3. Effective date . This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 9th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES : COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS :
ABSTAINED : COUNCILORS :
Attachments incorporated by reference:
1. Legislative Advocacy Position Policy
Davis, Kolstad, Mahan, O'Neill, and Watanabe and
Mayor Gillmor
None
None
None
JENNIFER YAMAGUMA
ACTING CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution/Adoption of Legislative Advocacy Position Policy Rev: 11 /22/17
City of Santa Clara
2022 Q3 Legislative Update
2022 Housing LAP
AB 682 (Bloom D) Planning and zoning: density bonuses: shared housing buildings.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/28/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/12/2021
Last Amend: 8/24/2022
Status: 9/28/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 634, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/28/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Density Bonus Law requires a city or county to provide a developer that proposes a housing development within the city or county with a density bonus and other incentives or concessions, as specified, if the developer agrees to construct, among other options, 10% of the total units of a housing development for rental or sale to lower income households, as defined; or 5% of the total units for rental or sale to very low income households, as defined; a senior citizen housing development, as defined, or a mobilehome park that limits residency based on age requirements, as specified; or 100% of all units in the development for lower income households, as defined, subject to certain exceptions, and meets other requirements. This bill would provide that a housing development eligible for a density bonus be provide under these provisions includes a shared housing building, as defined, that will contain 10% of the total units for lower income households; contain or 5% of the total units for very low income households; is a senior housing development; or in which 100% of all the units are for lower income households, as described above.
Position
AB 916 (Salas D) Zoning: bedroom addition.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/28/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/17/2021
Last Amend: 8/22/2022
Status: 9/28/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 635, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/28/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would prohibit a city or county legislative body from adopting or enforcing an ordinance requiring a public hearing as a condition of reconfiguring existing space to increase the bedroom count within an existing dwelling unit. The bill would apply these provisions only to a permit application for no more than 2 additional bedrooms within an existing dwelling unit. The bill would specify that these provisions are not to be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring a public hearing for a proposed project that would increase the number of dwelling units within an existing structure. The bill would include findings that ensuring adequate housing is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair, and that the provision applies to all cities, including charter cities.
Position
AB 2011 (Wicks D) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/28/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/14/2022
Last Amend: 8/25/2022
Status: 9/28/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 647, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/28/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would create the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, which would authorize a development proponent to submit an application for a housing development that meets specified objective standards and affordability and site criteria, including being located within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use, and would make the development a use
by right and subject to one of 2 streamlined, ministerial review processes. The bill would require a development proponent for a housing development project approved pursuant to the streamlined, ministerial review process to require, in contracts with construction contractors, that certain wage and labor standards will be met, including a requirement that all construction workers be paid at least the general prevailing rate of wages, as specified. The bill would require a development proponent to certify to the local government that those standards will be met in project construction.
Position
AB 2097 (Friedman D) Residential, commercial, or other development types: parking requirements.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/22/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/14/2022
Last Amend: 8/24/2022
Status: 9/22/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 459, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/22/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a land use element, and a conservation element. Current law also authorizes the legislative body of a city or a county to adopt ordinances establishing requirements for parking, and permits variances to be granted from the parking requirements of a zoning ordinance for nonresidential development if the variance will be an incentive to the development and the variance will facilitate access to the development by patrons of public transit facilities. This bill would prohibit a public agency from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project, as defined, that is located within 1/2 mile of public transit, as defined. The bill, notwithstanding the above-described prohibition, would authorize a city, county, or city and county to impose or enforce minimum automobile parking requirements on a housing development project if the public agency makes written findings, within 30 days of the receipt of a completed application, that not imposing or enforcing minimum automobile parking requirements on the development would have a substantially negative impact, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, on the public agency’s ability to meet its share of specified housing needs or existing residential or commercial parking within 1/2 mile of the housing development.
Position
AB 2221 (Quirk-Silva D) Accessory dwelling units.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/28/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/15/2022
Last Amend: 8/24/2022
Status: 9/28/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 650, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/28/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires a local ordinance to require an accessory dwelling unit to be either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, as specified, or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling. This bill would specify that an accessory dwelling unit that is detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling may include a detached garage.
Position
AB 2234 (Rivas, Robert D) Planning and zoning: housing: postentitlement phase permits.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/28/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/15/2022
Last Amend: 8/18/2022
Status: 9/28/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/28/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from
disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, specified housing development projects, including projects for very low, low, or moderate-income households and projects for emergency shelters, that comply with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application for the project is deemed complete, unless the local agency makes specified written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record. The act authorizes a project applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring a lawsuit to enforce its provisions. This bill would require a local agency to compile a list of information needed to approve or deny a postentitlement phase permit, as defined, to post an example of a complete, approved application and an example of a complete set of postentitlement phase permits for at least 5 types of housing development projects, as defined, in the jurisdiction, as specified, and to make those items available to all applicants for these permits no later than January 1, 2024. The bill would define “local agency” for these purposes to mean a city, county, or city and county.
Position
SB 6 (Caballero D) Local planning: housing: commercial zones.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/28/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 12/7/2020
Last Amend: 8/25/2022
Status: 9/28/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 659, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/28/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. Current law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development. If the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all households pursuant to specified law, current law requires the local government to rezone sites within specified time periods and that this rezoning accommodate 100% of the need for housing for very low and low-income households on sites that will be zoned to permit owner- occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right for specified developments. This bill, the Middle Class Housing Act of 2022, would deem a housing development project, as defined, an allowable use on a parcel that is within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use, if specified conditions are met, including requirements relating to density, public notice, comment, hearing, or other procedures, site location and size, consistency with sustainable community strategy or alternative plans, prevailing wage, and a skilled and trained workforce.
Position
SB 897 (Wieckowski D) Accessory dwelling units: junior accessory dwelling units.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/28/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/1/2022
Last Amend: 8/25/2022
Status: 9/28/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 664, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/28/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Planning and Zoning Law authorizes a local agency, by ordinance or ministerial approval, to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for residential use, as specified. Current law authorizes a local agency to impose standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, and maximum size of a unit. This bill would require that the standards imposed on accessory dwelling units be objective. For purposes of this requirement, the bill would define “objective standard” as a standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable, as specified.
Position
SB 1338 (Umberg D) Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Court Program.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/14/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Last Amend: 8/25/2022
Status: 9/14/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 319, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/14/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would, contingent upon the State Department of Health Care Services developing an allocation to provide financial assistance to counties, enact the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, which would authorize specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. The bill would require the Counties of Glenn, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne and the City and County of San Francisco to implement the program commencing October 1, 2023, and the remaining counties to commence no later than December 1, 2024. The bill would require the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use in filing a CARE process petition and would specify the process by which the petition is filed and reviewed, including requiring the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury, and to contain specified information, including the facts that support the petitioner’s assertion that the respondent meets the CARE criteria.
Position
SCA 2 (Allen D) Public housing projects.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/13/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 12/7/2020
Status: 9/13/2022-Chaptered by Secretary of State- Chapter 182, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/13/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The California Constitution prohibits the development, construction, or acquisition of a low- rent housing project, as defined, in any manner by any state public body until a majority of the qualified electors of the city, town, or county in which the development, construction, or acquisition of the low-rent housing project is proposed approve the project by voting in favor at an election, as specified. This measure would repeal these provisions.
Position
Broadband Cable Services and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities LAP
AB 988 (Bauer-Kahan D) Mental health: 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/29/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/18/2021
Last Amend: 8/18/2022
Status: 9/29/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 747, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/29/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would enact the Miles Hall Lifeline and Suicide Prevention Act. The bill would require the Office of Emergency Services to verify, no later than July 16, 2022, that technology that allows for transfers between 988 centers as well as between 988 centers and 911 public safety answering points, is available to 988 centers and 911 public safety answering points throughout the state. The bill would require, no later than 90 days after passage of the act, the office to appoint a 988 system director, among other things. The bill would require, no later than July 1, 2024, the office to verify interoperability between and across 911 and 988. The bill would require the office to consult with specified entities on any technology requirements for 988 centers.
Position
COVID-19 Legislation
I I
AB 2179 (Grayson D) COVID-19 relief: tenancy.
Current Text: Enrollment: 3/31/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/15/2022
Last Amend: 3/28/2022
Status: 3/31/2022-Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 13, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 3/31/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act, until October 1, 2025, establishes procedural requirements and limitations on evictions for nonpayment of rent due to COVID-19 rental debt, as defined. The act, among other things, requires that a notice that demands payment of COVID-19 rental debt served pursuant to specified law be modified, as provided. The act requires that a notice that demands payment of rent that came due during the transition time period, as defined, comply with certain requirements, including that the notice include certain text which varies depending on the date that the notice is served. This bill would require notices described above that are served on or after April 1, 2022, and before July 1, 2022, to include certain text.
Position
Support
Human Resources/Public Sector Employment LAP
AB 1751 (Daly D) Workers’ compensation: COVID-19: critical workers.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/29/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/1/2022
Last Amend: 8/25/2022
Status: 9/29/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 758, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/29/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law establishes a workers’ compensation system, administered by the Administrative Director of the Division of Workers’ Compensation, to compensate an employee, as defined, for injuries sustained in the course of employment. Current law defines “injury” for an employee to include illness or death resulting from the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) under specified circumstances, until January 1, 2023. Current law creates a disputable presumption, as specified, that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment and is compensable, for specified dates of injury. Current law requires an employee to exhaust their paid sick leave benefits and meet specified certification requirements before receiving any temporary disability benefits or, for police officers, firefighters, and other specified employees, a leave of absence. Current law also make a claim relating to a COVID-19 illness presumptively compensable, as described above, after 30 days or 45 days, rather than 90 days. Current law, until January 1, 2023, allows for a presumption of injury for all employees whose fellow employees at their place of employment experience specified levels of positive testing, and whose employer has 5 or more employees. This bill would extend the above- described provisions relating to COVID-19 until January 1, 2024. The bill would also expand the above- described provisions applicable to firefighters and police officers to include active firefighting members of a fire department at the State Department of State Hospitals, the State Department of Developmental Services, the Military Department, and the Department of Veterans Affairs and to officers of a state hospital under the jurisdiction of the State Department of State Hospitals and the State Department of Developmental Services.
Position
AB 2449 (Rubio, Blanca D) Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/13/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/17/2022
Last Amend: 8/8/2022
Status: 9/13/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 285, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/13/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
I I
Summary: Current law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a legislative body of a local agency, as those terms are defined, be open and public and that all persons be permitted to attend and participate. The act generally requires posting an agenda at least 72 hours before a regular meeting that contains a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, and prohibits any action or discussion from being undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. This bill would revise and recast those teleconferencing provisions and, until January 1, 2026, would authorize a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements that each teleconference location be identified in the notice and agenda and that each teleconference location be accessible to the public if at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body participates in person from a singular physical location clearly identified on the agenda that is open to the public and situated within the local agency’s jurisdiction.
Position
AB 2647 (Levine D) Local government: open meetings.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/30/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Last Amend: 8/4/2022
Status: 9/30/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 971, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/30/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law, the California Public Records Act, requires state agencies and local agencies to make public records available for inspection, subject to specified criteria, and with specified exceptions.
Current law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, requires the meetings of the legislative body of a local agency to be conducted openly and publicly, with specified exceptions. Current law makes agendas of public meetings and other writings distributed to the members of the governing board disclosable public records, with certain exceptions.This bill would instead require a local agency to make those writings distributed to the members of the governing board available for public inspection at a public office or location that the agency designates and list the address of the office or location on the agenda for all meetings of the legislative body of the agency unless the local agency meets certain requirements, including the local agency immediately posts the writings on the local agency’s internet website in a position and manner that makes it clear that the writing relates to an agenda item for an upcoming meeting.
Position
AB 2693 (Reyes D) COVID-19: exposure.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/29/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Last Amend: 8/25/2022
Status: 9/29/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 799, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/29/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: (1)Existing law, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, authorizes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to prohibit the performance of an operation or process, or entry into that place of employment when, in its opinion, a place of employment, operation, or process, or any part thereof, exposes workers to the risk of infection with COVID-19, so as to constitute an imminent hazard to employees. This bill would extend those provisions until January 1, 2024. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill imposes a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
Position
SB 931 (Leyva D) Deterring union membership: violations.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/29/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/7/2022
Last Amend: 8/15/2022
Status: 9/29/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 823, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/29/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law prohibits a public employer from deterring or discouraging public employees or applicants to be public employees from becoming or remaining members of an employee organization, authorizing representation by an employee organization, or authorizing dues or fee deductions to an employee organization. Current law generally vests jurisdiction over violations of these provisions in the Public Employment Relations Board. This bill would authorize an employee organization, as described, to bring a claim before the Public Employment Relations Board alleging that a public employer violated the above-described provisions. Upon a finding by the board that the public employer violated those provisions, the public employer would be subject to a civil penalty, to be deposited in the General Fund, of up to $1,000 for each affected employee, not to exceed $100,000 in total, and subject to attorney’s fees and costs, as described and except as specified.
Position
SB 1044 (Durazo D) Employers: emergency condition: retaliation.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/29/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/15/2022
Last Amend: 8/15/2022
Status: 9/29/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 829, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/29/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would prohibit an employer, in the event of an emergency condition, as defined, from taking or threatening adverse action against any employee for refusing to report to, or leaving, a workplace or worksite within the affected area because the employee has a reasonable belief that the workplace or worksite is unsafe, except as specified. The bill would also prohibit an employer from preventing any employee, including employees of public entities, as specified, from accessing the employee’s mobile device or other communications device for seeking emergency assistance, assessing the safety of the situation, or communicating with a person to confirm their safety. The bill would require an employee to notify the employer of the emergency condition requiring the employee to leave or refuse to report to the workplace or worksite, as specified. The bill would clarify that these provisions are not intended to apply when emergency conditions that pose an imminent and ongoing risk of harm to the workplace, the worksite, the worker, or the worker’s home have ceased.
Position
SB 1100 (Cortese D) Open meetings: orderly conduct.
Current Text: Chaptered: 8/22/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/16/2022
Last Amend: 6/6/2022
Status: 8/22/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 171, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 8/22/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law authorizes the members of the legislative body conducting the meeting to order the meeting room cleared and continue in session, as prescribed, if a group or groups have willfully interrupted the orderly conduct of a meeting and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting. This bill would authorize the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting or their designee to remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting. The bill, except as provided, would require removal to be preceded by a warning to the individual by the presiding member of the legislative body or their designee that the individual’s behavior is disrupting the meeting and that the individual’s failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The bill would authorize the presiding member or their designee to then remove the individual if the individual does not promptly cease their disruptive behavior. The bill would define “disrupting” for this purpose.
Position
SB 1127 (Atkins D) Workers’ compensation: liability presumptions.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/29/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/16/2022
Last Amend: 8/23/2022
Status: 9/29/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 835, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/29/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires an injured employee to file a claim form with the employer. Under current law, except for specified injuries, if liability is not rejected within 90 days after the date the claim form is filed with the employer, the injury is presumed compensable and the presumption is rebuttable only by evidence discovered subsequent to the 90-day period. For certain injuries or illnesses, including hernia, heart trouble, pneumonia, or tuberculosis, among others, sustained in the course of employment of a specified member of law enforcement or a specified first responder, this bill would reduce those time periods to 75 days. The bill would make other conforming changes.
Position
SB 1407 (Becker D) California Employee Ownership Act.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/29/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Last Amend: 8/15/2022
Status: 9/29/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 733, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/29/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, establish the California Employee Ownership Hub within the Office of Small Business Advocate to increase awareness and understanding of employee ownership among stakeholders, assist business owners and employees in navigating available resources, and streamline and reduce barriers to employee ownership. The bill would require an Employee Ownership Hub Manager to administer the hub, and would authorize the manager to be responsible for prescribed duties, including partnering with specified state agencies and private entities to promote employee ownership transitions.
Position
Support
Public Safety LAP
AB 1613 (Irwin D) Theft: jurisdiction.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/30/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 1/5/2022
Last Amend: 5/23/2022
Status: 9/30/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 949, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/30/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would establish the jurisdiction of a criminal action brought by the Attorney General for theft, organized retail theft, or receipt of stolen property as including the county where an offense involving the theft or receipt of the stolen merchandise occurred, the county in which the merchandise was recovered, or the county where any act was done by the defendant in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense. The bill would also, if multiple offenses of theft or other specified crimes all involving the same defendant or defendants and the same merchandise, or the same defendant or defendants and the same scheme or substantially similar activity, occur in multiple jurisdictions, establish that any of those jurisdictions is a proper jurisdiction for all of the offenses. The bill would extend jurisdiction to all associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft offenses.
Position
AB 1653 (Patterson R) Property crimes: regional property crimes task force.
Current Text: Chaptered: 7/19/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 1/14/2022
Status: 7/19/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 105,
Statutes of 2022.
Location: 7/19/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law, until January 1, 2026, requires the Department of the California Highway Patrol to coordinate with the Department of Justice to convene a regional property crimes task force to identify geographic areas experiencing increased levels of property crimes and assist local law enforcement with resources, such as personnel and equipment. This bill would specify theft of vehicle parts and accessories as a property crime for consideration by the regional property crimes task force.
Position
AB 1685 (Bryan D) Vehicles: parking violations.
Current Text: Vetoed: 9/29/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 1/24/2022
Last Amend: 8/25/2022
Status: 9/29/2022-Vetoed by Governor.
Location: 9/29/2022-A. VETOED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires a processing agency to offer a payment plan for unpaid parking citations to qualified indigent persons. This bill would require a processing agency, if it seeks to collect an unpaid parking penalty by requesting the Department of Motor Vehicles to place a registration hold on the vehicle, to forgive at least $1,500 in parking fines and fees annually for a qualified homeless person, provide certain information regarding the parking citation forgiveness program, including on its internet website, and collect and have readily available specified information.
Position
AB 1740 (Muratsuchi D) Catalytic converters.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/25/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 1/31/2022
Last Amend: 8/24/2022
Status: 9/25/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 513, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/25/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires a core recycler, as defined, who accepts a catalytic converter for recycling to maintain a written record of specified information regarding the transaction, including the item type and quantity, amount paid for the catalytic converter, an identification number, if any, and the vehicle identification number, for not less than 2 years. Current law makes it a crime to violate these requirements. This bill would require a core recycler to include additional information in the written record, including the year, make, and model of the vehicle from which the catalytic converter was removed and a copy of the title of the vehicle from which the catalytic converter was removed.
Position
SB 1087 (Gonzalez D) Vehicles: catalytic converters.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/25/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/15/2022
Last Amend: 8/24/2022
Status: 9/25/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 514, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/25/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would prohibit any person from purchasing a used catalytic converter from anybody other than certain specified sellers, including an automobile dismantler, an automotive repair dealer, or an individual possessing documentation, as specified, that they are the lawful owner of the catalytic converter. A violation of this provision would be an infraction, punishable by a fine, as specified.
Position
Regional and Statewide Water Supply and Conservation LAP
SB 222 (Dodd D) Water Rate Assistance Program.
Current Text: Vetoed: 9/28/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 1/14/2021
Last Amend: 8/24/2022
Status: 9/28/2022-Vetoed by the Governor. In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending.
Location: 9/28/2022-S. VETOED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law, the California Safe Drinking Water Act, requires the State Water Resources Control Board to administer provisions relating to the regulation of drinking water to protect public health. Existing law declares it to be the established policy of the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. This bill would establish the Water Rate Assistance Fund in the State Treasury to help provide water affordability assistance, for both drinking water and wastewater services, to low-income residential ratepayers. The bill would make moneys in the fund available upon appropriation by the Legislature to the state board to provide, in consultation with relevant agencies, direct water bill assistance to low-income residential ratepayers served by eligible systems, as defined, and would require 80% of total expenditures from the fund to be directly applied to residential ratepayer accounts.
Position
Regional Issues and Collaboration LAP
AB 2789 (Mullin D) Design-build projects: local agencies.
Current Text: Chaptered: 8/29/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Last Amend: 4/18/2022
Status: 8/29/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 214, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 8/29/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law establishes procedures for the formation of regional park districts and regional open-space districts or authorities and prescribes the powers, functions, and duties of those districts or authorities, including competitive bidding requirements relating to the construction of facilities or other buildings.This bill would repeal the January 1, 2023, sunset date, thereby indefinitely extending the authority of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and the Santa Clara Valley Open-Space Authority to use the design-build process. The bill would modify and expand the purposes for which the process is authorized to include construction, restoration, and improvement of buildings and facilities, the construction, restoration, and improvement of public access and recreation facilities, and prescribed nature-based infrastructure projects within the entity. The bill would similarly authorize the East Bay Regional Park District to use the design-build process.
Position
Watch
Regional Transportation Issues LAP
AB 1909 (Friedman D) Vehicles: bicycle omnibus bill.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/16/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/9/2022
Last Amend: 8/11/2022
Status: 9/16/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 343, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/16/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law generally regulates the operation of bicycles upon a highway. A violation of these provisions, generally, is punishable as an infraction. Current law prohibits the operation of a motorized bicycle or a class 3 electric bicycle on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, as specified. Current law authorizes a local authority to additionally prohibit the operation of class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles on these facilities. This bill would remove the prohibition of class 3 electric bicycles on these facilities and would instead authorize a local authority to prohibit the operation of any electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on an equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail.
Position
AB 2438 (Friedman D) Transportation funding: guidelines and plans.
Current Text: Vetoed: 9/29/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/17/2022
Last Amend: 8/25/2022
Status: 9/29/2022-Vetoed by Governor.
Location: 9/29/2022-A. VETOED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law provides for the funding of projects on the state highway system and other transportation improvements, including under the interregional transportation improvement program, the state highway operation and protection program, the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program, the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program, and the program within the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program commonly known as the Local Partnership Program. This bill would require, no later than January 1, 2024, the guidelines or plans applicable to those programs to include the strategies established in the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure adopted by the Transportation Agency, as provided.
Position
AB 2953 (Salas D) Department of Transportation and local agencies: streets and highways: recycled materials.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/30/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/18/2022
Last Amend: 8/18/2022
Status: 9/30/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 872, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/30/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires the Director of Transportation, upon consultation with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, to review and modify all bid specifications relating to the purchase of paving materials and base, subbase, and pervious backfill materials using certain recycled materials. Existing law requires the specifications to be based on standards developed by the Department of Transportation for recycled paving materials and for recycled base, subbase, and pervious backfill materials. Existing law requires a local agency that has jurisdiction over a street or highway to either adopt these standards developed by the Department of Transportation or to discuss at a public hearing why the standards are not being adopted. Existing law requires the State Procurement Officer, when purchasing materials to be used in paving or paving subbase for use by the Department of Transportation and any other state agency that provides road construction and repair services, to contract for those items that use recycled material in those materials, unless the Director of Transportation determines that the use of the materials is not cost effective.This bill would require the Department of Transportation and a local agency that has jurisdiction over a street or highway, to the extent feasible and cost effective, to use advanced technologies and material recycling techniques that reduce the cost of maintaining and rehabilitating streets and highways and that exhibit reduced levels of greenhouse gas emissions through material choice and construction method. The bill would require, beginning January 1, 2024, a local agency that has jurisdiction over a street or highway, to the extent feasible and cost effective, to apply standard specifications that allow for the use of recycled materials in streets and highways, as specified. The bill would exempt cities and counties whose populations do not exceed specified thresholds and special districts from these requirements. By increasing the duties of local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
Position
SB 922 (Wiener D) California Environmental Quality Act: exemptions: transportation-related projects.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/30/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/3/2022
Last Amend: 8/4/2022
Status: 9/30/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 987, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/30/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), until January 1, 2030, exempts from its requirements bicycle transportation plans for an urbanized area for restriping of streets and highways, bicycle parking and storage, signal timing to improve street and highway intersection operations, and related signage for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles under certain conditions. This bill would delete the requirement that the bicycle transportation plan is for an urbanized area. The bill would extend the exemption to an active transportation plan or pedestrian plan. The bill would define “active transportation plan” and “pedestrian plan.” The bill would specify that individual projects that are a part of an active transportation plan or pedestrian plan remain subject to the requirements of CEQA unless those projects are exempt by another provision of law.
Position
SB 932 (Portantino D) General plans: circulation element: bicycle and pedestrian plans and traffic calming plans.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/28/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/7/2022
Last Amend: 8/25/2022
Status: 9/28/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 710, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/28/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law states the Legislature’s intention that a county or city general plan and the elements and parts of that general plan comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency. This bill would emphasize the intent of the Legislature to support and encourage communities in reaching environmental and climate change objectives with these provisions.
Position
SB 1079 (Portantino D) Vehicles: sound-activated enforcement devices.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/19/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/15/2022
Last Amend: 6/29/2022
Status: 9/19/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 449, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/19/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires every motor vehicle subject to registration to be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise and prohibits a muffler or exhaust system from being equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device. Current law further prohibits the modification of an exhaust system of a motor vehicle in a manner that will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle exceeds existing noise limits when tested in accordance with specified standards. This bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol to evaluate the efficacy of sound-activated enforcement devices by evaluating devices from at least 3 different companies, and would require the department, on or before January 1, 2025, to prepare and submit its findings and recommendations from the evaluation in a report to the Legislature, as specified.
Position
Sustainable and Environmental Legislation, Regulations, and Issues LAP
AB 661 (Bennett D) Recycling: materials.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/25/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/12/2021
Last Amend: 8/25/2022
Status: 9/25/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 517, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/25/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law relating to public contracting establishes the State Agency Buy Recycled Campaign (SABRC), which requires state agencies to ensure specific percentages of reportable purchases from prescribed product categories to be recycled products. Current law requires, if fitness and quality are equal, each state agency to purchase recycled products instead of nonrecycled products whenever recycled products are available at the same or a lesser total cost than nonrecycled products. Current law establishes minimum content requirements for recycled products. Current law requires a state agency to report annually to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery its progress in meeting the recycled product purchasing requirements using a SABRC report format.
Current law requires the Department of General Services (DGS), if a requirement has not been met, in consultation with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, to review purchasing policies and make recommendations for immediate revisions to ensure that the recycled product purchasing requirements are met. This bill would require a state agency, if fitness and quality are equal, to purchase recycled products instead of nonrecycled products whenever recycled products are available at no more than 10% greater total cost than nonrecycled products, and specified circumstances exist.
The bill would substantially revise product categories. The bill would require the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, in concurrence with the DGS and in consultation with impacted agencies, to update a list of products and minimum recycled content percentages, as determined to be appropriate, commencing January 1, 2026, and every 3 years thereafter.
Position
Spot
AB 1279 (Muratsuchi D) The California Climate Crisis Act.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/16/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/19/2021
Last Amend: 8/28/2022
Status: 9/16/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 337, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/16/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the State Air Resources Board to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost- effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to update the scoping plan at least once every 5 years. This bill, the California Climate Crisis Act, would declare the policy of the state both to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter, and to ensure that by 2045, statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85% below the 1990 levels. The bill would require the state board to work with relevant state agencies to ensure that updates to the scoping plan identify and recommend measures to achieve these policy goals and to identify and implement a variety of policies and strategies that enable carbon dioxide removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in California, as specified. The bill would require the state board to submit an annual report, as specified.
Position
AB 1445 (Levine D) Planning and zoning: regional housing need allocation: climate change impacts.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/30/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/19/2021
Last Amend: 8/24/2022
Status: 9/30/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 948, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/30/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. For the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region.
Current law requires the appropriate council of governments, or the department for cities and counties without a council of governments, to adopt a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each city, county, or city and county, as provided. Current law requires that the final regional housing plan adopted by a council of governments, or a delegate subregion, as applicable, be based on a methodology that includes specified factors, and similarly requires that the department take into consideration specified factors in distributing regional housing need, as provided.
Commencing January 1, 2025, this bill would instead require a council of governments or a delegate subregion to consider including specified factors in developing the above-mentioned methodology.
Position
AB 1985 (Rivas, Robert D) Organic waste: recovered organic waste product procurement targets.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/16/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/10/2022
Last Amend: 8/1/2022
Status: 9/16/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 344, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/16/2022-A. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires, no later than January 1, 2018, the State Air Resources Board to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy to achieve a reduction in statewide emissions of methane by 40%, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40%, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50% below 2013 levels by 2030. Current law requires the methane emissions reduction goals to include a 50% reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75% reduction by 2025. Current law requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, in consultation with the state board, to adopt regulations to achieve these organic waste reduction goals that include, among other things, requirements intended to meet the goal that not less than 20% of edible food that is currently disposed of be recovered for human consumption by 2025 and that may include penalties to be imposed by the department for noncompliance, as provided. The department‘s regulations provide for, among other things, the calculation by the department of recovered organic waste product procurement targets for each local jurisdiction. This bill would require any penalties imposed by the department on a local jurisdiction that fails to meet its recovered organic waste procurement target to be imposed pursuant to a specified schedule based on the percentage of the local jurisdiction’s recovered organic waste product procurement target achieved. The bill would exempt jurisdictions in possession of a specified rural exemption from these requirements until December 31, 2026.
Position
AB 2247 (Bloom D) Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and PFAS products and product components: publicly accessible data collection interface.
Current Text: Vetoed: 9/29/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/16/2022
Last Amend: 8/25/2022
Status: 9/29/2022-Vetoed by Governor.
Location: 9/29/2022-A. VETOED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would require, as part of the hazardous waste control laws, the department to contract with an existing multistate chemical data collection entity that is used by other states and jurisdictions to implement, by January 1, 2026, a publicly accessible data collection interface to collect information about perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and products or product components containing intentionally added PFAS. The bill would require, on or before July 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, a manufacturer, as defined, of PFAS or a product or a product component containing intentionally added PFAS that, during the prior calendar year, is sold, offered for sale, distributed, or offered for promotional purposes in, or imported into, the state to register the PFAS or the product or product component containing intentionally added PFAS, and specified other information, on the publicly accessible data collection interface. The bill would specify that the above requirements do not
apply to certain products regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration or products intended for certain animal uses that are regulated under certain federal laws.
Position
SB 38 (Wieckowski D) Beverage containers.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/30/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 12/7/2020
Last Amend: 8/15/2022
Status: 9/30/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 977, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/30/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act requires every beverage container sold or offered for sale in this state to have a minimum refund value. Under the act, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery is required to calculate a processing fee for each beverage container with a specified scrap value, which is required to be paid by beverage manufacturers for each beverage container sold or transferred to a distributor or dealer, and requires a processor to pay a certified recycling center or other program the refund value, a percentage of the refund value for administrative costs, and the processing payment. The act provides that a violation of the act or a regulation adopted pursuant to the act is a crime. This bill would require a processor to make those payments by check or electronic fund transfer, and not by cash payment.
Position
SB 45 (Portantino D) Short-lived climate pollutants: organic waste reduction goals: local jurisdiction assistance.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/19/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 12/7/2020
Last Amend: 8/15/2022
Status: 9/19/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 445, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/19/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board, to adopt regulations to achieve the organic waste reduction goals established by the state board for 2020 and 2025, as provided. Current law requires the department, no later than July 1, 2020, and in consultation with the state board, to analyze the progress that the waste sector, state government, and local governments have made in achieving these organic waste reduction goals. Current law authorizes the department, if it determines that significant progress has not been made toward achieving the organic waste reduction goals established by the state board, to include incentives or additional requirements in its regulations to facilitate progress towards achieving the goals. This bill would require the department, in consultation with the state board, to assist local jurisdictions in complying with these provisions, including any regulations adopted by the department.
Position
SB 54 (Allen D) Solid waste: reporting, packaging, and plastic food service ware.
Current Text: Chaptered: 6/30/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 12/7/2020
Last Amend: 6/26/2022
Status: 6/30/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 75, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 6/30/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, administered by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, generally regulates the disposal, management, and recycling of solid waste. The act requires disposal facility operators to submit information to the department on the disposal tonnages that are disposed of at the disposal facility, and requires solid waste handlers and transfer station operators to provide information to disposal facility operators for purposes of that requirement. The act requires recycling and composting operations and facilities to submit periodic information to the department on the types and quantities of materials that are disposed of, sold, or
transferred to other recycling or composting facilities or specified entities. This bill would provide that these reporting requirements do not apply to materials that are used by facilities defined as end users pursuant to the regulations adopted by the department or that are otherwise exempt pursuant to those regulations.
Position
SB 846 (Dodd D) Diablo Canyon powerplant: extension of operations.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/2/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 1/13/2022
Last Amend: 8/28/2022
Status: 9/2/2022-Chaptered by Secretary of State- Chapter 239, Statutes of 2022 Location: 9/2/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Diablo Canyon nuclear powerplant, composed of Reactor Units 1 and 2, is operated by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, an electrical corporation, in the County of San Luis Obispo. On January 11, 2018, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s proposal to retire Unit 1 in 2024 and Unit 2 in 2025. This bill would invalidate the PUC’s approval of that proposal and would require the PUC to set new retirement dates for the Diablo Canyon powerplant, as provided, conditioned upon the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission extending the powerplant’s operating licenses, as specified. The bill would require the PUC to take certain actions to enable the operator of the Diablo Canyon powerplant to recover the reasonable costs and expenses of operating the Diablo Canyon powerplant, as provided, including the imposition of a fully nonbypassable charge on all customers of electrical corporations, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators, and would require the PUC to authorize the operator to recover in rates an operating fee for each megawatthour generated by the powerplant, as specified.
Position
SB 905 (Caballero D) Carbon sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/16/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/2/2022
Last Amend: 8/28/2022
Status: 9/16/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 359, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/16/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires, no later than July 1, 2023, the Natural Resources Agency, in coordination with the State Air Resources Board, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and other relevant state agencies, to establish the Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy and, in developing the strategy, to create a framework to advance the state’s climate goals. Current law requires the state board, as part of its scoping plan, to establish specified carbon dioxide removal targets for 2030 and beyond. This bill would require the state board to establish a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program, as provided, to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and viability of carbon capture, utilization, or storage (CCUS) technologies and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies and facilitate the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide from those technologies, where appropriate. The bill would require the program to ensure that carbon dioxide capture, removal, and sequestration projects include specified components including, among others, certain monitoring activities. In carrying out the program’s objectives, the bill would require the state board to prioritize, among other priorities, reducing the emissions of greenhouses gases and reducing fossil fuel production in the state.
Position
SB 1020 (Laird D) Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/16/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/14/2022
Last Amend: 8/29/2022
Status: 9/16/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 361, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/16/2022-S. CHAPTERED
I I
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the State Air Resources Board to prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost- effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to update the scoping plan at least once every 5 years. The act requires the state board to conduct a series of public workshops to give interested parties an opportunity to comment on the plan and requires a portion of those workshops to be conducted in regions of the state that have the most significant exposure to pollutants. The act specifically includes as regions for these workshops communities with minority populations, communities with low-income populations, or both. This bill would instead include as regions for these workshops federal extreme nonattainment areas that have communities with minority populations, communities with low-income populations, or both.
Position
SB 1137 (Gonzalez D) Oil and gas: operations: location restrictions: notice of intention: health protection zone: sensitive receptors.
Current Text: Chaptered: 9/16/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 2/16/2022
Last Amend: 8/27/2022
Status: 9/16/2022-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 365, Statutes of 2022.
Location: 9/16/2022-S. CHAPTERED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law establishes the Geologic Energy Management Division in the Department of Conservation, under the direction of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, who is required to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells in the state and the operation, maintenance, and removal or abandonment of tanks and facilities related to oil and gas production within an oil and gas field, so as to prevent damage to life, health, property, and natural resources.
Current law requires the operator of a well to file a written notice of intention to commence drilling with, and prohibits any drilling until approval is given by, the supervisor or district deputy. Current law authorizes the supervisor to require other pertinent information to supplement the notice. Current law requires the owner of any well to file with the supervisor a monthly statement that provides certain information relating to the well, as provided. Current law requires an operator proposing to perform a well stimulation treatment to apply to the supervisor or district deputy for a permit to perform the well stimulation treatment and imposes other requirements and conditions on the use of well stimulation treatments. Under current law, a person who fails to comply with this and other requirements relating to the regulation of oil or gas operations is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would prohibit, commencing January 1, 2023, the division from approving any notice of intention within a health protection zone, as defined, except for reasons related to preventing or responding to a threat to public health, safety, or the environment, complying with a court order, or to plug and abandon or reabandon a well, as provided.
Position
Total Measures: 46
Total Tracking Forms: 46
City Manager’s Office
2022 Q3 Legislative Action Summary
Below is a summary of the actions that were taken during 2022 Q3 as they align with the City of Santa Clara’s 2022 Legislative Advocacy Positions (LAPs), guiding principles for legislative advocacy, approved City policies (e.g. City Council Goals and Priorities), or Council action. The letters and bill analysis are attached to this document.
City Council Pillar: Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development
• July 12, 2022 Support letter to Chair Chris Holden, Assembly Appropriations Committee RE: SB 1407 - California Employee Ownership Act
Guiding Legislative Principle: Support the League of California Cities and National League of Cities positions on priority bills that benefit Santa Clara • September 12, 2022 Request for veto letter to Governor Gavin Newsom RE: SB 1127 - Workers’ Compensation: Liability Presumptions
Public Safety LAP
• August 4, 2022 Opposition letter to Chair Chris Holden, Assembly Appropriations Committee RE: SB 1000 - Law Enforcement agencies: radio communications.
Water Supply and Conservation LAP
• S eptember 14, 2022 Support letter to Environmental Protection Agency RE:
Valley Water’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund Grant Application for Creek Clean Up and Trash Removal in High Priority Areas in Santa Clara County
• S eptember 16, 2022 Support letter to Environmental Protection Agency RE:
Valley Water’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund Grant Application for the Calabazas/San Tomas Aquino Creek-Marsh Connection Project with addition of Pond A4
Multiple Legislative Priorities
• Bill analysis for August 11, 2022 Cities Association Legislative Action Committee Meeting
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
July 12, 2022
The Honorable Chris Holden
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 6240
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 1407 (Becker) California Employee Ownership Act.
City of Santa Clara – Notice of Support
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara, I write in support of Senate Bill 1407 (Becker), which will preserve California small business, bolster California workers, and create an overall more equitable economy by increasing awareness of and pathways to employee ownership.
Specifically, SB 1407 will establish a dedicated hub within the Office of Small Business Advocate that will help educate stakeholders about employee ownership, assist business owners and employees in navigating available resources, provide funding for education, outreach, and technical assistance, and streamline and reduce barriers to employee ownership.
Employee ownership, in the forms of worker cooperatives (co-ops) and Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs), are proven to benefit businesses, workers, and local economies. Worker-owned firms see stronger overall business performance and resilience during economic downturns. Workers at these firms see greater wealth-building opportunities and increased job security compared to their counterparts at traditional businesses. Both evidence and experience suggest that employee ownership is a particularly powerful wealth-building opportunity for workers and communities of color; providing additional pathways for workers of color to become employee owners is an essential component of any strategy to address the racial wealth gap.
The City of Santa Clara recognizes the benefits of employee ownership, and in March 2020, adopted a Resolution in Support of Worker Cooperatives. The City also implemented a Worker Cooperative Initiative to support business owners and their workers to transition to employee ownership as a succession option. The resources described in SB 1407 will support Santa Clara businesses, as well as businesses across the state.
Prior to the pandemic, California small businesses faced mounting pressures from an impending wave of retirement amongst business owners. A majority of business owners do not have a formal succession plan, and most owners who try to sell their businesses cannot find a buyer. These challenges have been compounded by the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has brought mass business closures. This dual crisis requires immediate and bold action.
City of
Santa Clara
The Cente:r ofWhat11 Possible
•
: >: ,_ . -:o • •
• •••••••••
SB 1407 (Becker) California Employee Ownership Act
July 12, 2022
As California continues to recover from the economic impact of the pandemic, it has the opportunity to not only rebuild workplaces, but choose to invest in models that provide proven benefits to businesses, workers, and the community.
For these reasons, the City of Santa Clara supports SB 1407 (Becker) and respectfully requests your “Aye” vote in the Appropriations Committee hearings scheduled for August 3, 2022.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor, City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
September 12, 2022
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: SB 1127 (Atkins) – Workers’ Compensation: Liability Presumptions
REQUEST FOR VETO
Dear Governor Newsom,
I am writing on behalf of the City of Santa Clara to request that you veto SB 1127 (Atkins), which proposes to truncate the claims review process required of employers without giving them the tools to make decisions more quickly. SB 1127 reduces the timeline for employers to make an informed decision about covering workers’ compensation claims covered by a presumption statute from 90 to 75 days, and it retroactively imposes penalties as high as $50,000 per claim if an employer “unreasonably” rejects liability for one of these workers’ compensation claims. Since there is no definition of an “unreasonable denial” each denial of a “rebuttable” presumption will be litigated as unreasonable- at a minimum drastically increasing costs and litigation for all employers.
The City of Santa Clara supports making better and faster decisions about workers’ compensation claims. However, the City believes, respectfully, that you should veto SB 1127 and encourage stakeholders to work together on reforms that actually achieve more timely claims resolution.
The laws of the State of California already provide for a fair and equitable system for all workers. Our workers’ compensation system is “no fault”, meaning that employers pay for benefits even if there was no specific negligence. Additionally, state law requires the workers’ compensation appeals board judges to “liberally construe” the laws of the state toward the provision of benefits. These two statutory requirements make our workers’ compensation system extremely accessible for injured workers.
SB 1127 DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME TO INVESTIGATE CLAIMS The Investigation Process
California law requires employers to “conduct a reasonable and timely investigation upon receiving notice or knowledge of an injury or claim.” The regulations expressly prohibit an •
: >
: 1-
. -:o •
• • • • • • • • • •
SB 1127 (Atkins) – Workers’ Compensation: Liability Presumptions September 12, 2022
employer from restricting an investigation to “preparing objections or defenses to a claim.” Instead, employers must “fully and fairly gather the pertinent information, whether that information requires, or excuses benefit payment.” Finally, the employer is required to document the investigatory acts undertaken and the information obtained as a result.
Taken together, the law requires employers to conduct a thorough investigation of all relevant facts, which both protects their due process rights and the injured worker’s due process rights by creating a full, impartial record of the events.
SB 1127 requires employers to complete investigations more quickly but provides no remedy for the systemic limitations imposed by the state that prevent employers from achieving that outcome. The City of Santa Clara opposes changes to the investigation period because it undermines the due process rights of both the injured worker and the employer. Ensuring a fair, impartial investigation that protects the rights of both parties equally and fairly takes time, and, in some cases, it just takes longer than 30, 75, and sometimes 90 days.
Disproportional Impact on Public Employers
This bill places a costly burden on public employers who are responsible for administering claims for injured workers with presumptive occupational injuries. Presumption statutes apply to injuries and illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, and PTSD that are complex in causation and sometimes difficult for workers to connect to employment. That is, in fact, why the legislature has historically chosen to impose a presumption that shifts the legal burden of proof away from employees and instead requires an employer to prove that the claimed injury was not caused by employment. Presumptions might be rebuttable in name, but they already impose a near-impossible task by requiring employers to “prove a negative” (e.g., that a cancer is not caused by employment). This requires a more thorough investigation that, as will be discussed below, cannot be completed in 90 days, let alone
75. Hurts Injured Workers by Providing Less Employer-Funded Medical Care During the investigative period, the injured worker receives up to $10,0000 of medically necessary treatment, free of charge to them. This employer funded medical treatment ensures that the injured worker is not adversely impacted by this investigative period. Even if the employer is found later to not be liable and the claim is denied, the injured worker does not need to pay a cent back. This balances the rights and responsibilities of employers and injured workers, maintaining a fair and equitable system.
NEW PENALTIES MAKE TAXPAYER-FUNDED CLAIMS EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE SB 1127 proposes harsh new penalties for employers who “unreasonably” reject liability for clams covered by presumption statutes, yet it does not define that term making each rebuttable presumption claim, fodder for litigation. SB 1127 mandates a penalty of five times the value of benefits delayed or denied, with a maximum penalty of $50,000. This bill impacts public and private employers because these penalty provisions apply not only to SB 1127 (Atkins) – Workers’ Compensation: Liability Presumptions September 12, 2022
the severe injuries and illnesses found in the public safety presumption statutes, but also to the COVID-19 presumption. Similarly, all these claims will be held to the 30-day investigation period, which all but guarantees that a legally sufficient investigation cannot be conducted within the allotted timeframe.
Finally, the new penalties in SB 1127 apply retroactively to all injuries without regard to the date of injury. This means that the penalty portion of the bill would apply retroactively to decisions that were made prior to the date of enactment. This is fundamentally unfair to employers and will add significantly to the litigation and friction associated with the bill.
MORE THAN DOUBLES TEMPORARY DISABILITY BENEFITS
SB 1127 more than doubles the period of temporary disability that is available to firefighters and police officers covered by the cancer presumption. The peace officers and firefighters covered by the cancer presumption are also eligible for one year of complete wage replacement benefits instead of temporary disability, and disability retirement benefits that are unavailable to other workers. We oppose the vast expansion of temporary disability benefits as proposed by SB 1127 because we are unaware of any data that would suggest this is necessary or desirable.
If signed, this bill threatens litigation and penalties for doing the work of appropriate claims investigation. In addition to tax-free wages and pensions available to safety officers, this bill proposes baseless multipliers and creates a taxpayer-funded bonus for “delays” outside of the employer’s control.
Dramatic changes to employer-funded medical care and benefits, largely bankrolled by taxpayers, requires data, thoughtful review, and more robust stakeholder engagement.
Until that time, please veto SB 1127.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor, City of Santa Clara
: >-
: 1-
. -: (.)
• •
ISSIO~
• • • • • • • • • •
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
August 4, 2022
The Honorable Chris Holden
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
1021 0 Street, Suite 6240
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 1000 (Becker) Law enforcement agencies: radio communications.
City of Santa Clara - Notice of Opposition
Dear Assembly Member Holden,
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara, I write in opposition to SB 1000, which would require law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to de- encrypt their radio communications to allow for unfettered public access, thereby creating significant safety and cost burdens on local LEAs. Additionally, this measure contradicts recent requirements set forth by the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding public access to California Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems (CLETS).
In October 2020, DOJ distributed an information bulletin regarding the transmission of confidential information. The bulletin requires LEAs and criminal justice agencies authorized to access CLETS to adhere to the requirements established by federal and state law enforcement agencies. DOJ’s bulletin informs LEAs that, generally, transmission of confidential information must be protected pursuant to FBI Security Policy and may only be provided to authorized individuals. Compliance with this requirement can be achieved through the encryption of radio traffic or establishing a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restricted information.
In response to DOJ’s bulletin, and with the understanding that oftentimes public safety response communications involve high-stakes and sensitive information, law enforcement agencies were given two options, under a tight timeline, to address the information bulletin. Local agencies adopted one of the two suggested approaches, which was to fully encrypt their radio communications. This required comprehensive upgrades to radio system infrastructure, costing millions of dollars county -wide in equipment upgrades and the diversion of staff resources to implement the change according to the required timeline.
SB 1000 defies the rationale provided by federal law enforcement agencies by requiring all law enforcement radio communications be generally available to the public while also ensuring that personally identifiable information is not broadcast in a manner that is accessible to the public.
The bill further specifies that law enforcement agencies would be required to provide access to encrypted communications to any interested person, upon request and for a reasonable fee.
This would require that law enforcement agencies comply with the public access requirement by a variety of means, such as allowing radio communications to be broadcast on a radio frequency that is able to be monitored by commonly available radio scanning equipment. This creates an operational challenge in numerous scenarios, including when encrypted communications are patched into unencrypted channels, thereby rendering all channels unencrypted. This may also •
: >
: 1-
. -:o •
• • • • • • • • • •
The Honorable Chris Holden
Re: SB 1000 (Becker) Law enforcement agencies: radio communications August 4, 2022
cause local law enforcement officials to switch to different channels to communicate, which would impact the efficiency of multi-agency public safety collaboration and pose significant officer safety issue. Uniformity in requirements across these critical channels of communication is necessary to ensure that public safety actions protect community members and those servicing their communities alike.
While the City certainly understands the author’s intention to promote transparency between law enforcement agencies, the media and our stakeholders, SB 1000 would be a step backwards for public safety professionals.
To attempt to comply, each agency would incur considerable added costs to implement new technology and/or to hire additional staff to address the new SB 1000 proposed workflow. It will also require agencies to reeducate every police officer and public safety dispatcher on the filtering of CJIC and Personal Identifying Information (PII). It is also unclear what the penalties would be for violating SB 1000 – it is not specified.
Introducing a combination of encrypted and unencrypted radio channels or using a telephone or other mobile device to transmit data involves a significant additional workload on 911 dispatch center staff. Creating requirements for additional dispatch duties such as a 2-channel solution to protect people’s personal identifying information will likely result in increased calls into Communication Centers and the degradation of 9-1-1 call answering times which would further impact public safety.
Finally, the bill is contradictory. It undermines the exemptions by stating “upon request and for a reasonable fee, providing access to encrypted communications to any interested person” [Section 13675 (a)(2)(C)]. Therefore, any person can gain access to encrypted radio communications, voiding all the exemptions in SB1000 for tactical operations or exigent circumstances.
For these reasons, the City of Santa Clara opposes SB 1000.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
September 14, 2022
Ms. Luisa Valiela
Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
RE: Letter of Support for San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund Grant – Creek Clean Up and Trash Removal in High Priority Areas in Santa Clara County
Dear Ms. Valiela,
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) is applying to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Grant to improve water quality and to restore the watershed and wetlands in the Santa Clara and San Jose Bay Area by addressing problem areas along high priority reaches of several creeks throughout Santa Clara County. These efforts are laudable and worthy of grant funding support.
The objectives of the proposed grant will be to support this ambitious endeavor. Grant funds are needed to fund cleanups of trash and debris in the creeks. The debris is impeding the flow of water and introducing water quality impediments. This situation is negatively impacting the ecosystem. The problem has been exacerbated by the existence of unhoused individuals and communities along most of the major creeks in Santa Clara County. The creeks Valley Water will focus on include: Berryessa Creek, Coyote Creek, Saratoga Creek, Los Gatos Creek, Lower Silver Creek, Thompson Creek, Guadalupe Creek, and West Branch Llagas Creek.
Although Valley Water has invested in significant creek cleanup efforts that have had a positive impact, additional funding is needed. Valley Water lacks the funds to carry this out on its own and needs partners. In addition to the creek cleanup, the project will repair and preserve the eroding creek banks, restore the riparian vegetation and habitat, and expand the County’s homeless outreach program.
I urge your favorable review of Valley Water’s grant application. I believe this is a valuable project that will be a privilege to help preserve the creeks while enhancing the quality of life for people.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of
Santa Clara
The Centt:rof Whnt', Po~:1-ible
• • • • • • • • •
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
September 16, 2022
Luisa Valiela
EPA Region 9, Watersheds office (WTR-3-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Subject: Letter of Support for the Calabazas/San Tomas Aquino Creek-Marsh Connection Project (Project) with addition of Pond A4
Dear Ms. Valiela,
The City of Santa Clara is pleased to offer its support for the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (Valley Water) grant application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund (SFBWQIF). Valley Water is applying for SFBWQIF grant funding to support environmental review, permitting, and design of the Project.
The Project’s primary objective is to restore up to 1,500 acres of tidal marsh at A8 Ponds and additional 320 acres of tidal marsh at Pond A4, which is owned and operated by Valley Water. In addition to the ecological benefits of restoring large areas of tidal marsh, the Project will provide resilient protection against sea level rise (SLR) and improve water quality. As part of Project planning, Valley Water will evaluate the potential use of Pond A4 for nature-based treatment of wastewater, which would provide both water supply and quality benefits. As the first creek - marsh reconnection project in Lower South San Francisco Bay, the P roject will be a pathbreaker for additional tidal marsh restoration projects. The Project will advance the science of tidal marsh restoration and nature-based treatments for wastewater.
Valley Water is a nationally recognized leader in water resource management, and would lead this project in collaboration with project partners , including the California State Coastal Conservancy; the United States Fish and Wildlife Services, major partners of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project (SBSPRP); Caltrans, the owner of Harvey Marsh ; and other major stakeholders including the County of Santa Clara and the Cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, and Sunnyvale. Valley Water will be applying its technical expertise and resources to advance this project, including dedicated operation of Pond A4 for future habitat restoration and water quality improvements.
The City of Santa Clara supports Valley Water’s efforts to advance tidal marsh restoration, provide resilient protection against SLR, and explore the feasibility of nature-based treatment for wastewater, including reverse osmosis concentrate produced during advanced water purification. This grant proposal will enhance and contribute to the climate action goals of our organization.
•
: >
: 1-
. -:o •
• • • • • • • • • •
Letter of Support for the Calabazas/San Tomas Aquino Creek-Marsh Connection Project (Project) with addition of Pond A4
September 16, 2022
EPA SFBWQIF funding will accelerate the CEQA/NEPA and design for this multi -objective and collaborative project. Therefore, I strongly endorse this application and urge your favorable review. Both the City of Santa Clara and Valley Water share the goals of restoring natural habitat and improving the wate r quality of San Francisco Bay, and are committed to seeing innovative restoration and resilience projects that further these goals , such as the Calabazas/San Tomas Aquino Creek-Marsh Connection Project, are successfully and efficiently implemented.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
• • • •
.. ···~~~ CLAR.
: • • ":> 'l-,- '
... ~
: 0
•
: >
: 1-
. -: (.)
• •
• • • • • • • • •
1 August 11, 2022 Cities Association
Board of Directors - Notes
Legislative Action Committee – Bill Analysis
Board of Directors Meeting
Note, Staff has heard that the Cities Association dues will significantly increase. The City paid $13,046 in dues for 2021-2022 and $34,044 in dues for 2022-2023. This amount may increase to $64,802 for 2023- 2024.
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
Item 2. Discuss and Consider Bills for Potential Action Bill Number Summary Recommended
Position
Legislative Priority Alignment
SB 833
(Dodd)
Would require the
California Energy
Commission to
develop and
implement a grant
program to make
energy resiliency
awards to local
governments; and
maintain an online
community energy
resilience toolkit to
support local
government’s
development of
community resilience
plans.
Support Energy Legislation, Regulations, and
Issues LAP (Provide local public agencies
with financial resources to prepare for, and
mitigate the impacts from, planned power
outage events)
Additional Notes: SB 833 would require the
CEC to develop and implement a grant
program to award grants through a
noncompetitive process for local
governments to develop community energy
resilience plans that help achieve energy
resilience objectives and state clean
energy and air quality goals. This bill
creates a voluntary program and cities
have the option to participate or not.
AB 1985 (R.
Rivas)
Would create an
online database of
organic waste
products on the
market so local
governments can
connect with local
farmers and
community members
seeking their organic
waste products and
continue to the
conversation to
address the
procurement
Support Sustainability and Environmental
Protection LAP (Support efforts to
streamline permitting and construction of
compost and other facilities that enable
jurisdictions to comply with SB 1383 and
efforts to broaden procurement
requirements for local jurisdiction to comply
with SB 1383)
-
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Board of Directors – Notes
Legislative Action Committee – Bill Analysis
October 3, 2022
Bill Number Summary Recommended
Position
Legislative Priority Alignment
requirements in the
SB 1383 regulations.
AB 916
(Salas)
Would increase the
height limit
allowance for ADUs
to 18 feet, or 25 feet
if within one-half mile
of a major transit
stop or high-quality
transit corridor.
Would also prohibit a
city/county from
adopting/enforcing
an ordinance
requiring a public
hearing for
reconfiguring existing
space to increase
the bedroom count
within an existing
dwelling unit.
Oppose Housing LAP (reduces local control).
Additional Notes: The bill proposes to allow
up to two additional bedrooms to all
residential units without a public
hearing/discretionary review. Proposed in
the Zoning Code Update is a new provision
to require minimum common living area for
residential units. This will help deal with
overcrowding concerns that have been
expressed, particularly in the Old Quad
neighborhood. This bill would not allow us
to implement this intended change to the
Zoning Code.
Also, the City recently adopted new
standards for Architectural Review, a public
hearing is required for single family home
applications based on the number of
bedrooms created. This bill would not allow
us to implement this threshold for public
review.
AB 2011
(Wicks)
Would require
specified housing
development
projects to be a use
by right on sites
zoned for retail,
office, or parking if
certain requirements
are met related to
the development, as
well as the use of a
skilled and trained
workforce.
Strongly
Oppose
Housing LAP (Reduces local control)
Board of Directors – Notes
Legislative Action Committee – Bill Analysis
October 3, 2022
Bill Number Summary Recommended
Position
Legislative Priority Alignment
SB 897
(Wieckowski)
Makes numerous
changes to existing
ADU law - including
requiring local
governments to allow
ADUs to be
constructed with a
height of up to 25
feet.
Oppose
Legislative Guiding Principal – Protect
and/or increase local government
discretion
Additional Notes: The proposed Zoning
Code update will include increasing the
height of ADUs up to 25 feet in height.
However, the more problematic portion of
this bill states that local agencies could not
prohibit/deny existing ADUs based on them
having zoning or building code violations.
AB 2097
(Friedman)
Prohibits a local
government from
imposing or
enforcing a minimum
automobile parking
requirement, on
residential,
commercial, or other
development if the
development is
located on a parcel
near public transit.
Oppose Housing LAP (Reduces local control)
Additional Notes: Reduces local control
over parking which is a community
concern.
Item 3. Other Bills for Consideration, Time Permitting
Bill Number Summary Recommended
Position
Legislative Priority Alignment
SB 917
(Becker)
Requires transit
agencies in MTC
service area to
establish a regional
transit coordinating
council. Requires
council to work with
MTC to adopt a
Connected Network
Plan, adopt an
integrated fare
structure, and
develop a regional
transit mapping and
wayfinding system.
Support Transportation Issues LAP (Integrate fare
payments/schedules/transfers/technology
across transit agencies)
Board of Directors – Notes
Legislative Action Committee – Bill Analysis
October 3, 2022
Bill Number Summary Recommended
Position
Legislative Priority Alignment
AB 1985 (R.
Rivas)
Would create an
online database of
organic waste
products on the
market so local
governments can
connect with local
farmers and
community members
seeking their organic
waste products and
continue to the
conversation to
address the
procurement
requirements in the
SB 1383 regulations.
Support Sustainability and Environmental
Protection LAP (Support efforts to
streamline permitting and construction of
compost and other facilities that enable
jurisdictions to comply with SB 1383 and
efforts to broaden procurement
requirements for local jurisdiction to
comply with SB 1383)
AB 2120
(Ward)
Bill is no
longer active
(held on Asm
Approps
Suspense
File)
Would ensure that
Highway
Infrastructure
Program funds
received by the state
from the IIJA, for the
purpose of local
bridge repair, is
divided between the
state and local
agencies consistent
with past practice.
Support Transportation Issues LAP (funding for
diverse transportation projects)
SB 932
(Portantino)
Requires every city
and county to
develop and
implement bicycle
plans, pedestrian
plans, and traffic
calming plans and
provides that failure
to implement the
plan (beginning in
2025) creates a
cause of action for
victims of traffic
violence in certain
counties, including
Santa Clara County.
Oppose Unless
Amended
Guiding Principle – Support Cal Cities on
priority legislation
Cal Cities is part of a local government
coalition that has taken an Oppose
Unless Amended position on SB 932.
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
22-1204 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Action on Amendment No. 3 with Wallace Roberts and Todd, LLC (WRT) for the City Hall Relocation Study and Related Budget Amendment
COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing, and Transportation Development
BACKGROUND
The City is currently in the process of preparing a Precise Plan for the City’s historic Downtown area.
The Downtown planning area consists of the ten city blocks located between Homestead and Benton streets, west of Lafayette Street. The goal of the Precise Plan is to promote the redevelopment of the Downtown area consistent with the vision of restoring the Downtown as an active destination within Santa Clara, consistent with the character and vibrancy of an active, historic Downtown.
The Downtown Precise Plan effort formally began in 2018 with the appointment of a community member Task Force, including organizations such as Reclaiming Our Downtown and the Old Quad Resident’s Association. The City conducted a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process in 2019 and, with the input of the Task Force, selected Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC (WRT) to provide Downtown Precise Plan consultant services. Since then, City staff and WRT have been working closely with the Task Force on the preparation of a Precise Plan that will provide guidance for new development within the Downtown area through policies, guidelines, and illustrations that implement the community vision and objectives for a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented destination.
The City’s initial contract with WRT has been amended two times. Amendment No. 1 was approved by the City Council in May 2021. This first amendment to the consultant contract was to add the following services the scope of work for the Downtown Precise Plan: 1) Form Based Zoning Code and Sign Ordinance; 2) Development Impact Fee; 3) Downtown Management Entity; and 4) additional Downtown Community Task Force Meetings. Amendment No. 2 was approved by the City Council in December 2021. The second amendment to the consultant contract added the following services to the scope of work for the Downtown Precise Plan: 1) Consultant Team Charette; 2) Added stakeholder meetings; 3) Financial Feasibly of Land Use Options analysis; 4) Financial Memo Addendum to Existing Conditions Report; 5) Context Study; and 6) Additional Downtown Community Task Force Meetings with subconsultants.
DISCUSSION
At the May 24, 2022 City Council meeting, the Council discussed contracting with the current Downtown Precise Plan Consultant, WRT, to prepare a Financial Analysis for moving City Hall to a location within the eight blocks of the Original Downtown. This agenda item was requested through a written petition submitted by resident Mary Grizzle on behalf of the members of Reclaiming our City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/14/2022Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
22-1204 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022
Downtown.
At the May 24th meeting, the City Council directed staff to provide a scope of work and contract amendment with the current Downtown Precise Plan Consultant to study a City Hall relocation to downtown, including financial feasibility and strategies. In June 2022, the City Council subsequently approved the allocation of funds for the requested Study through the budget process.
Following Council direction, staff has worked with WRT to prepare a scope to study the relocation of the City Hall to the Downtown. The proposed scope is attached to this report as Attachment 2 and includes the following:
· Project Initiation
· Program Confirmation
· City Hall Economic Assessment
· Criteria and Site Comparison
· Concept Testing and Test-Fitting
· Financial Evaluation
· Concept Refinement
· Final Options Report
Staff is requesting that the City Council grant approval to the City Manager to amend the City’s contract with WRT to add the attached scope. This will allow staff and WRT to proceed with preparation of the study, consistent with prior City Council discussion. The proposed cost for the study, $353,360 includes a portion ($28,360) that would be funded by Silicon Valley Power (SVP) to analyze multiple scenarios involving SVP office space. The remaining scope ($325,000) is consistent with the City Council’s capital improvement program (CIP) budget action at the June 21, 2022 Council meeting. This Amendment No. 3 will also utilize the three-year term extension option provided in the Original Agreement, resulting in a revised termination date of December 31, 2024.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Consultant’s proposal for the scope of work has a cost of $353,360. As part of the FY 2022/23 and FY 2023/24 Capital Improvement Program budget adoption, funding in the amount of $325,000 was appropriated to the Precise Plan for Downtown project for the City Hall Relocation Study. The remaining $28,360 is available in Silicon Valley Power’s Electric Yard Buildings and Grounds project budget for facility assessment of buildings occupied by SVP.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/14/2022Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
22-1204 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022
Budget Amendment
FY 2022/23
Current Increase/
(Decrease)
Revised
Electric Utility Capital Fund
Expenditure
Electric Yard Buildings and Grounds $2,263,136 ($28,360) $2,234,776 Transfer To
General Government Capital Fund $0 $28,360 $28,360
General Government Capital Fund
Transfer From
Electric Utility Capital Fund $0 $28,360 $28,360
Expenditure
Precise Plan for Downtown $325,000 $28,360 $353,360
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with Silicon Valley Power, the Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement with Wallace Roberts and Todd, LLC (WRT) for the City Hall Relocation Study at a total cost not to exceed $1,331,706.
2. Approve the following FY 2022/23 budget amendments:
a. In the General Government Capital Fund, recognize a transfer of $28,360 from the Electric Utility Capital Fund and increase the Precise Plan for Downtown project by $28,360 (five affirmative Council votes ); and
b. In the Electric Utility Capital Fund, establish a transfer to the General Government Capital Fund in the amount of $28,360 and reduce the Electric Yard Buildings and Grounds project by $28,360 (five affirmative Council votes required).
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director, Community Development Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/14/2022Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
22-1204 Agenda Date: 10/18/2022
ATTACHMENTS
1. Amendment No. 3 with Wallace Roberts and Todd, LLC (WRT)
2. Scope of Work - City Hall Relocation Study
3. Original Agreement and RTC19-1006
4. Amendment No. 1 and RTC21-667
5. Amendment No. 2
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/14/2022Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
Amendment No.4 to Agreement/WRT-Downtown Precise Plan Page 1 Rev. 10/25/19
Ebix Insurance No. s200004347
AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO THE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
AND
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD, LLC
PREAMBLE
This agreement (“Amendment No. 3”) is entered into between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation (City) and Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC, a Delaware Corporation (Consultant). City and Consultant may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” or the “Parties to this Agreement.”
RECITALS
A. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled “Agreement for Services Between the City of Santa Clara, California, and Wallace, Roberts & Todd, LLC,” dated October 17, 2019 (Agreement); and
B. T he Agreement was previously amended by Amendment No. 1, dated October 21, 2021, Amendment No. 2, dated December 13, 2021, and is again amended by this Amendment No. 3. The Agreement and all previous amendments are collectively referred to herein as the “Agreement as Amended”; and C. The Parties entered into the Agreement as Amended for the purpose of having Consultant provide prepare a Downtown Precise Plan, and the Parties now wish to amend the Agreement to expand the scope of services to include a conceptual land use and economic analysis.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
AMENDMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Section 2 of the Agreement, entitled “Term of Agreement,” is amended to reflect a revised termination date of December 31, 2024.
2. Section 6 of the Agreement, entitled “Compensation and Payment,” is amended to reflect a revised maximum compensation value of one million three hundred thirty-one thousand, seven hundred six dollars ($1,331,706).
3. Exhibit A of the Agreement, entitled “Scope of Services,” is updated by appending the attached “Third Addendum to Scope of Services” to add new tasks to the original scope.
Amendment No. 3 to Agreement/WRT-Downtown Precise Plan Page 2 Rev. 10/25/2019
4. Exhibit B of the Agreement, entitled “Schedule of Fees,” is amended to reflect a revised maximum compensation value of one million three hundred thirty-one thousand, seven hundred six dollars ($1,331,706).
5. Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement as Amended shall remain in full force and effect. In case of a conflict in the terms of the Agreement as Amended and this Amendment No. 3, the provisions of this Amendment No. 3 shall control.
The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 3 as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California municipal corporation
Approved as to Form: Dated:
Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara
Rajeev Batra
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
“CITY”
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD, LLC
a Delaware Corporation
Dated:
By (Signature):
Name: James Stickley
Title: Principal
Principal Place of
Business Address:
478 Tehama Street, Suite 2B
San Francisco, CA 94103
Email Address: [email protected]
Telephone: (415) 575-4722
Fax: (215) 732-2551
“CONSULTANT”
I:\PLANNING\Admin\Contracts\WRT\Amendment No 3\Amendment No. 3 Integrated with Moot
4.doc
Rev. 10/25/2019
Third Addendum to Scope of Services
The following tasks are to be included as additional services. A detailed description of these tasks is included in the attached proposal, entitled “Civic Center Relocation Study” dated September 8, 2022.
Task Fee
1 Proj
ect Initiation and Management $ 23,090
2 Program Confirmation $17,030
3 Economic Assessment $33,470
4 Criteria and Site Comparison $ 25,970
5 Concept Development and Test-Fitting $ 81,800
6 Financial Evaluation $123,810
7 Additional Concept Refinement $23,000
8 Final Options Report $18,360
Expenses $6,830
Total: $353,360
In no event shall the maximum compensation under this Agreement as Amended for any and all services exceed one million three hundred thirty-one thousand, seven hundred six dollars ($1,331,706), subject to annual budget appropriations.
MEMORANDUM
WRT, LLC | 478 Tehama Street, Suite 2B | San Francisco, CA 94103 James Stickley CA LA-4251 wrtdesign.com | 415.575.4722 John Gibbs CA LA-4417
N:\8
000\8334.02 Santa Clara Civic Center Relocation Study\1-Administration\2-Agreements & Proposals\WRT Proposals\Santa Clara Civic Center Relocation Study_WRT Proposal_2022-09-19_clean.docx To: Lesley Xavier
Principal Planner, City of Santa
Clara
Via email
Date: September 8, 2022
From: Peter Winch
Project Manager, WRT
Ref. No.: 08334.02
Project: Civic Center Relocation Study
Re: WRT Team Proposal
CC: Jim Stickley
Principal, WRT
Dear Lesle
y,
The WRT Team is drafting a Downtown Precise Plan that reflects extensive analysis and community and DCTF feedback. The Task Force and City Staff have requested that WRT provide a scope of work and fee for studying how a relocated City Hall and associated office space could fit downtown, and how it could be financed. This memo responds to that request.
In this effort, WRT would be joined by SSiegel and Strain AArchitects , bringing understanding of space needs for a city hall, and team members CSW|ST2 and TTBD Consulting with expertise in estimating civil and structural construction costs, respectively. On the economic side, EPS, our partner on the Downtown Precise Plan, would conduct case study analysis, while Project Finance Advisory Ltd. (PFAL) will provide specific expertise in public facility financing. RRunde & Partners, Inc. joins our team to provide property appraisal services.
The total Consultant fee for these proposed tasks is $353,030, and we anticipate a 6-month schedule.
Runde & Partners has requested a $10,000 retainer to begin work. This would need to be provided by the City.
Summary and detail fee tables and proposed schedule follow the proposed scope of work. We look forward to working with Staff and City leaders to refine this scope of work as needed.
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 2
Santa Clara Civic Center Relocation Study: Scope and Fee TTask 1: Project Initiation and Management
The WRT Team will have a kickoff meeting with City Staff and confirm scope, schedule, and City objectives. The Team will conduct targeted background research and mapping needed to understand the existing Civic Center site and previous studies, and to establish base maps for the Relocation Study. This task also covers ongoing project management.
Meetings:
x Kick-off meeting
x Project management calls with Staff as needed
Deliverables:
x Project Schedule and Work Plan (periodically updated) x Base Maps for Existing Civic Center and Downtown
x Base Model for Downtown (as developed for Downtown Precise Plan) Timeframe: Approximately 6 months
Task 2: Program Confirmation
WRT, Siegel & Strain and PFAL will conduct an initial work session to review available City hall/civic center program documentation, relevant previous studies, and the Downtown Santa Clara Precise Plan and Form-based Code (drafts). The Team will confirm the desired relocation program with the City, which may include conducting stakeholder interviews.
S&S will review provided documentation related to projected civic center spatial needs and document a high-level spatial program organized by department according to data provided.
PFAL will review the architect’s high-level spatial program.
Note: Required effort will be dependent on available documentation and expectation level.
Meetings:
x Meeting with City Staff (1)
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 3
x Team meetings as needed
Deliverables:
x Base spatial program definition
Timeframe: 1 month
Task 3: Economic Assessment
Beginning concurrently with the program confirmation, EPS will assist with analysis of the economic impact of locating the Santa Clara City Hall in the downtown area, as follows.
Case Studies
In coordination with WRT, EPS will identify up to six examples of City Hall relocation projects across the United States to serve as case studies. The Team will seek examples (successful and otherwise) that are comparable to Santa Clara and/or the downtown site in one way or another (e.g., similar City population; site adjacency to transit, university, or historic neighborhood. We will seek case studies with a range of outcomes, including examples with more and less resulting investment. For each case study, EPS will conduct research to understand each city hall project based on City documents, hearing transcripts, media reporting, and other readily available sources. EPS will also contact each city to seek an interview with staff about the project, including benefits, challenges, and lessons learned, etc. EPS will report on outcomes, including the degree to which private investment has followed public investment.
Economic Impact Analysis
EPS will complete an illustrative economic impact analysis that considers potential localized spending effects on downtown from a new City Hall, as compared to the baseline site use (a comparably sized future office building). EPS will rely on WRT to identify the City Hall program and alternative. The analysis will quantify employment and visitation estimates, identify likely retail spending patterns and estimated sales tax revenues, and compare likely spending across development alternatives. Given the localized nature of the analysis, EPS will focus on direct spending in the downtown.
Meetings:
x Meeting with City Staff
x DCTF Meeting (1)
x Team meetings as needed
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 4
Deliverables:
x Presentation on case study analysis and economic impact analysis x Memorandum on economic impact analysis of potential City hall relocation
Timeframe: 1.5 months
TTask 4: Criteria and Site Comparison
WRT, Siegel & Strain, and PFAL will conduct a criteria-based process for evaluating potential Downtown sites for a relocated City Hall. Our process will consider a range of factors that relate to program, site characteristics, and finance. These factors may include:
x Land ownership and encumbrance
x Site size and dimensions; program fit
x Contribution to downtown experience
x Transit access
x Enabling of multiple benefits
x Readiness for development/simplicity
x Surplus Land Act conditions
x Available financing tools
x Partners
The team will become grounded in an understanding of the Downtown district and the Precise Plan, through material review and a site visit. In a team working session we will confirm criteria, confirm up to 3 downtown sites that merit evaluation, and make initial qualitative findings for each criterion. These will be more thoroughly detailed by each member of the team, depending on expertise, and presented in a simple format in one meeting each to City Staff and the Task Force. The outcome of this process will be the creation of a qualitative evaluation matrix followed by City Staff and Task Force confirmation of a preferred downtown site for a relocated City Hall.
Meetings:
x Meeting with City Staff
x DCTF Meeting (1)
x Team meetings as needed
Deliverables:
x Evaluation matrix with criteria
x Presentation on criteria and site comparison
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 5
Timeframe: 1 month
TTask 5: Concept Development and Test-Fitting
WRT and Siegel & Strain, with critical input from PFAL, will collaborate to develop up to three conceptual approaches to relocating city hall downtown to the preferred downtown site. Approaches are expected to be:
x Full relocation (City Hall and SVP);
x Partial relocation (City Hall only);
x Mixed-use (including private development), with full or partial relocation.
In terms of responsibilities:
x WRT will focus on urban design considerations.
x S&S will focus on organizing departments relative to one another based on overall area and adjacency requirements.
x PFAL will consider land use layout options with a view to enabling access to preferential funding and financing strategies.
WRT will also consider future land use concepts for the existing Civic Center site. This would begin at a high level, assigning site area to different land uses and recognizing potentially viable and beneficial future uses of the site.
Preliminary concepts for both sites will be shared with the larger Consultant team to understand cost, economic impact, and financing perspectives, and with City Staff for review and discussion.
Based on feedback, Siegel & Strain will develop draft diagrams for each downtown relocation concept. These will be reviewed in a second work session with WRT and PFAL, which will also cover general building parameters and assumptions such as construction type, sustainability goals, and related information to inform construction cost estimates.
Siegel & Strain will modify spatial diagrams as needed, prepare a narrative summary of building block organization and building assumptions for cost estimates. For the existing civic center site, WRT will estimate development capacity based on density formulas and informed by typical building forms. This will inform the economic evaluation of potential relocation.
WRT and Siegel & Strain will prepare a presentation to review the concepts with the Downtown Community Task Force (DCTF).
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 6
Meetings:
x Meeting with City Staff (1)
x DCTF Meeting (1)
x Team work sessions and meeting (2 or as needed)
Deliverables:
x Presentation on Downtown site and building concepts, Civic Center concepts, and opportunities and challenges for each
Timeframe: 1.5 months
TTask 6: Financial Evaluation
Project Finance Advisory, Ltd. (PFAL) will perform a financial analysis to assess the concepts for relocating City Hall and offices to a revisioned downtown. This work will include:
x Reviewing the team’s assessment of the cost/benefits of relocating to a downtown location and reviewing expected revenue;
x Providing input into and review of initial concepts for alternative uses of the existing City Hall site, incorporating appraisals of existing Civic Center site and potential future City Hall development site
x Considering financing and delivery options, including the possibility of a public/private partnership, property disposal, and USDOT debt x Incorporating the cost estimates provided by the WRT Team and providing benchmarked lifecycle cost indications for a new facility for up to 3 sites x Reviewing background information, including the example sites mentioned by the DCTF and identifying salient characteristics relevant to Santa Clara’s objectives x Participating in one meeting with the Downtown Task Force and 3 additional meetings with the advisory team and City; meeting prep and presentation content x Draft and Final Report and Presentation
x Quality control and assurance
x Task Management, Coordination, and Administration (internal coordination calls with advisor team, client calls, invoicing, etc.)
The financial analysis will incorporate critical inputs from TBD Consulting, CSW/ST2, and Runde & Partners, as described below.
Construction Cost Estimate
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 7
TBD Consulting will prepare a construction cost estimate for a new Civic Center based on the concepts defined in Task 4 This would include:
x One draft round of pricing + one revision round per comments and program/massing changes.
x Pricing to be order of magnitude ranges for each building containing Civic Center program.
x Excludes detail estimate backup or cost breakdowns per building system. x Estimate to include demo and site improvements at existing Civic Center locations.
x Construction pricing to be based on prevailing wage.
x Construction phasing can be considered if applicable. x Estimate effort can support up to 3 different massing schemes.
The estimate will identify the total cost of construction based on the quantities or allowances with composite unit rates where applicable reflecting the scope of work and the current market conditions. Pricing shall incorporate appropriate general contractor markups and escalation into cost ranges. The estimate will utilize TBD’s standard Order of Magnitude format. We will not obtain any bids or opinions of cost from subcontractors unless the work is of such a unique nature that no other cost information is available. WRT and their consultants shall provide program and massing diagrams for our use. We understand that reconciliation of estimates with other cost opinions will not be required.
We have also excluded time for value engineering, value analysis, other cost studies, estimating soft costs, and design & estimating ‘churning’ to reach a specific budget.
Siegel & Strain will field questions from estimator (to make sure his assumptions are correct) and to review a draft of the estimate.
Infrastructure Cost Estimate
CSW/ST2 will review the concepts and support the team in developing a construction cost analysis focused on civil engineering costs. Since public funds will be involved in construction, the costs will need to include prevailing wage rates. We will provide up to three estimates for the improvements.
Appraisals
The sites to be appraised include the portion of the existing Civic Center property that would be redeveloped if City Hall and related office functions were to be relocated. The appraisal would also address the fee simple market value of two to three potential relocation sites in the downtown area to be identified at a later date. These sites are to be located within the 10-square-block area between Lafayette Street, Madison Street, Benton Street, and Homestead Road. The area is in the process of a re-zoning that will intensify the
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 8
development density in the area. Our appraisal would address the as-is value of each site at its highest and best use, once the permitted use(s) and density (FAR/height limit/dwelling unit density)have been determined. For existing public land, the requirements of the Surplus Land Act will be taken into account in determining realistic highest and best use. The intended use of this appraisal report is for assistance with a financial analysis of the costs and benefits of relocating City Hall to the downtown area.
The report is to be used for planning and advisory purposes, not for financing or acquisition purposes. The intended user is Peter Winch/WRT and the City of Santa Clara and the report should not be used or relied upon by any other person or entity for any reason.
As-Needed Project Support
EPS is available to provide WRT support concerning various economic and financial aspects of the City Hall relocation study. The firm’s expertise spans real estate, economic and fiscal impact analysis, public finance, and public policy practice areas. This proposal includes 40 hours EPS Principal-level time that may be used by WRT on an as-needed basis for project support.
Meetings:
x Meetings with City Staff
x DCTF Meeting (1)
Deliverables:
x Presentation on estimated costs associated with up to 3 relocation concepts, and funding options for each
x Memorandum
Timeframe: 1.5 months
TTask 7: Additional Concept Refinement
Based on City and DCTF feedback, and informed by the financial analysis, WRT and Siegel & Strain will refine land use and building block concepts for Downtown and the existing Civic Center site. The refined concepts will be reviewed with City Staff, and brought to the DCTF. We anticipate one Task Force meeting that will cover both the financial analysis and the refined concepts.
Meetings:
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 9
x Meeting with City Staff
x DCTF Meeting (1)
Deliverables:
x Presentation on refined site and building concepts, relocation recommendations, and financing strategy
Timeframe: 1 month
TTask 8: Final Options Report and Council Presentation
WRT will document the final site concepts and economic analysis in a concise report, with narrative, graphics, and relevant tables. Other project deliverables may be included as appendices. Following a preparatory session with City Staff, WRT will present the final report findings to City Council.
Meetings:
x Meeting with City Staff
x City Council Meeting (1)
Deliverables:
x Final Options Report
Timeframe: 1 month
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan | Civic Center Relocation Study, September 8, 2022 FFee Summary
Task WRT Siegel & Strain EPS PFAL Runde & Partners CSW/ST2 TBD Consulting Team Fee 1 Project Initiation and Management 10,410$ 3,140 $ 1,140 $ 8,400 $ - $ - $ -$ 23,090$ 2 Program Confirmation 3,710$ 10,520 $ - $ 2,800$ - $ - $ -$ 17,030$ 3 City Hall Economic Assessment 9,040$ - $ 16,030$ 8,400 $ - $ - $ -$ 33,470$ 4 Criteria and Site Comparison 12,620$ 9,150 $ - $ 4,200$ - $ - $ -$ 25,970$ 5 Concept Development and Test-Fitting 49,650$ 25,150 $ - $ 7,000$ - $ -$ - $ 81,800$ 6 Financial Evaluation 9,220$ 2,600 $ 11,400 $ 46,900 $ 25,000 $ 13,210 $ 15,480 $ 123,810$ 7 Additional Concept Refinement 14,900$ 8,100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 23,000$ 8 Final Options Report 15,380$ 2,980 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 18,360$ Total Labor 124,930$ 61,640$ 28,570$ 77,700$ 25,000$ 13,210$ 15,480$ 346,530$ Expenses 2,500$ 2,500$ 330$ 1,500$ -$ - $ -$ 6,830$ Total 127,430 $ 64,140$ 28,900$ 79,200$ 25,000$ 13,210$ 15,480$ 353,360$ PProposed Schedule
MMonth
Task 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Project Initiation and Management
2 Program Confirmation
3 City Hall Economic Assessment
4 Criteria and Site Comparison
5 Concept Development and Test-Fitting
6 Financial Evaluation
7 Additional Concept Refinement
8 Final Options Report
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan
Fee for City Hall Relocation Study, September 8, 2022
Job Classification
James Stickley
Principal
Senior
Planner/Urban
Designer
Urban Designer
Level 2
Urban Designer
Level 1 or
Administrative
Support
Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Principal
Project Manager
/ Architect
Senior Architect
/ Designer
Junior Architect
/ Desiger
Administrative
Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Ben Sigman
Principal
PM
Associate
Hours by Task Cost by Task
Principal/Associ
ate blend
Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Principal
Engineer
Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Robert Stevens
Principal
Engineer
Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Principal
Engineer
Hours by
Task Cost by Task Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Hourly Rate 245.00$ 185.00$ 125.00 $ 115.00 $ 270.00$ 190.00$ 150.00 $ 110.00 $ 80.00$ 285.00$ 185.00$ 350.00$ rate rate 231.00$ 157.00$ 215.00$ 160.00$ Task 1 Project Initiation and Management
1.1 Kickoff Meeting and Scope Confirmation 448 16 2,720.00$ 6 8 14 3,140.00$ 4 4 1,140.00$ 4 4 1,400.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 38 8,400.00$
1.2 Base Mapping 22 2 8 32 4,360.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 32 4,360.00$
1.3 Project Management 18 18 3,330.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 20 20 7,000.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 38 10,330.00$ Sub-Total - 62 4 3 6 0 68 0 04 0 24 00 00 00
Sub-Total - 66 10,410.00$ Sub-Total - 14 3,140.00$ 4 1,140.00$ 24 8,400.00$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 108 23,090.00$ Task 2 Program Confirmation
2.1 Work Sessions, Interviews, and Document Review 428 14 2,350.00$ 4 4 8 1,840.00$ 0 -$ 8 8 2,800.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 30 6,990.00$
2.2 High-Level Base Spatial Program 224 8 1,360.00$ 4 40 44 8,680.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 52 10,040.00$ Sub-Total - 64 1 2 0 8 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total - 22 3,710.00$ Sub-Total - 52 10,520.00$ 0 -$ 8 2,800.00$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 82 17,030.00$ Task 3 City Hall Economic Assessment
3.1 Case Studies 41 2 24 40 6,200.00$ 0 -$ 6 28 34 6,890.00$ 12 12 4,200.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 86 17,290.00$
3.2 Economic Impact Analysis 224 8 1,360.00$ 0 -$ 63 4 40 8,000.00$ 12 12 4,200.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 60 13,560.00$
3.3 Task Force Meeting #1 44 8 1,480.00$ 0 -$ 4 4 1,140.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 12 2,620.00$ Sub-Total - 10 14 32 0 0 0 0 0 16 62 24 00 00 00
Sub-Total - 56 9,040.00$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 78 16,030.00$ 24 8,400.00$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 158 33,470.00$ Task 4 Criteria and Site Comparison
4.1 Site Understanding 488 20 3,460.00$ 8 8 16 3,680.00$ 0 -$ 4 4 1,400.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 40 8,540.00$
4.2 Criteria Definition and Site Comparison 42 0 2 0 44 7,180.00$ 7 14 21 4,550.00$ 0 -$ 8 8 2,800.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 73 14,530.00$
4.3 Task Force Meeting #2 48 12 1,980.00$ 2 2 4 920.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 16 2,900.00$ Sub-Total - 12 2 8 3 6 0 17 2 40 0 0 0 0 12 00 00 00
Sub-Total - 76 12,620.00$ Sub-Total - 41 9,150.00$ 0 -$ 12 4,200.00$ Sub-Total - 0- $ Sub-Total - 0- $ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 129 25,970.00$ Task 5 Concept Development and Test Fitting
5.1 Conceptual Approaches for Relocating Civic Uses Downtown 16 16 64 32 128 18,560.00$ 3 3 6 1,380.00$ 0 -$ 8 8 2,800.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 142 22,740.00$
5.2 Site Concepts for Existing Civic Center Site 16 16 96 48 176 24,400.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 176 24,400.00$
5.3 Building Block Organization for City Hall and City Offices 64 1 2 22 3,710.00$ 18 83 101 20,630.00$ 0 -$ 12 12 4,200.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 135 28,540.00$
5.4 Task Force Meeting #3 41 6 20 2,980.00$ 6 8 14 3,140.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 34 6,120.00$ Sub-Total - 42 3 6 1 88 8 0 27 9 40 0 0 0 0 20 00 00 00 Sub-Total - 346 49,650.00$ Sub-Total - 121 25,150.00$ 0 -$ 20 7,000.00$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 487 81,800.00$ Task 6 Financial Evaluation
6.1 Appraisal and Land Value Analysis 22 4 860.00$ 0 -$ 40 40 11,400.00$ 8 8 2,800.00$ 0 25,000.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 52 40,060.00$
6.2 Estimated Development Costs for New Civic Uses 22 4 860.00$ 4 8 12 2,600.00$ 0 -$ 32 32 11,200.00$ 0 -$ 30 40 70 13,210.00$ 72 72 15,480.00$ 190 43,350.00$
6.3 Evaluation of Financing Options 88 16 3,440.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 56 56 19,600.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 72 23,040.00$
6.4 Task Force Meeting #4 44 8 1,480.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 8 8 2,800.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 16 4,280.00$
6.5 Financial Analysis Report (Draft and Final) 66 12 2,580.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 30 30 10,500.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 42 13,080.00$ Sub-Total - 22 18 4 0 4 8 0 0 0 40 0 134 0 0 30 40 72 0 Sub-Total - 44 9,220.00$ Sub-Total - 12 2,600.00$ 40 11,400.00$ 134 46,900.00$ Sub-Total - 0 25,000.00$ Sub-Total - 70 13,210.00$ Sub-Total - 72 15,480.00$ 372 123,810.00$ Task 7 Additional Concept Refinement
7.1 Refined Land Use and Building Concepts and Recommendations 12 8 60 80 11,920.00$ 5 19 24 4,960.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 104 16,880.00$
7.2 Task Force Meeting #5 41 6 20 2,980.00$ 6 8 14 3,140.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 34 6,120.00$ Sub-Total - 16 87 6 0 11 2 70 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00
Sub-Total - Sub-Total - 100 14,900.00$ Sub-Total - 38 8,100.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 138 23,000.00$ Task 8 Final Options Report
8.1 Final Options Report 62 4 4 8 78 11,910.00$ 4 10 14 2,980.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 92 14,890.00$
8.2 Presentation to City Council 61 6 22 3,470.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 22 3,470.00$ Sub-Total - 12 2 4 6 4 0 4 1 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00
Sub-Total - Sub-Total - 100 15,380.00$ Sub-Total - 14 2,980.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 114 18,360.00$ Subtotal, Labor 810 124,930.00$ 60 191 292 61,640.00$ 122 28,570.00$ 222 77,700.00$ 0 25,000.00$ 70 13,210.00$ 72 15,480.00$ 1588 346,530.00$ Expenses 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 330.00$ 1,500.00 $ 6,500.00$ Total 127,430.00$ 64,140.00$ 28,900.00$ 79,200.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 13,210.00 $ 15,480.00 $ 353,030.00 $ Grand Total 353,030.00
TBD TOTAL
Planning and Urban Design, Public Outreach Architecture Economics Economics Appraisal Infrastructure Vertical Cost Estimating WRT, LLC Siegel & Strain EPS PFAL Runde & Partners, Inc. CSWST2 ~Bl ~I ~I ~I ~I==~~ ~I ~I ~ ~i
~ ~ 1~rn~rnrnlrn~n~~ ~nJrnrnrnrn~ ~'
~ ~ 1~rn~rn~rn~rn~~ ~tnrnrnrnrn~ ~'
~~1~rnkrn~rn~~1~~gnrnrnrnrn~ ~, ~g1~~r11~m~1~ ~ m~mrn~ ~, ~ w ~ ffl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ -F If ' . n 1 · .. · ~~
LJ =--J I - lJ
~
--~1- -+-+--lf-
l
I
!
!
----
I-+-
1 ~f- e--+------lf-
!
l -
!
~ -
t-
-- - ~ -
-
! !
__ u i i
ILT llT IITT rm I! u u I l J l!O 107
MEMORANDUM
WRT, LLC | 478 Tehama Street, Suite 2B | San Francisco, CA 94103 James Stickley CA LA-4251 wrtdesign.com | 415.575.4722 John Gibbs CA LA-4417
N:\8000\8334.02 Santa Clara Civic Center Relocation Study\1-Administration\2-Agreements & Proposals\WRT Proposals\Santa Clara Civic Center Relocation Study_WRT Proposal_2022-09-19_clean.docx To: Lesley Xavier
Principal Planner, City of Santa
Clara
Via email
Date: September 8, 2022
From: Peter Winch
Project Manager, WRT
Ref. No.: 08334.02
Project: Civic Center Relocation Study
Re: WRT Team Proposal
CC: Jim Stickley
Principal, WRT
Dear Lesley,
The WRT Team is drafting a Downtown Precise Plan that reflects extensive analysis and community and DCTF feedback. The Task Force and City Staff have requested that WRT provide a scope of work and fee for studying how a relocated City Hall and associated office space could fit downtown, and how it could be financed. This memo responds to that request.
In this effort, WRT would be joined by SSiegel and Strain AArchitects , bringing understanding of space needs for a city hall, and team members CSW|ST2 and TTBD Consulting with expertise in estimating civil and structural construction costs, respectively. On the economic side, EPS, our partner on the Downtown Precise Plan, would conduct case study analysis, while Project Finance Advisory Ltd. (PFAL) will provide specific expertise in public facility financing. RRunde & Partners, Inc. joins our team to provide property appraisal services.
The total Consultant fee for these proposed tasks is $353,030, and we anticipate a 6-month schedule.
Runde & Partners has requested a $10,000 retainer to begin work. This would need to be provided by the City.
Summary and detail fee tables and proposed schedule follow the proposed scope of work. We look forward to working with Staff and City leaders to refine this scope of work as needed.
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 2
Santa Clara Civic Center Relocation Study: Scope and Fee
TTask 1: Project Initiation and Management
The WRT Team will have a kickoff meeting with City Staff and confirm scope, schedule, and City objectives. The Team will conduct targeted background research and mapping needed to understand the existing Civic Center site and previous studies, and to establish base maps for the Relocation Study. This task also covers ongoing project management.
Meetings:
x Kick-off meeting
x Project management calls with Staff as needed
Deliverables:
x Project Schedule and Work Plan (periodically updated) x Base Maps for Existing Civic Center and Downtown
x Base Model for Downtown (as developed for Downtown Precise Plan)
Timeframe: Approximately 6 months
Task 2: Program Confirmation
WRT, Siegel & Strain and PFAL will conduct an initial work session to review available City hall/civic center program documentation, relevant previous studies, and the Downtown Santa Clara Precise Plan and Form-based Code (drafts). The Team will confirm the desired relocation program with the City, which may include conducting stakeholder interviews.
S&S will review provided documentation related to projected civic center spatial needs and document a high-level spatial program organized by department according to data provided.
PFAL will review the architect’s high-level spatial program.
Note: Required effort will be dependent on available documentation and expectation level.
Meetings:
x Meeting with City Staff (1)
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 3
x Team meetings as needed
Deliverables:
x Base spatial program definition
Timeframe: 1 month
Task 3: Economic Assessment
Beginning concurrently with the program confirmation, EPS will assist with analysis of the economic impact of locating the Santa Clara City Hall in the downtown area, as follows.
Case Studies
In coordination with WRT, EPS will identify up to six examples of City Hall relocation projects across the United States to serve as case studies. The Team will seek examples (successful and otherwise) that are comparable to Santa Clara and/or the downtown site in one way or another (e.g., similar City population; site adjacency to transit, university, or historic neighborhood. We will seek case studies with a range of outcomes, including examples with more and less resulting investment. For each case study, EPS will conduct research to understand each city hall project based on City documents, hearing transcripts, media reporting, and other readily available sources. EPS will also contact each city to seek an interview with staff about the project, including benefits, challenges, and lessons learned, etc. EPS will report on outcomes, including the degree to which private investment has followed public investment.
Economic Impact Analysis
EPS will complete an illustrative economic impact analysis that considers potential localized spending effects on downtown from a new City Hall, as compared to the baseline site use (a comparably sized future office building). EPS will rely on WRT to identify the City Hall program and alternative. The analysis will quantify employment and visitation estimates, identify likely retail spending patterns and estimated sales tax revenues, and compare likely spending across development alternatives. Given the localized nature of the analysis, EPS will focus on direct spending in the downtown.
Meetings:
x Meeting with City Staff
x DCTF Meeting (1)
x Team meetings as needed
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 4
Deliverables:
x Presentation on case study analysis and economic impact analysis x Memorandum on economic impact analysis of potential City hall relocation
Timeframe: 1.5 months
TTask 4: Criteria and Site Comparison
WRT, Siegel & Strain, and PFAL will conduct a criteria-based process for evaluating potential Downtown sites for a relocated City Hall. Our process will consider a range of factors that relate to program, site characteristics, and finance. These factors may include:
x Land ownership and encumbrance
x Site size and dimensions; program fit
x Contribution to downtown experience
x Transit access
x Enabling of multiple benefits
x Readiness for development/simplicity
x Surplus Land Act conditions
x Available financing tools
x Partners
The team will become grounded in an understanding of the Downtown district and the Precise Plan, through material review and a site visit. In a team working session we will confirm criteria, confirm up to 3 downtown sites that merit evaluation, and make initial qualitative findings for each criterion. These will be more thoroughly detailed by each member of the team, depending on expertise, and presented in a simple format in one meeting each to City Staff and the Task Force. The outcome of this process will be the creation of a qualitative evaluation matrix followed by City Staff and Task Force confirmation of a preferred downtown site for a relocated City Hall.
Meetings:
x Meeting with City Staff
x DCTF Meeting (1)
x Team meetings as needed
Deliverables:
x Evaluation matrix with criteria
x Presentation on criteria and site comparison
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 5
Timeframe: 1 month
TTask 5: Concept Development and Test-Fitting
WRT and Siegel & Strain, with critical input from PFAL, will collaborate to develop up to three conceptual approaches to relocating city hall downtown to the preferred downtown site. Approaches are expected to be:
x Full relocation (City Hall and SVP);
x Partial relocation (City Hall only);
x Mixed-use (including private development), with full or partial relocation.
In terms of responsibilities:
x WRT will focus on urban design considerations.
x S&S will focus on organizing departments relative to one another based on overall area and adjacency requirements.
x PFAL will consider land use layout options with a view to enabling access to preferential funding and financing strategies.
WRT will also consider future land use concepts for the existing Civic Center site. This would begin at a high level, assigning site area to different land uses and recognizing potentially viable and beneficial future uses of the site.
Preliminary concepts for both sites will be shared with the larger Consultant team to understand cost, economic impact, and financing perspectives, and with City Staff for review and discussion.
Based on feedback, Siegel & Strain will develop draft diagrams for each downtown relocation concept. These will be reviewed in a second work session with WRT and PFAL, which will also cover general building parameters and assumptions such as construction type, sustainability goals, and related information to inform construction cost estimates.
Siegel & Strain will modify spatial diagrams as needed, prepare a narrative summary of building block organization and building assumptions for cost estimates. For the existing civic center site, WRT will estimate development capacity based on density formulas and informed by typical building forms. This will inform the economic evaluation of potential relocation.
WRT and Siegel & Strain will prepare a presentation to review the concepts with the Downtown Community Task Force (DCTF).
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 6
Meetings:
x Meeting with City Staff (1)
x DCTF Meeting (1)
x Team work sessions and meeting (2 or as needed)
Deliverables:
x Presentation on Downtown site and building concepts, Civic Center concepts, and opportunities and challenges for each
Timeframe: 1.5 months
TTask 6: Financial Evaluation
Project Finance Advisory, Ltd. (PFAL) will perform a financial analysis to assess the concepts for relocating City Hall and offices to a revisioned downtown. This work will include:
x Reviewing the team’s assessment of the cost/benefits of relocating to a downtown location and reviewing expected revenue;
x Providing input into and review of initial concepts for alternative uses of the existing City Hall site, incorporating appraisals of existing Civic Center site and potential future City Hall development site
x Considering financing and delivery options, including the possibility of a public/private partnership, property disposal, and USDOT debt x Incorporating the cost estimates provided by the WRT Team and providing benchmarked lifecycle cost indications for a new facility for up to 3 sites x Reviewing background information, including the example sites mentioned by the DCTF and identifying salient characteristics relevant to Santa Clara’s objectives x Participating in one meeting with the Downtown Task Force and 3 additional meetings with the advisory team and City; meeting prep and presentation content x Draft and Final Report and Presentation
x Quality control and assurance
x Task Management, Coordination, and Administration (internal coordination calls with advisor team, client calls, invoicing, etc.)
The financial analysis will incorporate critical inputs from TBD Consulting, CSW/ST2, and Runde & Partners, as described below.
Construction Cost Estimate
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 7
TBD Consulting will prepare a construction cost estimate for a new Civic Center based on the concepts defined in Task 4 This would include:
x One draft round of pricing + one revision round per comments and program/massing changes.
x Pricing to be order of magnitude ranges for each building containing Civic Center program.
x Excludes detail estimate backup or cost breakdowns per building system. x Estimate to include demo and site improvements at existing Civic Center locations.
x Construction pricing to be based on prevailing wage.
x Construction phasing can be considered if applicable. x Estimate effort can support up to 3 different massing schemes.
The estimate will identify the total cost of construction based on the quantities or allowances with composite unit rates where applicable reflecting the scope of work and the current market conditions. Pricing shall incorporate appropriate general contractor markups and escalation into cost ranges. The estimate will utilize TBD’s standard Order of Magnitude format. We will not obtain any bids or opinions of cost from subcontractors unless the work is of such a unique nature that no other cost information is available. WRT and their consultants shall provide program and massing diagrams for our use. We understand that reconciliation of estimates with other cost opinions will not be required.
We have also excluded time for value engineering, value analysis, other cost studies, estimating soft costs, and design & estimating ‘churning’ to reach a specific budget.
Siegel & Strain will field questions from estimator (to make sure his assumptions are correct) and to review a draft of the estimate.
Infrastructure Cost Estimate
CSW/ST2 will review the concepts and support the team in developing a construction cost analysis focused on civil engineering costs. Since public funds will be involved in construction, the costs will need to include prevailing wage rates. We will provide up to three estimates for the improvements.
Appraisals
The sites to be appraised include the portion of the existing Civic Center property that would be redeveloped if City Hall and related office functions were to be relocated. The appraisal would also address the fee simple market value of two to three potential relocation sites in the downtown area to be identified at a later date. These sites are to be located within the 10-square-block area between Lafayette Street, Madison Street, Benton Street, and Homestead Road. The area is in the process of a re-zoning that will intensify the
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 8
development density in the area. Our appraisal would address the as-is value of each site at its highest and best use, once the permitted use(s) and density (FAR/height limit/dwelling unit density)have been determined. For existing public land, the requirements of the Surplus Land Act will be taken into account in determining realistic highest and best use. The intended use of this appraisal report is for assistance with a financial analysis of the costs and benefits of relocating City Hall to the downtown area.
The report is to be used for planning and advisory purposes, not for financing or acquisition purposes. The intended user is Peter Winch/WRT and the City of Santa Clara and the report should not be used or relied upon by any other person or entity for any reason.
As-Needed Project Support
EPS is available to provide WRT support concerning various economic and financial aspects of the City Hall relocation study. The firm’s expertise spans real estate, economic and fiscal impact analysis, public finance, and public policy practice areas. This proposal includes 40 hours EPS Principal-level time that may be used by WRT on an as-needed basis for project support.
Meetings:
x Meetings with City Staff
x DCTF Meeting (1)
Deliverables:
x Presentation on estimated costs associated with up to 3 relocation concepts, and funding options for each
x Memorandum
Timeframe: 1.5 months
TTask 7: Additional Concept Refinement
Based on City and DCTF feedback, and informed by the financial analysis, WRT and Siegel & Strain will refine land use and building block concepts for Downtown and the existing Civic Center site. The refined concepts will be reviewed with City Staff, and brought to the DCTF. We anticipate one Task Force meeting that will cover both the financial analysis and the refined concepts.
Meetings:
MEMORANDUM
September 8, 2022
Page | 9
x Meeting with City Staff
x DCTF Meeting (1)
Deliverables:
x Presentation on refined site and building concepts, relocation recommendations, and financing strategy
Timeframe: 1 month
TTask 8: Final Options Report and Council Presentation
WRT will document the final site concepts and economic analysis in a concise report, with narrative, graphics, and relevant tables. Other project deliverables may be included as appendices. Following a preparatory session with City Staff, WRT will present the final report findings to City Council.
Meetings:
x Meeting with City Staff
x City Council Meeting (1)
Deliverables:
x Final Options Report
Timeframe: 1 month
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan | Civic Center Relocation Study, September 8, 2022 FFee Summary
Task WRT Siegel & Strain EPS PFAL Runde & Partners CSW/ST2 TBD Consulting Team Fee 1 Project Initiation and Management 10,410$ 3,140 $ 1,140 $ 8,400 $ - $ - $ -$ 23,090$ 2 Program Confirmation 3,710$ 10,520 $ - $ 2,800$ - $ - $ -$ 17,030$ 3 City Hall Economic Assessment 9,040$ - $ 16,030$ 8,400 $ - $ - $ -$ 33,470$ 4 Criteria and Site Comparison 12,620$ 9,150 $ - $ 4,200$ - $ - $ -$ 25,970$ 5 Concept Development and Test-Fitting 49,650$ 25,150 $ - $ 7,000$ - $ -$ - $ 81,800$ 6 Financial Evaluation 9,220$ 2,600 $ 11,400 $ 46,900 $ 25,000 $ 13,210 $ 15,480 $ 123,810$ 7 Additional Concept Refinement 14,900$ 8,100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 23,000$ 8 Final Options Report 15,380$ 2,980 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -$ 18,360$ Total Labor 124,930$ 61,640$ 28,570$ 77,700$ 25,000$ 13,210$ 15,480$ 346,530$ Expenses 2,500$ 2,500$ 330$ 1,500$ -$ - $ -$ 6,830$ Total 127,430 $ 64,140$ 28,900$ 79,200$ 25,000$ 13,210$ 15,480$ 353,360$ PProposed Schedule
MMonth
Task 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Project Initiation and Management
2 Program Confirmation
3 City Hall Economic Assessment
4 Criteria and Site Comparison
5 Concept Development and Test-Fitting
6 Financial Evaluation
7 Additional Concept Refinement
8 Final Options Report
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan
Fee for City Hall Relocation Study, September 8, 2022
Job Classification
James Stickley
Principal
Senior
Planner/Urban
Designer
Urban Designer
Level 2
Urban Designer
Level 1 or
Administrative
Support
Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Principal
Project Manager
/ Architect
Senior Architect
/ Designer
Junior Architect
/ Desiger
Administrative
Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Ben Sigman
Principal
PM
Associate
Hours by Task Cost by Task
Principal/Associ
ate blend
Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Principal
Engineer
Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Robert Stevens
Principal
Engineer
Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Principal
Engineer
Hours by
Task Cost by Task Hours by
Task Cost by Task
Hourly Rate 245.00$ 185.00$ 125.00 $ 115.00 $ 270.00$ 190.00$ 150.00 $ 110.00 $ 80.00$ 285.00$ 185.00$ 350.00$ rate rate 231.00$ 157.00$ 215.00$ 160.00$ Task 1 Project Initiation and Management
1.1 Kickoff Meeting and Scope Confirmation 448 16 2,720.00$ 6 8 14 3,140.00$ 4 4 1,140.00$ 4 4 1,400.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 38 8,400.00$
1.2 Base Mapping 22 2 8 32 4,360.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 32 4,360.00$
1.3 Project Management 18 18 3,330.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 20 20 7,000.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 38 10,330.00$ Sub-Total - 62 4 3 6 0 68 0 04 0 24 00 00 00
Sub-Total - 66 10,410.00$ Sub-Total - 14 3,140.00$ 4 1,140.00$ 24 8,400.00$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 108 23,090.00$ Task 2 Program Confirmation
2.1 Work Sessions, Interviews, and Document Review 428 14 2,350.00$ 4 4 8 1,840.00$ 0 -$ 8 8 2,800.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 30 6,990.00$
2.2 High-Level Base Spatial Program 224 8 1,360.00$ 4 40 44 8,680.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 52 10,040.00$ Sub-Total - 64 1 2 0 8 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub-Total - 22 3,710.00$ Sub-Total - 52 10,520.00$ 0 -$ 8 2,800.00$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 82 17,030.00$ Task 3 City Hall Economic Assessment
3.1 Case Studies 41 2 24 40 6,200.00$ 0 -$ 6 28 34 6,890.00$ 12 12 4,200.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 86 17,290.00$
3.2 Economic Impact Analysis 224 8 1,360.00$ 0 -$ 63 4 40 8,000.00$ 12 12 4,200.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 60 13,560.00$
3.3 Task Force Meeting #1 44 8 1,480.00$ 0 -$ 4 4 1,140.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 12 2,620.00$ Sub-Total - 10 14 32 0 0 0 0 0 16 62 24 00 00 00
Sub-Total - 56 9,040.00$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 78 16,030.00$ 24 8,400.00$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 158 33,470.00$ Task 4 Criteria and Site Comparison
4.1 Site Understanding 488 20 3,460.00$ 8 8 16 3,680.00$ 0 -$ 4 4 1,400.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 40 8,540.00$
4.2 Criteria Definition and Site Comparison 42 0 2 0 44 7,180.00$ 7 14 21 4,550.00$ 0 -$ 8 8 2,800.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 73 14,530.00$
4.3 Task Force Meeting #2 48 12 1,980.00$ 2 2 4 920.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 16 2,900.00$ Sub-Total - 12 2 8 3 6 0 17 2 40 0 0 0 0 12 00 00 00
Sub-Total - 76 12,620.00$ Sub-Total - 41 9,150.00$ 0 -$ 12 4,200.00$ Sub-Total - 0- $ Sub-Total - 0- $ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 129 25,970.00$ Task 5 Concept Development and Test Fitting
5.1 Conceptual Approaches for Relocating Civic Uses Downtown 16 16 64 32 128 18,560.00$ 3 3 6 1,380.00$ 0 -$ 8 8 2,800.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 142 22,740.00$
5.2 Site Concepts for Existing Civic Center Site 16 16 96 48 176 24,400.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 176 24,400.00$
5.3 Building Block Organization for City Hall and City Offices 64 1 2 22 3,710.00$ 18 83 101 20,630.00$ 0 -$ 12 12 4,200.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 135 28,540.00$
5.4 Task Force Meeting #3 41 6 20 2,980.00$ 6 8 14 3,140.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 34 6,120.00$ Sub-Total - 42 3 6 1 88 8 0 27 9 40 0 0 0 0 20 00 00 00 Sub-Total - 346 49,650.00$ Sub-Total - 121 25,150.00$ 0 -$ 20 7,000.00$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 487 81,800.00$ Task 6 Financial Evaluation
6.1 Appraisal and Land Value Analysis 22 4 860.00$ 0 -$ 40 40 11,400.00$ 8 8 2,800.00$ 0 25,000.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 52 40,060.00$
6.2 Estimated Development Costs for New Civic Uses 22 4 860.00$ 4 8 12 2,600.00$ 0 -$ 32 32 11,200.00$ 0 -$ 30 40 70 13,210.00$ 72 72 15,480.00$ 190 43,350.00$
6.3 Evaluation of Financing Options 88 16 3,440.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 56 56 19,600.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 72 23,040.00$
6.4 Task Force Meeting #4 44 8 1,480.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 8 8 2,800.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 16 4,280.00$
6.5 Financial Analysis Report (Draft and Final) 66 12 2,580.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 30 30 10,500.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 42 13,080.00$ Sub-Total - 22 18 4 0 4 8 0 0 0 40 0 134 0 0 30 40 72 0 Sub-Total - 44 9,220.00$ Sub-Total - 12 2,600.00$ 40 11,400.00$ 134 46,900.00$ Sub-Total - 0 25,000.00$ Sub-Total - 70 13,210.00$ Sub-Total - 72 15,480.00$ 372 123,810.00$ Task 7 Additional Concept Refinement
7.1 Refined Land Use and Building Concepts and Recommendations 12 8 60 80 11,920.00$ 5 19 24 4,960.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 104 16,880.00$
7.2 Task Force Meeting #5 41 6 20 2,980.00$ 6 8 14 3,140.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 34 6,120.00$ Sub-Total - 16 87 6 0 11 2 70 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00
Sub-Total - Sub-Total - 100 14,900.00$ Sub-Total - 38 8,100.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 138 23,000.00$ Task 8 Final Options Report
8.1 Final Options Report 62 4 4 8 78 11,910.00$ 4 10 14 2,980.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 92 14,890.00$
8.2 Presentation to City Council 61 6 22 3,470.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 22 3,470.00$ Sub-Total - 12 2 4 6 4 0 4 1 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00
Sub-Total - Sub-Total - 100 15,380.00$ Sub-Total - 14 2,980.00$ 0 -$ 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ Sub-Total - 0 -$ 114 18,360.00$ Subtotal, Labor 810 124,930.00$ 60 191 292 61,640.00$ 122 28,570.00$ 222 77,700.00$ 0 25,000.00$ 70 13,210.00$ 72 15,480.00$ 1588 346,530.00$ Expenses 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 330.00$ 1,500.00 $ 6,500.00$ Total 127,430.00$ 64,140.00$ 28,900.00$ 79,200.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 13,210.00 $ 15,480.00 $ 353,030.00 $ Grand Total 353,030.00
TBD TOTAL
Planning and Urban Design, Public Outreach Architecture Economics Economics Appraisal Infrastructure Vertical Cost Estimating WRT, LLC Siegel & Strain EPS PFAL Runde & Partners, Inc. CSWST2 ~Bl ~I ~I ~I ~I==~~ ~I ~I ~ ~i
~ ~ 1~rn~rnrnlrn~n~~ ~nJrnrnrnrn~ ~'
~ ~ 1~rn~rn~rn~rn~~ ~tnrnrnrnrn~ ~'
~~1~rnkrn~rn~~1~~gnrnrnrnrn~ ~, ~g1~~r11~m~1~ ~ m~mrn~ ~, ~ w ~ ffl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ -F If ' . n 1 · .. · ~~
LJ =--J I - lJ
~
--~1- -+-+--lf-
l
I
!
!
----
I-+-
1 ~f- e--+------lf-
!
l -
!
~ -
t-
-- - ~ -
-
! !
__ u i i
ILT llT IITT rm I! u u I l J l!O 107
EBIX Insurance No. *S200004347
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
AND
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD, LLC
PREAMBLE
This Agreement is entered into between the City of Santa Clara, a chartered California municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC, A Delaware Corporation (hereinafter "Consultant"). City and Consultant may be referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Agreement."
RECITALS
A. City desires to secure the services more fully described in this Agreement, at Exhibit A, entitled "Scope of Services";
B. Consultant represents that it, and its subconsultants, if any, have the professional qualifications, expertise, necessary licenses and desire to provide certain goods and/or required services of the quality and type which meet objectives and requirements of City; and,
C. The Parties have specified herein the terms and conditions under which such services will be provided and paid for.
The Parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS
The documents forming the entire Agreement between City and Consultant shall consist of these Terms and Conditions and the following Exhibits, which are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference:
Exhibit A - Scope of Services
Exhibit B- Schedule of Fees
Exhibit C - Insurance Requirements
This Agreement, including the Exhibits set forth above, contains all the agreements, representations and understandings of the Parties, and supersedes and replaces any previous agreements, representations and understandings, whether oral or written. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page "1
of any of the Exhibits and the Terms and Conditions, the Terms and Conditions shall govern and control.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
A. Unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or unless this paragraph is subsequently modified by a written amendment to this Agreement, the Initial Term of this Agreement shall begin on October 9, 2019 and expire on September 30, 2022.
B. After the Initial Term, the City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to extend the term of this Agreement for an additional threewyear period ending September 30, 2025 ("Option Period"). City shall provide Consultant with no less than thirty (30) days prior written notice of its intention to exercise its option to extend the term of this Agreement.
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES & PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE
Consultant shall perform those Services specified in Exhibit A within the time stated in Exhibit A. Time is of the essence. However, any modifications or delays to the project schedule resulting from circumstances beyond the Consultant's reasonable control shall not be deemed to be the fault of the Consultant.
4. WARRANTY
Consultant expressly warrants that all materials and services covered by this Agreement shall be fit for the purpose intended, shall be free from defect and shall conform to the specifications, requirements and instructions upon which this Agreement is based. Consultant agrees to promptly replace or correct any incomplete, inaccurate or defective Services at no further cost to City when defects are due to the negligence, errors or omissions of Consultant. If Consultant fails to promptly correct or replace materials or services, City may make corrections or replace materials or services and charge Consultant for the cost incurred by City.
5. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONSULTANT- STANDARD OF CARE
Consultant represents and maintains that it has the expertise in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services, and its duties and obligations, expressed and implied, contained herein, and City expressly relies upon Consultant's representations regarding its skills and knowledge. Consultant shall perform such Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the professional standards of a specialist in the same discipline in the State of California.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page2
6. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
In consideration for Consultant's complete performance of Services, City shall pay Consultant for all materials provided and Services rendered by Consultant in accordance with Exhibit B, entitled "SCHEDULE OF FEES." The maximum compensation of this Agreement is Five Hundred Seventy-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Six Dollars ($578,346), subject to budget appropriations, which includes all payments that may be authorized for Services and for expenses, supplies, materials and equipment required to perform the Services. All work performed or materials provided in excess of the maximum compensation shall be at Consultant's expense. Consultant shall not be entitled to any payment above the maximum compensation under any circumstance.
7. TERMINATION
A. Termination for Convenience. City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, without cause or penalty, by giving not less than Thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Consultant.
B. Termination for Default. If Consultant fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to Consultant.
C. Upon termination, each Party shall assist the other in arranging an orderly transfer and close-out of services. As soon as possible following the notice of termination, but no later than ten (i 0) days after the notice of termination, Consultant will deliver to City all City information or material that Consultant has in its possession.
8. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING
City and Consultant bind themselves, their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written approval of City. Consultant shall not hire subconsultants without express written permission from City.
Consultant shall be as fully responsible to City for the acts and omissions of its subconsultants, and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by them, as Consultant is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by it.
9. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY
This Agreement shall not be construed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action under this Agreement for any cause whatsoever.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07·01-18
Page3
10. INDEPENDENT CONSUL TANT
Consultant and all person(s) employed by or contracted with Consultant to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement are independent consultants and do not act as agent(s) or employee(s) of City. Consultant has full rights to manage its employees in their performance of Services under this Agreement.
11. CONFIDENTIALITY OF MATERIAL
All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, manufacturing procedures, data, drawings, descriptions, documents, discussions or other information developed or received by or for Consultant and all other written information submitted to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant and shall not, without the prior written consent of City, be used for any purposes other than the performance of the Services nor be disclosed to an entity not connected with performance of the Services. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or becomes generally known to the related industry shall be deemed confidential.
12. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIAL
Provided City has complied with its obligations under this Agreement including, but not limited to, payment in full to Consultant according to the terms of this Agreement, all material, which shall include, but not be limited to, data, sketches, tracings, drawings, plans, diagrams, quantities, estimates, specifications, proposals, tests, maps, calculations, photographs, reports, designs, technology, programming, works of authorship and other material developed, collected, prepared or caused to be prepared under this Agreement shall be the property of City but Consultant may retain and use copies thereof. City shall not be limited in any way or at any time in its use of said material. However, Consultant shall not be responsible for damages resulting from the use of said material for work other than Project, including, but not limited to, the release of this material to third parties.
13. RIGHT OF CITY TO INSPECT RECORDS OF CONSULTANT
City, through its authorized employees, representatives or agents shall have the right during the term of this Agreement and for four (4) years from the date of final payment for goods or services provided under this Agreement, to audit the books and records of Consultant for the purpose of verifying any and all charges made by Consultant in connection with Consultant compensation under this Agreement, including termination of Consultant. Consultant agrees to maintain sufficient books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles to establish the correctness of all charges submitted to City. Any expenses not so recorded shall be disallowed by City. Consultant shall bear the cost of the audit if the audit determines that there has been a substantial billing deviation in excess of five (5) percent adverse to the City.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Consultant shall submit to City any and all reports concerning its performance under this Agreement that may be requested by City in writing. Consultant agrees to assist City in meeting City's reporting requirements to the State and other agencies with respect to Consultant's Services hereunder.
14. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION
A. To the extent permitted by law, Consultant agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, including all costs and attorney's fees in providing a defense to any such claim or other action, and whether sounding in law, contract, tort, or equity, in any manner arising from, or alleged to arise in whole or in part from, or in any way connected with the Services performed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement- including claims of any kind by Consultant's employees or persons contracting with Consultant to perform any portion of the Scope of Services - and shall expressly include passive or active negligence by City connected with the Services. However, the obligation to indemnify shall not apply if such liability is ultimately adjudicated to have arisen through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of City; the obligation to defend is not similarly limited.
B. Consultant's obligation to protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless in full City and City's employees, shall specifically extend to any and all employment•related claims of any type brought by employees, consultants, subconsultants or other agents of Consultant, against City (either alone, or jointly with Consultant), regardless of venue/jurisdiction in which the claim is brought and the manner of relief sought.
C. To the extent Consultant is obligated to provide health insurance coverage to its employees pursuant to the Affordable Care Act ("Act") and/or any other similar federal or state law, Consultant warrants that it is meeting its obligations under the Act and will fully indemnify and hold harmless City for any penalties, fines, adverse rulings, or tax payments associated with Consultant's responsibilities under the Act.
15. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
During the term of this Agreement, and for any time period set forth in Exhibit C, Consultant shall provide and maintain in full force and effect, at no cost to City, insurance policies as set forth in Exhibit C.
16. WAIVER
Consultant agrees that waiver by City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. Neither City's review, Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07·0"1·"18
acceptance nor payments for any of the Services required under this Agreement shall be constructed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the petformance of this Agreement.
17. NOTICES
All notices to the Parties shall, unless otherwise requested in writing, be sent to City addressed as follows:
City of Santa Clara
Attention: Community Development Department
Andrew Crabtree, Director
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
[email protected], and
[email protected]
And to Consultant addressed as follows:
Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Attention: Atisha Varshney
478 Tehama Street, Suite 28
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 575-4722
[email protected]
The workday the e-mail was sent shall control the date notice was deemed given.
An e-mail transmitted after 1 :00 p.m. on a Friday shall be deemed to have been transmitted on the following business day.
18. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including but not limited to "The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California" ("SCCC"). In particular, Consultant's attention is called to the regulations regarding Campaign Contributions (SCCC Chapter 2.130), Lobbying (SCCC Chapter 2.155), Minimum Wage (SCCC Chapter 3.20), Business Tax Certificate (SCCC section 3.40.060), and Food and Beverage Service Worker Retention (SCCC Chapter 9.60), as such Chapters or Sections may be amended from time to time or renumbered. Additionally Consultant has read and agrees to comply with City's Ethical Standards (http://santaclaraca.gov/home/showdocument?id=58299).
19. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Consultant certifies that to the best of its knowledge, no City officer, employee or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of Consultant and that no person associated with Consultant has any interest, direct or indirect, Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Agreement. Consultant is familiar with the provisions of California Government Code section 87100 and following, and certifies that it does not know of any facts which would violate these code provisions. Consultant will advise City if a conflict arises.
20. FAIR EMPLOYMENT
Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, sex, color, religion, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, age, gender, marital status, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity, military and veteran status, or ethnic background, in violation of federal, state or local law.
21. NO USE OF CITY NAME OR EMBLEM
Consultant shall not use City's name, insignia, or emblem, or distribute any information related to services under this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper or other medium without express written consent of City.
22. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California. The venue of any suit filed by either Party shall be vested in the state courts of the County of Santa Clara, or if appropriate, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose, California.
23. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
In case any one or more of the provisions in this Agreement shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect.
24. AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may only be modified by a written amendment duly authorized and executed by the Parties to this Agreement.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page7
25. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California municipal corporation
Approved as to Form: Dated: \D- \7 - \q
~ - ----- D~ l S~NTANA
City Attorney
"CITY"
City Manager
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD, LLC
a Delaware Corporation
Dated: - o/;Fn~;:;f=;~;;:;::::::;;::::=~ ----
s y (Signature)· ----;----t-----::~ ,:c-t--r,.c~~;/7,r-t- -t---- - Name: "c:--:-.,,,C-----+---- --1--- -----
T i tie: Princi al
Principal Place of 478 Tehama Street, Suite
Business Address: San Francisco, CA 94103
Email Address: [email protected]
Telephone: (415) 575-4722
Fax: (215) 732-2551
"CONSULTANT"
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
1. GENERAL
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1. Consultant shall assist the City in developing the Downtown Precise Plan.
1.2. Project Schedule:
1.2.1. Consultant shall submit a draft project schedule to the City for review and approval. The City shall not unreasonably withhold approval.
1.2.2. The project schedule shall include the tasks listed below as well as the completion dates for each.
1.2.3. Consultant shall complete the tasks listed below by the scheduled date for each task in the final project schedule.
1.3. Subconsultants: The following subconsultants have been approved to perform services under this Agreement.
1.3.1. CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group (Civil Engineering);
1.3.2. David J. Powers & Associates (CEQA);
1.3.3. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (Economics);
1.3.4. Greensfelder Real Estate Strategy (Place-making);
1.3.5. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Transportation); and
1.3.6. Sargent Town Planning (Retail Strategy).
2. DOWNTOWN PRECISE PLAN CONSUL TANT SERVICES
Consultant shall complete each task listed below.
Task No. 1: Project Initiation
Consultant will complete the subtasks outlined below.
Subtask No. 1.1: Kick~off Meeting w/ Consultant Team
A. Services: Consultant and subconsultants will meet with City staff to review the project description, scope of work, timeline and budget.
B. Deliverable: Attend kick-off meeting.
Subtask No. 1.2: Base Map Development
A. Services: Consultant shall assist City staff in preparing base maps. The base maps shall include:
1. A map that demonstrates the adjacent context, public transit and major transportation routes, parks, schools, and project boundary;
2. The location of the Downtown Precise Plan Area (''Plan Area") in the greater context of the other focus areas and the City of Santa Clara; Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page A-1
3. Aerial maps, General Plan land use and zoning maps;
4. A map of the Plan Area showing streets, curbs, parcels, buildings, landscape features, and parking areas; and
5. Any other tasks in this scope that require mapping.
8. Deliverable:
Base map development.
Subtask No. 1.3 Existing Conditions Report (Data Collection & Analysis):
A. Services: Consultant team, with City assistance, shall collect and analyze existing data and existing conditions and create a brief report. The analysis of the study area-including the Plan Area and its immediate context will include, but not be limited to:
1. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, including population, households, age, ethnicity, language, place of birth and residence, disability, income and poverty status;
2. Property ownership;
3. Employment (number of jobs by wage/salary and occupation);
4. Planned land use and zoning designations, and relevant planning guidance in the form of policies pertaining to land use, development, urban design, parks and public facilities, historic preservation;
5. Summary of previous planning efforts for the project area;
6. Summary of other relevant Planning documents that will inform the Precise Plan;
7. Development projects in the pipeline and underway;
8. Existing affordable housing (including existing restricted and unrestricted affordable housing sites);
9. Historic structures and places and historic background of the Downtown;
10. Site Character;
11. Block Pattern, building pattern, parking surfaces, community anchors, character areas, critical linkages, streetscape, public realm, and vocabulary of landscape and development features;
12. Existing/proposed public transportation (including stop locations and frequencies), roadway facilities, bike and pedestrian routes;
13. Transit ridership and multimodal traffic volume data; i.e. vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian, travel mode to work, travel and circulation patterns;
14. Existing operations of each transportation system component based on available data;
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page A-2
15. Existing/proposed infrastructure capacity;
16. Existing land use (inventory of housing, jobs, parks, neighborhood amenities/retail, community facilities, social services, and schools/playgrounds) and physical characteristics; and
17. Natural hazards data.
B. Deliverable: Submission of Existing Conditions Report in editable Microsoft Word and PDF formats.
Subtask No. 1.4: Opportunities and Constraints Analysis A. Services: The vision for the Downtown is to promote it as the historic, economic, and cultural heart of the City in such a way that enhances its strong business climate and bolsters the City's high quality of life. Consultant shall identify opportunities for development, and where the development will be constrained.
Specific objectives include:
1. Identifying assets on which to build, such as the character of surrounding neighborhoods; successful businesses, programs and gathering spaces; proximity to transit and the university;
2. Identifying design goals and policies necessary for future development to successfully meet the vision for the Plan Area;
3. Considering how to support historic preservation and sensitively transition new development to the adjacent single-family neighborhood;
4. Exploring options for connecting the area to transit, particularly to the Santa Clara Transit Station, and re-stitching the street grid;
5. Identifying curb-side management strategies to incorporate evolving transportation technologies and the shared economy;
6. Identifying potential future development sites within the Plan Area, and how future development could proceed in phases;
7. Site Constraints;
8. Development parameters and opportunities based on current zoning regulations;
9. Ground truthing the development capacity identified in the General Plan (i 29,300 square feet of new commercial uses and 396 new residential units) and considering the "fit" between realistic development outcomes under the existing plan and the emerging vision for the Plan Area.
B. Deliverable: Opportunities and Constraints report, including maps, graphics, and narrative necessary to convey the results of the analysis.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page A-3
Task No. 2: Issue Identification and Vision
Consultant will complete the tasks outlined below.
A. Services: Develop Community Involvement/ Public Outreach Strategy The Consultant shall develop a collaborative public outreach strategy for the project.
The strategy shall outline the process for engaging stakeholders, leaders, community groups, minority populations, and other interested citizens in crafting a Precise Plan for the Downtown Focus Area. The Public Outreach Strategy shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Online Engagement Tools. Consultant will provide graphics and interactive materials for the City's website and social media, to mirror and augment in person engagement and expand the community outreach to a diverse population. Consultant will revise or monitor the on line engagement tool based on the feedback from City staff or community if necessary.
2. Establish Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The focus of the TAC will be to provide technical feedback at key points in the planning process. City staff will take the lead in establishing and coordinating the TAC and identifying specific members. The Consultant will provide feedback to the TAC members and facilitate and lead discussions, present technical materials, and take summary notes at three (3) TAC meetings. The following are the anticipated meeting topics requiring Consultant attendance.
• Meeting 1: Project overview and input from participants on the Public Outreach Strategy, Existing Conditions Report, and Opportunities and Constraints Analysis.
• Meeting 2: Review of potential plan scenarios and input on preferred direction.
• Meeting 3: Review of and input on plan framework, urban design and streetscape characteristics.
3. Downtown Community Task Force (DCTF). The focus of the DCTF will be to provide project updates, review the progress of the work and plan specifics, discuss issues and direction, and provide input. City staff has established the DCTF and identified the specific members. The Consultant team shall prepare meeting agendas, act as the facilitator for each of the task force meetings and lead discussions, present technical materials, and take summary notes. The following are the anticipated meeting topics requiring Consultant attendance. Additional meetings may be needed as the project progresses.
• Meeting 1: Project overview (including Existing Conditions Report) and input from participants on identifying community assets, anchors and challenges, opportunity development sites to address in the development of the Plan, and to help the DCTF articulate the vision for the Plan Area.
• Meeting 2: Overview of financial analysis. Review of potential plan Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-0i-18
Page A-4
scenarios (created in Task 4 below) and input on preferred direction. • Meeting 3: Review and input on plan framework, which may include land use, multi-modal connectivity, streetscape alternatives, and urban design standards.
• Meeting 4: Review of public draft or adoption draft plan, and input on any refinements or additional details necessary.
4. Public Meetings. Facilitate events such as workshops, town halls, and open houses, and direct engagement such as pop-up workshops, focus groups, or interviews with stakeholders and/or focus groups. The Consultant team will work with City staff to identify residents, businesses, property owners, relevant public agencies, community groups, neighborhood associations, nonprofits, and faith-based organizations for outreach. The City will provide noticing and outreach for all community workshops. At a minimum, there shall be three (3) public meetings, two (2) workshops and one (1) open house.
5. Planning Commission / City Council Study Sessions. The Consultant shall assume presentations of draft material for at least two (2) Planning Commission and two (2) City Council study sessions.
To ensure meaningful engagement opportunities across the Plan Area's population, the strategy will identify any needed translation services required at the engagement activities defined in this task-using the demographic data gathered for the existing conditions report to understand level of need by specific language.
8. Deliverables:
1. Public Outreach Strategy memo that includes an outline of the key steps of the outreach process and anticipated schedule of when various engagement activities would occur.
2. Graphics and interactive materials for the City's website and social media.
3. Materials necessary to facilitate community, DCTF, and TAC meetings, including but not limited to; a PowerPoint Presentation; Exhibition boards; and meeting agenda.
4. Meeting summaries documenting input at TAC, DCTF, and stakeholder meetings.
5. Attendance at three (3) Technical Advisory Committee meetings.
6. Attendance at four (4) Downtown Community Task Force meetings.
7. Attendance at five (5) Stakeholder meetings.
8. Attendance at two (2) Planning Commission hearings and two (2) City Council Study Sessions.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page A-5
Task No. 3: Financial Analysis - Economic Sustainability Consultant will complete the tasks outlined below.
A. Services: Develop a Financial Analysis and Commercial Retention Strategy
1. The Consultant will analyze potential market demand for housing, commercial, office, and mixed-use development in the Precise Plan Area.
This analysis shall include the following.
a) Market Assessment: Consultant will establish and document real estate market potential and development factors relevant to the Downtown Plan Area. As part of its market assessment, Consultant will consider broad market trends as well as detailed information concerning new, high-performing local and regional comparable projects, including their market positioning, architectural format, amenity offerings, and market value.
• Socioeconomic and Market Trends: Consultant will establish and document real estate market potential and development factors relevant to the Downtown Plan Area. As part of its market assessment, Consultant will consider broad market trends as well as detailed information concerning new, high-performing local and regional comparable projects, including their market positioning, architectural format, amenity offerings, and market value • Market Valuations: Consultant will study real estate market product values in the local and regional market, including sale values and lease rates for product types that may be most appropriate for development for the Downtown. This focus on product valuation will home in on specific building sale and lease transactions. Consultant will consider a range of potentially comparable projects, developing case studies as appropriate, to establish market data for subsequent financial pro forma feasibility analysis.
b) Financial Feasibility: Consultant will develop a proforma financial analysis to inform the financial viability of potential projects for the Downtown.
c) Retail Strategy: Greensfelder Real Estate will work with Consultant on the economic analysis around commercial space, providing greater depth of experience in the specific retail segments and space needs that may be suited to Downtown Santa Clara to include:
• Analysis of potential key retail sites; and
• Recommendations on how ground floor commercial should be laid out along the connection axis between the Downtown area and transportation hubs.
2. The Consultant shall review the planned development program (129,300 square feet of new commercial uses and 396 new residential units) against real estate market conditions and trends within the Plan Area and the larger Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page A-6
surrounding market area and assess the potential competitiveness of the Plan Area in capturing enough demand to support the planned build-out and assess the economic challenges to creating the desired development pattern.
Consultant shall make recommendations on what type and amount of development and density will be needed to make it feasible to redevelop the Plan Area and support infrastructure needs and desires.
3. Based on the findings from the work above, the Consultant shall develop a recommended strategy that the City can take to overcome any identified challenges.
B. Deliverable: Financial analysis report including findings from the market assessment and financial feasibility testing. Specifically, the report will include recommendations on the amount, size, type, and location of commercial uses, and assessment of the potential of the Plan Area to support the planned build out. The report also will make suggestions for Plan implementation that seek to achieve the City's vision of an active Downtown destination.
Task No. 4: Development Scenarios / Conceptual Plans
Consultant will complete the subtasks outlined below.
Subtask No. 4.1: Land Use and Circulation Scenario Development A. Services: Consultant team will develop three (3) long-term vision scenarios for the Plan Area. The scenarios shall represent the planned build-out of the Plan Area and could include different land use and development intensities, key development sites, multi-modal connectivity improvements, open space plans, streetscape and public space improvements, infrastructure improvements, preserved or enhanced community anchors, and other physical changes to illustrate the various alternatives and potential concepts for the future of the area.
The water, sewer, electrical and natural gas demand associated with development under each scenario will also be assessed.
The intent of the scenarios is to enable long-term creative thinking for the Plan Area around several topics, by providing a small number of initial concepts for the community, City staff, elected officials, and other stakeholders to respond to.
The concepts will be informed by the market and financial feasibility analysis (Task 3 above) and be feasible under current or potential future market conditions. The land use scenarios will be vetted with the DCTF and the TAC and used as a starting point for community feedback and creative problem solving in a workshop format.
B. Deliverable: Land Use Scenarios Memorandum, including maps and graphics for each scenario; a "fact sheet" that provides an overview of development potential, land use mix, potential intensities and heights, anticipated growth in residents and/or workers, potential new public spaces, and consideration of tradeoffs; and precedent images that illustrate development types associated with each scenario. The Consultant team will refine the concepts and finalize them for Workshop #"1 based on the comments received from City staff, the TAC Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-0'1-18
Page A-7
and the DCTF.
Subtask No. 4.2: Plan Framework and Urban Design Team Charrette A. Services: Based on feedback on the land use concepts, including critical feedback from the first workshop, the Consultant team will create a "plan framework" that best expresses the community's vision for the fundamental elements, relationships, and character of future Downtown development. This plan framework will be the starting point for discussions with the DCTF and TAC in a second round of meetings that will also be the launching point for a 3-day team charrette.
B. Deliverable: Plan Framework and Urban Design Team Charrette.
Subtask No. 4.3: Opportunity Site Development Scenarios A. Services: The Consultant, with assistance from the City and the DCTF (meeting #1 in Task 2 above) and based on the land use scenario development in Subtask
4.1 above, shall identify at least three (3) opportunity sites for which to model three (3) physical development options, including photo-simulations and/or other visual graphics necessary to depict potential new development. These graphics shall illustrate design concepts for vision, land use, open space and placemaking, urban design and streetscape and circulation chapters. The outcomes of this task shall inform the content of Workshop# 2 in Subtask 5.2 below and the development of the design guidelines for the Draft Plan in Subtask
6.6 below.
B. Deliverable:
1. Opportunity Site Development Scenarios Memorandum. The opportunity site development scenarios memorandum shall include diagrams used to illustrate the development of at least three (3) opportunity sites each with three (3) physical development options that may be depicted using 30 models, photo simulations, plans, and sections. These graphics shall illustrate design concepts for vision, land use, open space and place making, urban design and streetscape and circulation chapters.
Each of the development options shall be accompanied by descriptions, diagrams, development tables, pros and cons comparisons, and a summary of the effectiveness of each alternative in meeting project goals and indicators or addressing significant issues project issues.
It is expected that some of these graphics will be used in the final Plan document and will therefore require multiple revisions based on City staff and public comments. As such, the Consultant shall make changes to the graphics to the satisfaction of City staff.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page A-8
Task No. 5: Workshops
Consultant will complete the subtasks outlined below.
Subtask No. 5.1: Workshop #1: Identifying Plan Principles, Opportunities and Constraints, Land Use
A. Services: The first workshop shall introduce community members to the project, present existing conditions and background research, summarize the public outreach strategy, and gather public input on the opportunities, constraints, goals, principles, and a vision for the Plan Area as determined by City staff and the Consultant. The workshop shall build on the work completed in Subtask 4.1 above. The presentation should include context-sensitive development examples and sketches that can be used for gauging community preferences.
B. Deliverables:
1. Facilitate Workshop #1.
2. Provide an agenda, PowerPoint presentation, and a minimum of five exhibition boards and other graphic materials necessary for community engagement activities.
3. Provide a workshop summary report that will be published on the City's website and shared with the community. This shall be done in a maximum of two weeks after the workshop.
4. Prepare the draft guiding principles/vision. The draft guiding principles/vision report shall identify the guiding principles and vision inspired by community input and will be used for the entire planning process.
Subtask No. 5.2: Workshop #2: Urban Design & Circulation/ Streetscape A. Services: The second workshop shall present the results of stakeholder and community feedback from Workshop #1 , build upon the work completed in Subtask 4.3 above, and introduce urban design, streetscape, and circulation concepts, as well as conceptual development alternatives. The workshop shall be geared towards receiving feedback on the draft concepts, alternatives, and features that are desired in the Plan Area, which will be used to help shape the draft Precise Plan.
B. Deliverables:
1. Provide an agenda, PowerPoint presentation, and a minimum of eight (8) exhibition boards and other graphic materials necessary for community engagement activities.
2. Provide a workshop summary report that will be published on the City's website and shared with the community. This shall be done in a maximum of two weeks after the workshop.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page A-9
Task No. 6: Develop Draft Precise Plan Chapters
Consultant will complete the subtasks outlined below.
A. Services:
The Consultant team will create the draft Plan based on the results of the Land Use Scenarios and Opportunity Site Development Scenarios memorandums, existing conditions report and the results of the public engagement process.
The Consultant team shall develop a template for the draft Precise Plan document in Adobe InDesign. The draft Precise Plan shall address the topics discussed in the subtasks below. Each chapter shall identify principles for the given topic supported by goals, policies, standards, and guidelines as appropriate. The Plan shall include supporting illustrations and graphics that support the narrative.
1. Task 6.1: Introduction: Description of the project setting, purpose of the document, relationship to other City plans and policies, and a description of the planning process used to develop the Plan and the role the public played in creating the Plan.
2. Task 6.2: Vision & Guiding Principles: Describes the overall vision and principles of the Plan.
3. Task 6.3: Goals & Policies: The goals and policies for the Precise Plan shall provide a framework for the physical development of the Plan Area and support the vision for the Plan. The goals and policies shall include, and build upon, the existing policies in the General Plan for the Downtown Focus Area, as well as the City-wide policies related to areas of historic sensitivity, in Section 5.6, and neighborhood compatibility, in Section 5.5.
4. Task 6.4: Land Use Plan
a) The land use fabric shall be designed to facilitate the development of a complete community with a mix of land uses that promote increased pedestrian activity and contribute towards the development of a strong community identity with vibrant public spaces. The land use plan shall also reflect historic structures and transitions to single~family homes. b) Development within the Plan Area could be at intensities of almost 2.0 FAR, with building heights between five and eight stories. Allowed building intensity and heights in the remainder of the Plan Area are typically lower, with maximum heights between three and four stories.
Description of land use designations should reflect the planned total number of units and square footage of non-residential uses. Population and job projections should also be included.
5. Task 6.5: Circulation & Parking
a) To support the development of the preferred alternative and to create "complete" streets for all modes and improve access and safety in and around the Plan Area, the Consultant shall identify conceptual circulation and roadway improvements, and policies and guidelines to support such improvements. The circulation and roadway
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page A-,o
improvements will be identified through the results of a transportation and circulation analysis. The analysis shall focus particularly on improving bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access within and to the Plan Area. Specifically, connections to nearby destinations, such as the Santa Clara Transit Station, Santa Clara University, the Old Quad neighborhood, El Camino Real, and City Hall, should be emphasized for pedestrian and bicycle movement. The vision in the General Plan for the Downtown Focus Area includes a future transit loop to connect the Downtown area to the Santa Clara Transit Station, and possibly the aforementioned areas.
b) The circulation network for the Precise Plan shall serve all modes of travel and may include new streets, paths and connections to existing roadways. Specifically, the General Plan calls for reconnecting Franklin Street and returning the street grid. Storm water management in the public right-of-way shall also be addressed. Circulation maps, graphics, and cross section recommendations for streets and path facilities in the Plan Area shall be prepared.
c) Parking management strategies and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) parking ratios shall be identified, as well as a range of Transportation Demand Management (TOM) measures that may be applied to future development projects.
d) Wayfinding Program: The Consultant shall develop a comprehensive wayfinding and community identification sign program to promote the identity of the Downtown Plan Area and make it easier for visitors to find their way around and enhance the overall experience. As a part of this program, gateway locations should be identified.
6. Task 6.6: Design Guidelines
The design guidelines shall build upon the City's existing General Plan design policies, as well as the information gathered at the community workshops, TAC, and DCTF meetings, to identify additional guidelines that should apply specifically to this Plan. These guidelines shall be designed to facilitate attractive pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-oriented development that is also consistent with sustainability and green building best practices. The design guidelines shall be supported with illustrations and graphics necessary to provide a clear understanding of the intent of key guidelines. a) Building Design Guidelines: For new development within the Plan Area the building design guidelines shall address: building siting; bulk and massing; height; setbacks; transitions to adjacent existing low scale uses; transitions and sensitivity to adjacent historic resources; building articulation; architecture; landscape design strategies; and parking design.
b) Open Space Design Guidelines: Open space design guidelines shall address the provision for adequate public and private open space as Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-0"1-18
Page A-"1 "1
an integral part of the conceptual land-use alternatives and site planning for new development. These guidelines shall also address creating a network of open spaces connected by greenways and/or pedestrian-priority streets that complement and connect with other existing open spaces within a half mile distance of the Plan Area. c) Streetscape / Public Realm Design Guidelines: The Consultant shall develop "public realm" streetscape plans that identify conceptual improvements for specific locations from the range of options discussed with the community. Streetscape improvements should include enhanced bikeways, widened and enhanced sidewalks and park strips, street trees, medians, pedestrian bulb-outs and pedestrian crossing refuge areas, transit stop improvements, enhanced crosswalks, placemaking strategies, public space and plazas, lighting, landscape and furnishings, signage, etc. The Consultant shall provide graphic representations of the streetscape plans, including:
• Before/after photomontage (simulation) illustrations for streetscape and circulation improvements;
• Streetscape sections; and
• Diagrams/graphics that illustrate streetscape improvement concepts, including, but not limited to, crosswalks, bike lanes, intersection improvements, curb ramps, and pedestrian refuge islands.
7. Public Services and Implementation
a) The Consultant shall include information about services and infrastructure needed to implement the Plan, including specific policies regarding utilities, public safety, and parks.
b) The Plan shall also identify actions and strategies for its implementation, including needed infrastructure improvements, such as roadways and parkland, and financing strategies to enable these improvements. An evaluation of projected costs and revenues associated with the proposed new streets (including utility infrastructure) and trolley loop and its potential effect on the City's budget should also be included.
B. Deliverables:
1. Administrative Draft Downtown Precise Plan:
a) One (1) Microsoft Word copy of the Plan (text only); b) One (1) Adobe lnDesign template for the Plan document; c) One (1) Adobe lnDesign copy of the Plan;
d) All electronic source files used to create the document; and e) All electronic supplementary files to the report.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-0i-"18
Page A-i 2
Task No. 7: Community Open House
Consultant will complete the tasks outlined below.
A. Services: The Consultant team shall assist staff in hosting an open house to present the Draft Plan to the community and provide an opportunity for the community to comment.
B. Deliverables:
1. Prepare and provide an agenda, PowerPoint presentation, and exhibition boards.
2. Facilitate the Community Open House.
3. Provide a workshop summary report that will be published on the City's website and shared with the community. This shall be done in a maximum of two weeks after the workshop.
Task No.8: Draft Plan Refinement
Consultant will complete the tasks outlined below.
A. Services: Refine the Plan document based on the comments received from the open house and TAC and DCTF meetings. The plan refinement may require multiple revisions in coordination with City staff.
B. Deliverables:
1. One (1) Adobe In Design copy of the refined Draft Plan.
2. All electronic source files used to create the document.
3. All electronic supplementary files to the report.
4. One (1) fully editable PDF copy of the refined Draft Plan.
Task No. 9: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Clearance Consultant will complete the subtasks outlined below.
Subtask No. 9.1: Define Project, Review Data, Determine Existing Conditions, and Determine CEQA Strategy
A. Services: The Consultant shall work with City staff to define and determine the CEQA strategy necessary to prepare and complete the necessary CEQA documentation for adoption of the Precise Plan. The Consultant shall participate in a kick-off meeting to help determine the CEQA strategy and schedule. The meeting agenda shall include, but not be limited to, defining the scope, identifying the sections to include in the environmental document, collecting the necessary data and research, and determining the existing conditions.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page A-"13
B. Deliverables:
1. Attend Kick-off meeting.
2. CEQA Strategy and Schedule.
Subtask No. 9.2: Prepare Draft Environmental Review Clearance Documents A. Services: Consultant shall prepare draft environmental review clearance documents. The environmental review scope is anticipated to include a program level Initial Study with technical studies, and Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration that tier off the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan The document shall address all required CEQA topics. At a minimum, technical studies will be required for cultural resources, traffic, and air quality.
B. Deliverables:
1. Notice of Determination, one draft and one final version.
2. Attend one Planning Commission and one City Council hearing.
3. Prepare final Initial Study.
However, if an EIR is required, the report shall include the following deliverables:
1. Prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) (one draft and one final).
2. Assist City staff with scoping meeting(s); review, compile, and respond to comments received.
3. Prepare Administrative and public draft EIR.
4. Prepare a Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Availability (NOA) (one draft and one final).
5. Prepare the First Amendment to the Draft EIR; including Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, if applicable.
6. Prepare Notice of Determination (NOD) (one draft and one final).
7. Attend one (1) Planning Commission and one (1) City Council hearing.
8. Prepare final environmental document.
Task No. 10: Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearings Consultant will complete the subtasks outlined below.
Subtask No. 10.1: Planning Commission Hearing
A. Services: The Consultant team shall make changes to the draft document (text and/or graphics) based on the Planning Commission's recommendations.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-0i-18
Page A-'14
B. Deliverables:
1. Attendance at Planning Commission Hearing.
2. Preparation of material content for staff report and PowerPoint presentation.
Subtask No. 10.2: City Council Hearing
A. Services: The Consultant team shall make changes to the draft document (text and/or graphics) based on the City Council's recommendations.
B. Deliverable:
1. Attendance at City Council Hearing.
2. Preparation of material content for staff report and PowerPoint presentation.
3. OPTIONAL TASKS
At the City's sole option, the Consultant may assist the City with the development of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the sale or lease for the development of City owned properties located within the Downtown Precise Plan Area, by performing one or more of the services described below. All optional tasks performed shall be priced pursuant to the pricing stated in the Optional Task Price List in Exhibit B, Section 4.
3.1. Optional Tasks
5.4.1. Developer Round Table Conference: Consultant shall engage with the developer community to form a panel that reflects the various project types that may be appropriate to different areas of the Downtown study area. Consultant shall facilitate a round table conference where the developers will show the projects they have built and explain how they may be appropriate to certain downtown infill opportunities and what project characteristics would be attractive to them.
5.4.2. Student Engagement: Consultant shall perform targeted outreach to students at Santa Clara University, local high schools and other youth organizations to engage them in shaping the future of Downtown Santa Clara.
5.4.3. Summer Event Pop-Ups: Consultant shall facilitate up to three (3) pop-up booths at city-wide events such as farmers markets, art & wine festivals, street dance events, the Fourth of July City picnic, etc.
5.4.4. Meeting in A Box: Consultant shall provide a complete package of engagement tools to City staff or partner organizations to conduct outreach and engagement meetings. Consultant shall also perform an audit of the meeting(s) with TAC/DCTF members and
stakeholders.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-"18
Page A-15
5.4.5. Retail "101" Workshop: Consultant shall present a workshop discussing how retailers determine if a new store is warranted; how data is collected and analyzed; how real estate is evaluated; and how internal decision processes work. Participant takeaways shall include an understanding of retailer processes, so they can determine whether a retailer cares about a particular property, and how to communicate a property's compelling attributes to a potential retail tenant.
5.4.6. Ground-Floor Retail Best Practices Guidance Document: Consultant will prepare a guidance document for City staff (and developers) to use to make sure that ground floor space is designed appropriately for retail uses.
5.4.7. Illustrations: Consultant shall provide artist renderings of the preferred concept.
5.4.8. Phase 1 Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study's Hazardous Materials section will be augmented by a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Consultant, or Subconsultant. Mitigation measures to reduce significant hazard and hazardous material impacts will be identified, as appropriate.
5.4.9. Environmental Impact Report: Consultant shall prepare an Environmental Impact Report.
5.4.10. Support Preparation of Developer RFP: Consultant shall assist the City in the preparation and review of a developer RFP.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page A-16
1. Maximum Compensation
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF FEES
The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to Consultant shall not exceed Five Hundred Seventy-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Six Dollars ($578,346).
2. Project Tasks
City shall pay Consultant for completed Downtown Precise Plan preparation tasks as set forth in the Scope of Services (Exhibit A) at the rates listed in Table B1 - Payment Schedule below.
3. Reimbursable Expenses
City shall pay Consultant for approved reimbursable expenses. The total not-to-exceed compensation for reimbursable expenses is listed in Table B1- Payment Schedule below.
Table B1 - Payment Schedule
Task Number Deliverable
1.1 Project Initiation Kick-off Meeting
1.3 Existing Conditions Report
1.4 Opportunities and Constraints Report
2 Public Outreach Strategy Memo
2 Online Community Engagement Tool
2 Materials for Meetings
2 Meeting Minutes and Comment Summaries
2 Attend Three TAC Meetings
2 Attend Four DCTF Meetings
2 Attend up to Five Public Meetings
2 Attend Two Planning Commission Hearings
and Two City Council Study Sessions
3 Financial Analysis Report
4.1 Land Use Scenarios Memo
4.2 Opportunity Site Development Scenarios
Memorandum
5 Plan, Schedule, and Facilitate Two Workshops
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-0i-iB
Cost
$19,910
$33,945
$13,170
$1,850
$6,970
$3,660
$3,120
$11,230
$15,880
$5,240
$10,320
$31,260
$38,235
$36,505
$21,014
Page B-1
5 Draft guiding principles/vision report for
Workshop #1
5 Workshop summary report for two workshops
6 Administrative Draft Downtown Precise Plan
7 Prepare agenda, PowerPoint Presentation,
and exhibition boards, and attend Community
Open House
7 Workshop summary report for Community
Open House
8 Refine the draft Plan document
9.1 Attend CEQA project meeting
9.1 Prepare CEQA strategy and schedule
documents
9.2 Administrative draft environmental document
9.2 Notice of Preparation
9.2 Assist City staff with scoping meeting(s);
review, compile, and respond to comments
received
9.2 Prepare Administrative and public draft EIR
9.2 Prepare a Notice of Completion and Notice of
Availability
9.2 Prepare amendment to draft EIR
9.2 Notice of Determination
9.2 Attend one Planning Commission hearing and
one City Council hearing
9.2 Final draft of the EIR
10.1 Attend Planning Commission Hearing
10.2 Attend City Council Hearing
10.2 Materials for the staff report and PowerPoint
presentation
i--ai Reimbursable Expenses
TOTAL
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
$540
$567
$68,380
$9,994
$526
$12,880
$2,930
$69,950
$5,160
$5,160
$9,680
$14,295
$452,371
Page B-2
4. Optional Tasks
4.1. At the City's sole option Consultant shall perform the optional task(s) listed in Exhibit A, Section 3 entitled "Optional Tasks".
4.2. City shall pay Consultant for completed optional tasks at the rates listed in Table B2- 0ptional Task Price List below.
Table B2 - Optional Task Price List
Task Cost
Developer Round Table Conference $8,320
Student Engagement $7,500
Summer Event Pop-Ups $8,020
Meeting in A Box $2,940
Retail "101 ll Workshop $2,500
Ground-Floor Retail Best Practices Guidance Document $4,000 Phase 1 Environmental Assessment $14,375
Prepare EIR $30,000 -
$70,000
Support Preparation of Developer RFP (per site) $8,320
5. Invoicing
5.1. Consultant shall submit to the City a monthly invoice by the fifteenth (15th) day of each month, in arrears, for payment for services performed the previous month, pursuant to this Agreement.
5.2. Each invoice shall include the task costs for the previous month. The invoiced task costs shall be in a separate section from the reimbursable expenses.
5.3. The City shall review the invoice submitted by Consultant and within ten (10) working days of receipt of the invoice, the City shall notify Consultant of any discrepancies or deficiencies in said invoice.
5.4. If the City disputes an expense in an invoice, the City may deduct the disputed expense from the payment of that invoice, provided that the City submits to the Consultant a written explanation of why the expense is being disputed.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page B-3
8. Payment to Consultant
8.1. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the City shall make monthly payments within thirty (30) calendar days from the City's approval of Consultant's invoice.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-0i-i8
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Without limiting the Consultant's indemnification of the City, and prior to commencing any of the Services required under this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide and maintain in full force and effect, at its sole cost and expense, the following insurance policies with at least the indicated coverages, provisions and endorsements:
A. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE
1. Commercial General Liability Insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01. Policy limits are subject to review, but shall in no event be less than, the following:
$1,000,000 Each Occurrence
$2,000,000 General Aggregate
$2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate
$1,000,000 Personal Injury
2. Exact structure and layering of the coverage shall be left to the discretion of Consultant; however, any excess or umbrella policies used to meet the required limits shall be at least as broad as the underlying coverage and shall otherwise follow form.
3. The following provisions shall apply to the Commercial Liability policy as well as any umbrella policy maintained by the Consultant to comply with the insurance requirements of this Agreement:
a. Coverage shall be on a "pay on behalf" basis with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits;
b. There shall be no cross-liability exclusion which precludes coverage for claims or suits by one insured against another; and c. Coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.
B. BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY INSURANCE
Business automobile liability insurance policy which provides coverage at least as broad as ISO form CA 00 01 with policy limits a minimum limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident using, or providing coverage at least as broad as, Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01. Liability coverage shall apply to all owned, non-owned and hired autos.
In the event that the Work being performed under this Agreement involves transporting of hazardous or regulated substances, hazardous or regulated Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page C-1
wastes and/or hazardous or regulated materials, Consultant and/or its subconsultants involved in such activities shall provide coverage with a limit of two million dollars ($2,000,000) per accident covering transportation of such materials by the addition to the Business Auto Coverage Policy of Environmental Impairment Endorsement MCS90 or Insurance Services Office endorsement form CA 99 48, which amends the pollution exclusion in the standard Business Automobile Policy to cover pollutants that are in or upon, being transported or towed by, being loaded onto, or being unloaded from a covered auto.
C. WORKERS' COMPENSATION
1. Workers' Compensation Insurance Policy as required by statute and employer's liability with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) policy limit Bodily Injury by disease, one million dollars ($1,000,000) each accident/Bodily Injury and one million dollars ($1,000,000) each employee Bodily Injury by disease.
2. The indemnification and hold harmless obligations of Consultant included in this Agreement shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damage, compensation or benefit payable by or for Consultant or any subconsultant under any Workers' Compensation Act(s), Disability Benefits Act(s) or other employee benefits act(s).
3. This policy must include a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents.
D. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
Professional Liability or Errors and Omissions Insurance as appropriate shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. Covered services as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this agreement. Coverage shall be in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim or two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate. Any coverage containing a deductible or self-retention must first be approved in writing by the City Attorney's Office.
E. COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS
All of the following clauses and/or endorsements, or similar provisions, must be part of each commercial general liability policy, and each umbrella or excess policy.
1. Additional Insureds. City of Santa Clara, its City Council, commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents are hereby added as additional insureds in respect to liability arising out of Consultant's work for City, using Insurance Services Office (ISO) Endorsement CG 201011 85 Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-1 B
Page C-2
or the combination of CG 20 10 03 97 and CG 20 37 10 01, or its equivalent.
2. Primary and non-contributing. Each insurance policy provided by Consultant shall contain language or be endorsed to contain wording making it primary insurance as respects to, and not requiring contribution from, any other insurance which the Indemnities may possess, including any self-insurance or self-insured retention they may have. Any other insurance Indemnities may possess shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not be called upon to contribute with Consultant's insurance.
3. Cancellation.
4. a. Each insurance policy shall contain language or be endorsed to reflect that no cancellation or modification of the coverage provided due to non-payment of premiums shall be effective until written notice has been given to City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of such modification or cancellation. In the event of non-renewal, written notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of non-renewal.
b. Each insurance policy shall contain language or be endorsed to reflect that no cancellation or modification of the coverage provided for any cause save and except non-payment of premiums shall be effective until written notice has been given to City at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such modification or cancellation. In the event of non-renewal, written notice shall be given at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of non renewal.
Other Endorsements. Other endorsements may be required for policies other than the commercial general liability policy if specified in the description of required insurance set forth in Sections A through D of this Exhibit C, above.
F. ADDITIONAL INSURANCE RELATED PROVISIONS
Consultant and City agree as follows:
1. Consultant agrees to ensure that subconsultants, and any other party involved with the Services who is brought onto or involved in the performance of the Services by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Consultant, except as with respect to limits. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement. Consultant agrees that upon request by City, all agreements with, and insurance compliance Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page C-3
documents provided by, such subconsultants and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
2. Consultant agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party involved in any way with the project reserves the right to charge City or Consultant for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this Agreement. Any such provisions are to be deleted with reference to City. It is not the intent of City to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against City for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.
3. The City reserves the right to withhold payments from the Consultant in the event of material noncompliance with the insurance requirements set forth in this Agreement.
G. EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE
Prior to commencement of any Services under this Agreement, Consultant, and each and every subconsultant (of every tier) shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide and maintain not less than the minimum insurance coverage with the endorsements and deductibles indicated in this Agreement. Such insurance coverage shall be maintained with insurers, and under forms of policies, satisfactory to City and as described in this Agreement. Consultant shall file with the City all certificates and endorsements for the required insurance policies for City's approval as to adequacy of the insurance protection.
H. EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE
Consultant or its insurance broker shall provide the required proof of insurance compliance, consisting of Insurance Services Office (ISO) endorsement forms or their equivalent and the ACORD form 25"8 certificate of insurance (or its equivalent), evidencing all required coverage shall be delivered to City, or its representative as set forth below, at or prior to execution of this Agreement.
Upon City's request, Consultant shall submit to City copies of the actual insurance policies or renewals or replacements. Unless otherwise required by the terms of this Agreement, all certificates, endorsements, coverage verifications and other items required to be delivered to City pursuant to this Agreement shall be mailed to:
EBIX Inc.
City of Santa Clara, Parks and Recreation Department
P .0. Box 100085 - 82 or 1 Ebix Way
Duluth, GA 30096 John's Creek, GA 30097
Telephone number: 951-766-2280
Fax number: 770-325-0409
Email address: [email protected]
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page C-4
I. QUALIFYING INSURERS
All of the insurance companies providing insurance for Consultant shall have, and provide written proof of, an A. M. Best rating of at least A minus 6 (A- VI) or shall be an insurance company of equal financial stability that is approved by the City or its insurance compliance representatives.
Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
Rev. 07-01-18
Page C-5
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
19-1006 Agenda Date: 10/8/2019
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Action on the Award of Agreement to Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC for Downtown Precise Plan Consultant Services and Related Budget Amendment
BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Clara’s 2010-2035 General Plan identifies focus areas throughout the City, including the Downtown area, to promote the City’s diverse economic base and meet the demand for housing that addresses job growth in the City and region.
In August 2015, the Santa Clara City Council adopted a Strategic Objective to evaluate a Santa Clara Downtown/Super Block project. The City then hired an urban design consultant to help facilitate a series of workshops and meetings between October 2015 and November 2017, which were used to gather community input on a vision for the Downtown area’s future development. Through this process the community identified several objectives for the redevelopment of the Downtown area as a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented destination. The restoration of Franklin Street as a public right-of-way open to vehicular traffic was identified as a primary objective.
The possibility of revitalizing the City’s historic Downtown area has engaged City community members, including organizations such as Reclaiming Our Downtown and the Old Quad Resident’s Association. In response to community interest, the City Council approved the Biennial 2018/19 and 2019/20 Capital Improvement Program Budget that includes $400,000 to support the preparation of a Precise Plan that will provide guidance for new development within the Downtown area through policies, guidelines, and illustrations that implement the community vision and objectives for a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented destination. As part of this effort, the City requires a consultant to assist in the preparation of the Precise Plan.
DISCUSSION
In February 2019, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Downtown Precise Plan Consultant Services, using the City’s e-procurement system. A total of 75 companies viewed the RFQ and the City received proposals from four companies by the March 25, 2019 deadline:
· Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners (Oakland, CA) · Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (San Francisco, CA)
· M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Associates dba Gensler (Los Angeles, CA) · Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC (San Francisco, CA)
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/3/2019Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
19-1006 Agenda Date: 10/8/2019
Evaluation: A seven-member evaluation team with representation from the Community Development Department, Public Works Department, City Manager’s Office, and the Downtown Community Task Force was formed to evaluate the proposals. Each team member independently evaluated and scored the proposals.
Proposal Responsiveness:
Staff determined all proposals were responsive and met the initial pass/fail review of the stated minimum qualifications.
Cover Letter and Qualifications (25% weight):
A letter identifying the proposer’s firm and highlights of the proposal package. Additionally, each proposer submitted a statement of qualifications for their firm and proposed project staff including resumes and relevant project lists.
Project Approach (25% weight): The evaluation team evaluated the proposers’ project approach including the major tasks and services to be provided, and proposed subconsultants.
Draft Scope of Work (40% weight):
The proposers were required to submit a draft scope of work for the project including a project schedule that outlined the timing of each task and deliverable.
References (5% weight):
The proposers were required to submit with their proposal three references for similar services performed.
Cost (5% weight): Cost proposals were opened and scored at the end of the technical proposal evaluation.
Oral Presentations:
On June 28, 2019, the four proposers were invited to participate in oral presentations to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the City’s requirements and introduce key personnel who would be assigned to the project.
The evaluation results are summarized in the table below.
Criteria Maximum
Points
Dyett &
Bhatia
Lisa Wise
Consulting
Gensler Wallace
Roberts & Todd
Cover Letter 5 4 4 4 4
Firm Qualifications 10 8 8 8 8
Staff Qualifications 10 8 8 8 8
Draft Scope of Work 40 27 29 32 33
Project Approach 25 19 19 18 21
References 5 3 4 4 5
Cost 5 5 4 4 4
Totals 100 74 76 78 83
Notice of Intended Award:
A Notice of Intended Award (NOIA) announcing the City’s recommended Consultant was published on July 1, 2019. The RFQ process included a ten-day protest period; no protests were received.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/3/2019Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
19-1006 Agenda Date: 10/8/2019
Recommendation:
Staff recommends award of agreement to Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC. The evaluation team unanimously agreed that their expertise and project approach is the most advantageous and provides the best value to the City. The Consultant’s team is comprised of industry experts in town planning, placemaking, transportation, economic development, environmental analysis, and community engagement. Additionally, their solution included the following key attributes. · Integrated community engagement that is built upon the efforts conducted in 2015 and 2017; · Balance between community needs and development realities; · Pro forma financial feasibility testing of prototypical opportunities to provide an assessment of current planning parameters and the economic challenges to creating the desired development pattern; and
· Development of a plan framework that is based on good town-making principles.
References were checked with Universal Paragon Corporation (California), the City of Millbrae (California), and the Town of Windsor (California). The references checked positive.
Pending Council’s approval, the Agreement shall be executed to provide the required consulting services for the Downtown Precise Plan development. The initial term of the Agreement shall be for three years ending on September 30, 2022, with an option to extend the Agreement for an additional three-year term through September 30, 2025.
The agreement is fixed-price with payments tied to the successful completion of the milestones listed in the table below. The cost elements include the tasks from the scope of work that were identified in the RFQ, as well as the optional tasks identified by the Consultant in their RFQ response.
COST ELEMENTS:
Project Initiation $67,025
Issue Identification and Vision $58,270
Financial Analysis $31,260
Development Scenarios/Conceptual Plans $74,740
Workshops $22,121
Draft Precise Plan Chapter Development $68,380
Public Services and Implementation $10,520
Draft Precise Plan Refinement $12,880
CEQA Clearance $72,880
Planning Commission & City Council Public
Hearings
$20,000
Reimbursable Expenses $14,295
Services Subtotal $452,371
Optional Services $125,975
GRAND TOTAL $578,346
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/3/2019Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
19-1006 Agenda Date: 10/8/2019
Scope of Work Summary:
The Consultant shall work closely with the City and Downtown Community Task Force in the development of the Precise Plan. The Plan process shall include periodic check-ins with the City Council to report on community and Task Force input, and to receive Council feedback at key milestones in the planning process such as the completion of the market assessment; the proposed vision scenarios; and the preferred land use plan. Preparation of the Plan is anticipated to require approximately 18 months and includes the following key work program elements. · Analysis of existing conditions;
· Development of a public outreach strategy for the planning process; · Analysis of potential market demand for housing, commercial, office, and mixed-use development in the Precise Plan area;
· Development of three (3) long-term vision scenarios that represent the planned build out of the Plan area including, land use and development intensities, multi-modal connectivity improvements, open space plans, and streetscape and public space improvements; · Analysis of the economic feasibility of each land use scenario, along with a summary of community input, to inform the selection of a preferred scenario; · Design guidelines that build upon the City’s existing General Plan design policies, as well as the information gathered during the community outreach activities; and · The Precise Plan document, including the preferred land use scenario.
The unanimous selection of the Consultant by the evaluation team reflects the expertise the Consultant demonstrated in areas reflective of the work program, including the preparation of downtown plans, conducting community engagement, real estate economics, and form-based codes and other zoning tools.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds in the amount of $400,000 were allocated for the development of a Downtown Precise Plan, including the Franklin Street restoration, in the CIP budget (CIP 539-6559). From this budget, $90,000 was spent on a non-refundable deposit for an option on the acquisition of the Franklin Street Right-of-Way easement.
The Consultant’s proposal for the scope of work requested by the City has a cost of $452,371.
Additionally, the Consultant’s proposed optional tasks total $125,975. The combined total cost of the Consultant’s services is $578,346. Currently the available budget amounts to $310,000. Therefore, staff is requesting that funds in the amount of $268,346 be allocated from the Advanced Planning Reserve to cover the total cost of the Agreement.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/3/2019Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
19-1006 Agenda Date: 10/8/2019
The budget amendment below allocates funding from the Advanced Planning Reserve account to the Downtown Master Plan Capital Project in the amount of $268,346.
Budget Amendment
FY 2019/20
Current Increase/
(Decrease)
Revised
General Fund
Reserve
Advanced Planning $368,749 ($268,346) $100,403
Transfers Out
Transfer to the General Government Capital
Fund
$933,535 $268,346 $1,201,881
General Government Capital Fund
Transfers In
Transfer from the General Fund $933,535 $268,346 $1,201,881 Expenditures
Downtown Master Plan Project $310,000 $268,346 $578,346
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC to provide Downtown Precise Plan Consultant Services for an initial three-year term ending September 30, 2022, for a maximum compensation not to exceed $578,346, subject to the annual appropriation of funds;
2. Approve the related budget amendment recognizing appropriations of an additional $268,346 in FY 2019/20 in the Downtown Master Plan Capital Improvement Project for the development of a Downtown Precise Plan funded by the General Fund Advanced Planning Reserve; and City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/3/2019Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
19-1006 Agenda Date: 10/8/2019
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to extend the Agreement for an additional three-year period ending September 30, 2025 and increase maximum compensation in the event that additional services are required, subject to the annual appropriation of funds.
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agreement with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC
City of Santa Clara Printed on 10/3/2019Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
Eblx Insurance No. s200004347
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
AND
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD, LLC
PREAMBLE
lhis agreement ("Amendment No. 1 ") is entered into between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation (City) and Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC, a Delaware Corporation (Consultant) . City and Consultant may be referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Agreement."
RECITALS
A. The Parties previously entered into an agreement entitled "Agreement for Services Between the City of Santa Clara, California, and Wallace, Roberts & Todd, LLC," dated October 17, 2019 (Agreement); and
B. The Parties entered into the Agreement for the purpose of having Consultant prepare a Downtown Precise Plan, and the Parties now wish to amend the Agreement to expand the scope of services and corresponding maximum compensation.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
AMENDMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Section 6 of the Agreement, entitled "Compensation and Payment," is amended to reflect a revised maximum compensation value of eight hundred seventy-eight thousand, three hundred forty-six dollars ($878,346).
2. Exhibit A of the Agreement, entitled "Scope of Services," is updated by appending the attached "Addendum to Scope of Services" to add new tasks to the original scope.
3. Exhibit B of the Agreement, entitled "Schedule of Fees," is amended to reflect a revised maximum compensation value of eight hundred seventy-eight thousand, three hundred forty-six dollars ($878,346) .
4. Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In case of a conflict in the terms of the Agreement and this Amendment No. 1, the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall control.
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/WRT-Downtown Precise Plan
Rev. 10/25/2019
The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and condit ions of this Amendment No. 1 as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California municipal corporation
~ rm
.·· . LIL
),OFFlOFTHECiTYATTORNEY .
Dated: j O / Z, / / ·z. I
~~
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
;ez_..c€ANNAJ.SANTANA
City Manager
"CITY"
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone : (408) 615-221 0
Fax: (408) 241 -6771
WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD, LLC
a Delaware Corporation
Dated : ,,...,...,~u~::;;=~~~-==;;;;; ;;;;;:::-:-,------- B y (Signature, : -----:--+=1!~Hi....-C~~:.61 '----;I- ---- - Nam · .....;;.;;= =---c=-==~ L__------L--f.. -------
Title: rinci al --~---- - --+-- ------Pr inc i pa I Place of 478 Tehama Street, Suite Business Address: San Francisco, CA 94103 _____ ....,__ __________ _ Email Address : __.j __ st __ ic_.k...,le...,v ..... @ .... w .... rt_.d._.e ... si .. g __ n ...... c=-=om==------- ---- Telephone: (415) 575-4722 ~~-------- - ------
Fax: (215) 732-2551 ~ ~ ~------------- -
11 CONSULT ANT"
l:\PLANNING\Admin\Contracts\WRT\Amendment No. 1 - Form .doc Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/WRT-Downtown Precise Plan
Rev. 10/25/2019
Page2
Addendum to Scope of Services
The following tasks are to be included as additional services. A detailed description of these tasks is included in the attached proposal, entitled "DCTF Requested Additional Services" dated May 10, 2021, as presented to the City Council in RTC 21-667 on May 25, 2021.
Task Fee Timing
1 Form-based Zoning Code $118,600 7 months
2 Precise Plan Financing Analysis $103,700 4 to 6 months 3 Downtown Management Entity $21,000 2 months
4 Project Design Review $3,900 Ongoing
5 Additional DCTF Meetings $4,400 Ongoing
Total: $251,600 7 months
An additional $48,400 is being included in the contractual maximum compensation as a contingency to cover any unforeseen added Downtown community Task Force (DCTF) meetings, community outreach, or additional analysis. Use of this contingency shall be approved in writing by the City of Santa Clara's project manager prior to commencement of work.
In no event shall the maximum compensation under this contract for any and all services exceed eight hundred seventy-eight thousand, three hundred forty-six dollars ($878,346), subject to annual budget appropriations.
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement/WRT-Downtown Precise Plan, Addendum to Scope of Services Page 1 Rev. 10/25/2019
MEMORANDUM
To: Lesley Xavier
Principal Planner, City of Santa
Clara
Via email
CC: Jim Stickley
Principal, WRT
Dear Lesley,
Date: May 10, 2021
From: Peter Winch
Project Manager, WRT
Ref. No.: 08334.01
Project :
Re:
Santa Clara Downtown Precise
Plan
DCTF-Requested Additional
Services
The Downtown planning process has reached an exciting stage where the shape of the future downtown is coming into focus and excitement is building to create something that is a true reflection of this unique community. The Task Force and City are showing leadership in starting to think pro-actively about the next steps towards implementation and making sure that those steps lead to the best possible outcomes for a successful downtown.
At DCTF direction, the Consultant team described ten potential tasks that could augment and strengthen the Precise Plan. The Task Force considered these options, and decided to recommend five of these for additional City funding. On April 6, City Council asked for the Task Force and Staff to return with more a more detailed proposal for these scope items:
• Form-based Code
• Sign Ordinance for Downtown
• Area Development Impact Fee Program
• Project Design Review (1-2)
• Additional DCTF Meeting (1 -2)
Subsequently, DCTF also requested that an additional task, "Downtown Management Entity," be included.
These additional services are presented here; the form-based code and sign ordinance are presented as one combined effort. The total Consultant fee for these proposed tasks is $251,600, including labor and reimbursable costs . The tasks are expected to be completed within a ?-month WRT, LLC I 478 Tehama Street, Suite 2B I San Francisco, CA 94103 James Stickley CA LA-4251 rtdesign .com I 415,575.4722 John Gibbs CA LA-4417
• N:\ecXO\&ll-t Sanla C11-1a OoMllQ,',ll Prrcho Plan\t.fl.dm1nJ1t1a1ion\2•/\yteffrle-nU &: Ptopouh\\VRT PropoHh,\202l05IO_DCTf Add Sef\'kos Pu;,poul\10210SIO_SCDPr Add Servic.H_WRT THm.doc.(
MEMORANDUM
May 10, 2021
timeframe. We recommend these scope items can proceed as soon as funding is available, and all will benefit from occurring in tandem with the Precise Plan itself. It is not essential for outcomes of these tasks to be included in the Precise Plan. However, we do recommend that the Task Force make themselves comfortable with the level of oversight needed for tasks running concurrently, to allow the Task Force to be fully involved in each part of the process . A project schedule showing the potential alignment between existing and proposed scope items is included as an attachment.
Summary of Proposed Additional Services
Task Fee Timing
Form-based Zoning Code $118,600 7 months
2 Precise Plan Financing Analysis $103,700 4 to 6 months 3 Downtown Management Entity $21,000 2 months
4 Project Design Review $3,900 Ongoing
5 Additional DCTF Meetings $4,400 Ongoing
Total $251,600 7 months
MEMORANDUM
Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan
Potential Additional Services, May 10, 2021
1. FORM-BASED ZONING CODE
May 10, 2021
Page I 3
David Sargent Town Planning (DSTP) and WRT will collaborate with the Downtown Community Task Force (DCTF) and the City in preparing a form-based development code for the Plan area . Such a code could be adopted as part of the Precise Plan document, or could be adopted as new form based zones that are integrated into the City's municipal code.
One advantage of adopting the standards as new form-based zones is that if one or more of the zones proved useful in other parts of town - for instance in some segments of El Camino Real - that zone could simply be applied to that area with a zoning map amendment.
We attach for reference the most recent Code we have prepared, for a plan in Claremont that has many characteristics in common with the SCDPP area. The area is around 20 acres and the Plan seeks to make "more downtown" on a more or less vacant site that is adjacent to low-density residential neighborhoods . The Code we propose to make for Santa Clara would be similar to this code in many ways, but of course customized as necessary to implement the intentions of the SCDPP, and integrated with Santa Clara's policy and regulatory framework.
The document will be prepared using Adobe lnDesign and delivered in PDF format. We strongly recommend that the Code be published on line as a PDF and not disassembled to be hosted on an online publishing platform (like Municode or Code Publishing). We have a lot of experience with this, and unless these services have made significant advancements in their technology in the past year, the way they organize codes as running text and occasional pictures renders a form-based code nearly unusable. The state of the art is still simply having a link wherever the municipal code is hosted that connects to a web server (likely the City's website) where the PDF is viewable and downloadable as a competently formatted document.
The DSTP/WRTTeam ("the Team") proposes to organize this work into the following tasks :
Task 1.1: Project Initiation and Scope Confirmation
MEMORANDUM
May 10, 2021
1.1 a - Kick-off Meeting: To initiate this phase of work, the T earn will meet with City staff to confirm major tasks and deliverables, discuss overall schedule, establish communication protocols between DSTP, WRT, City Staff and the DCTF, and discuss/confirm any other relevant administrative protocols needed to progress this work efficiently.
1.1b - Vision Confirmation: The Team will work collaboratively with the DCTF and City staff to refine and confirm the vision for the SCDPP Area (Plan Area); as it relates to street types, public space types, building massing schemes, frontage types, and parking configurations. We are confident that this effort can be integrated seamlessly into the ongoing Precise Plan work. We believe that the rigor and organized decision making required to build the framework for such a Code will be very helpful clarifying the range of possibilities for each block, street, and open space in terms of the height, use, massing, and frontage character of new development.
As shown in the proposed budget (attached), the Team anticipates that Task 1 would occur in three iterations, including calls with City staff and then meetings with the DCTF at the end of each iteration. It will be very important to reach consensus with the DCTF at this stage, confirming the vision and agreeing upon regulatory parameters and typologies. We also suggest that the Committee's role in subsequent tasks/stages of Code preparation be diminishing from task to task, as the work from here forward shifts from the general vision to the making of a rather technical document to communicate that vision and those intentions to design professionals and ensure its realization.
We strongly recommend that this task commence as soon as practical, and run concurrently with the confirmation of the Vision and Plan in the Precise Plan.
1.1c - Code Format/Technique Confirmation: Concurrently with Task 1.2, and based on our other recent code work, DSTP will prepare style sheets and a Code outline for review by WRT and City staff. DSTP will conduct meetings with WRT and City staff. Topics addressed will include the structure, content and format of the Code, the schedule for coordination with the Plan and EIR, and the method by which it would be adopted.
DSTP often also prepares Design Guidelines that are coordinated and integrated with but distinct from the Code, addressing topics that are better addressed with parameters and clear intentions rather than hard numerical standards. Decisions regarding which topics would be so addressed, and
MEMORANDUM
May 10, 2021
Page j 5
in what degree of detail will be important in this task. This should be presented to the DCTF only at a high level, not in detail for their input. Keeping the standard/guideline distinction clear is also helpful in meeting new State requirements for Objective Design Standards .
As the DCTF has shown interest in a Sign Ordinance for Downtown, we propose that such standards and guidelines be included in the Code, as is our standard practice (see the attached Claremont Code). Rather than incorporating sign standards and guidelines for Downtown into the City's existing sign ordinance, we recommend that succinct language be added to the existing ordinance which states that the Downtown Code supersedes any City-wide standards for properties within the Downtown Plan Area.
We strongly recommend that Task 1.1 - and also Task 1.2 if possible - be completed prior to, or concurrently with, the finalization of the Project Description for the EIR, for reasons described in the Rationale for Concurrent Plan and Code Preparation section below.
1.1 d - Scope Confirmation/ Adjustments: Based on direction confirmed in Tasks 1. 1 b and 1.1 c, DSTP, WRT and City Staff would agree upon any necessary adjustments to the overall scope, schedule, and budget, which would be finalized (as/if needed) by an amendment to this proposed scope and fee.
Task 1.2: Code Preparation & Adoption
1.2a -Administrative Draft Code Preparation: Based on the confirmed vision and form parameters from Task 1, and decisions regarding code structure and format and method of adoption in Task 1.1, DSTP will prepare a first administrative Draft Code. DSTP will be in close touch with WRT and City staff as we prepare and calibrate the Draft Code, and will submit it to WRT and City staff concurrently. DSTP will make revisions as requested by WRT and the City based on their review. The Draft Code can also be presented to the DCTF, but we recommend they not be asked to provide detailed comments on the techniques of the Code.
After City staff have had the chance to review the Draft Code in detail, we recommend a working session of 2 or 3 hours in which we can engage a number of staff to review the process by which projects will be evaluated in relation to the Code .
MEMORANDUM
May 10, 2021
Page I 6
At a time agreed upon with City staff, WRT and the DCTF, STP will prepare for and help to lead a community workshop in which the intent, structure and standards of the Draft Code will be presented for questions and comments and community input. The PowerPoint presentation prepared for this workshop will weave together the community vision and preferred alternative as documented in the ongoing Precise Plan process, and focus on how the Code will help to ensure that new private development and public realm improvements are well-coordinated, designed and calibrated to deliver that vision, one project at a time.
We suggest that this Workshop might also be, perhaps, a Planning Commission Study Session, perhaps jointly with the DCTF and/or City Council rather that simply a community workshop. Such sessions can be more effective if chaired by the Mayor or Planning Commission Chair rather than led only by City staff and consultants. STP attendance at the workshop is expected to be virtual rather than in-person.
1.2b - Public Review Draft Code Preparation: Based on the comments received from WRT and City staff, DSTP will refine and complete the Draft Code, so that it may be available for public review concurrently with the Precise Plan and EIR. We will deliver a "Screencheck Draft" to WRT and City staff and make minor refinements or corrections prior to its release for public review.
If requested, the T earn will participate in a Planning Commission workshop or joint Commission/Council study session to present the Code and answer questions. DSTP will then make a final round of refinements to the Code based on public and decision-maker input and City staff direction.
At a time agreed upon with City staff, WRT and the DCTF, STP will prepare for and help to lead a community workshop in which the Public Review Draft Code will be presented for questions and comments and community input. We suggest that a joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission could be a good format for this Workshop. STP attendance at the workshop is expected to be virtual rather than in-person.
1.2c - Code Adoptjon: The Team will participate in one Planning Commission and one City Council hearing to assist City staff in presenting the Plan and Code. DSTP will make final minor revisions to the Code in response to comments and deliver the final document in PDF format- a high-resolution file for double-sided color printing and a hyperlinked web-ready file of the spreads.
MEMORANDUM
May 10, 2021
If the City determines to adopt the new zones (we anticipate one to three zones, depending on decisions reached in Task 2) within the Santa Clara Municipal Code (SCMC) it is likely that some City staff time will be required to complete the integration of procedures and general standards with other section of the SCMC.
Potential Reimbursable Expenses
Due to the uncertainty of travel during this time, we assume that attendance at meetings and workshops will be virtual rather than in-person. As/if travel protocols change during the course of this work, and physical attendance is requested, we provide an estimated cost-per-trip (for travel and lodging) which are not included in the base budget.
Proposed Professional Fees
We propose to provide the services outlined above on a time and materials basis, per the estimates shown on the attached spreadsheet. We will not exceed those fees without providing the City with advance notice in writing of the potential for additional time and fees, and an explanation of the reasons such appear likely. The time required for preparation of the Code is quite predictable based on our extensive experience, but the time required for meetings with City staff, the DCTF and others is much less pr~dictable . And it has been our observation to date that the ratio of meeting time to plan preparation in this situation is quite high. Our fee proposal is intended as a "realistic/efficient" process projection, not a "worst case" estimate.
More could be provided if necessary and public health conditions permitting, at an additional cost.
We will bill such expenses at our actual cost with no administrative markup.
Rationale for Concurrent Plan and Code Preparation
DSTP strongly recommends that the Code be prepared concurrently with the completion of the Plan.
To do otherwise, based on many years of experience in this area, would be at the least to miss an opportunity, and could also add significantly to the time and cost while significantly reducing the quality of the documents and confusing City staff, DCTF, and the public.
MEMORANDUM
May 10, 2021
Page I 8
Listed below are the top few advantages of preparing the Plan and Code concurrently, iteratively, and collaboratively.
Support the Precise Plan Completion: The process of breaking down the "vision" that we have been sneaking up on for so long into a system (a.k.a., Plan and Code) could be greatly helped by helping the City and DCTF in thinking of the Plan as a "kit of parts" from which the once and future downtown should be made. And those "parts" are of course typological - building/massing types, street types, frontage types, use types, parking configurations, etc. - not "predesigned buildings." That is what making a code is all about. We always describe the process as "reverse engineering the vision into a kit of parts, and a process for assembling them into a place." That is what needs to be done, now, even just to finish clarifying the vision for the Plan, and might as well also be used to establish the Code also.
Support Predictability and Cohesion: The process of making a code compels all parties to consider the options, and to make choices that rule certain things in, rule certain things out, and clarify the range of potential outcomes within which they'd be happy, and outside of which they would not be.
Most general and many specific plans in California have for far too long stopped at the fuzzy "vision" level, which then leaves it up to each person's own imagination what those nice words might mean - " neighborhood scale", "sustainable", "high quality design", etc. (Except for the things that can be easily quantified, like building height, setbacks, FAR, DUA, see below.) So then in some later discretionary review process, whoever happens to be the director or on the Planning Commission or City Council makes decisions based on what those words mean to them at that time in that context.
The result is a very unpredictable process that discourages highly qualified developers, adds time and cost to the process, and yields inconsistent results, such that two buildings which were each deemed "ok, let's approve it" next door to one another just look odd next to one another.
Avoid "Planning Fatigue": The precise plan process has been underway for a long time already. If it were brought to a conclusion without the Code, the process of gaining consensus on the Code would seem to most like deja vu all over again. All the same topics would be re-covered, bringing up all the same concerns, requiring all the same decisions to be made, and leading to a lot more DCTF meetings rehashing the same things and perhaps second-guessing some, leading to amendments to the new Plan.
MEMORANDUM
May 10, 2021
Page I 9
Avoid Conflicting Metrics/Environmental Analyses: As I mentioned to Jim - and to Manuel and Andrew as well when they wanted to speak with me - regulation by building form is not the same thing as regulating by FAR and DUA. And as is so clear from all the DCTF discussions to date, what the committee is most concerned about- and appropriately so - is the form and character of the blocks, buildings , and streets . The form-based code is a tool that operates directly on what they care about the most. FAR and DUA are very useful metrics at the general plan level, or even at a large specific plan level for CEQA analysis. But at the scale of the building and the block they are worse than useless . For instance:
• A 4 and 5-story mixed-use project on a 2-acre site (a 300 x 300 foot block) might yield 150,000 gross square feet of habitable building area. That would be an FAR of about 1.7. • If the ground floor (which would be smaller in usable area than upper floors due to parking) were 15,000. S.f., the non-residential FAR would be 0.10. And if the remaining 135,000 s.f. were housing, and the average gross square feet per dwelling were 1,000 s.f. parked at 1.75 spaces per unit that would be 135 units with 236 parking spaces and 67 .5 DUA. • If the exact same building and parking were organized with smaller units at 700 g.s.f. per unit, that would be 193 units parked at a ratio of 1.22 spaces per unit, and 96.5 DUA. • It would be reasonable to anticipate that the number of residents in the smaller unit scenario would be about the same in both cases, with the same number of cars. And very likely LESS traffic generated, as the smaller units with less parking per unit would tend to attract a demographic more interested in using transit and active transportation and enjoying a pedestrian-oriented urban lifestyle.
• In our plans and codes we do NOT regulate by DUA. The EIR project descriptions are based on well-reasoned assumptions regarding average DUA and numbers of units . The Plans sometimes stipulate a cap on total units in the district- which if exceeded at some point might require further CEQA review- but the standards do not regulate by DUA per building or per block. They regulate by building size, scale, massing, form, use , and frontage, which is what we've been discussing with the DCTF for so long. • The specific intention of a Plan for a downtown is to "pack as much development as possible into a compact area without making a mess." Whereas all the plans they have made for decades intend to spread development out to avoid localized "congestion", under the suburban/CEQA assumption that "the solution to pollution is dilution".
WRT MEMORANDUM
May 10, 2021
Page I 10
Regulation by DUA is very good at that, and that is what has sprawled cities out over the region and is killing the planet.
Of course, we know that you understand these metrics and principles as well as or better than we do, and we're focusing here on the linkage between these metrics as they may be present in the Plan and the EIR, and the development standards. Our concern is that if the Precise Plan and EIR were completed ahead of the Code work- regulating "density" by DUA as most suburban cities do - and then we came in suggesting that it be regulated by building mass and volume, it could cause great concern and consume large amounts of time and political capital. And might very well require amending the EIR or arbitrarily limiting DUA, as many people would assume such a change was to let developers "get away with something." If fact, if you limit DUA, what you get is large units, which may or may not foster the housing catering to urbanites who want to use transit and local businesses more and drive less.
Meetings
• Kick-off meeting
• Meetings with DCTF (up to 3)
• Staff working session on Adm in Draft Form-based Code • Planning Commission workshop or joint Planning Commission/City Council study session • Check-in calls with Staff as needed
All meetings are assumed to take place remotely.
Deliverables:
• Admin Draft Form-based Code
• Screencheck Draft
• Public Review Draft
• Final Form-based Code
Cost: $118,600
MEMORANDUM
Timeframe: Approximately 7 months
2. PRECISE PLAN FINANCING ANALYSIS
This task will provide the analytic basis for identifying the appropriate financing strategy and implementation tools for the Precise Plan. The key subtasks are described below.
Task 2.1 Infrastructure Needs Analysis
May 10, 2021
Page I 11
The WRT team will identify the backbone utility and transportation infrastructure plan to accommodate buildout of the Plan Area and associated costs. The analysis will also determine the nexus between infrastructure improvements and planned development in the event that infrastructure improvements address an existing deficiency or new demand from growth outside the plan area. The work will build off the infrastructure program developed in the Precise Plan and will introduce new, more detailed infrastructure needs and cost analysis, The WRT team will interview Public Works and Utility Agency representatives as needed to verify planned capital improvement projects that will be necessary to support development in the plan area .1 The first step in this task, to be led by WRT, will be to refine the development plan to establish land use mix and density for each block in the Precise Plan area. This may require setting a low and high range by use type to account for land use flexibility. This will serve as the basis for establishing transportation and utility demands . WRT will also refine the conceptual design of planned streets to a level that will allow reasonable cost estimation.
To establish transportation needs, Kimley-Horn will:
(1) Identify roadway and traffic improvements necessary for the site based on the recommendations of the Precise Plan
(2} Prepare a cost estimate for each roadway improvement. This will include:
1 The budget estimate assumes regional utility studies and modeling, utility design, surveying, and plan production are not included in this scope.
MEMORANDUM
May 10, 2021
Page I 12
• Estimating the number of AM peak hour, PM peak hour, and daily trips to be generated by the proposed project. A trip distribution and trip assignment for the use will be estimated based on information provided by the City, historical traffic counts in the area.
• Determining the background volume at intersections and for roadway segments being improved.
(3) Develop Fair Share calculations for each improvement project identified. This will include:
• Calculating the fair share proportion for the project based on the number of daily vehicle trips that utilize the future intersection. This will be calculated based on the approach specified by the City in their Impact Fee Nexus Study- Fair share % = project trips/(background + project trips).
• Determining the fair share cost estimate using the fair share percentage by the total project cost.
(4) Prepare a technical memorandum for preliminary review. The draft memorandum will include text, charts, and figures describing our process, assumptions, and results. The memorandum will specifically detail impacts directly connected with project traffic and recommended improvements, if needed. Based on comments received on the draft memorandum, the memorandum will be revised and a final traffic memorandum will be prepared and submitted.
To establish utility infrastructure needs, CSW/ST2 will:
(1) Re-engage the City staff to confirm the infrastructure needs beyond the development area.
This could require running of computer models related to water and sewer service, which are often managed by third parties.
(2) Support WRT in developing 10% plans for the public streets which will reflect above and below-ground infrastructure necessary to support the development. (3) Based on the plans and improvements required outside the plan area, update the cost analysis.
The task will result in a memo defining projected development by land use type and by block and establishing transportation and infrastructure needs.
MEMORANDUM
Task 2.2: Analysis of Financing Options and Strategy
May 10, 2021
Page I 13
EPS will identify and evaluate a variety of funding and financing mechanisms that would be appropriate to fund the required improvement costs and/or defray up-front or advance-funding costs associated with these facilities. EPS will consider currently available sources of funding for capital improvements, though these existing mechanisms are not expected to cover the unique costs of planned downtown improvements . Accordingly , EPS will consider a variety of other Project-specific financing mechanisms that may include the following options:
• Area-specific development impact fees (and related reimbursement agreements). • Special assessments and taxes (e.g., Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts). • Private contributions and exactions.
• Tax increment financing mechanisms (e.g., Enhanced Infrastructure Finance District or Community Revitalization and Investment Authority).
EPS, with the assistance of the WRT team and the City, will select financing mechanisms and strategies for the Precise Plan that are based on financing principles; statutory and legal considerations; and industry standards regarding who typically pays for what, the timing of public improvements relative to private development, commitments regarding the availability of public sector funding, and other relevant factors .
EPS will prepare a financing strategy that describes the implementat ion steps required to use existing and to create new proposed financing mechanisms . The financing strategy will specify the financial responsibilities of the public and private participants in implementation of the Plan. The financing strategy will be circulated to City staff and Project participants to ensure their understanding and to obtain their comments and suggestions. EPS will also prepare a Financing Strategy memorandum incorporating one round of consolidated City comments.
This task will culminate in a financing plan that describes the various financial resources and tools needed to pay for infrastructure and amenities. Note that the specific elements of the Financing Plan cannot be known with certainty at this time, but this proposal anticipates that an Area Development Impact Fee is a likely outcome .
Task 2.3: Area Impact Fee Program (Optional, included as Contigency)
WRT MEMORANDUM
May 10, 2021
Page I 14
EPS will prepare the technical documentation necessary for approval of an area development impact fee to cover the "fair share" cost of new infrastructure and public improvements serving the Specific Plan. The "Nexus Report" will be prepared consistent with AB 1600 and related requirements.
EPS will develop a preliminary fee schedule based on the total costs attributable to the Downtown Precise Plan program, based on the cost estimates and cost allocations described above. EPS will net out other likely potential funding sources and include a fee program administrative charges, as appropriate. The fees will be derived by dividing the capital facility costs by the projected development in each land use category. EPS will summarize the fees by improvement type and land use for the City's review. Based on comments received and EPS will finalize the fee schedule for inclusion in the Nexus Report.
EPS will take primary responsibility for preparing the Development Impact Fee Nexus Report that will document the study assumptions and methodology and establish the required nexus findings consistent with AB 1600 and reporting requirements of Government Code 66000 et. seq. EPS will first provide an administrative draft for review by City staff. Based on one round of comments, EPS will then prepare a Public Review Draft for broader release. Again, based on one round of consolidated public comments and direction from City staff, EPS will prepare a Final Report for presentation to the City Council for approval.
The budget includes representation and participation, as needed, from appropriate EPS team members at two public meetings or presentations, including at City Council approval. Additional meetings and/or report iterations beyond those described herein may require a budget amendment.
The proposed budget does not include multiple iterations of the fee analysis or EPS participation in any landowner meetings or negotiation sessions that may be required.
Meetings:
• Up to two meetings with key project stakeholders, including property owners and/or City staff. The goal of these meetings will be to vet the financing strategy and assumptions.
MEMORANDUM
Deliverables:
• Development Program and Infrastructure Needs Memorandum • Financing Plan (Draft)
• Financing Plan (Final)
The specific elements of the Financing Plan cannot be known with certainty at this time, but this proposal anticipates that an Area Development Impact Fee is a likely outcome.
Optional Deliverables:
• Development Impact Fee Nexus Report (Admin Draft, Public Review Draft, Final) May 10, 2021
Page I 15
Cost: $103,700, including $33,600 contingency for Area Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Timeframe: 4-6 months.
3. DOWNTOWN MANAGEMENT ENTITY
WRT, with support from MJB Consulting and Greensfelder Real Estate Consulting (GRES), will define the role of a management entity to help achieve success for Downtown . The entity's roles may include curating retail, programming public spaces, and marketing . Defining the right approach will include the following subtasks.
Task 3.1 Stakeholder Interviews and DCTF Meeting
The Team will intef'\liew key stakeholders to better understand the capacities , resources, mandates and political dynamics of each, to determine how the new entity would best fit. We will draw on existing findings about market and real estate dynamics.
Task 3.2 Analysis and Recommendations
The Team will craft the foundation for a regulatory rubric with the goal of seeing a diverse array of desired uses (by NAICS code) and des ired mix of independent, regional, and national occupiers. The
MEMORANDUM
foundation will outline plusses and minuses of suggested approaches, define the Downtown Management Entity and its roles, and discuss implementation process and procedures.
Recommendations will also include identification of partners and best practices in event management and marketing.
Task 3.3 Incorporation into Precise Plan
The analysis and recommendations will be incorporated into the Implementation chapter of the Santa Clara Downtown Precise Plan.
Meetings:
• The Team will present findings at one meeting of the DCTF.
Deliverables:
• Stakeholder interviews (remote)
• Presentation to DCTF (remote)
• Memo: Defining the role of a Downtown management entity Cost: $21,000
Timeframe: Approximately 2 months
4. PROJECT DESIGN REVIEW
May 10, 2021
Page I 16
DSTP, supported by WRT, can review current development projects within the Plan Area to help Staff evaluate design consistency with the Plan vision and to make recommendations.
Meetings:
• One meeting with Staff
MEMORANDUM
Deliverables:
• Design review memo
Cost: $3,900 per project submittal
Timeframe: Ongoing
5. ADDITIONAL DCTF MEETINGS
May 10, 2021