
in person by the City’s Revenue Collections team, a volume that could not be supported by the
current staff. Staff plans to use an online system for sale of RPP permits as a trial and, if
successful, could consider using the online system for permit sales associated with other
existing parking programs. However this determination would be made after the trail period
based on a review of the system performance. Discussions with union representatives would
also be required.
Discussion
Staff issued an RFP for a new parking website and RPP permit sales on September 25, 2014.
Seven responses were received and are shown in Figure 2. Most proposers had included both a
fixed start-up cost (for website design and construction and building the online permit sales
portal) and ongoing annual costs for website hosting and permit sales fulfillment. Figures listed
in the chart include the total three-year costs associated with each proposal.
Figure 2: Summary of Parking Website and RPP Online Permit Sales Proposals
Name of Firm Three-Year Cost
SP Plus $284,068
NetTech Solutions, Inc. $192,000
Civica Disqualified; proposal did not include online
permit sales scope of work
New Parking Paradigm $174,070
Enfotech $739,000
Bossage $249,000
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Douglas Parking $529,734
Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, January 2015
Staff interviewed all firms except for Bossage and Civica. Civica did not respond to the scope of
work listed in the RFP, and Bossage scored the lowest by the interview team when preliminarily
reviewed for experience, customer service and quality assurance practices, scope of work
consistency, website development and hosting strategy, and cost of proposal. Two firms
partnered with other firms in order to deliver the services required in the proposal: SP Plus
partnered with T2 systems for online permit sales hosting, and Douglas Parking partnered with
Jemsu for website hosting and Passport Parking for online permits sales.
As part of the final evaluation, staff determined that SP Plus overall scored the highest when
considering all areas of evaluation; however, staff felt that SP Plus’s experience in designing
websites was not exemplary compared to that of some of the other proposers. SP Plus is mainly
a parking operations company and has experience in all aspects of parking, and staff felt that
combining this expertise with specific website development expertise would create a better
product for the city. As a result, staff asked SP Plus to revise their proposal to include Jemsu as
the website designer, while retaining T2 Systems for online permit sales and fulfillment, and SP
Plus agreed to this approach.
The selected team will be responsible for the work scope included in the contract and is
expected to establish an online system for permit sales within 60 days so that the City can begin
selling permits for phase one of the Downtown RPP program this spring. Permits will be
available on line and at a kiosk in the lobby of City Hall where the City’s Revenue Collections
staff will be available to answer questions if needed. One additional hourly employee will be
brought on to help with any increase in workload during the initial trial period.
Staff also met and conferred with SEIU regarding potential impacts to current employees and
on February 11, 2015 SEIU agreed that the City had addressed the union’s concerns related to
the permitting system for this RPP district.
Timeline
If the contract is approved by Council, SP Plus will begin work in March and spend 8-9 weeks
building the online permit sales portal. During this time frame, city staff would be trained on
how to use the back-end interface of the program, which will be required to provide data on
employee permit sales during Phase 1 of the trial RPP program. Staff anticipates being able to
begin permit sales in May or June of 2015, with the program launch soon afterward. Contracts
for sign installation and enforcement are also being brought forward for City Council
consideration.
Resource Impact
Per the SP Plus proposal, design and launch of the online permit sales will cost $43,813 during
FY 2015 and approximately $64,065 for FY 2016. The attached Budget Amendment Ordinance
City of Palo Alto Page 5
(BAO) transfer the FY 2015 amount to the Residential Parking Permit Program Fund for the
Downtown RPP. The concurrent development of the parking website will cost $18,230 and the
City Hall lobby kiosk is estimated to cost $10,000. The website hosting cost for FY 2016 is
approximately $8,000. The attached BAO will allocate $28,230 for the parking website and kiosk
to the Planning and Community Environment Fiscal Year 2015 operating budget. The costs for
the next fiscal year will be incorporated in the development of the FY 2016 budget.
Policy Implications
Adding services online is consistent with the City’s technology vision to build and enable a
leading digital city. The City’s adopted 3-year IT strategy has four core goals, one of is to
prioritize digital capabilities including online services.
Environmental Review
The proposed action is a contract affecting how permits will be sold and will not have any
physical environmental impacts. Thus no review is required pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment B: SP Plus Contract (PDF)
1
5308/mb Revised September 20, 2013
Ordinance No. XXXX Attachment A
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 TO TRANSFER $43,813 FROM THE
GENERAL FUND TO THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM FUND
FOR THE DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM AND
APPROPRIATE $28,230 TO THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT TO CREATE A NEW PUBLIC PARKING
WEBSITE AND DEVELOP AN ONLINE PERMIT SALES PORTAL FOR THE
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL PREFERRED PARKING (RPP) DISTRICT OFFSET
WITH A REDUCTION TO THE BUDGET STABILIZAITON RESERVE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $72,043.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto, the Council on June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and
B. In December 2014, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the
establishment of Residential Preferred Parking (RPP) District in Downtown neighborhoods;
and
C. The RPP program is part of a multi-pronged strategy to ensure that parking
facilities are efficiently utilized and that the available parking is prioritized for the
appropriate use; and
D. To provide enhanced customer services for residents and businesses within the
new RPP district, an online permit sales system, kiosk, and website will be developed to
provide relevant parking information and online permit sales; and
E. The online permit sale system design and implementation is estimated to cost
$43,813 and this amount will be transferred from the General Fund Budget Stabilization
Reserve to Fund 239 Downtown Residential Parking Permit Program; and
F. The development of a new parking website and installation of an automated
permit kiosk in the City Hall lobby is estimated to cost $28,320 and this amount will be
transferred from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve to the Planning and
Community Environment operating budget.
SECTION 2. Therefore, the sum of Forty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Thirteen
Dollars ($43,813) is hereby appropriated and transferred to Fund 239 Downtown
2
5308/mb Revised September 20, 2013
Residential Parking Permit Fund and the sum of Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Thirty
Dollars ($28,230) is hereby appropriated to the Planning and Community Environment
Department offset with a reduction of Seventy Two Thousand Forty Three ($72,043) in the
General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve.
SECTION 4. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this
ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
SECTION 5. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact
assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
____________________________
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 2 19838JKK#6.doc
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,
Year One, Not to Exceed: $135,429.00
Year Two, Not To Exceed: $73,541.00
Year Three, Not to Exceed: $75,098.00
Total Compensation for all three years shall not exceed Two Hundred Eighty Four Thousand Sixty Eight Dollars ($284,068.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in
Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
If any regulatory changes, or changes in applicable laws, have a material impact on
CONSULTANT’s expenses in performing its obligations under this Agreement, CONSULTANT
and CITY agree that the parties will negotiate in good faith equitable adjustments in compensation.
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
reasonable 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 process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. If payment is not made by CITY to
CONSULTANT within said 30-day period, CONSULTANT shall have the right to: (i) charge interest at the highest legal rate permitted by law on the unpaid balance from the date such
payment became due and payable, or (ii) at its option, terminate this Agreement upon 30 days’
prior written notice, without waiving or limiting any of its legal remedies (including the right to recover attorneys’ fees and any other expenses incurred) which CONSULTANT may pursue to
collect the amount owed.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT
represents that it, or its subcontractors, possess the professional and technical personnel
necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel, or its
subcontractors’ personnel, have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 3
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 standards and quality that prevail, and are customary, among professionals in the
same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout
California under the same or similar circumstances. CITY understands that CONSULTANT will
be using approved subconsultants to complete the Services, and any and all warranties, provided
to CONSULTANT by its subconsultants as to their work performed under this Agreement, will be assigned to CITY to the same extent as they are provided to CONSULTANT.
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 written 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 4
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. 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:
T2 Systems, Inc. 8900 Keystone Crossing, Suite 700
Indianapolis, Indiana 46240
p: (317) 524-7445 f: (317)524-5501
JEMSU 940 Lincoln Street, #102
Denver, Colorado 80203 p: (800) 763-4619
Parkmobile USA, Inc.
3200 Cobb Galleria Parkway, Suite 100
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
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, unless CITY fails to pay CONSULTANT pursuant to the terms herein.
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 William J. Kepp as the Regional Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress,
and execution of the Services and Roamy R. Valera 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 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 Jessica Sullivan, Planning & Community Environment Department, Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:
(650) 329-2453. 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, CONSULTANT shall
grant to CITY a perpetual license to use the final work product developed under this
Agreement, except with respect to any Intellectual Property (as defined below) of
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 5
CONSULTANT. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make the final
work product 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 final work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the
scope of work.
CONSULTANT hereby grants to CITY, during the term of this Agreement only, a non-
assignable, non-exclusive right and license to use CONSULTANT’s intellectual property,
including but not limited to its trade names, trademarks, etc. (the “Intellectual Property”), to the
extent related to CONSULTANT's consulting services herein. Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason, CONSULTANT shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to
remove the Intellectual Property from any work product, and CITY shall refrain from all further
use of the Intellectual Property.
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 “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 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 6
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 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 possible. 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 7
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 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 rendered through the effective date of termination. 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: SP Plus Corporation
Attn: Legal Department 200 E. Randolph Street, Suite 7700
Chicago, IL 60601
With copy to: SP Plus Corporation
Attn: Steven R. Aiello, Senior Vice President 1160 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 8
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.
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 9
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 breach in the security of the system or in the
security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 10
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
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
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SP PLUS CORPORATION
Attachments:
EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK (Including Appendix A) EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES
EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT “E” SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE SECURITY AND PRIVACY TERMS AND CONDITIONS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Senior Vice President
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 10
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULTANT shall provide the following scope of work for delivery in 2015:
1. A new CITY parking website, hosted by CONSULTANT. The website will include all
information on permits, garages and more as additional parking services are provided by
the Parking program.
2. Provision of an online permit sales and renewals website for the new Downtown
Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District, including distribution of permits and
collection of payments, hosted by CONSULTANT. A description of the new RPP
program is provided in Appendix A.
Parking Website
1. CONSULTANT will synthesize all data from CITY’s existing parking websites so
visitors can easily access parking information. The website will be built in a manner
which is consistent with CITY’s existing website design.
2. CONSULTANT will meet and interview key CITY staff members to help in the
development of brand new website content, including but not limited to Parking Manager
and Chief Communications Officer. CONSULTANT will develop all content for the
website including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images, and maps. CITY staff will
review all proposed data content prior to release to the public.
3. CONSULTANT will host the parking website. CITY will forward website traffic to the
CONSULTANT-hosted site using forward URL links on CITY website, and vendor
website shall include links to send users back to CITY of Palo Alto website. The website
will have a link to the RPP online permit sales management system.
4. CONSULTANT will ensure that the website is compatible on all commonly used
browser platforms, including MS Explorer, Google Chrome, Apple Safari, and Firefox.
The website experience for the user shall be seamless, and shall include automatic
algorithms to detect the platform in which the user is viewing so content can be adjusted
accordingly. Required platforms include desktop computers, laptops, mobile devices,
tablets, and mobile wear devices.
5. The website shall be ready for go live in 6-8 weeks from notice to proceed.
Online Parking Permit System Hosting
CONSULTANT, using its subcontractor, T2 Systems, Inc., will develop and host a new online parking permit management system, capable of providing and tracking online permit sales for the
proposed Downtown RPP District, with the following characteristics:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 11
1. The system must include functionality for residents and commuter employees to register
and validate their residence or employment, pay for permits, and establish automatic
renewal processes.
2. Permit holders shall be able to establish User IDs and Passwords to manage their parking
permits; corporate accounts shall be included that allow a business to pay directly for the
parking permits of their employees.
3. Individual parking permits must remain within the ownership of the employee while the
permit is valid.
4. Permit sales shall be possible for annual, quarterly, monthly, weekly, and daily permit
sale options.
5. Include a CITY-User Management Interface that allows CITY to establish parking permit
sale caps on the number of permits that are released.
6. Commuter employee users registering into the system for the first time for parking permit
procurement shall be able to easily see parking permit availability for desired RPP
Districts/areas.
7. The system must provide for issuance and distribution of permits to purchasers (e.g.
residents and commuter employees). It shall also accommodate requests for different
types of permits (e.g. resident guest, resident, low-wage commuter). Permits will be
mailed by T2 Systems, Inc. within 24-48 hours of complete online permit purchases.
Temporary permits will be available for purchasers to print themselves immediately.
8. The online permits sales proposer will be expected to coordinate with the enforcement
team regarding sharing of eligible permit parking permit use.
9. The system shall have the ability to process online sales, wait-lists, and account
information updates by permit holders.
10. The system shall have the ability to link accounts for multiple vehicles and addresses.
11. The system must maintain complete audit trail of changes, transactions, payments, and
refunds for each customer, and be able to process payments via multiple payment
options.
12. Permit purchasers must immediately be provided a receipt for their purchase, and be
issued a temporary permit.
13. The system must have the ability to provide for proof of residency or income level i.e.,
via uploaded files that will be verified by the vendor for consistency with designated
resident addresses.
14. The system shall provide reporting on permit sales and other queries to CITY.
15. The system must be robust enough to accommodate expansion if ultimately CITY
decides to make all permits for all programs available online.
16. The online permit sales website shall be ready for go live in 8 weeks from notice to
proceed.
17. Forms to apply or renew parking permits require the following information:
o Name
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 12
o Address
o Payment information
o Vehicle data, to include but not limited to:
Make, model, year
License plate
Vehicle color
Vehicle registration
o Verification of local residency/Verification of local employment
o Verification of permit eligibility (document uploads)
o For commuter employee permits, include the information regarding employer
(name, address, local company contact, phone number, etc.)
o Other options that can be accommodated by the system
User Account Requirements and Data Security
· Account management must have standards to protect users’ personal information. Users
must be able to create and manage accounts through the website.
· New accounts shall be created with the following parameters:
o Username (email)
o Password
o Name
o Address
o Ability to store payment information and automated email notices to renew
payment information
· Users must have access to view history of all transactions made on the account.
Customer Service Requirements and Training
CONSULTANT will operate and maintain the online parking permit management system for a three-year term. CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT’s subcontractor, T2 Systems, Inc., shall
provide telephone customer service for potential parking permit users, as more specifically described herein:
· Technical Support for City Administrators: T2 Systems, Inc. will provide technical
support to CITY during the hours of 5:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (PST) Mondays through Fridays. T2 Systems, Inc. will provide after hour and weekend support
for emergencies. After hour and weekend support for emergencies will be responded to
within 20 minutes.
· Customer Support: All of the online pages that users will access to process their permits
will have a customer service number that will direct them to one of CONSULTANT’s
team members. CONSULTANT’s team will be trained on how to assist customers with
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 13
the permit process. This assistance can be available up too a 24/7 basis, but the parties
shall reasonably agree to limit the hours based on CITY’s needs.
CONSULTANT should provide one point of contact with CITY to support ease of
communication with CITY shall any issues arise. CONSULTANT must demonstrate a strategy for handling disputes from residents, i.e., permit was never received, incorrect credit card charge,
etc.
CONSULTANT will train Revenue Collections staff so that Revenue Collections staff can
answer basic questions about the permit purchase process.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 14
Appendix A: Description of the Downtown RPP District
The anticipated Downtown RPP program encompasses an area about 0.86 square miles around Palo Alto’s Downtown commercial core. CITY estimates that there are approximately 4500
residential addresses within these boundaries.
Phase of RPP Program Description
Phase 1
Permit Demand Polling Period
CITY anticipates immediate release of parking permits to all
residents within the Downtown RPP District and eligible
Commuter Employees from the adjacent Downtown University
Avenue and South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) business districts.
CITY will provide each residential address up to two residential
permits at no cost. Additional resident parking permits for resident
visitors can be purchased through the system for a total of up to 4
permits per residence. CITY will also sell Commuter Employee
(non-resident) parking permits during this phase for $466 per
permit (standard wage) and $100 per permit (reduced wage). In this
first phase, all resident and commuter employee permits will be
valid for use within the larger RPP District boundary area. All
permits provided during this phase will expire after 6 months.
Phase 2
RPP District Refinement Period
Phase 2 will last 12 months at a minimum, and continue if Council
does not repeal the RPP program. Resident permits will continue to
be eligible for use anywhere within the District. The first residential
permit will be sold at no cost, and additional permits will cost $50
each. Commuter employee permits will be sold during this phase
but will be limited to specific blocks or block faces, with permit
sale “caps” to help evenly distribute parking demand within the
larger Downtown RPP District. The system must be flexible
enough to be easily modified during Phase 2.
The types of permits which will be sold for the RPP District during Phases 1 and 2 include the
following:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 15
1. Resident permits (for residents who live anywhere within the program boundaries)
2. Resident “Annual Guest” permits (for residents who live anywhere within the program
boundaries)
3. Resident “Daily Visitor” permits (for residents who live anywhere within the program
boundaries)
4. Commuter “Standard” permits (for employees who work anywhere within the program
boundaries)
5. Commuter “Low-Income” permits; these permits will look identical to the standard
commuter permit, but can only be sold to individuals who have demonstrated that their
yearly income is below a certain threshold. The applicant may be required to provide an
affidavit stating their yearly income, which would be subject to audit, or their employer
will be required to contact the vendor and supply a list of employees who meet the low-
wage income requirements.
The anticipated Downtown RPP program would be expected to require the sale of anywhere from 5000 to over 15,000 permits annually. It has not yet been determined whether permits for
the RPP program will be scratcher or hang-tag permits, but CONSULTANT shall be expected to provide options for both.
Additional System Functionality
The new online parking permit management system may be selected to replace the existing
parking permit management system for the management of garage parking permits for the University Avenue Downtown and California Avenue business districts, and must be able to
accommodate the following characteristics:
1. In the University Avenue Downtown District, permits are sold for specific parking
facilities and wait lists for each site must be managed separately.
2. In the California Avenue business district, permits can be used for parking in any parking
facility within the district. Employees are required to validate their employment location
as a business within the Downtown Business District prior to release of a parking permit
and continue to show eligibility during renewal.
3. For garage permit sales, CITY anticipates continued use of traditional affixed sticker
permits but may in the future require the use of digital parking permit sales that can
communicate remotely to Revenue & Access Control parking equipment.
In order to assure the privacy and security of the personal information of the City’s customers
and people who do business with the City, including, without limitation, vendors, utility customers, library patrons and other individuals and businesses, who are required to share such
information with the City, as a condition of receiving services from the City or selling goods and services to the City, including, without limitation, the Software as a Service services provider (the “Consultant”) and its subcontractors, if any, including, without limitation, any Information
Technology (“IT”) infrastructure services provider, shall design, install, provide, and maintain a secure IT environment, described in EXHIBIT “E”, while it renders and performs the Services
and furnishes goods, if any, described in the Statement of Work, Exhibit A, to the extent any
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 16
scope of work implicates the confidentiality and privacy of the personal information of the City’s
customers. The Consultant shall fulfill the data and information security requirements as
specified in EXHIBIT “E” SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE SECURITY AND PRIVACY TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 17
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 term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed.
Milestones Completion No. of Days/Weeks
From NTP
1. PHASE 1 6 MONTHS
(Permit Demand Polling Period)
2. PHASE 2 12 MONTHS + (RPP District Refinement Period)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 16
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 rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth
below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $284,068.00. 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 of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total
compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $284,068.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $43,804.00
(T2 Flex, T2 eBusiness, and T2 Travel)
Task 2 $6,150.00
(Website Design)
Task 3 $12,080.00
(Website Development)
Task 4 $24,665.00 (Website Hosting & Maintenance)
Task 5 $55,636.00
(Project Management)
Task 6 $45,253.00
(T2 Flex & eBusiness Annual Subscription Fees)
Task 7 $95,130.00 (T2 Flex & eBusiness Permit Fulfillment/
Customer support )
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 17
Task 8 $1,350.00
(Permit Configuration Fee)
Sub-total Basic Services $284,068.00
Maximum Total Compensation $284,068.00
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses.
CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost.
Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: NONE
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s
request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum
compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum
compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project
Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for
additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 18
EXHIBIT “C-1”
RATE SCHEDULE
Fixed Start Up Costs (based on specified scope/development hours):
Task 1 T2 Flex, T2 eBusiness, and T2 Travel $43,804
Task 2 SP+ Website Design $6,150
Task 3 SP+ Website Development $12,080
Total Fixed Start Up Costs $62,034
Recurring Annual Costs: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Task 4 SP+ Website Hosting and Maintenance $7,980 $8,219 $8,466
Task 5 SP+ Project Management $18,000 $18,540 $19,096
T2 Recurring T2 Flex & eBusiness Annual Subscription Fees $14,355 $15,072 $15,826
Total Recurring Annual Costs $40,335 $41,831 $43,388
Optional Costs:
T2 Recurring T2 Flex & eBusiness Permit Fulfillment/Customer
Support Fees $31,710 $31,710 $31,710
Estimated cost to provide permits and permit support based on and
estimate of 7,000 permits at a cost of $4.53 per permit ($0.99 WW&L
Permits, and, $3.54 Permits Direct Fulfillment)*.
T2 Fixed Permit Configuration (one time only fee) $1,350
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
TOTAL PER YEAR $135,429 $73,541 $75,098
TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED: $284,068.00
* If more than 7,000 permits are sold, the City agrees to pay an additional $4.53 per permit over and above the not
to exceed compensation amounts reflected in the agreement by issuance of an amendment to the agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 19
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:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS
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
CYBER LIABILITY COVERAGE
INCLUDES SECURITY AND PRIVACY LIABILITY, MEDIA LIABILITY, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION AND EXTRA EXPENSE COVERAGE AND CYBER EXTORTION
$1,000.000 FOR EACH OCCURRENCE.
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 CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 20
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, CONSULTANT SHALL ENDEAVOR TO PROVIDE CITY WITH ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. .
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-
PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, CONSULTANT SHALL ENDEAVOR TO PROVIDE CITY
WITH ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED OR MAILED TO:
EMAIL: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 21
EXHIBIT “E”
SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE SECURITY AND PRIVACY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This Exhibit shall be made a part of the City of Palo Alto’s Professional Services Agreement or any other contract entered
into by and between the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) and SP PLUS CORPORATION (“Consultant”) for the provision of
Software as a Service services to the City (the “Agreement”).
In order to assure the privacy and security of the personal information of the City’s customers
and people who do business with the City, including, without limitation, vendors, utility
customers, library patrons and other individuals and businesses, who are required to share such
information with the City, as a condition of receiving services from the City or selling goods and
services to the City, including, without limitation, the Software as a Service services provider
(the “Consultant”) and its subcontractors, if any, including, without limitation, any Information
Technology (“IT”) infrastructure services provider, shall design, install, provide, and maintain a
secure IT environment, described below, while it renders and performs the Services and
furnishes goods, if any, described in the Statement of Work, Exhibit A, to the extent any scope
of work implicates the confidentiality and privacy of the personal information of the City’s
customers. The Consultant shall fulfill the data and information security requirements (the
“Requirements”) set forth in Part A below.
A “secure IT environment” includes: (a) the IT infrastructure, by which the Services are provided
to the City, including connection to the City's IT systems; (b) the Consultant’s operations and
maintenance processes needed to support the environment, including disaster recovery and
business continuity planning; and (c) the IT infrastructure performance monitoring services to
ensure a secure and reliable environment and service availability to the City. “IT infrastructure”
refers to the integrated framework, including, without limitation, data centers, computers, and
database management devices, upon which digital networks operate.
In the event that, after the Effective Date, the Consultant reasonably determines that it cannot
fulfill the Requirements, the Consultant shall promptly inform the City of its determination and
submit, in writing, one or more alternate countermeasure options to the Requirements (the
“Alternate Requirements” as set forth in Part B), which may be accepted or rejected in the
reasonable satisfaction of the Information Security Manager (the “ISM”).
Part A. Requirements:
The Consultant shall at all times during the term of any contract between the City and the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 22
Consultant:
(a) Appoint or designate an employee, preferably an executive officer,
as the security liaison to the City with respect to the Services to be performed under this
Agreement.
(b) Provide a full and complete response to the City’s Supplier
Security and Privacy Assessment Questionnaire (the “Questionnaire”) to the ISM, and
also report any major non-conformance to the Requirements, as and when requested.
The response shall include a detailed implementation plan of required
countermeasures, which the City requires the Consultant to adopt as countermeasures
in the performance of the Services. In addition, as of the annual anniversary date of this
Agreement the Consultant shall report to the City, in writing, any major changes to the
IT infrastructure.
(c) Have adopted and implemented information security and privacy
policies that are documented, are accessible to the City and conform to ISO 27001/2 –
Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Standards. See the following:
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=421
03
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=5
0297
(d) Conduct routine data and information security compliance training
of its personnel that is appropriate to their role.
(e) Develop and maintain detailed documentation of the IT
infrastructure, including software versions and patch levels.
(f) Develop an independently verifiable process, consistent with
industry standards, for performing professional and criminal background checks of its
employees that (1) would permit verification of employees’ personal identity and
employment status, and (2) would enable the immediate denial of access to the City's
confidential data and information by any of its employees who no longer would require
access to that information or who are terminated.
(g) Provide a list of IT infrastructure components in order to verify
whether the Consultant has met or has failed to meet any objective terms and
conditions.
(h) Implement access accountability (identification and
authentication) architecture and support role-base access control (“RBAC”) and
segregation of duties (“SoD”) mechanisms for all personnel, systems and software used
to provide the Services. “RBAC” refers to a computer systems security approach to
restricting access only to authorized users. “SoD” is an approach that would require
more than one individual to complete a security task in order to promote the detection
and prevention of fraud and errors.
(i) Assist the City in undertaking annually an assessment to assure
that: (1) all elements of the Services’ environment design and deployment are known to
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 23
the City, and (2) it has implemented measures in accordance with industry best
practices applicable to secure coding and secure IT architecture.
(j) Provide and maintain secure intersystem communication paths
that would ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the City's information.
(k) Deploy and maintain IT system upgrades, patches and
configurations conforming to current patch and/or release levels by not later than one
(1) week after its date of release. Emergency security patches must be installed within
24 hours after its date of release.
(l) Provide for the timely detection of, response to, and the reporting
of security incidents, including on-going incident monitoring with logging.
(m) Notify the City within one (1) hour of detecting a security incident
that results in the unauthorized access to or the misuse of the City's confidential data
and information.
(n) Inform the City that any third party service provider(s) meet(s) all
of the Requirements.
(o) Perform security self-audits on a regular basis and not less
frequently than on a quarterly basis, and provide the required summary reports of those
self-audits to the ISM on the annual anniversary date or any other date agreed to by the
Parties.
(p) Accommodate, as practicable, and upon reasonable prior notice
by the City, the City’s performance of random site security audits at the Consultant’s
site(s), including the site(s) of a third party service provider(s), as applicable. The scope
of these audits will extend to the Consultant’s and its third party service provider(s)’
awareness of security policies and practices, systems configurations, access
authentication and authorization, and incident detection and response.
(q) Cooperate with the City to ensure that to the extent required by
applicable laws, rules and regulations, the Confidential Information will be accessible
only by the Consultant and any authorized third party service provider’s personnel.
(r) Perform regular, reliable secured backups of all data needed to
maximize availability of the Services.
(s) Maintain records relating to the Services for a period of three (3)
years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement and in a mutually
agreeable storage medium. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date of expiration
or earlier termination of this Agreement, all of those records relating to the
performance of the Services shall be provided to the ISM.
(t) Maintain the Confidential Information in accordance with
applicable federal, state and local data and information privacy laws, rules and
regulations.
(u) Encrypt the Confidential Information before delivering the same
by electronic mail to the City and or any authorized recipient.
(v) Unless otherwise addressed in the Agreement, shall not hold the
City liable for any direct, indirect or punitive damages whatsoever including, without
limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profits, arising out of or in any way
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
Professional Services Rev Sep. 2014 19838JKK#6.doc 24
connected with the City’s IT environment, including, without limitation, IT infrastructure
communications.
Part B. Alternate Requirements: NONE
DocuSign Envelope ID: 03CFDEA2-3D4B-46C1-8C1E-F8719E0D6183
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5610)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/13/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Contract Amendment Ghirardelli Associates
Title: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract C14151310 with Ghirardelli
Associates, to Add $68,000 for a Total Not to Exceed $706,600 for
Construction Management of the California Avenue Streetscape
Improvements Project (CIP- PL-11002)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute
Amendment No. 1 (Attachment A) to Contract C14151310 with Ghirardelli Associates for
Construction Management Services for the California Avenue Streetscape Improvements
Project (Pl-11002) to add $68,0000 for additional time and construction management services,
for a total contract amount of not to exceed $706,600.
Executive Summary
The California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Improvements project provides for streetscape and
utility improvements along California Avenue between El Camino Real and the Park Boulevard
Plaza. Utility improvements include new waterline and service lateral connections to California
Avenue businesses. Streetscape improvements include landscaping, sidewalks, lighting, and
street furnishings. Due to schedule changes communicated to Council in September 2014 and
again more recently, the construction management services contract requires additional
resources to complete management of the project. This report summarizes the status of the
project and details of the contract amendment.
Background
Streetscape improvements for the California Avenue project include new landscaping and
irrigation facilities, decorative streetlights and underground conduit networks, streetscape
furniture, improvements to the Park Boulevard Plaza, and public art elements. The project also
includes roadway infrastructure improvements such as wider sidewalks and intersection bulb-
outs. These elements will activate the streetscape and enhance the pedestrian experience.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Redgwick Construction was selected as the most responsible low-bidder for the project and a
Notice to Proceed was issued on March 3, 2014, formally beginning the construction phase of
the project. Council approved a contract with Ghirardelli Associates for the Construction
Management Services on November 18, 2013. The Construction Management Services contract
includes a Project Inspector and a Construction Manager to support staff during the
construction of the project.
One of the components added to the project during the design phase was to replace an aged
waterline that had exceeded its useful life and to use the construction opportunity to
coordinate the installation of this component. Construction of the project was originally
planned to be completed in December 2014, but due to delays primarily resulting from a need
to redesign the waterline after the start of the project, it is now scheduled for completion in
early April 2015. At this time, staff is requesting an amendment to the contract with Ghiradelli
to provide additional construction administration services that are needed due to the schedule
extension noted above. Construction management services have been critical for the project
review and completion and having those services available through the end of the construction
process will ensure the City does not accept completion until all of the contracted work is
completed to project specifications.
Discussion
Staff presented an information report to Council on September 15, 2014 (ID #5048, see
Attachment B), regarding the delay of the overall project schedule. Construction for the
California Avenue Streetscape project was originally anticipated to be completed by the end of
December 2014 but at the writing of this report is scheduled for completion in early April 2015.
The contract amendment will allow Ghirardelli Associates to work with the Contractor to
complete project punch list items and to complete project closeout which includes completion
of all required contract closeout documentation, record drawings, warranties, material
compliance, and final accounting and payment to the contractor.
To date, the Contractor has completed the widening work on all of the street blocks on
California Avenue, as well as the grinding and repaving of the street. This work is being
followed by planting of the landscaping elements and placement of all the streetscape
furniture. Outstanding work also includes final signing and striping, and project punch list items
and contract closeout documents.
Timeline
The project is scheduled to reach substantial completion in early April 2015. Punchlist and
other minor work items may continue past the substantial completion date.
Resource Impact
No additional appropriation of funding to the project is being requested at this time. While
funding does remain in this project, it is anticipated that some of this funding will be required
for inspection services from Public Works and Utilities Operations. Staff will carefully monitor
City of Palo Alto Page 3
expenditures in this project, and if a shortfall exists within this project a recommendation to
increase the budget will be included as part of the budget year-end process.
Policy Implications
This report does not represent any changes to existing City policies
Environmental Review
No environmental review is required for this contract amendment.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ghirardelli Contract Amendment 1 (PDF)
Attachment B: ID #5048 (PDF)
2 of 4 Revision April 28, 2014
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 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read
as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference:
a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”.
SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract,
including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Amendment on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
GHIRARDELLI ASSOCIATES, INC.
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4F944B69-624A-4D97-AEDA-C75F18A81CE1
Executive Vice President
3 of 4 Revision April 28, 2014
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-1
up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in
Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $370,247.00.
CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this
amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall
not exceed $706,600.00. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result
in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the
CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The
CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the
tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including
reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $370,247.00 and the total compensation for Additional
Services does not exceed $336,353.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $345,740.00
(Construction Phase:
Construction Manager (half‐time)
Project Inspector (full‐time) Materials
Testing (as needed)
Task 2 $24,007.00
(Post‐Construction Construction Manager
Project Inspector)
Sub-total Basic Services $369,747.00
Reimbursable Expenses $500.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable $370,247.00
expenses
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $336,353.00
Maximum Total Compensation $706,600.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4F944B69-624A-4D97-AEDA-C75F18A81CE1
4 of 4 Revision April 28, 2014
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
Reimbursables shall include, but are not limited to outreach materials, postage, signage or
other items not included herein. Travel, mileage, computer and phone charges shall be
considered as included in the CONSULTANT overhead costs. Any needed office supplies
shall be provided by CONSULTANT and shall be considered to be included in the Scope of
Services, Exhibit “A”.
CITY shall be responsible for paying for reproduction of bid sets required for the bid phase
and for the conformed set that includes Addenda changes incorporated during the bidding
phase. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for paying for copies of the bid sets required
for their own use.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information.
Any expense anticipated to be more than $500.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s
project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization
from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a
detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of
effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable
expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services
scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by
the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services.
Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this
Agreement
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4F944B69-624A-4D97-AEDA-C75F18A81CE1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5048)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 9/15/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Cal Ave Streetscape Improvements Update
Title: California Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project Update
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
Executive Summary
The California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Project (Capital Improvement Project PL-11002)
includes streetscape and infrastructure improvements between El Camino Real and the Park
Boulevard Plaza. Construction began in March 2014, with a construction schedule that would
continue through December 2014. This Informational Report provides an updated project
completion schedule, which has been extended to March 2015, and summarizes current and
upcoming construction activities.
Background & Discussion
The California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Improvements project provides for streetscape and
utility improvements along California Avenue between El Camino Real and the Park Boulevard
Plaza. Utility improvements include new waterline and service lateral connections to California
Avenue businesses. These elements were added onto the project during the design phase to
replace an aged waterline that had exceeded its useful life and to avoid future demolition of
the new street. Streetscape improvements include new landscaping and irrigation facilities,
decorative streetlight standards and underground conduit networks, streetscape furniture,
improvements to the Park Boulevard Plaza, and public art elements. The project also includes
roadway infrastructure improvements such as wider sidewalks and intersection bulb-outs.
These elements will activate the streetscape and enhance the pedestrian experience. A new 2-
lane configuration also adds 5 additional parking spaces on California Avenue.
Redgwick Construction was selected as the most responsible low-bidder for the project and a
Notice to Proceed was issued on March 3, 2014, formally beginning the construction phase of
the project.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Waterline Reconstruction
Construction began in March 2014 with the waterline reconstruction as the first element of
work to avoid conflicts with planned streetscape and roadway infrastructure improvements.
The water line construction was delayed due to the need for a redesign to position the water
line away from conflicting underground facilities and to change the waterline material
selection. The original design specified the use of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe
material, but as a result of additional soil testing, it was recommended that the material be
changed to Ductile Iron material instead, which is a better and stronger material and would
work better in the existing soil conditions. The waterline reconstruction is now complete along
with new lateral connections to California Avenue businesses. The design and material change
in the waterline element of the overall project impacted the schedule by approximately 6
weeks (30 working days).
Streetscape Construction - Sidewalks
The streetscape portion of the project officially began in May. Several street blocks are now
complete including: Caltrain Station and Park Boulevard (south side), Birch Street to Park
Boulevard (south side), and El Camino Real and Ash Street (north side). Improvements in these
areas include new wider sidewalks, intersection bulb-outs, decorative sidewalks with glass
jewels, trench drain facilities, curb & gutter work, and underground irrigation and streetlight
facilities. Streetscape and landscaping improvements will follow on these block segments as
additional street blocks are improved to help ensure efficient construction and mobilization of
the project.
The new decorative sidewalks segments with decorative glass jewels are located at key
pedestrian dwelling areas such as midblock crossing locations, intersection bulb-outs and plaza
areas. The first batch of decorative sidewalk segments built for the project resulted in a 2 week
delay to address supply issues of the decorative glass jewels. The glass jewels supplied during
the material approval process did not match the glass jewels installed at the first field
installation sites near Park Boulevard. Additional decorative sidewalk segments were delayed
while the supplier modified their fabrication process to ensure a more uniform material size.
The initial two installations in front of Kinko’s and Baume Restaurant were removed and
replaced in July. With the glass jewel fabrication issues addressed, decorative sidewalk
installations continued in August but a 2 week delay was realized (10 working days).
Current Construction Activities
City anticipates both daytime and nighttime construction activities to expedite the construction
schedule and to minimize business impacts from the project. The City maintains pedestrian
access to the businesses in the project area at all times during construction with contractor
doing work on one side of the street at a time. Furthermore, the construction management
team from Ghirardelli Associates provides area merchants with regular updates to the
surrounding community and is available to address any concerns.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The following schedule represents the project’s current construction staging activities:
California Avenue
Current Construction Schedule
2014 2015
Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
COMPLETE Active Streetscape Construction
Water Line Plaza to
Birch
South Side
Ash to ECR
North Side
Ash to ECR
South Side
Ash to
Birch
South Side
Park Blvd
to Plaza &
vicinity
Ash to Birch
North Side
Landscaping
Streetlights
Furniture and
Paving
Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment, August 2014
Public Outreach
Staff has been providing weekly email updates to a growing list of over 750 interested area
residents and businesses. A project website is also available at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/calave.
The weekly email updates and website provide businesses and the surrounding community
detailed information on the construction work scheduled for the week as well as work
anticipated in the near future. In addition, door to door visits to the entire business district
have updated the merchants with specific details of upcoming work and how it will affect them.
These visits have also been effective in signing-up dozens of additional businesses for the
weekly emails. Printed flyers are also given out on a regular basis.
Recently, an email survey was sent to approximately 225 area merchants and other businesses.
The survey questions were designed to determine the level of knowledge concerning the
project as well as the effectiveness of the City’s outreach in reaching the businesses. After two
weeks of in-person follow-ups and visits to businesses not on the email list, staff received a
total of 41 complete responses to the survey. Although not scientific in nature, staff was able to
glean a general sense that most businesses are at least “moderately informed” about the
project. Most merchants on California Avenue acknowledged having been visited by staff or
the contractor, and found that the outreach methods had generally been at least somewhat
helpful in aiding the understanding of the project details. The survey results will be released
very soon.
Staff also attends monthly meetings with the California Avenue Business Association (CABA), to
discuss construction progress and to respond to any questions and comments on the
construction. Staff continues to work with the California Avenue merchants to develop and
implement advertising and marketing plans to increase patronage during construction
City of Palo Alto Page 4
activities. This includes project information signs and project banners along the avenue,
changeable message signs along El Camino Real, advertising on Utility bills and Citywide
mailings, and special event planning.
Through the monthly meetings, door-to-door visits, and weekly emails noted above, staff has
communicated to area merchants that the timeline has been delayed. Businesses are generally
aware of the schedule change, and understand that the delay is mainly due to unforeseen
challenges relating to the water line replacement.
Timeline
Construction for this project was anticipated to be completed by the end of the calendar year
(December 2014). The project is now expected to be completed at the beginning of March
2015, barring unforeseen circumstances or major storms.
Staff anticipates that the contractor will continue work in the vicinity of the plaza area during
the holiday season, since this area is outside of the business assessment district and is not
included in the City’s holiday season construction moratorium. Staff will continue to discuss
this plan with area merchants, and work to address their concerns. Obviously, the overall
schedule would be further delayed if construction ceased entirely during the holidays.
Resource Impact
The California Avenue Streetscape project is being implemented by Redgwick Construction via a
$6,211,311 construction contract with a 10% contingency. A portion of the contingency will
cover the unanticipated costs of the redesign and relocation of the water line discussed earlier
in this report. As part of the outreach to California Avenue merchants, a number of community
members (primarily merchants) have requested additional sidewalk replacements to fill in the
gaps, especially on the south side between Birch and Park Blvd, where there is currently new
sidewalk proposed. Staff recommends considering this additional scope later in the process,
once it is clear whether the remainder of the 10% contingency is sufficient to include this
additional sidewalk work.
Policy Implications
This report does not represent any changes to existing City policies
Environmental Review
This is an informational report and is not a project under the California Environmental Quality
Act.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5618)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/13/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability
Summary Title: Frontier Solar Change of Control and Amendments
Title: Approval of and Authorization for the City Manager or his Designee to
Execute a Consent to Change of Control Agreement with Frontier Solar, LLC
and Amendment No. 1 to the City's Power Purchase Agreement with Frontier
Solar, LLC
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve:
1. A Consent to Change of Control Agreement (the Consent) (Attachment A) under which
the City consents to the change of upstream control of Frontier Solar, LLC (Frontier),
with whom the City has a Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA” or “Frontier PPA”), from
Ridgeline Energy, LLC (Ridgeline) to CRE-Frontier Solar California, LLC (CRE-Frontier);
2. Amendment No. 1 to the Frontier PPA (Attachment B) to account for the change in
upstream control of Frontier and to update and clarify the Force Majeure definition in
the City’s PPA with Frontier; and
3. Delegate to the City Manager or his designee the authority to execute on behalf of the
City the Consent, Amendment No. 1 to the Frontier PPA, and any documents necessary
to administer the agreements that are consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and
City Council approved policies.
Executive Summary
In June 2013, Council approved the PPA with Frontier to obtain all of the electric output of a 20
megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) electric generating facility in Stanislaus County over a
30-year term. The project is expected to come on-line by December 31, 2016.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Currently, Frontier is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ridgeline, a Seattle-based renewable energy
developer. When Ridgeline recently solicited financing for the construction of the Frontier
project, they received an attractive offer to purchase the project from Centaurus Renewable
Energy, LLC (CRE) and decided to accept it. CRE is the upstream parent of CRE-Frontier the
latter of which will be the new upstream parent of Frontier if Council approves staff’s
recommendation. Section 10.1 of the PPA requires that the City provide its written consent to
this change of control of the project.
Upon taking control of Frontier, CRE, through CRE-Frontier as the upstream parent of Frontier,
intends to continue the project development work that Ridgeline began and then finance the
construction and operation of the project using its own capital. The only modifications to the
PPA that CRE has requested are minor changes to the agreement’s financial reporting
requirements and notification contact information in order to account for the new parent
company and its corporate structure. In exchange, CRE has agreed to the City’s request to
update and clarify the definition of Force Majeure in the PPA.
Staff recommends that the Council approve the Consent and Amendment No. 1 to the PPA.
Such an action will result in a significant improvement in the credit standing of Frontier’s
corporate parent—which will improve the overall viability of the project—without causing any
resource impact on the City. The change in control proposed here also will not modify any of
the existing milestones, including the project’s online date, in the PPA.
Background
As part of ongoing efforts to meet the City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of at least 33%
of sales from qualifying renewable resources by 2015, Council approved the Frontier PPA in
June 2013 (Staff Report 3845, Resolution 9346).
The Frontier PPA included several project development “milestones” and established deadlines
for their completion. The milestones included: obtaining site control, obtaining all necessary
permits, executing interconnection agreements with the owners of the local transmission and
distribution system, obtaining construction financing, starting construction, and achieving
commercial operation. The commercial operation date (COD) deadline for the Frontier PPA is
December 31, 2016, while the deadline for obtaining construction financing is August 20, 2016.
None of these milestones are expected to differ as a result of the proposed change in control.
Discussion
In the solar industry, smaller project development companies such as Ridgeline typically follow
one of two different approaches to obtaining construction financing for projects: (1) finding a
group of investors willing to lend them capital, or (2) finding a larger project developer willing
to purchase the project outright and use its own capital to construct it. When Ridgeline
recently solicited construction financing for Frontier, it received the latter type of offer from
CRE, a Houston-based renewable energy investment firm. CRE is also the corporate parent of
EE Kettleman Land, LLC, with whom the City has another PPA for a solar PV project (Staff Report
City of Palo Alto Page 3
4710, Resolution 9436). Ridgeline intends to accept CRE’s purchase offer; however, under
Section 10.1 of the PPA, the City’s written consent is required before such change of control can
take place.
Impact on Counterparty Creditworthiness and Project Viability
Ridgeline is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Atlantic Power Corporation (Atlantic), a Boston-based
power generation and infrastructure firm with a Moody’s credit rating of B3—which is far
below investment-grade (and described as a “high credit risk”). On the other hand, CRE is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Centaurus Capital (Centaurus), which is a multi-billion dollar private
investment management company. Because it is a private company Centaurus does not have a
credit rating. CRE, however, is willing to share its financial statements for analysis by the City.
At this time, CRE appears to be a financially viable entity that can fulfill its financial and project
obligations.
And because CRE has sufficient capital to fund the construction of the Frontier project itself, the
City will not face the same risk that the project developer will be unable to obtain construction
financing that a party solely dependent on third party financing would be expected to face. For
many renewable energy projects that are developed by smaller firms, this is a key obstacle to
completing the projects. Thus, under CRE’s ownership, staff considers the Frontier project to
be far more viable.
CRE and the City’s Renewable Energy Portfolio
Should Council approve the proposed Consent, the Frontier PPA would become the City’s
second PPA with CRE acting as an upstream parent (the other being the EE Kettleman Land
project). Altogether, the two CRE PPAs would amount to 40 MW of solar PV capacity (out of the
125 MW of solar PV capacity that the City currently has under contract) and produce about 105
GWh per year (10.6% of the City’s total load, and 19.2% of the City’s RPS resources). For point
of reference, the City currently has two PPAs in place with Iberdrola that serve about 12% of
the City’s load, five PPAs with Ameresco that serve about 11% of the City’s load, and three PPAs
in place with sPower as the upstream parent that are expected to serve about 21% of the City’s
load when they come online. As otherwise noted in this report, the City has requested that CRE
provide the City with updated financial reports and has disclosed the change in control and
resultant concentration in upstream ownership to the City’s Risk Management Office for
assessment. The City’s Risk Management Office is comfortable with the change. The UAC and
Council have not expressed any concern about portfolio concentration when approving past
PPAs, and for the reasons stated above, staff believes the change in control proposed will have
a positive effect and improve Frontier’s overall viability as a project.
Proposed PPA Amendment
In order to account for the change of control of the project, the City recommends making
several modifications to the PPA. The first is a change to the financial reporting requirements
of the PPA (Section 4.2(g)). The current PPA language requires Frontier to provide the City with
quarterly and annual audited financial statements from its ultimate corporate parent, Atlantic.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Upon the change of control of the project, Frontier desires to change this requirement so that
these financial statements are provided by CRE, rather than by the ultimate corporate parent,
Centaurus, which does not have any audited financial statements. The City’s Risk Management
Office approves this change in the PPA’s financial reporting requirement language, so long as
CRE is responsible for all of Frontier’s liabilities and obligations in the event that Frontier
defaults.
The second change in the PPA’s language is simply an update of Frontier’s contact information
listed in the “Notices” section of the agreement (Section 10.3).
Finally, the City requested, and Frontier agreed to modify and clarify the Force Majeure
definition set forth in the underlying PPA, such that this definition is consistent with the Force
Majeure definition in the City’s other CRE PPA (EE Kettleman Land).
Summary
If approved by Council, the proposed Consent and Amendment to the Frontier PPA will result in
a significant improvement in the likelihood that the Frontier project will be constructed and
begin delivering low-cost renewable energy to the City next year.
If Council declines to approve the proposed Consent and Amendment No. 1, Frontier will be
forced to solicit alternative sources of construction financing for the project, and it may not be
successful in doing so. In that event, staff would need to procure additional renewable energy
to replace the energy that the Frontier project would have provided. The cost of these
replacement supplies could be significantly greater than the cost of the output from the
Frontier project.
Resource Impact
Approving the recommendation is not expected to result in any resource impact to the City, as
CRE does not intend to make any changes to the Frontier project’s size, location, construction
timeline, or other key characteristics.
Policy Implications
Approval of the Consent and the proposed Amendment is in conformance with the City’s Long-
term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP), specifically the City’s RPS target of meeting at least 33% of
the electric sales from renewable energy (Staff Report 2710). Approval of the proposed
Amendment would also further the City’s efforts to achieve a carbon neutral electric supply
portfolio entirely through the acquisition of additional “hard resources” that supply the City
with both energy and environmental attributes (Staff Report 3550).
Environmental Review
Approval of the Consent and the Amendment does not meet the definition of a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21065. However, the City intends to receive output from a project that will constitute a project
City of Palo Alto Page 5
for the purposes of CEQA. The project developer is responsible for acquiring the necessary
environmental reviews and permits on the project to be developed.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Consent to Change of Control of Frontier Solar PPA (PDF)
Attachment B: Amendment No 1 to the Frontier Solar PPA (PDF)
Execution Version
HOU:3530825.3
CONSENT TO CHANGE OF CONTROL
This CONSENT TO CHANGE OF CONTROL (“Consent”) is provided this ___ day of
_________, 2015 (“Consent Date”), by the City of Palo Alto, a California chartered municipal
corporation (“Buyer”), to Frontier Solar, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Seller”)
(collectively, the “Parties”).
WHEREAS, Buyer and Seller are parties to that certain Power Purchase Agreement,
dated as of July 10, 2013 (as may be amended, supplemented or modified from time to time, the
“PPA”);
WHEREAS, Ridgeline Energy, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Frontier
Parent”), is currently the direct owner of 100% of the equity interests in Seller;
WHEREAS, Frontier Parent intends to enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with
CRE-Frontier Solar California LLC (“CRE-Frontier”), whereby Frontier Parent will sell, and
CRE-Frontier will purchase, 100% of the equity interests in Seller (“PSA”), and such transaction
will result in a change of control under which CRE-Frontier will become the parent of Seller
(“Change of Control”); and
WHEREAS, Section 10.1 of the PPA requires Buyer’s prior written consent prior to such
a Change in Control;
NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 10.1 of the PPA, and for the benefit of
Seller and CRE-Frontier, Buyer hereby agrees as follows:
1. In accordance with Section 10.1 of the PPA, Buyer hereby consents to the Change
of Control. In connection with securing this Consent from Buyer, Seller and CRE-Frontier make
the promises, representations and warranties set forth in Section 4 herein.
2. Except as otherwise set forth herein, all terms of the PPA are in full force and
effect as of the Consent Date and the rights of Seller and Buyer thereunder shall not be modified
or prejudiced in any way by the Change of Control consented to herein.
3. Seller represents and warrants that, as of the Consent Date, it is not in default of
any requirements of the PPA.
4. Each of Seller and CRE-Frontier represents and warrants that following the
Change of Control and execution of the PSA, (i) Seller shall perform and discharge all
obligations in a manner which will meet or exceed its existing levels of performance, and (ii)
CRE-Frontier’s purchase of 100% of the equity interests in Seller will have no negative or
detrimental impact on Buyer with respect to the performance and discharge of Seller’s
obligations under the PPA.
5. The terms of Section 10.8, 10.9, 10.12, and 10.16 of the PPA are hereby
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
ATTACHMENT A
Consent to Change of Control
Frontier Solar LLC
- 2 -
HOU:3530825.3
6. This Consent is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the Parties to this
Consent and their respective designees, affiliates, successors and assigns.
7. Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the PPA.
8. Seller shall provide Buyer with written notice following the occurrence of the
Change of Control. This Consent shall only become effective as of (a) the closing of the
transactions contemplated by PSA; and (b) the execution of Amendment No. 1 to Power
Purchase Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Frontier Solar, LLC. If the Change of
Control does not occur within twenty (20) days following the Consent Date, this Consent shall be
null and void.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Consent to be executed by
each of their duly authorized representatives as of the date first written above.
BUYER
City of Palo Alto,
a California chartered municipal corporation
By: _______________________
Name:
Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney
SELLER
Frontier Solar, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: _______________________
Name:
Title:
CRE-FRONTIER SOLAR CALIFORNIA LLC,
Consent to Change of Control
Frontier Solar LLC
- 3 -
HOU:3530825.3
a Delaware limited liability company
By: _______________________
Name:
Title:
Execution Version
HOU:3530824.3
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
FRONTIER SOLAR, LLC
This Amendment No. 1 (“First Amendment”) to the Power Purchase Agreement dated July 10,
2013 (“Agreement”) is entered into as of ____________, 2015 (the “Amendment Date”), by and
between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation of the State of
California (“City” or “Buyer”), and Frontier Solar, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(“Seller”) (collectively the “Parties”).
R E C I T A L S
1. The Agreement was entered into between the Parties for the sale of energy to
Buyer from Seller’s photovoltaic solar electric generating facility with expected installed
capacity between 18 MW(ac) and 21 MW(ac) (the “Plant” as more particularly defined in the
Agreement);
2. Ridgeline Energy, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Frontier Parent”), is
currently the direct owner of 100% of the equity interests in Seller;
3.Frontier Parent intends to enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with CRE-
Frontier Solar California LLC (“CRE-Frontier”), whereby Frontier Parent will sell, and CRE-
Frontier will purchase, 100% of the equity interests in Seller (“PSA”), and such transaction will
result in a change of control under which CRE-Frontier will become the parent of Seller
(“Change of Control”);
4.Section 10.1 of the Agreement requires Buyer’s prior written consent to such a
Change in Control;
5.Seller requested Buyer’s prior written consent and Buyer provided its prior
written consent to Seller as of the Amendment Date; and
6. Buyer and Seller wish to amend the Agreement to account for the change in the
ultimate parent of Seller.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions
of this First Amendment, the Parties agree:
SECTION 1. The definition of “Force Majeure Event” is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:
“Force Majeure Event: Any act or event that delays or prevents a Party from timely
performing obligations under this Agreement or from complying with conditions
required under this Agreement to the extent that such act or event is reasonably
ATTACHMENT B
HOU:3530824.3
unforeseeable and beyond the reasonable control of and without the fault or negligence
of the Party relying thereon as justification for such delay, nonperformance, or
noncompliance.
(a) Force Majeure Events typically include:
(i) acts of God or the elements, extreme or severe weather conditions,
explosion, fire, epidemic, landslide, mudslide, sabotage, lightning,
earthquake, flood or similar cataclysmic event, acts of public enemy, war,
blockade, civil insurrection, riot, civil disturbance or strike or other labor
difficulty caused or suffered by a Party;
(ii) any restraint or restriction imposed by law or by rule, regulation or
other acts or omissions of Governmental Authorities, whether federal,
state or local which by exercise of due diligence and in compliance with
applicable law a Party could not reasonably have been expected to avoid
and to the extent which, by exercise of due diligence and in compliance
with applicable law, has been unable to overcome (so long as the
affected Party has not applied for or assisted such act by a Governmental
Authority); and
(iii) electric transmission interruptions or curtailments (not including any
such interruption or curtailment that results from the negligence or
contractual breach of the Party affected);
(b) The term “Force Majeure Event” does not include:
(i) economic conditions that render a Party’s performance of this
Agreement at the Price unprofitable or otherwise uneconomic (including
Buyer’s ability to buy Energy or Environmental Attributes at a lower price,
or Seller’s ability to sell Energy or Environmental Attributes at a higher
price, than the Price);
(ii) a governmental act by Buyer that delays or prevents Buyer from
timely performing its obligations under this Agreement;
(iii) a Plant equipment failure, except any such failure caused by an event
or circumstance that meets the requirements set forth in this “Force
Majeure Event” definition;
(iv) failure or delay in grant of Permits, except, in any case, if caused by
an event or circumstance that meets the requirements set forth in this
“Force Majeure Event” definition;
HOU:3530824.3
(v) Discretionary Curtailment or Economic Curtailment; or
(vi) failures or delays by the Participating TO and/or the CAISO in entering
into, or performing under, any agreements with Seller contemplated by
this Agreement.”
SECTION 2. Section 4.2(g) is amended by deleting such Section 4.2(g) and replacing it
with the following:
“No later than April 30, 2015, Seller shall provide to Buyer a copy of Centaurus
Renewable Energy LLC’s most current annual financial statements available. Thereafter, from
time to time at the request of Buyer (no more frequently than annually), Seller shall provide to
Buyer a copy of Centaurus Renewable Energy LLC’s most current annual financial statements,
within four (4) months following the end of each fiscal year of Seller, including audited
statements prepared in accordance with GAAP if available, including for all periods of time
during the Term after the Plant achieves Commercial Operation. Additionally, by no later than
forty-five (45) days after the end of each fiscal quarter, Seller shall also provide an unaudited
quarterly financial statement of Seller and Centaurus Renewable Energy LLC. Such quarterly
financial statements shall be certified by an officer of Centaurus Renewable Energy LLC as fairly
presenting the financial condition of Centaurus Renewable Energy LLC subject only to what
would typically be included in year-end audit adjustments and footnotes.”
SECTION 3. Section 10.3 is amended to replace the contact information for Frontier
Solar, LLC within said section with the contact information listed below. The remainder of
section 10.3 shall otherwise remain in full force and effect.
“Frontier Solar, LLC
c/o Centaurus Renewable Energy LLC
2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 225
Houston, Texas 77056
Attn: Keith Holst
Email: kholst@centcap.net
Telephone: (713) 554-0539
With a copy to:
Frontier Solar, LLC
c/o Centaurus Renewable Energy LLC
2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 225
Houston, Texas 77056
Attn: Stephen Douglas
Email: sdouglas@centaurusenergy.com
Telephone: (713) 554-1352
With a copy to:
HOU:3530824.3
Andrews Kurth LLP
600 Travis Street, Suite 4200
Houston, Texas 77002
Attention: Peter del Vecchio
Email: PdelVecchio@andrewskurth.com
Telephone: 713-220-3901”
SECTION 4. All capitalized terms used but not defined, or otherwise modified herein
shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Agreement.
SECTION 5. Except as modified by this First Amendment, all other provisions of the
Agreement, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments, shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION 6. Seller shall provide Buyer with written notice following the occurrence of
the Change of Control. This First Amendment shall only become effective as of the closing of
the transactions contemplated by PSA. If the Change of Control does not occur within twenty
(20) days following the Amendment Date, this Amendment shall expire and be null and void.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this First Amendment as of the Amendment Date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney
APPROVED:
__________________________
Director of Utilities
____________________________
City Manager
FRONTIER SOLAR, LLC
By:____________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:___________________________
By:____________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:___________________________
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
April 13, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Staff Recommendation to Initiate a Special Recruitment to Fill One
Unscheduled Vacancy on the Architectural Review Board
DISCUSSION
On March 2, 2015 the City Clerk’s Department was notified that Catherine Ballantyne had
resigned from the Architectural Review Board. Her term would not have ended until October
31, 2017.
The City Council on August 12, 2013 approved revisions to the Board and Commission
Recruitment Program to allow two scheduled recruitments per year (spring and fall). Any
resignation that occurred during the year was to be brought to the City Council for a
determination on whether to hold a special recruitment to fill the vacancy or wait until the next
scheduled recruitment (see Municipal Code Section 2.16.010 excerpted below).
The City Clerk’s Office is scheduled to conduct a recruitment this fall, which would include three
terms on the Architectural Review Board, three terms on the Parks and Recreation Commission
and one term on the Planning and Transportation Commission.
Deferring the recruitment for this unscheduled vacancy until the fall sets up the potential for a
change to four of the five Architectural Review Board Members at one time. Board continuity
could be diminished under such a scenario.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council direct the City Clerk to initiate a special recruitment to fill
this unexpired term on the Architectural Review Board.
MUNICIPAL CODE EXCERPT
2.16.010 Vacancies
Any vacancy occurring in the membership of any board or commission may remain vacant until
the next regularly scheduled recruitment for that board or commission or may be filled at any
time by special recruitment, at the discretion of the City Council.
(Ord. 5208 § 1, 2013: Ord. 2146 (part), 1963: prior code § 2.250.1
Page 2
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
Page 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
April 13, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees:
Adoption of Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.58 Implementing New
Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility Impact Fees
And Direction to Draft Resolution Setting Initial Impact Fee Rates at 75
Percent of Levels Identified in Nexus Study (First Reading: December
15, 2014 PASSED: 9-0)
This ordinance was first heard on December 15, 2014 and is now being brought back for the
second reading. No changes were made during the first reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Ordinance Implementing Public Safety and Government Facility Impact Fee
(PDF)
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
Page 2
NOT YET APPROVED
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter
16.58 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Establishing a Public Safety
Facility Development Fee and a General Government Facility
Development Fee
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares that:
(a) Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code authorizes the City to
levy fees upon development projects to defray all or a portion of the costs of public
improvements and public services related to the development project. Such fees are
commonly known as “development impact fees.”
(b) The City currently imposes development impact fees to fund a portion of the
costs of park, community center, and library facilities that will serve new developments.
(c) New developments also are served by public safety facilities and general
government facilities.
(d) The City Council desires to impose development impact fees to fund a portion of
the costs of such facilities.
SECTION 2. Chapter 16.58 of the Municipal Code, which is currently captioned as
“Chapter 16.58 Development Impact Fees for Parks, Community Centers and Libraries” is
recaptioned as “Chapter 16.58 Development Impact Fees”
SECTION 3. Chapter 16.58 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by
adding Section 16.58.080 to read as follows:
“Section 16.58.080 – Public Safety and Government Facility Fees
(a) In addition to the fees established by Section 16.58.020, the following fees are
hereby established and shall be imposed as a condition of the approval of, or permit for, any
new development, whether residential or nonresidential, except as otherwise exempted by this
chapter: (i) a Public Safety Facility Development Fee, to fund police and fire facilities (including
fire apparatus and vehicles) and (ii) a General Government Facility Development Fee, to fund
facilities associated with municipal administration.
(b) The fees imposed by this section shall be charged in in an amount as set forth in
the municipal fee schedule.
1
141208 jb 0131291
NOT YET APPROVED
(c) A Public Safety Facility Development Fee Fund and a General Government
Facility Development Fee Fund are hereby established. Such funds shall be administered in
connection with the fees imposed by this section in the manner set forth in Section 16.58.050.
(d) Any fee imposed by this section shall be effective on the sixty-first day following
the adoption of an ordinance or resolution amending the municipal fee schedule to include a
rate for that fee.”
SECTION 4. If any provision or clause of this ordinance or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity shall not affect any other provision or clause of this ordinance, and to that end, the
provisions and clauses of this ordinance are severable.
SECTION 5. 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:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
2
141208 jb 0131291
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5620)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/13/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: City Hall Wayfinding Contract
Title: Approval of a Construction Contract with Express Sign & Neon, Inc. Not
To Exceed $327,558 for the Wayfinding Portion of the City Hall Remodel
Project PE-12017
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
1. Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or
his designee to execute the attached contract with Express Sign & Neon,
Inc. in the amount of $297,780 (Attachment A) for the wayfinding portion
of the City Hall First Floor Renovations Project (PE-12017); and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or
more change orders to the contract with Express Sign & Neon, Inc. for
related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the
project, the total value of which shall not exceed $29,778.
Executive Summary
This report recommends approval of a contract for completion of the wayfinding
scope of work for the City Hall First Floor Renovations Project. Although the cost
of the contract exceeds the construction cost estimate by seven percent, the
wayfinding work was part of the total project cost described in Staff Report
Number 4754 (Attachment E) in June 2014. Staff Report Number 4754 also
explained that the wayfinding work would be bid as a separate construction
contract to be considered for approval by Council at a later date.
Background
Palo Alto City Hall is currently undergoing an extensive remodel to the first floor
City of Palo Alto Page 2
for public uses, and resultant modifications to the mezzanine and second floor
under the City Hall Remodel Capital Improvement Program project (PE-12017). A
portion of the remodel includes wayfinding, building signage and garage signage.
The scope of the remodel, including the need for wayfinding improvements, can
be reviewed in Staff Report Number 4754 from June 2014 (Attachment E). Staff
Report Number 4754 included the approval of the construction contract with D. L.
Falk for the City Hall Remodel project, but identified the wayfinding component as
a separate scope of work that would be conducted under a subsequent
construction contract.
When Staff Report Number 4754 was reviewed by the Council in June 2014, the
wayfinding design for exterior signage was awaiting review by the Architectural
Review Board (ARB). On August 21, 2014, the exterior signage was approved by
the ARB and subsequently approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment on September 4, 2014 (Exhibit B). Thereafter, an Invitation for Bids
(IFB) was issued to procure the services of a specialty signage fabrication and
installation contractor.
Discussion
Scope Overview
The scope of work for the attached construction contract includes exterior,
interior, and garage signage as follows:
1) Exterior signage encompasses the area surrounding the building including
the plaza, garage entrances and exits, portals over the main lobby and
Police entrances and a large monument along Hamilton Avenue near
Bryant Street.
2) Interior signage involves directories at elevator lobbies and within the
elevator cabs; and signage in hallways directing the public to room
locations and departments. The interior signage improvements include
changing the name of the current Mezzanine level to Second Floor, with
the current floors Two through Eight becoming floors Three through Nine.
This change is in agreement with current accessibility requirements for new
buildings and is expected to reduce frequent confusion about the
mezzanine level.
3) Garage signage includes signs on columns and on elevator and stairwell
wall enclosures.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The building will remain functional during the course of the project and work in
the garage will be sequenced to minimize impacts on parking.
Bid Process
Notices inviting formal bids for the City Hall Signage and Graphics project were
posted at City Hall and sent to 15 contractors on December 31, 2014. The bidding
period was 49 days. Bids were received from three qualified contractors on
February 17, 2015.
Summary of Bid Process
Bid Name/Number City Hall Signage & Graphics – IFB 157657
Proposed Length of Project 125 calendar days
Number of Bid Packages
Mailed to Contractors
15
Number of Builder’s
Exchanges Receiving Bid
Packages
14
Total Days to Respond to Bid 49
Pre-Bid Meeting January 27, 2015
Number of Company
Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting
17 firms attended with the requirement of a C-45
specialty license (electric signage)
Number of Bids Received: 4 bids received, 1 of which was deemed
incomplete and non-responsive
Base Bid Price Range $297,786 to $390,050
*The submitted bid form from Express Signs & Neon, Inc., along with the IFB Bid
Summary are included as Exhibits C and D.
Staff reviewed the submitted bids and recommends that Express Sign & Neon,
Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. Staff recommends that the City
award a contract in the amount of the Base Bid ($297,786). The base bid is 7%
greater than the construction cost estimate for the scope of work included. A
contingency amount of $29,779, equal to 10 percent of the total contract, is
requested for unforeseen conditions which may be discovered during
construction.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor’s State License Board that the contractor has
an active license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for
City of Palo Alto Page 4
previous work performed and found their projects were similar to this project and
completed to the satisfaction of the owners.
Timeline
The construction of the wayfinding and signage upgrades to the City Hall building
and garage are to be completed within 125 calendar days of the commencement
date specified in the City’s Notice to Proceed.
Resource Impact
As discussed, in June 2014, the City Council approved the funding for the City Hall
Remodel Contract (CMR #4754). At that time, the cost for wayfinding including
contingency was estimated at $307,450. As part of this report, staff recommends
awarding the contract to Express Sign & Neon, Inc. in the amount of $297,780.
With the 10% recommended contingency, the contract award totals $327,558,
which is approximately $20,000 higher than originally anticipated. Although,
there is an additional cost for this contract, sufficient funding is available in the
City Hall First Floor Renovations project (PE-12017) for this contract. The
wayfinding contract includes new signs in the Civic Center garage with a cost of
$156,400. Therefore, as part of closing out the Fiscal Year 2015 budget, staff will
bring forward a recommendation to reimburse the Capital Improvement Fund
from the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund for that amount.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
Environmental Review (If Applicable)
This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Sections 15301 and 15302 of the CEQA guidelines as an alteration
to an existing facility and no further environmental review is necessary.
Attachments:
A - Express Sign and Neon Contract (DOCX)
B - Signed ARB approval (PDF)
C - Express Sign and Neon Bid Form (PDF)
D - Bid Summary for IFB 157657 (XLS)
E - ID#4754 City Hall Remodel Contract 6-16-14 (PDF)
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C15157657
City of Palo Alto
And
Express Sign and Neon, Inc.
PROJECT
City Hall Signage & Graphics Project
Attachment A
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. February 2015
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………………………………………………………………………………..6
3.1 List of Documents……………………………………………………………………………………………..........6
3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......6
SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..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…………………………………………………………………………………………………8
6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….8
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….8
7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………8
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
9.1 Hold Harmless………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
9.2 Survival……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION………………………………………………………………………………………..9
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS…………………………………………………………………………………….9
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS…………………………………………………………………..10
SECTION 13 NOTICES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………10
13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………10
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….11
SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...11
14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default………………………………………………………………………………..11
SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..12
15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….12
15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….12
15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..12
15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract………………………………………………………………..12
15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default……………………………………………12
15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….12
15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….12
15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….12
15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..13
15.3.2 Compensation for Losses………………………………………………………………………………….13
15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….13
15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..13
15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..13
15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14
15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….14
15.5.2 Subcontractors…………………………………………………………………………………………………14
15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………..14
SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………..15
16.1 Contractor’s Remedies………………………………………………………………………………………….15
16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………15
16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….15
16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..15
SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS……………………………………………………………………………………15
17.1 Financial Management and City Access……………………………………………………………….15
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….16
SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..16
SECTION 19 NUISANCE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………16
SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….16
SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16
SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE………………………………………………………………………….16
SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………17
SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..17
SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….17
SECTION 26 NON APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….17
SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….17
SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………18
SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES ………………………………………………….18
SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION…………………………………………………….18
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on April 13, 2015 (“Execution Date”) by and between the
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and Express Sign & Neon
("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 California Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of
California, Contractor’s License Numbers 643841/979879. 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 December 31, 2014, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the City Hall
Signage and Graphics (“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 Contract 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 City Hall Signage and Graphics Project, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA.
94301 ("Project").
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
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 Orders
3) Contract
4) Bidding Addenda
5) Special Provisions
6) General Conditions
7) Project Plans and Drawings
8) Technical Specifications
9) Instructions to Bidders
10) Invitation for Bids
11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents
13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at
time of Bid)
14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current
version at time of Bid)
15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
18) Performance and Payment Bonds
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
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best
interests of the City.
SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY.
Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract
Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all
things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not
limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless
otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete
the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards
required by the Contract Documents.
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 Contract
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 125 calendar days () after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to
Proceed.
By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early
completion.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial
Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions
thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in
achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of Five Hundred dollars ($500.00) per
day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be
separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract
Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The
assessment of liquidated damages 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. The City is entitled to
setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to
Contractor, including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of
liquidated damages assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to
recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in
part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess
liquidated damages.
6.4.1 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 memorialized
in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the
Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Two Hundred Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred
and Eighty Dollars ($297,780).
[This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Alternates .]
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, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted
for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers
(hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as
"Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss,
damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees,
paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every
nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees,
Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with
any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence,
sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs
City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, 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.
Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of
any third-party claim relating to the Contract.
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.
Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with
evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all
requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance 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, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract
and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City.
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, Change Order Requests and
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: Matt Raschke
AND
[Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.]
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
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:
Express Sign and Neon, Inc.
1720 W. Slauson Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90047
Attn: Frank Bang
13.3 Change of Address.
In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City 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 DEFAULT.
14.1 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, with a copy to
Contractor’s performance bond surety.
14.2 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.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
15.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth
above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including,
without limitation, the following:
15.1.1 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.
15.1.2 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.
15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses
related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of
time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no
obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor
for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work.
15.1.4 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 14. 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.
15.1.5 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.
15.1.6 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.
15.2 Delays by Sureties.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange
for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar
days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have
waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make
arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a
replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the
circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally liable for any additional cost
incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right
to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the
Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work.
15.3 Damages to City.
15.3.1 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.
15.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City
shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor.
If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the
difference and shall promptly remit same to City.
15.4 Suspension by City
15.4.1 Suspension 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.
15.4.2 Suspension for Cause.
In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in
accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion
thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction.
Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension
occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to
suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend
the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of
the Contract Documents.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
15.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or
in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s
expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and
demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 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. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve
Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the
Work performed by Contractor.
15.5.1 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 15.5.1, 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:
(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.
.4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of
the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if
the Construction Contract had not been terminated.
15.5.2 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.
15.6 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
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
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.
Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract
Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees,
submittals of as-built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations
arising prior to the termination date.
SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
16.1.1 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.
16.1.2 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.
16.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided
for in Paragraph 15.5.1 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 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
17.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary
for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business
hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports,
ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
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.
17.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 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 17.1 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no
other place.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 23 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 24 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 25 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. This Project remains subject to all
other applicable provisions of the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder.
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 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 26 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 27 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.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. February 2015
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties,
constitute a single binding agreement.
SECTION 29 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.
SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES.
With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents,
the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City,
unless otherwise required by law.
SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION.
Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware
of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against
liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that
code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this
Contract.”
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
Express Sign and Neon
By:___________________________
Name:___Frank Bang____________
Title:____President______________
Date: _________________________
ATTACHMENT A .
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
250 Hamilton Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00053
The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings
for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76.
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be made in the affinnative in that the project
incorporates quality design that confonns with policies that encourage high quality
design that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with
aesthetic needs.
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can
be made in the affinnative in that the proposed design of the signage is appropriate for,
the downtown retail/commercial setting.
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project, This finding can be made in the
affinnative in that the installation is not excessive for the intended civic use.
(4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character, This finding can be made in
the affinnative in that the project is generally consistent with the Downtown Urban
Design Guide and is pedestrian oriented.
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses, This finding is not applicable to this project.
(6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site, This
finding can be made in the affinnative in that the project is compatible in scale and
design with the City Hall use and the surrounding commercial sites.
(7) The planning and siting of the various jUnctions and buildings on the 'site create an
internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and
the general community. This finding is not applicable to this sign project. However, the
proposed sign program will enhance wayfinding for visitors to City Hall.
(8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the des)gn and the
jUnction of the structures, This finding is not applicable to this sign project.
(9) Sufficient ancillary jUnctions are provided to support the main functions of the project
and the same are compatible with the project's design concept, This finding is not
applicable to this sign project.
(l0) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicles, This finding is not applicable to this sign project.
Page 1 of2
ATTACHMENT A
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This
finding is not applicable to this sign project as no natural features will be changed.
(12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are
appropriate expression to the design and function. This finding can be made in the
affirmative, in that the proposed signs utilize a uniform pattern of colors and materials
that are compatible with and complementary to the City Hall building, see Findings 2,
3, and 4 above.
(13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses,
open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and
fUnctional environment. This finding is not applicable to this sign project.
(14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly
maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to
reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. This finding is not
applicable to this sign project.
(15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient,
water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled
content materials. This finding is not applicable to this sign project. The scope of the
project is small and there is limited opportunity to incorporate green building design
into the sign installations.
(16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set
forth in subsection 18. 76.020(a). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project design promotes wayfinding with visual environments that are of high aesthetic
quality and variety.
Page 2 of2
DRAFT
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
SIGN CODE EXCEPTION
250 Hamilton Avenue / File No. l4PLN-00053
ATTACHMENT B'
The following findings have been made to support the sign exception request for the proposed City
Hall master sign program, as modified by the ARB approval conditions. The specific exceptions that
have been requested are for the following standards:
Requested Sign Exceptions:
• Freestanding Monument sign (AAl) -exceeds allowed square footage
• Freestanding Portal sign (AA2 Option 7B) -above allowed height limit and exceeds allowed
square footage, exceeds number of freestanding signs allowed on one frontage
• Police Department ID (AA3) -above allowed height limit and exceeds allowed square footage
• Pedestrian Directional (AD!) -above allowed height limit and includes the name of the
business
• Elevator & Stair ID @ Hamilton & Forest (AA4) -above allowed height limit, exceeds
allowed square footage, and includes the name of the business
• Informational Panel (CA3) -above allowed height limit and exceeds allowed square footage
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district.
The project site is City Hall, and due to its civic nature and unique and specific function, City Hall
would be considered an exceptional use that is not found at other sites within the downtown or at
any other site within the City.
(2) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
. hardships.
Civic engagement is an integral part of the functions of the City of Palo Alto. The proposed sign
promote wayfinding, which is a priority for users in need of government services.
(3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience.
The project will be constructed in accordance with all building code requirements of the City of
Palo Alto and will be neither detrimental nor injurious to surrounding properties, public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience. The proposed signs will enhance wayfinding within the
City Hall complex and will have minimal impacts to the site as perceived by the neighboring
properties.
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
250 Hamilton Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00053
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
On August 21, 2014 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the application
referenced above, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the
project on September 4,2014.
Project Planner: Jodie Gerhardt, AICP
Planning Division
1. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents
received August 14, 2014, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
a. Option 7B (portal) shall be used for the front entrance. If this option is not feasible, the
applicant shall return to the ARB for review of additional alternatives. The alternative
could likely be agenized on the consent calendar.
b. No portals shall be used at the garage entrances. Therefore, the garage signs shall match
the upper portion of Sheet 14A.
2. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits
related to this project.
3. All future signs shall conform to the approved dimensions of the Master Sign Program. The final
text for all signs shall be submitted to the Project Planner for review and approval prior to
installation.
4. For any future changes to the signdimensions, an Architectural Review application must be filed for
review and approval.
5. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In
the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit
specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for
extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration.
6. Indemnity: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and
the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for 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.
Urban Forestry
7. . Tree preservation & root protection. During excavation of grass/soil, for any root encountered over
one inch (I-inch) diameter, Contractor shall request site inspection by Urban Forestry
(dorothy.dale@cityofpaloalto.org, 650-496-5953) for root pruning direction.
BID APPROX. UNI DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT PRICE TOTAL ITEM
ITEM QTY T (EACH BID ITEM SHALL INCLUDE ALL APPLICABLE TAXES, PROFIT, PRICE
INSURANCE, BONDS, AND OTHER OVERHEAD)
006 2 EA CA2/Parking Entry ID, Clearance: $6,400.00 $12,800.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Six Thousand Four Hundred Dollars. )
007 2 EA CA311nformationai Panel: $500.00 $1,000.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Five Hundred Dollars. )
OOB 200 EA CA4/Column Graphics: $300.00 $ 60,000.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Three Hundred Dollars. )
009 2 EA CA5e/City Hall Elevator Core Graphics: $4,000.00 $ 8,000.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Four Thousand Dollars. )
010 2 EA CA5i/City Hall Elevator Core Graphics Interior Lobby: $2,000.00 $4,000.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Two Thousand Dollars. )
011 1 EA CA6/Level P1 City Hall Lobby Entry Graphics: $2,000.00 $2,000.00
(Unit Price in Words: I
Two Thousand Dollars. )
012 3 EA CA7/Elevator Core Graphics: $2,000.00 $ 6,000.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Two Thousand Dollars. )
013 3 EA CAB/Stair Core Graphics @ Hamilton Ave.: $2,000.00 $ 6,000.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Two Thousand Dollars. )
014 4 EA CA9/Stair Core Graphics @ Forest Ave.: $2,000.00 $ 8,000.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Two Thousand Dollars. )
__________ ~lllnv~iwta~t~ioHnuf~o~r~B~idL(~IFoB~)~#ul~5~7~6~57LLP~acwk~a~g~e----------~2~--------------------~ya~2014
PART 3 -BID FORM AND BIDDER'S DOCUMENTS
BID APPROX. UNI DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT PRICE TOTAL ITEM
ITEM QTY T (EACH BID ITEM SHALL INCLUDE ALL APPLICABLE TAXES, PROFIT, PRICE
INSURANCE, BONDS, AND OTHER OVERHEAD)
015 1 EA CB1/Parking Informational: $N/A $N/A
(Unit Price in Words:
N/Ai No information given. )
016 23 EA CD1/0verhead Directional: $400.00 $ 9,200.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Four Hundred Dollars. )
017 3 EA CD1 h/Overhead Directional: Hanging Version: $1,800.00 $ 5,400.00
(Unit Price in Words:
One Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars. )
018 24 EA CD2/Pedestrian Directional: $1,400.00 $ 33,600.00
(Unit Price in Words:
One Thousand Four Hundred. )
019 4 EA CD3/Do Not Enter: $100.00 $ 400.00
(Unit Price in Words:
One Hundred Dollars. )
020 1 EA BA 1/Community Station ID: $1,000.00 $1,000.00
(Unit Price in Words:
One Thousand Dollars. )
021 1 EA BA4/Community Room ID: $2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Two Thousand Dollars. )
022 2 EA BA2/Soffit ID Directional: $2,500.00 $ 5,000.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Two Thousand Five Hundred. )
023 1 EA BA3/Service Window ID: $800.00 $ 800.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Eight Hundred Dollars. )
Invitation for Bid (IFB) #157657 Package _____ ~ ___ 3 _____ ~_ __ _____ ~R~e~v.~Janua~~~20~1=4L-------
PART 3 -BID FORM AND BIDDER'S DOCUMENTS
BID APPROX. UNI DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT PRICE TOTAL ITEM
ITEM QTY T (EACH BID ITEM SHALL INCLUDE ALL APPLICABLE TAXES, PROFIT, PRICE
INSURANCE, BONDS, AND OTHER OVERHEAD)
024 19 EA BB1 Elevator Lobby Directory & Directional: $1,800.00 $ 34,200.00
(Unit Price in Words:
One Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars. )
025 3 EA BB2/Elevator Cab Directory: $1,000.00 $ 3,000.00
(Unit Price in Words:
One Thousand Dollars. )
026 9 EA BC1lWomen's Restroom Door & Wall: $220.00 $1,980.00
(Unit Price in Words:
Two Hundred and Twent~ Dollars. )
027 9 EA BC2/Men's Restroom Door & Wall: $220.00 $1,980.00
. (Unit Price in Words:
Two Hundred and Twent~ Dollars. )
028 24 EA New Level Identification Insignias on Elevator $80.00 $1,920.00
Exterior Posts on Levels 1, P1, P2, and P3 (Include
Demo of 24 Existing. (Starto be on Level 1)
(Unit Price in Words:
Eight~ Dollars. )
029 24 EA Replace Existing Interior Elevator Cab Buttons A, $80.00 $1,920.00
B, C, and 1 with P1, P2, P3, and (Star 1)
(Unit Price in Words:
Eigh!}! Dollars. )
030 1 LS Remove all redundant signage that is replaced by $ Included $ Included
new signs including but not limited to Front Door
Signs, Signage over garage entrance, stairwells,
garage columns, and grounds. Repair and paint
to match original existing area. Note: Exclude
police signage at stairway handrail from this bid
item.
(Unit Price in Words:
Included in Base Bid Total. )
Invitation for Bid (IFB) #157657 Package 4 Rev lanllary 2014
PART 3 -BID FORM AND BIDDER'S DOCUMENTS
BID APPROX. UNI DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT PRICE TOTAL ITEM
ITEM QTY T (EACH BID ITEM SHALL INCLUDE ALL APPLICABLE TAXES, PROFIT, PRICE
INSURANCE, BONDS, AND OTHER OVERHEAD)
031 1 LS Remove Existing Police Directional Sign that is $ Included $ Included
mounted to stairway handrail. Repair and Paint
Stairway handrail to match original exiting
condition.
(Unit Price in Words:
Included in Base Bid Total. )
032 1 LS Provide Timer(s) for all lighted signs similar to $ Included $ Included
TORKEWZ103
(Unit Price in Words:
Ingly!;l!il!;l in BS!§!il Bi!;l TQts!1. )
Base Bid Total (items 001 through 032) $297,780.00
(Total in words: Two Hundred Nine!y Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Eigh!y Dollars.)
D. Addenda
During the Bid process there may be changes to the Contract Documents, which would require an
issuance of an addendum or addenda. City disclaims any and all liability for loss, or damage to any Bidder
who does not receive any addendum issued by City in connection with this IFB. Any Bidder in submitting a
Bid is deemed to waive any and all claims and demands Bidder may have against City on account of the
failure of delivery of any such addendum to Bidder. Any and all addenda issued by City shall be deemed
included in this IFB, and the provisions and instructions therein contained shall be incorporated to any Bid
submitted by Bidder.
To assure that all Bidders have received each addendum, the following acknowledgment and sign-off is
required. Failure to acknowledge receipt of an addendum/addenda may be considered an irregularity in
the Bid: .
Addendum: Date Received: Addendum: Date Received:
#01 01/23/2015 #05
#02 02/03/2015 #06
#03 02/12/2015 #07
#04 #08
Or, 0 __ No Addendum/Addenda Were Received (check and initial).
E. The Bidder represents that it has not retained a person to solicit or secure a City contract (upon an
agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee) except for
retention of bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial selling agencies for the purpose of
securing business.
_____ ~ln'."v~it~at .... io"_'n~f'_':o"_r_'"B"'id"__(1"IF'_'B"_1)~#~1""_5'__'76..,.5"-,7--,P,-"a,-,"c~ka,,,!gi<:e,-----____ ---",,5,--· __________ Rev--lanuaqt-20l44 _______ _
PART 3 -BID FORM AND BIDDER'S DOCUMENTS
F. Bidder's Representations and Warranties. The Bidder represents and warrants:
1. That any information submitted by the Bidder prior to the award of Contract, or thereafter, upon
request, whether or not submitted under a continuing obligation by the terms of the Contract to do so, is
true and correct at the time such information is submitted or made available to the City;
2. That the Bidder has not colluded, conspired, or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any person in
regard to the terms and conditions of the Bidder's Bid, except as may be permitted by this Invitation for
Bids;
3. That the Bidder has the power and authority to enter into this Contract with the City, that the
individual(s) executing this Contract are duly authorized to do so by appropriate resolution (if applicable),
and that this Contract shall be executed, delivered and performed pursuant to the power and authority
conferred upon the person or persons authorized to bind the Bidder;
4. That the Bidder has not attempted to exert undue influence with the Purchasing Manager or
Project Manager or any other person who has directly participated in the decision to award the Contract
to the Bidder;
5. That the Bidder has furnished and will furnish true and accurate statements, records, reports,
resolutions, certifications, and other written information as may be requested of the Bidder by the City
during the term of this Contract;
6. That the Bidder and all its subcontractors performing work on this Project are duly licensed as a
contractor with the State of California as required by California Business & Professions Code Section 7028,
as amended;
7. That the Bidder has fully examined and inspected the Project site and has full knowledge of the
physical conditions of the Project site; and,
8. That there are no claims or disputes between the Bidder and the City which would materially
affect the Bidder's ability to perform under the Contract.
F. Bidder's Designated Contact Person
Name: Frank & Son. Inc. dba Express Sign & Neon
Title: President
Phone: (323) 291-3333
Fax: (323) 291-3704
Email: edgar.esn@hotmail.com
By submitting a Bid, the Bidder acknowledges that it has received the Instructions to Bidders and agrees to its
terms and to the terms of all other Contract Documents.
Firm: ~Sign&Neon
Signature*:
Name: . Frank Bang
* The signatory represents and warrants that he or she has the legal capacity and authority to bind the Bidder.
______ ~--~ln~v~it~a~ti~0~n~fo~r~B~id~(I~FB~)u#~1~5~7M65~7LDPa~c~k~ag~e~ ________ ~6L-__________________ ~R~e~v~.J~~1~4~--------------
PART 3 -BID FORM AND BIDDER'S DOCUMENTS
----_.---------_ .. -----------------------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Subcontractor Listing
H. Reference Section 4100, et seq., of the Public Contract Code: identify the name, and business address,
and California contractor license numberof each Subcontractor performing work (under this IFB) that has
a value in excess of one-half of one percent of the Bidder's total Bid price, or, in the case of bids or offers
for the construction of streets or highways, including bridges, in excess of one-half of 1 percent of the
prime contractor's total bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever is greater. Also identify the
portion of the Work that will be performed by such Subcontractor. After opening of Bids, no changes or
substitutions will be allowed except as otherwise provided by law. The listing of more than one
Subcontractor for each item of work to be performed with the words 'and/or' will not be permitted.
Failure to comply with this requirement may render the Bid as non·responsive and may cause its
rejection. list all such Subcontractors below, or on additional sheets, as required.
Or, 0 ___ . Subcontractors will not perform work, provide labor, or render services in or about the work
covered by this IFB (check and initial).
NAME/BUSINESS ADDRESS CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR LICENSE
CONTACT/TELEPHONE NUMBER PORTION OF WORK
Waterproofing Associates Inc. 649862 Waterproofing service.
Safe2core ., 940453 Concrete scanning service.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. January 2014
PART 3 -BID FORM AND BIDDER'S DOCUMENTS
.'
BID BOND
#11-803-017
CONTRACTOR: {Insert name, legal status, and complete business address (principal place of business),
SURffi: (Insert name, legal status, and complete business address (principal place of business),
Surety warrants that it is a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California,
OWNER: City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
BOND AMOUNT: (Insert the amount of this Bid Bond in numbers and words)
$ 10%
PROJECT:
_T_e_n __ P_e_r_'_c_e_n_t __ o_f __ b_i_d __ a_m_o_u_n_t_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-__ i_n ___ Dollars and
_____ Cents
The Bond Amount set forth above shall be the penal sum ("penalty qmount") of TEN PERCENT
(10%) of the maximum amount of the Bid Proposal submitted by Contractor to Owner, inclusive
of additive and/or alternate bid items, if any, and be paid in lawful money of the United States of
America, Contactor has submitted the accompanying Bid Proposal to Owner for the Project
described below, The Bid Proposal must be accompanied by Bid Security,
(Insert the name, location or address, and project number (if applicable) oj the Project to which this Bid Bond
applies,
Contractor has. purchased this Bid Bond from Surety as a guarantee to Owner that Contractor will honor'
its bid and execl,Jtl=all contract documents)f awarded the contract by Owner. Contractor and Suretyare bound to
Owner in the amount set forth above (the Bond Amount), Under the provision s and conditions ofthis Bid Bond,
Contractor and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and
severally, for the payment of the Bond Amount.
The conditi9ns of this Bid Bond are such 'that if within ten (10) days of issuance of the Notice of Award, or
within such time period as may be agreed to by Owner and Contractor, and Contractor either:
1) enters into a contract with Owner in accordance with the terms of its Bid and gives such bond(s)
as may be specified the Contract Documents, with a surety admitted in the jurisdiction of the Project and
otherwise acceptable to the Owner, for the faithful performance of such Contract and for the prompt
payment of labor and materials furnished in the prosecution of the Contract; or
2) fails to do so and pays to Owner the difference, not to exceed the amount of this Bid Bond,
between the amount specified in said bid and such larger amount for which Owner may in good faith
contract with another party to perform the work covered by said bid,
then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise this obligation shall remain in full force and effect.
Surety herby waives any notice of an agreement between Owner and Contractor to extend the time in
which Owner may accept the bid. Waiver of such notice by Surety shall not apply to any time extensions which
exceed sixty (60) calendar days after award of contract as specified in the Contract Documents, Owner and
Contractor shall obtain Surety's consent for any time extension beyond sixty (60) days,
For value received, Surety stipulates and agrees that no change, alteration or addition to the terms of the
Contract or the Invitation for Bid, the Work to be performed thereunder, the Drawings or the Specifications
accompanying the same, or any other portion of the Contract Documents shall in anY-"'La'l...-affect-it.s-GtJl.j.g.atisHgc--------
under this Bond. Surety hereby waives notice of any such change, alteration or addition to the terms of said
Contract, the Invitation for Bid, the Work, the Drawings or the Specifications, or any other portion of the Contract
Documents. .
Invitation for Bid,OFB) Package 22 Rev. January 2014
PART 3 -BID FORM AND BIDDER'S DOCUMENTS
BIDDER'S QUESTIONNAIRE
PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW OR INDICATE "NOT APPLICABLE", IF APPROPRIATE
NAME OF BIDDER (COMPANY) ADDRESS
Frank & Son, Inc. 1720 W. Slauson Ave.
Express Sign & Neon Los Angeles, CA 90047
Website:
EsnCo.Net
Phone Number: Fax Number:
(800) 481-7700 . (323) 291-3704
(323) 291-3333 Email:
edgar.esn@hotmail.com
A. Bidder is a:
~ California Corporation
o Corporation organized under the laws of the State of ___ C=alc:.:.ifo;:.:r..:.;n.:.:ia=--___ _
with head offices located at 1720 W. Slauson Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90047.
and offices in California at 1720 W. Slauson Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90047.
o Limited Liability Company
List names of general partners; state which partneror partners are managing partner(s)
o Sole Proprietorship
o Partnership
o Limited Liability Partnership
List names of general partners; state which partner or partners are managing partner(s)
o Other (attach Addendum with explanatory details)
B. How many years have you (or your company) done business under the name listed above?
24 years.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 28 Rev. January 2014
PART 3 -BID FORM AND BIDDER'S DOCUMENTS
C. How many years of experience similar to work or services covered in this IFB? 20 Years.
D. Have you (or your company) previously worked for the City of Palo Alto? DYes, or ~ No (if "Yes",
list above, or if necessary, provide information on additional sheets).
E. If applicable, provide a list of the plant(s), and/or facilities, a nd equipment owned by the Bidder
which are available for use in connection with the proposed work as may be required herein.
QUANTITY NAME/TYPE/MODEL, CAPACITY, ETC. CONDITION LOCATION
N/A N/A
(INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY)
F. Provide a list of the Bidder's management staff who will manage the proposed work or services.
NAME FIELD OF EXPERTISE/CAPABILITIES/EXPERIENCE
Planning, defining and managing project scope, developing & managing project
Edgar Aceituno I Project Manager schedule, allocate resources, manage project funds. 10 years of experience.
Expert sign maker and installer. Superintendent responsible for day to day
Daniel Salanic I Superintendent operations and timely task completion. Certified welder. 21 years of experience.
Simon Jeong I Senior Designer Design development. Identity and wayfinding. Oversees and coordinates shop
drawinq development. 14 years of experience.
(INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PAGES IF NECESSARY)
G. California Contractor's License
Number: 643841/979879
Classification: --=B~a:;.;n.;.:d.:...C.:..-_4.;.:5 ______________________ _
Expiration Date: 05/3112016 & 10/10/2015
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 29 Rev. January 2014
PART 3 -BID FORM AND BIDDER'S DOCUMENTS
ATTACHMENT D
BID DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
ITEM QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
1 AA1/ Monument ID 1 EA $15,800.00 $15,800.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $19,900.00 $19,900.00
2 AA2/Building ID 1 EA $15,900.00 $15,900.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $25,900.00 $25,900.00
3 AA3/Police Department ID 1 EA $15,900.00 $15,900.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,200.00 $20,200.00
4 AA4/Elevator & Stair ID 4 EA $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $4,500.00 $18,000.00 $4,000.00 $16,000.00 $8,450.00 $33,800.00
5 AD1/Pedestrian Directional 6 EA $3,330.00 $19,980.00 $2,500.00 $15,000.00 $3,500.00 $21,000.00 $3,500.00 $21,000.00
6 CA2/Parking Entry ID 2 EA $6,400.00 $12,800.00 $11,000.00 $22,000.00 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00
7 CA3/Informational Panel 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $8,000.00
8 CA4/Column Graphics 200 EA $300.00 $60,000.00 $190.00 $38,000.00 $250.00 $50,000.00 $200.00 $40,000.00
9 CA5e/City Hall Elevator Core Graphics 2 EA $4,000.00 $8,000.00 $7,000.00 $14,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $800.00 $1,600.00
10 CA5i/City Hall Elevator Core Graphics Interior Lobby 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,500.00 $11,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $700.00 $1,400.00
11 CA6/Level P1 City Hall Lobby Entry Graphics 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $570.00 $570.00
12 CA7/Elevator Core Graphics 3 EA $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $18,000.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $2,733.33 $8,200.00
13 CA8/Stair Core Graphics @ Hamilton 3 EA $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $18,000.00 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 $2,233.33 $6,700.00
14 CA9/Stair Core Graphics @ Forest 4 EA $2,000.00 $8,000.00 $4,000.00 $16,000.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 $1,850.00 $7,400.00
15 CB1/Parking Informational 1 EA $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $60.00 $60.00
16 CD1/Overhead Directional 23 EA $400.00 $9,200.00 $1,500.00 $34,500.00 $300.00 $6,900.00 $1,293.91 $29,759.93
17 CD1h/Overhead Directional Hanging 3 EA $1,800.00 $5,400.00 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $600.00 $1,800.00 $1,300.00 $3,900.00
18 CD2/Pedestrian Directional 24 EA $1,400.00 $33,600.00 $2,500.00 $60,000.00 $1,500.00 $36,000.00 $958.33 $23,000.00
19 CD3/Do Not Enter 4 EA $100.00 $400.00 $525.00 $2,100.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 $475.00 $1,900.00
20 BA1/Community Station ID 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $770.00 $770.00
21 BA4/Community Room ID 1 EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $600.00 $600.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00
22 BA2/Soffit ID Directional 2 EA $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,400.00 $2,800.00
23 BA3/Service Window ID 1 EA $800.00 $800.00 $700.00 $700.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00
24 BB1/Elevator Lobby Directory & Directional 19 EA $1,800.00 $34,200.00 $1,800.00 $34,200.00 $2,000.00 $38,000.00 $1,838.78 $34,936.78
25 BB2/Elevator Cab Directory 3 EA $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $550.00 $1,650.00 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 $566.67 $1,700.00
26 BC1/Women's Restroom Door & Wall 9 EA $220.00 $1,980.00 $150.00 $1,350.00 $100.00 $900.00 $400.00 $3,600.00
27 BC2/Men's Restroom Door & Wall 9 EA $220.00 $1,980.00 $150.00 $1,350.00 $100.00 $900.00 $400.00 $3,600.00
28 New Level ID Insignias on Elevator Exterior Posts 24 EA $80.00 $1,920.00 $100.00 $2,400.00 $125.00 $3,000.00 $316.67 $7,600.00
29 Replace Existing Interior Elevator Cab Buttons 24 EA $80.00 $1,920.00 $25.00 $600.00 $125.00 $3,000.00 $170.83 $4,100.00
30 Remove Redundant Existing Signage 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
31 Remove Police Sign on Stairway Handrail 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 $850.00 $850.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
32 Provide Timers for lighted signs 1 LS $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
$297,780.00 $401,050.00 $317,800.00 $324,096.71
NO RESPONSE
NO RESPONSE
City Hall Signage and Graphics
IFB NO. 157657
BID SUMMARY
Frank & Son, Inc.
Express Sign & Neon
A Good Sign
and Graphics Co.
Turner Signs R.C. Benson & Sons,
Inc. General Contractors
NO RESPONSE
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4754)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/16/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: City Hall Remodel Contract
Title: Approval of a Construction Contract with D.L. Falk Construction, Inc. in
the Amount of $2,718,350, Approval of Amendment Number 2 to Contract
No. C12144101 with WMB Architects, Inc. in the Amount of $141,565 for a
Not-to-Exceed Amount of $426,256 for the City Hall Remodel Project PE-
12017, and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2014
to Provide an Additional Appropriation in the Amount of $1,607,109
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.L. Falk Construction, Inc.in the amount of
$2,718,350 (Attachment A) for the City Hall Remodel Capital Improvement
Program Project PE-12017;
2.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or
more change orders to the contract with D.L. Falk Construction, Inc.for
related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the
project, the total value of which shall not exceed a ten percent contingency
of $271,835;
3.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the
attached amendment to Contract C12144101 with WMB Architects, Inc.
(Attachment B) in the amount of $141,565 for construction administration
services for the City Hall Remodel Project (Capital Improvement Program
Project PE-12017), adding $128,695 to basic services and adding $12,870
City of Palo Alto Page 2
for additional services for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $426,256;
and
4.Approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount
of $1,607,109 (Attachment C) for construction to selected areas on the first
floor, mezzanine, and second floor of City Hall.
Background
Palo Alto City Hall opened 44 years ago in 1970. Although the building has
recently undergone a thorough mechanical, electrical, and exterior refurbishment
under the Civic Center Infrastructure Upgrade Project (PF-01002), some of the
interior areas remain functionally inadequate and aesthetically dated.
Specifically, there are several public meeting and gathering areas that hinder
effective interaction between the community and city staff and Council due to
small seating capability and technical limitations. In particular, the Council
Conference Room has a limited seating capacity, has outdated architectural
treatments and furnishings, and lacks modern amenities such as flexible seating,
efficient lighting,and technological resources for audio-visual presentations.
Staff has identified the need for additional building elements similar to the
Council Conference Room for the first floor of City Hall, and included them in the
scope of this comprehensive project. These include a more welcoming and
accommodating lobby area; a new community conference room with a capacity
to seat 55 to better serve larger Council Committee and Commission meetings,
and several areas for efficient use of space for enhanced customer services for
residents.
Additionally, the elevator cabs have worn-out wall and floor finishes, harsh
lighting, and inadequate building information and directional signage. There is
also a significant need to improve the signage and other wayfinding information
at the various building entrances and on the first floor of City Hall in order to
assist members of the public with finding the staff members and services that can
meet their needs.
During the project design, the goal of the first floor renovation was broadened in
scope to achieve a more open atmosphere to encourage public participation and
community access to City Hall. The final plan also includes moving the Utilities
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Department’s customer service counter from the second floor to the lobby area
to be located near the Revenue Collections customer service counter.The People
Strategy & Operations conference room behind the Council Chambers would then
become a new, larger conference room that could also be used for Council and
staff sessions and the current (very inadequate) Council Conference Room would
be transformed into a staff training and multi-use room.
To relocate People Strategy & Operations (PSO)out of the lobby level, a number
of other staff reconfigurations and relocations are necessary. PSO would be
consolidated on the mezzanine level by relocating the Information Technology (IT)
Department staff currently using the space. The IT Department will be
consolidated on the second floor using more densely configured desks in an open
floor plan similar to what many high tech firms use. They will also expand into the
portion of the second floor vacated by the Utilities Department’s customer
service counter staff that will move to the first floor.
The plan accomplishes the goal of consolidating customer service functions on the
first floor and providing improved public spaces to promote public involvement.
In addition, PSO and IT staff are currently split between different floors.
Following construction,they will each be located together on their respective
floors, improving employee interaction and increasing efficiency.
Additional aspects of the project include reconfiguration of the existing restrooms
serving the Council to conform to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
accessibility requirements. The kitchenette serving evening Council meetings will
also be relocated. Since the project will include extensive carpeting on much of
the first floor, mezzanine and second floor, staff combined the new carpeting and
the reupholstery of the seating for the Council Chambers. Council Chamber
carpeting is funded through CIP PF-11001.
Open government and technology are the key principles for this project. The new
community conference room and renovated public spaces have been designed for
better interaction and public engagement. The rooms will be equipped with
broadcast media capabilities, including multiple LCD screens, High Definition
cameras, and wall-mounted speakers. Flexibility is also a key theme of the design.
The rooms will allow multiple table and chair configurations. Most importantly,
for very large events, the proposed glass partition separating the lobby from the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
new community conference room can be opened and folded away to allow even
greater space flexibility.
The project will also coordinate with a new interactive digital media public art
element to be installed on the main lobby wall facing the main building entry
doors. An open call to new media artists was recently conducted by the
Community Services Department (CSD). Their call for artists resulted in 104
responses that were narrowed to 29 by a selection panel that included staff and
Public Art Commissioners. Further selection panels brought the field down to 5,
then to 3, and now a final artist selection is nearly complete. CSD will bring the
artist’s contract and full details of the proposed digital art piece for Council
approval in late summer. A portion of the funding for the artist is included in the
attached Budget Amendment Ordinance.
Wayfinding and building signage aspects of the overall project are also still in final
design stages. Exterior signage is expected to be reviewed by the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) this summer. Following ARB approval, an invitation for bids
(IFB) will be issued to procure the services of a specialty signage fabrication and
installation contractor.
Discussion
Scope Overview
The scope of work for the attached construction contract includes:
1)Main Lobby remodel including coordination with an interactive digital
media public art element;
2)Enhance the lobby area heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
system in order to handle the increased loads from the new community
meeting room and the new digital art installation;
3)Restore the terrazzo floor of the main lobby;
4)Convert existing PSO conference room into a new Council Conference
Room;
5)Convert existing Council Conference Room into a new Training and Multi-
purpose Meeting Room for staff and the public;
6)Create a new Community Meeting Room beside the Main Lobby;
7)Install broadcast media capabilities for all the new lobby-level meeting
spaces, including multiple LCD screens, High Definition cameras, and wall-
mounted speakers;
City of Palo Alto Page 5
8)Modify the lobby payment counter to match the new architectural style of
the lobby and provide a lower ledge for writing checks and signing forms;
9)Convert the Revenue Services offices into new Utilities Customer Service
counter and offices;
10)Reconfigure and renovate mezzanine level offices (PSO and Purchasing);
11)Reconfigure and renovate second floor offices (IT and Utilities);
12)New carpeting and new bench upholstery for Council Chambers; and
13)Remodel the three (3)building elevator cabs.
The building will remain occupied during the course of the project. Work will be
scheduled to keep systems operational during working hours and to minimize the
impacts of construction on staff and the public. There may be some temporary
relocation of department staff to accommodate construction. The entire PSO
Department will temporarily relocate to Cubberley Community Center Room H-5
for the duration of the project. This move will provide space in the building for
other temporary office relocations that are necessary for construction.
Bid Process
Notices inviting formal bids for the City Hall Remodel Project were posted at City
Hall and sent to 32 contractors on April 18, 2014. The bidding period was 19 days.
Bids were received from one qualified contractor on May 6, 2014.
Summary of Bid Process
Bid Name/Number City Hall Remodel Project –IFB 153838
Proposed Length of Project 225 calendar days
Number of Bid Packages
Mailed to Contractors
32
Number of Builder’s
Exchanges receiving Bid
Packages
0
Total Days to Respond to Bid 19
Pre-Bid Meeting April 23, 2014
Number of Company
Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting
10 firms attended of which 5 were General
Contractors and 5 were Subcontractors
Number of Bids Received: 1
Base Bid Price Range $2,664,000
City of Palo Alto Page 6
*The submitted bid form from D.L. Falk is provided as Attachment D.
Staff reviewed the bid submitted and recommends that D.L. Falk Construction be
declared the lowest responsible bidder. Staff recommends that the City award
the Base Bid ($2,664,000) plus Add Alternates 1 through 6 ($54,350)for a total
contract award amount of $2,718,350.
The base bid is approximately 19% above the construction cost estimate for the
scope of work included. Staff believes that the busy local construction industry
has resulted in higher prices and the higher bid is still reasonable for the complex
nature of this project. Staff also inquired as to why other contractors did not
submit bids. Smaller firms indicated that bonds for projects over $1.5 million are
difficult to obtain. One firm that worked on City Hall previously indicated they no
longer bid on public projects. Another unionized firm indicated they did not think
they could prepare a competitive bid for a non-prevailing wage project. Others
said the project did not fit their schedule.
A contingency amount of $271,835 equal to 10 percent of the total contract is
requested for unforeseen conditions which may be discovered during
construction. With renovation of an existing facility, there is a high likelihood of
additional required repairs or system replacement triggered by the base
construction. In addition, due to the time constraints placed upon the contractors
to complete their work during off hours, the majority of change orders will be
billed at a premium rate for night or weekend work.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor’s State License Board that the contractor has
an active license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for
previous work performed and found that their projects were similar to this
project and were completed to the satisfaction of the owners.
WMB Contract –Construction Administration
The contract amendment with the design architect, WMB Architects
(Attachment B) will provide for the architect’s general construction administration
oversight during project work. As the designer of record, WMB Architects will
respond to design questions and issues raised by the contractor, attend meetings
at the job site,make construction observations, review material submittals, and
assist in the preparation of the record documents at the completion of
City of Palo Alto Page 7
construction. The contract also includes work related to wayfinding signage
design for the exterior and interior areas of the City Hall complex. The signage
fabrication and installation will be let as a separate invitation for bid (IFB) to be
awarded to a specialty contractor in late summer or early fall.
Timeline
The construction of the architectural upgrades to City Hall are to be completed in
four phases. The first phase encompases the majority of the work for the first
floor and the duration is anticipated to be ninety days. The subsequent three
remaining phases at forty-five days each will be used for work on the mezzanine
level and second floors. Note that some construction in the first floor lobby may
be delayed towards the end of the project to keep the current Council Conference
Room available for meetings during Phase 1 and to allow for construction to
include a new public art display on the large lobby wall near the main building
entrance.
Resource Impact
Funding for this project has been allocated in several capital projects, including:
City Hall First Floor Renovations (PE-12017), Facility Interior Finishes Replacement
(PF-02022), and Council Chambers Carpet (PF-11001). Remaining funding from
the Civic Center Infrastructure Upgrade project (PF-01002) will also be used for
the project. All of these projects are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Fund,
which receives the majority of its funding from the annual General Fund transfer.
As referenced earlier in the staff report, the bids for the project came in higher
than previously estimated as a result of the local construction environment, the
public art element, and changes in scope. In order to complete the project, a
Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) is required. The Budget Amendment
Ordinance recommended as part of this report would increase the City Hall First
Floor Renovations project by $1,607,109. This increase would allow for the
construction contract, contingency, design fees, wayfinding systems construction,
furniture, temporary office space, permit fees, architectural construction
administration, and a portion of the public art costs. Offsetting the increased
costs would be transfers from various funding sources, resulting in no reduction
to the Infrastructure Reserve. The transfers from other funding sources, which
will recover each fund’s respective fair share of the costs, will enable a return of
City of Palo Alto Page 8
funds to the Infrastructure Reserve upon completion of the project.
In determining the amounts and funding sources for the BAO, staff carefully
reviewed the bid and the work units benefitting from the work. A concerted
effort has been made to align the cost of the project to the benefitting
department/fund. For example, the cost of renovating the space to meet the
functional requirements of the Utilities Department will be charged to the Utility
Funds. Similarly, the cost of improving the Information Technology Department’s
space will be charged to the Technology Fund, while the cost of improving the
Administrative Services and People Strategies and Operations Departments will
be charged to the Capital Improvement Fund. Much of the work involves
improvements to common areas. The common area costs can be divided into two
categories: the first floor community room and improvements to the rest of the
facility that do not primarily benefit one exclusive department.
As part of the BAO, the cost of the new community room is recommended to be
charged to the Community Center Development Impact Fee Fund. The remaining
common areas are charged to the Capital Improvement Fund, with the City’s
various Enterprise Funds paying a share proportionate to their anticipated
utilization of space in City Hall. It should be noted that after accounting for the
transfers from the various Utility Funds, Technology Fund, and the Community
Center Development Impact Fee Fund, some portion of the funding in the Capital
Improvement Fund is expected to be returned to the Infrastructure Reserve. A
summary of the funding sources, as well as anticipated uses, is included in the
table on the following page.
Summary of Project Funding
Existing Funding Source (from Capital
Improvement Fund)
Amount allocated
City Hall First Floor Renovations (PE-12017)$2,183,733
Facility Interior Finishes Replacement (PF-02022)$380,000
Council Chambers Carpet (PF-11001)$80,000
Civic Center Infrastructure Upgrade (PF-01002)$61,643
Total Current Funding $2,705,376
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Funding Source (BAO)Amount allocated
Transfer from Community Center Development
Impact Fee Fund
$686,298
Transfer from Electric Fund $133,687
Transfer from Gas Fund $133,687
Transfer from Wastewater Collection Fund $133,687
Transfer from Water Fund $133,687
Transfer from Fiber Optics Fund $133,687
Transfer from Technology Fund $499,335
Total New Funding $1,854,068
Total Project Funding $4,559,444
Summary of Project Expenditures
Construction Contract $2,718,350
Contract Contingency (10%)$271,835
Design Fees $278,285
Architectural Construction Administration $141,565
Public Art $150,000
Furniture $300,000
Wayfinding Systems Construction $307,450
Other $145,000
Total Project Expenditures $4,312,485
Anticipated Return to Infrastructure Reserve $246,959
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies.
Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Sections 15301 and 15302 of the CEQA guidelines as an alteration
to an existing facility and no further environmental review is necessary.
Attachments:
·A -D.L. Falk Construction Contract (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 10
·B -WMB Architects Contract Amendment No. 2 (PDF)
·C -BAO -City Hall Remodel (DOC)
·D -D.L. Falk Bid Form (PDF)
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C14153838
City of Palo Alto
And
D.L. Falk Construction, Inc.
PROJECT
City Hall Remodel Project
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. January 2014
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. ......................................................................................... 6
SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. ...................................................................................................... 7
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. ................................................................................................................. 7
6.1 Time Is of Essence. .............................................................................................................................. 7
6.2 Commencement of Work. ................................................................................................................ 7
6.3 Contract Time. ...................................................................................................................................... 7
6.4 Liquidated Damages. .......................................................................................................................... 8
6.4.1 Other Remedies. ....................................................................................................... 8
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. ....................................................................................................... 8
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. ................................................................................ 8
7.1 Contract Sum. ....................................................................................................................................... 8
7.2 Full Compensation. ............................................................................................................................. 8
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. ........................................................................................................ 9
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. ........................................................................................................... 9
9.1 Hold Harmless. ..................................................................................................................................... 9
9.2 Survival. .................................................................................................................................................. 9
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. ................................................................................................... 9
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. ............................................................................................... 9
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS............................................................................... 10
SECTION 13 NOTICES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
13.1 Method of Notice ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10
13.2 Notice Recipents ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
13.3 Change of Address. ........................................................................................................................... 11
SECTION 14 DEFAULT. ......................................................................................................................... 11
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
14.1 Notice of Default. .............................................................................................................................. 11
14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. ........................................................................................................ 11
SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. ...................................................................................... 12
15.1 Remedies Upon Default. ................................................................................................................. 12
15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. .......................................................................................... 12
15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. ........................................................................................... 12
15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. .................................................................... 12
15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. .............................................................................. 12
15.1.6 Additional Provisions. ............................................................................................. 12
15.2 Delays by Sureties. ............................................................................................................................ 12
15.3 Damages to City. ................................................................................................................................ 13
15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. ........................................................................................ 13
15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. ...................................................................................... 13
15.4 Suspension by City ............................................................................................................................ 13
15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. .......................................................................................... 13
15.5 Termination Without Cause. ......................................................................................................... 14
15.5.1 Compensation. ......................................................................................................... 14
15.5.2 Subcontractors. ........................................................................................................ 14
15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. ..................................................................................... 14
SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. ...................................................................... 15
16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. ................................................................................................................... 15
16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. ................................................................................................. 15
16.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment. ......................................................................................... 15
16.2 Damages to Contractor. .................................................................................................................. 15
SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. ................................................................................................ 15
17.1 Financial Management and City Access. ................................................................................... 15
17.2 Compliance with City Requests. ................................................................................................... 16
SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. ................................................................................................. 16
SECTION 19 NUISANCE. ...................................................................................................................... 16
SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. ................................................................................................ 16
SECTION 21 WAIVER. .......................................................................................................................... 16
SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. ...................................................................................... 16
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. ................................................................................................ 17
SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. ............................................................................................... 17
SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. ...................................................................................................... 17
SECTION 26 NON APPROPRIATION. ................................................................................................... 17
SECTION 27 AUTHORITY. .................................................................................................................... 17
SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS .............................................................................................................. 18
SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. ................................................................................................................. 18
SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES . ............................................................. 18
SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. ................................................................ 18
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on June 5, 2014 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY
OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and D.L. Falk Construction, 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 California Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of
California, Contractor’s License Number 683837. 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 April 18, 2014, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the City Hall Remodel
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 Contract 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 City Hall Remodel Project, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. 94301
("Project").
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
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 Orders
3) Contract
4) Bidding Addenda
5) Special Provisions
6) General Conditions
7) Project Plans and Drawings
8) Technical Specifications
9) Instructions to Bidders
10) Invitation for Bids
11) Contractor's Bid/Non‐Collusion Affidavit
12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents
13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at
time of Bid)
14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current
version at time of Bid)
15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
17) Notice Inviting Pre‐Qualification Statements, Pre‐Qualification Statement, and Pre‐
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
18) Performance and Payment Bonds
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
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best
interests of the City.
SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY.
Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract
Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all
things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not
limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless
otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete
the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards
required by the Contract Documents.
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 Contract
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 225 calendar days () after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to
Proceed.
By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early
completion.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial
Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions
thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in
achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of Five Hundred dollars ($500.00) per
day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be
separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract
Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The
assessment of liquidated damages 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. The City is entitled to
setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to
Contractor, including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of
liquidated damages assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to
recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in
part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess
liquidated damages.
6.4.1 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 memorialized
in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the
Contract Documents the Contract Sum of two million seven hundred eighteen three hundred fifty
Dollars ($2,718,350).
[This amount includes the Base Bid of $2,664,000 and Additive Alternates 1 for
$7,800, Additive Alternate 2 for $13,400, Additive Alternate 3 for $5,050,
Additive Alternate 4 for $3,000, Additive Alternate 5 for $17,200, and Additive
Alternate 6 for $7,900.]
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, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted
for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well‐supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers
(hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as
"Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss,
damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees,
paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every
nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees,
Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with
any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence,
sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs
City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, 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.
Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of
any third‐party claim relating to the Contract.
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.
Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with
evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all
requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance 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, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract
and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City.
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, Change Order Requests and
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: Matt Raschke
AND
[Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.]
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
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.L. Falk Construction, Inc.
3526 Investment Blvd.
Hayward, CA 94545
Attn: David L. Falk
13.3 Change of Address.
In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City 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 DEFAULT.
14.1 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, with a copy to
Contractor’s performance bond surety.
14.2 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.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
15.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth
above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including,
without limitation, the following:
15.1.1 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.
15.1.2 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.
15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses
related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of
time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no
obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor
for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work.
15.1.4 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 14. 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.
15.1.5 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.
15.1.6 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.
15.2 Delays by Sureties.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange
for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar
days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have
waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make
arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a
replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the
circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally liable for any additional cost
incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right
to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the
Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work.
15.3 Damages to City.
15.3.1 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.
15.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City
shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor.
If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the
difference and shall promptly remit same to City.
15.4 Suspension by City
15.4.1 Suspension 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.
15.4.2 Suspension for Cause.
In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in
accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion
thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction.
Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension
occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to
suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend
the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of
the Contract Documents.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
15.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or
in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s
expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and
demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 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. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve
Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the
Work performed by Contractor.
15.5.1 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 15.5.1, 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:
(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.
.4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of
the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if
the Construction Contract had not been terminated.
15.5.2 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.
15.6 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
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
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.
Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract
Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees,
submittals of as‐built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations
arising prior to the termination date.
SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
16.1.1 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.
16.1.2 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.
16.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided
for in Paragraph 15.5.1 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 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
17.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary
for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business
hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take‐offs, cost reports,
ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
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.
17.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 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 17.1 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no
other place.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 23 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 24 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 25 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. This Project remains subject to all
other applicable provisions of the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder.
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 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 26 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 27 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.
Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. January 2014
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties,
constitute a single binding agreement.
SECTION 29 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.
SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES.
With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents,
the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City,
unless otherwise required by law.
SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION.
Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware
of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against
liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self‐insurance in accordance with the provisions of that
code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this
Contract.”
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
D. L. Falk Construction, Inc.
By:___________________________
Name:__David L. Falk____________
Title:____President _____________
Date: _________________________
AMENDMENT NO.2 TO CONTRACT NO. C12144101
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
WMB ARCHITECTS, INC.
This Amendment No.2 ("Amendment") to Contract No. C12144101 ("Contract") is
entered into and made effective on June _,2014, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and WMB Architects, Inc., a California
Corporation, located at 5757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 226, Stockton, CA 95207, ("CONSULTANT").
RECIT ALS
WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of
professional design services relating to the City Hall Remodel Project ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2013, the parties amended the Contract to add
$105,974 of compensation for a total Contract amount not to exceed $284,691; and
WHEREAS, the parties seek by this Amendment No.2 to increase the scope of
services, schedule of performance, and compensation;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and
provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree:
SECTION 1. Section A of RECITALS is hereby amended to read as follows:
"A. CITY intends to implement the City Hall Renovation Project ("Project") and
desires to engage a consultant to provide professional architectural design services
and construction administration services for architectural upgrades in connection
with the Project ("Services")."
SECTION 2. Section 4 of the Contract, NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION,
Paragraph 1, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"The compensation to be paid to CONSULT ANT for performance of the Services
described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and
reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand
Five Hundred Five Dollars [$387,505.00]. In the event Additional Services are
authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not
exceed Four Hundred Twenty-Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty·Six Dollars
[$426,256.00]. The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit
"C-2", entitled "CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION FEE SCHEDULE", which
is attached to and make a part of this Agreement."
1 Revision April 28, 2014
SECTION 4. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read
as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference:
a. Exhibit "A" entitled "Scope of Work".
b. Exhibit "B" entitled "Schedule".
c. Exhibit "C" entitled "Compensation".
SECTION 5. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract,
including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this Amendment on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO WMB Architects, Inc.
City Manager ::!!:~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Title: nZW/ectOr
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A":
EXHIBIT "B":
EXHIBIT "C":
SCOPE OF PROJECT
TIME SCHEDULE
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
2 Revision Apli12S, 2014
EXHIBIT “A” - SCOPE OF WORK
CONTRACT C12144101 - AMENDMENT No. 2
CIP PROJECT PE-12017
Task 1: City Hall Lobby Design Modifications The Lobby is intended to serve as a space that welcomes members of the public to the building and
helps direct them to their destination within City Hall. The Lobby should also be modified to better accommodate the display of public art and to create opportunities for small, informal gatherings of staff and the public. A) Transform the Lobby into an attractive and welcoming space to display public art and facilitate gatherings and events.
B) Remove the current furniture and cabinets.
C) Refinish walls and design an improved display mounting system to create a more attractive,
functional, and safe environment for the display of artwork.
D) Establish lighting conducive to displaying art, both on walls and freestanding that allows for safe, easy, and efficient bulb replacement. E) Establish signage and an electronic information kiosk to provide wayfinding information to the public.
F) Create paths for foot traffic through the lobby which create protected spaces conducive to
small gatherings.
G) Design and select furniture and carpets which create space for gatherings & meetings.
H) Consider changes to ceiling fixtures to modernize the lobby’s appearance.
Task 2: City Hall Council Conference Room Design Modifications The Council Conference Room is intended to serve as a less formal, more intimate meeting space for
the Finance Committee and Policy & Services Committee of the City Council, various advisory
Boards and Commissions, public gatherings, and to host larger staff meetings.
A) Transform the Council Conference Room into a more modern and usable space which will
more readily accommodate the multitude of departments and Committees, Boards, and
Commissions that utilize the area.
B) Explore opportunities to enlarge the existing area via the removal of the existing east wall and
incorporation of the adjoining corridor into a larger and more usable meeting space.
A structural analysis for this portion of the design will be required.
C) Provide room layout and seating arrangements that will improve the interface between
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 3
Committee/Board/Commission members and audience members during public meetings.
D) Provide flexible room layout and seating arrangements to accommodate a larger number of
occupants during public meetings, public multi-media presentations, and staff meetings.
E) Design a more modern method for effective presentation delivery to accommodate conferences and
public presentations via electronic media. Seating arrangements will be critical to allow for easy
viewing of the material presented by both board/commission members as well as audience members.
F) Modernize the area utilizing newly-designed lighting, wall coverings, flooring, and furniture.
Task 3: City Hall Human Resources Conference Room Design Modifications The Human Resources Conference Room serves as one of the larger staff meeting rooms in City Hall
and is used by the City Council for private discussion during closed sessions.
A) Transform the Human Resources Conference Room into a more modern and usable space which
will more readily accommodate the multitude of departments that utilize the area.
B) Design a more modern method for effective presentation delivery to accommodate conferences and small department presentations via electronic media. C) Modernize the area utilizing newly-designed lighting, wall coverings, flooring, and furniture.
Task 4: City Hall Wayfinding Design Modifications
Existing directional signage in City Hall is sparse and inadequate. The proposed wayfinding
modifications should provide a simple, attractive, uniform, intuitive system of signage and other
directional elements to assist members of the public to locate the service provider within City Hall that
can address their needs and to find their vehicle upon returning to the garage.
A) Integrate the signage and an electronic information kiosk from Task 1 into a programmatic and
unified City Hall signage program that will readily direct members of the public to service locations throughout the various departments on all levels of City Hall (including the Police Wing); including paths of travel from the exterior of the building.
B) Improve signage on the building exterior to direct members of the public to the Police Department
offices on Forest Avenue. Coordinate the new signage with the signage on the Downtown Library
across the street.
C) Provide an easy means of identifying parking locations in the underground City Hall Garage which
will readily assist customers in relocating their vehicle.
D) Incorporate signage to direct customers from the parking garage to the location of an information
kiosk on the First Floor.
E) Provide signage and terminology that assists the customer to readily locate the service provider
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 4
within City Hall that can address their needs. Integrate service descriptions with department names
into unified naming conventions.
F) Coordinate the design of informational signage in the elevator lobbies with ongoing efforts by the
City Manager’s Office to integrate photographs evocative of the services provided on each floor of the
building with the accompanying signage.
Task 5: City Hall Way Elevator Cabs Refurbishment
A) Upgrade and modernize interior cab panels, including all sides, doors, flooring, and ceiling.
B) Provide a more energy-efficient lighting system that will provide softer, more diffused illumination. C) Modernize the signage direction/display systems. Integrate same with Task 4, Wayfinding.
D) Enhance the appearance of exterior door panels. Possibilities include integration with Task 4,
Wayfinding, as well as including artistic concepts that correlate with department themes associated
with that individual floor level.
B. SCOPE OF SERVICES
1. Study Phase City Hall is an occupied building and will remain so during the entire design process and through the
completion of construction. The Consultant will be responsible for surveying all the various
departments and end-users that will be utilizing the areas of refurbishment to effectively address their desired needs and concerns. The study shall identify strategies and alternatives that will provide
maximum benefit to endusers and optimize the functionality and usefulness of the work spaces. The analysis and resulting recommendation shall take into account both feasibility and economics. The Consultant shall work with the City’s Project Manager to develop the survey strategy, identify the
existing conditions and needs, and develop recommended modifications to meet the critical needs.
Consultant shall identify implementation methodologies for the renovation to assist in accommodating
existing occupants. Relocation alternatives, rebuilding on a “fast-track” basis, and other alternatives
proposed by Consultant shall be considered during this phase to accomplish the work with the least
cost and/or minimum disruption to the occupants. Consultant shall present the study with alternates
and recommendations to the Project Manager and appropriate departmental managers in the affected
work areas for review and comment. Once a decision on approach, alternates, and recommendations
is made by the City, the next phase of the project shall commence.
2. Conceptual Design
Consultant’s second phase shall be to prepare a preliminary design with estimated construction costs
for the City’s review. Consultant shall evaluate all parameters and observations in preparing a
conceptual design to accomplish the City’s objectives as outlined in the four tasks described above. A
proposed methodology for completing the renovations during time periods of least impact to the
functions of the departments will be proposed; along with refining the full scope of the project.
Consultant shall provide conceptual (30%) drawings for review and approval and shall attend
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 5
meetings with City staff to describe and discuss the elements of the conceptual design. Consultant
shall provide a preliminary engineer’s estimate of the construction contract cost for City review at the
30% design stage to aid the City in determining the final scope of work.
3. Construction Documents
In the third phase, Consultant shall prepare the construction documents, including plans, technical
specifications, an engineer’s estimate, and a preliminary construction schedule which minimizes
disruptions to building occupants. Consultant shall prepare the final construction documents for all
components defined in the Conceptual Design. Plans and specifications shall be presented to the City
at 60% and 90% completion for review and comment. An engineer’s estimate shall be prepared at the
90% design stage. Consultant shall assist the City in obtaining all building permits, and other permits
as applicable, required for implementation of the work.
4. Bid and Construction Phase
The Consultant shall provide assistance to City staff (e.g. pre-bid meeting with prospective bidders,
issuance of addenda, etc.) during the bidding phase of the project. Upon award of a construction
contract to a general contractor, the City will negotiate with the Consultant an appropriate scope of
work for construction phase services to be provided (e.g. assistance with Requests for Information,
review of contractor submittals, review of change order requests, periodic site inspections, preparation
of record drawings, etc.). Construction phase services will be added to the Consultant’s contract at the
City’s discretion via a contract amendment.
C. PROJECT ELEMENTS
Preparation Work
• City will provide any available existing plans for the City Hall work spaces to be modified during
this project.
• Consultant will meet with City representatives to develop a schedule for the work. Some tasks will
hold a higher priority and may need to be fast tracked in comparison to some of the other tasks.
Site Assessment
• Consultant will conduct site visits.
• Consultant will review and evaluate all available information and determine procedure for acquiring
any necessary additional information. Equipment Evaluation
• Consultant will evaluate existing lighting for anticipated needs.
• Consultant will suggest possible audio/visual equipment to satisfy requirements. Economic Analysis
and Feasibility
• Consultant will recommend equipment based on functionality and cost.
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 6
WORK PLAN
ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING TASK LIST
TASK 1: INVESTIGATION PHASE
Subtask 1.1 On-site review of existing building documents.
Subtask 1.2 On-site verification and measurement of lobby, elevator lobbies and conference rooms,
mezzanine and second floor.
Subtask 1.3 On-site photographing of existing building areas.
Subtask 1.4 CADD input of base floor plans, reflected ceiling plans and interior elevations.
Subtask 1.5 CADD input of parking levels and site plan for wayfinding.
TASK 2: NEEDS ASSESSMENT PHASE
Subtask 2.1 Prepare program survey forms
Subtask 2.2 On-site meetings with departmental end-user groups to establish needs for conference
spaces and lobby areas
Subtask 2.3 On-site meetings with departmental end-user groups to establish needs for wayfinding.
Subtask 2.4 Summarize in written and graphic format the needs assessment information.
Subtask 2.5 Meet with Project Manager, Project Engineer to review needs assessment data.
Subtask 2.6 Working with Project Manager and Project Engineer, refine needs assessment and set
priorities.
Subtask 2.7 Prepare final Needs Assessment document that will serve as the basis for the design
Subtask 2.8 Meet with design team to review completed needs assessment document.
TASK 3: CONCEPT DESIGN DEVELOMENT PHASE
Subtask 3.1 Utilizing the approved Final Needs Assessment, design team will develop concept design
solutions that meet the criteria set forth in the Final Needs Assessment. Design concepts
to be illustrated by floor plan(s), reflected ceiling plans, 3 dimensional sketches, interior
finish materials samples, AV concepts and modifications to building electrical and
mechanical systems
Subtask 3.2 Develop concept budget estimates for design options.
Subtask 3.3 Meet with City’s Project Manager to review concept design/cost estimates.
Subtask 3.4 Prepare base floor plans, reflected ceiling plans and interior elevations of existing
conditions.
Subtask 3.5 Per Project Managers Direction, Present concept design to City Staff for review and
input.
Subtask 3.6 Refine concept design documentation and budget estimate incorporating City input.
Subtask 3.7 Prepare Concept Design package (30%) for City review and approval.
TASK 4: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE
Subtask 4.1 Based on approved concept design and budget, develop construction documents
(including plans, specifications, calculations and budget estimate) for plan review,
permitting and bidding. Prepare City review packages at 60% and 90%.
Subtask 4.2 60% document review meeting with Project Manager and Project Engineer.
Subtask 4.3 90% document review meeting with Project Manager and Project Engineer.
Subtask 4.4 In-house peer review of documents.
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 7
Subtask 4.5 Prepare 100% construction document submittal package.
Subtask 4.6 Review meeting with Project Manager and Project Engineer of final construction
document package.
TASK 5: PLAN REVIEW | PERMITTING PHASE
Subtask 5.1 Assist City in submittal of construction documents package for plan review for building
permit.
Subtask 5.2 Make revisions to construction documents to address plan review comments.
Subtask 5.3 Assist City in re-submittal of construction documents package incorporating plan review
comments.
TASK 6: BIDDING PHASE
Subtask 6.1 Provide assistance to City staff during bid process including: attendance at pre-bid
meeting, assist City in responding to bid questions, and issue addenda as required.
Subtask 6.2 Assist City in review of submitted bids.
TASK 7: CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PHASE (Amendment No. 2)
Subtask 7.1 Twenty-four (24) Weekly Construction site meetings with architect (assume 6 months
construction timeframe).
Subtask 7.2 Six (6) monthly Site visits for mechanical, electrical and audio visual engineers.
Subtask 7.3 Process and document as required General Contractor’s Requests for Information (RFI’s).
Subtask 7.4 Process product submittals and shop drawings.
Subtask 7.5 Review and evaluate substitutions to products and equipment submitted by the General
Contractor.
Subtask 7.6 General Contractor payment request and progressive lien waiver review. Sub-contractor
lien waiver documentation and verification responsibility of the General Contractor.
Subtask 7.7 Punch-list site at substantial completion. Develop punch list of items for correction.
Follow-up evaluation of punch list items at final completion.
Subtask 7.8 Review of General Contractor’s Operations and Maintenance Manual and warranties.
Subtask 7.9 Perform project closeout activities and prepare final record plan set from contractor
markups.
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 8
WORK PLAN
WAYFINDING TASKS
PARAGRAPH 5.4 SCOPE OF WORK | WORK PLAN
PROPOSAL SCOPE OF WORK
The Square Peg Proven Project Approach and Design Process
Square Peg employs a proven project process and design approach based on a well defined schedule of
evaluation, progress and milestone review meetings with the Client and the Design team. The checks and
balances built in the this highly collaborative process ensures that the
• Vision and goals are clearly understood at the onset of the project
• Pertinent information is collected and analyzed
• Design work is concepted and refined based on multiple reviews by the Client and Design Team
• Documentation is subjected to multiple reviews
• One or more of the key sign types are prototyped prior to final production for Client and
Design Team approval.
• Construction administration and installation oversight services ensure continuity and control
throughout the entire process.
Square Peg will thoroughly review the existing signing, study circulation etc in preparation to
develop a new wayfinding and signing program. The new program will address the following:
1. Integrate the signage and an electronic information kiosk from Task 1 into a programmatic and
unified City Hall signage program that will readily direct members of the public to service locations
throughout the various departments on all levels of City Hall (including the Police Wing); including
paths of travel from the exterior of the building.
2. Improve signage on the building exterior to direct members of the public to the Police Department
offices on Forest Avenue. Coordinate the new signage with the signage on the Downtown Library
across the street.
3. Provide an easy means of identifying parking locations in the underground City Hall Garage which
will readily assist customers in relocating their vehicle.
4. Incorporate signage to direct customers from the parking garage to the location of an information
kiosk on the First Floor.
5. Provide signage and terminology that assists the customer to readily locate the service provider
within City Hall that can address their needs. Integrate service descriptions with department names
into unified naming conventions.
6. Coordinate the design of informational signage in the elevator lobbies with ongoing efforts by the City
Manager’s Office to integrate photographs evocative of the services provided on each floor of the
building with the accompanying signage.
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 9
Based on the scope outline from the RFP and past experience with similar projects we anticipate the scope of
signs to include, but is not limited to:
Based on the scope outline from the RFP and information gained at the interview with the City, we
anticipate the scope of signs may include, but is not limited to:
SITE SIGNING
Project/Building Identity Signing
Parking Garage Entrance ID Sign
Directional Signing
Accessibility Signing
Signing at Entry Doors
Entrance ID Signing
Pedestrian Directional & Information Signing
Building Entry Identification Graphics at Entry Doors (Address, HC Accessibility, No Smoking, etc.)
Emergency Assembly Area Signing
Building Address
PARKING
Parking Entry ID
Clearance Bar
Vehicular Directional Signing
Pedestrian Directional Signing
Column and Core Graphics
Misc Room ID Signing
INTERIOR SIGNING
Orientation Directory/Information Display or Kiosk (Static
/ Dynamic) - Main Lobby
- Secondary Entry Lobbies
- Elevator Lobbies at Upper Levels
Floor Level ID in Elevator Lobbies
Floor Level Directories and/or Orientation Maps
Directional Signing
Changeable Displays for Daily Events,
Information, etc ( Digital System
and/or Static)
Service Window Signing ( Digital System and/or Static)
Informational Signing in Elevator Cabs ( Digital System and/or Static)
NOTE: The design process for signing will be closely coordinated with WMB Architects and GB
Engineers to insure a well integrated design solution.
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 10
Square Peg will explore and incorporate technology as potential solutions at multiple locations
throughout the project. A combination of design, cost and evaluation of benefits will be provided to the
client with regard to proposed technology solutions as a means to inform the design decisions and
approvals.
SCOPE EXCLUSIONS
Items that are specifically excluded from the scope of work include:
Signing for Non Public Areas such as office areas and back of house:
Room Identification Signing
Department/Area Identification
Office ID
Workstation ID
Conference Room ID Misc Room ID
Back of House Room ID
Evacuation Maps at Elevators, Stairs and Exits
Preparation of building floor plans for use in sign location plans. It is assumed that the client will
provide SPD with building plans for use in preparation of sign location plans and documents.
Logo design
Print & Amenity design
Sculptures / Feature pieces
Content Design of Digital Media for Digital Displays. Note: SPD can provide content solutions as
additional service if requested, or recommend other means of creating and/or obtaining content.
Should any of these items be required Square Peg Design can provide them as an additional service.
PHASE 1 WAYFINDING STRATEGY AND SCHEMATIC DESIGN
During this phase of work, SPD will meet with the Client and consultants to review the project goals,
existing design concepts, program criteria, and design influences. This phase shall include, but not limited
to, the following tasks and design work:
1. Meet with Client and consultants to review the project goals, existing design concepts, program
criteria, design influences etc.
2. Conduct wayfinding survey to determine overall signage strategy. Systematically study pedestrian and
vehicular traffic flow as it relates to ingress, egress and circulation within the development.
3. Conduct appropriate research on potential design influences, available technologies, materials and
finishes. 4. Collect all relevant data available for the Project to include: -Architectural plans and drawings
-Existing design themes and details
-Details of architectural elements
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 11
5. Prepare preliminary programming for sign locations and message schedules.
6. Confirm required sign types and environmental graphic elements.
7. Review of municipality and authorities regulations.
8. Produce three (3) design concepts for physical form and scale of signage including proposed
materials, finishes, colors.
9. Coordinate design concepts with the architecture and lighting.
10. Based on design concepts and proposed sign quantities, prepare implementation budgets for review and
discussion with client.
11. Present Schematic Design Concepts, budgets and phasing options for comment
and approval.
MEETINGS
1. Kickoff Meeting
2. Interim Meetings with City Staff and Design Team as needed for coordination
3. Schematic Design presentation
PHASE DELIVERABLES
1. Schematic drawing package showing three (3) signage concepts
2. Preliminary power, data and structural requirements.
3. Preliminary sign location plans and phasing options 4. Preliminary implementation budgets.
PHASE ACTION REQUIRED BY CLIENT
Client review, comment, selection of one Schematic design direction and final approval of all phase
deliverables to proceed into Phase 2.
PHASE 2 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Based on the approved Schematic Design direction from Phase 1, Square Peg will develop and apply the
approved design direction to all remaining sign types.
The following is expected during this phase of work:
1. Develop the approved Schematic Design per comments from Phase 1 and apply to all remaining sign
types.
2. Coordinate all sign sizes, locations, power and structural requirements with the Design Team
and project Consultants.
3. Refine and finalize signing typography, icons, materials and finishes
4. Prepare sign message schedules listing all proposed sign types and message copy.
5. Prepare Design Development presentation
6. Present developed materials for approval
MEETINGS
1. Interim design coordination with the city and design consultants as needed
2. Present Final Design
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 12
PHASE DELIVERABLES
1. Design Development drawings for all sign types.
2. Sign location plans and message schedule(s) for all required sign types.
3. Power, data and structural requirements per sign type
4. Sign implementation budget.
5. Material samples as necessary for review.
PHASE ACTION REQUIRED BY CLIENT
Client review, comment and final approval of all phase deliverables to proceed into Phase 3.
PHASE 3 DOCUMENTATION
The purpose of Phase 3 is to provide design intent documentation and technical detailing sufficient in detail to
facilitate tendering and fabrication by a qualified sign fabricator.
The Documentation Phase shall include, but not limited to, the following:
1. Prepare design intent documentation drawings sufficient in detail to facilitate bidding and
fabrication by a qualified sign fabricator.
2. Coordinate all sign sizes, locations, power and structural requirements with the design team.
3. Document design details for all sign types.
4. Specify and document signing colors, illumination and materials.
5. Write performance specifications for all signing colors, illumination, materials and installation as
required.
6. Finalize typography.
7. Finalize sign location plans and message schedules.
8. Produce final set of documentation drawings for signing and graphic elements.
MEETINGS
1. Coordination with the city and design consultants as required
PHASE DELIVERABLE
At the completion of the Documentation Phase, we will deliver Final Documents to the Client.
Documents shall include, but not limited to, the following deliverables and presentation materials:
1. Design Intent documentation sufficient in detail to facilitate tendering and fabrication by a
qualified sign fabricator. 2. Specifications 3. Final sign location plans and message schedule(s) for all required sign types.
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 13
Documents will be issued as follows:
1. Design documentation drawings for signing elements in Illustrator CS4 on Mac OS X platform: CD and
three (3) hard copies, Tabloid format
2. Location Plans - CAD 2010, CD and three (3) hard copies
3. Message Schedule - Filemaker: CD and three (3) hard copies
PHASE 4 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
The purpose of Phase 4 is to provide Construction Administration services for the Exterior, Parking and
Interior Signing.
To insure the design intent and desired quality of fabrication is achieved, SPD will coordinate with the selected
fabricator through the submittal, fabrication and installation phases of work to answer questions, provide
details and information. SPD will also review submittals, installation and a final inspection of the completed
installation.
Tasks to included:
1. Review, comment and approval of shop drawings, materials, mock-ups and samples. 2. Review Prototypes and Samples. 3. Provide details and sketches to clarify design intent. 4. Coordinate with the fabricator on Site regarding sign locations. 5. Up to four (4) site visits.
6. Respond to requests made by fabricator for clarification of Contract Documents.
7. Inspect final Installations and prepare punchlist of items for correction.
8. Follow-up evaluation of punch list items at final completion.
9. Perform project closeout activities and prepare final record plan set from contractor markups.
Contract C12144101 Amendment No. 2 Page 14
WMB ARCHITECTS Contract C12144101 - Amendment No. 2
Exhibit "B" - Project Schedule
City Hall Remodel
A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J
Program Confirmation
Design Development
Construction Documents
Plan Review
Bidding
Construction
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
2013 2014 2015
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
CONTRACT C12144101 - AMENDMENT No. 2
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as EXHIBIT “C-1” up to the
not-to-exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in
EXHIBIT “A” (“Scope of Work”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Three Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Five Dollars [$387,505.00]. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any
Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed Four Hundred Twenty-Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Six Dollars [$426,256.00]. Any work performed or expenses incurred
for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth
herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The
CITY’s project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable
expenses, does not exceed Three Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Five Dollars [$387,505.00] and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed Thirty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-One Dollars [$38,751.00].
Attachment C
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $1,607,109 IN THE FIRST
FLOOR RENOVATIONS PROJECT (PE-12017), BUDGETED IN
THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, FOR ENHANCEMENTS TO
CITY HALL, RESULTING IN NO IMPACT TO THE
INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE. A SERIES OF TRANSFERS INTO
THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND WILL OFFSET THE
INCREASED BUDGET AMOUNT, INCLUDING: $686,298 FROM
THE COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND,
$499,335 FROM THE TECHNOLOGY FUND, AND $668,437
FROM THE UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION FUND. THE
TRANSFERS FROM THE COMMUNITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE FUND ($696,298), TECHNOLOGY FUND
($517,962), AND UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION FUND
($685,121) WILL BE OFFSET BY DECREASES TO THE FUND
BALANCES TO EACH RESPECTIVE FUND. THESE TRANSFERS
FROM OTHER FUNDS WILL ALLOW FOR AN INCREASE TO THE
INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $246,961.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on
June 10, 2013 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2014; and
B.At the time the 2014 Adopted Budget was being
considered by the City Council, the costs associated with the
First Floor Renovation project were not known; and
C. The project will provide for enhancements to City Hall
in order to allow for better civic engagement. Improvements
include: a remodel to the main lobby, including coordination
with a new digital public art element; an enhancement to the
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system in
the lobby area in order to handle the increased loads from the
new community meeting room and digital art installation; a
restoration to the terrazzo floor of the main lobby;
conversion of the existing People Strategy and Operations
conference room to a new City Council conference room;
conversion of the existing City Council conference room to a
new training and multipurpose meeting room; creation of a new
community meeting room beside the main lobby; installation of
broadcast media capabilities for all the new lobby-level
meeting spaces; modification of the lobby payment counter to
match the new architectural style of the lobby and provide a
lower ledge for writing checks and signing forms; conversion
of the Revenue Services offices into new Utilities Customer
Service counter and offices; reconfiguration and renovation of
mezzanine level offices; reconfiguration and renovation of
second floor offices; new carpeting and bench upholstery for
City Council chambers; and remodeling the three building
elevator cabs.
D.In April 2014, the City posted a notice inviting
formal bids (IFB) for the project, with a bidding period of
nineteen calendar days; and
E. Bids were received from one qualified contractor on
May 6, 2014 with a base bid of $2,664,000, plus add alternates
of $54,350, bringing the total bid to $2,718,350. This bid
amount is 19% higher than the construction cost estimate,
indicative of the busy local construction climate.
F. Staff recommends that the bid of $2,718,350 submitted
by D.L. Falk Construction, Inc. be declared the lowest
responsible and responsive bid; and
G. A contingency amount of $271,835, equal to ten percent
of the total base bid contract amount, is requested for
related, additional, but unforeseen work which may develop
during the project.
SECTION 2.The sum of One Million Six Hundred Seven
Thousand One Hundred and Nine Dollars is hereby appropriated
for the City Hall First Floor Remodel Project. To offset the
increased a portion of the increased costs in the Capital
Improvement Fund, a series of transfers are recommended,
including Six Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Two Hundred Ninety
Eight Dollars from the Community Center Development Impact Fee
Fund, One hundred thirty three thousand six hundred eighty
seven dollars from the Electric Fund, One hundred thirty three
thousand six hundred eighty seven dollars from the Gas Fund,
One hundred thirty three thousand six hundred eighty seven
dollars from the Wastewater Collection Fund, One hundred
thirty three thousand six hundred eighty seven dollars from
the Water Fund, One hundred thirty three thousand six hundred
eighty seven dollars from the Fiber Optics Fund, and four
hundred ninety nine thousand three hundred and thirty five
dollars from the Technology Fund. The transfers in from the
various funds would be offset by reductions to each respective
funds ending fund balance. Finally, as a result of the
transfers in to the Capital Improvement Fund from the various
funds, the Infrastructure Reserve can be increased by two
hundred forty six thousand nine hundred sixty one dollars.
SECTION 4. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective
upon adoption.
SECTION 5.The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby
finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental
impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Director of Public Works
Director of Administrative
Services
" ----------
City Council/City Manager
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, California
BID FORM (Revised per Addendum No.1)
Name of Company D.L. Falk Construction Inc.
In response to this Invitation For Bids (IFB), the undersigned, as Bidder, declares that the only persons or parties
interested in this Bid as principals are those named herein; that this Bid is made without collusion with any other
person, firm or corporation; that the Bidder has carefully examined the location of the proposed work and the
plans and specifications herein referred to; and that the Bidder proposes and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, ~o
contract with the City of Palo Alto (City), to provide all' necessary materials, equipment, tools, apparatus, and
other means of transport services, and to do all the Work and comply with all the specified requirements in this
IFB, in the manner herein prescribed and for the prices stated in the following Bid:
Project Title: CITY HALL REMODEL
A: Base Bid: Provide all labor, equipment material, transportation and applicable taxes, profit, insurance,
bonds and other overhead to perform the Work in accordance with the Project Plans and
Technical Specifications, herein:
BID APPROX UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT TOTAL ITEM
ITEM (EACH BID ITEM SHALL INCLUDE ALL APPLICABLE TAXES, PRICE PRICE
QUANTI PROFIT, INSURANCE, BONDS, AND OTHER OVERHEAD)
TV
1. 1 LS Upgrade the aesthetic and functionality of the Council $ fPC I~ Conference Room, Human Resources Conference Room,
Lobby Area, Mezzanine, Level 2, and Elevator Cabs at Palo 1\"" I
Alto City Hall. rv~ . ~'V~
2. 1 lS Moving Allowance $70,000 $70,000
0
Base Bid Total (item 1 and 2) $ cfJ
1.\1
(Total in words: -It-Jo ~1'~·f2V1. t A~[~ ~;Jr-&IAL ~~ \b\J ~/K (\..-\
II
II
II
II
ADDENDUM NO. ONE TO CITY OF PALO ALTO IFB 153838 PAGE 3 OF 6
BID APPRO UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT TOTAL ITEM
ITEM X.QTY. (EACH BID ITEM SHALL INCLUDE ALL APPLICABLE TAXES, PRICE PRICE
PROFIT, INSURANCE, BONDS, AND OTHER OVERHEAD)
6. 1 LS Expand existing AMAG Security Access Control System to $ $
include Doors No: 107.1, 109.1, 126.1, 122.1, 122.2, 123.1,
MOS.l, Mo6.1 and.20S.1.
1,~OO +~OO
. &)t,vM ~ lztNifl. A tIliiJ\-t kJ.(t-J..
Additive Alternate Bid Total (item 1 through 6) $
(Total in words: 6~~¥ ~\W' ~tA~~ lctL ~JctJ cJhf ) :;4 Ii:> 'fiV
C: Deductive Alternate Bid Total: Provide all labor, equipment material, transportation and applicable taxes,
profit, insurance, bonds and other overhead to perform the Work in
accordance with the Project Plans and Technical Specifications, herein:
BID APPRO UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT TOTAL ITEM
ITEM X.QTY. (EACH BID ITEM SHALL INCLUDE ALL APPLICABLE TAXES, PRICE PRICE
PROFIT, INSURANCE, BONDS, AND OTHER OVERHEAD)
1. 1 LS Delete Elevator Interiors Package $ $ ~-1S' i\~~l--1r k Ib",~ C'"'-I ~~!h! ~~~ ~Ve.., ~~~1S' (Unit rice in words) 'b't-,
2. 1 LS Delete AV @ Entry Wall including power, data and $ $
monitors refer to Sheet AV2.1, Note 1 ':00 e.ttv tiN ~~s,."J. eir;tt-~~V\cLftJ e::\~~'f 'J(o~~O ~ q,\ol
( nit Price in Words)
3. 1 LS Delete metal panels at entry surrounding restroom core. $ $
As shown on sheet A 2.4. On lieu of install 5/8" gyp board
over th e specified new furring. Tape, texture and paint (n) t;DO
gyp board. ~1~oO ~Chl ~l> ~""c"tAMJ t;\It hl.lMclH~ e;1.1
(Unit Price in Words)
4. 1 LS Delete decorative glazing at doors to Community Meeting $ $
Room (refer to door schedule Sheet A 8.1) and replace
with X" clear tempered glazing. 0° \6D ~ ... t ~ ~~ I)ttt.. "'~~u" \ " \" (Unit Price in Words)
S. 1 LS Delete Folding walls at Community Meeting Room, replace $ $
with fixed anodized aluminum frame storefront system
00 00 ~~i:~nst:;~:rrf<::ed Cl-ea 'II\J ~ 1\;\ I (Unit Price in Words)
ADDENDUM NO. ONE TO CITY OF PALO ALTO IFB 153838 PAGE 5 OF 6
BID APPRO UNIT DESCRIPTION, WITH UNIT PRICE IN WORDS UNIT TOTAL ITEM
ITEM X.QTY. (EACH BID ITEM SHALL INCLUDE ALL APPlicABLE TAXES, PRICE PRICE
PROFIT, INSURANCE, BONDS, AND OTHER OVERHEAD)
6. 1 LS Delete Drinking Fountain Replacement with Water Filling $ $
stations on Floor level A, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. See Sheet
P.01Note P of General Plumbing Notes. .. qOb ,\00 ~i '\:)I sttc ~,a-V'l-J "".V\t U(-eJ (~nit Price iti or s)· ~lP' ~l
7. 1 LS Delete all work associated with Finance Department $ $
counter including casework, decorative glazing and
terrazzo floor infill as shown on sheets D2.1,A2.1, A2.4 and L{"I .. P .;..",0 Ani r.",(vy -S~\C ~S~ ~w '-t~tJ. ~v..hl yIJ 1 I.\,tp\
(Unit Price in Words)
8. 1 LS Delete all work in City Council Chambers as shown of Sheet $ $
A1D.l-CC, including installation of new carpeting and ~tP reupholster of existing bench style seating. 0° ~~~"'" f1.,vw~~ M~ ~ ~ i,() \
'h01 ( nit Price in Words)
9. 1 LS In lieu of replacing suspended ceiling systems as specified $ $
on the Mezzanine and Second Floor levels, maintain
existing suspended grid system as currently installed.
Modify existing grid system as required to accommodate
'lr
0
1/0 new specified fixtures and mechanical diffusers. Replace 7~ ceiling' tiles with specified tiles. Refer to sheet A 9.2 ~~ ~t.t-~\II.<"~ e.Aj"-\-",IAI"-ar~! +-wev--~I
(Unit Price in Words)
Deductive Alternate Bid Total (items 1 through 9) $
(Total in words: ) 4~11n~
~\.W ~ ~f ~\j .fw& ~1A.r...... J 4fl .. t. "'-..J.r~ .u..;,. f...t/ h "//f!..
D. Addenda
During the Bid process there may be changes to the Contract Documents, which would require an
issuance of an addendum or addenda. City disclaims any and all liability for loss, or damage to any
Bidder who does not receive any addendum issued by City in connection with this IFB. Any Bidder in
submitting a Bid is deemed to waive any and all claims and demands Bidder may have against City on
account of the failure of delivery of any such addendum to Bidder. Any and all addenda issued by City
shall be deemed included in this IFB, and the provisions and instructions therein contained shall be
incorporated to any Bid su bmitted by Bidder.
To assure that all Bidders have received each addendum, the following acknowledgment and sign-off is
required. Failure to acknowledge receipt of an addendum/addenda may be considered an irregularity in
the Bid:
ADDENDUM NO. ONE TO CITY OF PALO ALTO IFB 153838 PAGE 6 OF6
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
April 13, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Hearing on Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Residents Association’s
Appeal of Hearing Officer’s Decision Relating to Mitigation Measures
Proposed by Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Owner in Connection with
Mobilehome Park Closure Application
Attached is a letter dated March 30, 2015 from City Attorney, Molly Stump, outlining the
information regarding this agenda item. On February 25, 2015 the City Attorney’s Office
distributed Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of materials that constitute the administrative record on appeal
to the Council regarding this matter.
The document pertaining to the appeal procedures to be followed by the Council at the hearing
is also attached.
This hearing is scheduled to be considered by the Council on Monday, April 13, 2015, and if the
matter is not concluded on that day, the hearing will be continued to Tuesday, April 14, 2015,
as needed.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Buena Vista Letter (PDF)
B: BVMHP Appeal Procedures v2 (PDF)
Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney
Page 2
• CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.329.2171
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Re: Buena Vista Mobilehome Park
Dear Members of the Council:
March 30, 2015
On April 13 and 14, the City Council is scheduled to hear the appeal of the Hearing Officer's
decision regarding the adequacy of mitigation measures related to the closure of the Buena
Vista Mobile Home Park. This letter addresses certain pre-hearing matters.
Please find attached the pre-hearing statements submitted by the Park Owner and the
Residents' Association (Exhibit A), as well as additional correspondence regarding the appeal
procedures (Exhibit B).
The Residents' Association seeks to add two types of new evidence to the record in this matter:
recent real estate listings and an "Appraisal Review Report" commenting on the Beccaria &
Weber appraisals that are part of the Relocation Impact Report. (See cover letter and proposed
new material, Exhibit C.) The Park owner objects that the proffered new material does not
meet the standard set forth in the Council's appeal procedures, and is more prejudicial than
probative. (See letter, Exhibit D.)
This proceeding is convened to implement the City's responsibilities under Chapter 9.76 of the
Municipal Code with appropriate notice, opportunity to be heard and fairness to all parties. The
Council's appeal procedures provide that newly discovered and relevant evidence may be
allowed where a party demonstrates that the evidence could not have been discovered using
reasonable diligence during the proceeding before the Hearing Officer. The procedures also
state they are general guidelines that may be modified as appropriate.
We note that the Residents Associations' new material relates to matters that the Hearing
Officer recommended be updated within 6 months of residents' relocation from Buena Vista:
(a) the appraisals of the mobile homes and other living units at Buena Vista; and (b) the cost of
comparable housing for purposes of calculating rent differentials and start-up costs. If the
Council approves the Hearing Officer's recommendation that updates be made, these topics
will be subject to further analysis and maybe be revised as appropriate. In light ofthe potential
for this additional review, the Park owner's objections appear to go to the weight that should
150336 sh 0140132
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
March 30, 2015
Page 2of2
Re: Buena Vista Mobilehome Park
be given to the material provided by the Residents Association, rather than to the
appropriateness of including it in the record of these proceedings. We recommend that the
Residents' Associations' material be made a part of the record. Council may consider the
information or direct the experts performing the updates to do so, giving it the weight -if any -
that it is due. The Park owner, however, must be given an opportunity to respond to this
material. Accordingly, the Park owner may provide rebuttal evidence or comments, if desired,
no later than April 6. The Park owner's responsive letter of March 25 is already a part of the
record and need not be repeated.
In addition, the Residents Association has indicated an intention to exercise the option Council
provided to bring one witness to make a statement or no more than 10 minutes. The Park
Owner has stated it does not intend at this time to bring a witness, but has asked that the
Residents' Association disclose the identity of their witness. We agree that this is fair and
appropriate. No later than April 6, the Residents' Association shall inform the Council and the
Park Owner of the identity of its witness, provide a general description of the nature of the
witnesses intended statement, and provide a copy of any written assessment or comments that
the witness intends to offer.
Finally, during the week of April 6, this office will provide additional guidance to the parties and
the public regarding the order of presentations at the April 13 hearing. PowerPoint
presentations and other visual aids should be provided to the Clerk's Office the morning ofthe
13th, so that they can be loaded and tested in advance of the meeting.
MSS:sh
Attachments
cc: Margaret Ecker Nanda, Esq.
Nadia Aziz, Esq.
James Zahradka, Esq.
James Keene, City Manager
Very truly yours,
1di:u~tv
City Attorney
Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment
Grant Kolling, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Beth Minor, Interim City Clerk
150336 sh 0140132
EXHIBIT A
APPLICANT'S PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
The Toufic Jisser Family, the Owner of the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park located at 3980 El Camino Real
in Palo Alto submits this Pre-Hearing Statement in opposition to the Buena Vista MHP Residents
Association appeal of the decision of Craig Labadie, Hearing Officer, dated September 30, 2014 in the
matter of the closure of the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park (Volume 2, Attachment 151). The Toufic Jisser
family has owned Buena Vista Mobilehome Park (hereinafter Buena Vista or the Park) since 1986. Buena
Vista has a mobilehome park operating permit with the State of California, Department of Housing and
Community Development for 104 mobilehome spaces. Ofthose 104 spaces there are 98 occupied spaces.
In addition to the mobilehome spaces there are twelve {12) studio apartments, which were originally part
of a motel which existed on the property when it was operated in combination with a transient trailer
park. Finally there is a single family home on the park, a portion of which houses the Park Office. The Park
is 89 years old having begun as a "tourist camp" in 1926 (Volume 1, Attachment 3, Section 1.c.}. The
property owned by the Jisser family includes the Park and the property which is immediately in front of
the Park along El Camino Real which contains retail stores and a gas station, approximately 6.1 acres.
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 9.76, Mobilehome Park Conversion
Municipal Code Chapter 9.76, Mobilehome Park Conversion (hereinafter "the Conversion Ordinance" or
"Ordinance" was enacted in 2001 after the City Council enacted an Urgency Ordinance in 2000 to
temporarily freeze the amount of a noticed rent increase by the Park Owner to the tenants. The
Ordinance contains two parts, first a process and procedure for closure of the Park contained in Sections
9.76.010 through 9.76.110 and the second portion contains a limit on allowable rent increases (Section
9.76.120 through 9.76.110). There is a detailed discussion regarding the enactment of the Ordinance
contained in Volume 1, Attachment 8, Part A, Section 1, pages 7to13 of the record on appeal. In addition
the record on appeal contains the minutes of the various city council meetings in which the Ordinance
was discussed and then enacted. (See Volume 2, Attachment 11, Tabs 5 through 10). Several facts
however are confirmed by an examination of the history of the enactment of the Ordinance.
1. Council Member Bern Beecham stated that the useful life of the Park was reasonably short,
thereafter men~ioning ten years. The Assistant City Attorney, Ariel Calonne acknowledged in the April 30,
2001 meeting and the May 14, 2001 council hearings that extending the useful life of the park for ten
years reflected the Council's goal and could be achieved by a Long Term Preservation Strategy between
the City and the owners of the Park, also referred to as a "Development Agreement."
2. After enactment ofthe Ordinance on a 5 to 4 vote, no further efforts were ever
undertaken by any member of the City Staff and the Park Owner to reach a Development or other
Agreement regarding the preservation of Buena Vista as a mobilehome Park. Despite a suggestion to the
contrary by the attorneys for the Residents Association2, the Park Owner has never received any property
tax or any other benefit from the City of Palo Alto following enactment of the Ordinance.
Park Closure Process.
Thirty-one months ago, in September 2012 the Park Owner sent a letter to the tenants advising them that
it was considering closing the Park and converting it to another use (Volume 1, Attachment 3, Appendix
7). On November 9, 2012 the Jisser family filed a Development Review Application with the City of Palo
Alto for a Mobilehome Park Conversion pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 9. 76 (Volume 1, Attachment
1 References to Volumes and Attachments are those identified and listed in the Attachments of the Appeal of Final
Decision of the Hearing Officer in re the Matter of Application of Toufic Jisser, Trustee of the Jisser Family Trust, for
Closure of the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park, Palo Alto, California compiled by Senior Assistant City Attorney, Grant
Kolling, and as amended in his February 6 2015 email to counsel for the parties.
2 See Volume 1, Attachment 8, Part A, Section 1, pages 13 and 14.
1
3, Appendix 3). Initial informational meetings with the tenants were held on December 11 and 12, 2012.
(Volume 1, Attachment 3, Appendix 10). City staff approved the Housing Relocation Specialist, David
Richman of Autotemp pursuant to Section 976.030 (m) of the Ordinance. The Park Owner was also
required to chose an appraiser from a list supplied by the City (Section 9.76.030 (d) (5) (iv)) to appraise
the homes in the Park at its cost. The Park Owner selected the firm of Beccaria & Weber, Inc., which
conducted on site interior and exterior inspections of each home in early 2013, followed by a written
appraisal report of each home in the Park. Copies of the residents' appraisals were personally served on
each resident in April 2013. In May 2013 the first draft of the Relocation Impact Report (RIR) was
submitted to the City, which included electronic copies of the appraisals for all of the Park homes.
Subsequently, over a period of ten months the Park Owner, at the City's written request amended the RIR
four more times, and the City found that the Fifth Amended RIR met the requirements of the Ordinance
and the Park Owner's application was deemed complete. (Municipal Code Section 9.76.040 (a)). Volume
1, Attachment 6, Tabs 8 through 13 contain the Law Foundation's written opposition to each version of
the RIR, thus each of the Residents Association's perceived deficiencies in the RIR were considered by the
City Attorney prior to its ultimate approval of the RIR in February 2014. Pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 9. 76.040, subsection (f) the City must select a qualified hearing officer.
The City Attorney, without consultation with, or input from the Park Owner or its attorney selected Craig
Labadie, a former city attorney for the City of Walnut Creek as the Hearing Officer. Pursuant to subsection
(g) of Municipal Code Section 9. 76.040, the hearing officer shall approve the application on the condition
that the mitigation measures proposed by the park owner are adequate to mitigate the adverse impacts
on the displaced residents, and may condition the approval on additional conditions. Craig Labadie held
three public hearings regarding the application for closure on May 12, 13 and 14, 2014 at the Avenidas
Senior Center in Palo Alto. As Council can observe through watching the city's videotape of the
proceedings, or read in the transcript of the proceedings, (Volume 3, Attachment 19) testimony was given
by the Residents' Association experts and any of the residents who wished to speak, as well as members
of the public. In addition the Residents Association submitted written statements by residents unwilling
or unable to testify publicly, see Volume 1, Attachment 6, Tab 14.
At the 3rd hearing on May 14, 2014 the Park Owner presented a written amendment to the RIR. (Volume
1, Attachment 8, Tab 2). Specifically the Park Owner presented a letter to the Hearing Officer amending
the mitigation assistance offered in the RIR to include an updated appraisal of the resident's homes to
reflect what was repeated in the tenant's testimony at the hearings, specifically that the appraised values
of their homes were too low. Secondly the mitigation assistance was amended to offer a 100% rent
subsidy, or a payment of 100% of the difference between the resident's rent at Buena Vista and the rent
at the resident's new housing. The Residents Association opposed the amendment and requested that
the Hearing Officer find among other things that the hearing process was void and that an entirely new
hearing process on the amended RIR was required. (Volume 1, Attachment 8, Tab 3). The Park Owner
responded at length (Volume 1, Attachment 8, Tab 4) and in a letter to all counsel on May 23, 2014, Craig
Labadie found that the, "hearing process remains legally valid and can continue forward, subject to
reasonable adjustments to the post-hearing schedule if necessary to allow a full and fair opportunity for
the presentation of additional evidence and arguments by both parties." (Volume 1, Attachment 8, Tab
4). The Residents Association did not request any adjustments to the post hearing schedule, nor submit
any additional evidence but did argue again in its Post Hearing Brief and Attachments (Volume 2,
Attachment 9) that the Hearing Officer should not have allowed the Park Owner to amend the RIR. The
Park Owner submitted a Reply Brief to the Hearing Officer on July 23, 2014 (Volume 2, Attachment 10)
and on August 27, 2014 the Hearing Officer issued his Tentative Decision finding that the Park Owner had
met its burden of proof that the mitigation measures offered did meet the criteria of the City's
2
Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance. (Volume 2, Attachment 12). The Residents Association opposed
the Hearing Officer's Tentative Decision. (Volume 2, Attachment 14). The Hearing Officer issued his Final
Decision, 25 pages in length, on September 30, 2014 finding that, "After careful consideration of all the
information presented, my ultimate conclusion is that the park owner has met its burden of proof by
proposing a package of mitigation measures which, taken as a whole and with certain supplemental
conditions, do meet the criteria set forth in the City's Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance for
mandatory approval of the application to close the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park." (Volume 2,
Attachment 15, page 2; emphasis supplied). The Park Owner filed a certificate of acceptance of the
conditions of approval pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.76.050 by letter to Hilary Gitelman on
October 3, 2014. (Volume 2, Attachment 11, Tab 1). On October 14, 2014, the Residents Association filed
an appeal of the Hearing Officer's decision. (Volume 2, Attachment 15).
Parties to the Appeal.
Despite requests to the city attorney by the Park Owner that the appeal be heard earlier, the City took
approximately 90 days from the filing of the appeal by the Residents Association to conduct a hearing on
January 12, 2015 to determine the procedures for the appeal. The City Attorney proposed the hearing be
conducted in February but counsel for the Residents Association argued the hearing be held sometime in
early April in order for both the City Council and all parties to amply prepare.3 The hearings on the Appeal
were subsequently scheduled by the City Attorney's office, after discussion with counsel for both parties
for April 13, 2015 and April 14, 2015, which also scheduled May 4, 2015 as the date for the Council to
adopt its decision per Section 3.a. of the Appeal Procedures. Per Section 2 d. of the Appeal Procedures,
"The parties to the proceeding are the Park owner and the residents, tenants and legal owners of the
mobilehomes in the Park." (Emphasis supplied). By any reading of this language it is clear that the
residents of the studio apartments are not parties to this appeal since they are not residents, tenants or
legal owners of mobilehomes in the Park. The sentence does not state that residents or tenants living in
the Park are included as parties in the appeal, but rather that the residents, tenants or legal owners of
mobilehomes in the Park are parties. The City also did not state that all members of the Residents
Association are parties to the appeal, an issue which was extensively discussed by counsel for both parties,
and addressed prior to the January 12, 2015 hearing by counsel for both parties. (See Volume 2,
Attachment 11, Tab 2, Tab 3, Tab 4 and Tab 5, and Volume 2, Attachment 18.) The Park Owner confirms
its continuing position that the issue of standing to appeal the Hearing officer is a jurisdictional issue which
has in no way been waived by the Park Owner. The City's decision of January 12, 2015 to allow the
Residents Association to appeal on behalf of non-members of the Association, as well as to appeal on
behalf of its individual members when the relief sought, specifically the amount of mitigation assistance
is specific as to each member, and therefore not permitted under applicable law is reversible error.
Burden of proof.
Alt.hough it is the Residents Association who filed the appeal, pursuant to Municipal Code Section
9.76.040(g), the Park Owner, as the Applicant, bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof is "by a
preponderance of the evidence." As noted by the Hearing Officer in his decision, both parties extensively
discussed in their respective post-hearing briefs how the burden of proof should be applied, but the
Hearing Officer noted that both parties appeared to be saying the same thing, which was, "To approve
the conversion application, the hearing officer must weigh all the evidence and conclude that the approval
criteria in Section 9. 76.040(g) have been met, i.e., that the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant,
as supplemented by the hearing officer are adequate to mitigate the adverse impacts of park closure on
3 Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, page 22, lines 11 through 14, from the transcript of City of Palo Alto
City Council Meeting, January 12, 2015, prepared by Robin Pendergraft, CSR-8951.
3
the displaced residents." (Volume 2, Attachment 15, page 8, fn. 6). The traditional rules of evidence do
not apply in administrative hearings.
The Mitigation Assistance follows the Ordinance:
The Park Owner has agreed to pay to each park resident4:
1. An amount equal to 100% of the on-site fair market value of each mobilehome, as determined
by Becccaria & Weber, Inc. according to the methodology used in its April 2013 appraisal reports.
The appraisals shall be updated to reflect current market conditions within six months of the
owner's relocation from the Park.
2. A lump sum amount equal to 100% of the differential between average rents for apartments in
the cities surrounding Palo Alto5 and the average space rents in the Buena Vista Mobilehome Park
for a period of 12 months, which shall be updated to reflect current market conditions within six
months of the resident's relocation from Buena Vista. In addition the Park Owner will pay for
"start-up costs", meaning first and last month's rent plus security deposit in an amount equal to
three times the average apartment rent.
3. Actual, reasonable moving costs for relocating all personal property for each mobilehome owner;
AND
Actual, reasonable expenses for a minimum overnight stay of two nights in a hotel/motel during
the moving process. The appropriate level of these expenses will be determined by the Housing
Relocation Specialist.
4. Additional Assistance for Handicapped/Disabled Residents including but not limited to: (a) help
with packing or other physical tasks that the resident cannot do without assistance; and (b) the
cost of replacing any special equipment that is necessitated y the resident's disability but cannot
be moved. The appropriate amount of these payments will be determined by the Housing
Relocation Specialist if not agreed by the affected parties. (See Volume 2, Attachment 15, Exhibit
A, pp 24-25).
Details of Mitigation Assistance
As stated in the 5th Amended RIR, the average appraised value of a home at Buena Vista was, in April 2013,
$18,816.00 (Volume 1, Attachment 3, Section 19, page 55). Per the express language of the Ordinance in
Section 9.76.030(d)(S(iv) the Park Owner will pay the value the mobilehome would have if the park were
not being closed, which another way of saying the home's on site market value. Further the Park Owner
has agreed to have each home re-appraised to reflect current market conditions within six months ofthe
mobilehome owner's relocation from the Park. The Residents Association argued at the time the RIR was
being prepared, as well as at the public hearings in May 2014 that the appraisals were too low and did not
adequately take into account the fact that the homes are located in Palo Alto. Please review, Exhibit A,
page 10 of this document for an approximation of relocation benefits to be received on average.
The Resident's Associations negative criticisms about the Appraisals are without merit because the
appraisals are accurate and were completed by an unbiased qualified party.
The Resident's Association made repeated claims each time a version of the RIR was submitted to the
City6, and at the May 2014 hearings that the appraisals of the residents' homes are too low. However,
4 "Resident is defined under Municipal Code Section 9. 76.020 subsection (h) as the registered owner of a
mobilehome who resides in the mobilehome.
5 As discussed and presented throughout the various versions of the RIR, the market rate apartment rent data was
presented for the following cities: Palo Alto; Redwood City; Sunnyvale; Mountain View; and East Palo Alto.
6 See Volume 1, Attachment 6, Tabs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.
4
these claims are without merit. First, the Association purports to obfuscate standards between the CRAA
(California Relocation Assistance Act) standards and the Conversion Ordinance standards and highlights
that the CRAA uses the "in-place value of a resident's coach." In the Buena Vista case, the in-place value
is the value used in the appraisals (albeit it is referred to as the" on-site" value) and not the value of the
coaches should they be removed from the Park. The Residents Association's argument is thus confusing
and misleading. The homes at Buena Vista were in fact valued at their on-site, fair market value, there is
no difference in this context between the words, "in-place" and "on-site." Further, as discussed supra in
the discussion of the Park Closure Process, the Park Owner, in direct response to the tenant's testimony
at the hearings that their appraisals were too low, agreed to have all of the homes reappraised within six
months of the resident's sale of the home to the park owner.
Secondly, the Resident's make the argument that their due process rights have been violated because
they are unable to challenge the appraisals. The Resident's claims are hinged upon their assertion that
the appraisals are too low. However, the appraiser, Mr. David Beccaria of Beccaria & Weber Inc., is an
experienced qualified appraiser who was selected from a list of appraisers, supplied by the City, to provide
opinions for mobilehomes7• Mr. Labadie, in his opinion, noted that Mr. Beccaria "has extensive experience
appraising various kinds of residential properties, including mobilehomes located in mobilehome parks."8
The Residents Association did put forth a challenge to one the appraisals by using an additional appraisal
from another appraiser, Mr. McCullough for the home at space 27. The Hearing Officer discussed this
appraisal and found that it was based upon "the incorrect assumption that the subject mobilehome is
permanently attached to the land and qualifies as real property."9 Mr. Labadie also found the Residents
Association's expert Kenneth Baar to have no probative value since Kenneth Baar was not a qualified
appraiser. Hearing Officer Labadie carefully considered but found that Residents Association's evidentiary
support for the contention that Mr. Beccaria undervalued the 98 homes he appraised to be
u npersuasive10.
Lastly, the Residents Association overlooks the benefit that the homes were appraised by Mr. Beccaria as
if all of their additions were obtained with proper permits. The Hearing Officer noted that the residents
will receive a financial benefit since many of their homes were modified with unpermitted substandard
additions11•
The Combination Lump Sum Payment of the Rental Subsidy and Appraisal is more than Adequate
The Residents Association has opined that the rent subsidy is essentially too low. This criticism is flawed
because the rent subsidy is based upon the current average apartment rental rates in the surrounding
cities, when the Park currently offers below-market rents, which is controlled by an Ordinance that limits
the amount of rent increases the Park Owner can charge. A truly comparable subsidy would be based
upon affordable housing rents from surrounding cities. Instead, the residents will benefit from receiving
a significantly higher subsidy amount as part of their lump sum payment that imputes the benefit from
the Park's particular location in Palo Alto by utilizing current market rental rates in the area.
The Residents Association further complaint that the rent subsidy should not be based upon size of the
unit but household size is not reasonable because the rental subsidy will be based upon fair market rent
rates while the appraisals additionally assumed the additions were completed with permits. Thus, the
residents will have already received the added benefit of their higher appraisals and will also receive a
7 See Volume 2, Attachment 15, p 12
8 See Volume 2, Attachment 15, p 12
9 See Volume 2, Attachment 15, p 13
10 See Volume 2, Attachment 15, p 13
11 See Volume 2, Attachment 15, p 15
5
subsidy based upon market rate subsidies for the true size of their units. The market rate subsidy is
disproportionately beneficial to the Residents and not the Park Owner because the Park Owner has not
been charging rents at market rate, but will be required to pay a subsidy calculated at market rate.
The Residents Association's criticisms of the Relocation Specialist Dave Richman are misguided
Following the Conversion Ordinance, the Park Owner identified a relocation specialist to assist residents,
Mr. Dave Richman and his company, Autotemp, Inc. and the City subsequently approved the employment
of Autotemp as a proper relocation specialist. Throughout their correspondence with the City regarding
various versions of the RIR and in the Resident Association's Post-Hearing Brief and Attachments they
have inferred that Mr. Richman works for the Park Owner because the Park Owner is required under the
terms of the Ordinance to pay the Housing Relocation Specialist. Further in their Closing Brief the
Residents Association refers to Mr. Richman as the Park Owner's expert.12 He is not the Park Owner's
expert, and he did not testify at the public hearings as the Park Owner's expert; he is the City approved
Housing Relocation Specialist.
The Resident's Association criticisms appear to be entrenched in many assumptions about Mr. Richman's
testimony regarding the additional assistance that Resident's will receive.13 Mr. Richman stated that the
increased rent subsidy will provide the residents with "a great many more tools to secure replacement
housing."14 Yet, the Resident's Association opines that Mr. Richman's testimony is given too much
credence because he had previously stated that residents would likely need financing to purchase new
mobilehomes and did not specifically state exact mobilehomes that could be purchased, but relied upon
his past experience and general knowledge that he has seen units for sale before.15
Despite these criticisms, the Hearing Officer, Craig Labadie recognized the role the Housing Relocation
Specialist plays in a park closure and in his decision gives several discretionary roles to Mr. Richman,
including decisions regarding the appropriate level of moving costs and additional assistance for
handicapped/disabled residents.16
The Hearing Officer's decision to rely upon Mr. Richman's knowledge is not misguided as the Resident's
attempt to show because Mr. Richman's credentials are extensive in that he is a designated Right of Way
Relocation Assistance Certified professional, has provided real estate related services to hundreds of
clients, has personally handled several hundred projects, and has experience not only as a Project
Manager but also as a case worker, working with people representing all socio-economic levels.17
Mr. Richman's belief that the increased rent subsidy provides many more tools for residents was not
overvalued by the Hearing Officer as the Residents Association claims but given proper weight considering
Mr. Richman's extensive experience in resident relocation.
Comparable Housing as defined in the Ordinance does not include access to comparable schools.
In this case, this appeal evaluates whether the Hearing Officer's decision followed the City's Conversion
Ordinance properly, not whether the Ordinance should also include schools in an evaluation of
Comparable Housing. The Conversion Ordinance is the only relevant and applicable legal standard that
Council must ensure is followed. Although a discussion about schools and the impacts on residents with
12 Volume 2, Attachment 9, p. 19
13 Volume 2, Attachment 14, Resident's Association Opposition to Tentative Decision, pg 8
14 Volume 2, Attachment 14., Exhibit 14.
15 Volume 2, Attachment 14, pg. 8
16 See Volume 3, Attachment 15, pp 24-25.
17 Relocation Impact Report, Appendix 5.
6
children has taken place and is greatly appreciated by the Park Owner and all stakeholders, schools are
conspicuously absent from the City's own Conversion Ordinance.
A. The Legislative History of the Palo Alto Ordinance shows that many other Mobilehome
Conversion Ordinances were reviewed that contained mention of "schools" but any mention of
"schools" is conspicuously absent in the Palo Alto Ordinance.
The Palo Alto City Council considered and voted upon the Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance in
2001. Assistant City Attorney, Ariel Calonne, drafted the Conversion Ordinance. He considered other
Conversion Ordinances and provided copies of those to packets to the City Council. Bruce Stanton, who
was the attorney for the residents, testified that he has reviewed 107 mobilehome rent ordinacnes and
over 40 conversion ordinances n effect in cities and counties, and "he found Mr. Calonne's work to be
excellent." The only discussion of Comparable Housing that occurred at the hearing on May 14, 2001,
the meeting at which the Ordinance was adopted, reflect a statement by Mr. Calonne that the lump sum
payment based on the cost of moving to and purchasing or renting comparable housing was "intended by
the State to discourage conversion." There was not a single resident who testified at any hearing that the
issue of continuing their child's or child's education in Palo Alto schooolwas a reason for support of the
Conversion Ordinance or any of its provisions.
Ultimately the Palo Alto City Council approved a mobilehome park conversion ordinance which contained
the following definition of "comparable housing."
"Comparable housing" means housing in an apartment complex or condominium
that is similar in size, numbers of bedrooms and amenities to the mobilehome that
is being displaced and is located in a community that has similar access to shopping,
medical services, recreational facilities and transportation or a comparable Mobilehome
park.
The City of Monrovia's Conversion Ordinance which closely parallels the Palo Alto Ordinance, and also
contains a rent increase cap on allowable rent increases to prevent rent increases which would act to
drive tenants out so that mandatory relocation assistance payments could be avoided. The City of
Monrovia's definition of comparable housing provides as follows:
Comparable Housing. Housing which is comparable in floor area, number of bedrooms
and amenities, proximity to public transportation, shopping, schools, employment
opportunities and medical services and other relevant factors to the Mobilehome to which
comparison is being made. (Emphasis added).
The City of Capitola also has a mobilehome park conversion ordinance which is similar in many ways to
the City of Palo Alto. Similar provisions include the requirements of the contents of the relocation impact
report (RIR) and resident questionnaires. The definition of "Comparable Housing" is as follows:
"Comparable Housing" means housing which, on balance, is comparable in floor area,
number of bedrooms, and amenities, proximity to public transportation, shopping
schools, employment opportunities and medical services and other relevant factors
to the mobile home to which the comparison is being made. (Emphasis added)
The Council meeting minutes of both April 30, 2001 and May 14, 2001 confirm that Assistant City Attorney
Ariel Calonne had, in the process of preparing the draft conversion ordinance reviewed numerous
conversion ordinances in other jurisdictions. He had even included copies of the City of Monrovia's Closure
Ordinance in a council packet. It is clear that the City Attorney had before him examples ofthe definition
of comparable housing which included references to "schools" as an element of comparability.
7
Nonetheless, the definition of comparable housing in the Palo Alto conversion ordinance did not contain
any reference to schools. Furthermore there is no category of comparability specifically called out in the
definition which could reasonably be extended to include schools. The ordinance specifically enumerates
shopping, medical services, access to transportation and recreational facilities. Education, and specifically
schools, do not fit within any of the enumerated categories of comparability. The school system was
excellent in 2001, the year the ordinance was adopted. If the city intended for the schools to be ·an
element of measuring comparable replacement housing it could have included it either specifically or in
some generalized category of "other facilities" that could be construed to include schools. As was
discussed supra there was no resident or public testimony at either the April 30, 2001 or the May 14, 2001
city council hearings which mentioned the importance of schools, or the need to preserve access by the
residents to the school system.
B. For this Appeal, the Council's role is to evaluate whether the Conversion Ordinance has been
adequately followed.
All stakeholders appreciate that relocating to new homes is a difficult process and that changing schools
presents an additional consideration. However, the Park Owner also appreciates the legislative process
where concerned parties have already come together to manufacture ordinances that provide
governance during these transitions. The Palo Alto Mobilehome Conversion Ordinance legislative history
demonstrates that its adoption was well considered by all concerned parties at that time and the Council
had knowledge of Palo Alto's above-average schools. Ultimately, we must respect that any mention of
schools within the Ordinance is intentionally absent, particularly in light of the legislative history that
shows the governing body was well aware other Ordinances did mention schools and that Palo Alto had
excellent schools at time of adoption. As parties governed under this adopted Ordinance now in full
effect and dictating this proceeding, we must accept and respect the fact that schools is not mentioned
within the Ordinance.
C. Options for Residents who want their children to remain in Palo Alto Unified School District:
Apartments and Inter-district transfers available regardless of location.
The Park owner recognizes the well settled fact that Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) is excellent
and believes that the rent subsidy provides a good alternative option for residents wishing to keep their
children within the school district as well as possible inter-district transfers.
The rent subsidy is based upon fair market value rents, despite that Buena Vista offers rents far below
market rates. Furthermore, because Buena Vista is the only mobilehome park within the City, residents
who wish to keep their children within PAUSD will have the option of renting an apartment using this
subsidy. The Park's own expert, Dr. Padilla even admitted that there is nothing special about Buena Vista
that provides an advantage for the children that reside in Buena Vista; rather, it is living in an area served
by the PAUSD that is of academic benefit to the children. Therefore, if residents use their rent subsidy to
rent an apartment within PAUSD served areas, this problem can be mitigated.
Additionally, the option of inter-district transfers is also preferred by the Park Owner. The Park Owner
hopes that the PAUSD can recognize the value that the children of Buena Vista bring to their educational
system and allow the children to continue attending PAUSD schools until they graduate. First, school
districts are funded by property taxes. Possible redevelopment of the park to residential homes after
Park closure will provide PAUSD with a significant boon in property taxes. Thus, any burden PAUSD may
face by allowing the children to continue their education in the district will be offset by the anticipated
significant increase in revenue from their property tax base.
8
In summary, the Park Owner recognizes the unique consideration that families with school age children
face upon relocation but hopes that the PAUSD has the compassion to allow Buena Vista children to
continue attending their educational institutions by allowing inter-district transfers, regardless of where
the residents ultimately relocate.
Conclusion
Buena Vista Mobilehome Park is the only mobilehome park in Palo Alto and represents 0.35% of the
housing stock in the City of Palo Alto.18 The adequacy of the mitigation assistance offered to the
Residents through the Relocation Impact Report and the amendment to the Report at the final public
hearing on May 14, 2014 was carefully considered by the Hearing Officer, Craig Labadie. Mr. Labadie's
twenty five page opinion reflects his careful and studied consideration of all of the evidence submitted
to him by both the Park Owner and the Residents Association. Every argument raised by the Residents
Association in both their Post Hearing Brief19 and their Opposition to the Hearing Officer's Tentative
Decision20 has been addressed by Mr. Labadie. The City's Mobilehome Conversion Ordinance clearly
contemplates that it is the Hearing Officer to whom the decision as to the adequacy of the mitigation
assistance is given. The Park Owner met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that
the mitigation measures it proposed were adequate to mitigate the adverse impacts on the displaced
residents. Further the Hearing Officer was mindful of the limitation contained in State law, specifically
in Government Code §65863.7 subsection (e) which provides that the steps to mitigate the adverse
impact of a park closure shall not exceed the reasonable costs of relocation. The Owner of Buena Vista
Mobilehome Park has the unqualified right to close the Park and cease its operation as a mobilehome
park, provided it complies with state law and the Municipal Code 9.76. The Park Owner understands
and appreciates as the Landlord who offers the least expensive, non-subsidized rental housing in the
City of Palo Alto that some of the tenants do not want to leave the Park. As occurred at the public
hearings before Mr. Labadie, heartfelt testimony will be given at the time ofthe appeal by the residents
as well as members ofthe community. The City Council however, must as Mr. Labadie wrote, accept
that their task in this appeal is to
"dispassionately consider and analyze the factual evidence and legal arguments presented by
the parties and reach a conclusion on the essential question whether the mitigation measures ...
meet the standard of adequacy without being unreasonable. Although I am mindful of the
impact this decision will have on the lives of park residents, my factual and legal conclusions
must be based on evidence and reasoned analysis, not emotion or sympathy."21
Date: March 23, 2015
Respectfully Submitted,
Margaret Ecker Nanda, esq.
18 Palo Alto Housing Element, Adopted November 10, 2014, p 47
19 Volume 2, Attachment 9
20 Volume 2, Attachment 14
21 Volume 2, Attachment 15, p 1
9
EXHIBIT A
For instance, below follows a calculation of the lump sum payment tenants will receive based upon 1-bedroom
and 2-bedroom units. This lump sum is payable without identification of a specific relocation property
is not tied to any requirement other than the residency requirements set forth in the Conversion Ordinance.
These figures are an average approximation using Hearing Officer Craig Labadie's Tentative Decision.
Figure 1.
l1eedroom I Palo Alto lsunnyvale I Redwood City I Mountain View I East Palo Alto I Average Total
Average Rent
Monthly Subsidy
12 month subsidy
Start up Costs
Moving Costs
rentbits.com*
rentjungle.com**
zillow.com*** -all units
Average
$2,864.00 $2,236.00 $3,026.00 $2,483.00
$2,515.00 $2,380.00 $2,410.00 $2,430.00
$3,495.00 $2,850.00 $3,475.00 $2,945.00
$2,958.00 $2,488.67 $2,970.33 $2,619.33
$2,208
$26,496
$8,874
$1,739
$20,868
$7,466
$2,220
$26,640
$8,911
$1,869
$22,432
$7,858
!Sample Mitigation Benefits for random park tenant moving to 1 Bedroom apartment
100% of Appraised Value $22,203 ($18,816, park average appraisal+ 18% increase****)
12 month subsidy $22,441 (based on data above)
Start up costs $7,860 (3x the monthly cost of an apartment)
Moving Costs $1,100 (from LFSV post-hearing brief, increased from $990)
Disabled Assistance TBD
Return of Deposit variable
$2,064
$1,314
$15,768
$6,192
$53,604 Mitigation Assistance For Mobilehome Owners with 1-bedroom unit I
Payable in lump sum regardless of where tenant relocates.
Figure 2.
Average Rent
Monthly Subsidy
12 month subsidy
Start up Costs
Moving Costs
rentbits.com*
rentjungle.com**
zillow.com*** -all units
Average
100% of Appraised Value
12 month subsidy
Start up costs
Moving Costs
Disabled Assistance
Return of Deposit
$3,936
$3,400
$3,495
$3,610
$2,860
$34,320
$10,830
$22,203
$27,283
$9,071
$1,100
TBD
variable
$2,823
$3,035
$2,850
$2,903
$2,153
$25,836
$8,709
$3,843
$3,125
$3,475
$3,481
$2,731
$32,772
$10,443
$2,989 no data
$3,245 no data
$2,945
$3,060
$2,310
$27,720
$9,180
{$18,816, park average appraisal+ 18% increase)
(based on data above)
(3x the monthly cost of an apartment)
(from LFSV post-hearing brief, increased from $990)
$2,064
$2,064
$1,314
$15,768
$6,192
$59,657 Mitigation Assistance for Mobilehome Owners with 2-bedroom unit
Payable in lump sum regardless of where tenant relocates.
Note: Current apartment rent data was obtained using these websites:
* http://rentbits.com/rb/t/rental-rates/apartments/palo_alto-california
**https://www.rentjungle.com/comparerent/
***http://www.zillow.com/research/data/
****The 18% increase was based upon average real property values increase in Palo Alto between Q4 2013 and Ql 2015
using data from·www.zillow.com and www.trulia.com
10
I
$2 759 08 ,
$2,759
$1,870
$22,441
$7,860
$1,100
$3 024 ' $3,024
$2,274
$27,283
$9,071
$1,100
I
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Concerning Buena Vista Mitigation Measures
I. Introduction
Four hundred Palo Alto residents live at Buena Vista Mobile Home Park and its closure
would mean the loss of their current homes and their displacement from Palo Alto. It would also
mean the obliteration of a vibrant, diverse, and close-knit community, and the loss of a shrinking
number of affordable housing opportunities for low-income families in Palo Alto.
The Buena Vista MHP Residents Association is appealing the Hearing Officer's approval
of the owner's relocation assistance plan because it does not comply with Palo Alto's
Mobilehome Conversion Ordinance ("Ordinance"). The proposed assistance does not
adequately compensate Buena Vista's families for the loss of their mobilehomes, and it is far
below what is needed to allow the families to find a new, comparable, permanent place to live
within 35 miles of Buena Vista. On behalf of the more than 100 families living in Palo Alto's
only mobilehome park, the Residents Association requests that the City Council overturn the
decision of the Hearing Officer, and deny the owner's request to close Buena Vista.
II. Background: Buena Vista Mobile Home Park
The Buena Vista community is comprised of low-income, working class families. Nearly
half of its families make under $30,000 a year; another thirty percent make between $30,000 and
$40,000 a year.1 Approximately ninety percent of Buena Vista families are Latino and nearly
eighty percent speak Spanish as their primary language. 2
Buena Vista has existed in its current location for nearly a century, and has housed
permanent residents since the 1950s.3 For more than 60 years, Buena Vista has provided a
crucial source of affordable housing and home ownership opportunity to working families who
whose labor has supported the unprecedented growth of business in the region.4 As an
affordability crisis rages in Silicon Valley, Buena Vista is the one of the only options for
homeownership available to lower income residents of Palo Alto.
The City of Palo Alto has long recognized the central role of Buena Vista in creating
affordable housing opportunities for Palo Alto's working class families. For decades, Palo Alto
has recognized Buena Vista as "an important affordable housing resource" in the Housing
Element of its Comprehensive Plan. 5 As recently as November 2014, in the midst of this closure
process, the City Council approved its 2015-2022 state-mandated Housing Element.6 Yet again,
the City Council recognized and relied on Buena Vista's affordable housing stock as an essential
tool to meet the City's current and future housing needs. The City Council also stated that its
'Kenneth K. Baar, PhD., Analysis of Relocation Impact Report (RIR) and Mitigation for Proposed Closure of Buena
Vista Park (May 5, 2015) at 3.
2Donald Barr, MD, PhD and Amado Padilla, PhD, The Families and Children Who Live in the Buena Vista Mobile
Home Park (March 17, 2014) (report of study conducted for the Stanford Graduate School of Education) at 7.
3Barr and Padilla at 1.
4Joseph W. Doherty, PhD, Report of Dr. Joseph W. Doherty, Buena Vista Mobile Home, Park Palo Alto Mobile
Home Park Conversion Ordinance (May 5, 2014), para. 22.
5Palo Alto Ordinance No. 4672 (Dec. 19, 2000).
6City of Palo Alto 2015-2023 Housing Element ("Housing Element"), available at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ gov /depts/pln/advance/housing_element_update_20 l 5 _2023 .asp.
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF THE BUENA VISTA MHP RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
1
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Concerning Buena Vista Mitigation Measures
"Five-Year Objective" is to "Preserve the 120 mobile home units in the Buena Vista Mobile
Home Park as a low and moderate income housing resource."7
In addition to Buena Vista's importance from an affordable housing standpoint, the chart
below shows how it contributes ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic diversity to Palo Alto.
Buena Vista's Demoj?raohics Comoared to Palo Alto Generallv8
Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Palo Alto
Median Income $35,000 $120,025
Latino Population 73%-90% 6%
Occupation 18% -Service Industry 75% -Management
23% -Sales/Office
9% -Construction/Maintenance
Likewise, the 129 children living at Buena Vista contribute greatly to the diversity of the Palo
Alto schools.9
III. Background: Efforts to Close Buena Vista
In 2000, Buena Vista's owner attempted to significantly increase the rent at Buena
Vista.10 Recognizing the importance of Buena Vista as a source of affordable housing, the City
Council enacted a Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance ("Ordinance") which limited rent
increases and permitted the closure of Buena Vista only if and when the owner adequately
compensated residents for the loss of their mobilehomes.11
In 2012, the owner initiated the closure process and, in 2013, submitted a Relocation
Impact Report ("RIR") for approval by the City. After five rejected submissions of the RIR and
18 months, the City deemed the RIR to be technically complete and scheduled a hearing to
determine its adequacy.12 During the three-day hearing, testimony was taken from residents,
several expert witnesses, and members of the public. The park owner did not testify. At the
conclusion of the three-day hearing, the owner submitted a last-minute change to the RIR,
promising updated appraisals six months prior to the park closure (and an update to the rent
differential). The Hearing Officer denied the Resident Association's request for further hearing
on this last-minute addendum to the RIR.13 Following the hearing, the parties submitted briefing
to Hearing Officer Craig Labadie. On September 30, 2014, Mr. Labadie approved the owners'
proposed assistance with minor changes. 14 The Residents Association filed this appeal to the
7Housing Element at 140.
8See Doherty Report; Barr and Padilla at 7.
9Barr and Padilla at 4-5.
10Palo Alto Ordinance No. 4672 (Dec. 19, 2000).
l!Palo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.010 et. seq.
12Letter from Grant Kolling, Office of the City Attorney, Palo Alto deeming RIR complete dated Feb. 20, 2014.
13Letter from Craig Labadie, Hearing Officer to M. Morris and M. Nanda dated May 23, 2014.
14Craig Labadie, "Final Decision in the Matter of the Application of Toufic Jisser, As Trustee of the Jisser Family
Trust, for Closure of Buena Vista Mobilehome Park in Palo Alto, California," (Final Hearing Decision) dated
September 30, 2014.
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF THE BUENA VISTA MHP RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
2
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Concerning Buena Vista Mitigation Measures
City Council on October 14, 2014. The City Council held a preliminary hearing on January 20,
2015, to set the procedures for the appeal.
IV. The City Council's Authority
The City Council's role in the mobilehome park closure process is part of its broader
planning and zoning authority to protect the public's health, safety and welfare; local laws that
govern the use of land fit squarely within that power.15 The Ordinance explicitly recognizes the
unique and vulnerable situation of mobilehome owners-they own their homes but rent the space
on which the homes sit-and provides them with special protections. One of the explicit
purposes of enacting the ordinance was to support preservation and indirectly discourage
conversion because of the financial burden conversion imposed on the owner.16 Thus, the
Ordinance's provisions must be considered in context of its enactment-an effort by the City
Council to preserve this crucial source of affordable housing.
The Ordinance specifically requires the City Council to make the final decision about
whether or not the relocation assistance provided by the owner is adequate, and, thus, whether
Buena Vista can be closed.17 The City Council must make the decision on a de novo review,
meaning that the City Council has the opportunity to review all evidence, ask questions of the
owner and residents, and must use its independent judgment to reject, accept, or modify the
decision of the Hearing Officer.18
V. The Relocation Plan Does Not Comply with the Conversion Ordinance
Under the terms of the Ordinance, the City must not approve a mobilehome park closure
unless the mitigation measures proposed by the owner "are adequate to mitigate the adverse
impacts on the displaced residents."19 For residents whose mobilehomes can be moved, which is
a small number of residents, the owner must pay for the cost of moving the mobilehome, and a
lump sum payment that is intended to cover a rent differential, moving expenses, and start-up
costs. 2° For all other residents, along with the lump-sum payment of moving costs, the owner
must offer a relocation payment that includes the cost of purchasing comparable housing, any
remaining loan payments on the mobilehome, and the loss of investment in the mobilehome.21
A. The Hearing Decision's Interpretation of the ''Reasonable Cost of Relocation" Is Wrong
15See Palo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.010; see Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (1926) 272 U.S. 365, 387; Miller v. Board of
Public Works of City of Los Angeles (1925) 195 Cal. 477, 490.
16Testimony of Ariel Calonne, City Attorney, City of Palo Alto Council Meeting Minutes, 4/30/01, p. 92-69.
17Palo Alto Mun. Code §9.76.060. Although it was decided under a different Government Code section, Goldstone
v. County of Santa Cruz, 207 Cal.App.4th 1038 (2012) upheld a local jurisdiction's discretion to reject a
mobilehome park conversion. Id. at 1042.
18 Appeal Procedures: Application for Closure of Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal
Code Chapter 9.76 (adopted Jan. 12, 2015).
19Palo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.040(g).
2°ralo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.040(g)(l).
21Palo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.040(g)(2).
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF THE BUENA VISTA MHP RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
3
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Concerning Buena Vista Mitigation Measures
The hearing decision notes that the Ordinance does not require any mitigation assistance that
would exceed the "reasonable costs of relocation" and asserts that the term "reasonable costs of
relocation" is not defined anywhere in the law.22 However, the California Relocation Assistance Act,
which pertains to displacement by government action, establishes uniform standards for relocation
benefits and, in doing so, provides a framework for understanding what is "reasonable" in this
context.23 The CRAA sets forth the types of compensation that are "reasonable and necessary" when
a person or entity is displaced, and its regulations require "fair and reasonable" relocation payments.24
Under the CRAA, reasonable costs of relocation contemplate: a "comparable" home that is
affordable to the displaced resident, is of a similar size and function, and is in a similar location.25 The
location of the replacement housing must be in a neighborhood that is "not less desirable than the
location of the displaced person's dwelling with respect to public utilities, facilities, services, and the
displaced person's place of employment,"26 and displaced individuals are entitled to "payment for
actual moving and related expenses ... including actual and reasonable expenses in moving and actual
direct losses of tangible personal property as a result of moving. ,m
These requirements set the statewide benchmark for relocation benefits, and the Hearing
Officer should have turned to them when considering the "reasonable costs of relocation" under the
Ordinance. Viewed in the context of established California law, the hearing decision's statement that
the owner is not responsible for paying the cost of a replacement mobilehome for each resident is
incorrect.28 Payments that make relocation to replacement housing possible are not only required by
the Ordinance as a condition for closure of the park; they are reasonable by definition.
B. The Proposed Mitigation Measures Will Not Allow Any Resident to Relocate to
Comparable Housing
1. The Appraised Value of the Mobilehomes is not an Adequate Method to Measure
Payment for Comparable Housing
As stated above, the owner is required to provide Buena Vista residents with a relocation
package that includes the "cost of comparable housing."29 The Ordinance lists mobilehomes,
condominiums, and apartments as types of potential replacment housing. While not explicitly
stated in the Ordinance, a common-sense reading of these options leads to the conclusion that
comparable housing includes comparable tenure. That is, payments to mobilehome owners
should allow them to "mov[e] to and purchas[e]" comparable ownership housing (mobilehome
or condominium) and renters should be provided with sufficient compensation to allow them to
rent a comparable apartment. 3° For mobilehome owners, the owner has refused to comply with
22 Final Hearing Decision at 4.
23See Gov't Code§ 7262; City of Mountain View v. Superior Court, 54 Cal. App. 3d 72, 78-80 (1975).
24Gov't Code§ 7262; CCR§ 6010 (a)(l).
25Gov't Code §7260(i)(l)(3); 25 CCR§ 6008.
26Gov't Code §7260 (i)(6); 25 CCR§ 6008 (c)(2).
27Gov't Code §7262.
28Final Hearing Decision at 16.
29Palo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.020(i).
3°ralo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.020(i); Moreover, the City Council should reverse decision to deny relocation
assistance to the studio tenants, who face the loss of their affordable units. Final Hearing Decision, 17-18. The City
4
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF THE BUENA VISTA MHP RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Concerning Buena Vista Mitigation Measures
this part of the Ordinance and is only offering payment equal to (artificially low) appraised
values of residents' mobilehomes. These appraisal amounts, while relevant to the loss of equity
that residents will suffer if Buena Vista is closed, have no relevance to the cost of comparable
housing. And while the Ordinance requires the RIR to include appraisals of mobilehomes, the
appraisals are not a cap on mitigation assistance provided to those displaced.31
The cost of purchasing mobilehomes within a 35-mile radius of the Buena Vista is far
greater than the appraised values. The owner's relocation specialist himself testified that
residents will need $20,000 to $50,000 more than the average $18,816 being offered at the time
of the hearing to purchase a mobilehome within 35 miles of the park. 32 At the time of the
hearing, the floor on mobilehome prices in the neighboring cities was over $40,000, with few
offerings for less than $70,000.33 At that time, residents would have needed at least $100,000 to
purchase replacement mobilehome housing.34 Today, mobilehomes for sale in Sunnyvale and
Mountain View range from $119,000 to $379,000.35
Moreover, the Resident Association's expert Dr. Joseph Doherty examined the quality of
the mobilehome parks that the owner lists as "comparable," and found them wanting. These
mobilehome parks are not in fact comparable, particularly as to the quality of schools (as
described further below). In any event, even these inferior parks would still not be accessible to
the vast majority of Buena Vista families because the cost of mobilehomes at those parks is
significantly more than the relocation payment being offered.
2. The Appraisal Amounts Initially Proposed by the Owners Are Too Low
As alluded to above, the mobilehome appraisals performed by the owner's appraiser are
low and rely on flawed methodology. At the time of the RIR, the appraised values ranged from
$5,500 to $45,000, with an average of $18,816.36 As explained in the report of expert James
Brabant, the methods used by the owner's appraiser skewed towards misleadingly low
comparables to appraise the mobilehomes and the owner's appraiser completely ignored the high
value of owning a home in Palo Alto. 37 The Ordinance requires the appraisals to look at the in-
place value of the mobilehome. 38 In-place value is not limited the physical value of the
mobilehome itself, but the value of occupying a particular space in a particular neighborhood
with particular amenities. 39 It is clear from the testimony of residents at the park that the driving
factor for residents choosing to live in the park is its location in Palo Alto, including its location
Council has broad authority to require the owner to mitigate any negative impacts of the closure, including requiring
that the studio tenants be given relocation assistance. Palo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.040(g)(l).
31See Palo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.030(d)(5)(iv).
32Transcript, 23: 11-13;
33Baar at iii.
34Hearing Transcript at 68.
35See searches: http://www.trulia.com/for sale/Mountain View.CA/MOBILEIMANUFACTURED type and
http://www.trulia.com/for sale/Sunnyvale,CA/MOBILEIMANUFACTURED type, run on 3/23/2015.
36Although Palo Alto housing prices have increased by 49.8% since 1992, the owner dismisses any increase in value
for the Buena Vista's mobilehomes. Many of the appraised values for the mobilehomes are even less than what
residents paid for them. Baar at 8.
37See James Brabant, MAI, Review of Appraisals by Beccaria & Webster, Inc., re Buena Vista Mobile Home Park.
38Palo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.030(d)(5)(iv).
39See Adamson v. City of Malibu, 854 F. Supp. 1476 (C.D. Cal 1994).
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF THE BUENA VISTA MHP RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
5
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Concerning Buena Vista Mitigation Measures
near high-quality schools, public transportation, several medical facilities, and the overall safety
of the neighborhood.40 And yet the owner's appraiser did not even attempt to determine what
any of the Buena Vista mobilehomes would sell for in-place and in the current market.
3. The Mitigation Assistance Fails to Consider Essential Amenities in its Determination
of Comparable Housing
As mentioned above, the comparable mobilehome parks identified in the RIR were not
actually comparable. A "comparable mobilehome park," is "a mobilehome park that is similar in
condition, age, size and amenities to the park that is being closed and is located within a
community similar to that in which the park that is being closed is located and has similar access
to community amenities such as shopping, medical services, recreational facilities and
transportation."41 In plain English, the Ordinance requires enough mitigation assistance so that
displaced residents are able to afford new homes in a community similar to Palo Alto.
The owner argues that because the Ordinance does not contain the words "schools" or
"education" that no consideration can be given to the public schools when determining whether a
community is comparable to Palo Alto.42 However, while the words "schools" and "education"
do not appear in the Ordinance, the term "comparable" requires that alternative housing be
"located within a community that is similar to that in which the park that is being closed is
located."43 That is, the Ordinance not only defines "comparable" to include certain enumerated
"amenities" but also includes within the definition the larger "community" in which the
mobilehome park exists. Thus, to assess whether the proposed mitigation assistance is adequate
it must be determined (1) whether the Palo Alto public schools are part of the Palo Alto
"community," (2) whether Palo Alto schools are exceptional compared to other communities to
which residents might be relocated, and (3) whether the residents will be adversely impacted by
losing access to the Palo Alto public schools.
The citizen testimony received during the May hearing leaves no doubt as to the role Palo
Alto's public schools play in the larger community. Citizen after citizen testified regarding the
importance of education and the public school system to what it means to live in Palo Alto.44
Both the Palo Alto school board and the city's PT A groups have felt compelled to take positions
on the closure of Buena Vista.45 The Residents' expert, Professor Amado Padilla, noted that
Palo Alto residents pay a premium on real estate and have assessed themselves higher taxes to
support the schools, allowing the school district to expend significant resources on education,
which other communities are unable to match.46 Further, expert Dr. Joseph Doherty's report
shows that the educational results for children attending Palo Alto schools are significantly
40Hearing Transcript at 85-126.
41Palo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.020(b).
420wner's Closing Brief, at 48-52. While the definition of "comparable housing" discussed by the owner at pages
48-52 of their brief does not include this same phrase, the owner provide no rationale for why the Ordinance should
differentiate between what characteristics that constitute a comparable community in which a mobilehome park is
located versus a comparable community in which an apartment complex or condominium is located.
43/d.
44See, e.g., Hearing Transcript at 143, 150-156, 168-195.
45/d. at 157, 170-172, 181-185.
46/d. at 136-138.
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF THE BUENA VISTA MHP RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
6
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Concerning Buena Vista Mitigation Measures
higher than those for children who live in other areas of the region.47 Dr. Doherty reached this
conclusion by comparing data for Palo Alto's schools to similar data for schools attended by
children living in mobilehome parks within a 35-mile radius of Buena Vista.48
Buena Vista's residents have taken full advantage of Palo Alto's educational
opportunities, with over one hundred children from the park enrolled, no drop-outs, and
significant parent participation.49
C. The Lump-sum Relocation Assistance Package Will Not Adequately Compensate
Residents for Start-up Housing Costs
Along with the cost of purchasing a comparable home, the owner is required to a "lump
sum" relocation assistance package to all residents, regardless of whether their mobilehomes can
be moved. These amounts include costs to move personal property, a rent differential, and
"start-up costs" (first months' rent, last months' rent, and a security deposit), as well as
additional assistance for families with disabled and elderly household members.50
During the last few minutes of the hearing, the owner stated that they would pay a 100%
rent differential for one year for all residents, rather than th~ 40% rent differential proposed in
the RIR.51 However, instead of compensating residents for the difference between what the
resident pays now and the actual rent of an appropriately-sized unit, the owner only agreed to
pay residents the rent differential based on the original size of their mobilehomes, without
considering any additions to the unit.52 Therefore, for all but four families, the owner will only
provide a rent differential at the one-bedroom unit rate, which is inadequate given the actual
sizes of many residents' families.53 Families, especially ones with children, will need a unit
larger than one bedroom and would not be able to find affordable units with the assistance that
the Owner proposes to provide.54 Again, given the meager relocation amount offered, these
residents will be required to move far from Palo Alto-and their jobs and schools-in order to
afford a new, appropriately-sized unit.
The lump sum for relocation of personal property is likewise inadequate. The $990.00
lump sum for relocation of personal property is based on an average amount for moving costs for
a 1-to 4-room unit under the Uniform Relocation Act.55 However, by averaging the moving cost
amounts for 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-room homes, the RIR skews the cost of moving artificially low.
Even very small 1-bedroom mobilehomes have 3 or more rooms. According to the schedule, the
47Doherty at paras. 25-29.
48/d. at paras. 5-14.
49Barr and Padilla at note 3 at 4-5.
50Palo Alto Mun. Code §9.76.040(g)(l); Palo Alto Mun. Code, §9.76.040(g)(2)(c).
51Hearing Transcript at 200-203.
52RIR at 72.
53/d.
54Baar at 3.
55RIR at 68.
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF THE BUENA VISTA MHP RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
7
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Concerning Buena Vista Mitigation Measures
cost to move a 3-room home in California is $1100, and the costs of moving personal property
from larger homes are predictably higher.56
D. The Owner's Last-Minute Promise to Provide an Updated Appraisal Creates an
Unappealable Process
As described above, the owner made an eleventh-hour amendment to its RIR at the close
of the hearing. The owner stated that it would "pay the full on-site, fair market value of each
home ... which appraisal shall be updated within six months or less of the homeowner' s
relocation from the park. "57 First, since the amounts of the appraisals were unknown at the end
of the hearing, the Hearing Officer should not have made a determination as to whether the
mitigation package as a whole was adequate.
Second, while updating the outdated appraisals (conducted in January 2013) is certainly
advisable, the owner's proposal to base the mitigation amount on appraisals to be done after
approval of the closure creates serious fairness concerns since residents will have no means of
appealing these amounts. If this approach is approved, the owner will have evaded the
Conversion Ordinance and been empowered to set unilaterally the value of residents' homes
without any neutral third-party review. Lastly, because the owner plans to use the same appraiser
for these future appraisals, it is likely that that any updated appraisal will continue to discredit
the value of the mobilehomes being in Palo Alto, therefore valuing the homes artificially low. 58
E. The Owner Has No Real Plan to Find Housing for Buena Vista Residents
The owner's proposed relocation plan is not a plan at all-it is simply a report of housing
data. The Hearing Officer accepted the owner's assurance that the Relocation Specialist will
find housing options for the residents.59 However, this assurance is not grounded in reality and
the Council should reject it.
For the few mobilehomes that can be moved, the RIR fails to identify a single
mobilehome park or other housing opportunity within 35 miles that would allow the current
homeowners to transition without significant personal expense.60 The owner's own relocation
expert admitted during the hearing that it would be difficult to find housing within 35 miles of
the park with the assistance that the owner is providing.61 In fact, the RIR states that the best
options for relocation are outside of Santa Clara County.62 This suggestion is echoed by Thomas
56U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act, as amended,"
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/practitioners/uniform_act/relocation/moving__cost_schedule.cfm>.
51/d. at 22 (emphasis omitted).
58Brabant Report.
59Final Hearing Decision at 16.
60The relocation specialist stated that he could help displaced residents obtain mortgages to help cover the cost of
relocating to another mobilehome. This "offer" is fundamentally flawed in two respects: First, residents should not
be forced to take out mortgages to pay for the replacement housing that the Ordinance requires the owner to provide.
Second, the relocation specialist provides no explanation as to how he would ensure that residents-many of whom
are low income and have poor, or non-existent, credit-could obtain affordable financing.
61Hearing Transcript at 22.
62RIR at 67.
8
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF THE BUENA VISTA MHP RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Concerning Buena Vista Mitigation Measures
Kerr, the owner's rebuttal expert, who stated, "In my experience, sometimes homeowners opt to
relocate to the Central Valley where living costs are lower."63 Moving residents to the Central
Valley will not suffice under the Ordinance.
V. The Owner Should Detail Future Plans at the Site
The City Council should require the owner to detail future plans at the Buena Vista site.
Not only does the Ordinance require this, but the City Council and the citizens of Palo Alto have
a right to know what development, if any, is planned for the future site, including whether or not
a zoning change will be required. 64 The owner's refusal to provide any details about the future
use of the site is counter, not only to the Ordinance, but to the City Council's interests in
effectively using Palo Alto's limited land resources. The City Council's decision regarding
Buena Vista's closure should not occur in a vacuum.
VI. Conclusion
Any of the failures of the RIR and hearing decision alone justify the Council overturning
the Hearing Officer's decision and rejecting the owner's application to close Buena Vista; taken
together, they certainly do.
Palo Alto's Ordinance requires, as a condition of the conversion or closure of the park,
that the owner provide mitigation measures that are "adequate to mitigate the adverse impacts on
the displaced residents."65 After over a year and a half and five different versions of the RIR-
including one that was effectively produced during the hearing-the owner has yet to
meaningfully address the "adverse impacts on displaced residents." The failures are listed in the
chart below:
How the RIR Differs from the Ordinance
What Ordinance Requires
Cost of physically moving the
mobilehome within 35 miles
of the park
Overnight stay in a motel
while mobilehome is being
moved
What Owner Has Offered
Will pay for costs to move
mobilehome but fails to identify any
parks within 35 miles of the park
$144/night for 2 nights at a local
motel.66
What The City Council Should
Require
Actual costs for moving
mobilehome and identification
of parks to where homes can
be moved within 35 miles of
park
Actual costs for overnight stay
for the days required to move
the mobilehome
63Letter from Thomas Kerr (June 6, 2014), 2. Kerr implies that the only reasonable destination for relocated
mobilehomes is the Central Valley; he states in the previous paragraph, "It is possible that homes could be relocated
to a space in the Central Valley where there is a high vacancy rate in mobilehome parks."
64Palo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.030 (d)(l).
65Palo Alto Mun. Code§ 9.76.040.
66The Hearing decision requires the owner to compensate for actual, reasonable expenses for any required overnight
stay, with no limits on the length of the stay. Final Hearing Decision, p. 24.
9
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF THE BUENA VISTA MHP RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
Appeal of Hearing Officer's Decision Concerning Buena Vista Mitigation Measures
Cost of purchasing a
comparable mobilehome in a
comparable mobilehome park
The loss of investment in the
mobilehome
Any remaining loan payments
Moving costs
First and last month's rent in
new unit
Security deposit
One year rent differential for
low-income residents
Additional assistance for
disabled and senior families
An updated appraised value of the
residents' mobile homes that fails to
take into consideration in-place value
of park being in Palo Alto
Limited to the updated appraisal
value, even though some residents
paid more for their mobilehomes
Assumes updated appraised value will
cover remaining loan payments.
Limited to $990.
Rent based on a one-bedroom rate.
Actual security deposit in unit
Limited to $1140 /month. Based on
rent in a one-bedroom unit for most
families, regardless of family size
No information about what type of
assistance will be provided
Cost of purchasing a
comparable mobilehome in a
comparable park in a
comparable community to
Palo Alto within 35 miles of
park
Compensate residents for any
loss in investment in their
mobilehomes
Compensate residents for any
remaining loan payments that
must be paid
Actual moving costs
Actual first and last month's
rent
Actual security deposit in unit
One-year rent differential
based on actual rent of the
unit the family will move to,
and the rent at the park when
the RIR was approved69
Specify what assistance
disabled and elderly families
will receive
The proposed relocation measures lack substance and create no realistic expectation that
residents will be able to find and secure comparable housing in a comparable community; nor
does the RIR guarantee that residents will be adequately compensated for the loss of their homes.
As the Hearing Officer heard, many of the 400 residents of Buena Vista have lived there for
years, if not decades. They have spent their life savings on buying their homes, making
additions and improvements, and decorating their interiors. The homeowners in the park have
jobs in Palo Alto or close by; their children attend the schools near their homes; and they are
members of a community that will suffer wholesale disintegration if the park closes.
The families who live at Buena Vista will likely be forced to move farther from their jobs
and families, to leave the high-quality schools that their children are attending, and to say good-
bye to the community they have built in the years-or even decades-that they have lived in the
park. The proposed mitigation measures are not sufficient, and the City Council should deny the
owner's request to close Buena Vista.
67 Id. The Hearing decision requires the owner to compensate for actual, reasonable moving expenses, and is not
limited to $990.00.
68 Id. Although the Hearing Officer decision requires that the rents be updated to reflect rental rates six months prior
to closure, the decision still only limits most residents to a rent differential based on a one-bedroom unit.
69In January 2015, the owner increased rents at Buena Vista by 9%.
10
PRE-HEARING STATEMENT OF THE BUENA VISTA MHP RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
EXHIBIT B
MAR.GAR.ET
ECKER. NANDA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
March 18, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Molly S. Stump, City Attorney
Grant Kolling, Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Park Owner Comments to Buena Vista Mobilehome Park Appeal Procedures
Dear Molly and Grant:
Thank you in advance for allowing the undersigned an opportunity to comment on the
Appeal Procedures for the upcoming April 13 and 14, 2015 hearings. After review, there
are a few points I would like to confirm.
1. Please be advised that the Park Owner will present its argument only after the
conclusion of public testimony and not before. It would be procedurally
improper to allow likely multiple hour gaps and possibly multiple day gaps in time
to occur between presentations of both sides' arguments because of the extensive
public testimony anticipated. Therefore this letter confirms that at least as to the
Park Owner, its 30 minute opening argument will be made only after public
testimony concludes.
2. The Park Owner is the appellee; therefore, the Park Owner should be entitled
to present argument second, after the appellant, the Resident's Association,
presents first. It is well established that during any traditional legal proceeding the
moving party presents first. Particularly in an appellate trial, the appealing party
traditionally presents first and the party whom the appeal is being brought against
presents second. The Park Owner would like to adhere to these established
principles and present its opening argument and thereafter its rebuttal after the
Resident's Association opening argument and rebuttal.
• 485 ALBERTO w AY, SUITE 100. Los GATOS, CA 95032 • PHONE 408.355.7010. FAX 408.355.7094. E-MAIL MAR.G>\RET.NANDA@INFOG;\IN.COM
Letter to Molly Stump and Grant Kolling
Page 2of3
March 18, 2015
3. The name of the expert witness to be appearing on behalf of the Resident's
Association and any or all materials the expert shall be presenting must be
made available to the Park Owner simultaneous with its Pre-Hearing
statement. The Park Owner, at this point in time does not intend to call any further
expert witness. Park Owner reserves the right to change its position, based upon
the disclosure of a new expert witness by the Residents Association. Obviously any
expert the Residents' Association intends to call has now been identified. I am
requesting that a copy of any written report and the expert's CV be given to the
undersigned, as the Park Owner's counsel no later than the close of business day on
March 23, 2015. Withholding of this information from the Park Owner would be
extremely prejudicial and . will not allow adequate time for the Park Owner to
prepare a response to such witness testimony and any report.
4. All new evidence the Resident's Association seeks to offer, if any, shall be
made available to the Park Owner no later than 21 days before the hearing
and shall be subject to the City's Attorney's initial review as to its relevance,
and the City Attorney to so advise the City Council in a memorandum. In my
view the Adopted Appeal Procedures that you forwarded did not contain the
language of the motion made by the Council as shown in the transcript of the
proceedings. At two different times in the hearing, in a colloquy between you and
Councilmember Berman beginning on page 75, line 7 and continuing to page 77, line
14, it is clear that it was intended that you make an initial determination as to the
relevance of any "new evidence." Further in the Mayor's summary of the motion,
she stated, "In (sic] request for new evidence shall be submitted to the City
Attorney's Office who will analyze proposed evidence and prepare a summary for
Council." (Page 88, lines 7 to 9). I want to confirm that first this is also your
understanding since it is not included in item 2 e., of the Appeal Procedures. Further
please confirm that your determination will be copied to all counsel as soon as it is
made by your office so that we can prepare our arguments accordingly.
5. All PowerPoint presentations or other visual aids to be used in presentation
by either party should be made available to the opposing party by Wednesday,
April 8th at least 4 days prior to the hearing on or by April 13, 2015. The Park
Owner hopes that this will ensure a procedurally fair process for both sides. At the
January hearing the Residents Associations' Power Point was not made available
until hours before the hearing.
•
Letter to Molly Stump and Grant Kolling
Page 3of3
March 18, 2015
Thank you again for your attempts to ensure a fair hearing occurs by clarifying and
confirming the appeal pro~edures.
cc: Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
James Zahradka, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
(Via electronic and first class mail)
•
March 20, 2015
Molly Stump
City Attorney
Grant Kolling
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM
Oftdna Legal de Interes Publico
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone (408) 293-4790 • Fax (408) 293-0106
www .lawfoundation.org
Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Via email
Re: Letter from Margaret Nanda Regarding Appeal Procedures (March 18, 2015)
Dear Ms. Stump and Mr. Kolling:
As you are well aware, the parties had an opportunity to weigh in on the procedures that the City
would be using in this matter over four months ago. Both sides took advantage of that
opportunity both in writing and in the hearing held at Council. Then your office drafted and sent
the procedures to the parties. There is no indication that Council anticipated revisions to those
procedures after your office produced them.
Ms. Nanda now unilaterally-with absolutely no consultation with us-demands a raft of
changes to those procedures, less than a month before the hearing, including demanding that the
Residents Association comply with unreasonable disclosure deadlines that she has manufactured.
These changes were never contemplated by Council. The City should rebuff Ms. Nanda's
eleventh-hour effort to alter the rules of the game.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
James F. Zahradka II
Supervising Attorney
Cc: Margaret Nanda
EXHIBIT C
March 23, 2015
Molly Stump, City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
City Hall, ?'h Floor
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW FIRM
Oficina Legal de Interes Publico
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
152 North Third Street, 3rd Floor
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone (408) 293-4790 • Fax (408) 293-0106
www.lawfoundation.org
By E-mail and Mail
Re: Appeal Brief of Buena Vista MHP Residents Association and Request for Appraisal Review
Report as New Evidence
Dear Ms. Stump:
The Buena Vista MHP Residents Association submits the attached appeal brief contesting the
decision of the Hearing Officer Craig Labadie.
We further write to request that the City Council allow new evidence of Trulia.com
mobilehome listings in Sunnyvale and Mountain View, as introduced on page 5 of the Appeal Brief
and attached here. Trulia.com is an online residential real estate site for home buyers, sellers, renters
and real estate professionals in the United States. It lists properties for sale and rent as well as tools
and information needed to be successful in the home search process. Evidence of the current price of
homes in nearby communities such as Mountain View and Sunnvyale are highly relevant as to
whether Buena Vista residents will be able to relocate to comparable housing with the relocation
payments that are currently being offered.1
Lastly, we request that the City Council consider the "Appraisal Review Report" by an expert
appraiser Jim Brabant, submitted here and with the Residents Association's brief.
The report is prepared by James Brabant, MAI, who has extensive experience as a real estate
appraiser and specific experience with mobile homes.2 Mr. Brabant has been retained as an expert
witness by a variety of municipalities, banks, and law firms for a variety of real estate-related cases.3
More specifically in relation to mobilehome parks, Mr. Brabant has served as an expert witness for a
variety of purposes includin§ rent hearings, park closures and conversions, eminent domain, and
failure to maintain lawsuits.
1 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki!frulia
2 James Brabant, MAI, "Appraisal Review Report: Review of Appraisals by Beccaria & Weber, Inc. Re: Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park," attachment, "Qualifications of Appraiser," dated March 23, 2015.
3 Id.
4 Id.
Resident's Association Appeal of Decision of the Hearing Officer and Request for Inclusion of New Evidence
March 23, 2015
Page2of3
The report is not new, undiscovered, factual evidence of the type that seems to be anticipated
by the Appeal Procedures, but rather serves more as an analysis of the evidence. It will assist the City
Council in being able to weigh the evidence regarding appraisals contained in ·the owner's Relocation
Impact Report (RIR). While the report does contain some evidence pertaining to mobilehome sales in
the nearby communities, this evidence is principally facilitative of the expert's analysis.
It is important to note that the park owner amended the RIR in the last minutes of the hearing
by offering to update the park appraisals six months prior to the park closure.5 This last-minute
addendum was done at the end of the hearing, after all testimony had concluded, and with no
opportunity for the Residents Association to question the owner or its witnesses about the addendum.
Despite the Residents Association's objections to this last-minute addendum, the Hearing Officer
allowed the owner to amend the Relocation Impact Report to include the last-minute addendum
without any further testimony on the issue and relied on these unknown future appraisal amounts to
support the finding that relocation assistance being provided to the residents was adequate.6
Given that the Hearing Officer allowed the owner to make last-minute additions to the RIR
regarding the appraisals described in the RIR, without rebuttal and without any mechanism to appeal
those unknown future amounts, the City should allow this report to serve at least as rebuttal of the
methodology of the appraiser that will likely be performing those appraisals.
Please note that Mr. Brabant will not be the Residents Association's expert witness who will
be testifying at the appeal hearing.
Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at (408) 280-2453 or bye-
mail at nadia.aziz@lawfoundation.org.
Respectfully submitted,
Nadia Aziz, Senior Attorney
Kyra Kazantzis, Directing Attorney
Public Interest Law Firm and Fair Housing Law Project
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
5 Park Owner's Closing Brief, 22-24.
6 Final Decision in the Matter of the Application of Toufic Jisser, As Trustee of the Jisser Family Trust, For Closure of the
Buena Vista Mobilehome Park in Palo Alto, California, p. 24.
Isl
Resident's Association Appeal of Decision of the Hearing Officer and Request for Inclusion of New Evidence
March 23, 2015
Page3 of3
Sue Himmelrich, Special Counsel
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Isl
Matthew Dolan
Sidley Austin LLP
Encl.
CC:
Margaret Nanda (by-email to menanda@infogain.com)
APPRAISAL REVIEW REPORT
REVIEW OF APPRAISALS BY
BECCARIA & WEBER, INC.
RE: BUENA VISTA MOBILE HOME PARK
PALO AL TO, CALIFORNIA
REVIEWED BY JAMES BRABANT, MAI
PREPARED FOR
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley,
Sidley Austin LLP and
Western Center on Law and Poverty
DATE OF REPORT
March 23, 2015
PREPARED BY
Anderson & Brabant, Inc.
353 West Ninth Avenue
Escondido, California 92025
File No. 15-016
March 23, 2015
Mathew Dolan, Associate
Sidley Austin LLP
1001 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Re: Appraisal Review
ANDERSON & BRABANT, INC.
REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS
353 W. NINTH A VENUE
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025-5032
TELEPHONE (760) 741-4146
FAX (760) 741-1049
Appraisals of Homes in Buena Vista Mobile Home Park
Palo Alto, California
Dear Mr. Dolan:
As requested, I have completed a review of 32 appraisals of the above referenced
property. Standard 3 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USP AP)
establishes the criteria to be addressed in such a review. Within the framework of guidelines set
forth in Standard 3 of USP AP, I have summarized the following pertinent comments, opinions
and conclusions resulting from the review process.
Identification of the Client
This review report was prepared at the request of the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley,
Sidley Austin LLP, and Western Center on Law and Poverty. The opinions expressed herein are
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Resident Association or
their attorneys.
Intended Use and Users of the Review Report
It is my understanding that the review appraisers' opinions and conclusions will be utilized
by my client to assist in evaluating the appraisals of mobile homes/travel trailers that were included
in a Resident Impact Report (RIR).
Purpose of the Review Assignment
· The primary purpose of this review is to develop an opinion as to the overall adequacy
and appropriateness of the reports being reviewed, and, specifically not to develop independent
opinions of market value for each of the homes. Further, it is intended to determine ifthe results
of the appraisal are credible for the intended user's intended use and also to evaluate compliance
with relevant USP AP and client requirements.
Matthew Dolan
Review Appraisal
March 23, 2015
Page 2 of9
Identification of the Reports
The reports under review are identified as Summary Appraisal Reports as described by
Standard 2-2(b) of USPAP. The reports were prepared by Beccaria & Weber, Inc., Realtors,
Appraisers and Property Managers. Their office is located at 830-F Bay Avenue, Capitola,
California 95010. Their client was Toufic Jisser of San Jose, California.
It appears that Beccaria & Weber prepared 99 appraisal reports and their conclusions
were reported in the Resident Impact Report (RIR) for Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. The
RIR was prepared by Margaret Ecker Nanda, Attorney at Law and Brian Grasser, Attorney at
Law, on behalf of the park owner, The Jisser Family. The Fair Housing Law Project has
provided me with copies of 32 of the appraisal reports. They have indicated that the 32 reports
represent all of the appraisals they have in this matter. This is a substantial number of reports
and would appear to be a fair representation of the entire body of work that was completed by
Beccaria & Weber in this assignment.
The 32 reports are appraisals of the homes on the following spaces in Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park: 2, 5, 13, 16, 19, 21, 24, 31, 32, 35, 38, 46, 47, 48, 50, 58, 63, 71, 72, 73, 74,
76, 82, 83, 88, 89, 102, 103, 105, 109, 110 and 112. The appraisals are dated in January and
February of2013.
Identification of the Appraised Property
The appraised property consists of the homes located in Buena Vista Mobile Home Park.
Buena Vista is a high density park that was originally built as an overnight trailer/RV park but
gradually evolved into a place for long term residency. In the 32 appraisals I have reviewed,
there is a wide range in the type, age and size of the homes. The types of homes include mobile
homes, travel trailers, park models and motor homes. The age of the homes ranges from 1955 to
the 2004, and the sizes range from 180 to 877 square feet.
Interest Appraised
Each appraisal includes an opinion of the in-place market value as well as the offsite
value, where applicable.
Effective Date of Value and Report
The valuation dates for the 32 appraisals are various days in January and February of
2013. The report dates are the same as the dates of value.
Effective Date of Review and Review Report
This review and review report are made as of March 23, 2015. I personally inspected the
subject park, and the five parks that contain comparable sales, on March 19, 2015.
Matthew Dolan
Review Appraisal
March 23, 2015
Page 3 of9
Scope of the Review Process
In developing this review, I have undertaken the following tasks:
1. Conducted a thorough office review of the 32 appraisal reports that were provided.
The primary focus of the review has been the opinions of the in-place market values
of the 32 homes.
2. Also reviewed the Resident Impact Report (RIR) and other documents.
3. Discussed the property and reports with the client.
4. Verified the accuracy of certain factual documentation contained in the reports.
5. Field reviewed the subject property and selected market data. Exterior inspections of
the homes. I have relied on details of the interior of the subject homes as described
in the appraisal reports.
6. Prepared the review report.
Extraordinary Assumptions/Hypothetical Conditions
The opinions of in-place market value are based on two hypothetical conditions. The
first is the assumption that the park is not going to be closed. The second is the assumption that
any additions to the homes were legally permitted. However, it appears that the second
assumption is actually what is termed an extraordinary assumption rather than a hypothetical
condition. Unless the appraiser knows that every addition to the homes in the park is not legally
permitted it should be labeled an extraordinary assumption. This is considered to be somewhat
of a technical matter and did not appear to effect the value conclusions.
Completeness of the Report and USP AP Compliance
The intent of the appraiser was to prepare Summary Appraisals in conformance with
Standards Rule 2-2(b) of USP AP. It appears that all of the components of a Summary Appraisal
Report are present in the reviewed appraisal reports according to USP AP Standards in effect as
of the date of the reports. While the components of the appraisals appear to be consistent with
USP AP, I have serious disagreements with the choice of comparable sales and the way they have
been analyzed.
Appropriateness of Appraisal Methods and Techniques
The appraisal assignment included providing opinions of the in-place market value of the
homes in Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. The appraiser has adequately set the foundation for
the valuation process by describing the pertinent physical characteristics and legal constraints of
the subject property, and the market in which it will compete. To solve this appraisal problem,
the appraiser has properly identified the Sales Comparison Approach as the most appropriate
valuation method for the in-place market values of the homes appraised.
Matthew Dolan
Review Appraisal
March 23, 2015
Page 4 of9
Adequacy and Relevance of Comparable Data
As previously mentioned, there is a wide variety in the type, size and age of the 32 homes
appraised. However, the appraiser utilized only 13 sales as the data base for all 32 appraisals.
Six of those sales are from Buena Vista, while seven are from five other parks. One sale was
utilized from Adobe Wells in Sunnyvale, two from Blue Bonnet Mobile Home Park in
Sunnyvale, one from Sahara Village in Mountain View, two from Santiago Villa Mobile Home
Park in Mountain View, and one from Harbor Village in Redwood City.
Each appraisal has either seven or eight comparable sales that are compared and adjusted
to a subject home for the valuation analysis. At first glance that appears to be a large comparable
data base for the analysis of each home. However, in spite of the substantial variations in type,
size and age of the 32 homes appraised, many of the comparable sales are utilized for almost all
of the home appraisals. In fact, Space 202 in Sahara Village and Space 160 in Harbor Village
were used in all 32 appraisals despite significant differences in the subject homes. In addition,
Spaces 30 and 48 in Buena Vista, Spaces 3 and 43 in Blue Bonnet, and Space 27 in Santiago
Villa, were used in almost all of the 32 appraisals. It looks like a very small sampling of sales
was chosen from a potentially large data base that could produce misleading results.
One example of inappropriate market data would be from the appraisal of Space 74 in
Buena Vista. This is a small park model that was built in 2004. However, five of the seven sales
utilized were built in the 1960s and are not comparable.
Another example of inappropriate data would be the one and only comparable sale that
was utilized from Sahara Village in Mountain View (Space 202). It was a 1969 home with 576
square feet that sold for $15,000 in September 2012. However, MHousing (HCD records)
reports a sale in July 2010, of a 520 square foot home built in 1963, on Space 177, that sold for
$34,000. They report another sale in July 2010, of a 550 square foot home built in 1962, on
Space 165, at a price of $22,000. In addition, the MLS reports a sale in May 2011, of a 688
square foot home built in 1964, on Space 253, for $28,000. The MLS also reports a sale in
March 2011, of a 720 square foot home built in 1967, for a price of $20,000. The lower sale at
$15,000 was utilized in all 32 of the appraisals. Focusing on the lower sale and ignoring higher
sales would likely produce a misleading result.
A further example would be the two comparable sales that were utilized from Santiago
Villa MHP in Mountain View. The first is a 1970 home on Space 24 with 672 square feet that
sold for $26,000 in November 2011. The second sale used is a 1966 home on Space 27 with 600
square feet that sold for 18,000 in March 2012. However, the MLS reports higher sales during
the same time period that were not used. The MLS reports a sale in July 2012, of a 960 square
foot home built in 1966, on Space 307, for $50;000. The MLS also reports a sale in December
2012, of an 800 square foot home built in 1969, on Space 249, for a price of $40,000. Again,
ignoring higher sales in favor of lower sales would produce a misleading result.
Matthew Dolan
Review Appraisal
March 23, 2015
Page 5 of9
Six sales of homes from Buena Vista were utilized as comparables. Five of the six sales
sold between October 2010 and July 2012. However, one sale (Space 54) was a park model and
sold in May 2006 at a price of $23,000. It appears that this older transaction was utilized
because it was the only sale found of a park model. However, no time adjustment was made for
the six+ year difference between the sale date and the appraiser's date of value.
The range of the six sales from Buena Vista is from $3,000 to $29,000. However, I am
aware of at least three of the homes in the park that were purchased for $50,000 or more. The
home on Space 24 was reportedly purchased for $55,000 in 2006 but was only appraised in 2013
for $31,500. The home on Space 73 was reportedly purchased for $50,000 in 2003/2004, but
was only appraised for $16,000. The home on Space 110 was reported sold by MHousing in
July 2012 for $50,000 but was only appraised for $30,000.
It is important to provide further information about the sale of the home on Space 110. In
the appraisal being reviewed, in discussing the prior purchase of the home the appraiser states,
"The current owner has not provided the date purchased or for what price." However,
MHousing reported a sale of the home in July 2012 at a price of $50,000. Although the
appraisals refer to MHousing as a data source in some of the other 32 appraisals, there is no
mention of this sale. This is significant because it would have been critical information for the
valuation of the home on Space 110. Of the six sales from Buena Vista utilized in the 32
appraisals, the highest sale was at a price of $29,000. Ignoring a sale at $50,000 in this park
seriously undermines the credibility of the valuation conclusions. We interviewed the owner of
the home on Space 110, Hariberto Avalos, who confirmed that he purchased it for a price of
$50,000 in July of 2012, and that the home was in good condition. He also stated that he was
unaware of the pending park closure and would not have purchased if he had known. He was
notified of the closure about three months after he bought the home. Appraising this home for
$30,000 in February 2013, when it was purchased only seven months prior at $50,000 and the
housing market was increasing, is not credible and in my opinion has produced a misleading
result. The significance of this is not just the impact on the valuation of the home on Space 110,
but the fact that this sale could have been utilized as a comparable sale for other homes in the
park.
Adequacy of Adjustment Process
The 13 comparable sales that served as the data base for the appraisals of the 32 homes
ranged in date from May 2006 to October 2012, with all but one of them occurring in the two
year period from October 2010 to October 2012. However, no time adjustments were made for
the difference between the sale dates of the comparables and the dates of value. And in the
Neighborhood section of each report, the Property Value box is checked for Stable rather than
Increasing. This is in contrast to the data presented in the report that includes information about
the substantial increase in median home price for single-family homes in Palo Alto and the
surrounding area, having increased from $1,428,000 in 2011 to $1,726,000 in 2012. The report
then says "Conversely the median sale price for mobile and manufactured homes in mobile home
Matthew Dolan
Review Appraisal
March 23, 2015
Page 6 of9
parks throughout Santa Clara County was $70,000 in 2012 up from $63,000 in 2011." The word
"conversely" is inaccurate since the market for mobile homes was going up, albeit not as rapidly
as the market for single-family homes. In addition, the "Increasing" box should have been
checked in the Neighborhood section, rather than the "Stable" box. More importantly, the
appraisals should have recognized that the market for mobile homes was increasing and that fact
should have been reflected by making time adjustments.
No adjustments are made in the 32 appraisals for differences in Location and/or Site
Value. When the comparable sale is from Redwood City, Mountain View or Sunnyvale, the
report indicates the location is offset by the rent. It appears that for location, the appraisers are
primarily concerned with the quality of the park and all of the comparable parks are rated
superior to Buena Vista. However, there does not appear to be any recognition of the superior
home prices in Palo Alto compared with those other cities. Using Space 112 in Buena Vista as
an example, Comparable 1 is located in Redwood City, which has a substantially lower median
home price than Palo Alto. However, the park (Harbor Village) is rated superior to Buena Vista.
But, the location is stated to be offset by the rent. The space rent for Space 112 in Buena Vista is
$695 while the space rent for Comparable 1 in Harbor Village is $708 which is only $13 per
month higher. Apparently, the higher rent is supposed to be offsetting the superior park.
However, the superior Palo Alto location seems to be lost in this process.
The lack of adjustment for either Location or Site Value is the same for all 32 appraisals.
However, it is interesting to note that there is some support for a site value, even in the
comparable parks utilized in the appraisals. For example, the home on Space 200 in Sahara
Village sold for $48,000 in November 2014. It was a 1972 single-wide home with 576 square
feet. It has been removed and a new home is currently being installed. In effect, the buyer paid
$48,000 in site value for the right to control the space and purchase the new home that is being
installed. The same thing happened at Space 139 in Santiago Villa MHP. A 600 square foot
home, built in 1969, was purchased for $43,000 in September 2013. It was removed and a new
home is on the site. It should not be surprising to find examples of this type of site value in
mobile home parks located in areas where you have such high home prices.
The 32 appraisals include adjustments for the difference in the size of the homes at a rate
of $20.00 per square foot. This same rate of adjustment was made regardless of the age or
quality of the home. For example, in the appraisal of the home on Space 19, Comparable No. 1
is the home on Space 37 in Buena Vista which is a 1959 home with 176 square feet that sold for
$3,000 in November 2011. The sale price calculates to $17.05 per square feet. The home being
appraised was built in 1958 and has 378 square feet. The difference in the size of the two homes
is 202 square feet (378 minus 176), and the size adjustment is 202 x $20 = 4,040. Contrast this
with the appraisal of the home on Space 74 in Buena Vista that was built in 2004 and has 441
square feet. Comparable No. 7 is the home on Space 54 in Buena Vista that was also built in
2004 and has 286 square feet. That home sold for $23,000 in May 2006, which calculates to
$80.42 per square foot. The difference in the size of the two homes is 155 square feet (441
Matthew Dolan
Review Appraisal
March 23, 2015
Page 7 of9
minus 286), and the size adjustment is 155 x $20 = $3,100. The use of the same size adjustment
rate for the appraisal of these two homes is inappropriate and in my opinion produces an
incorrect value conclusion. This same incorrect analysis was used for all of the appraisals.
Adjustments were made for differences in the age of the homes (year built) based on
$100 per year. This is such a small amount that borders on being nominal. This becomes
exaggerated in the appraisal of the home on Space 74 which was built in 2004. Five of the
comparable sales used in that appraisal were built in the 1960s but they are not really
comparable. Using an inadequate upward adjustment of $100 per year understates the indicated
value of that home.
Significance of the Date of Value in a Rising Market
Although the appraisals of the 32 homes in Buena Vista provide statistical data about the
rising housing market, that fact has not been recognized in the analyses of comparable sales that
go clear back to 2010 (one sale goes back to 2006), while the date of value is in early 2013. This
lack of making time adjustments has already been discussed in the previous section. However,
the determination of the date of value becomes extremely important when you have a rising
market.
Using Zillow as a source, the median price for residential properties (all homes) in Santa
Clara County increased from $593,000 as of January 2010, to $853,000 as of January 2015, or a
total increase of 44 percent for the five year period. However, the median price for residential
properties in Palo Alto increased from $1, 100,000 to $2,200,000 during the same period, for an
increase of 100 percent. For that same time period, Sunnyvale increased 50 percent, Mountain
View increased 48 percent and Redwood City increased 34 percent. The increase in Palo Alto
for the most recent two years alone (January 2013 to January 2015) was 4 7 percent (see attached
Exhibit 1).
To further illustrate the significance of the raising housing market I have identified a
couple of mobile homes that sold in 2011 or 2012 and then resold more recently. The first sale
involves Space 43 in Blue Bonnet Mobile Home Park. This transaction occurred in March 2012
at a purchase price of $25,000 and as previously discussed was utilized in almost all of the 32
appraisals. According to MLS, this home resold in December 2014 at the significantly higher
price of $62,900.
I have also identified the April 2011 sale of Space 228 in Santiago Villa for $38,000.
This 860 square foot home was built in 1969 and although it was not used in any of the 32
appraisals I reviewed, it is similar to the data used. According to MLS, this home resold in
November 2014 at a price of $85,000.
Both of these examples demonstrate the impact that the date of value can have,
particularly in a rising market. Again, referring to data that occurred after the dates of the
appraisals is not intended as a criticism of the appraisals since no appraiser can be responsible for
Matthew Dolan
Review Appraisal
March 23, 2015
Page 8 of9
failing to use data that had not yet occurred. However, it certainly emphasizes the significance
of the date of value to the home values.
Appropriateness & Reasonableness of Analysis, Opinions & Conclusions
The appraiser provided an adequate description of the subject properties and employed a
valuation technique that is commonly used by the industry in providing opinions of in-place
market value of mobile homes/travel trailers, etc. However, in my opinion, the selection and
analyses of the comparable data in the 32 appraisals is flawed and does not provide reasonable
estimates of in-place market value. It also appears that most of the shortcomings have resulted
in an under valuation of the homes.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Please let me know if I can be of further
assistance in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
ANDERSON & BRABANT, INC.
£"~ IlU;Brabant, MAI
State Certification No. AG002100
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 (Residential trends reported by Zillow)
Statement of Qualifications
Matthew Dolan
Review Appraisal
March 23, 2015
Page 9 of9
APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION
I do hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief ...
1. The statements of fact contained in this review report are true and correct.
2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported
assumptions and limiting conditions, are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions
and conclusions.
3. I have no present or prospective future interest in the property that is the subject of the
work under review, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
4. I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of the work under review or
to the parties involved with this assignment.
5. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses,
opinions, or conclusions in this review or from its use. Further, my compensation is not
contingent upon development or reporting of predetermined assignment results or assignment
results that favors the cause of the client, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence
of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal review.
6. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this review report was
prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice.
7. The use of this review report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute
relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.
8. I have made a personal inspection of the properties that are the subject of this review
report.
9. Patricia Haskins provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this
review report.
10. As of the date of this report, I, James Brabant, have completed the requirements under the
continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute.
11. I have not provided any service regarding the subject property in the three years
immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment, as an appraiser or in any capacity.
&~ esBI~ant, MAI
March 23, 2015
State Certification No. AG002100
Attachments
Anderson & Brabant, Inc.
::i::... ;:i: ~ ;;i c ;:i:
Re
b;:;
~ ~ §
.!""
S' fl
Jannarv-06
Januarv-07
Januarv-08
Januarv-09
Januarv-10
Januarv-11
Januarv-12
Januarv-13
Jannarv-14
Januarv-15
Santa Clara Cotmtv
Avg %Change %Change
Price Annual Monthlv
$737 000 ----
$743 000 0.8% 0.1%
$719 000 -3.2% -0.3%
$613 000 -14.7% -1.2%
$593 000 -3.3% -0.3%
$587 000 -1.0% -0.1%
$574 000 -2.2% -0.2%
$662.000 15.3% 1.3%
$772 000 16.6% 1.4%
$853 000 10.5% 0.9%
* Median Price as of February 2006
Source:
TRENDS -RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (ALL HOMES)
Palo Alto Stmnwale Motmtain View Redwood Cit
Avg %Change %Change Avg %Change %Change Avg % Change %Change Avg %Change %Change
Price Annual Monthlv Price Annual Monthly Price Annual Monthly Price Annual Monthly
$947 000 * -- --$789 000 ----$789 000 ----$830 000 -- --
$1.100 000 16.2% 1.4% $792 000 0.4% 0.0% $807 000 2.3% 0.2% $836 000 0.7% 0.1%
$1300000 18.2% 1.5% $815 000 2.9% 0.2% $820,000 1.6% 0.1% $828 000 -1.0% -0.1%
$1 100 000 -15.4% -1.3% $746 000 -8.5% -0.7% $755 000 -7.9% -0.7% $733 000 -11.5% -1.0%
$1 100 000 0.0% 0.0% $733 000 -1.7% -0.1% $744 000 -1.5% -0.1% $745 000 1.6% 0.1%
$1000000 -9.1% -0.8% $746 000 1.8% 0.2% $748 000 0.5% 0.0% $720 000 -3.4% -0.3%
$1200000 20.0% 1.7% $740 000 -0.8% -0.1% $754 000 0.8% 0.1% $703 000 -2.4% -0.2%
$1500000 25.0% 2.1% $872 000 17.8% 1.5% $930 000 23.3% 1.9% $816 000 16.1% 1.3%
$1900000 26.7% 2.2% $977 000 12.0% 1.0% $1000000 7.5% 0.6% $960 000 17.6% 1.5%
$2,200 000 15.8% 1.3% $1 100 000 12.6% 1.1% $! 100 000 10.0% 0.8% $1000000 4.2% 0.4%
Zillow
3/5/2015 & 3/10/2015
Qualifications of the Appraiser -James Brabant, MAI
Page Two
III. Professional Affiliations:
A. Member, Appraisal Institute, MAI (1985 President, San Diego Chapter)
B. Realtor Member, North County Association of Realtors
C. Member, International Right of Way Association
D. Real Estate Brokers License, State of California
E. Teaching Credential, State of California, Community College Level
F. Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (AG002100)
Office of Real Estate Appraisers, State of California
IV. Appraisal Experience:
Co-Owner -Anderson & Brabant, Inc., Since 1979
Co-Owner -Robert M. Dodd & Associates, Inc., 1977 -1979
Appraisal Manager-California First Bank, Huntington Beach, California, 1974 -1977
Staff Appraiser -California First Bank, San Diego, California, 1972 -197 4
Staff Appraiser -0. W. Cotton Co., San Diego, California, 1970 -1972
Staff Appraiser-Davis Brabant, MAI, Huntington Park, California, 1960 -1962
V. Teaching Experience:
Southwestern College, Chula Vista, California, "Real Estate Appraisal"
VI. Expert Witness:
Superior Court, San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties
Rent Control Hearings: Cities of Oceanside, Escondido, Ventura, Concord, Yucaipa, Carpenteria,
Palmdale, San Marcos, Carson, Watsonville
Various Arbitration Hearings
Assessment Appeals Boards of Riverside County, San Diego County and Orange County
Federal Bankruptcy Courts in San Diego County & Santa Barbara County
United States District Court -Northern District of California
VII. Types of Appraisals:
Residential Property:
Commercial Property:
Industrial Property:
Vacant Land:
Agricultural:
Special Purpose Appraisals:
Mobile Home Parks:
Anderson & Brabant, Inc.
Single-family residence, condominiums, apartments,
subdivisions, existing and proposed
Office buildings, shopping centers, office condominiums, etc.,
existing and proposed
Single/multi-tenant, business parks, etc., existing and proposed
Industrial, commercial, residential, and rural
Ranches, avocado and citrus groves, etc.
Leasehold estates, possessory interest, historical appraisals, etc.
For a variety of purposes including rent hearings, park closure, park
conversions, failure to maintain litigation, eminent domain, etc.
Qualifications of the Appraiser -James Brabant, MAI
Page Three
VIII. Partial List of Appraisal Clients:
Banks
Bank of America
Bank of New York
City National Bank
Downey Savings
Fidelity Federal Bank
First Interstate Bank
First Pacific National Bank
Flagship Federal Savings
Great Western Bank
Industrial Bank of Japan
Palomar Savings & Loan
Redlands Federal Bank
Union Bank of California
Wells Fargo Bank
Government Agencies and Municipalities
California Department of
Transportation/Cal trans
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
City of Carlsbad
City of Chula Vista
City of Colton
City of Concord
City of Escondido
City of Laguna Beach
City of La Mesa
City of Salinas
City of San Bernardino
City of San Diego
City of San Marcos
City of Vista
City of Yucaipa
County of San Diego
Fallbrook Public Utility District
Metropolitan Water District
Oceanside Unified School District
Pacific Telephone
Poway Municipal Water District
Ramona Unified School District
SANDAG (San Diego Assoc. of Govts.)
San Diego County Water Authority
San Diego Unified Port District
San Marcos Unified School District
U.S. Depart. of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Department of Justice
Anderson & Brabant, Inc.
Law Firms
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Asaro, Keagy, Freeland. & McKinley
Best, Best & Krieger
Daley & Heft
Endeman, Lincoln, Turek & Heater
Foley & Lardner, LLP
Fulbright & Jaworski
Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich
Higgs, Fletcher & Mack
Latham & Watkins
Lounsbery, Ferguson, Altona & Peak
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps
McDonald & Allen
Mcinnis, Fitzgerald, Rees, Sharkey & Mcintyre
O'Melveny & Meyers
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch
Rutan & Tucker
Singer, Richard
Sullivan Wertz McDade & Wallace
Tatro & Zamoyski
Thorsnes Bartolotta & McGuire
Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart
Worden Williams, APC
Title Companies
Chicago Title
Fidelity National Title Insurance
First American Title
St. Paul Title
Title Insurance & Trust
Others
Avco Community Developers
Coldwell Banker
Dixieline Lumber
Golden Eagle Insurance
National Steel & Shipbuilding Co.
Northern San Diego County Hospital District
Prudential Insurance Corp.
Rosenow, Spevacek, Group
San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
San Luis Rey Downs (Vessels)
Steefel, Levitt & Weiss
Tellwright-Campbell, Inc.
Transamerica Relocation Service
Vedder Park Management
Mow1tain View Mobile/Manufactured Homes For Sale I Trulia.com http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Mountain_ View,CA/MOBILEIMANU ...
I of3
Buy Sell Rent Mortgage Find an Agent More For Professionals v My Boards 1 Saved Searches Sign In
Mountain View, CA OSAVED Y
Min Price v Max Price v All Beds v All Baths v Mobile I Man... v 1 more filter Q. All Filters
:: LIST 'i!J PHOTO !lru MAP MOUNTAIN VIEW MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES ... 5 Results
Sort by: Featured ;,;; Share this Search with Friends & Family
325 Sylvan Ave #62
Mountain View,... 2 beds Moblle/M ...
1,040 sqft
$145,000
$697/mo
Get Pre-Qu;:ilified with U.S. Bank
•
Most Viewed homes In this area:
$835,000
803 Emily Dr
3bd, 2ba, 1310sQft
$250,000
1075 Space Park Way ltSPAC ...
3bd, 2ba, 1493sQft
NEW HOMES
SPONSORED
$195,000
1075 Space Park Way lt44
3bd, 2ba, 12nsqft
$1,999,000
823 Burgoyne St
3bd, 2ba, 2127sqk
The Heartland California Collecti ... From
PROMOTED $583,990
Gilroy, CA 95020 3 - 4 Single-Family Homes
beds 1870• sqft
2.5-3
baths -325 Sylvan Ave #38 $189,000
Mountain View,... 2 beds Moblle!M ...
2 baths 1,061 sqft
$909/mo
Get Pre-Qualified with U.S. Bank
Mara Salomon, Br ...
New Homes by Pulte
Find your new home In the San Francisco
Areal»
•
n~· r·~,1/1.'' l .
Nearby Homes For Rent
471 Ac;1Janes Dr
$2,350
2 bd
1 ba
870 E El Camino Real
""
$2,126-$2.522
1 -2bd
1 ba
More Nearby Homes For Rent ,,
Ask a question about
Ask dge11ts or local experr' <Jnytlli1 '~ .
' >
\ .... 1.1.-;1·1 i~1 ,w.1
3/23/2015 3:59 PM
Mountain View Mobile/Manufactured Homes For Sale I Trulia.com http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Mountain _ View,CNMOBILEIMANU. ..
2 of3
325 Sylvan Ave #25
Mountain View,... 2 beds
2 baths
Advantage Homes
Moblle/M ...
1,045 sqft
$170,000
S817/rnCl
LJet D(e-C(uaiif1ecJ w1tl"i U.S. Bani..
•
325 Sylvan Ave #137 • $135,000
Mountain View.... 2 beds Moblle/M ...
2 baths 980 sqft
'i!S Mara Salomon, Br ...
$649/rno
Get Pre-Qu,1lifiecl with U.S. Bunk
•
325 Sylvan Ave #139 $249,000
Mountain View,... 3 beds
1 • 5 of 5 Results
« Pr~Y,1}?~~c'
Moblle/M ...
1.417 sqft
$1,197/rno
Ger Pre-QuiJlified with U.S. Bank
•
,'Next»
Find out more. Contact a local agent.
17 llll! Carol and Nicole llU (650) 262·0403 ., . • (2)
17. Julie Tsai Law
(650) 600-3370 ***** (0)
17. Juliana Lee.MBA
(650) 276·5442 f. ·, ~ ,, •\ (69)
Want to be listed here? Learn More
PRO
PRO
PRO
Pnone
Hi, I'm searching on Trulla for homes In Mou
I'd like more Information.
By sending, you agree to Trulla's rt.>1 :''" ./ L'-.f-
Local Real Estate Info
r, ends for M:;t.nt,;u1 Vtew Re:31 EstJte
( :1mca1e loc:11 l'ome pt·ces: tvi0unt:11P V1~·.\·
r-!e.Jt l'v1<1P
3/23/2015 3:59 PM
Mountain View Mobile/Manufactured Homes For Sale I Trulia.com http://www.trulia.com/for _sale/Mountain_ View,CNMOBILEIMANU ...
3 of3
Mountain View a. Nearby Cities
1'vlolnttHn View Pi"op~rty •n'o
i1Aoun~ain View FufediJSdres.
1'VhJl/flttiHl View Open r·1ov;es
iv1i)ur1tJin View New ~crPe~
Mobile/Manufactured Homes for Mountain View ZIPs
Nearby Cities Y•I03'> Heil' hta'''
MoflE~t Field 'V1ooilct:\1.anufJ::1tH"erl 94039 Rea· E~t-.:r:
Homes 1):10t!Q 1~.~~1 f.stu~e
Surmyv~1le Mobi e/fv1anuf41c~1ire(i HonH:s. 940~; R·~J· Estzi:t-•
Blossom VJiley Mobile/Manufamued
Mountain View Property Types
\/ii._'.Uflldlf' View ')1·1~.!1-1 f1ro·.t; ~r ··~r:'S
";lGUIH.ill • \f11:·1~ (')ri:iq:.
Residential Real Estate
San Francisco real estate New York real estate Los Angeles real estate Orlando real estate Miami real estate Philadelphia real estate
Phoenix real estace
Illinois real estate
San Diego real estate
Massachusetts real estate
San Jose real estate Chicago real estate Arizona real estate California real estate Florida real estate
New Jersey real estate Pennsylvania real estate Texas real estate Other local real estate
California apartments New York apartments Texas apartments Apartments for rent Home price maps Real estate community U.S. Property records
Mortgage site map More Popular Cities New Properdes New Rentals Popular Counties
Explore Trulla Homes for Sale Homes for Rent Stats & Trends Real Estate Advice Real Estate App -I Phone Real Estate App -Android Trulia Labs
Trulla API Trulla Estimates
For Professionals Agents Brokers MLS Advertisers & Partners Tools & Extras Submit Your Listings Real Estate Leads Agent Site Map AcdveRain
Corporate
Directory Site Map
About Trulla About Zlllow Group News Room Trulia Blog Tech Blog Careers Investor Relations Privacy Terms of Use
Listings Quality Polley Subscripdon Terms Community Guidelines Adverdslng Terms Ad Choices
What's Trulla? Trulia is a real estate search engine that helps you find homes for sale and make smarter real estate decisions in the process. HoW? By analyzing real estate
Information on millions of homes in C~!ifornio and nationwide as well as helping you understand hyper-local Mo11nt,1in View,..,.,; es1c.1e trencls. Refine your real estate search
In Mountain View, CA by price, number of bedrooms, bathrooms, property type (Including tow0homes, ·:011dorni111um> and s•1gle-forn1ly hoines), and more. Use our
Interactive MuuniaiP V1~w i'orne w u; ''"~'to view real estate activity across Mountain View ZIP codes and In other cities nearby Mountain View. See local real estate trends,
and compare your home to ,.2remly sc:~d home$ in \.1ounw1n View and to similar homes for sale In Mountain View,. View our Moun1:~w V1t-:t·-J 1 r.:~111:::.:.111--,;.:u1ut.> to see average
llstlng prices, sale prices and Information for local school districts. Join Mnum.1;.-, V•ew, COJl'nm1111c,, 10 get In touch with Mountain View real estate agents, real estate brokers
and other real estate sellers and buyers. Compare tM1m1;11n V1~·t1 111onga~e1 from multiple lenders and mortgage brokers to flnance your home purchase. Not ready to buy
yet? Find and compare Mou~rain View Aparrmernc, for rem.
Copyright«> 2015 Trulla, Inc. All rights reserved. Fair Ho11s1ng and Fqu01 Opportun1ry Have a question? Visit our Help Cenrer to find the answer
3/23/2015 3:59 PM
Sunnyvale Mobile/Manufactured Homes For Sale I Trulia.com http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Sunnyvale,CA/MOBILEIMANUFAC ...
Buy Sell Rent Mortgage Find an Agent More For Professionals .., My Boards 1 Saved Searches Sign In
Sunnyvale, CA 0 SAVED Y Q -
Min Price .., Max Price .., All Beds .., All Baths .., Mobile I Man... .., 1 more filter Q. All Fiiters
:: LIST '!!! PHOTO [IUJ MAP SUNNYVALE MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES FOR s... 19 Results
Sort by: Featured .:;; Share this Search with Friends & Family
1220 Tasman Dr #304FEATURED
Sunnyvale, CA... 3 beds Moblle/M ...
2 baths 1,040 sqft
Most Viewed homes In this area:
$650,000
645 W Garland Ter
2bd, 2ba
$179,000
690 Persian Dr #33
2bd. 1248sqlt
NEW HOMES
$268,888
1085 Tasman Dr #257
4bd, 2ba, 2048sqft
$219,000
1225 Vienna Dr #337
3bd, 2ba, 1600sqrc
Penny Lane Town homes PROMOTED
Campbell, CA 9... 3 beds
2.5 -3.5
baths •
Townhomes
1478+ sqft
1225 Vienna Dr #12SFEATURED
Sunnyvale, CA... 3 beds Moblle/M ...
1,720 sqft
""'Email Alliance Homes or ca11 ('108\ 837·7' 66 for more info
1225 Vienna Dr #267 FEATURED
Sunnyvale, CA ... 3 beds
2 baths
Moblle/M ...
1,601 sqft
$169,900
5817/1110
•
From
$950,000
$339,000+
i·i .630+/rno
•
$279,000
$1,341/mo
•
Nearby Homes For Rent
I 271 Lawre1 ice '>[Jtion Rd
1271 Lawrence
Station Road,
Sunnyvale CA
1i'i17
621 T,1sman Dr
621 Tasm;in
Drive. Sunnyvale
CA
'1!!115
$2,404 -$4,539
1. 2 bd
1 -2 ba
$2,694 -$4,046
1. 2 bd
1 -2 ba
More Nearby Homes For Rent .,
Ask a question about
I of4 3/23/2015 4:00 PM
Sunnyvale Mobile/Manufactured Homes For Sale I Trulia.com http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Sunnyvale,CNMOBILEIMANUFAC ...
3 of4
1085 Tasman Dr #767,
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
'i!?i18
600 E Weddell Dr #117,
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
1085 Tasman Dr #255,
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
'i!?i14
1220 Tasman Dr #518,
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
'i!?i8
1085 Tasman Dr #767
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 3beds
600 E Weddell Dr #117
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 3beds
1085 Tasman Dr #255
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 3 beds
2 baths
Selective Realty Inc
1220 Tasman Dr #518
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 3 beds
Ad by Google related to: Sunnyvale, CA
() IJeverlyheritage.... Sunnyvale CA Hotel • BeverlyHeritage.com
•
Moblle/Manufactu ...
2,040 sqft
Moblle/Manufactu ...
1,248 sqft
Moblle/Manufactu ...
1,440sqft
Moblle/Manufactu ...
1,459 sqft
Enjoy a Relaxing Stay In Siiicon Valley, The Beverly Heritage Hotel
Hotel
Dining
Rooms & Suites
1 • 15 of 19 Results •.. ".• ...• y""
11 •P,i:evjp!Js" : ' --·-~::.:· ~_, .. _ .,;,·~·
Find out more. Contact a local agent.
17. Julie Tsai Law
(650) 600-3370 ***** (0) 17. Juliana Lee.MBA
(650) 276-5442 ' • ., \ (69)
17 •. Debra Ahn
(650) 763·3819 .\-! -\
Want to be listed here? Learn More
(18)
PRO
PRO
PRO
P/1011P
HI, I'm searching on Trulla for homes in Sunnyvale CA. and I'd
like more Information.
By sending. you agree to Trulla's Ters,1~ nf u~~"' & Pnv.1,~· P11l1r'J.
$379,000+
r. 1.r.~:2 .. /rno
•
$209,000
$'1.005/mo
•
$225,000
S1,082/mo
NEW
•
$229,000
s1,1011mo
•
Next»
3/23/2015 4:00 PM
Sunnyvale Mobile/Manufactured Homes For Sale I Trulia.com http://www.trulia.com/for _ sale/Sunnyvale,CA/MOBILEIMANUFAC ...
I of2
Buy Sell Rent Mortgage Find an Agent More For Professionals v My Boards 1 ' Saved Searches Sll!n In
Sunnyvale, CA 0 SAVED T ~-
Min Price v Max Price " All Beds v All Baths v Mobile I Man... v 1 more filter Q. All Fiiters
;;: LIST 1!:i PHOTO Oill MAP SUNNYVALE MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES FORS... 18 Results
Sort by: Featured
OPEN Mar 28, 1pm-4pm
" ;:.l''}r ]:r . rn
\\
SPONSORED
;;:.; Share this Search with Friends & Family
1225 Vienna Dr #604 ... $266,999
Sunnyvale, CA... 3 beds Moblle/M ...
2 baths 1,740 sqft
$1,284/rno
Get Pre-Qualifiecl with U.S. Bunk
lntero Real Estate ...
1050 Borregas Ave #21
Sunnyvale, CA... 3 beds Moblle/M ...
1,710sqft
•
$319,000+
:1»1,534 •Imo
Get Pre-Qualified with U.S flank
•
1050 Borregas Ave #84 ... $339,000
Sunnyvale, CA... 3 beds Moblle/M ...
3 baths 1,964 sqft
$1,630/mo
Get Pre-Qualified with U.S. Bank
Julius & Associates
New Homes by Pulte
Find your new home In the San Francisco
Areal»
•
Ad by Google related to: Sunnyvale, CA
0 beverlyheritage.... Sunnyvale CA Hotel -BeverlyHeritage.com
Enjoy a Relaxing Stay In Silicon Valley, The Beverly Heritage Hotel
16 • 18 of 18 Results
« Previous
Hotel
Dining
Rooms & Suites
1 2
Find out more. Contact a local agent.
17.JulleTsailaw
(650) 600-3370 ***** (0) PRO
Nearby Homes For Rent
I 271 Lawrence Station Rel
•
$2,404-$4,539
• 1-2 bd
Sl7 1 -2 ba
621 TasrnJn Dr
•
$2,694-$4,046
flilf1' 1-2bd ~~ 1 -2 ba
More Nearby Homes For Rent »
Ask a question about
Ask agents or local experts anything
3/23/2015 4:00 PM
EXHIBIT D
MAR_GAR_ET
ECKER_ NANDA
ATTORNEY AT LAW
March 25, 2015
Via Electronic Mail and First Class Mail
Molly S. Stump
City Attorney
Grant Kolling
Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Email: Molly.Stump@cityofpaloallo.org
Email: Grant.Kolling@cityofpaloalto.org
Re: Closure of Buena Vista Mobilehome Park
Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance, Chapter 9.6 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code
Dear Ms. Stump and Mr. Kolling:
The undersigned attorney represents the owners of Buena Vista Mobilehome Park
(the Toufic Jisser Family) with respect to the upcoming Appeal hearings occurring on
April 13, 2015 and April 14, 2015. The correspondence that the Residents Association
emailed Monday, March 23, 2015, containing materials they wish to submit as additional
evidence, clearly violates the Appeal Procedures that were adopted by the City Council
on January 12, 2015. I write to adamantly encourage you to adhere to those procedures
and deny admission of this evidence because it is not procedurally proper or relevant.
The Appeals Procedures provide clear requirements.
To reiterate, the Appeal Procedures state:
2(e): The evidentiaiy record is closed. Witness testimony will not be taken and
new documents shall not be offered as a basis for decision on appeal, except that Council
may allow new evidence if a party can demonstrate that newly discovered and
relevant evidence exists that could not have been discovered with exercise of
• 485 ,\LBLRTO w ,, Y, Sum 100, Los G'\TOS, CA. 95032 . PHONE 4-08.355.7010 . FAX 408.355.7094. E-M/\IL MARC/\RET.NAND'\@INF()GAIN.COM
Letter to Molly Stump and Grant Kolling
Page 2of6
March 25, 2015
reasonable diligence during the initial proceeding before the Hearing Officer.
[Emphasis added].
The evidentiary standards are very clear that the party must show that the evidence
was: 1) newly discovered, 2) relevant, 3) and could not have been discovered with the
exercise of reasonable diligence during the initial proceeding before the Hearing Officer.
The Residents Association's proffered evidence fails to meet the above criteria.
Furthermore, the Appeal Procedures are also clear in limiting each party who
wishes to submit a Pre-Hearing Statement to a 10-page limit (See Appeal Procedures
2(f)).
1. The randomly selected Trulia listings are not newly discovered evidence, are
not relevant to this Appeal, and fail to meet the criteria that they could not
have not been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence during the
initial proceeding.
First, the evidentiary record on comparable mobilehome parks is closed since data
on this exact issue has already been presented and discussed between the City and the
Park Owner.1 A comprehensive discussion on the parks that comprised the comparable
pm·k data, including what specifically makes a mobilehome park comparable to Buena
Vista, was discussed in detail in the Relocation Impact Report (RIR) section 19.2
Secondly, the randomly selected Trulia.com mobilehome listings (hereinafter
"Trulia evidence" or "Trulia listings") that the Association is attempting to force into
evidence for the appeal are irrelevant. The RIR already canvassed the 98 units which are
at issue in the Park using substantial research. Only 30 of the 98 units are even
mobilehomes. · The rest of the Park units are various types of Recreational Vehicles
(RV's) or "Park models", a specific type of manufactured housing unit. The Trulia
listings are not ge1mane, there is no way to determine what other amenities or other
restrictions (such as community age restrictions, which may impact price) are in place
where the units shown on Trulia are located. The Trulia listings do not provide any new
or relevant inf01mation and must be denied admission into evidence.
Due to the irrelevance of the Trulia listings, namely that only 30 of the Park's 98
units at issue are even mobilehomes, that the condition of the Parks in the listings relative
to the condition of Buena Vista Mobilehome Park is unknown, that any other restrictions
about the units listed in the other parks (which may increase value, is also unknown), and
1 See Relocation Impact Report pg. 57 and Appendix 30 and 43.
2 See Relocation Impact Report, Section 19, pg. 55-58.
-·
Letter to Molly Stump and Grant Kolling
Page 3of6
March 25, 2015
finally the possible prejudice to the Park Owner that would result from admitting
these randomly selected mobilehome listings, the sole conclusion that can be drawn is
these enumerated factors outweigh any limited probative value that the listings might
have.
The Trulia listings do not provide any evidence that was not already reasonably
obtainable at the initial hearing with the exercise of due diligence. The prime example of
exercising due diligence during the requisite initial Hearing is the evidence provided in
the RlR, in which, "Appendix 43 ... contained comparable mobilehome sales data for
mobilehome parks within a 35 mile range of Buena Vista."3 The Resident Association
cannot suddenly cherry pick a handful of listings to replace properly vetted,
comprehensive, and already discussed data for their own purposes.
Lastly, the Association attempts to say that the Trulia listings are highly relevant
to show whether tenants will be able to relocate based on the cmTent payments. Perhaps,
the Residents Association should review the initial Hearing Officer's Decision, where he
explicitly writes that the rent subsidy shall be updated to reflect current market conditions
within six months of the owner's relocation from the Park and the appraisals will be
updated similarly to reflect current market conditions.4
For the foregoing reasons, the Trulia evidence must not be admitted as evidence
for the Appeals Hearing.
2. The "Appraisal Review Report" is clearly not newly discovered evidence,
patently fails to meet the criteria that it could not have not been discovered
with the exercise of reasonable diligence during the initial proceeding, and
any argument that it is a rebuttal to changes to the RIR is without merit.
The Resident's Association even admits that, "the Report is not new,
undiscovered, factual evidence of the type that seems to be anticipated by the Appeal
Procedures," and it underhandedly tries to re-characterize it as, "more an analysis of
evidence." This attempt is procedurally and professionally wrong.
First, because there is no reason why this Report could not have been obtained
during the Hearing Process, as by the Association's own admission, the evidence must be
excluded from the appeal. The Residents Association attempts to obfuscate this issue by
inventing some far-fetched argument about how this report is a rebuttal argument to
amended mitigation assistance presented on May 14, 2014 when; instead, the only issue
3 See Relocation Impact Report, pg. 58
4 See Hearing Officer's Final Decision, Exhibit A, Sections I and 2 .
.....•
Letter to Molly Stump and Grant Kolling
Page 4of6
March 25, 2015
regarding the appraisals that the Resident Association has consistently complained about
is that the appraisals were too low5. During the hearing process, the Residents
Association had 15 months from time of receipt of resident's appraisals (April 2013) to
order other appraisals or order a review of their appraisals to be considered during the
initial hearing process. In fact, the Residents Association did put forth an additional
appraisal that was considered by the Hearing Officer, the appraisal of the home at Space
27 by S. Mark McCullough of EAppraisal Valuation. The Hearing Officer found
McCullough's appraisal unpersuasive because of significant flaws in the assumption that
the home was real property and not a mobilehome. Simply put, there is no reason that
through the exercise of reasonable diligence during the initial proceeding, this report
could not have been obtained. For the foregoing reasons, this Repo1i must not be
admitted as evidence.
Secondly, the argument that the RlR was amended during the Hearing and this
new Report is some type of a "rebuttal argument" is an intentional obfuscation of issues.
To be clear, the amendments made to the RlR, that the Residents Association claims were
"at the last minute," were two updates that only benefited the residents and did not
change the RlR methodology because the updates only consisted of: 1) Increasing the
Rent Subsidy from 40% to 100% and 2) Offering to provide appraisals to be updated to
reflect current market conditions within six months of the owner's relocation from the
Buena Vista Mobilehome Park. Increasing the amount of rent subsidy and ordering more
current appraisals does not change the RlR methodology in anyway, it only increases
benefits to residents. Here, this new Report is not a rebuttal to an increase of rent
subsidy or a decision to offer updated appraisals. A rebuttal would actually address the
updates by taking a rebuttal position to them; for instance, that the appraisals should not
be updated or that the appraisals should not be not be updated within 6 months. This
Report is not even relevant to the rebuttal argument that the Resident Association is
claiming. The Resident Association must not be allowed to circumvent the established
Appeals Procedures adopted by the City Council on the basis of manufactured,
attenuated, and irrelevant arguments.
Thirdly, the pre-hearing statement is limited to 10 pages. This report combined
with their brief exceeds the limit. This Report must be denied based upon the clear
limitations provided by the City Council.
Lastly, claims that the Resident Association was not offered time to rebut or
challenge changes made to the RlR are without merit. Additional considerations to adjust
the hearing schedule so that the Association could have challenged the amendments to the
RlR was offered by Hearing Officer, Labadie, to the Residents Association, but the
5 For example, See Nadia Aziz, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, October 10, 2013 Letter to City
Attorney, pg. 5
Letter to Molly Stump and Grant Kolling
Page 5 of6
March 25, 2015
Association never made use of said offer. To quote directly from Hearing Officer, Craig
Labadie's, May 23, 2014 letter:
It has been pointed out that the letter in question was submitted after the post-
hearing schedule had been determined. If either party believes that reasonable
adjustments to that schedule are necessary to allow sufficient time for preparation
of closing statements and supporting materials, please let me know. [Emphasis
Added]6
The Association cannot attempt to now claim lack of rebuttal opportunity as a way
to sneak new evidence into the appeal hearing when they clearly already had the chance to
challenge or rebut any of the amendments to the CIR and failed to do so. The Association
claim that this is their only rebuttal opportunity is clearly without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the Appraisal Report must not be admitted into
evidence for the Appeal.
3. The Identity of the Association's Expert Witness is requested and the Park
Owner will not present Argument until after Presentation of the Resident
Association's Expert Witness has completed.
The Resident Association stated in its March 23, 2015 correspondence that it will
have another expert witness testify on its behalf; however, it has failed to disclose the
name of that individual. In the interest of due process, the Park Owner requests the
identity of the expert witness set to testify as well as the subject matter.
Because of the Association's refusal to disclose the identity and subject matter of
their expert, the Park Owner re-affirms its previously stated position that its 30 minute
initial argument will take place after the Resident Association and any expert witness the
Association chooses to call. Due Process requires a fair and balanced proceeding. If the
Park Owner does not hear the expert witness testimony until after its 30 minute argument,
it can only address the expert witness in its rebuttal argument. Considering the rebuttal
argument is only 15 minutes in length, this will not allow enough time to rebut both the
Associations and the expert's arguments, especially an expert's opinion which the Park
Owner will only be hearing for the first time at the Hearing. The Park Owner requests
that the proceeding be as fair as possible and that any Association Expert be made to
finish his/her presentation on behalf of the Association and before the Owner's
6 Hearing Officer, Craig Labadie, May 14, 2014 Letter to Patties; See Also Park Owner's Closing Brief,
Exhibit 5.
. .......•.
Letter to Molly Stump and Grant Kolling
Page 6of6
March 25, 2015
presentation. The Park 0\\-ner disclosed even before the March 23, 2015 deadline that it
did not intend to call an expert witness in an effort to be collegial and cooperative to the
City Attorney's office and opposing counsel.
Conclusion.
The Resident Association must not be permitted to benefit from attempting to
shirk previously established appeal procedures because they feel entitled to do so. The
Trulia listings and the Appraisal Review Report must be denied admission as evidence.
There is no legal loophole that allows their admission. The proposed evidence is neither
relevant, nor can be shown to have not be obtainable during the hearing procedure by a
party exercising reasonable diligence. Moreover, admitting the additional the evidence
would be extremely prejudicial to the Park Owner. The pr~judice outweighs any
probative value the proposed evidence may offer because the evidence is clearly not
relevant and because it has been put forth in a way that intentionally circumvents the
agreed upon procedures governing the process.
It is highly ironic that James Zahradka in his letter to you of March 20, 2015
accuses the undersigned of unilaterally demanding disclosure deadlines. In fact, the
undersigned was attempting to suggest reasonable mutua1 disclosure deadlines. Perhaps
the most telling statement in Mr. Zahradka's letter however is the following, "The City
should rebuff Ms. Nanda's eleventh-hour effort to alter the rules of the game." I was
unaware until receipt of Mr. Zahradka's letter that he regarded this process as a "game"
and my client, Joe Jisser has asked me to convey to the City and to Mr. Zahradka that he
considers his characterization offensive and insulting. The closure of Buena Vista
Mobilehome Park is not now, nor has it ever been a "game" to my client.
Thank you.
Very truly yours, fk y~
=rCKER NANDA
cc: Joe Jisser, via electronic email only
James F. Zahradka, via electronic email and first class mail
Nadia Aziz, via electronic email and first class mail
···-··---------•-··· ······
ATTACHMENT B
150113 mf 00710537
APPEAL PROCEDURES
Application for Closure of Buena Vista Mobilehome Park
Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.76
ADOPTED BY PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL, JANUARY 12, 2015
1. Introduction
a. The appeal procedures are adopted to implement Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
9.76. If there is a conflict between these procedures and the Municipal Code, the
Municipal Code shall govern.
2. Conduct of the Appeal
a. The appeal hearing shall be taped and/or stenographically recorded. All documents and
other materials submitted to the Hearing Officer and at the appeal hearing shall be
included in the record of proceedings.
b. The appeal is subject to the provisions of the Brown Act (California’s open meeting law).
c. The applicant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the
criteria for approval of the application, as set forth in Municipal Code section
9.76.040(g), have been met.
d. The parties to this proceeding are the Park owner and the residents, tenants and legal
owners of the mobilehomes in the Park.
e. The evidentiary record is closed. Witness testimony will not be taken and new
documents shall not be offered as a basis for decision on appeal, except that Council
may allow new evidence if a party can demonstrate that newly discovered and relevant
evidence exists that could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable
diligence during the initial proceeding before the Hearing Officer. No later than 21 days
before the appeal hearing, a party seeking to offer new evidence shall submit a short
description of the proposed testimony or documentary evidence, its relevance, and the
basis for accepting new evidence on appeal. In addition, each party may have one
expert or other witness testify for up to 10 minutes regarding the inferences to be
drawn and the weight to be given to the evidence in the record.
f. The Council shall exercise its independent judgment regarding whether the criteria for
approval of the closure application has been met, based on the record of proceedings
before the Hearing Officer and the Council. The parties may make legal arguments to
the Council, including regarding the inferences to be drawn and the weight to be given
150113 mf 00710537
to evidence in the record. Written pre-hearing statements are not required; any party
wishing to submit a written pre-hearing statement not to exceed 10 pages shall do so no
later than 21 days before the date that the appeal is scheduled to be heard. The appeal
will be heard on or about April 13, 2015. Pre-hearing statements and requests to hear
new evidence, if any, shall be transmitted to the City Attorney no later than March 23,
2015.
g. The Council intends to conduct the appeal as follows, though the parties are advised
that Council retains discretion to adjust the procedure as appropriate and consistent
with law:
Owner/applicant – 30 minutes
Owner’s expert or other witness – 10 minutes
Residents – 30 minutes
Residents’ expert or other witness – 10 minutes
Owner/applicant rebuttal – 15 minutes
Residents’ rebuttal – 15 minutes
h. The Council will allow time for members of the public to address the Council, as
required by the Brown Act, either before or after the parties have made their
presentations. Public comment will be subject to reasonable time limits. Public
comment is not evidence. Public comment will not be considered as a basis for the
Council’s decision in this matter.
i. These appeal procedures are intended to provide general guidelines for the conduct of
the appeal and may be modified as determined appropriate by the Council.
3. Written Decision
a. The Council will issue a written decision, making specific findings based on the evidence
and resolving the appeal. The Council’s staff will prepare the findings and decision for
the Council’s review and adoption. The proposed decision will be made available to the
parties before the Council is scheduled to adopt it, consistent with the Council’s regular
agenda procedures. Any party wishing to make brief written comments must do so no
later than five calendar days before the decision is agendized for Council adoption.
b. The Council’s decision shall be final immediately upon adoption of its written decision,
and is not subject to rehearing or further administrative appeal. The procedures and
timelines in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 shall apply to any judicial
proceeding challenging the Council’s determination.