Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-02-27 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. February 27, 2017 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:30 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 5:30-6:00 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his Designees Pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (Ed Shikada, Terence Howzell, Molly Stump, Rumi Portillo) Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Fire Chiefs’ Association (FCA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Special Orders of the Day 6:00-6:45 PM 2.Partner Presentation by East Palo Alto Sanitation District 3.Proclamation of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Honoring Roy Clay REVISED 2 February 27, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 4.Proclamation of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Honoring Caretha and Ken Coleman Study Session 6:45-8:15 PM 5.Update on Stanford University’s General Use Permit (GUP) Application to Santa Clara County Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 8:15-8:25 PM Oral Communications 8:25-8:40 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 8:40-8:45 PM 6.Approval of Action Minutes for the January 30 and February 6, 2017 Council Meetings Consent Calendar 8:45-8:50 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 7.Approval of a Regulatory Agreement, Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, and Option to Purchase for 3020-3038 Emerson Street (Plum Tree Apartments). The Project is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3) 8.670 Los Trancos Road [16PLN-00266]: Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a Single Family House and Guest House With a Total of 10,959 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: OS 9.Approval of a Contract With SoBi for Implementation of a 350-Bicycle Bike Share Program for Five Years With no Ongoing Cost to the City Following an Investment of $1,104,550 in Capital Costs for Bicycles and "Hubs" Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 8:50-10:30 PM 10.Public Hearing: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 3 February 27, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 18.30(F) (Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District Regulations), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), and 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards); Adding Sections 18.40.160 (Replacement Project Required), 18.40.170 (Deferral of Director’s Action), and 18.42.140 (Housing Inventory Sites Small Lot Consolidation) and Repealing Chapter 10.70 (Trip Reduction and Travel Demand). The Proposed Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15061(b)(3) 11. Adoption of a Resolution Amending Resolutions 9473 and 9577 to Continue the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program With Minor Modifications and Finding the Action Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (Continued From February 13, 2017) (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 6, 2017) Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 February 27, 2017 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings City Council Meeting Cancelled February 20, 2017 Finance Committee Meeting Cancelled February 21, 2017 School/City Committee Meeting February 23, 2017 Rail Committee Meeting March 1, 2017 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council February 20: Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 February 27: Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7815) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 2/27/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Proclamation in Honor of Roy Clay Title: Proclamation of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Honoring Roy Clay From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk Attachments: Attachment A: Proclamation Honoring Roy Clay Proclamation Honoring Roy Clay WHEREAS, Palo Alto is honored to recognize long-time Palo Alto resident Roy Clay as a technology pioneer who made significant professional contributions to the rise of the computer and software industries in the community we now know as Silicon Valley; and WHEREAS, Roy Clay, who grew up in Missouri and arrived in Palo Alto in 1962, became the first African- American hired locally in high tech and went on to establish the software development facility at Hewlett Packard, managed the company’s emerging computer division, and aided in HP’s emergence as a computer company; and WHEREAS, Roy Clay was a guiding hand behind a venture capital firm’s technology investments in emerging companies like Tandem, Compaq and Intel; and WHEREAS, because of the impact of his work, Roy Clay became known as the Godfather of Silicon Valley, and in 2003 was inducted into the Silicon Valley Engineering Council’s Hall of Fame, alongside Bill Hewlett, Dave Packard, Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore; and WHEREAS, Roy Clay also founded the electrical safety test equipment company, ROD-L Electronics in 1977, served as President of San Francisco’s Olympic Club home of U.S. amateur tournaments, and served over 35 years in community organizations like JobTrain and the Girl’s Club of the Midpeninsula to improve the quality of the life of our communities; and WHEREAS, Roy Clay became the first person of color to serve on the Palo Alto City Council from 1973 to 1979, and he was Palo Alto’s first African-American Vice Mayor in 1976 and 1977. NOW, THEREFORE, I, H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby recognize Roy Clay as a community hero and extend appreciation for his years of valuable contributions and service. Presented: February 27, 2017 ______________________________ H. Gregory Scharff Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 7816) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 2/27/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Proclamation Honoring Caretha and Ken Coleman Title: Proclamation of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Honoring Caretha and Ken Coleman From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk Attachments: Attachment A: Proclamation Honoring Caretha and Ken Coleman Proclamation Honoring Caretha and Ken Coleman WHEREAS, The City of Palo Alto is proud to honor Caretha and Ken Coleman, who have made tremendous contributions to the community with the goal of making the world a better place, helping others to succeed, while advocating for social justice, equity and progress; and WHEREAS, Caretha and Ken Coleman were nominated for the 2016 Visionary of the Year Award and are advocates for creating opportunities for people of color and women in business, they provide education on biases in hiring practices, and have both contributed countless hours as mentors across the country to young black business professionals; and WHEREAS, Caretha Coleman was the second black female to work as an executive in the technology industry in the early 1980s. She has served as Chairman of the Board at Dignity Health and board member of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, while also sitting on various non-profit boards including Board Chair of the East Palo Alto YMCA, Mid-Peninsula YMCA, the Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness, and Advisory Board for Facing History and Ourselves. She mentors young professionals and entrepreneurs across the county and has worked 14 years at her own consulting company; and WHEREAS, Caretha Coleman was named an Outstanding Board Director by the Silicon Valley Business Journal in 2015, and one of the Bay Area’s Most Influential Women by the San Francisco Business Times in 2015 and 2016. She is a recipient of the YMCA’s Red Triangle Award, she received the Black Enterprise Trailblazer Award, and was named a Visionary Leader by the SF Chronicle; and WHEREAS, Ken Coleman, who served as an Air Force officer, went on to hold many important roles such as management positions at Hewlett-Packard, Vice President for Product Development at Activision, fourteen years at Silicon Graphics in top executive management positions, founder and CEO of ITM Software, Chairman of Accelrys and was a special government advisor for international trade policies; and WHEREAS, Ken Coleman has received numerous honors including being named as one of the top ten most influential African Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area, a Top 25 Black Executive in technology, the Ohio State University Distinguished Service Award, the National Alliance of Black School Educators Living Legend Award, the American Leadership Forum of Silicon Valley Exemplary Leader Award, the One Hundred Black Men of Silicon Valley Lifetime Achievement Award, and was inducted into the Silicon Valley Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame; and WHEREAS, one of Caretha and Ken Coleman’s most significant accomplishments is leading a capital fundraising campaign to raise $15 million in order to build a YMCA in East Palo Alto. NOW, THEREFORE, I, H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim Caretha and Ken Coleman as community heroes and extend appreciation for their years of significant contributions, service and leadership. Presented: February 27, 2017 ______________________________ H. Gregory Scharff Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 7790) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 2/27/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Application Title: Update on Stanford University’s General Use Permit (GUP) Application to Santa Clara County From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is a study session to allow the City Council to receive and discuss a presentation regarding Stanford University’s proposal for an updated General Use Permit (GUP) from Santa Clara County. No action is recommended. The City Council will have the opportunity to review and provide direction regarding a formal comment letter from the City to the County on March 6, 2017. Executive Summary On November 28, 2016, Stanford University submitted an application to Santa Clara County for a major modification of their current General Use Permit (GUP). If approved, the updated GUP would govern land use and development on the Stanford campus, which is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County, starting in 2018. At this evening’s meeting, representatives of Stanford University have agreed to present their proposal to the City Council and answer questions from the Council. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required prior to County approval of the University’s proposal, and the County has issued a Notice of Preparation, which is included as Attachment A. The notice contains a brief description of the proposal and topics to be analyzed in the EIR. Stanford’s application, which includes substantial additional information on a wide variety of topics, is available on line at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Programs/Stanford/Pages/CurrentProjects.aspx. County staff has granted the City’s request for additional time to comment on the scope of the EIR, and the City Council will discuss a draft comment letter at their meeting on March 6, 2017. Background City of Palo Alto Page 2 Stanford University is located within unincorporated Santa Clara County and is governed by the County’s general plan and zoning. Specifically, there is a “community plan” within the County’s general plan which was adopted in 2000 and establishes land use policies and implementation measures specific to Stanford. The University’s current GUP also dates to 2000, and is currently being used as the basis for development on campus. The University is now proposing to update the GUP and submitted an application to the County in November 2016. Santa Clara County requires every applicant to hold a public outreach meeting following filing of an application and Stanford held their meeting on January 25, 2017 at the Mitchell Park Community Center. The County has also taken the first step in the environmental review process for this proposal, which is issuance of a Notice of Preparation (NOP), indicating that the County will be complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City will submit written comments on the environmental document, and Council questions and comments at this evening’s study session will help inform preparation of that letter. The Council will have an opportunity to review the draft letter at its March 6, 2017 meeting. Next Steps Written comments on the scope of the EIR are due to the County in early March. (The City requested and received an extension of time from the original due date of February 17, 2017.) On March 6th, the City Council will be considering a draft of the City’s comment letter, which is expected to address issues of potential concern, including at a minimum: Traffic and transportation issues affecting the campus and its surroundings, including: linkages to local and regional bicycle and pedestrian facilities, opportunities for enhanced and consolidated transit (including shuttle) services, additional peak hour traffic congestion/delays anticipated and the effectiveness of Stanford’s “no net trips” policy potential lengthening of the peak hours spill over parking in Palo Alto neighborhoods impacts on safe routes to schools Public service needs associated with the anticipated growth in housing, students, faculty, and staff including impacts on recreational facilities, fire services, and more Impacts on local schools from the addition of housing and school age population Storm water detention and potential for increasing or decreasing the risk of downstream flooding The ability to assess potential impacts on historic resources, the urban canopy, and aesthetics generally without specificity on building locations and other site changes The desire for the County to assume a share of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the next housing cycle if significant development (non-residential and residential) is approved adjacent to the City boundaries City of Palo Alto Page 3 County environmental staff anticipates that the preparation of the EIR for this project will take 10 months to a year. Attachments: Attachment A: Notice of Preparation Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Attachment B Letter's from the Public County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development County Government Center, East Wing 70 West Hedding Street, 7th Floor San Jose, California 951l0 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE STANFORD UNIVERSITY "2OI.S GENERAL USE PERMITOO Project Applicant: Stanford University File Number: 1165-I6P-16GP-162-l6BlPt Application For: Major Modification to Stanford University's General Use Permit, Community Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment As the Lead Agency, the County of Santa Clarawill prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project and would like your views regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. On November 21,2016, Stanford University submitted an application to the County to update its General Use Permit (hereafter collectively referred to as the *2018 General Use Permit"), amend the Stanford Community Plan, and amend zoningdesignations for some parcels to conform to existing conditions on the ground. A brief description of the proposed project, its site boundary, and a summary of the potential environmental effects are attached. The EIR may be used by your agency when considering approvals for the project. The County will make the ultimate determination regarding what level and type of development is approved under the project and what conditions of approval and mitigation measures and/or project alternatives may be imposed. A Public Scoping/Community Meeting to solicit comments for the Notice of Preparation will be held at the Palo Alto Arts Center auditorium located at l3l3 Newell Road, Palo Alto, on Wednesday, February 8th,2017, from 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The deadline for your response is February l7th. However, an earlier response, if possible, would be appreciated. Please send your response to: County of Santa ClaraPlanning Office Attention: David Rader County Government Center 70 West Hedding, 7th Floor, East Wing, San Jose CA 95110 E-mail : david.rader@Fln. sccgov.org Prepared by: David Rader, Senior Planner Sígnature Approved by: Manira Sandhir, Principal Planner, AICP Sígnøture Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith t^;/ rr, ,/à-/sn ¡þ/rd/7 bøe tlz lz.t. bøtb Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 2 County of Santa Clara Introduction The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to inform decision-makers and the general public of the environmental effects of a proposed project that an agency may implement or approve. The EIR process is intended to provide information sufficient to (a) evaluate a proposed project and it’s potential for significant impacts on the environment, (b) to examine methods of reducing adverse impacts; and (c) to consider alternatives to the project. The EIR for the proposed project will be prepared and processed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the EIR for the Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit and related approvals will include the following: • A summary of the project; • A project description; • A description of the existing environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures; • A cumulative impact discussion; • Alternatives to the proposed project; and • CEQA required environmental consequences, including (a) any significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented; (b) any significant irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources; (c) the growth inducing impacts of the proposed project; and (d) effects found not to be significant. Project Location Stanford University (Stanford) is located on the San Francisco Peninsula, approximately 35 miles southeast of San Francisco, and 20 miles northwest of San Jose (see Figure 1). Stanford owns approximately 8,180 contiguous acres across six governmental jurisdictions, including unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, and the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Portola Valley and Woodside (see Figure 2). The proposed 2018 General Use Permit would apply only to the 4,017 acres of Stanford lands that are located within unincorporated Santa Clara County, and thus, subject to the land use jurisdiction and regulatory authority of the County of Santa Clara (see Figure 3). As shown in Figure 3, the project area is generally located southeast of Sand Hill Road, southwest of El Camino Real, northwest of Stanford Avenue and Page Mill Road, north of Arastradero Road, and east of Alpine Road. Stanford’s core campus area, including academic and academic support facilities and housing, is concentrated north of Junipero Serra Boulevard and located within Stanford’s Academic Growth Boundary. The largely undeveloped Stanford lands within the foothills south of Junipero Serra Boulevard are located outside of Stanford’s Academic Growth Boundary. Project Description Background The County of Santa Clara regulates land uses on the Stanford lands within its jurisdiction through several mechanisms, including the General Use Permit adopted in 2000 (hereafter referred to as the 2000 General Use Permit), the Stanford Community Plan (adopted in 2000 as part of the Santa Clara County General Plan), the County Zoning Code, and the 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement between the County of Santa Clara, City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 3 County of Santa Clara Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 4 County of Santa Clara The Stanford Community Plan serves as the General Plan for the campus and maps the goals, strategies, and policies for Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. It is guided by six core principles: • compact urban development; • academic growth boundary for minimum of 25 years; • conservation of natural resources; • housing concurrent with academic development; • flexibility and accountability; and • goal of no net new commute trips. The General Use Permit is the implementation document that permits additional academic facilities and housing units, and establishes conditions of approval, consistent with the goals, strategies, and policies of the Community Plan. Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 5 County of Santa Clara The 2000 General Use Permit as amended allowed the construction of 2,035,000 net new square feet1 of new academic and academic support uses, 3,018 net new housing units/beds for students, faculty and staff, 2,300 net new parking spaces, and associated infrastructure. In May 2016, the County authorized an additional 1,450 housing units to be constructed under the 2000 General Use Permit (for a total of 4,468 housing units/beds authorized under the 2000 General Use Permit). Stanford estimates that approximately 1.4 million net square feet of the academic and academic support uses, and all of the housing, allowed in the 2000 General Use Permit has been built or approved; and that all remaining authorized development under the 2000 General Use Permit will be exhausted between 2018 and 2020. Proposed 2018 General Use Permit On November 21, 2016, Stanford submitted an application to the County to update its General Use Permit (hereafter referred to as the 2018 General Use Permit). The 2018 General Use Permit application, as well as relevant plans, reports and other documents, are located on the County’s website at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Programs/Stanford/Pages/Stanford.aspx The proposed 2018 General Use Permit would authorize an increment of campus growth and land use development, anticipated to take place over a period that would extend from approximately 2018 through 2035. The requested amount of growth corresponds to the 2035 Moderate Growth Scenario included in Stanford’s Sustainable Development Study, approved by the County in 2009. Table 1 presents a summary of existing authorized development and parking at Stanford, and additional development and parking proposed under the 2018 General Use Permit. TABLE 1: Summary of Existing Authorized Development and Parking at Stanford University, and Additional Development and Parking Proposed Under the 2018 General Use Permit Development Academic and Academic Support Space (Net Square Feet) Housing (Units/Beds) Parking Authorized Prior to 2000 General Use Permit 8,220,000 9,832 19,351 Authorized Under 2000 General Use Permit 2,035,000 4,468a 2,300 Additional Proposed under 2018 General Use Permit 2,275,000 3,150 0b Total 12,530,000 17,450 21,651 a Revised as of May 2016. b See, however, proposed 2000-space parking reserve discussed under Proposed Parking, below. Source: Stanford LRBE LUEP, 2016 Proposed Development Similar to the 2000 General Use Permit, the proposed 2018 General Use Permit would apply to all land uses within unincorporated Santa Clara County that would require a conditional use permit, Architecture and Site Approval (ASA), or Planning Commission approval under the County Zoning Code. The 2018 General Use Permit would not apply to uses on Stanford lands that are permitted by right under the County Zoning Code. Under the 2018 General Use Permit, Stanford proposes new academic and academic support space, and housing subject to the following development limits: • 2,275,000 net new square feet of net new academic and academic support facilities; and • 3,150 net new housing units/beds, of which up to 550 units would be available for faculty, staff, postdoctoral scholars, and medical residents. 1 Refers to gross square footage pursuant to Government Code Section 65995-65998. Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 6 County of Santa Clara The proposed academic and academic support space and housing units would be constructed on vacant land, infill sites and redevelopment sites within the Academic Growth Boundary (see Figure 3). No site- specific projects and locations have been identified for development under the 2018 General Use Permit. Each individual building or project that would be developed under the 2018 General Use Permit would require submittal of an application to the County at the time proposed, and may be subject to additional review prior to consideration of approval by the County. Stanford proposes that any remaining unbuilt academic and academic support space square footage that was authorized by the 2000 General Use Permit would be carried over to the 2018 General Use Permit in the event that Stanford does not receive approval for construction of all the remaining square footage by the time the 2018 General Use Permit takes effect. In the 2000 General Use Permit Stanford identified development districts to estimate the distribution of development within the campus. Figure 4 presents the proposed distribution of academic and academic support space and housing that is proposed to occur under the 2018 General Use Permit, by development district. Stanford proposes modifications to the district boundaries to better comport to existing zoning boundaries and conditions on the ground. In addition, Stanford proposes minor amendments to Community Plan and zoning designations on some parcels to conform to existing conditions on the ground. Housing Linkage As with the 2000 General Use Permit, under the proposed 2018 General Use Permit the development of academic and academic support space would be linked to the development of housing units. Table 2 presents the proposed housing linkage under the 2018 General Use Permit, and proposed interim milestones for development.2 Interim milestones would be required to be met for each increment of 500,000 square feet of academic and academic support space to ensure proposed housing keeps pace with academic and academic support facility growth. Similar to the 2000 General Use Permit Condition F.7, under the 2018 General Use Permit, Stanford seeks a condition that would allow it to build additional housing beyond the proposed development limit of 3,150 housing units/beds, subject to additional environmental review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2 As shown in Table 2, under the proposed project, Stanford would use the same housing linkage ratio as was identified in Condition F.8 in the 2000 General Use Permit. Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 7 County of Santa Clara TABLE 2: 2018 General Use Permit Housing Linkage Academic and Academic Support Space (Net New Square Feet) Housing Units/Beds at 1/826 (Net New Square Feet) Cumulative # of Housing Units/Beds 0 – 0.5 M 605 605 0.5 – 1.0 M 605 1,210 1.0 – 1.5 M 605 1,815 1.5 – 2.0 M 605 2,240 2.0 - 2.275 M 333 2,753 Note: This table represents the minimum housing required per the housing linkage ratio. However, the 2018 General Use Permit proposes a greater number of housing units/beds (3,150) than that required by the housing linkage ratio. Source: Stanford LRBE LUEP, 2016 Stanford has proposed that certain specific types of development not be counted towards the proposed development limits. This exempted development would include 40,000 net new square feet of child care and community center space. Stanford also proposes to continue to be allowed to utilize up to 50,000 net new square feet of construction surge space that was authorized in the 2000 General Use Permit. Surge space is used to temporarily house uses that may be displaced during a construction project. As proposed, the 2018 General Use Permit would also accommodate construction of campus infrastructure improvements to support development proposed under the 2018 General Use Permit, including, but not limited to, utilities and circulation improvements. Proposed Parking Under the 2018 General Use Permit the authorized amount of parking would be unchanged from the limits established by the 2000 General Use Permit. Stanford proposes to exempt certain types of parking at the campus from inclusion in its authorized parking limit, including parking associated with trip- reduction programs, electric vehicles, police and fire department use, and high-density faculty and staff housing. In addition, Stanford University proposes that the 2018 General Use Permit include an option to allow Stanford to construct a 2,000-space parking supply reserve, subject to Planning Commission review and approval, if any one of the following conditions apply: 1) Stanford is achieving its No Net New Commute Trip goal; 2) such parking would not result in a substantial increase in peak-hour commute trips; or 3) unforeseen circumstances occur due to changes in background conditions would require provision of additional parking. County Approvals Stanford seeks the following approvals from the County: • Certification of the 2018 General Use Permit EIR; • Adoption of a new 2018 General Use Permit; • Approval of amendments to the County Zoning Map (zoning designation changes are proposed for specific parcels within the campus); and • Approval of amendments to the Stanford Community Plan. Potential Environmental Effects of the Project The County will prepare a program level EIR for the proposed 2018 General Use Permit pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. It should be noted that project-specific CEQA review may be required for individual buildings or other projects that would be developed pursuant to the proposed 2018 General Use Permit. Prior to consideration of approval, the County would examine each individual development at Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 8 County of Santa Clara the time they are proposed to determine whether the environmental effects of the specific project were disclosed in the 2018 General Use Permit EIR. The EIR will identify the significant environmental effects anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit. Specific environmental topics addressed will include: • Aesthetics – The EIR will describe the existing visual and aesthetic conditions of the project site and the study area, and will evaluate the effect of the proposed changes envisioned by the proposed project on scenic views, visual character and quality, and light and glare. Mitigation measures will be identified to reduce any potential significant aesthetic impacts will be identified and analyzed, as appropriate. • Air Quality. The air quality analysis presented in the EIR will discuss current air quality conditions and air-pollutant sensitive land uses or activities in the vicinity of the project area; describe the regulatory context for air pollution in the Bay Area; and assess the potential for the project to conflict with the Clean Air Plan, violate any air quality standards, result in cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutants, cause emissions of substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors. Stanford University has submitted an Air Quality Technical Report for the proposed project, which will be peer-reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the Air Quality section. As needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant air quality impacts will be identified and analyzed. • Biological Resources – The EIR will present information on applicable biological resources in the project area, including special-status wildlife and plant species, natural communities, and wetlands; describe the regulatory framework for biological resources; and evaluate potential for implementation of the proposed project to impact biological resources and/or conflict with Stanford’s Habitat Conservation Plan. As needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant biological resource impacts will be identified and analyzed. • Cultural Resources –The EIR will present relevant cultural resources information, including data from Stanford’s Archaeological Resources Map and other sources; and will assess the potential for the proposed project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources, archaeological and unique paleontological resources, tribal cultural resources, or potential disturbance of human remains. In addition, Stanford University has submitted an Historic Resources Survey for the proposed project, which will be peer-reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the Cultural Resources section. As needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant impacts to historic and archaeological resources will be identified and analyzed. • Energy Conservation –Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, the EIR will evaluate the potential energy impacts of operation, construction, and transportation associated with the proposed 2018 General Use Permit. Stanford has submitted an Energy Technical Analysis for the proposed project, which will be peer-reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the Energy Conservation section. If needed, mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy will be identified and analyzed. • Geology and Soils – The EIR will present relevant information on existing soils and geologic conditions at Stanford. The EIR will address the potential for implementation of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit to result in soil erosion or exacerbate conditions related to unstable soils or slopes. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to geology and soils will be analyzed and described. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions – The EIR will report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with implementation of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit, and will assess any conflict with applicable policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. As needed, relevant Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 9 County of Santa Clara policies and features that may serve to minimize GHG emissions will be identified. Stanford University has submitted a GHG Emissions Technical Report for the proposed 2018 General Use Permit, which will be peer-reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the GHG Emissions section of the EIR. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to GHG emissions will be identified and analyzed. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials – The EIR will discuss existing conditions as it relates to the potential past releases of hazardous materials within the General Use Permit area, describe existing hazardous materials and waste use, storage, and disposal operations at the campus, and discuss the regulatory requirements governing these operations. The EIR will assess whether implementation of the proposed project would have the potential to emit hazardous emissions, exacerbate hazard conditions through ground disturbance, or interfere with emergency evacuation plans. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials will be identified and analyzed. • Hydrology and Water Quality – The EIR will generally describe the hydrology and water quality conditions in and around the General Use Permit area, and describe the applicable regulatory agencies and regulations governing water resources at the campus. The EIR will address the potential for implementation of the proposed project to substantially degrade water quality or violate water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge, substantially increase surface runoff or erosion, or exacerbate flooding hazards from new development. Stanford has prepared a draft Water Supply Assessment for the proposed 2018 General Use Permit, which will be peer-reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the EIR. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality will be identified and analyzed. • Land Use – The EIR will describe existing land uses and development trends within the project area; discuss potential inconsistencies of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit with relevant County and other applicable planning documents; analyze potential programmatic land use changes that could occur, and evaluate the compatibility with neighboring land uses. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to land use will be identified and analyzed. • Noise and Vibration. The EIR will describe the existing ambient noise environment in and around the General Use Permit area; identify applicable noise guidelines and regulations; assess the noise compatibility of the proposed project with existing land uses, and assess construction and operational noise and vibration impacts on existing and proposed future land uses. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to noise and vibration will be identified and analyzed. • Population and Housing – The EIR will describe the magnitude of potential changes in population and housing associated with the proposed 2018 General Use Permit. The EIR will describe whether the housing demand associated with increased campus population under the proposed project would be met by the existing or future housing supply. The EIR will evaluate if implementation of the proposed project would displace housing and population, from both the Stanford campus and, indirectly, from nearby areas. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to population and housing will be identified and analyzed. • Public Services – The EIR will describe local police and fire services, as well as primary and secondary schools in districts serving the General Use Permit area and surrounding communities; and assess whether implementation of the proposed 2018 General Use Permit would require the construction of new or expanded public facilities that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts. If needed, Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Notice of Preparation Page 10 County of Santa Clara mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to public services will be described. • Recreation –The EIR will describe the environmental setting for parks and recreation; discuss the potential for the anticipated population increases and proposed 2018 General Use Permit development to result in a corresponding increases in the use of non-Stanford recreational facilities such that substantial impacts could occur; and assess whether the construction of any proposed recreational facilities would have a significant effect on the environment. Stanford University has submitted a Parks and Recreation Facilities Analysis for the proposed project, which will be peer reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the EIR Recreation section. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to recreation will be identified and analyzed. • Transportation & Circulation –The EIR will describe existing multi-modal transportation and circulation conditions at study intersections, on freeways, and transit facilities, as well as transit service and bicycle/pedestrian facilities; describe Stanford’s current and proposed transportation demand management programs; present forecasted future conditions using the VTA/CCAG travel demand model; estimate trip generation, trip distribution and vehicle miles traveled associated with the 2018 General Use Permit; and analyze near-term and cumulative transportation conditions with and without the proposed 2018 General Use Permit. Stanford University is submitting a Traffic Impact Study for the proposed 2018 General Use Permit, which will be peer reviewed and, if appropriate, included in the EIR Transportation & Circulation section of the EIR. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to transportation and circulation will be identified and analyzed. • Utilities and Services Systems –The EIR will describe existing utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater and solid waste services that serve Stanford, calculate increased demand for water and generation of wastewater and solid waste under the proposed 2018 General Use Permit; and assess whether implementation the proposed project would require new or expanded public utilities, the construction or operation of which would have a substantial adverse impact on the environment. The EIR will also consider whether the proposed project would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste. The evaluation of water demand will be based on a draft Water Supply Assessment prepared by Stanford for the proposed 2018 General Use Permit, and peer reviewed and ultimately approved by the County. The EIR will evaluate if there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. If needed, mitigation measures to reduce any potential significant impacts related to utilities and service systems will be identified and analyzed. • Cumulative Impacts. The EIR will evaluate, issue by issue, the potential for the proposed project, when combined with other development identified in the cumulative setting, to either result in new, or contribute to existing, cumulatively considerable adverse effects on the environment. • Alternatives. CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project (or project location) that feasibly attain most of the objectives, but could avoid or reduce at least one environmental impact (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). • Growth Inducement. This section will qualitatively evaluate the project’s potential to induce growth and any subsequent environmental impacts that would occur (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[d]). City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/15/2017 11:43 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 2:32 PM To:David Rader; Manira Sandhir Cc:Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Keene, James; Drekmeier, Peter Subject:Request to Extend Public's GUP 2018 Scoping Deadline Country Planners Rader and Sandhir, This a request that the deadline of February 17 for public responses (i.e., comments) to the Notice of Preparation for an EIR for the Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit” be extended to a date commensurate to that afforded the Palo Alto City Council. The reasons are as follows: 1. The scoping session of 2/8/17 conflicted with Palo Alto’s annual State of the City Address and therefore limited attendance. 2. New information (i.e., “clarifications" from the county supervisor of District 5) made at the scoping session, require additional research as to their location in various documents as well as consideration as to their relevance in potential scoping comments 3. The Palo Alto City Council will not meet for a study session on the GUP 2018 application until after the deadline. 4. Unless release is much earlier than expected, a draft comment letter from Palo Alto city staff will not be available prior to this Friday’s deadline. 5. Palo Alto residents should have the opportunity to hear their council members' discussion prior to the deadline 6. It seems only fair that all parties have the same deadline for comment submission. Thank you, Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK February 27, 2017 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the January 30 and February 6, 2017 Council Meetings Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 01-30-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Attachment B: 02-06-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 12 Special Meeting January 30, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:07 P.M. Present: DuBois arrived at 5:15 P.M., Filseth, Fine, Holman, Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Buena Vista MHP Residents Association v. City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 115-CV-284763 Subject Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1). MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:07 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:06 P.M. Mayor Scharff announced no reportable action. Special Orders of the Day 2. Selection of Applicants to Interview on February 1, 2017 for the Historic Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Planning and Transportation Commission. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to: A. Interview all new applicants for the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning & Transportation Commission; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/30/17 B. Interview all previously interviewed applicants for the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning & Transportation Commission if they would like a second interview; and C. Limit Planning & Transportation Commission interviews to 10 minutes. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member XX to interview all new applicants for the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning & Transportation Commission. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Consent Calendar MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-4. 3. Approval of the Acceptance and Expenditure of Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Funds on Various Law Enforcement Equipment and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Law Enforcement Services Fund. 4. Resolution 9664 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in Collaboration With the Cities of Redwood City, Menlo Park, and Mountain View Directing Staff to Participate in Sub-regional Planning on Bike Routes.” MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 5. Comprehensive Plan Update: City Council Review & Direction Regarding the Draft Land Use & Community Design Element and the Revised Draft Transportation Element. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/30/17 A. Cumulative Cap: Policy L-1.10 would maintain a Cumulative Cap of 1.7 million square feet, which is the square footage remaining under the existing cap, focus the Cap on Office/R&D uses and apply it citywide rather than only in “monitored areas.” It would also exempt medical office uses in the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) area (the current cap does not apply to this geographic area), and require annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and determine whether the cap and the development requirements should be adjusted; and B. Annual Limit: Direct Staff to return with a permanent Ordinance addressing the Annual Limit, separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update; and C. Downtown Cap: Eliminate the Downtown cap found in existing Program L-8 and focus on monitoring development and parking demand. AMENDMENT: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to replace Part C of the Motion with, “retain the existing Downtown Cap for 45,000 square feet and exempt retail from the Cap.” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Amendment, “and hotels” after “exempt retail.” AMENDMENT RESTATED: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to replace Part C of the Motion with, “Program L-1.16.4 would retain a Downtown Cap of about 45,000 square feet for Office/R&D similar to Program L-1.16.2, and would also Cap new hotel development at 50,000 square feet.” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka to add to Motion Part A, “with the exception of the Stanford Research Park” after “apply it citywide.” AMENDMENT FAILED: 2-7 Fine, Tanaka yes DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/30/17 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace Part B of the Motion with, “direct Staff to make permanent the Annual Limit Ordinance of 50,000 Square Feet, separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update.” AMENDMENT: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to Motion Part C, “and initiate a community driven Specific Area Plan for the Downtown Area.” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to replace Part B of the Motion with, “Policy L-1.14 would perpetuate the interim annual limit of 50,000 square feet of Office/R&D and expand it to apply citywide, except that an additional 50,000 square footage allocation would be provided for the Stanford Research Park (SRP), and that allocation could be carried forward to future years if unused, up to the existing allowable square footage in the SRP. Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) would be exempt from the annual limit. This exemption could be clarified to apply only to approved uses only if desired.” INCORPORATED INTO THE AMENDMEND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Amendment, “establish a baseline traffic measure for the Stanford Research Park.” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to replace Part B of the Motion with, “Policy L-1.14 would perpetuate the interim annual limit of 50,000 square feet of Office/R&D and expand it to apply citywide, except that an additional 50,000 square footage allocation would be provided for the Stanford Research Park (SRP), and that allocation could be carried forward to future years if unused, up to the existing allowable square footage in the SRP. Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) would be exempt from the annual limit. This exemption could be clarified to apply only to approved uses only if desired. Establish a baseline traffic measure for the Stanford Research Park.” AMENDMENT AS AMENDED FAILED: 3-6 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to direct Staff to include in the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/30/17 A. Cumulative Cap: Policy L-1.10 would maintain a Cumulative Cap of 1.7 million square feet, which is the square footage remaining under the existing cap, focus the Cap on Office/R&D uses and apply it citywide rather than only in “monitored areas.” It would also exempt medical office uses in the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) area (the current Cap does not apply to this geographic area), and require annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and determine whether the Cap and the development requirements should be adjusted; and B. Annual Limit: Direct Staff to make permanent the Annual Limit Ordinance of 50,000 Square Feet, separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update; and C. Downtown Cap: Eliminate the Downtown Cap found in existing Program L-8 and focus on monitoring development and parking demand. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to maintain the current 50 foot height limit separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update, continuing as an Ordinance. AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member XX to replace in the Motion, “the current 50 foot height limit separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update, continuing as an Ordinance” with “any but only existing language in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan relating to height limits.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to add to the Motion, “include Policy L-6.7 and add possible, limited exceptions to the Fry’s and Cubberley sites. AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes MOTION PASSED: 7-2 DuBois, Holman no Council took a break at 8:49 P.M. and returned at 9:00 P.M. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/30/17 MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to direct Staff to exclude from the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update “child care” from the list of typical Neighborhood Commercial uses. MOTION PASSED: 6-3 Filseth, Fine, Tanaka no MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: A. Pursue multifamily housing at the Stanford Shopping Center, provided adequate parking is maintained, as alluded to in Policy L-4.7 (the language could be strengthened); and B. Pursue multifamily housing in the Stanford Research Park, particularly along the El Camino Real frontage as alluded to in Program L-5.4.1 (the language could be strengthened); and C. Reinstate the language in previous Policy L-33 (now Policy L-4.12 and Program L-1.12.3) about housing potential in the Town & Country area; and D. Include a new program to pursue multifamily housing near Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) and/or in the western part of the Stanford Research Park. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace Part B of the Motion with, “Program L-5.4.1 explore with Stanford University various development options for adding to the Stanford Research Park a diverse mix of uses, including residential, commercial hotel, conference center, commercial space for small businesses and start-ups, retail, transit hub, and other community- supporting services that are compatible with the existing uses, to create a vibrant innovation-oriented community.” (New Part E) AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to add to the Motion Part C, “which would be limited to second floor office conversion.” AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AMENDMENT: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to replace Part C of the Motion with, “not support housing in the Town & Country area.” AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Fine, Tanaka, Wolbach no DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/30/17 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in Parts A and D of the Motion, “pursue” with “explore.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from Motion Part D, “and/or in the western part of the Stanford Research Park.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part A, “and vibrant retail” after “adequate parking.” MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: A. Explore multifamily housing at the Stanford Shopping Center, provided adequate parking and vibrant retail is maintained, as alluded to in Policy L-4.7 (the language could be strengthened); and B. L-5.4.1 Explore with Stanford University various development options for adding to the Stanford Research Park a diverse mix of uses, including residential, commercial hotel, conference center, commercial space for small businesses and start-ups, retail, transit hub, and other community-supporting services that are compatible with the existing uses, to create a vibrant innovation-oriented community; and C. Not support housing in the Town & County area; and D. Include a new program to explore multifamily housing near Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC). MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, a new program to eliminate housing sites along San Antonio Road and increase residential densities in Downtown and the California Avenue Area to replace potential units on the sites eliminated. MOTION PASSED: 6-3 Filseth, Kniss, Kou no MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to direct Staff to eliminate from the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update Development Requirements and Community Indicators. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/30/17 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to consider a Community Indicator Program as part of the next iteration of the Annual Performance Report or another on-going monitoring effort.” (New Part B) SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: to articulate the purposes and topics for development requirements in the Comprehensive Plan, but develop details later via Comprehensive Plan program and reference tables L-1 and L-2 and include Staff comments regarding these tables and include references to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) wherever Level Of Service (LOS) is included in the Comprehensive Plan. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update to articulate the purposes and topics for development requirements in the Comprehensive Plan, but develop details later via an implementation program excluding Comprehensive Plan Programs. SECOND WITHDRAWN BY THE SECONDER SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update: A. Eliminate Development Requirements and Community Indicators in the Comprehensive Plan; and B. Direct Staff to consider a Community Indicator Program as part of the next iteration of the Annual Performance Report or another on-going monitoring effort. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 Holman no MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update to create new opportunities for retail/residential mixed use and pursue conversion of some non-retail commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 9 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/30/17 residential FAR as alluded to in Policy L-6.12, this policy will be separated into two Programs, Program L-1.16.5, and Program L-1.12.3. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0-1 Tanaka abstain MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, Policy L-2.3 about encouraging a mix of housing types and sizes designed for greater affordability and Policy 3.4 about encouraging a mix of smaller housing types. MOTION PASSED: 8-0-1 DuBois abstain MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update Policy L-3.5 and associated Program L-3.5.1 regarding ways to minimize displacement of existing residents. MOTION PASSED: 8-0-1 Tanaka abstain MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, policies and programs like Policy L-4.1, Program L-3.2.1, and Program L-6.12.4 about preserving ground floor retail space. MOTION PASSED: 5-0-4 Filseth, Holman, Kou, Scharff abstain MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, maintain Policy L-3.3 and/or Policy L-3.6 (some repetition can be eliminated) and associated Program L-3.3.1 about preserving existing housing that is affordable, such as small cottage clusters, removing from Program L-3.3.1, “and the replacement of rental housing units with ownership housing units.” MOTION PASSED: 6-0-3 Kou, Tanaka, Wolbach abstain MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, Program L-1.16.5 (we will fix the numbering problem here) or L-7.12.1 (some repetition can be eliminated) to revise or consider revising the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program Downtown to create bonus residential rather than commercial square footage. MOTION PASSED: 7-0-2 Filseth, Tanaka abstain DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 10 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/30/17 MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, a program to explore increasing hotel Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 2.0 to 3.0. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “in areas inside of Downtown and 2.5 in other areas.” MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Tanaka to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, a program to explore increasing hotel Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 2.0 to 3.0 in areas inside of Downtown and 2.5 in other areas.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-3-1 DuBois, Holman, Kou no, Filseth abstain MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, Policy L-4.10 regarding enhancing the pedestrian environment along El Camino Real and Program L-9.4.1 specific to sidewalk widths and building design. MOTION FAILED: 4-1-4 Fine no, Filseth, Kniss, Scharff, Wolbach abstain MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to include in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update converting Policy L-4.10 regarding enhancing the pedestrian environment along El Camino Real to a Program and maintain Program L-9.4.1 specific to sidewalk widths and building design. MOTION FAILED: 3-5-1 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes, Fine abstain MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to direct Staff to eliminate from the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update Program L-4.2.1 regarding preparation of a Coordinated Area Plan for South El Camino (pp. L-48 through L-49). MOTION PASSED: 6-2-1 Fine, Tanaka no, Filseth abstain MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to direct Staff to restore in the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, existing Policy L-6 language about preserving neighborhood character (“avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 11 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/30/17 densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible.”) This is in lieu of the new language proposed in Policy L-6.11. MOTION PASSED: 5-2-2 Scharff, Wolbach no, Fine, Tanaka abstain MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to remove from the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, all Programs from the Land Use Element, not required by State Law to be taken up at future dates as policy discussions and use the implementation section of the Plan to indicate the relative cost and priority of each Program. MOTION FAILED: 4-2-3 DuBois, Kou, no, Filseth, Holman, Scharff abstain MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to direct Staff to remove from the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update, all Programs from the Land Use Element, not required by State Law to be taken up at future dates as policy discussions and use the implementation section of the plan to indicate the relative cost and priority of each Program. MOTION PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Scharff to remove all Programs from the Transportation Element. MOTION PASSED: 6-1-2 Holman no, Filseth, Kniss abstain MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to continue the Revised Draft Transportation Element to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to continue the Land Use Element to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 12 of 12 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 1/30/17 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements None. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:59 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 6 Special Meeting February 6, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:05 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman arrived at 5:08 P.M., Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach arrived at 5:13 P.M. Absent: Kniss Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS This item will not be heard this evening and will be rescheduled. 1A. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-POTENTIAL LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Under Govt. Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) (One Potential Case, as Defendant/Respondent) 429 University Avenue; Appeal of Director of Planning and Community Environment's Architectural Review Approval of a Development Application. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Kniss, Wolbach absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:09 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:51 P.M. Study Session 2. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE END OF THE AGENDA. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 2/6/17 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to continue Agenda Item Number 12- PUBLIC HEARING: Review and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning)… to March 6, 2017. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the January 23, 2017 Council Meeting. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to approve the Action Minutes for the January 23, 2017 Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent Consent Calendar MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-9 including changes to Agenda Item Number 8- Fiscal Year 2017 Mid-year Budget Review… as outlined in the Staff Memorandum. 4. Review and Acceptance of the Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Fiscal Year 2016. 5. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Closing the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget and Capital Projects, and Approval of the Fiscal Year 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). 6. Resolution 9665 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Continue the Palo Alto CLEAN Program: (1) for Local Non-solar Resources, at a Price of 8.4 ¢/kWh to 8.5 ¢/kWh With no Capacity Limit; and (2) for Local Solar Resources, at a 16.5 ¢/kWh Price That Drops to Avoided Cost at 3 MW; and Approval of Associated Program Rules and Agreements.” 7. 203 Forest Avenue [14PLN-00472]: Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Denial of an Architectural Review DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 2/6/17 Application for a 4,996 Square Foot Residential Addition Above an Existing 4,626 Square Foot Commercial Building. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Pursuant to Section 15270, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Does not Apply to Disapproved Projects. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) District. 8. Fiscal Year 2017 Mid-year Budget Review, Approval of Budget Amendments in Various Funds and Approval of Amendments to Three Salary Schedules. 9. Approval to Issue a Contract Change Order to Contract Number C16163847 With Wadsworth Golf Construction Company in the Amount of $198,850 for the Construction of a Prefabricated On-course Restroom at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent Action Items 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 9666 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated.” Public Hearing opened at 8:04 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 8:07 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to adopt a Resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent 11. PUBLIC HEARING: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: To Consider a Continued Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-foot, Four Story, Mixed use Building With Parking Facilities on two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-foot Site. Environmental Assessment: the Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P). The Council Previously Considered This Appeal on November DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 2/6/17 30, 2015 and Remanded it to the Architectural Review Board for Redesign and Further Review Based on Council’s Direction. Public Hearing opened at 8:20 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to: A. Deny the Appeal; and B. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan; and C. Approve a modified project (Option 1) with conditions included in the Staff Report, Pages 6-8; and D. Direct Staff to return with written findings for adoption. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to deny the Project due to the inability to make Architectural Review Findings as part of the Council’s prior review from Staff Report, Pages 4-5 and the Architectural Review Board recommendation to deny the Project. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-5 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes, Kniss absent AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “that the height of the prominent First Floor concrete elements be lowered to be consistent with the prevailing street pattern.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “this approval is subject to the actual Project matching Option 1 as described by Staff.” (New Part E) DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 2/6/17 MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to: A. Deny the Appeal; and B. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan; and C. Approve a modified project (Option 1) with conditions included in the Staff Report, Packet Pages 527-528; and D. Direct Staff to return with written findings for adoption; and E. This approval is subject to the actual Project matching Option 1 as described by Staff. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-3 DuBois, Holman, Kou no, Kniss absent 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Review and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Update Code Sections Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 6, 2017. Study Session 2. Update on Stanford University's General Use Plan (GUP) Application to Santa Clara County. This Agenda Item continued to February 27, 2017. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Holman requested Council reconsider the placement of Programs within the Comprehensive Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 6 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 2/6/17 Council Member DuBois voiced his support of this reconsideration proposal. Council Member Holman suggested that her statement be considered a Colleagues Memorandum. Molly Stump, City Attorney advised that Colleagues Memorandum are typically submitted in writing to allow for Staff review and feedback. She also noted that Staff intends to return to Council for further direction regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update. Council Member Holman shared her understanding that Staff plans to return with further discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update based on Council’s previous direction. She clarified that her request is for reconsideration of the Council’s direction pertaining to the placement of Programs in the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Scharff advised that this request appears to be a Motion for Reconsideration, which is not an option during Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements pursuant to the City Council Procedures and Protocols. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:11 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7706) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/27/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Regulatory Agreement for 3020-3028 Emerson Street (Plum Tree Apartments) Title: Review and Approval of a Regulatory Agreement, Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, and Option to Purchase for 3020-3038 Emerson Street (Plum Tree Apartments). The Project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3). From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Regulatory Agreement, Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, and Option to Purchase for property at 3020-3038 Emerson Street (Plum Tree Apartments) and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Background & Discussion The Plum Tree Apartments is a 10-unit apartment building located at 3020-3080 Emerson Street in Palo Alto. In December 1991, the City entered into a regulatory agreement with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), providing $978,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to PAHC for the purchase of the property in exchange for the organization’s operation of low and moderate income housing. The City provided PAHC an additional CDBG loan in the amount of $34,650 in June 2009 for rehabilitation costs. Among the various provisions of the 1991 regulatory agreement is the City’s option to repurchase the property for one dollar at the expiration of the agreement. As required by the 1991 agreement, PAHC notified the City that the agreement would expire on December 19, 2016 and that the City had 90 days from expiration to exercise its option to purchase the property for one dollar. The City and PAHC agreed to extend the City’s deadline to exercise its option to March 4, 2017. The City has until March 4, 2017 to exercise the option or negotiate a new regulatory agreement with PAHC. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Staff and PAHC have negotiated a new Regulatory Agreement, Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, and Option to Purchase (Attachment A) to ensure the continued affordability of the ten units at the Plum Tree Apartments. Option to Purchase Maintaining an option to repurchase for the City preserves a degree of ownership. However, options of this nature may pose challenges for PAHC should they seek to refinance in the future because it introduces a possible change in ownership to a lender within the time period of the loan. The staff recommendation includes a City option for a period of 55 years, but contemplates negotiation of potential changes if the option creates a disadvantage in the event of a future funding application by PAHC. If the City decides to exercise its option at the end of the 55 year period, the City may purchase the property for the purchase price of one dollar. In addition, the term of the option may be extended for an additional 44 years, or a total of 99 years, if PAHC elects to do so. Affordability Restrictions All ten units are required to be rented out exclusively to low and moderate income residents, with a minimum of 70% of the units to be made available to low income households at affordable rents. The maximum low income limit is 80% of area median income, which is currently $79,250 for a four-person household in Santa Clara County. The units may also be occupied by Section 8 Assisted Households. In the event that a tenant’s income exceeds the qualifying income for a low income household, the unit shall be occupied by income qualified household upon being vacated by the over-income household. Policy Implications The actions recommended in this report implement the City’s Housing Element policies and programs supporting the preservation of low income housing. For example, Policy H1.2: Support efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods. Policy H3.1: Encourage, foster, and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low, low, and moderate income households. Resource Impact The City is not providing additional funding to PAHC under this agreement. Environmental Review: The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there will City of Palo Alto Page 3 be no significant effect on the environment. There are no plans for rehabilitating or redeveloping the site. Any future proposal to reuse the site for another purpose or to redevelop the site would need to be reviewed pursuant to CEQA prior to any City decision to provide funding or approvals. Attachments: Attachment A: Regulatory Agreement, Declaration of Restrictive Covenants and Option to Purchase (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 7795) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/27/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 670 Los Trancos Title: 670 Los Trancos Road [16PLN-00266]: Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a Single Family House and Guest House With a Total of 10,959 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt From CEQA Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: OS From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council approve a Record of Land Use Action for a Site and Design application to allow the construction of a two-story single family residence, detached guest house, and associated site improvements on the property at 670 Los Trancos Road. (Attachment A) Background The Municipal Code requires that the City Council review Major Site and Design Review applications for new development in the Open Space zoning district, and provides for Council Consent Calendar review of new single family homes. The current application was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on January 11, 2017, and the PTC recommended that the staff prepare a draft Record of Land Use Action for approval. A link to the full PTC staff report in included here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55399, and a copy of the staff report without attachments is included in Attachment D. The minutes of the PTC hearing are included in Attachment F. Discussion The applicant proposes to construct a two-story single family residence, detached guest house, and associated site improvements on the undeveloped property located at 670 Los Trancos City of Palo Alto Page 2 Road. The site is located in the Open Space (OS) zoning district, which permits limited housing development. The proposed house is 9,363 square feet, not including approximately 2,100 square feet of exempt basement area, and the proposed detached guest house is 1,596 square feet. The site is a 5.42 acre parcel in a residential subdivision known as the Hewlett Tract. As with the nine other home sites in the subdivision, the subject parcel was approved in August 1980 with a site area less than the 10 acre minimum for the Open Space district in order to provide a clustered subdivision plan with two large common open space areas. The site is situated on a hill overlooking the Arastradero Preserve, and the topography slopes downhill to the north from the top of the knoll along Los Trancos Road. The proposed main house would be situated on a sloped portion of the site below the highest point of the ridge, and portions of the house would be tucked into the hillside. Approximately 1,915 square feet of the gross first floor area of the house, including the garage, will have green roofing systems that support native vegetation and will be integrated with the post-grading contours of the site. This design feature would create the appearance that these portions of the house are subterranean from certain vantage points. The guest house would be situated in an existing clearing adjacent to the oak and buckeye grove, with access to the house from a secondary branch of the driveway connecting the site to Los Trancos Road. Summary of Key Issues Tree Protection: The site contains a large grove of oak and buckeye trees in the northwestern portions of the site. One protected valley oak on the edge of the grove is proposed for removal due to the tree’s decayed condition, which was assessed in the applicant’s tree protection report. The City’s Planning Arborist has approved the tree removal with a replacement ratio of 10:1, with either blue oak or valley oak trees to be planted with a minimum 6 foot crown diameter at the time of planting. Offsite Views: Story poles were erected on the site to simulate the building envelopes of the structures prior to the PTC hearing, and staff received a letter from a hiker at the Arastradero Preserve which expressed concerns regarding the visual impact of the house. The residence would be located on a hill overlooking the preserve, and existing tree cover is confined to either side of the lot. As a result, the home would be visible from certain vantage points in the Preserve, including from the Meadowlark Trail. The applicant has proposed ten new blue or valley oak trees as mitigation for the loss of one decayed oak, and these mitigation trees would provide a degree of screening for the home at maturity. Guest House: One member of the public spoke on the application at the PTC hearing, and raised City of Palo Alto Page 3 a question about whether the proposed guest house should be considered an accessory dwelling unit, which currently, would be permitted only on Open Space sites greater than 10 acres. The municipal code currently defines an accessory dwelling unit as a dwelling unit, other than and subordinate to the main dwelling unit, whether a part of the same structure or detached, on the same residential lot. The code further defines a dwelling unit as a room or group of rooms including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation/bathing facilities, constituting a separate and independent housekeeping unit, occupied or intended for occupancy on a non- transient basis and having not more than one kitchen. And, lastly, a kitchen is defined as a room designed, intended or used for cooking and the preparation of food and dishwashing. Kitchen facilities include the presence of major appliances or utility connections and the ability to store, prepare, cook, and cleanup of food and food preparation. The applicant is not pursuing an accessory dwelling unit at this time and has drafted plans that show a kitchenette (no major appliances proposed). In this regard, the project complies with local zoning regulations. However, the city is considering changes to the accessory dwelling unit regulations and this project will be subject to those standards ultimately adopted by Council. Open Space Development Criteria and Site and Design Review Objectives Section 18.28.070 of the Municipal Code requires the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council to evaluate the proposed project in the context of the Open Space Development Criteria and Site and Design Review objectives. These criteria and objectives constitute the findings for approval of the project, and an analysis of the project’s conformance with each specific criterion and objective are included in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Planning and Transportation Commission Review The PTC reviewed the project on January 11, 2017 and recommended approval of the project 5- 1. While there was no dissenting remarks offered after the motion, the dissenting commissioner expressed a perspective that the accessory structure functionally served as a accessory dwelling unit, which would be in conflict with the municipal code (see discussion above). Additionally, the commissioner expressed concerns about the visibility of the house from the Preserve and interest in reducing the amount of driveway paving needed to access the accessory structure and main residence. Commissioners supporting the project noted the house was thoughtfully designed, adequately addressed screening the house from views, cited the environmental design attributes, and the project’s compliance with applicable zoning regulations. The PTC minutes are attached to this report. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 4 As set forth in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA), staff has concluded that the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, substantially complies with the Open Space Development Criteria and the objectives of Site and Design Review. The application has been analyzed for consistency with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, and a summary table in included in Attachment B of this report. Environmental Review: The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, which includes but is not limited to the development of one single family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, as well as accessory or appurtenant structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Staff finds that the development of a single family house and guest house in a residential use in the Open Space District, which permits single family use, is substantially similar to the examples included in Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment C: Location Map (PDF) Attachment D: January 11, 2017 PTC Staff Report (PDF) Attachment E: Applicant Response to PTC Hearing (PDF) Attachment F: Public Correspondence (PDF) Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment A Page 1 of 26 Draft ACTION NO. 2017-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 670 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW (16PLN-00266) On February 27, 2017, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Site and Design Review application for construction of a two-story single-family residence with detached guest house, landscaping and other site improvements in the Open Space Zoning District, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Michael Anglisano of McClean Design, on behalf of the property owners Noa Grant and Guy Gecht, has requested the City’s approval to allow construction of a two-story house, a detached guest house, and associated site improvements that include the installation a new driveway and landscaping. (“The Project”) B. The project site is a 5.42 acre parcel (APN 182-56-001) in the Palo Alto Foothills. The site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as Open Space/Controlled Development and is located within Open Space (OS) zoning district. The project includes construction of a new, approximately, 9,363 square foot house (excluding basement areas), with a 1,596 square foot guest house and swimming pool. The main driveway would be constructed of pervious pavers and decomposed granite. As conditioned, the total impervious area would be a maximum of 15,050 square feet. The house would contain stone, wood, and plaster cladding materials with muted colors, and the rear of the main house would contain glass curtain walls. The roof would be a dark brown standing seam metal, while some portions would contain a green roofing system covered with native vegetation. C. The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the Project on January 11, 2017. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR #XXXX 7451 and the associated attachments. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt per section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act. This exemption includes the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and includes one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings 1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The project is located in a residential subdivision containing other houses. The project has been designed to minimize the visual impacts of the new house from the Arastradero Preserve by dropping portions of the house below grade, and keeping the top of the main house below the elevation of the knoll on the site. The Formatted: Not Highlight Attachment A Page 2 of 26 project will have minimal visual impacts on adjacent residential sites due to site topography, the physical separation between the site and the surrounding sites, and the mature tree cover. Furthermore, the materials, colors and landscaping selection have been designed to blend in with the natural environment to the greatest extent feasible. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project represents a substantial investment in a residential subdivision for the purpose of constructing a residence. As designed and conditioned, the proposed design and use of the site are consistent with the Open Space zoning and land use classification and is compatible with the existing adjacent residential uses. The construction of all improvements would be governed by the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development. 3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the project. The project has been designed to respect the environmental setting and existing vegetation. Although grading is proposed to cut the house and drive court into the hillside, the project will retain the general form of the top of the knoll present on the site. Over 91% of the site will remain undisturbed or will be restored with native vegetation. 4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project proposal complies with the policies of the Land Use and Community Design, and the Natural Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including: Policy L-1: The Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation of undeveloped land west of the Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Open Space/Controlled Development. Single-family residential uses are permitted within this district, and the site was subdivided in 1980 for the purpose of constructing a house. The structures would retain the open space character of the area through the use of materials and colors that are compatible with the environment, and through the restoration of native vegetation in areas proposed for grading. Policy L-5: The Comprehensive Plan states to maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Although the house would be larger than others currently located in the Hewlett Tract subdivision, the house has been designed to limit the scale by dropping substantial portions of the mass below-grade, and by re-grading portions of the slope to visually integrate the land with the structures. Policy L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto’s roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. Due to the topography and grassland vegetative cover in the center of the property, the project would be visible from certain locations within the Arastradero Preserve. However, oak and buckeye groves on both sides of the property limit the extent of the visual impact to areas of the Preserve immediately north and northeast of the site. The project would be less visible from Los Trancos Road due to the hilltop knoll present on the site. Attachment A Page 3 of 26 Policy N-7: All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area should be consistent with the City of Palo Alto Open Space development Criteria. Conformance with the Open Space Development Criteria is discussed below. SECTION 4. Open Space Review Criteria The project proposal meets the following Open Space Review Criteria and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan regarding development in designated open space areas. 1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. The proposed house would not be visually intrusive from public roadways and will be screened to some degree from be somewhat visually intrusive from a number of the trails in the Arastradero Preserve; however, portions of the house will be visible from the Arastradero Preserve, including the Meadowlark Trail. While visible, the proposed structure will not be visually intrusive due to e. Existing oak and buckeye groves on either side of the property, as well as the ten proposed blue oaks that , would limit the views from the surrounding properties and from more oblique locations in the Preserve. Substantial portions of the home have been dropped below grade to help minimize the overall scale of the development. Native vegetation and existing mature trees will be maintained and the added landscaping will restore the native vegetation lost with the construction. The use of earth tone colors and natural building materials would also minimize the visual impact of the development. 2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridgeline. While the site is fully situated on a hill, the highest point of main residence’s roof will be below the adjacent 879.9 foot-high knoll. The guest house would be located on a level portion of the top of the hillside, and would extend 2.5 feet above the height of the adjacent knoll. However, the guest house is surrounded on three sides by an oak grove, and this structure would not be visible from the Preserve and minimally visible from Los Trancos Road. 3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. The topography and oak groves of the site will limit views of the proposed structures from adjacent properties. Additionally, the physical distance between the site and the adjacent houses greatly limits the potential for privacy impacts. 4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. The plan of the subdivision containing the site follows a clustered design, and the house and guest house would be located relatively close to two other homes in the vicinity. the mass of the home is set into and along the natural contours of the site. The guest house is situated away from the main residence, which minimizes the apparent scale of the development, and allows the guest house to take advantage of the natural screening provided by the adjacent oak and buckeye grove. The width and design of the driveway would minimize grading and reduce impacts on existing trees. Attachment A Page 4 of 26 5. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. The building footprint and driveway areas generally follow the natural topography, while also cutting into the hillside in order to drop the mass of the house beneath the top of the knoll on the site. The main house presents a horizontal, modern design with a mixture of glass and natural cladding materials. Portions of the first floor elements of the house would appear subterranean due to the green roofing system, which would integrate native vegetation. 6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible. The project includes the removal of one protected Valley Oak 22.8 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) due to severe decay and a large open cavity. The Urban Forestry division has reviewed and supports this proposed removal with a replacement ratio of 10:1. The Arborist Report submitted with the project and construction plans have been evaluated by the Urban Forestry Planning Arborist, who has agreed that sufficient tree protection measures have been included in the project. 7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. The site topography and project design require cutting into the hillside, and new grading will integrate the contours of the land with the roof level of most of the one-story elements of the house. On balance, relatively little fill is proposed, and no construction activity of any sort is proposed within the Tree Protection Zone as outlined in the Arborist Report. 8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. Impervious surfaces have been limited primarily to the building footprints and rear patio areas. The driveway and car court would be constructed of a combination of pervious pavers and decomposed granite to reduce runoff. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. The home would be cladded with stone, plaster and wood materials with muted colors, which would blend with the hillside surroundings. Additionally, the dark brown standing seam metal roof, as well as the green roofing system used to integrate the one-story elements of the house with the finished grade, would be consistent with the setting. 10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. The landscape plan was designed primarily to restore the post-grading site with native vegetative covers. The landscaping plan describes various irrigation and planting zones, with the vast majority of the restored areas requiring only temporary irrigation. 11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from of-site. Exterior lighting fixtures and a site photometric plan will be required Attachment A Page 5 of 26 with the building permit plans, and will be required to demonstrate low intensity site lighting to minimize glare. 12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment). The primary 12 foot-wide driveway will be constructed of pervious pavers and decomposed granite to reflect the rural character of the area. The secondary driveway serving the guest house will be constructed with a Hollywood strip, with vegetation planted between the concrete tracks. Urban-style improvements, such as curb, gutter, and sidewalks, are not proposed. 13. For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general conformance with Palo Alto's Open Space District regulations. The project is within the City limits and, as proposed and conditioned, meets the O-S (Open Space) District zoning regulations. SECTION 5. Site and Design Approvals Granted. Site and Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 164PLN-00266, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of the Record. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Planning Division 1. The plans submitted for a Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans last revised on December 14, 2016 and the materials board on file with the Planning Department, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission or City Council. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The following conditions of approval shall be printed on the second sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. 4. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: a. The plans shall be revised to reflect a maximum impervious cover for the site not to exceed 15,050 square feet as approved with Variance 86-V-22. The water surface of the swimming pool may be excluded from the impervious area calculation. b. The Pervious Surface Tabulation on Sheet A001 shall be amended to indicate the percentage of permeability for each surface material based on the proposed design and installation. All paved surfaces shall be classified as 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% Attachment A Page 6 of 26 impervious. This final impervious coverage calculation shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director, not to exceed the maximum permitted by Variance 86-V-22. c. A photometric plan with footcandle readings shall be submitted and shall demonstrate that exterior lighting is low-intensity and that light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours. All exterior lighting shall be directed down to avoid any impact upon surrounding property and open space lands. d. Unless otherwise permitted by state law or local ordinance, the guest house shall not be considered or used as a separate dwelling unit, and shall not provide a kitchen with permanent cooking facilities. e. As a requirement of receiving bonus FAR, the property owner shall enter into a covenant that is recorded with the property and would apply to all future property owners assuring that the designated “undisturbed” and “restored” vegetation areas will remain in the approved vegetative condition; enforcement provisions acceptable to the City Attorney will be outlined in the covenant. To remove the landscape restrictions related to the bonus FAR, the site development shall be modified to reduce the FAR to meet the standard requirements. These modifications are subject to site and design review. f. As a requirement of receiving bonus FAR the property owner shall be required to submit a follow-up landscape-arborist report verifying the site is in compliance with the approved plans, five years after the project’s sign-off, as outlined in PAMC 18.28.070(d). 5. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building permit drawings for all buildings, structures, and other features. 6. A landscaping plan shall be included with the plans submitted for the building permit. The plan shall include species type, size and quantities to be planted. The irrigation plan shall be included showing any mechanical irrigation systems. 7. The existing natural vegetation and land formations shall remain in a natural state unless modification is found to be necessary for a specific use allowed in the Open Space zone district through the site and design approval procedure. Reduction or elimination of fire hazards will be required where heavy concentrations of flammable vegetation occur. 8. A follow-up arborist and/or landscape report shall be required five years after the final sign-off of the project completion. This report shall evaluate the health of trees and significant Attachment A Page 7 of 26 landscape that were required for screen planting or and/or were designated as protected plantings on the approved plans for the project. Any subsequent owner(s) shall also be obligated to replace any trees that die with trees of the same size and species stated on the approved planning and building permit plans. 9. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a glass type that minimizes reflectivity from off- site views. 10. If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. 11. Indemnity: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 12. Judicial Review. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 13. Impact Fees. Development Impact fees (including Parkland Dedication, Community Facilities, Library, Housing, and Citywide Transportation Impact Area fees) with an estimated total of $32,297 must be paid prior to building permit issuance. This is an estimate and the final total may change based on date of building permit submittal. 14. 90-day Protest Period: California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST Attachment A Page 8 of 26 WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. 15. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. Public Works Engineering 16. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of- way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non- standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 17. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: A drainage system is required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 18. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. Attachment A Page 9 of 26 19. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Applicant shall install a water station for the reuse of dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed next to the right-of-way and shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station shall also be sued for onsite dust control. Applicant shall meet with Public Works to coordinate the design details. 20. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 21. WATER FILLING STATION: Due to the California drought, applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. Attachment A Page 10 of 26 22. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 23. The site drainage system that collects runoff from downspouts and/or landscape area shall be a separated from the pump system that discharges runoff from light wells. Plot and clearly label the two separate systems and including the separate outfalls for each system. 24. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 25. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 26. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 27. PAVEMENT: Applicant and Contractor shall meet with Public Works to discuss the extent of pavement restoration along Los Trancos Road. If any utility trenching is done into the street, full street width resurfacing may be required prior to building permit final. At minimum contractor shall be responsible for resurfacing the pavement along the project frontage. The site plan submitted shall include full pavement width restoration of the along the project frontage. Attachment A Page 11 of 26 28. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way or easement.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 29. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 30. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 31. RESIDENTIAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures: • Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. • Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. • Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. • Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. • Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. • Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 32. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, erosion control, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Attachment A Page 12 of 26 Public Works - Urban Forestry PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 33. TREE REMOVAL—REPLACEMENT TREES. Building permit plans shall reflect: Ten new replacement trees shall be planted, watered and maintained to offset the removal of native valley oak # 4. Pursuant to the Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.20, Tree Canopy Replacement Standard, the commensurate replacement of 10 new trees shall include a mix of black oak, blue oak or valley oak (minimum 24-inch box size) installed in key locations relative to keeping the top of the knoll visible. 34. TOP SOIL. The grading and excavation plans shall include topsoil preservation. Specify steps and location to stockpile of the upper horizon or native soil for collection, retention and properly reapplying, coordinated with the landscape architect. Indicate dedicated areas, protection, erosion control and reuse areas. 35. SOIL DISTURBANCE. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a detailed landscape plan that includes vegetation control of disturbed areas of the site, including construction and access areas. The landscape plan shall identify all disturbed, exposed, compacted soil and slope areas for invasive thistle removal and revegetation. Specifying soil scarifying, preparation and seeding using Palo Alto Hydroseeding Specification for the Los Trancos Watershed Area. 36. SLOPE VEGETATION. All graded slopes shall be scarified to a 6" minimum. All graded areas shall be covered with a layer of jute netting, laid over irrigation lines where installed for native plants. Hydroseed shall overlap any graded area by 20’. Hydroseed shall be applied only after all planting/irrigation/jute netting is in place, October to November 27 preceding winter rains. 37. PLANTING & IRRIGATION. All drip irrigation shall be carefully located and pinned upslope of plant material. Trees shall have at least two concentric irrigation rings for root growth. Project arborist shall verify in Monthly Activity Report that tree planting area is loosened 2x diameter of root ball prior to planting. Irrigation system shall be adjusted yearly for three years for function by a qualified technician. 38. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER REQUIRED. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) Attachment A Page 13 of 26 affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 39. The Building Permit submittal must be accompanied by the project site arborist’s certification letter. a. Provide a project arborist’s Updated Tree Protection Report (TPR) with building permit level mitigation measures, (e.g., resolve grading proximity issues with Public trees; exact TPZ scaled in feet). Provide plan revision directions to minimize root cutting conflicts that are obvious in the civil, basement, sidewalk improvement sheets. See TPR below. b. Verify the Plan design changes are incorporated and consistent with the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. 40. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s construction level TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, arborist to be identified, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. Attachment A Page 14 of 26 41. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: In addition to showing TPZ fencing, slope vegetation, planting & irrigation above, add the following Notes on the specified Plan Sheets. a. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. b. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at: to be identified "; c. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” d. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496- 5953.” 42. LANDSCAPE PLANS a. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting and special irrigation specifications for hillside planting, as detailed by the project arborist, b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, Attachment A Page 15 of 26 painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). v. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. vi. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees not fitted with dual circles of drip tubing, then Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. c. Include a detail for retaining walls near tree trunks. d. Include a detail for slope planting, including water berm, cut, drainage provision and erosion control. e. Include planting detail provision for (a) rodent control (root protections) and (b) deer control (twig & bark browsing protection). 43. GRASSLAND HYDROSEED MIX. All disturbed areas (20’ overlap) of the site shall be applied with CPA approved Hydroseed mix by November 27 preceding winter season rains. Unless otherwise specified, CPA Hydroseed Mix Specifications for Los Trancos Watershed shall be utilized from Planning Department Staff. 44. Add note to L Sheets: “Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspections and Verification to the City. The LA shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for the following: a. All the above landscape plan and tree requirements are in the Building Permit set of plans. b. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable. c. Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots. Attachment A Page 16 of 26 d. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. DURING CONSTRUCTION 45. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 46. SUDDEN OAK DEATH (Best Management Practices). To deter the potential spread of sudden oak death disease in Palo Alto, the City requires that all contractor activities and delivery vehicles perform the work according to the county quarantine restrictions in the attached Sudden Oak Death Best Management Practices. Violation is subject to penalty and/or prosecution. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/default.asp 47. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 48. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, _to be confirmed__, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 49. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 50. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City Attachment A Page 17 of 26 (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 51. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 52. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 53. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 54. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 55. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 56. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Attachment A Page 18 of 26 57. FINAL REPORT. Because of the importance of visual screening represented by the trees proposed with this project, the property owner shall ensure the survival of the tree plantings for a period of five years. The owner shall install any necessary replacement trees or irrigation and monitor for their survival. A certified arborist shall prepare a report at the end of five years photo documenting the prognosis of the trees and forward said report to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Any subsequent owner(s) shall also be obligated to replace any trees that die with trees of the same size and species stated on the approved building permit plans. Fire Department 58. Fire Department access driveway shall be a min 12 ft wide and 13 ft 6 in vertical clearance with an all weather surface. 59. This property is located in the High Hazard Fire Area as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal code. 60. Install a NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system in all structures. Protection shall extend to all rooms, closets, bathrooms and attic spaces. Provide a 4 head calc in main house and a 2 head calc in the accessory structure. 61. Building construction shall comply with the California Residential Code and California Building Code Chapter 7A. Green Building 62. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must provide a preliminary GB-1 sheet for planning entitlement approval. Submittal requirements are outlined on the Development Services Green Building webpage. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) Attachment A Page 19 of 26 63. *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2013 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 64. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Planning Application. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. 65. Energy Efficiency: If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential, multi-family residential, and non-residential construction, the performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) 66. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select a Green Building Special Inspector from the City’s list of approved inspectors. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2013 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 67. EVSE: If the project is a new detached single-family dwelling, then the project shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) as shown in : a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. Attachment A Page 20 of 26 b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420 (Ord. 5263 § 2, 2014 68. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Permit Plans. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. Utilities – Water, Gas, Waste Water PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 69. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 70. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR PLANNING PERMIT 71. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 72. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information Attachment A Page 21 of 26 requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units and g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units). 73. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 74. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 75. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 76. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 77. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 78. The City will not provide gas service in this area. 79. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new water and wastewater utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 80. Each parcel shall have its own water service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. Attachment A Page 22 of 26 81. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 82. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) shall be installed for the new domestic water connection from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 83. A new sewer lateral installation required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. 84. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Utilities – Electrical Engineering Below are the specific comments for this project. 85. Service Voltage shall be 120/240V. 86. 24" min between Gas and Electric trench. 87. Customer will be responsible for new transformer pad, conduit and conductor between transformer location, to be determined, and service box, PB-1628. 88. Customer will be responsible for a new easement around new transformer and conduit between new transformer and PB-1628. 89. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 90. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 91. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. Attachment A Page 23 of 26 92. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 93. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 94. The location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 95. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 96. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the California Electric Code requirements and City standards. 97. If the customer's total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 98. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer's expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 99. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 100. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. 101. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 102. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. Attachment A Page 24 of 26 103. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal. 104. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 105. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 106. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 107. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 108. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to California Electric Code requirements and no 1/2-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer's expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 109. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over SOD feet in length require additional pull boxes. 110. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. Attachment A Page 25 of 26 111. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the customer's main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval. 112. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x-flex cable must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 113. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City Standards. 114. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 115. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 116. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 117. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. 118. The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize the service: a. All fees must be paid. b. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. c. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. Attachment A Page 26 of 26 d. Easement documents must be completed. SECTION 7. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).080. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 670 Los Trancos Road 16PLN-00266 Table 1a: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (OS DISTRICT) OS Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, Width and Depth Area: 10 acres Width: No standard Depth: No standard Area: 5.42 acres Width: 288 feet Depth: 628 feet No change to existing Front Yard 30 feet N/A 130 feet for main house, 62 feet for guest house Street Side Yard 30 feet N/A N/A Rear Yard 30 feet N/A 224 feet for main house, 340 feet for guest house Interior Side Yard 30 feet N/A R: 58 feet, L: 176 for main house; R: 288 feet, L: 85 feet for guest house Max. Building Height 25 feet average height of the highest gable N/A 25 feet average for the highest gable Maximum Impervious Coverage 15,050 sq. ft. (Per Variance 86-V-22) N/A 13,696 sq. ft. Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 4% (9,444 sq. ft.) for a 5.42 acre site, or 5% (11,804 sq. ft) with FAR bonus N/A 4.6% (10,862 sq. ft.) with FAR bonus Native Vegetation Retained or Restored (for FAR bonus) ≥ 90% of site area 91.4% of site area Table 1b: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Single Family Residential Uses (Tandem Parking Allowed) Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 4 spaces, of which one must be covered N/A 4 covered spaces Hewlett Station 120.1' 67.8' 88.2' 67.8' 104.7' 445.0' 47.4' 217.8' 446.6' 235.2' 353.5' 473.1' 120.1' 104.7' 47.4' 182.0' 19.8' 119.7' 446.6' 235.2' 353.5' 291.7' 88.2' 217.9' 301.7' 58.6' 463.1' 77.7' 174.2' 222.5' 68.7' 156.6' 337.5' 291.7' 71.1'9.7'254.5'18.2'98.1'3.9' 591.6' 66.0' 212.4' 222.5' 19.1' 165.2' 150.0' 585.0' 304.0' 123.2' .9' 591.6' 95.7' 24.1' 57.3' 79.6' 58.4'39.8' 50.0' 733.2' 585.0' 150.0' 279.6' 100.8' 39.8'21.7' 58.6' 301.7' 217.9' 733.2' 36.7' 82.0' 57.3'24.1' 94.4 183.4' 432.3' 463.1' 165.2' 279.6' 100.8' 39.8'21.7'36.7'82.0' 57.3'24.1' 94.4' 95.7' 24.1' 57.3' 79.6' 58.4'39.8' 50.0' 183.4' 432.3' 77.7' 174.2' 222.5' 68.7' 156.6' 19.3' 182.0'19.8'19.1' 222.5' 212.4' 304.0' 240.6' 194.0194.0 240.6' 123.2' .9'3.9'98.1'18.2'254.5'9.7'71.1' 473.1' This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes abc Dimensions (AP) 670 Los Trancos Road abc Zone District Labels 40 ft Contour Line 0' 200' 670 Los Trancos Road CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gowen, 2016-12-21 16:47:35 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7451) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 670 Los Trancos: New Single Family Residence Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER. 670 Los Trancos Road [16PLN-00266]: Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a Single Family House and Guest House With a Total of 10,959 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: OS From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Continue the project to a date uncertain with guidance to the applicant regarding strategies to better comply with applicable findings. Report Summary The applicant proposes to construct a two-story single family house, detached guest house, and associated site improvements on the undeveloped property located at 670 Los Trancos Road. The site is located in the Open Space (OS) zoning district, which permits limited housing development. The proposed house is 9,363 square feet, not including approximately 2,100 square feet of exempt basement area, and the proposed detached guest house is 1,596 square feet. Development in excess of 1,000 square feet and requires PTC review of the Site and Design Review application. The Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Attachment A provides four objectives included in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.30(G).060 for Site and Design Review approval for the Planning and Transportation Commission to review and apply toward the project. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 In addition to these Site and Design Review objectives, PAMC Section 18.28.070 (p) codifies twelve Open Space Development Review Criteria that are applicable to the project. These criteria are also included in Attachment A. While the project does incorporate a variety of measures to be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives of the open space district, staff is concerned that the residence could be perceived as visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. Background Project Information Owners: Noa Grant and Guy Gecht Architect: Michael Anglisano; McClean Design Representative: N/A Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 670 Los Trancos Road Neighborhood: Palo Alto Hills Lot Dimensions & Area: 5.42 acres (235,898 sf) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, protected live and valley oaks are present across the property Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): Vacant lot Existing Land Use(s): Vacant lot Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Arastradero Preserve, Public Facilities (Site and Design Combining) District West: Single Family Residence, Open Space District East: Vacant, Open Space District South: Single Family Residence, Open Space District Special Setbacks: Not applicable Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Aerial Photograph Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Open Space District (OS) Comp. Plan Designation: Open Space / Controlled Development Open Space Development Review Criteria Yes Context-Based Design: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design: Not applicable SOFA II CAP: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not applicable Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Variance 86-V-22, which provides a maximum impervious cover of 15,050 square feet on the subject site PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Site and Project Description The subject site encompasses 5.42 acres (235,898 square feet) of vacant land currently covered by native grasses and oak forest. The topography varies greatly across the site, with a knoll rising near the southern front property line near the Los Trancos Road frontage. From the top of this knoll, the elevation drops over 100 feet towards the northern rear property line bordering the Arastradero Preserve. The top of knoll and most of the higher areas of the property are covered with grasses, while two large groves of live and valley oaks are located on either side of the property and in the northern, lower elevations. The site is located in the Hewlett Tract, a subdivision encompassing ten building sites of which five have thus far been developed. According to Santa Clara County records, the houses in the subdivision range from 3,344 to 8,911 square feet in floor area, and four of the five houses contain two stories. The applicant proposes to construct a 9,363 square foot two-story residence with a basement, as well as a 1,596 square foot detached guest house. Access to the main residence and guest house would be from a single entrance on Los Trancos Road. The main residence would be situated on the downslope, and would, to some extent, be tucked up against the hillside. The garage and two other single-floor elements totaling approximately 1,915 square feet of the gross floor area of the main residence contain green roofing systems that will support native vegetation, allowing these elements to be integrated with the post-grading contours of the hillside and lending the appearance of a subterranean structure from some vantage points. The guest house will be situated to the western side of the lot, and connected to the main residence by a dirt trail. For zoning purposes, the guest house is considered an accessory structure and use rather than a second dwelling unit due to the absence of a full kitchen with cooking facilities. As of the writing of this report, accessory dwelling units are only permitted in the Open Space District on properties in excess of 10 acres. However, it is understood that minimum lot sizes for accessory dwelling units may be subject to change in the future. The exterior siding materials include stone, plaster, and wood siding with muted colors, and the main elements of the roof would be a black standing seam metal. Development Standards The property is one of ten residential building sites which, in addition to two Common Areas, encompass a subdivision known as the “Hewlett Tract” (“Tract”). At the time that the Hewlett Tract tentative subdivision map was approved by City Council on August 18, 1980, the Open Space District restricted residential density to one dwelling unit for every ten acres, and City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 required a corresponding ten-acre minimum lot size. However, due to the slope constraints present on the land encompassing the 129-acre Tract, the allowable density of the original parcel was transferred to ten clustered building sites ranging from 3.9 to 6.0 acres. The remaining areas of the Tract were then recorded as dedicated common open space areas (owned in common by the owners of the building sites), and another portion of the Tract was dedicated to the City of Palo Alto for parkland. The current code no longer has an explicit maximum residential density in the Open Space District, but does retain the ten acre minimum lot size requirement. When the Hewlett Tract subdivision was approved by the City Council in 1980, the most limiting development standard was a maximum impervious and building coverage standard of 3.5% of site area. As remains the case to the present, this impervious area standard included building coverage, retaining walls, patios, and other impervious areas. To incentivize the clustering concept of the Hewlett Tract, the impervious area allotments from Common Area A and the parkland dedication area were transferred to Common Area B (for a tennis court) and to the building sites. In effect, each of the ten building sites was treated as a 10 acre site for the purpose of applying the maximum allowable coverage, which was 15,246 square feet. Ordinance #3345, passed by the City Council in 1982, amended this standard to require the transfer of impervious coverage from open space-restricted areas of a “subdivision with clustered lots less than 10 acres in size” to the building sites in a proportional manner based on lot size. This code change increased the maximum impervious coverage on the subject site to 17,401 square feet. However, the original design intent with the Hewlett Subdivision had been to allocate equivalent impervious coverage across the ten building sites, and a variance was granted in 1986 to relieve the Hewlett Tract building sites from the proportional impervious requirement in favor of the equivalent impervious allocations that were originally intended. This variance thus provided the subject site with a maximum impervious coverage of 15,050 square feet, subject to revision through Site and Design Review. In 2009, Ordinance #5062 added a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard for single family houses proposed in the Open Space District, allowing for a floor area bonus if the majority of native vegetation on the site is retained or replaced. Gross floor area for houses in the Open Space District is calculated using the same inclusion and exclusion methods for single family residential development in the R-1 Zoning Districts. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: Site and Design: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and design is intended to provide a review process for development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. If recommended for approval, the project is forwarded to the City Council for final action City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 of all requested entitlements. Site and design applications are evaluated to specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. The findings to approve a site and design application are provided in Attachment A. Analysis1 Views, Neighborhood Setting, and Character The subject property is constrained by the down-sloping grade, which affords views of the Santa Clara Valley while also revealing some direct views of the site from the Arastradero Preserve, including from Meadowlark Trail. The degree of the visibility is somewhat muted by the placement of the main residence below the top of the knoll. However, story poles erected to simulate the building envelopes indicate that the main residence would be silhouetted against the sky from the perspective of the trail below. Additionally, some portions of the second story of the main house would also be visible from Los Trancos Road despite the siting of the house on the north side of the knoll. The project design has taken into account the slope constraints and utilized many strategies for minimizing the potential visual impact by presenting a horizontal orientation to the house, tucking portions of the house into the hillside, and hiding the guest house from the northern perspective. However, the absence of tree cover in the immediate vicinity of the main house leaves it more conspicuous than others in the Hewlett Tract, which contain oak forests along the northern face of the hill that screen the houses along the ridge. This relatively barren landscape on the subject site also limits the efficacy of limiting the total house height to that of the top of the knoll, as the house appears to protrude above the ridge when viewed from below. Commissioners are encouraged to review Attachment A, which contains the findings required to recommend approval of the project to Council. Tree Protection An arborist’s report was prepared with the application, and provides a survey of the species, diameter, and health of the trees in the vicinity of the construction. There are twenty-eight protected live and valley oaks on the property that would form the perimeter of an extended Tree Protection Zone, which would separate the construction activities from the oak and buckeye groves. One valley oak in the center of the site is proposed for removal due to decay and its precarious location near a portion of the home. As mitigation for the removal of the valley oak, ten blue oak trees are proposed to be planted on the perimeter of the property, including six downslope from the main residence. Each of the trees is required to be 6 feet in crown diameter at the time of planting. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment B. As proposed, the project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The impervious cover area of 15,089 square feet shown in the project plans would exceed the amount permitted subject to Variance 86-V-22, which provides a maximum of 15,050 square feet for the site. However, it appears as though the water surface of the swimming pool has been included in the impervious calculation unnecessarily (PAMC 18.28.070(m)(6)), and therefore the project is compliant with the maximum impervious cover standard as designed. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Site and Design Findings, and Open Space Development Criteria3 The Comprehensive Plan contains Goals, Policies, and Programs for the Open Space areas of the City. The applicable Comprehensive Plan sections, including the Open Space Development Criteria, are included in Attachment A. The story poles described on the previous page indicate that the house would be visible from certain points in the Arastradero Preserve, and accordingly, staff is concerned with the project’s consistency with the first Development Criterion, which seeks to minimize visual impacts. Additionally, while the project has been designed not to extend above the top of the knoll as suggested by the second Development Criterion, the second story of the house would be silhouetted against the sky when viewed from some locations in the Arastradero Preserve. These two criteria are related to the first Site and Design Review finding regarding the compatibility of uses of adjoining or nearby sites. Images of the site from various perspectives are provided in Attachment F. Additionally, it is anticipated that the applicant will provide a presentation showing the development in context to the surroundings. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, which includes but is not limited to the development of one single family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, as well as accessory or appurtenant structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Staff finds that the development of a single family house and guest house in a residential subdivision in the Open Space, which permits single family use, is substantially similar to the examples included in Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on December 23, 2016, which is 19 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 20, 2016, which is 22 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, three project-related public comments were received and are included with Attachment D. Two comments expressed support for the project. A third comment expressed concerns about the impacts of the house on the views from the Arastradero Preserve from the Acorn Trail, which is situated to the northeast of the site. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may: 1. Direct staff to prepare a draft Record of Land Use Action recommending approval of the project based on findings that the project is consistent with the Site and Design Objectives and Open Space Development Criteria; 2. Direct staff to prepare a draft Record of Land Use Action recommending denial of the project based on findings that the project is inconsistent with the Site and Design Objectives and Open Space Development Criteria. Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2679 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org February 8, 2017 RE: 670 Los Trancos Road, Palo Alto Greetings Jon and Graham, We are pleased with the PTC decision to recommend approval of our home project and are looking forward to presenting our proposed project to the city council. As we listened to the members of the committee deliberate our project, we realized we can improve our project further to address the concerns that were raised in deliberation. We continue to strive to minimize our impact and to do what is right for the environment and our community. Here are the actions we took after the PTC hearing to address these concerns: Concern: Accessory structure appears as a second dwelling unit, to which we are not entitled ➢We never intended for this structure to serve as a second dwelling unit, but rather as a yoga retreat and to host the occasional guest. For that purpose, such structure does not require a kitchen, and therefore we eliminated the ‘kitchenette’ and replaced it with a simple wet bar at the west part of the common space. Concern: Viewshed from the preserve in the short term ➢To expedite the screening effect, we decided to pre-plant the mitigation trees. This would result in the trees being 50% taller 5 years after construction, significantly accelerating the screening effect, as per attached rendering and growth analysis. ➢Because Valley Oaks are faster growing and eventually become larger in scale (see comparison attached) we would select them over the slower growing and smaller overall blue oaks we were considering (blue oaks are still considered in high priority for the south side of the property, in the road cut area where the soil is poor and the screening requirements are lower). ➢We prepared a rendering that shows the screening provided over time, see attached, as voiced by a couple of the commissioners. ➢We intend to reduce the size of the second story area by at least 10% from 2724 to below 2450 sf. In addition, while the level of grading wasn’t brought up as a concern, we are working to reduce it. We intend to submit a new basement plan cutting the basement area by half (dront the current 2200sf), and are considering alternatives that will allow us to raise the building pad by a couple feet. Any changes we propose will, of course, comply with all the rules and regulations and will not further the impact on the adjacent open space. Let us know if there’s any additional information we can provide. Sincerely, Noa Grant and Guy Gecht 1 Owen, Graham From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Crawford, Sue Monday, January 09, 2017 6:03 PM Planning Commission Owen, Graham New construction 670 Los Trancos Road Dear Palo Alto Planning Commission, We are writing to express our support for the new home at 670 Los Trancos Road. We have reviewed the plans and are very pleased with the approach being taken. The Gechts have made a tremendous effort to fit the home to the site and follow the Open Space Building Guidelines. They have involved the neighborhood from the beginning and we look forward to having them as neighbors. We encourage the commission to approve the plans. Best regards, Craig Dauchy and Sue Crawford 714 Los Trancos Road Sent from my iPad The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. The sender believes that this E‐mail and any attachments were free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's company is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. Nothing in this email shall be deemed to create a binding contract to purchase/sell real estate. The sender of this email does not have the authority to bind a buyer or seller to a contract via written or verbal communications including, but not limited to, email communications. 1 Owen, Graham From: Sent: To: Subject: Karen Gregory Monday, January 09, 2017 3:54 PM Owen, Graham Strong Support for the Gecht Building Plans at 670 Los Trancos Road Dear Graham Owen and all Palo Alto Planning Commissioners: We are reaching out to you with our strong support of the Gecht family home building plans at 670 Los Trancos Road along the western boundary of Arastradero Preserve. We live at 701 Los Trancos Road, directly across the street from this property. We moved to our home, located between Arastradero Preserve and Foothill Park, in 1993 specifically for the privilege of living in the open space environment with the incredible and abundant wildlife and views of undeveloped land. We love our parks and preserves and support them with our time, energy and advocacy, devoted to keeping them preserved and accessible for the community. All five of our family members are frequent and passionate trail hikers/equestrians who thrive as outdoor enthusiasts. Specifically, Karen is a current Equestrian Patrol Volunteer for SCC and SMC Parks and MROSD, David volunteered for POST and our children have run/hiked regularly each week growing up here. We treasure the gift of open space and all that it entails. As passionate advocates for open space, we are grateful for and pleased with the consideration the Gecht Family gave to our neighborhood and the surrounding community, including visitors to our lovely Arastradero Preserve, in designing and building their new home. Preserve visitors (including our family) enjoy “the view” as part of their park experience, and there is, understandably, regret for any level of development. We believe the Gecht’s intended home design, with their priority for minimizing the impact of their development on wildlife and the natural beauty of the area, will be relatively low profile and respectfully discreet from the park, especially given what could have been built on that pristine and precious site. It is clear that the beauty of this natural area is what drew them to this lot, and they have taken great pains to honor, preserve and prioritize as much as possible the grandeur and natural feel of the land in their home design plans. It is our hope that you will approve the Gecht’s plans for their house. We look forward to having them as our next door neighbors. Sincerely, Karen and David Gregory 701 Los Trancos Road 1 Owen, Graham From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Annette Siegel Monday, January 09, 2017 8:23 AM Planning Commission; Owen, Graham Noa; Guy Gecht; Mark Siegel In support of the building at 670 Los Trancos Dear Palo Alto Planning Commission, My husband and I are writing in enthusiastic support of the building project proposed at 670 Los Trancos Rd. by Guy Gecht and Noa Grant. We have been a part of this neighborhood for over 10 years, and love it because of the careful stewardship of the parks provided by the Palo Alto Planning Commission. We are active hikers, and are thankful for the protected parks and wildlife in our area. In this light, we have been nothing but impressed by the careful planning that has taken place on the 670 Los Trancos project. Guy and Noa have very thoughtfully sought to minimize the impact of the proposed house on both the neighborhood and park. Having walked the story poles, it is clear that the house will blend beautifully into its natural surroundings, and the impact on park views will be minimal. We feel that they have really done the best job possible in keeping our natural surroundings beautiful, and would very much like to see such environmentally engaged family become a part of our community. Thanks you for your consideration, Annette and Mark Siegel 720 Los Trancos Rd. From:Allan Alcorn To:Owen, Graham Subject:670 Los Trancos Rd project Date:Thursday, December 29, 2016 2:53:49 PM Dear Sirs and Madam, I am writing this in support of the proposed new home at 670 Los Trancos Rd. I live at 660 Los Trancos Rd directly adjacent to the proposed new home and welcome their project. The lot has beenvacant as long as we have been there and we knew that some day there would be a home built on thatsite. We have examined the plans and are pleased that such a beautiful home is going to be built there. It is clear that significant effort was spent in making the home have as little impact as possible and will fit into the natural environment. I am a frequent visitor to Arastradero Open Space; I walk the trails about once a week and I am very familiar with the views. Compared to the existing structures on the ridge, mine included, that can only be seen from the Martin’s trail I think this building will be less visible and blend in well. Much of thestructure will be hidden by trees and some of it is underground. I support this proposal and look forward to its approval. Sincerely, Allan Alcorn 660 Los Trancos Rd. Portola Valley, CA 94028 From:H. Grousbeck To:Planning Commission; Owen, Graham Subject:Fwd: Happy Holidays! Date:Wednesday, December 28, 2016 12:12:00 PM ---------- Forwarded message ----------From: H. Grousbeck Date: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 10:01 AM Subject: Fwd: Happy Holidays!To: "H. Grousbeck" ---------- Forwarded message ----------From: H. Grousbeck Date: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:59 AM Subject: Fwd: Happy Holidays!To: "H. Grousbeck" ---------- Forwarded message ----------From: H. Grousbeck Date: Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:56 AM Subject: Fwd: Happy Holidays!To: "H. Grousbeck" Dear Palo Alto Planning Commissioners: As residents of Palo Alto abutting Arastradero Preserve for the last 30 years , w e havebeen strong advocates of Bay Area open space . For many years I (Susanne) was a member of the POST board of directors. It is against this background that we are writing in support of the Gechts' proposeddevelopment at 670 Los Trancos. We will be neighbors 2 lots away when (hopefully) theirproposed house is completed. Noa and Guy Gecht have engaged our entire neighborhood in their design process from the very beginning. It is clear that t hey were determined to spend the time and r esources to come up with an organicdesign that minimizes the impact to the Preserve as well as to the neighborhood.We are very impressed with their thoughtfulness: most of the house is tucked intothe knoll, and they placed as much of the construction as possible behind the trees.As a result the facade will be partially visible only from very small sections of thetrail paths. We respectfully encourage you to approve this responsible and considerate design. Kind regards, Susanne and H. Irving Grousbeck 706 Los Trancos Road From:Planning Commission To:Owen, Graham Subject:FW: Please do not allow new construction above Arastradero Preserve Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2016 10:27:04 AM Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community EnvironmentCity of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org650.329.2404 From: Kim Atkinson Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 5:05 PMTo: Planning CommissionCc: Dunn, CurtSubject: Please do not allow new construction above Arastradero Preserve Hello Palo Alto Planning Commission, I am a lifelong resident of Palo Alto, a homeowner, taxpayer, and we have raised our children here. We have supported the public schools, have led a Girl Scout troop, volunteered, and have been good community members. Ie, we have a long-term stake in this place, and hopefully may have a voice ! We are frequent hikers at Arastradero Preserve (as well as at Foothill Park). Recently at Arastradero, while hiking west towards the top of the hill, near a trail junction at the top of Acorn Trail, I noticed red construction marker flags higher up in the direction towards Foothill Park. Apparently a home is planned for construction there. Please see attached photos, taken from the top of Acorn Trail. As I understand it, this planned new house construction is in the 700 block of Los Trancos Road. I would like to oppose this new house construction. It will affect the view of the hills and of the skyline at Arastradero Preserve, when one is hiking uphill and west. A new building there will make the preserve feel more closed in, or hemmed in, whereas now it feels fairly open and natural, with a great sky view above the highest hills. There are a few existing houses in this area, but we are used to them being tucked in low among the trees and don't notice them. They are not very visible the way this new one will be. The preserve is already encircled by a golf course, existing homes, and has an occasionally-audible pump in it near the lake. When we hike up there, it is our chance to "get away" from urban stressors and traffic, and to enjoy nature and wildlife and sky views. If you allow that house to be constructed directly in our sight-line as we climb west up that hill, the natural feel of this wilderness preserve will be spoiled. This house will serve a very priviledged few, at the expense of many people who go up there to enjoy nature. Re Palo Alto's housing shortage-- this single family dwelling will not put a dent in the problem, but will affect many park users. Please do not allow this construction to go forward. Thank you for your time and attention to this letter, Kim Atkinson 1753 Middlefield Road Palo Alto 94301 Attachment G Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to City Council Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “670 Los Trancos” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “12/12/2016 Project Plans” • CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY OF PALO ALTO MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER AGENDA DATE: March 6, 2017 ITEM#9a DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT ID#:7389 SUBJECT: Bike Share Contract with Social Bicycles {SoBi) This memo seeks to further clarify the following: 1. Bike share as an integral part of the City's greater transportation strategy; 2. How bike share relates to the City's sustainability goals; 3. Additional information on the cost effectiveness of the program; 4. Palo Alto as a leader in the region, and spearheading a regional effort. Based on City Council direction, Palo Alto is addressing the transportation and parking challenges it faces on multiple fronts, encouraging the use of alternate modes, increasing parking supply, and improving parking management. One way we have chosen to encourage the use of alternate modes is through the construction of safe, comfortable bicycle and pedestrian facilities. We have also established a Transportation Management Association (TMA) and have received guidance from the Council to pursue an expanded bike share program designed to dramatic;ally increase ridership over the pilot program that ended last year. Bike Share: Transportation Choices, Sustainability, & Regional Coordination Implementation of a citywide bike share program can achieve the following city goals which are explicitly stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan: 1. Reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions; 2. Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); 3. Augment existing transit services and enhance connections; and 4. Reduce parking demand. Palo Alto currently has no bike share system in operation. The proposed SoBi bike share system is an innovative app-based system that has no relation to the City's previous experiment with bike share, which was a pilot program managed by Motivate and funded entirely by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The new proposed system is the first in a series of planned SoBi systems along the Caltrain Railroad corridor of the Peninsula, and has the potential to significantly improve the mobility of the region, providing critical first-/last-mile connections in the region's sometimes disjointed transit network. Representatives of neighboring communities along the Peninsula are aware of Palo Alto's efforts and some are planning to participate in short order. Locally, bike share has the potential to supplement Stanford University's Marguerite bus service, connect the Stanford Research Park to the California Avenue Business Oistrict/Caltrain Station, provide better circulation in downtown Palo Alto, and connect to other nearby destinations and large employment centers. Bike share can help more of Palo Alto's workforce commute by transit by reducing lengthy transfers for short trips, and providing car-less employees with an alternative for running local errands during the day. A SoBi-operated system overseen by City staff will enable Palo Alto to integrate bike share more thoroughly with City TOM efforts and programs. Bike share can be added to the list of TOM options for developers, which can help grow the system over time at no cost to the City and mitigate the impacts of growth In the region. Data provided via on-bike GPS units will help to quantify the City's transportation and sustainability goals such as GHG emission reductions and VMT reductions. These data will also help guide future expansions of the bike share system to ensure maximum cost effectiveness and use. A recent community survey indicates that while Palo Alto residents are happy with overall quality of life and city services, many are concerned with worsening traffic congestion. Bike share has the potential to improve mobility by providing another transit option for residents, visitors, and employees. Bike share may reduce the need for Caltrain riders to bring bikes on- board the railroad, easing over-crowding and freeing space for latent demand. Caltrain recently conducted a survey of riders asking whether or not they would use a bike share program. 45% answered that they would use bike share. In addition, Caltrain conducted an on-board survey of existing bike commuters and 30% said they would utilize a bike share program in place of using a personal bike. The survey also shows that latent demand exists for Caltrain bicycle cars, with some passengers currently avoiding bicycle commuting due to concerns about trains being at maximum capacity and the potential to be denied service from scheduled trains. Bike share provides an ideal transportation solution for short trips within the City. A feasibility study conducted by Toole Design Group in 2016 identified a system size of 350 bicycles as the ideal size for Palo Alto to maximize potential ridership. Bike share is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Program T-5: Work with private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and major institutions, to develop and coordinate trip reduction strategies. Cost of Bike Share Program: Bike share is a public transit system that has a relatively low cost compared to other public transit operations. The City's investment of $1,104,550 for bike share equipment over the 5- year term of the agreement works out to $220,910 per year. SoBi would be responsible for 100% of the operating costs. If the agreement is extended to 11 years, the overall annual cost is further reduced to $100,413. By contrast, the City currently spends approximately $300,000 per route, per year for the Palo Alto Free Shuttle. Other bike share systems have higher capital start-up costs with significantly higher annual operating fees. If Palo Alto were paying for operating fees for a 350-bike system, It would cost approximately $545,000 per year. This operating burden of $2,725,000 over a 5-year period has been virtually eliminated as a result of negotiations with Social Bicycles, facilitated in large part by close coordination with regional partners. SoBi's bike share systems in other cities with densities and bicycle facilities similar to Palo Alto are performing well, with as many as 285,000 trips annually recorded In similarly sized systems. A recent survey of Portland's Biketown system, which included one-time users as well as annual members, found 26 percent of Portlanders using bike share report they used the system instead of driving a car, with 64 percent reporting that they are biking more In general. In addition, 69 percent of Portland residents using bike share said they were more likely to patronize a business near bike share hubs. Palo Alto has a high quality network of existing bicycle facilities, earning it a Gold rating from the League of American Bicyclists. The City enjoys a bicycle commute rate of 8. 7% for daily local trips, among the highest in the nation. Council has committed $25 million over the next five years to advance significant bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. In addition, the 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan establishes a goal of doubling local and commuter bicycle trips by 2020. High quality bicycle infrastructure is seen as a critical component of a successful bike share program. Palo Alto has many significant bike projects underway and even more planned that will contribute to the continued success of its bike share program. Palo Alto as a Leader in the Region: Palo Alto staff has worked closely with neighboring communities, private entities on the Peninsula, Stanford University, Stanford Medical Center, the Stanford Research Park, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Caltraln, and many others to help facilitate a Peninsula-wide bike share system utilizing smart-bike technology. Many communities and partners in the region are eagerly anticipating the launch of a Palo Alto system, which is seen as the first in what may ultimately become a larger, sub-regional system serving the entire Peninsula. Director Planning and Community Environment to 350 bicycles in Palo Alto for five years in exchange for sponsorship revenue and membership fees (i.e. at no ongoing cost to the City). SoBi would procure a system sponsor to support its operational costs. The City would be responsible for capital costs (bikes and hubs) up to $1,104,550. A second phase, which would deploy additional bikes under different financial terms, could be funded at a later date if desired and if funding is available. Staff is also requesting that Council approve an exemption from competitive solicitation for the City's public bike share system, as this system is intended to build off of San Mateo's established system, and the operating costs will be zero. This is consistent with provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code described in detail in this staff report. Background The history of bike share in Palo Alto and the Bay Area was described in detail in the Council staff report on October 4, 2016 (Attachment E) and the following chart provides an overview of bike share in the San Francisco Bay Area: Table 1. Bike Share Timeline August 2013: Bay Area Bike Share (BABS) pilot launches in San Francisco, San Jose, and Peninsula w/700 bicycles & 70 stations. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) approves privately funded (free) May 2015: expansion planned in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and Berkeley. Peninsula communities given option to buy-in by purchasing equipment and paying for ongoing operations w/limited ability to generate sponsorship revenue. December 2015 Toole Design Group creates series of memorandums with research into best path forward for Peninsula communities on bike share. Spring 2016: Peninsula consensus solidifies around desire for Peninsula smart-bike system, Managers' Mobility Partnership (MMP) assists in bringing consensus to Peninsula. April 2016: Palo Alto City Council Study Session on Bike Share: htt12:lLwww.cit~of12aloalto.orgLcivicaxLfilebankLdocumentsL51940 Spring 2016: City of San Mateo launches a SO bike, SoBi system . June/July 2016: Peninsula communities execute Program Agreement to extend BABS bike share operations to the fall while considering next steps on bike share. August 2016: Motivate offers to operate SoBi equipment on Peninsula as part of BABS and offers complimentary operations to Palo Alto w/potential Ford sponsorship. Fall 2016: Pilot program ends in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Redwood City and bike share equipment is removed. Fall 2016: PA council approves term sheet w/motivate and directs staff to negotiate a contract with 350 SoBi bikes and Motivate operations. December 2017: Staff discontinues negotiations w/motivate when key terms from term sheet are unmet. January 2017: SoBi submits new proposal as equipment provider and operator with improved City of Palo Alto Page 2 I terms for Peninsula communities and lower overall cost to PA. Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, February 2017 In the October 4, 2016 staff presentation to Council, Motivate offered to fully fund the operating costs of a 350-bike SoBi system in Palo Alto, with the City responsible for purchasing all capital equipment and covering a $4,000 per-station installation fee. On-bike sponsorship was negotiated in the Term Sheet for neighboring Peninsula communities to help offset the operational costs of bike share in the interest in having a Peninsula-wide smart bike system which was advocated for by the Managers' Mobility Partnership. Subsequent to the October 4, 2016 meeting, Motivate was unable to agree to significant terms that had been previously agreed upon and included in the Term Sheet. Specifically, Motivate changed its position on allocation of sponsorship revenues to neighboring communities to help offset operational costs. Motivate also underestimated the impact of its Ford Motors sponsored expansion within the Bay Area and its resulting impact on their staff resources. As a result they were unable to meet Palo Alto's desired timeline. Motivate was also unable to meet the City's desired service levels with respect to daily maintenance, rebalancing and operations of the bike share system. Finally, Motivate was uncertain in its ability to operate the two bike share systems seamlessly within the regional system with complete membership reciprocity and full access to the entire system. Negotiations with Motivate were suspended in December 2016. A new proposal has recently been submitted by SoBi, and is similar to the initial Motivate proposal. Under SoBi's proposal and the proposed contract, the City would be responsible for purchasing capital equipment (bicycles and hubs) and SoBi would operate up to 350 bicycles in Palo Alto in exchange for sponsorship revenue and membership fees. SoBi would procure a system sponsor to support its operational costs and will assume operational costs in Palo Alto until a corporate sponsor is secured. Other participating cities on the Peninsula would also be responsible for purchasing capital equipment and would pay SoBi a $100 per-bike, per-month operational fee. Once a sponsor is secured in each participating community, operational costs would be waived. In this agreement, all revenues from membership fees and sponsorships go to SoBi to cover their operating costs (Attachment F). SoBi would also handle all bike share station siting and permitting, and cities would pay a $1,000 per-station installation fee, which is $3,000 less per station than the Motivate proposal. Motivate is still offering a reciprocal discount for bike share memberships between the Bay Area Bike Share system and the Peninsula's SoBi system. In addition, the attached SoBi contract (Attachment B) includes language requiring that SoBi proactively pursue integration with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Clipper 2.0 upgrade project. This project could create a digital wallet for mobility fare payments with Clipper, which could resolve the issue of interoperability of two separate bike share systems in the region. This type of digital wallet, also called an open fare payment system, is in use in various cities across the country and also internationally. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Discussion A SoBi-SoBi system requires City funding for upfront capital costs such as bicycles and hub equipment. Total capital costs for a 350-bike system are $1,104,550. Staff is seeking a Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant administered through the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to offset a portion of the capital expense. The City will be notified by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in summer 2017. Under the proposed agreement, the City would not be responsible for operational costs for up to 350 bicycles for the life of the five-year contract. A second phase, envisioned for 2018, would add an additional 350 bikes to the system, if desired by the City. In phase two, the City would be required to pay operating costs, unless they are covered by corporate sponsorship. The City can also pursue grant funds from MTC for a significant percentage of the phase two capital costs. Staff will return to City Council with the data needed to inform a decision regarding phase two at a later date. This information will include bike share ridership information, an assessment of operating costs and sponsorship potential, as well as an update on the MTC grant. Staff plans to provide the City Council with reports on bike share system performance quarterly during the launch phase, and bi-annually once fully operational. Agreement Terms The contract with SoBi is a five-year contract, with two three-year extensions, allowing for a total potential time period of eleven years. The contract (Attachment F) includes high service levels in the bike share industry with respect to the maintenance and rebalancing of bicycles, with high standards for customer service response time and utilization of the Palo Alto 311 service request application. The City would pay nothing for the ongoing operation of a system with up to 350 bikes, and would have the option of paying for an expansion (phase two) if desired. The City would be responsible for all capital costs. Launch Period A four-to five-month period to launch the bike share system is anticipated from the time of equipment purchase. The launch process will include a public outreach campaign, a suggest-a- hub website, discussions with private property owners, coordination with various City departments, acquisition of encroachment permits, and any necessary permits from the Caltrain Railroad for stations on Caltrain property. As discussed in October 2016, the social bike concept involves bicycles that can be picked-up and dropped-off at any location, although bikes can be collected and returned to "hubs" in high-demand locations. Table 2. Estimated Launch Timeline March2017: Purchase Order for Bicycles & Hub Equipment March -May 2017: Station Siting Website & Public Outreach City of Palo Alto Page4 May-June 2017: Equipment Testing & Demonstration Hub July 2017: Bike Share Launch (phased launch beginning in downtown Palo Alto) Ongoing: Coordination with Peninsula Communities & MTC Ongoing: Coordination with neighboring Peninsula communities, large employers, & Stanford University 2018 (Upon MTC Grant Implementation of Phase II (w/Council approval) Award): Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, February 2017 Proposed System The proposed initial system would include 350 smart-bikes distributed at approximately 35 hubs throughout the City. Bicycles will likely be focused in downtown Palo Alto, the California Avenue Business District, the Stanford Research Park, and other areas in close proximity. The vendor will conduct a public outreach campaign to solicit input from the community on desired station locations, with an eye tC?wards maximizing the ridership of the system. The City will be submitting a grant funding request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to fund a second phase of the bike share system in 2018, if awarded the funds will be used to infill areas not well covered in the first phase of deployment. Research from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) as well as other sources indicate that a high density of bike share stations will result in a higher utilization rate, versus spreading bicycles out at a lower density across a broader geographic area. The Stanford Research Park (SRP) has expressed interest in participating in the City's bike share system and has indicated it intends on purchasing approximately 20 bicycles initially, for use in the Research Park to better connect employees with the California Avenue Business District and Caltrain station. More bicycles may be added to the SRP area at a later date. In addition, Transportation Division staff continues to discuss the potential for bike share on the Stanford University campus. Staff will return to Council with updates as more information becomes available. The Cities of Mountain View and Redwood City are also considering the proposed bike share system and are themselves interested in applying for MTC grant funding in the second round of funding for bike share capital equipment. Staff will be working with SoBi and regional partners to identify the best fare structure to maximize the use of the system. It is likely that the system will use similar fares to those in San Mateo, which are $15 per month for one hour of daily ride time, or $5 for a day pass. The system will be branded to make it clear to users that it is all part of the same Peninsula-wide system, while allowing enough flexibility to potential sponsors to incorporate their own branding. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Staff will return to Council prior to the launch of the system with further information such as station locations, a system name, branding, and any additional information on a potential sponsor that may be available at that time. Table 3. Capital Cost Estimate Item Quantity Price Per Unit Total Smart Bicycle 340 (10 gratis) $1,705 $579,700 Hub (station) 35 $9,515 $349,300 Program Setup & Shipping $175,550 Total Capital Costs: $1,104,550 Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, February 2017 Fiscal considerations not included in the table above include: 1. Replacement of stolen, vandalized, or damaged equipment as necessary; 2. Minor work such as pavement markings, concrete work, parklets, bollards, etc., which may be necessary or desirable at popular bike share hubs; and 3. Potential operating costs if Council approves an expansion beyond 350 bicycles, and sponsorship is unable to cover costs. Alternate Bicycle Transportation Options In January 2017 a number of smart bike share companies have begun expansion into the Bay Area. These smart-bike companies have all been well financed by venture capitalists primarily from Asia and are very similar in function. They are station-less systems, with GPS technology onboard and operated via mobile application. However the locking mechanisms can only lock the bike to itself, not to a bike rack which enables the bikes to be left anywhere. In addition these companies do not have experience operating a bike share systems in the United States, and the long term sustainability of their financial model is still unproven. One of the companies, BluGogo, has deployed bicycles in San Francisco on private property. Users are unable to leave bicycles in the public right of way as it conflicts with Motivate's exclusive bike share contract with the MTC. Other similar companies, such as Spin, Lime, Ofo, and Mobike are also planning deployments in the United States with similar technologies and models, yet have little experience in the bike share industry despite having scaled up operations in Asia very quickly. While the BluGogo system has been very popular in China, the bicycles themselves have also become a public nuisance, with piles of bicycles left on city sidewalks (Attachment B). Communities across the region have expressed concerns with these companies for the following reasons: 1. The systems do not rely on bike share stations limiting the visibility of the system; City of Palo Alto Page 6 2. Bikes may be left anywhere, creating clutter, potentially blocking sidewalks and walkways; 3. Lack of experience operating bike share in the United States, with no track record of operations and maintenance; 4. Lack of evidence of financial sustainability of business model; 5. Limited ability to design an equitable system that serves the needs of diverse communities; 6. Systems are in conflict with existing bike share contracts, potentially reducing the viability of established programs and vendors; 7. Limited ability for the City to partner with these companies to accomplish City transportation goals; and 8. Bicycle deployments are occurring without appropriate City permits and approvals. Staff has also been approached by the manufacturer of a solar-powered electric bicycle and personal mobility device charging system called Swift Mile, based in San Mateo. Electric bicycles show promise to increase bike share use, particularly in peripheral areas of Palo Alto and also where topography is not well-suited to bike share use. However, Swift Mile's equipment has not been comprehensively tested and may benefit from further testing and development. Staff has been in communication with Swift Mile regarding a potential small scale demonstration project that could connect Stanford Research Park employees to the Caltrain California Avenue Station. SoBi has also been developing a new e-bike option that will be fully compatible with its system and is currently undergoing product testing. Vendor/Operator Selection Process Unique conditions exist that would make a procurement process ineffective in the selection of a vendor for bike share equipment and operations. Palo Alto is participating in a sub-regional bike share system for the Peninsula that will utilize the same equipment as the City of San Mateo in order to form a compatible Peninsula-wide smart bike system. Other cities on the Peninsula, including Menlo Park, Mountain View, and Redwood City have also discussed building upon the existing San Mateo bike share system to form a Peninsula-wide smart bike system, Mountain View's City Council recently directed its staff to conduct a feasibility analysis to study the appropriate system size. Section 2.30.360 (b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Exemptions from competitive solicitation requirements, exempts solicitations for "Situations where solicitations of bids or proposals would be impracticable, unavailing or impossible ... " SoBi, the equipment manufacturer has offered the City of Palo Alto complimentary bike share operations in exchange for the purchase of 350 bicycles. A competitive bid for complimentary operations of SoBi equipment would not be effective or yield different results. City of Palo Alto Page 7 The vendor has also recently been vetted through the competitive procurement process in Sacramento for a regional bike share program, and has been performing well in their agreements in the City of San Mateo, Portland, and Santa Monica. Policy Implications Development of an expanded bike share system is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan and Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan goals, policies and projects: Comprehensive Plan: • Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles • Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan: • PR-5 Bike Share Program Bike share is consistent with goals outlined in the draft Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (SCAP) and has emerged as an important area of regional collaboration. Bike share was discussed at recent meetings of the City Manager's Mobility Partnership (MMP), which includes Stanford University, the City of Menlo Park, the City of Mountain View, the City of Palo Alto, the City of Redwood City and Joint Ventures Silicon Valley. Resource Impact Funding is available in the Fiscal Year 2017 Adopted Capital Budget for the bike share program capital costs and local match to the MTC bike share capital grant in CIP PL-04010, Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation. The total up front capital costs for a 350-bike, SoBi bike share system is $1,104,550 and includes 350 bicycles, hubs (stations), program setup, shipping, and other associated costs. The overall cost is inclusive of station siting and permitting costs of $1,000 per station. This estimate does not include minor costs to replace stolen, vandalized, or damaged equipment; minor work such as pavement markings, concrete work, parklets, bollards, etc., which may be necessary at some bike share hubs, estimated to be less than $60,000. Sufficient funding is available in CIP PL-04010 to cover these costs, as estimated. The City previously paid $37,500 to Motivate for bike share operations to maintain a bike share system in place from June 2016 to November 2016. The pilot bike share system was removed in December 2016. TFCA grant funds may be available to offset a portion of the initial capital costs of bike share. Staff will be notified by VTA of the potential grant award in summer 2017. City of Palo Alto Page 8 In addition, staff has submitted a Letter of Interest to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Capital Bike Share funding requesting $1,001,050 for a second phase of the system to launch in 2018 with up to 350 additional bikes. Staff will return to Council for consideration of phase two before proceeding, since operational costs and other factors will need review and discussion at that time. The MTC Capital Bike Share grant has an 11.47% local match requirement, which would be $114,820. If awarded, MTC capital bike share grant funds could be used to pay for 88.5% of the total capital cost in phase two. Environmental Review The proposed bike share project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b) (3) because it can be seen with certainty that the project will have no significant effect on the environment. In addition, the project is exempt under Section 15303, which provides a specific exemption for the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. The prevalence of bike share in Palo Alto is expected to improve, rather than detract from environmental conditions, offering an alternative to automobile transport for those who are able to make use of the system. The only physical footprint of the project would consist of the assembly of bike hubs, the majority of which will require little or no physical construction. Attachments: Attachment A -SoBi Hardware Overview (PDF) Attachment B -Letter from SFMTA Re: Stationless Bike Share (PDF) Attachment C -SoBi Proposal for Peninsula Cities {PDF) Attachment D -SoBi Cost Proposal (PDF) Attachment E -10-4-17 Council Bike Share Agenda Packet {PDF) Attachment F -Signed Final SoBi Contract (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 9 SOCIAL BICYCLES I Hardware: Branding SOCIAL BICYCLES Hardware: Station Examples TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: SF MT A Municipal Transportation Agency MEMORANDUM Gillian Gillett, Director ofTransportation Policy Office of Mayor Edwin M. Lee Heath Maddox, Senior Planner Livable Streets Subdivision Edwin M Lee, Mayor Tom Nolan, Chalfman Cheryl Brinkman, Vice Chairman Gwyneth Borden, Dlfector Malcolm Heinicke, Director Lee Hsu, Director Joel Ramos, Director Cristina Rubke, Director Edward D. Reis kin, Director of Transportation Potential Large-Scale Private Bike Share Competition in San Francisco January 6, 2017 In late December 2016, the SFMTA was advised that a company called Bluegogo, a new and rapidly expanding venture capital-driven Chinese bike share company, has plans to move into San Francisco in a matter of weeks with an automated but stationless, app-based bike rental system that will compete directly with the existing City-sponsored Bay Area Bike Share system recently backed by the Ford Motor Company for a major expansion later this year. While none yet operate in the US, Bluegogo and its ten or more major competitors represent a fast-growing trend in China and are rapidly rolling out many thousands of bikes in a race to corner market share. With their recent launch, Bluegogo announced plans to add 200,000 bikes to the streets of four major Chinese cities and have already rolled out 70,000 bikes in three cities. Bluegogo is among the newest of companies in the emerging bike sharing space in China and is thought to be particularly aggressive in terms of strategy and execution in their attempts to catch up with the leading players. Each of Bluegogo's bikes, which are lighter and better than those of their competitors, but still of lower quality than the typical US bike share bike, has its own solar-powered electronic locking clamp on the rear wheel that is opened using a smartphone app to read the unique QR code on the bike. Bikes are not secured to a docking mechanism or rack and are left standing in the public right-of-way, which in China has led to serious cluttering of public spaces as bikes pile up (see photos on following page). Any movement of the bike without unlocking it triggers a built-in alarm. Pricing has been announced at $0.99/30minutes (as compared to a $9 daily pass for Bay Area Bike Share that includes unlimited 30 minute trips in 24 hours). Stationless "smart bike" systems exist in the US, but cities employing this technology (e.g. Portland, Phoenix, Santa Monica) have universally required the operators to provide stations and racks to maintain order in the public right-of- way. Bluegogo claims that they will keep their bikes from cluttering sidewalks or impeding the path of travel, but they have not demonstrated how this would be accomplished. The City of San Francsico's existing bike share agreement gives Motivate, the owner and operator of the Bay Area Bike Share system, "the exclusive right to operate a bike share program in the public rights-of-way'' for ten years. The SFMTA administers the contact on behalf of the City, and the SFMTA's authority to regulate bike sharing, which stems from the Transportation Code, is limited to granting or denying permits for placing bike share stations in the public right-of-way-something that Bluegogo does not require for their operations since their system is stationless. Bluegogo is aware that Motivate will likely challenge their entry into the San Francisco market, but they appear to be undeterred. The City Attorney's Office is currently reviewing the Motivate agreement to help the SFMTA and the Mayor's Office understand to what extent it pertains to privatized services like Bluegogo's and to what extent the exclusivity provision in the agreement obligates and/or allows the City to deter or prohibit a private vendor like Bluegogo from engaging in the stationless bike sharing business on City streets and sidewalks. The CAO is also reviewing the City's rights and obligations to regulate occupancy of and commerce on City streets and sidewalk in various City codes. 1 South Van Ness Avenue 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 415. 701.4500 www.sfmta.com Bay Area Model Motivate Proposal The City of Palo Alto will purchase the equipment and provide Motivate with the right to use the equipment for operations of the bike share system. Motivate will be responsible for maintaining and returning the equipment in a state of good repair at the end of the contract term. Motivate will cover the operating costs of the first 350 bikes. Additional bikes will be charged to Palo Alto at the cost of $100 per bike per month, subject to CPI Adjustment. Palo Alto may fund the costs of capital or operations of expansion bikes through selling local station sponsorships Sponsors secured by Palo Alto may be recognized on each station by receiving one sponsorship panel on each station that is sponsored locally. Palo Alto may not sell naming rights or the bike branding to station sponsors. These assets will remain consistent with the broader Bay Area system as part of the title sponsorship package, which will help financially support the Palo Alto system and reduce the need for subsidy. Regional Cities that opt into the system will retain similar local station sponsorship rights to offset their capital and operating expenses. Motivate will keep all title sponsorship, secondary sponsorship and user revenue generated by the system. Palo Alto will keep all funds raised through local station sponsorships. This allocation of revenue will apply to Regional Cities that opt into the system. Other cities can opt in to join the system on similar terms to Palo Alto. Municipalities must fund the equipment costs and pay $100 per bike per month for operations. Updated SoBi Proposal for Bay Area -Each City shall purchase and own equipment (minimum 100 bikes) -SoBi shall provides a turn-key system including equipment and ops within a solid regional framework (uniform pricing and one network, if desired) -SoBi will retain all membership revenue -SoBi will manage and engage sponsorship partners (title, secondary bike assets, stations and mobile) and keeps all sponsorship revenue -Prior to proceeding, each City shall guarantee $100/bike/month from Sponsorship revenue or City funds. -SoBi will reimburse each City with sponsorship revenue up to $100/bike/month -For Palo Alto, in order to get a system on the ground with in a reasonable timeline and to create the foundation for a regional system, SoBi will waive the guarantee for the first 350 bike order and proceed upon the City's placement of the PO -Note: Additional bikes require the guarantee of $100 per bike per month 2110/2017 ~ so(b)O CONFlDENTIAL VALID FOR 30 DAYS SOCIALBICYCLES BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM COST PROPOSAL City of Palo Alto BICYCLES (in United States dollars) SMART BICYCLES •un•-- B.1 V3.5 Smart Bicycle 340 S 1,500 S 510,000 B.2 replacement parts and custom tools 340 S 100 S 34,000 B.3 Interior and exterior basket printed assets 340 S 30 S 10,200 B.4 upgrade to skirt guard S 45 S B.5 skirt guard printed assets S 20 S B.6 upgrade to eight-speed hub with shaft drive transmission 340 S 75 S 25,500 TOTAL SMART BICYCLES COST ---• The V3.5 Smart Bicycle includes: custom paint and decals (Pantone color palette), onboard real-time GPS and accelerometer tracking, onboard GSM cellular connection, integrated keypad, LCD screen, and RFID technology, solar and dynamo power generators. 2110/2017 ~ so[§)O CONFIDENTIAL V AUD FOR 30 DA VS SOCIALBICYCLES BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM COST PROPOSAL City of Palo Alto DOCKING POINTS D.1 D.2 "Wave" Docking Point dock printed assets TOTAL DOCKING POINTS COST INFRASTRUCTURE (in United States dollars) •wn•-- 630 s 450 s 283,500 630 s 35 s 22,050 ---• The "Wave" Docking Point includes: custom paint and decals (RAL color palette), base plate with high durability coating, connectors, end caps, and custom sercurity bolts. PAYMENT STRUCTURES P.1 P.2 P.3 P.4 Outdoor Payment Kiosk Indoor Tablet Kiosk (steel wall mount) Indoor Tablet Kiosk (steel floor mount) Indoor Tablet Kiosk (aluminum floor mount) TOTAL PAYMENT STRUCTURES COST •wn•m-s 10,000 s s 300 s s 350 s s 400 s ---• The Outdoor Payment Kiosk (P.1) includes: custom paint and decals (RAL color palette), credit card (EMV upgradable), RFID access card dispenser and reader, color LCD touch screen interface, solar and battery power generators, and base plate with high durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts. • The Indoor Tablet Kiosk (P.2-4) includes: printed and design template, mounting stand and hardware. INFORMATION STRUCTURES 1.1 1.2 Large Advertisement and Info Panel Compact Advertisement and Info Panel TOTAL INFORMATION STRUCTURES COST •wn•---s 2,750 s 35 s 1,250 s 43, 750 ---• The Large Advertisement and Info (1.1) Panel includes: two panels with printable areas of 72" x JO", printed assets and design template, base plate with high, durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts. • The Compact Advertisement and Info Panel (1.2) includes: two panels with printable areas of 43" x 11", printed assets and design template, base plate with high, durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts. Background: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Motivate, LLC entered into an agreement on December 31, 2015 that included a large scale expansion of the Bay Area Bike Share system from 700 bikes to 7,055 bikes. Peninsula communities that participated in the pilot program were not included in the privately funded expansion underway in San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Emeryville, and Berkeley. Palo Alto, Mountain View and Redwood City were offered the ability to buy into the regional system by purchasing capital equipment, funding ongoing operations, with minimal station-based advertising as the only mechanism to offset ongoing operational fees. At a study session on April 25, 2016, Council discussed bike share in the Peninsula and the findings of a bike share strategic plan written by Toole Design Group on behalf of SamTrans. The staff report (Attachment A) summarized the performance of the Motivate pilot on the Peninsula and analyzed the cost to expand the current system, versus replacing it with a SoBi smart-bike system. The report concluded that GPS-enabled smart-bikes are more cost effective for Peninsula cities and more appropriate for land use patterns on the Peninsula as bikes are not constrained by fixed dock locations. Point-to-point, dock style bike share systems are better suited to high-density areas where stations are located close together. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) recommends that bike share stations be located within a three-to five-minute walk of each other. Outside of downtown Palo Alto and the California Avenue business district, this type of station density would be infeasible in Palo Alto. The verbatim minutes from this Council study session are included as Attachment B. On June 20, 2016, the Council approved a Program Agreement to enable the existing Motivate, LLC-operated bike share system to remain in place through November 30, 2016 (Attachment C). Following the April 25, 2016 study session, staff pursued development of a term sheet with SoBi to replace the City's existing 37-bike system with a fleet of 350 GPS-enabled smart-bikes with approximately 35 hubs located citywide. Since May 2016, staff has been participating in regional discussions with neighboring Peninsula communities in an effort to ensure coordination of an interoperable smart-bike system for the Peninsula. While Motivate was initially reluctant to operate SoBi smart-bikes as part of the regional bike share system, as it became clear that Peninsula communities were moving towards a sub- regional system, an~ as Motivate had a favorable experience with SoBi equipment in its Portland system, the company reconsidered its position. The Managers' Mobility Partnership held various meetings to convene staff and City Managers from Menlo Park, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Redwood City to align on bike share and negotiate with Motivate as one entity. Motivate has offered to fully fund the operating costs of a 350 bike SoBi system in Palo Alto. Under the terms of this new proposal, the City would be responsible for up-front capital costs for bicycles and hub equipment provided by SoBi ($1,160,803) (Attachment F) and Motivate City of Palo Alto Page 2 would operate a 350 bike system for the life of the contract. Motivate has agreed to operate SoBi equipment on the Peninsula and will allow neighboring communities to participate under similar terms (Attachment E). Like Palo Alto, neighboring communities would be responsible for capital and installation costs. However, Motivate has committed to two potential funding scenarios to address operating costs in neighboring Peninsula communities. The first scenario is to fully fund up to 350 bikes in each community based on support from the title sponsor, recently announced to be the Ford Motor Company. Motivate has committed to making a decision on this option by October 31, 2016. If Motivate does not fund operations of other Peninsula systems, it has committed to allocating nearly all sponsorship assets to offset operations costs to Peninsula cities (Attachment E). Sponsorship assets include the bicycle, bike basket panels, hub eq uipment, skirt guard and signage at hub locations. The second option would require a $100 per bike monthly operating fee paid by Peninsula cities. Discussion: A Motivate-operated SoBi system would require City funding for upfront capital costs such as bicycles hub equipment, and installation costs. Total capital costs for a 350-bike system are $1,160,803. Of this total capital cost, $171,429 would be covered by a TFCA grant through the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. The City would not be responsible for operational costs, as Motivate, LLC is offering to cover operational costs for up to 350 bicycles for the life of the contract. A second phase, envisioned for 2018, would add an additional 350 bikes to the system using MTC funding to cover 88.53% of the capital costs. The City would then begin to pay $420,000 per year in ongoing operating fees for the additional 350 bicycles. Term Sheet: If directed by Council to enter negotiations with Motivate for an expansion of a new SoBi bike share program, staff will return to City Council in December 2016 with a contract. A six-to seven -month period to launch the bike share system is anticipated from the time of equipment purchase. The launch process would include a public outreach campaign, a suggest-a-hub website, discussions with private property owners, and acquisition of encroachment permits. Existing bike share equipment will remain in place to prevent a gap in service, while moving forward with a full-scale replacement system. Table 1. Estimated Launch Timeline October-December 2016: Negotiation with Vendor & Contract Approval December/January 2016: Purchase Order for Bicycles & Hub Equipment February 2017: Station Siting Website & Public Outreach May2017: Equipment Testing & Demonstration Hub June 2017: Bike Share Launch Ongoing: Coordination with Private Entities Ongoing: Coordination with Peninsula Communities & MTC 2018 (Upon Grant Award): Implementation of Phase II Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, September 2016 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Proposed System: The proposed initial system would include 350 smart-bikes distributed at approximately 35 hubs throughout the City. Operations and maintenance would be conducted by Motivate, LLC. Motivate would be responsible for day-to-day operations of the program, which includes repositioning the bikes between hubs, repairs, and maintenance of the bikes. SoBi would be in charge of the web-and application-based membership and reservation system and the revenue collection and remittance. The title sponsor of Bay Area Bike Share, now to be known as Ford GoBike, will likely require a high level of customer service, system utilization and maintenance. Private entities such as Facebook, Google, Stanford University Medical Center, and Stanford Research Park have all expressed an interest in hosting bike share hubs for their employees. Stanford University, a Platinum-level Bicycle Friendly University as designated by the League of American Bicyclists, would be an ideal location for bike share if the university is amenable. The following factors indicate the potential for a successful bike share program in Palo Alto: 1. The City has a high-quality network of bicycle facilities throughout the City, earning it a Gold-level Bicycle Friendly Community designation from the League of American Bicyclists. 2. Palo Alto has an 8.7% bicycle mode share for daily local trips, among the highest in the nation. 3. The City has committed more than $25 million over the next five years to advance significant bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. 4. The City is a major jobs center, with a population that grows from 64,403 to over 150,000 daily. 5. The City has a well-established bicycle culture, with five bicycle shops within the community. Based on the factors listed above, a utilization rate of one trip per-bicycle per-day has been identified as a target goal for the Palo Alto bike share program. This goal will give the City a benchmark to measure success of the program. The City will leverage the data provided to make adjustments to hub locations, number of bicycles available, bicycle parking and bicycle facilities to improve ridership in order to reach this goal. The existing bike share program utilization rate is 0.17 trips per bicycle, per day. Staff believes this is due to an inadequate number of bicycles and hubs resulting in a small coverage area with a low hub density. The selected vendor will report to Council semi-annually with an update on system performance and utilization. Table 2. Capital Cost Estimate ~·i'EIHll,...ililil'lili~ ~ 350 $1,705~ City of Palo Alto Page 4 Hub (station) 35 $9,515 $333,025 Program Setup, Shipping N/A N/A $91,028 Station Installation Fee 35 $4,000 $140,000 Total Capital Costs: $1,160,803 Fiscal considerations not included in the table above include: 1. Funding of a City staff position (or a portion of) dedicated to monitoring bike share program; 2. Replacement of stolen, vandalized, or damaged equipment as necessary; 3. Minor work such as pavement markings, concrete work, parklets, bollards, etc., which may be necessary or desirable at popular bike share hubs. 4. Operating costs when the system expands beyond 350 bicycles. Vendor/Operator Selection Process The City of Santa Monica went through an extensive, federally compliant, procurement process that included neighboring jurisdictions to select SoBi equipment for a sub-regional bike share system which was approved by the Santa Monica City Council in 2014. Given the comprehensive review process and similar equipment qualities desired in Palo Alto, staff believes that a new procurement process is unnecessary as it would yield identical results. Palo Alto's municipal code allows for sole source awards in section 2.30.360, Exemptions from competitive solicitation requirements. Electric Bicycles: Staff has also been approached by the manufacturer of a solar-powered electric bicycle and personal mobility device charging system called Swift Mile, based in San Mateo. Electric bicycles show promise to increase bike share use, particularly in peripheral areas of Palo Alto and also where topography is not well-suited to bike share use. However, Swift Mile's equipment has not been comprehensively tested and may benefit from further testing and development. Staff has been in communication with Swift Mile regarding a potential small scale demonstration project that could connect Stanford Research Park employees to the Caltrain California Avenue Station. SoBi has also been developing a new e-bike option that will be fully compatible with its system and is currently undergoing product testing. Fare Structure: The Motivate fare has been established in the MTC Agreement with Motivate, LLC (Attachment C) and is $9 per day for unlimited 30 minute rides, $22 for a three day pass, and $149 for an annual pass. A $3 out-of-hub fee is charged to users who lock bicycles to bike racks outside of designated hub areas. Hubs are areas where bike share parking occurs, and a geo-fence may be City of Palo Alto Page 5 created around a hub's perimeter to enable locking to additional bike racks within a hub with no penalty. Users that pick up a bike from an out-of-hub area and return it to a hub location receive a $3 credit to their account. This incentive helps to rebalance the system and reduces the need for motor vehicle use in daily operations. Some cities have elected to designate entire intersections as hub areas, allowing bike share users to lock bicycles at hubs or public bicycle racks without an added fee. Other jurisdictions have designated entire downtown business districts as a hub, eliminating the out of hub fee for that area. Regional Bike Share Interoperability: A Motivate operated bike share expansion would be fully integrated with the regional Bay Area Bike Share system; however, it would not be immediately compatible with the City of San Mateo's Bay Bikes system. Motivate and SoBi may be able to establish membership reciprocity to enable customers to use both systems until San Mateo joins the regional system. Bay Area Bike Share Program Agreement: The Bay Area Bike Share system is administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and operated by Motivate, LLC. A Program Agreement was entered between Bay Area Motivate, LLC and the MTC on December 31, 2015. The City of San Francisco, City of Berkeley, City of Oakland, City of Emeryville, and City of San Jose all have Continuation Agreements that tier off of the overarching master Program Agreement that contain details of each system. Palo Alto currently has a Program Agreement with Motivate for the existing system, which expires on November 31, 2016. Staff will return to City Council in the fall with a clean agreement that contains terms for a SoBi Peninsula system including a "me-too" clause for neighboring communities with similar terms and pricing. The new agreement will be completely separate from the MTC Program Agreement. This will enable the City to enter a five year agreement, with two, three-year extensions in place of the MTC's ten year existing agreement. The MTC has also suggested that Peninsula communities enter separate agreements due to the complexity of the existing MTC Program Agreement (Attachment D). Policy Implications: Development of an expanded bike share system is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan and Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan goals, policies and projects: Comprehensive Plan: • Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles • Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan: • PR-5 Bike Share Program Bike share is consistent with goals outlined in the draft Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (SCAP) and has emerged as an important area of regional collaboration. Bike share was City of Palo Alto Page 6 discussed at recent meetings of the City Manager's Mobility Partnership (MMP), which includes Stanford University, the City of Menlo Park, the City of Mountain View, the City of Palo Alto, the City of Redwood City and Joint Ventures Silicon Valley. This has successfully aligned positions on bike share and enabled Palo Alto to negotiate with Motivate of behalf of the Peninsula. Resource Impact: Funding is available for the first year in the Fiscal Year 2017 Adopted Capital Budget for the bike share program capital costs, operational costs, and local match to the MTC bike share capital grant in CIP PL-04010, Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation. Bike share is in the planned budget for subsequent years, however, if Council chooses to expand beyond the 350 bikes currently recommended in this report, additional operating budget of approximately $420,000 per year will be needed. A one-time local match of $114,820 for the MTC grant would also be needed, as discussed below. The total up front capital costs for a 350-bike, Motivate/SoBi bike share system is $1,160,803 and includes 350 bicycles, hubs (stations), program setup, and other associated costs. This estimate does not include minor costs to replace stolen, vandalized, or damaged equipment; minor work such as pavement markings, concrete work, parklets, bollards, etc., which may be necessary at some bike share hubs, estimated to be less than $60,000. Sufficient funding is available in CIP PL-04010 to cover these costs, as estimated. Operations & Maintenance: Motivate will be providing free operations and maintenance for up to 350 bicycles in Palo Alto. When the bike share system grows beyond 350 bicycles, the City will reimburse Motivate at a rate of $100 per bicycle, per month for operational costs. At the projected buildout of 700 bikes, the City would be responsible for $420,000 in operating costs annually. These operating costs are not included in the FY 2017 Adopted Operating Budget and expansion from 350 to 700 bikes would require a subsequent action by the City Council if desired after the initial phase. Staff Resources: A large, citywide bike share system will likely need 0.5 to 1.0 new full-time employee at a cost of approximately $100,000 to $200,000 per year as the bike share program grows in size. A bike share system operates similar to a public transit system and a staff position would oversee daily operations, system planning, management of the Motivate contract, grant procurement and management, coordination with private entities participating in the system, and reporting to Council on bike share system performance. Grant Funding: Staff has submitted a Letter of Interest to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Capital Bike Share funding requesting $1,001,050 for a second phase of the system to launch in 2018 with up to 350 additional bikes. The MTC Capital Bike Share grant has an 11.47% local match requirement, which would be $114,820. The City has also been awarded $171,429 in City of Palo Alto Page 7 TFCA funds with a local match of $740,000, for use on bike share expansion in Palo Alto. TFCA grant funds can be used to offset the initial capital costs of bike share, and MTC funds can be used to expand the bike share system in phase two of deployment. Following direction from Council on bike share, staff will process the funding agreement to enable the allocation of TFCA funds in anticipation of submitting a purchase order for smart-bikes and station equipment, which has a manufacturing lead time of up to six months. Environmental Review: The proposed bike share project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b) (3) because it can be seen with certainty that the project will have no significant effect on the environment. In addition, the project is exempt under Section 15303, which provides a specific exemption for the construction and location of limited numbers of new small facilities or structures. The prevalence of bike share in Palo Alto is expected to improve, rather than detract from environmental conditions, offering an alternative to automobile transport for those who are able to make use of the system. The only physical footprint of the project would consist of the assembly of bike hubs, the majority of which will require little or no physical construction. Attachments: • Attachment A -City Manager Report 6324 Mid-Peninsula Bike Share Study Session April 25, 2016 (PDF) • Attachment B -City Council Meeting Transcript April 25, 2016 (PDF) • Attachment C -City of Palo Alto and Motivate, LLC Program Agreement • Attachment D -MTC and Motivate, LLC Bay Area Bike Share Agreement • Attachment E -New Motivate Term Sheet with SoBi Bikes (PDF) • Attachment F -Social Bicycles Equipment Cost Proposal (PDF) • Attachment G -SoBi Hardware Overview (PDF) City of Palo Alto (PDF) (PDF) Page 8 Under the terms of this agreement, the remaining Peninsula cities, including Palo Alto may choose to continue, expand and continue, or discontinue participation in Motivate's Bay Area Bike Share system. Continuing or expanding the current system includes both capital and ongoing costs. Both of which could be completely or partially offset with advertising and/or increased use based on the terms of the agreement. As the end of the initial pilot period drew near, Palo Alto, Redwood City and Mountain View partnered with SamTrans to conduct a study of the various options for bike share in the Peninsula moving forward. A common desire among all cities is to expand the number of bikes available and increase the number of destinations accessible to users of the system to complement transit as an alternative to driving. However, the various alternatives have differing financial and logistal challenges. Background Bay Area Bike Share Program Pilot The existing Bay Area Bike Share (BABS) pilot program is a 70-station/700-bicycle/1,236- dock fixed-station regional bicycle sharing system operating in the cities of San Francisco, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San Jose in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties. The five-city pilot program was established using federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality and local Transportation Funds for Clean Air resources totalling $4.29 million. The five city pilot program launced in 2013 under the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) administering the program with an intergovernmental agreement between the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans), San Mateo County, and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). The Air District owns the equipment and the intergovernmetnal agreement outlines the decision-making process for decisions affecting the system. One of the primary and unique goals of the pilot system was to provide a "last mile" connection for transit riders arriving and departing from the Caltrain stations within the service area. Despite the many agencies, the system has universal branding, fee structure, and payment system which allows users to access the system in multiple cities with one membership. Since implementation, results of system data analysis reveal BABS's strongest performing city is San Francisco, followed by Mountain View, San Jose, Palo Alto, and Redwood City. While the urban form of San Francisco is signficantly different than the other cities, evaluation of performance data from the Bay Area Bike Share-Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan show a combination of factors positively correlate with greater bike share trip counts within smaller systems, such as the Peninsula locations, including: number and of bike share stations, service area, and to a lesser degree land use diversity and bike share station concentraion. The table City of Palo Alto Page 2 below shows the breakdown of bikes and use by city. A key performance metre used to evaluate bike share systems is the number of trips per bike per day. City System Statistics Ridership Trips I Bike I Day Stations Docks Bikes Trips Percent San Francisco 35 665 350 321,108 90.7% 2.51 Redwood City 7 115 70 2,007 0.6% 0.08 Palo Alto 5 75 so 3,093 0.9% 0.17 Mountain View 7 117 70 9,989 2.8% 0.39 San Jose 16 264 160 17,956 5.1% 0.31 Total 70 1,236 700 326,915 100% 1.39 Ridership Statistics for Bay Area Bike Share (September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015) Source: Bay Area Bike Share-Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan In response to performance data and projections, Motivate, the current BABS operator and the Metropolitain Transportation Commission (MTC) agreed to expand the existing system to 7,000 bikes within San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Jose without public funding. As part of this agreement, the Peninsula cities, including Palo Alto, that participated in the pilot program, may continue the bike share program but must pay a monthly premium to retain the current number of bikes and pay capital and operations costs for system expansion. The costs to continue or expand the existing system are included in Attachment A. If the Peninsula cities elect not to continue to participate in Bay Area Bike Share, the pilot will come to an end on June 30, 2016 and Motivate will remove the five existing stations within Palo Alto during the first week of July. The pilot program has already been extended through agreement from December 31, 2015 to June 30, 2016. Motivate has requested official notification from the Peninsula cities by May 31, 2016. Bay Area Bike Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan In October 2015, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission released funding to Sam Trans to help Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View make a decision on how to move forward with bike share after the end of the Bay Area Bike Share pilot on June 30, 2016. This plan, scheduled for completion in May 2016, provides background information including a summary of how the pilot program performed in the Peninsula cities, an overview of travel behaviors to, from, and within the peninsula, an analysis of the ideal system size and form in each community, and a summary of the Motivate pricing proposal and how that compares to the capital and operating costs of other equipment providers and operators. The first three deliverables from the study are attached as Attachments B, C and D. By analyzing successful bike sharing systems in suburban communities similar to Palo Alto, the consultant identified the characteristics of these systems and mapped the high-demand areas within the City of Palo Alto. Based on this geographic modeling, and a qualitative assessment of trip generators, the ideal bike share system size for Palo Alto was estimated to be 35 stations. These stations would be concentrated in the downtown core, Cal ifornia Avenue business district, Stanford Medical Center, and Stanford Research Park, with the remainder dispersed at major attractions and public facilities throughout the city. City of Palo Alto Page 3 City of San Mateo Pilot Bike Share System In November 201S, the San Mateo City Council approved a contract in the amount of $8S,OOO to purchase 40 Social Bicycles smart bikes for a pilot bicycle share system. The council staff report is included as Attachment E and the purchase contract is included as Attachment F. The council also approved a service contract with Bikes Make Life Better, Inc. to operate and maintain a SO-bike smart bike system for $90,000 per year. This contract is included as Attachment G. San Mateo was approached by an alternative bike share provider, Social Bicycles (SoBi), to implement a SO-bike pilot bike share program within San Mateo. SoBi operates bike share programs within several North American cities, including Long Beach, Phoenix, Santa Monica, San Ramon, Tampa, and Hamilton, Ontario, and is in the process of launching a new system in Portland, Oregon. The City of Santa Monica went through an extensive procurement process to select SoBi, and, based on this, the City of San Mateo staff recommended a sole- source award of the bike share system to SoBi, which was approved by that city council. San Mateo's municipal code permits this type of sole source award if staff believes that a new request for proposals will not result in a more favorable proposal. On March 7, 2016, staff submitted an application to the Santa · Clara Valley Transportation Authority for funding through the Transportation Fund for Clean Air -Program Manager Funds. The City requested $171,429 in capital funds, with the assumption that the City would identify $911,428 in local funding over the five-year project period. This would enable the City to add three new stations and 30 new bicycles to the existing BABS system. It is also assumed that the City would be able to add five additional privately-funded stations. The application is included as Attachment H. Letters of support were received from both the Stanford Medical Center and Stanford Research Park. The letters are included as Attachments I and J. MTC Bike Share Capital Program The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) set aside up to $4.S million for a Bike Share Capital Program in Bay Area communities outside of the BABS expansion area at its May 201S meeting. The Bike Share Capital Program will award grants over two phases, with the timing of the second phase to be determined following Phase 1. The funding is a one-time funding source to help project sponsors with capital purchase and initial implementation costs and will not be an on-going grant program. It will also not fund operations due to constraints on the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality {CMAQ) funds committed to the program. A memo from MTC outlining the draft program guidelines is included as Attachment K. Discussion With the initial BAAQMD pilot program concluding on June 30, 2016, staff has been considering the following options for the city's bike share system. Under all expansion alternatives, bike share station locations, number of bikes, and costs would be informed by recommendations in the Bay Area Bike Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan. l. Continue and modestly expand existing BABS system with eight new stations 2. Implement small new smart bike system with ten hubs 3. Continue and agressively expand existing BABS system with 29 new stations City of Palo Alto Page 4 4. Implement large new smart bike system with 35 hubs Under options two and four, the Bay Area Bike Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan assumes the new equipment vendor would be Social Bicycles as a means to limit complications and confusion from introducing a third vendor to the region. Social Bicycles through Bikes Make Life Better, Inc. is the current equipment vendor for the City of San Mateo's pilot bike share system and other cities could potentially add on to the Bikes Make Life Better/Social Bicycles agreement. Based on data from the Bay Area Bike Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan, system expansion with more bikes and stations within a smaller system in a suburban setting is projected to result in increased performance. Costs Capital and net operating costs were calculated for each of the scenarios and the following table shows a breakdown of capital (including installation) costs, operating costs, estimates of potential user revenues (from membership and overage fees), and net operating costs for each city and for the collective program. Capital and operating costs are generally well-known and are outlined in the table footnotes. User revenues are more difficult to calculate are a combination of annual and casual membership sales and usage fees. Annual and casual membership sales are calculated as the number of annual or casual members (assumed to grow from existing membership levels in proportion to the number of stations in the system) multiplied by the cost of an annual or casual membership ($88 or $9 respectively). Usage fees are calculated first by estimating the number of annual trips from the equations included in Attachment B (and assuming a station density of eight stations per square mile). Trips are then broken down into annual and casual member trips based on existing ratios in each city. Annual member trips are multiplied by the average overage fee recouped per annual member trip for the pilot program of $0.12 per trip. Casual user trips are multiplied by the average overage fee recouped per casual user trip for the pilot program of $8.79 per trip. STATUS QUO OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION4 Minor expansion, Minor expansion, Major expansion, Major expansion, Existing system, current vendor new vendors current vendor new vendors current vendor (no gap in service) CAPITAL Motivate Motivate Social Bicycles Motivate Social Bicycles Capital Cost $0 $415,000 $400,000 $1,785,000 $1,075,000 Number of Five existing stations, stations Five existing stations, one used station Ten new hubs Five existing stations, 3S new hubs no new stations from RWC, seven 29 new stations new stations Total Capital $0 $595,000 $885,000 $5,115,ooo $3,225,000 Cost OPERATIONS Motivate Motivate New Operator Motivate New Operator Operations $335,000 $290,000 $900,000 $735,000 (Revenue) $101,000 ($115,000) ($115,000) ($565,000) ($565,000) Net Cost $220,000 $175,000 $335,000 $170,000 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Total Five- year Cost to $505,000 $1,695,000 $1,760,000 $6,790,000 $4,075,000 City TFCA Funding (Application $0 $171,429* $0 $171,429* $0 Pending) Regionwide MTC Funding $0 $0 $500,000* $500,000* $500,000* ($4.5M in FY2017) *Funding not secured. City of Palo Alto must compete regionally for these funding programs. Policy Implications Development of an expanded bike share system is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan and Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan goals, policies and projects: Comprehensive Plan: • Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles • Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan: • PR-5 Bike Share Program Environmental Review This is a study action and exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: • Attachment A: BABS Motivate Expansion Proposal Term Sheet (PDF) • Attachment B: BABS Toole Peninsula Cities Plan Deliverable 1 (PDF) • Attachment C: BABS Toole Peninsula Cities Plan Deliverable 2 Draft (PDF) • Attachment D: BABS Toole Peninsula Cities Plan Deliverable 3 Draft (PDF) • Attachment E: San Mateo Council Administrative Report (PDF) • Attachment F: San Mateo-SoBi Purchase Contract (PDF) • Attachment G: San Mateo-BMLB Service Agreement (PDF) • Attachment H: Palo Alto TFCA Application (PDF) • Attachment I: Stanford MC TFCA Support Letter (PDF) • Attachment J: Stanford RP TFCA Support Letter (PDF) • Attachment K: MTC Bike Share Capital Memo (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 6 Administration Committee May 6, 2015 Page3 Agenda Item 3 The three remaining pilot cities would not be required to purchase new equipment, but would instead pay a monthly premium to cover the cost of retrofitting the existing pilot bikes and stations. If a city wants to expand, new equipment is priced to match the pilot program prices, plus 10%. Ongoing operations and maintenance for new equipment would cost $100 per dock per month. The table below shows the proposed costs for these three cities. City Bikes Docks Cost per dock Annual cost per month Mountain View 54 117 $112.50 $158,000 Palo Alto 37 75 $112.50 $101,000 Redwood City 52 117 $112.50 $158,000 Total 143 309 $112.50 $417,000 If these cities reach agreements with Motivate, there are two primary ways to offset or reduce ongoing operating costs. First, cities will be able to offer recognition for local sponsors on one ad panel at each station, which has been shown to cover approximately half of a station's annual cost. Second, cities would receive discounts for achieving the ridership levels shown below. Therefore, if a pilot city can attract a sponsor and maintain an average ridership of 1.5 trips per bike per day, it is likely that there would be no public funds required to continue the bike share program. Trips per bike per day Discount 1.0 25% 1.5 50% 3.0 100% The cities have requested up to one year to explore sponsorship options as well as continue to refine service locations to see if they can improve system use before making a decision about whether to continue bike share at the costs noted above. Motivate has agreed to operate the current equipment in these cities through December 31 at no cost, and MTC staff proposes to subsidize the cities through June 30, 2016 for approximately $200,000. Cities wishing to continue must notify Motivate by May 31; for cities that decide not to continue by this time, Motivate will plan to relocate the equipment in July 2016. Terms for Other Interested Bay Area Communities Motivate has established similar terms for any Bay Area community that would like to join the system after the 7 ,000-bike expansion is completed. The capital cost for new bikes is the same as for the pilot cities. For a typical configuration, full capital costs are approximately $5,600/bike, plus $4,000 per new station for installation activities. For example, five stations with 50 bikes would cost approximately $300,000. Ongoing operations and maintenance would cost $130 per dock per month, or just over $150,000 annually in the five station example. The discount levels described above are available for all Bay Area cities based on ridership, and all cities will be able to capitalize on local sponsorship. In addition, and as described more below under funding, staff is proposing to set aside $4.5 million in funding for capital expenses associated with emerging Administration Committee May 6, 2015 Page 4 Agenda Item 3 communities interested in bike share. This would follow the installation of the 7,000-bike proposed expansion and would be conditioned on communities covering the ongoing annual operating costs through local funds, sponsorship, ridership discounts, or a combination thereof. Compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) The tenn sheet has been revised to reflect how Motivate will comply with ADA requirements, including for both physical components of the system and the system website. The website and mobile app will utilize adaptive design and will be accessible and usable on desktop computers, tablets, and mobile devices. Ecommerce functionality will comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Station positioning protocol and individual station components will also comply with ADA requirements. Sole Source Substantiation To expand on the April discussion of the compelling business reasons for entering into a sole source with Motivate, staff is quantifying the monetary savings for the Bay Area of this approach in the table below, which assumes 80% farebox recovery and no advertising or sponsorship revenue. Bike Share Cost Element Estimated Annual 10-Year Value Expenses (2015 dollars, 3% discount rate) Capital cost for 6,300 expansion -$37.6 million bikes I roughly 630 station sites Annual operating and maintenance $3 .2 million $21.4 million Cost above 80% farebox recovery Staff oversight, marketing and $1.0 million $6. 7 million contract management Total $4.2 million $65. 7 million In addition to the approximately $65 million value of the sole source contract for no public investment over the 10 year time period, the Motivate proposal also offers the opportunity to launch the robust 7,000 bike system quickly within 2.5 years, thereby attracting stronger usage earlier, in line with the Bay Area's aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets. A pay-as-you go model at the level of investment to-date would likely require five or more years to complete. Funding As described at the April Administration Committee meeting, fully private funding means that public funds originally intended for bikes and stations can instead be reprogrammed. The $19 .1 million that the Commission approved from 2012 to 2014 for the pilot and the continuation and expansion of Bay Area Bike Share includes both federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) and state Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds as summarized in the table below. Administration Committee May 6, 2015 Page 5 Program STP/CMAQ Cycle 1: Pilot STP/CMAQ Cycle 1: Expansion STP/CMAQ Cycle 2 (OBAG): Expansion Regional ATP Cycle I: Expansion Total Agenda Item 3 Fund Unreimbursed Source Amount ($ in millions) CMAQ $2.7 CMAQ $2.7 CMAQ $6.0 ATP $7.7 $19.1 The ATP funds have strict timely use of funds as well as competitive process selection requirements. Therefore, to avoid loss of those funds and in line with the last month's discussion at the Programming and Allocations Committee meeting, staff recommends that $7.7 million be allocated to ready-to-go contingency ATP projects. Additional detail is included in agenda item 4a on today's Programming and Allocations Committee agenda. Staff further recommends directing $4.5 million to address the concerns raised by several Commissioners as well as the BAAQMD Mobile Source Committee members (this may require a funding exchange given the sole source nature of the agreement with Motivate and federal rules). These funds would be set-aside for capital costs associated with bike share expansion in emerging communities. Staff would conduct a call for projects to solicit interest from communities in a timeframe to allow expansion to begin following installation of the 7 ,000-bike expansion. This funding level would support acquisition of an additional 750 bikes, roughly the size of the current pilot, in emerging communities. In addition, staff is recommending that $0.5 million in CMAQ be provided to the city of San Mateo to advance its bicycle and pedestrian program. Staff is proposing that the remaining $6.4 million be subject to the broader discussion of priorities for OBAG2 as the Commission considers a draft framework next month at the Programming and Allocations Committee meeting. Other Clarifications Further, based on questions by Commissioners and city staff, the term sheet has been revised to clarify the following areas: • Exclusivity: Motivate has clarified the terms attached to this report to show that the proposed exclusivity provision only applies to public right-of-way in Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. Moreover, the exclusivity provision does not apply to an existing pilot electric bike share program, facilitated by City CarShare and planned for Berkeley and San Francisco. The approximately 90 electric bikes at 25 planned stations will be available only to members of City CarShare. • System Size: Motivate has agreed to maintain a 2: I dock-to-bicycle ratio in Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City during the extended grace period and continuing forward if those cities decide to continue with their current systems. Under current station configurations, a 2: I ratio represents 15 5 bikes across these three cities. This adds 5 5 bikes to the original proposal for a total of up to 7,055 bikes across eight cities. If fewer than all three Attachment A Page 1 Attachment A Motivate-MTC Proposed Term Sheet This term sheet is intended to be used to facilitate discussions between the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ("MTC") and Motivate International Inc. ("Motivate") in order to develop a contract for the acquisition, launch and operation of a bike share system in the Bay Area. Contract Topic Equipment Ownership System Size Launch Dates Contract Terms If required by the FHW A, Motivate will be obligated to purchase the equipment initially acquired with federal funds according to the terms of the FHW A agreement. As currently outlined in the FHWA agreement, any item with a current per-unit FMV of less than $5,000 will be transferred to Motivate at no cost. For items with a current per-unit FMV of more than $5,000, the purchase price will be based on the share of federal funding for the project multiplied by the equipment's FMV, as established by past sales of comparable equipment. 7,000-7,055 bikes total • 4,500 in SF • 1,000 in San Jose • 1,400 in East Bay (850 in Oakland, 100 in Emeryville, 400 in Berkeley, 50 TBD based on additional system planning analysis) • Between 100 and 155 to be determined: -If Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City all decide to agree with Motivate and continue bike share, Motivate will provide 155 bikes among the three cities. -If one or two of the three pilot cities listed above decide to continue bike share, Motivate will provide enough bikes to maintain a 2: 1 dock to bike ratio with the docks currently stationed in each city. If this is less than 100 bikes, Motivate will deliver enough bikes to another city to reach a program total of at least 7 ,000. -If none of the three pilot cities listed above decides to continue bike share, 100 bikes to be determined among SF, San Jose, and the East Bay. Sites representing 25% of the total bikes for San Jose, East Bay and San Francisco should be approved and permitted by December 30, 2015. Motivate will install these bikes by June 1, 2016. Attachment A Page 2 Contract Topic Launch Dates (continued) Term Contract Terms Sites representing an additional 15% of bikes for San Jose, East Bay and SF should be approved and permitted by April 30, 2016. Motivate will install these bikes by October 1, 2016. Sites representing the remaining 60% of bikes for the East Bay should be approved and permitted by July 30, 2016. Motivate will install these bikes by January 1, 2017. Sites representing an additional 30% of bikes for San Jose and SF should be approved and permitted by November 30, 2016. Motivate will install these bikes by April 1, 2017. Sites for the remaining bikes in San Jose and SF should be · approved and permitted by May 31, 201 7. The remainder of bikes shall be installed no later than November!, 2017. Delays in receiving permitted and approved sites by specified dates will result in extension of the installation dates in an amount equal to the delay. The above dates are based on completion of the contract with the MTC by July 31, 2015. If Motivate is negotiating in good faith and the contract signing occurs after July 31, 2015, the above dates will be extended by a duration equal to the difference between the contract signing date and July 31, 2015. 10 year term, reduced to 5 years if Motivate does not achieve the aggregate bike target numbers described above (includes provisions for force majeure and siting issues) or if Motivate is in persistent and material breach of its contractual obligations as of the time renewal is considered in the fourth year. The contract may be extended for two additional five-year terms upon mutual agreement of the MTC and Motivate. If Motivate is in substantial compliance with the terms of the contract, MTC will engage in good faith negotiations to renew the contract on substantially equivalent terms one year prior to the expiration of the current term. MTC will provide notification of non-renewal no later than six months prior to the end of the term. If neither party provides no notice of non-renewal by six months, the contract should be extended for five years on the same terms. Attachment A Page 3 Contract Topic Exclusivity System Buy-In Contract Terms During the Term of this Agreement, Motivate shall have the exclusive right to operate a bike sharing program that utilizes public property and public right of way anywhere within San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose and Emeryville. The exclusivity provision does not apply to an existing pilot electric bike share program, facilitated by City CarShare and planned for Berkeley and San Francisco. The approximately 90 electric bikes at 25 planned stations will be available only to members of City CarShare. San Jose, San Francisco, Berkeley, Emeryville, and Oakland may contribute public funding for additional bikes and stations that are interoperable with the existing system. Costs to cities for purchasing, installing and operating the equipment is as follows: • Capital Equipment: Aggregate pricing for bike share solution as specified in the Air District contract + 10%. Adjusted annually by the producer price index. • Installation: $4,000 per station, including site planning and drawings, growing at CPI. • Operations and maintenance of the equipment: $100 per dock per month, growing at CPI • Motivate is obligated to maintain equipment purchased by the cities in a state-of-good repair throughout the term. At the end of the term, Motivate shall return the equipment to the city in good working order acknowledging that there is expected to be normal wear and tear from use. San Mateo and existing pilot cities other than San Francisco and San Jose that want to continue and/or expand existing system operations after the expiration of the BAAQMD contract can develop a new service agreement with Motivate using their own sources of funds. Costs to cities for purchasing, installing and operating the equipment is as follows: • Existing equipment upgrade cost: $12.50 per dock per month, growing at PPL • New capital equipment: Aggregate pricing for bike share solution as specified in the Air District contract + 10%. Adjusted annually by the producer price index. • Installation of new equipment: $4,000 per station, including site planning and drawings, growing at CPI • Operations and maintenance of the equipment: $100 per dock per month, growing at CPI. Attachment A Page 4 Contract Topic System Buy-In (continued) Contract Terms -Price is reduced to $75 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if an average of 1 ride per bike per day citywide occurs for a 12 month period -Price is reduced to $50 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if an average of 1.5 rides per bike per day citywide occurs for a 12 month period -Price is reduced to $0 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if an average of 3 rides per bike per day citywide occurs for a 12 month period • Motivate is obligated to maintain equipment purchased by the cities in a state-of-good repair throughout the term. At the end of the term, Motivate shall return the equipment to the city in good working order, acknowledging that there is expected to be normal wear and tear from use. • Cities are able to raise sponsorship to offset the costs of purchasing and operating the bike share system in their locality. Local sponsorship packages may include recognition of the sponsor on one side of one ad panel on the station. System naming rights, bike branding, and other branding of physical assets will be determined by Motivate in conjunction with title sponsor and in compliance with local advertising regulations. Local sponsors cannot be in the same category as the title sponsor, unless approved by Motivate. • Motivate will operate the current configurations of stations and docks, following the expiration of the BAAQMD contract, with enough bikes to provide a 2:1 ratio of bikes to docks, at no cost until December 31, 2015. • MTC will pay $100 per dock per month to Motivate from January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016 to maintain operations in the pilot cities. • Cities must decide whether or not to continue and/or expand bike share by May 31, 2016. Motivate will begin relocating equipment in cities that decide not to continue in July 2016. Subsequent to deployment of 7,000 bikes within San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville, other cities in the MTC region that want to participate in the regional bike share system can develop a service agreement with Motivate using their own sources of funds. Costs to cities for purchasing, installing and operating the equipment is as follows: Attachment A Page 5 Contract Topic System Buy-In (continued) Pricing Contract Terms • New capital Equipment: Aggregate pricing for bike share solution as specified in the Air District contract + 10%. Adjusted annually by the producer price index. • Installation: $4,000 per station, including site planning and drawings, growing at CPI • Operations and maintenance of the equipment: $130 per dock per month, growing at CPI. -Price is reduced to $97 .50 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if an average of 1 ride per bike per day citywide occurs for a 12 month period -Price is reduced to $65 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if an average of 1.5 rides per bike per day citywide occurs for a 12 month period -Price is reduced to $0 per dock, adjusted by CPI, if an average of 3 rides per bike per day citywide occurs for a 12 month period • Motivate is obligated to maintain equipment purchased by the cities in a state-of-good repair throughout the term. At the end of the term, Motivate shall return the equipment to the city in good working order, acknowledging that there is expected to be normal wear and tear from use. • Cities are able to raise sponsorship to offset the costs of purchasing and operating the bike share system in their locality. Local sponsorship packages may include recognition of the sponsor on one side of one ad panel on the station. System naming rights, bike branding, and other branding of physical assets will be determined by Motivate in conjunction with title sponsor and in compliance with local advertising regulations. Local sponsors cannot be in the same category as the title sponsor, unless approved by Motivate. In addition, Motivate has the right to contract with private entities that want to provide funding for stations and bikes that are situated on privately-owned property. $149 annual pass that can be increased no more than CPI + 2% annually. Annual pass can be paid in 12-monthly installments of no more than $15.00 All other pricing can be set at Motivate's discretion. Motivate will offer a discounted pass set at 40% of the annual price. The discount will be available to customers who are eligible and enrolled in Bay Area utility lifeline programs. If participation Attachment A Page 6 Contract Topic Pricing (continued) Revenue Share Brand Development and Sponsorship Advertising Siting Contract Terms in the discounted program is below expectations, Motivate and MTC may mutually agree on other eligibility criteria so long as the eligibility is detern1ined by a third-party. User Revenue: 5% of user revenue above $18,000,000 earned by Motivate (in accordance with GAAP) in any year will be paid to MTC. Amounts owed will be paid within 120 days of the end of the calendar year. Sponsorship Revenue: 5% of sponsorship revenue in excess of $7,000,000 earned by Motivate (in accordance with GAAP) in any year will be paid to MTC. Amounts owed under the sponsorship revenue share agreement in years 1-5 will be deferred and paid in equal installments in years 6-10. For years 6-10, amounts owed under the sponsorship revenue share agreement will be paid within 120 days of the end of the calendar year. The revenue share hurdle will be adjusted for CPI starting in year 2. Motivate is responsible for identifying sponsors and developing system name, color, logo and placement of system assets. MTC, in consultation with the cities, will have approval rights over title sponsorship and branding. Motivate will abide by cities' existing guidelines and restrictions with regards to outdoor advertising. Motivate will not choose sponsors that are in age-restricted categories (alcohol, tobacco or firearms), products banned by the local government, or deemed offensive to the general public. Rejection of proposed sponsors by municipalities are limited to the grounds above. Motivate will have the right to sell advertising on physical and digital assets. Advertising on physical assets are subject to local restrictions on outdoor advertising. Motivate to develop site locations, which will be prioritized based on demand. Motivate will also use city analyses and recommendations already developed where possible. If a city does not approve a proposed site location, they must provide an alternative within one-block. Motivate to provide a 20% minimum placement in communities of concern system-wide. Participating cities may designate other areas for 20% minimum placement instead of communities of concern. Attachment A Page 7 Contract Topic Siting (continued) Security Fund Contract Terms Motivate will work together with cities on community engagement and outreach as part of the station siting process, including necessary business associations and city meetings. Motivate can relocate or resize underperforming stations while maintaining minimum placements in communities of concern. Motivate will hire planning and engineering firms to minimize the cities' costs and resources related to planning. Motivate will discuss staff time requirements with each city and determine ways to reduce demands on staff. If staff time exceeds estimates due to errors or omissions or by Motivate or its contractors, Motivate will reimburse cities for reasonable and documented direct staff time related to these issues. Cities to provide estimates on costs of permits within seven days of signing term sheet. If costs of permits are significant, Motivate will seek a waiver on pennit costs given the public benefits of the project. If Motivate and Cities cannot reach agreement on a waiver, Motivate may consider reimbursing actual direct costs incurred by the city to provide the permit (e.g, a field visit by an inspector). Motivate will provide $250,000 into a Security Fund account controlled by MTC prior to the installation of the first new station. The Security Fund shall serve as security for the faithful performance by Motivate of all obligations under the contract. MTC may make withdrawals from the Security Fund of such amounts as necessary to satisfy (to the degree possible) Motivate's obligations under this Agreement that are not otherwise satisfied and to reimburse the MTC or cities for costs, losses or damages incurred as the result of Motivate' s failure to satisfy its obligations. MTC shall not make any withdrawals by reason of any breach for which Motivate has not been given notice and an opportunity to cure in accordance with the Agreement. If funds are withdrawn from the Security Fund, Motivate will be required to replenish the Security Fund to an amount equal to $250,000 on a quarterly basis. Interest in account accrues to Motivate. 90 days after the end of the term, any remaining funds will be returned to Motivate. Attachment A Page 8 Contract Topic Liability Default Data Responsibilities of Motivate Site Design and Planning Contract Terms Motivate shall defend, indemnify and hold MTC and its officers and employees harmless, to the fullest extent permitted by law, etc. Similar indemnities for cities. Termination and default clauses include the option to require Motivate to remove equipment, assign or transfer equipment and IP to a third party. IP assignment is limited to the extent needed for a third-party to maintain and operate the system. All data owned by Motivate. Cities granted a non-exclusive, royalty free, perpetual license to use all non-personal data. Monthly Reports shall be provided for each of the above KPis and other system data, to be determined. Brand development, station siting, design, permitting, purchase of equipment and software, installation of bikes and stations, station relocation, equipment replacement, bike share safety training, monthly operating meetings with MTC and cities, marketing, sales and sponsorship, operations and maintenance of system including customer service. Station relocation by public agencies will require reimbursement of costs incurred by Motivate. However, if a newly installed station is found to be unsuitable by a city for its location, the city may request within 30 days of installation the relocation of a station at Motivate's cost. The number of available free station moves is equal to 10% of the installed station base less any prior moves. For example, if a city has 100 stations installed, they have a total of 10 free station moves less any free station moves used to date. If the system grows to 200 stations, they then have 20 station moves less any station moves used to date. Motivate will hire a planning and engineering firm with experience in the specific locality to do surveying, site design and permit submission. Motivate will solicit input from each city to help determine its planning and engineering partners. Motivate will hire a community relations finn to assist with organizing and hosting community meetings and to conduct outreach to local residents and businesses. Motivate will use commercially reasonable efforts to subcontract the work to DBEs where possible. Each municipality should provide a point of contact to coordinate the community engagement efforts and the permitting process. Attachment A Page9 Contract Topic Marketing Parking Meter Revenue KP Is Contract Terms MTC, in consultation with the cities, has final approval of marketing plans and activities. MTC, in consultation with the cities has approval over marketing and outreach plans for low-income communities, non-native English speaking populations, and disadvantaged communities. Motivate must do outreach and marketing in Spanish, Chinese and Vietnamese. MTC retains the ability to conduct outreach and program support in low-income and Limited English Proficiency neighborhoods. Motivate's other marketing activities must comply with MTC and local standards for decency and not offend the general public. Motivate will not advertise or promote any products in prohibited categories (tobacco, alcohol, etc.). Motivate must make best effort to avoid taking metered parking spaces. If a city requires reimbursement of lost parking meter revenue for a given site, the city must also provide an alternative site location within one city block that is not sited in metered parking areas. Motivate can choose to locate in either site. Key Perfonnance Indicators: 1. Rebalancing: no station will remain full or empty for more than 3 consecutive hours between 6AM and IOPM. 2. Bicycle Availability: the number of bikes available for rent on an average, monthly basis shall be at least 90% of all bikes in service. 3. Station Deactivation, Removal, Relocation, and Reinstallation: as notified by MTC, perform the necessary action within the number of days in the established schedule for each task. 4. Station/Bike Maintenance, Inspection & Cleaning: check each bike and station at least once per month and resolve each issue within a given time frame. 5. Program, Website, and Call Center Functionality: the system, website, and call center shall each be operational and responsive 24/7, 365 days a year. Liquidated damages related to KPis may not exceed 4% of annual user revenue for the year. Attachment A Page 10 Contract Topic Transition of Project from Bay Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to MTC Contract Terms Subject to Air District Board approval, BAAQMD, MTC and Motivate will cooperatively develop a plan to effectuate the transfer of the project from the BAAQMD to MTC. The plan will provide for the implementation of new pricing, the continuation of existing memberships, the transfer of system data, the transfer of assets, and any other provision to ensure a seamless transfer and provide Motivate with the ability to operate the system under the MTC contract. Resolution of Terms with Resolution includes: BAAQMD Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Provisions • • • • Motivate will settle all outstanding claims with the Air District for the amount of $150,000. Air District agrees to release funds withheld for billed expenses and to pay all legitimate past and documented unbilled expenses totaling $582,872 less the $150,000 settlement amount. On a go-forward basis, Motivate will be paid for all eligible reimbursable costs per month to the maximum amount of one twelfth of the Annual Operations Fee, or $136,638.67 per month. Cost caps within categories will not be relevant. This agreement will resolve prior SLA claims and any other prior potential claims that could be asserted through the date of Settlement In implementing and operating the bicycle sharing system, Motivate shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and all other applicable federal, state and local requirements relating to accessibility for persons with disabilities, including any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder. Such compliance shall extend to the location and design of system equipment and related facilities as well as the system website and any mobile application for the system. Mayor Jeff Gee Vice Mayor Rosanne Foust Council Members Alicia Aguirre Ian Bain Diane Howard Barbara Pierce John Seybert April 24, 2015 Hon. Dave Cortese Chair and MTC Commissioner Representing Santa Clara County President, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors 70 West Hedding Street Tenth Floor-East Wing SanJose,CA 95110 RE: Bay Area Bike Share Expansion Proposal: Motivate International, Inc. Dear Mr. Cortese: City Hall 1017 Middlefield Road Redwood City, CA 94063 Voice (650) 780-7220 Fax (650) 261-9102 mail@redwoodcity.org www.redwoodcity.org On April 2, 2015 the City of Redwood City (City) learned that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Administration Committee planned to discuss, at its April 8 meeting, a proposal received from Motivate International, Inc. The proposal outlines Motivate's recommendation to expand the existing Bay Area Bike Share pilot system from 700 bicycles to 7,000 bicycles using no public funds. Per the proposal, the current bike share pilot project cities of Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View are excluded, but may "buy-in" at their own cost. Redwood City and the cities between San Francisco and San Jose form critical links in the Bay Area's transportation networks, including the Bay Area Bike Share system. This is particularly true for Peninsula cities along the Caltrain line, including the bike share pilot cities of Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View. As with any transportation system, it's important to provide access and connections at both the beginning and end of the user's trip (first and last mile). Up and down the Peninsula, Redwood City and our neighbors to our north and south are bringing significant transit-oriented developments to our city centers, collectively enabling thousands of new residents and employees to connect to local and regional transit. For example, an additional 1,635 apartments are being constructed within a half mile of Redwood City's Caltrain station. One third of these units are completed, with the balance to be finished and occupied within one year. Additionally, Box, Inc. is moving its corporate headquarters to Redwood City. The new office, currently under construction and adjacent to Redwood City's Caltrain station, will bring an additional 1,200 employees to downtown Redwood City later this year. The timing of the Bay Area Bike Share pilot was a bit early for Redwood City given our downtown development timeline, but nonetheless the City joined the team and dedicated significant staff time to all phases of the pilot program, including planning, design, development, launch, and ongoing operations. Throughout the 5-year pilot process our staff contributed input, ideas, and feedback to support the program and help ensure its success, laying the groundwork for other cities to join the post-pilot expansion throughout the Bay Area. Given Redwood City's considerable investment of resources, and in light of our downtown development schedule (new construction to be completed in early 2016), we ask to remain a bike share partner for one year beyond the end of the pilot program, at no "buy-in" cost to Redwood City. This one-year period is needed to evaluate the options and considerations for moving ahead with the sole-source agreement proposed by Motivate. Given Motivate's post-pilot target launch date of June 2016 (initial expansion), this should not impact or overlap with the expansion. The proposal being considered is a non-solicited sole-source (non-competitive) proposal received from the current operator of the bike share pilot program. Many challenges, problems, and delays were encountered throughout the design, development, launch, and operation phases of the pilot program. Therefore, we additionally recommend and request that MTC staff coordinate with the pilot partners and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to ensure that the contract terms build from lessons learned during the pilot program, in order to: • Protect the public interest and investment in the program to date • Identify and address operational shortcomings experienced during the pilot • Outline alternatives for cities who choose to buy into the system, e.g. allow those cities to use sponsor revenue to subsidize local costs We appreciate your attention to this matter and thank you in advance. Sincerely, Jeffrey Gee, Mayor City of Redwood City C: City Council, Redwood City Bob Bell, City Manager MTC Commissioners Steve Heminger, Executive Director, MTC o Non-expansion, pilot cities wanting to continue service would have the existing equipment sold to Motivate, only to have to pay to have the equipment put back. o Smaller communities' ability to subsidize capital and/or operating costs could be compromised if Motivate has exclusive rights to sell advertising and is entitled to all sponsorship revenue. o The cost to provide service and the revenues associated with it will depend on usage. • Identify the process by which Bay Area Bike Share members who live or use the system in Redwood City would be notified of its departure and when the system would be removed. Although the current bike share system in Redwood City has not been used as extensively as we would have liked, it is important that our ability to participate in the system is preserved. Similarly, all Bay Area communities should be able to reap the benefits of bike sharing, where and when it may be appropriate -and the contract terms should reflect this. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to continued communication with your staff to ensure that we leverage our experience in the bike share pilot project to get the best possible bike share system for the Bay Area. Sincerely, Jessica Manzi, PE Senior Transportation Coordinator cc: Administrative Committee members Dr. Robert B. Bell, City Manager -Redwood City Jeff Gee, Mayor -Redwood City Alicia Aguirre, Redwood City Councilmember & MTC Commissioner From: Vanessa Warheit Date: April 27, 2015 at 3:27:03 PM PDT To: abockelman@.mtc.ca.gov, Cc: rafael.rius@cityofpalo.org Subject: Please continue (and extend) bike share in Palo Alto DearMTC, I am writing to urge you to continue, and to expand, the bikeshare program in Palo Alto. I have used citibikeshare in NYC, and would happily use it here in Palo Alto if it were available in my neighborhood. Currently, I commute to San Francisco using my bicycle, and despite the hassle of hauling it up and down steps, I usually bring my bicycle on board (in part because the train schedules mean I don't always get off at the same station -and also because there aren't enough bikeshare stations in San Francisco). If there were a bicycle station near my home, somewhere in the College Terrace neighborhood, I would use the bikeshare to get to the train station (and possibly to get to other local amenities as well). I firmly believe that it's impossible to assess a bikeshare program's viability without fully implementing it -which means placing the facilities in neighborhoods and shopping districts, and not simply at large employers. I encourage you to make the program more extensive in all cities where it's been introduced. Many thanks, Vanessa Warheit Palo Alto resident From: tracy c Date: April 28, 2015 at 5: 13 :45 PM PDT To: "abockelman@mtc.ca.gov" <abockelman@mtc.ca.gov> Subject: Redwood City Bikeshare program Reply-To: tracy c <tracylynn8S(@yahoo.com> Dear people, I was interested to hear that MTC has proposed defunding the bike share program in Redwood City, Palo Alto and Mountain View, forcing those cities to pay to keep the program going. As a 16 year Caltrain/bike commuter I would say that the bike share program is not worth those cities' money, since the program isn't a solution to most people's commute. In my case, I found that the program was too limited in geography to be useful. That is, it didn't go anywhere near my workplace. Until the end of last year, I worked in Redwood Shores and commuted via Caltrain. I needed a bike to get to my job from the train station. The nearest bike share docking station to my work was at the Redwood City Caltrain station, approximately 3.5 miles away from my work. I couldn't have used one of those bikes even .if I had an account, because there was no docking station near my workplace to check the bike back in to. I needed my own bike to get me to work from Caltrain, then from Caltrain back home in the evening. Bike share wasn't a workable solution. Also, I don't believe that a formal bike share program is the real solution to overcrowded bike cars on Caltrain. Expanding capacity for people to bring their own bikes on the trains is the solution. Best regards, Tracy Corral San Jose Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 12 the system. For issues that are not decided through consensus, each voting member gets one vote with the Air District retaining the authority to veto a decision as the ultimate provider of the system. Currently not all IGA partners are voting members with SamTrans acting as the voting member for Redwood City and the San Mateo County partners collectively. Equipment and operations were procured through a single RFP process. Alta Bicycle Share was selected as the operator of the system with a one-year initial contract term plus four one-year optional renewal terms. As part of that contract, equipment was provided by the Public Bike Share Company (PBSC), including the station hardware (i.e., technical platforms, docking points, kiosks, etc.), bikes, and the software back-end (that utilizes the vendor's own software platform). Motivate has purchased Alta Bicycle Share and now operates the program and provides equipment through its own supply chain. Under the initial contract, which now applies to Motivate, the operator is expected to meet certain performance standards and payment is based on actual expenses incurred up to a maximum fee established in the contract plus a management fee of 10-percent of the sum of labor and direct costs. A new contract is being negotiated between MTC and Motivate for the new expanded system moving forward. 2. Commuter Behavior The following section provides an overview of commuter flows and mode splits to provide background on existing travel patterns to, from, and within the peninsula cities. lntercounty and Intercity Commute Flows A review of intercounty commute flows obtained from the American Community Survey demonstrates how residents move between counties on the peninsula (see Table 1). Based on data from 2009 to 2013, San Mateo County residents (which includes Daly City, South San Francisco, San Mateo, and Redwood City) have the highest intercounty commute rates with approximately 79,000 (or 23% of San Mateo County workers) commuting north to San Francisco and approximately 53,000 (15% of San Mateo County workers) commuting south to Santa Clara County (which includes Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San Jose). Conversely, San Mateo County sees approximately 45,000 commuters come into the county from both San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties. Fewer commuters make the longer distance trip between San Francisco and Santa Clara counties with approximately 11,000 commuters travelling north from Santa Clara County to San Francisco and 22,000 commuting in the opposite direction. Table 1 County-to-County Commute Flows San Francisco County San Mateo County Santa Clara County San Francisco County 340,735 45,216 22,423 San Mateo County 78,720 211,700 52,988 Santa Clara County 11,245 43,128 732,765 PLAN NINO ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECTIJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 13 Intercity commute flows are calculated in the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey and are expressed as the flow of workers aged over 16 between each of the six cities shown in Table 2. Not surprisingly, a high proportion of people live and work in the same city, though there are significant intercity commute flows including some cross-peninsula movement to access employment. Table 2 shows that the percentage of workers commuting to San Francisco drops off as the distance increases. The peninsula cities have commuting levels between 2 and 6 percent of workers travelling to and from San Francisco. The most significant cross-peninsula flows are: • 16 percent of Mountain View residents work in Palo Alto • 9 percent of Redwood City residents work in Palo Alto • 6 percent of Palo Alto residents work in Mountain View • 6 percent of Redwood City residents work in San Mateo and vice versa • 5 percent of Palo Alto residents work in Redwood City Table 2 Intercity Commute Flows as a Percentage of Total Working Population Over Age 16 (2010}1 WORKPLACE San South San Mountain Francisco Francisco San Mateo Redwood Palo Alto* View City w San Francisco 76% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% u z w South San Francisco Q 33% 24% 4% 2% 1% <1% iii w San Mateo 13% 5% 29% 6% 4% 2% a:: Redwood City 6% 3% 6% 28% 9% 3% Palo Alto* 4% 1% 2% 5% 3S% 6% Mountain View 2% 1% 1% 3% 16% 27% *Includes East Palo Alto Commuter Mode Split While driving alone is the most common mode of travel to work, residents of the peninsula cities also use public transportation, walk, bike, and telecommute (see Table 3). Amongst the cities studied, Palo Alto has the highest bicycle commute rate at 9 percent, followed by Mountain View with 6 percent, whereas Redwood City's bicycle commute rate is 2 percent.2 For the peninsula cities, transit ridership is highest in Palo Alto and Mountain View at 6 percent with Redwood City recording 4 percent. 1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2006-2010. Five-year estimates. Special Tabulation: Census Transportation Planning. Measures: workers 16 and over, weighted by 2010 working populations per city. 2 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Commuting Characteristics by Sex, Accessed Dec. 3, 2015. PLANNING E.NGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCl-llTECnJRI: Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Table 3 Commute Trips by Mode by City3 San South San Francisco Francisco Workers 16 years and over 456,670 32,566 (total) Car, truck, or van 44% 82% Public transportation 33% 11% Walk 10% 3% Bicycle 4% 1% Taxicab, motorcycle, or other 4% 1% means Work at home 7% 3% Transit Access Page 14 San Redwood Palo East Palo Mountain Mateo City Alto Alto View 52,404 40,375 31,113 12,978 42,147 82% 84% 72% 85% 81% 8% 4% 6% 4% 6% 3% 3% 5% 3% 3% 2% 2% 9% 3% 6% 2% 2% 9% 3% 6% 4% 6% 8% 2% 4% According to the Ca/train 2014 On-Board Transit Survey Final Report, 17 percent of passengers access Caltrain by bike and the same percentage reach their final destination by bike as well.4 According to the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, since 2004, the number of passengers bringing their bikes on board Caltrain has almost quadrupled.5 To meet demand, bike capacity was increased to include two bike cars for every train in 2009, though passengers are still denied boarding due to limited bike capacity as per Caltrain's "first-come, first-served" policy.6'7 Caltrain explains: With limited onboard bike space, customers with bikes are encouraged to park them at Ca/train stations, when feasible. This will eliminate potential delays for cyclists who have to wait for trains with available onboard bike capacity. Bike racks, lockers and shared-access parking facilities are available at most Ca/train stations for customers who bike to and/or from the station.8 However, Table 4 shows that secure bike parking is not available at every Caltrain station included in this analysis. Given the high bicycle access rates, limited secure bicycle parking, and limited space onboard Caltrain vehicles, there may be an argument to expand bike share access in the peninsula cities. However, it is noted that in the 'BABS Membership Survey' section below, that one of the conclusions of 3 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Demographic Profile. Accessed Dec. 3, 2015. 4 Caltrain 2014 On-Board Transit Survey Final Report. http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/ MarketDevelopment/pdf/Caltrain+Origin+$!26+Destination+Survey+2014.pdf 5 San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Caltrain. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015. https://www.sfbike.org/our-work/regional- advocacy/caltrain/ 6 Ibid. 7 Caltrain. Bicycle Parking. Updated 2015. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015. http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/Bicycles/BicycleParking.html 8 Caltrain. Bicycle Parking. Updated 2015. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015. http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/Bicycles/BicycleParking.html PLAN NINO ENGINEERING LANDSCAPI:. ARCHITECnJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page IS the survey team was that Bay Area Bike Share, at least as a pilot program "has not had a sizeable effect in reducing the number of bikes on Caltrain or BART trains."9 Table 4 Caltrain Bicycle Parking Availability Bike Rack Bicycle Locker Bicycle Bike Share Station Lockers Available Other Bike Parking Amenities Spaces Spaces Available San Francisco 6 180 Yes Yes Free Attended Bike Parking Facility (Monday-Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.) San Mateo 11 12 Yes No City run, on-demand electronic lockers www.bikelink.org Redwood City 18 so No-full Yes Palo Alto 178 94 No-full Yes Mountain View 23 116 No-full Yes City run, shared access bike storage shed 3. System Performance in the Peninsula Cities Bay Area Bike Share in the peninsula cities are each designed as small "mini-systems" that are connected to one another and to the rest of the system by Caltrain. Each city includes five to seven bike share stations centered on the Caltrain station. In this way, bike share is intended to deliver people to and from transit and act as a first-and last-mile transit connection. Quantitative Performance Review A breakdown of the number of stations, docks, bikes, and ridership for each of the pilot cities is included in Table 5 for the one-year period between September 1, 2014 and August 31, 2015. Month-by-month ridership levels are included in Appendix A. As well, membership information for each of the pilot cities is included in Table 6 for the period between September 1, 2014 and November 11, 2015. Table S: Ridership Statistics for Bay Area Bike Share (September 1, 2014 to August 31, 201S) Syst em Statistics Ridership Trips/ Annual Casual City Member Trip Member Trip Stations Docks Bikes Trips Percent Bike/Day Percentage Percentage San Francisco 3S 66S 3SO 321,108 90.7% 2.Sl 8S% 1S% Redwood City 7 llS 70 2,007 0.6% 0.08 79% 21% Palo Alto s 7S so 3,093 0.9% 0.17 S7% 43% Mountain View 7 117 70 9,989 2.8% 0.39 85% 1S% San Jose 16 264 160 17,956 S.1% 0.31 84% 16% Total 70 1,236 700 326,915 100% 1.39 85% 15% 9 OneBayArea Innovation Starts Here. MTC's Climate Initiatives Program Evaluation, Pilot Bike-sharing Program, Bay Area Air Quality Management District. PLAN NINO F:NGINEERING lANDSCA!"E ARCHITECTIJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Table 6: Membership Statistics for Bay Area Bike Share (September 1, 2014 to November 11, 2015) Page 16 Annual Members Casual Members City Number of Annual Annual Member Zip Number of Casual Casual Member Members Code (%)1 Members Percentage2 San Francisco 2,015 52% 44,488 85% Redwood City 70 2% 392 1% Palo Alto 72 2% 1,852 4% Mountain View 112 3% 1,842 4% San Jose 238 6% 3,539 7% Other 1,334 35% -- Total 3,814 100% 3,927 100% ! . . Based on b1lhng zip code provided at time of membership purchase . 2 Based on location of membership purchase. Users may have used the system in multiple locations. The peninsula cities have approximately 27 percent of the stations and 25 percent of the docks in the system. However, ridership was approximately 15,000 trips in the reported one-year period, representing just under five percent of system ridership. The highest performing of the peninsula cities is Mountain View recording 0.39 trips per bike per day (higher than San Jose and second only to San Francisco). Palo Alto and Redwood City recorded lower ridership at 0.17 and 0.08 trips per bike per day, respectively. Approximately seven percent of annual members have billing zip codes in the peninsula cities and nine percent of casual members signed up in one of the peninsula cities. Ridership between Stations Toole Design Group prepared an on line map that shows the number of trips per year between all origin- destination (O-D) pairs for stations in the pilot program. The map shows that Caltrain stations are by far the highest ridership stations on the peninsula. There are 14 0-D pairs with ridership above 150 trips per year, and all but one have a Caltrain station at one end (the exception is the 0-D pair between Franklin at Maple and the Redwood City Public Library which had a ridership of about 300 trips per year). The other ends of these high-ridership 0-D pairs tend to be at employment (e.g., Redwood City Medical Center), transit (e.g., Castro Street & El Camino Real), retail (e.g., Mountain View City Hall), and educational (e.g., Stanford in Redwood City) destinations. Mountain View had four 0-D pairs with ridership higher than 1,000 trips per year, the largest being between the Mountain View Caltrain Station and Mountain View City Hall, which is located on Downtown Mountain View's retail and commercial Main Street. Redwood City's highest ridership pairs are between the Caltrain station and two different medical centers. Palo Alto's highest ridership pairs are between the Caltrain stations and mixed-use neighborhoods with retail, employment, and higher density residential uses. Interestingly there is somewhat high ridership between Palo Alto's two Caltrain stations (Palo Alto and California Ave), both of which are located in active, mixed-use neighborhoods. PLAN NINO ENGIN&;ERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITEC'ruRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 17 Individual station ridership is shown in Appendix B along with a table summarizing the characteristics of the area surrounding each station. Ridership between Cities Toole Design Group also analyzed ridership between the peninsula cities, shown in Table 7. Intercity ridership can also be viewed on the station-to-station online map. The three cities were designed as three independent mini-systems and are generally operating that way with only a small amount of intercity travel -496 trips out of 15,089 trips or 3 percent. The highest intercity ridership is 190 trips between Palo Alto and Mountain View and SO trips between Palo Alto and Redwood City. Approximately two-thirds of all intercity trips are between two and three miles long, with the remaining one-third between three and seven miles long. Table 7: Intercity ridership between pairs of peninsula cities (September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015) Mountain View Palo Alto Redwood City (% of all Mountain View trips) (%of all Palo Alto trips) (%of all Redwood City trips) Mountain View 9,788 190 2 98% 6% 0% 190 2,8Sl so Palo Alto 2% 92% 2% 2 so 1,9S4 Redwood City 0% 2% 97°0 3 2 1 San Francisco 0% 0% 0% 6 0 0 San Jose 0% 0% 0% Total 9,989 3,093 2,007 100% 100% 100% BABS Member and Intercept Survey In 2014, Bay Area Bike Share conducted an online member survey and an intercept survey. The online survey was administered in four rounds-at the end of January, March, June, and August, 2014 and was sent to all annual members. It received a total of 1,004 responses. The intercept surveys were conducted at stations only in San Francisco and received a total of 118 responses.10 From the online member survey, a large majority of respondents rated their BABS experience as excellent or good (93 percent) and recommended the system to friends or family (also 93 percent).11 Sixty annual members with zip codes from the peninsula cities responded to the survey. When asked 10 Surveys were conducted Market at 4th, Embarcadero at Sansome, San Francisco Caltrain (Townsend at 41\ and Harry Bridges Plaza (Ferry Building). 11 Ibid. PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCl-llTfCTIJRe Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page IS what one thing they would improve about the system, the most commonly suggested changes were for more stations, improved rebalancing at existing stations, and equipment changes.12 A breakdown of the most requested changes is included below: • More stations: 24 respondents (40% of peninsula respondents). • Rebalancing, primarily the availability of bikes or spare docks at the Caltrain stations: 11 respondents (18%). • Equipment changes, such as improved consistency with locking and unlocking bicycles, weight of bicycles, gearing, etc.: 9 respondents (15%). • Service changes, such as a longer free-ride period: 5 respondents (8%). • Maintenance such as brake upgrades, more regular cleaning: 3 respondents (5%). • Improved customer service: 3 respondents (5%). • No suggested improvement: 5 respondents (8%). Note that the annual member survey does not include potential members. There may be people in the peninsula cities that would use the bike share system if there were more stations or if some other potential barrier were removed. Related to bikes on board, the last two of four rounds of the on line member survey included a question about bikes on transit to gauge the potential for BABS to reduce bike crowding on trains by encouraging people to use bike share to access the train or their destination. Respondents who said that they were going to or coming from Caltrain or BART when they used BABS were asked: "If bike share were not available, would you have brought your own bike on the train, to use at either end of your [Caltrain or BART] trip?" This question applied to only 15-percent of respondents, of whom only a small percentage said that they would have brought their bike on the train if BABS was not available. Of people who referred to a Caltrain trip, eight (18-percent) said that, yes, they would have brought their bike on the train while nine (20-percent) said they were not sure or did not know.13 These responses indicate that BABS has not had a sizeable effect in reducing the number of bikes on Caltrain trains. Qualitative Performance Review The TDG team conducted interviews with key staff that were involved with the initial pilot program to assess how the system has worked in the peninsula cities. Staff from Redwood City, VTA, Sam Trans, Palo Alto, Motivate, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) were interviewed. The Bay Area Bike Share program was started with the idea of the peninsula cities working together to provide a coordinated bike share system. Prior to that, San Francisco had direction from then Mayor Newsom in 2007 to implement a bike share system in the city. However, changes in the bike share 12 BABS Ridership Survey Data. 2014. 13 Ibid. PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITEcnJRE: Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 19 industry had resulted in delays for the system in San Francisco and with the cities of Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, San Jose and the Air District expressing interest, San Francisco delayed to work towards a coordinated system. MTC, a potential choice to manage a regional system, was not interested in the operations of bike share and so the Air District volunteered to coordinate regional operations. The system was intended to be a pilot for the rest of the Bay Area but no strategic planning was conducted to determine a regional strategy for how bike share could work in different communities or where it should be expanded to (note that MTC started a strategic planning effort in 2014 but that effort was discontinued once the Motivate offer was made available). As a result, staff felt there needs to be more time to demonstrate the performance of a larger system. On the Peninsula, the system was intended to function as a first and last mile solution focused on the Caltrain corridor. There needs to be additional work to determine if there is additional demand within the individual cities and in particular untapped demand to Caltrain. Many employers are asking for connections to Caltrain and while they have not been specific on the mode, bike share could provide this service. Demand The staff at Redwood City has seen an increase in Intra-city trips when one of their stations was relocated to be near a high-density residential development. The proximity to higher-density residential areas within the more suburban cities of the Bay Area may be necessary to increase ridership. Stations in Redwood City were moved to be non-competitive with walk trips. Bike share may need to cover longer distance trips than in urban areas. To increase bike share ridership, low-stress bicycle infrastructure is needed on the Peninsula. While San Mateo is proceeding with their own bike share system, the City of Sunnyvale might be another city that bike share could expand into with significant demand. Interoperability While the city staff and Motivate staff felt that it was important to ensure that bike share memberships are compatible with different systems, it was undetermined if there was a need for the three peninsula cities to have interoperability (i.e., where the equipment is compatible for use in different cities). Staff felt there would be operational advantages and cost savings to having one vendor work in the Peninsula cities. Motivate staff stated that they would be willing to look into solutions to ensure compatibility with their equipment even if there was a different system on the Peninsula. Equipment and Operations It was recognized that the occurrence of full or empty stations (i.e., either where there is no room to dock a bike or no bike available for pick-up) may provide a bad user experience, turning off current and future customers. The small system size with only a few stations offers no redundancies for people looking for available bikes or docks. Nevertheless, City staff felt that overall they were pleased with the service that Motivate provided, but that there were some issues with bikes not docking in stations and a general lack of marketing. Staff felt that while the Motivate staff were overall responsive, they were not given the resources necessary to provide a larger outreach effort to attract additional members. Motivate staff stated that there was individual marketing plans for the three Peninsula cities at the PLANNING E'.NGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page I 10 beginning of the project. Motivate staff also indicated that should a larger system be put in place, their level of effort with operations and marketing would be commensurate to size of the system. 4. System Planning and Demand Ridership observed in the peninsula cities was compared to that of other suburban cities participating in larger regional bike share programs. These include Alexandria, VA and Bethesda, Rockville, and Silver Spring, MD in the Washington D.C. area's Capital Bikeshare and Brookline and Somerville, MA in the Boston area's Hubway system. Table 8 and Figure 1 show the number of stations, system coverage area, and density of stations in each city as well as ridership information reported in terms of the number of trips per bike per day recorded for the most recent year where station-to-station data was available14• It shows that total ridership is generally higher in other suburban cities than in the peninsula cities. However, a deeper analysis of this data shows that many trips from these cities are external trips. When trips to and from external destinations are stripped out of the data leaving only internal trips, ridership levels are, in some cases, very similar to those of the peninsula cities. Table 8: Comparison of Suburban Bike Share Systems City Bike Share Number of System Station Total Internal System Stations Coverage Density Ridership Ridership1 Name {Percentage of {sq.mi.) {stations I {trips per bike (trips per bike System) sq.mi.) per day) per day) Mountain 7 (10%) 1.28 5.5 0.42 0.42 View Bay Area Bike Palo Alto Share 5(7%) 0.76 6.6 0.19 0.18 Redwood City 7(10%) 1.06 6.6 0.09 0.08 Alexandria, VA 16 (5%) 2.24 7.1 1.34 1.13 Bethesda, MD 14(4%) 1.86 7.5 0.85 0.61 Capital Rockville, MD 21 (6%) 5.54 3.8 0.15 0.14 Bikeshare Silver Spring, 17 (5%) 3.12 5.4 0.63 0.54 MD Brookline, MA 4(3%) 0.94 4.3 1.98 0.32 Hubway Somerville, MA 12 (9%) 2.23 5.4 1.30 0.43 l Includes only bike share trips made w1th1n each city. 14 Ridership statistics represent the same 243 day period between April 2"d and November 30th 2013. This represents the time the Hubway system was open in 2013, the most recent year in which station-to-station data is available on the Hubway website. The Hubway system closed the remainder of 2013 due to winter weather conditions. Ridership statistics for Bay Area Bike Share and Capital Bikeshare represent the same 243 day period in 2014/2015. PLANNING E:.NGINEERING l.ANDSCAP~ ARCHITECTIJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 113 appears to be clear trends between the level of ridership and the number of stations, the service area, and to some degree station density and land use diversity. Population density, employment density, city coverage, and network density were less obvious as to their impact on ridership. This is consistent with other research that has shown that population and employment density is less of a predictor of transit and walking rates than factors such as proximity, land use diversity, and network design.17 The number of stations and the service area are closely related, but the service area accounts for where stations may be closer together and overlap in service area. The well-fitting relationship between ridership and service area suggests that as more stations are added and increase the reach of the system, that overall system ridership also increases. There appears to be a lesser relationship between ridership and station density, at least in smaller systems. Analysis conducted by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) of the five largest bike share programs in the United States showed that ridership at individual stations increases as a function of station density.18 It may be that in smaller systems, balancing coverage area and density is more important and that systems need to fi rst consider covering a useful area where trips begin to become too far to walk. At some point in a system's growth, station density may take over as the more important function in increasing ridership. Density is also important to ensure that stations are close enough together to be convenient to potential users and reachable with a short walk trip. Also, if a station is full or empty, people wishing to return or check out a bike need to be able to access another station nearby. To try to incorporate the importance of both service area and station density, the project team conducted a regression analysis to develop a simple relationship between the two variables that could help inform the impact of changing one or more of these variables. The analysis removed the results from Rockville and Alexandria as outliers to the service area and station density analyses (see Appendix C). The resulting equation is: R intf!rnal = 0.17 *SA+ 0.017 *SD Where: Rinternal = Internal ridership rate, measured in trips per bike per day, SA= Service Area, measured in square miles, and SD =Station Density, measured in stations per square mile. A plot of the actual and predicted internal ridership rates using this equation is shown on Figure 3. The analysis resulted in an R-squared value of 0.91 and an F-test showed that the regression equation is useful in predicting ridership. A t-test was conducted on the coefficients and found that there is some redundancy in using both service area and station density to estimate ridership, which is logical given 17 Ewing, R. and Cervera, R. Travel and the Built Environment -A Meta-Analysis. Published in the Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, Summer 2010. 18 NACTO Bike Share Equity Practitioners' Paper #1, April 2015. Pl.AJ\INING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHIT'ECTIJRe Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page I 14 they are somewhat related. Comparing predicted ridership to actual ridership (see Figure 3) showed that the equation is reasonably effective at predicting mid-level ridership but was less accurate at predicting really low (e.g., Redwood City) and really high (e.g., Alexandria) ridership. > <1l "'O 1.2 .... 1 (1J 0.. (1J ~ ..c .... ~ 0.8 Vl 0.. 0.. ..s:::. ~ (1J "'O ii: <1l E (1J .... c: ..s:::. .... c: 0 ~ 00 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 II .I I I Mountain Palo Alto Redwood Rockville Alexandria Bethesda Silver Brookline Somerville View City Spring •Actual Ridership • Predicted Ridership Figure 3: Comparison of Actual Versus Predicted Internal Ridership Rates The equation can be used to surmise what might happen to system ridership if these variables are increased. It shows that every square mile added to the system area can expect a return in the order of 0.17 trips per bike per day. As well, if density is increased by 1 station per square mile, the resulting impact on ridership is smaller, 0.017 trips per bike per day. Again, at some point in a system's growth, this may reverse and the impact of station density may take over as a larger driver of ridership, as suggested by the NACTO analysis. If the system ridership level of 1.0 rides per bike per day is a goal for a small city (which would also result in an operating cost reduction of $25 per dock per month -see below), then a system of at least 5 square miles and a density of at least 8 stations per square mile would be required. This is a system of approximately 40 stations assuming the current smart dock system configuration. PlANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECTURE: Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page I 15 The next steps will be to create maps of the potential system in each of the peninsula cities based on proposed system size identified above. One of the traits of a successful bike share system is the ability for people to walk to a station that is close to transit, retail, employment centers and other key origins and destinations. MTC's GIS suitability map and a "walk shed" analysis will be used to determine more specific station locations. 5. Summary of Option 1 -Buying into the Motivate System As part of the Motivate expansion plan, the peninsula cities were given a cost proposal to "buy into" the system and continue operations of the existing equipment and to purchase and operate new equipment in the future. The Motivate proposal to purchase the current and new equipment depends on the size of the station but ranges from approximately $47,000 to $97,000 per station plus a $4,000 per station cost to permit and install new stations. These costs are compared in Table 9 with other U.S. cities that recently signed contracts or received proposals for bike share equipment based on an average station size of 19 docks and 10 bicycles. Table 9: Capital Cost Comparison (based on 10 bike and 19 dock station or equivalent) City Cost Type Technology Equipment Number of Cost per Cost per Station Type Provider 10-Bike Station (installation) Stations San Mateo, CA Proposed Smart bike Social 10 $17,0001 $4,600 Bicycles West Proposed Smart bike Social lS $2S,1Q7L $8,760 Hollywood, CA Bicycles Portland, OR Proposed Smart bike Social 60 $2S,120• $8,sso• Bicycles Nextbike Pricing Smart bike Nextbike n/a $26,SOO - Request Nextbike Pricing Smart dock Nextbike n/a $29,000 - Request Long Beach, Proposed Smart bike Social so $3S,07S $4,SOO CA Bicycles Santa Monica, Proposed Smart bike Social so $43,0004 Included CA Bicycles Los Angeles Proposed Smart dock B-cycle 80 $47,SOO' Included Metro, CA Motivate Proposed Smart dock Motivate -$55,503.565 $4,000 Proposal ' .. .. . . The City of San Mateo 1s considering 10 to 12 hubs using ex1st1ng bike racks. Therefore cost estimates do not mclude capital or installation of racks, docks, or kiosks. City of San Mateo staff report, November 16, 2015. 1 The City of West Hollywood is considering purchase of 255 custom bike racks for 20 locations to consist of 1 electronic kiosk, 10 large displays, and 9 small displays. City of West Hollywood Staff report, August 17, 2015. 'The City of Portland will place bikes at 60 "locations" that include 30 city bike corrals, 19 "hubs" with display panels, and 11 kiosks. Installation costs Include $4,814 per station to be paid by City for system start-up and $3,736 per station to be paid by vendor for launch expenses. 4 The City of Santa Monica purchased 1,000 custom bike racks for 50 locations to consist of 20 electronic kiosks and 30 large and small displays. s All stations include electronic kiosks and map panels. PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCA."E. ARCHITECTURE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page I 16 Table 9 shows that prices vary depending on the size and specifications of the order. Smart bike systems are generally less expensive to purchase than smart dock systems, although it is noted that as more electronic kiosks were ordered (e.g., in Santa Monica), the price per station started to approach the price of a smart dock system. The Motivate equipment is the highest cost of any of the proposals compared. However, their per station installation costs are in line or lower than the other proposals. Other costs that are difficult to measure are the "start-up" and "launch" costs associated with creating a new bike share program. As well, there are costs associated with delaying the system while a new program is selected and set up that also need to be accounted for. These are not insignificant costs and should be explored further if a different equipment vendor or operator is to be considered. The Motivate cost proposal includes a $112.50 per dock per month operating fee. This is broken into a $12.50 per dock per month fee to upgrade to the 80 Technologies equipment and $100 per dock per month to operate and maintain the system. The 80 Technologies equipment upgrade cost is a recurring cost that will last indefinitely. The latter O&M cost is reduced if the system hits ridership metrics above 1.0 trips per bike per day. Table 10 compares the base operating cost to those observed in several cities already operating bike share programs and in several cities that have recently received operating cost proposals. Table 10: Operating Cost Comparison City Operating Equipment and Operator Name System Size Price (per dock Cost Type Operator Type per month) Minneapolis, MN Actual (2013) Smart dock Nice Ride 1,550 bikes, $70.55 Non-profit Minnesota 3,100 docks San Mateo, CA Proposed Smart bike Bikes Make Life 50 bikes, no $78.951 Non-profit Better specialty docks Boston, MA Actual (2012) Smart dock Motivate 700 bikes, $86.52 Private 1,400 docks Santa Monica, CA Proposed Smart bike Cycle Hop 500 bikes, $91.26 Private 1,000 racks Denver, CO Actual (2014) Smart dock Denver 700 bikes, $99.12 Non-profit Bikesharing 1,250 docks Aspen, CO Actual (2014) Smart dock WE-Cycle 100 bikes, 180 $102.56 Non-profit docks Motivate Proposal Proposed Smart dock Motivate -$112.50 Private West Hollywood, Proposed Smart bike CycleHop 150 bikes, 255 $112.75 CA Private racks Arlington, VA Actual (2014) Smart dock Motivate 460 bikes, 920 $112.99 Private docks Los Angeles Metro, Proposed Smart dock Bicycle Transit 1,000 bikes, $115.34 CA Private Systems 1,900 docks PLAN NINO eNGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis City Operating Equipment and Cost Type Operator Type Montgomery Actual (2015) Smart dock County, MD Private Alexandria, VA Actual (2015) Smart dock, Private Austin, TX Actual {2014) Smart dock Non-profit Washington D.C. Actual (2015) Smart dock, Private Page I 17 Operator Name System Size Price (per dock per month) Motivate 500 bikes, 818 $117.43 docks Motivate 180 bikes, 250 $124.59 docks Austin B-cycle 380 bikes, 600 $127.45 docks Motivate 2,000 bikes, $145.00 3,674 docks 1 .. The City of San Mateo Is planning to use ex1st1ng bike racks for this system. For comparison, the per dock per month cost assumes 19 docks for every 10 bikes. Table 10 shows that actual operating costs range quite significantly anywhere from approximately $70 to $145 per dock per month. At the lower end, some non-profits receive in-kind donations and services to off-set some operating expenses (such as free or low-rent warehouse space, pro-bono legal costs, marketing services, etc.). As well, there are often less stringent operating performance standards in some non-profit run systems. There is very little information available about the cost to operate smart bike systems and in any case, most major city smart bike systems have been operating for less than a year. Operating costs are typically negotiated at the time of contract and will vary greatly depending on the service levels specified by the program owner. It is difficult to compare across cities without knowing the service levels that these systems operate at and in many cases, this is not available. It is also unclear what service levels Motivate is proposing at this cost. This will need further investigation. Nevertheless, the Motivate proposal is towards the upper end of the range of actual and proposed operating costs, and within a few dollars of the top of the range of operating costs for private bike share operators. The Motivate cost proposal will be more competitive if ridership levels reach 1.0 trips per bike per day in which case it will drop to $87.50 per dock per month compared to $112.50 per dock per month. Over the long run, operating costs far outstrip equipment costs and so it is prudent to consider cost impacts over a longer term. For example, for a 40 station I 760 dock bike share system operating over a 5 year period, the Motivate system would cost approximately $2.4 million for equipment and installation and approximately $5.1 million for operations and maintenance (approximately $1 million per year). This would reduce to $4.0 million if ridership can be maintained above 1.0 trips per bike per day (approximately $800,000 per year). The demand equation and the proposed Motivate costs were used to conduct some scenario planning to show the link between system costs, system ridership, and productivity. A 40 station I 400 bike I 760 dock system (Scenario 1) and a 60 station/ 600 bike/ 1,140 dock system (Scenario 2) were modeled and the results shown in Table 11 in terms of the capital cost per trip (over the five-year useful life of the equipment) and the operating cost per trip. Table 11 shows that increasing the average ridership rate PLANNING ENGIN~l:RING LANDSCAPE ARCHITEcnJRe Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page I 18 reduces the per trip capital and operating costs. This impact is enlarged with the reduced operating cost rates proposed by Motivate when ridership levels of 1.0 and 1.5 trips per bike per day are reached. Table 11: Comparison of Capital and Operating Cost Scenarios System Size Lower than Projected Projected Ridership Higher than projected Ridership Ridership Scenario 1-40 stations I 400 bikes/ 760 docks (service area = 5.0 sq.mi.; station density= 8 stations/ sq.mi.) Trips per bike per day 0.5 1.0 1.5 Annual trips 73,000 146,000 219,000 Five-year capital cost $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 Capital cost per trip (over $6.58 $3.29 $2.19 five-year useful life of equipment) Operating cost rate (per $112.50 $87.50 $62.50 dock per month) Operating cost per year $1,026,000 $798,000 $570,000 Operating cost per trip $14.05 $5.47 $2.60 Scenario 2-60 stations/ 600bikes/1,140 docks (service area of 7.5 sq.mi.; station density= 8 stations/ sq.mi.) Trips per bike per day 0.9 1.4 1.9 Annual trips 197,000 307,000 416,000 Five-year capital cost $3,600,000 $3,600,000 $3,600,000 Capital cost per trip $3.65 $2.35 $1.73 Operating cost rate (per $112.50 $87.50 $62.50 dock per month) Operating cost per year $1,540,000 $1,197,000 $855,000 Operating cost per trip $7.81 $3.90 $2.06 PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECnJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Appendix A: Monthly Ridership Rates by City Redwood City September, 2014 0.05 October, 2014 0.05 November, 2014 0.04 December, 2014 0.03 January, 2015 0.07 February, 2015 0.07 March, 2015 0.08 April, 2015 0.09 May, 2015 0.07 June,2015 0.12 July, 2015 0.14 August, 2015 0.11 PLANNING ENGINESRING Page I 19 Trips per Bike per Day Palo Alto Mountain View 0.20 0.43 0.19 0.44 0.15 0.32 0.07 0.22 0.15 0.33 0.12 0.35 0.14 0.40 0.15 0.38 0.16 0.39 0.22 0.46 0.27 0.47 0.21 0.49 LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECTIJRE: Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page I 22 Appendix C: Comparison of Internal Bike Share Ridership with Service Area Characteristics -;: I'll "O ~ QI a. QI .:.< :c ~ QI a. VI a. ·;:: .!::. a. :;;: UI ~ "C ~ " E QI E .l;;; c: 0 ~ th > l'O "C .... QI Q. QJ ~ ~ di Q. "' c.. ·;:: - l 2 08 0.6 04 02 0 0 l 2 0.8 0 0 Internal Ridership versus Number of Stations Mountain View • Brookline • .·· ... Palo Alto •· · ... Redwood City • Alexandria • Bethesda • ... Silver Sprir1i(e ... Somervile , ... ··· .. ·· .. ·· ... .·· ... ... .. ··· Rockville • y =0.0338x R2 = 0.038 5 10 15 25 Stations Internal Ridership versus Service Area Alexandria • Bethesda • Mountain View • lirookllne • Palo Alto • ,.... ... ... .. ·· Redwood City • 1 Somerville • ... .... ·· 2 Silver Spring • ... 3 Service Area (square miles) ... ... ... V = 0.1402x R2 = ·0.619 .. ·· Rockville • s PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE 6 Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis ~ OJ 0. VI 0. ;:: .... ~ ..c ~ "' "'C ii: "' E OJ E ..c .... c 0 ~ oO > "' "'C ~ "' 0. "' -"" .Q ~ "' c. VI 0. ;:: 0. ..c ~ "' "'C ii: '° E OJ c: ..c .... c 0 ~ 00 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.0 l.2 0.8 0.6 OA 0.2 0 1.0 Internal Ridership versus Station Density 2.0 RuLkville • Alexdmhid • Bethesda • Silver Spring • .. -··\f·.:·cio75sx R2 = 0.1851 Somer1.4!1f.---··...-. ............. Mountain View PaloAlto • Redwood Citv • 3.0 40 so 60 7.0 Station De1sity (stations I sq. mi.) Internal Ridership versus Population Density Alexandria • Bethesda • Silver Spring • Rockville ......... Mountain View • .. . ... ... ·" ·" ... ... ... ... ... Some~~~!~ .. •··"· ,.. ... y = lt·U~x R' = 0.495 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Brookline • PaloAlto • Redwocd City • Page I 23 8.0 0 5,000 10/X)O 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Population Density (persons I sq. mi ) PLAN NINO ENGINE£; RING lANDSC.ArE. ARCHlTECTIJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page I 24 1.2 > <1l <:! Qi 1 0. QJ -"' :.0 ~ QJ 0.8 0. "' 0. ·;:: .!:!:-0.6 .s::: ~ QJ <:! ii: <1l 0.4 E ~ c: .s::: E 0.2 0 ~ oO 0 0 l 2 > <1l -0 ~ 1 QJ 0. QJ -"' :.0 ~ 0.8 ~ 0. "' 0. ;:: .... 0. .c 06 !'.! QJ -0 ii: ro 0.4 E QJ E .s::: E 02 0 :2 00 0 0% Internal Ridership versus Employment Density e AlexdllUfid • Sliver Spring • Somerville ... • Brookline ... ··· ... ... .. ···· ... ... ... ... ···· • Rockville ... .... ·· • Bethe~da .. ····ii°~ :E-05x .. ••· RI =-0.493 ... ... • Mountain View .... ···" • PaloAlto • Redwood City 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 • "aloAlto Employment Density (Jobs I sq. mi.) Internal Ridership versus City Coverage • Alexandria • Bethesda • Mountain View • Brooklne ... ... ·" ... .. ··· ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... •.... • · Reci\~~od citv • Rockville 10% 20% 30% 40'). City Coverage(% of City Area Covered by Bike Share) , .. ... y = 1 2355x RI =~p.722 • Somerville 50% 60% PLANNING ~GINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECTIJRe Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page I 25 1.2 Note: <;nmPrvillP > ro "C ~ 1 QJ c. "' .>< ..c ~ ~ 08 ti\ 0. ;:: -c. .s:: :!! QJ """ OE. '° E QJ £ .s:: 06 04 E 0 0.2 ~ 00 0 u > ro "C ~ c. QJ .>< .0 ~ 08 QJ 0. ti\ c. ;:: -c. .E 0.6 :!! QJ "C OE. '° 0.4 E QJ E .s:: ... c: 0.2 0 ~ 00 0 0.0 0 Internal Ridership versus Land Use Diversity • Alexandria • Silver Spring • BethesdM = O o9s4x R2 = O.S35 .... .... ...... .. . .....• ····M~untain View• .... • Brookline ... 1.0 .... .... 2.0 ... ... 3.0 .... • PaloAlto • Hedwood llty 40 Land Use Diversity (Jobs I household) Internal Ridership versus Network Density • Rockville 5.0 6.0 • Alexandria 20 40 • Bethesda • Silver Spring .. · ... ... ... y = 0.0057x·O 0574 R2 = 0.2373 ... ... ·· ... ... • Mountai~.Y.i.aw ... .. ···· • Somerville ... • Brookline • Palo /\Ito • Redwood City 60 80 100 120 1'10 Land Use Diversity {jobs/ household) PLANNING ENGINEERING IANDSCAPE ARCHJTECTIJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Bike Share Functions and Users Page 12 Bike share in the peninsula cities currently, and will continue to serve primarily a commuting function. The greatest opportunities are to connect people to mass transit such as Caltrain as part of larger commute trips or to connect local residents to employment centers within the same city or in nearby cities. There are particular benefits to Caltrain including increasing the catchment area of stations, reducing the need for private bicycles to be brought on board, and the opportunity to provide an integrated transit solution that offers an alternative to private vehicle travel. The program could also provide some ancillary functions for local residents, e.g., connecting neighborhood commercial districts, providing recreational riding opportunities, connecting student housing to city services, etc. Bike share programs in the peninsula cities are not expected to serve a large tourist or visitor market, primarily because the number of tourists and visitors to the pen insula is much lower than in other parts of the Bay Area. This does take away a potential revenue stream from casual users that in other cities makes up over SO-percent of user revenues. This means that a greater emphasis on finding alternative funding sources or better monetizing local users will be important. Primary Functions of a Peninsula Bike Share Program • A first and last mile connection to transit, particularly to mass transit. Existing ridership patterns show that the most frequent trips in the pilot program are to and from the Caltrain stations. Bike share can increase the catchment area of a station (i.e., the bikeable distance around a station is much larger than the walkable distance). If bike share could be integrated into the transit fare structure, this would further reduce barriers to using the system and could provide a full transit solution to compete with private automobile travel. • Reduce demand for long-term secure bicycle parking and the need to bring private bicycles on board Caltrain. The 2014 On-Board Transit Survey Final Report showed that 17-percent of passengers access Caltrain by bike.1 Providing a network of public bicycles that users can dock and "walk away" removes the personal risk of bike theft and could reduce the amount of secure, long-term bicycle parking that Caltrain would need to provide at stations. According to the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, since 2004, the number of passengers bringing their bikes on board Caltrain has almost quadrupled.2 Expanding bike share may alleviate some of the demand to bring bikes on board.3 1 Caltrain 2014 On-Board Transit Survey Final Report. http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/ MarketDevelopment/pdf/Caltrain+Origin+$!26+Destination+Survey+2014.pdf 2 San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Caltrain. Accessed Dec. 15, 2015. https://www.sfbike.org/our-work/regional- a dvocacy/ ca ltrain/ 3 One conclusion of the 'BABS Membership Survey' was that the Bay Area Bike Share, at least as a pilot program, "has not had a sizeable effect in reducing the number of bikes on Caltrain or BART trains." Pl.ANNINO ENGINEERING LAl\'.DSCAPE ARCHITl!CTIJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 13 • Provide a connection to major employment centers, particularly for those commuting from the same or the next city. There are already some "super-users" of the pilot program that make regular commute trips within the same city or to stations on the edge of the next city. As the system is expanded to cover more employment centers and moves towards the edges of adjacent cities, there is the potential for more commuting trips, and for associated trip-making throughout the day (e.g., running errands, going for lunch, recreational rides, etc.). Bike share could become a Travel Demand Management (TOM) offering for employment centers in the peninsula cities, which could also provide a funding opportunity for the system. Ancillary Functions of a Peninsula Bike Share Program • Introduce new users to bicycling. Bike share provides an easily accessible network of bicycles useful for those that do not have access to a private bicycle or that are looking to try bicycling. Bike share systems and bicycling have social elements and social media associated with them and many people are introduced to bike share through friends and visibility of the program. A more complete and comfortable infrastructure network may be needed to attract or retain this group of potential users. • Economic development and increased spending in retail and commercial areas. Bike share can be a way to connect neighborhood centers and in particular provide access to downtowns and retail / commercial districts where parking is constrained. Other cities have found bike share to create additional local spending at businesses located near stations. • Student mobility. Although stations will not be provided on the main Stanford campus, there will be stations on nearby properties. As well, bike share could be provided at off-campus student housing and be a means to connect students to city services, activity centers, and recreational destinations. • Recreational trip making. This is not expected to be a large group of users, but for certain station locations, there may be a potential trip type. For example, there is anecdotal evidence from hospital campuses that have bike share stations that they are used by visitors spending long hours at the campus and as a stress relief tool. Bike share in general can have a public health benefit by increasing physical activity. Minor Functions of a Peninsula Bike Share Program • Tourist and visitor transportation. Bike share is unlikely to serve a large tourist and visitor function, primarily because there are fewer tourists and visitors than in other parts of the Bay Area. This is a significant user group and revenue source in many other cities and will need to be considered in the financial model. Needs to Support the Bike Share Program • Improved and expanded bikeway network. There are certain users that will use the bike share system regardless of the amount and type of infrastructure. But there is a large potential user PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECTURE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 14 group that will be more likely to use the program as the peninsula cities continue to provide a broader and more comprehensive network of comfortable bikeways. • A greatly expanded system. Providing a greater network of stations will improve convenience and accessibility to the program, increase the number of destinations that can be served, and bring inter-city destinations closer together. • Innovative funding models. To overcome the expected revenue shortfall, a broad range of funding options should be explored including MTC funding opportunities, other grant programs, TDM program funding, corporate sponsorship and memberships, revenues from transit fare integration, crowd-source funding, and other funding opportunities. Minimizing operating costs and better monetizing annual members and local users may also help fill this shortfall. Bike Share's Impact on City Goals At the January 8, 2016 Peninsula Bike Share Working Group meeting, there was discussion on some common goals for a Peninsula bike share system. While there was much agreement about some common goals and objectives for the system, this discussion may be premature in the overa ll progression of the direction of bike share on the Peninsula. When and if the cities decide they will be part of the same bike share system, the group goals discussion can be revisited. To provide background information for city officials on how bike share can best serve city goals, Table 1 illustrates how a bike share system can be used as a tool to help cities achieve their transportation, climate, health, livability, and economic development goals. The goals are shown with potential measures and methods to quantify the goals along with how bike share would achieve these goals. The potential impact that bike share can have on these goals is shown based on qualitative and quantitative evaluations from other systems in the United States and MTC's Climate Initiatives Program Evaluation on Bay Area Bike Share. Although it is premature to set bike share system goals and further discussion will be required once a clear direction is selected, a draft set of goals is presented in Table 2. This table will be a starting point for future goals discussions. Table 1: City Goals Achieved Through Bike Share City Goals Measures How Achieved Through Bike Potential Impact Share GHG emissions Mode shift to bicycle trips Low Particulate Emissions Mode shift to bicycle trips Low Emissions and (Particulate Matter 2.5 and 10) Climate Reduction Number of single occupant Mode shift to bicycle trips Low vehicle (SOV) trips Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mode sh ift to bicycle trips Low PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis City Goals Measures Mode of access to transit First and last mile connections Increase Mobility Bicycles on board transit Reduced vehicle parking at Caltrain stations Improvement in Minutes of physical activity Public Health Outcomes Bicycle mode share Increased spending in retail and commercial areas Increase in Trips to commercial areas Economic Development Connect to major employment centers Increase Tourism Increase in visitors and tourists Table 2: Multi-City Bike Share Goals Example Goals Develop a seamless, easy-to-use bike share system that is accessible Increase personal mobility and establish bike share as an integral transportation mode in the region Support a safe, healthy and environmentally sustainable PLAN NINO ENGINEERING Page IS How Achieved Through Bike Potential Impact Share Reduces the need for auto Medium parking Provides additional High transportation option Reduces need for private bicycle High trips to transit Reduces the need for auto Medium parking Increase in active transportation High Overall increase in all bicycling Medium Improves access to retail and Medium commercial areas Improves access to areas where Medium parking may be constrained Inclusion of bike share in High employer TOM programs Provides a low-cost Low transportation option Example Objectives Increase participation among a diverse spectrum of members, regardless of income level, cultural background, or other demographic factor. Reduce barriers to membership and usage. Effectively define bike share and its pricing structure. Improve access to jobs, transit, key destinations and the existing public transport and bike network. Prioritize safety for all customers lANDSCAPr=. ARCHITECTURE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Example Goals Bay Area Create a financially sustainable bike share program 2. Additional Pilot Program Analysis Page 16 Example Objectives Reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and criteria pollutants. Improve public health. Sustain the system by attracting investment and minimizing operating costs. Strengthen the local and regional economy Toole Design Group analyzed ridership of the Bay Area Bike Share pilot program as part of the first memorandum. A series of online maps were created to show trends in existing ridership using data from September 2, 2014 to August 31, 2015. The map below shows a "spider map" of bike share trip demands between stations and can be accessed online at: https://erinlise.cartodb.com/viz/41e179a8-a90c-11e5-8b98-0e787de82d45/embed map Since that analysis, Toole Design Group prepared a separate series of online maps that analyze: (1) the distribution of trips over the course of a typical weekday originating at each station; (2) the most popular destination stations for trips originating at each station; and (3) the zip code distribution of bike share trips originating from the San Francisco Caltrain Station (to show how many Peninsula residents may use bike share at the San Francisco end of their trip). These maps are on line at: https://ennslisa.github.io/BayAreaBikeshare.html Map (1) Distribution of Weekday Rides by Time of Day This map shows the average number of weekday bike check-outs from each station by time of day. The map shows that most stations observe commuter peaks. Trips from the Caltrain stations have a large AM peak between Sam and lOam (likely people travelling from the station to work) and a smaller evening peak between Spm and 7pm (likely people coming home from work using Caltrain). Most other stations have a small AM peak (perhaps people travelling to the Caltrain station or to local employment) and a larger, and earlier PM peak (likely people travelling to the Caltrain station to return home). Map (2) Station Destination by Start Station The sidebar in this map shows a list of all stations in the pilot program. When a start station is clicked, the dots on the map represent the total number of trips taken from the selected start station to the various end stations (note: the start station is shown in orange and the destination stations are shown in blue. If there were no trips taken from the selected start station to an end station, it will not appear on the map). This map is useful in understanding the variety of destinations accessed from each station. For example, approximately 1,400 trips that originated from the Mountain View Caltrain station were taken PLANNING ENGINEERING lANDSCAJ'E ARCHlTEC.TIJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 17 to the Mountain View City Hall station, over 900 to the Castro Street & El Camino Real station, 600 to the Evelyn Park & Ride station, and even 100 were taken to the San Antonio Shopping Center. Map (3) Trips starting from San Francisco Caltrain station by member zip code This map shows the zip code (for Peninsula cities only) of annual members that made a trip originating from one of the two bike share stations at the San Francisco Caltrain station. What this map proximates is how many people that use Caltrain to travel from the Peninsula to San Francisco then use bike share to get to their final destination. There is no way to tell if these users also used bike share to access the Caltrain station at the Peninsula end of their trip. It shows that there were a total of 16,658 bike share trips made from the San Francisco Caltrain bike share stations by annual members residing in the Peninsula cities. This represents approximately 45 trips per day (and only includes annual members that chose to enter their zip codes). The map provides a breakdown of that number by zip code, e.g., there were 872 bike share trips taken from the San Francisco Caltrain bike share stations by annual members that live in zip code 94041 (part of Mountain View). One of the interesting findings of this map is the number of members that live in San Mateo and other Peninsula cities that do not currently have bike share. One of the uses for this map is to understand how many people would be impacted by changes to the current system, e.g., removing bike share altogether or going with a different system that could not be integrated with the Motivate system that would require these users to potentially have two bike share memberships to two different programs. 3. System Planning and Demographic Analysis The analysis documented in the first memorandum recommended a system size of 35 to 40 stations to increase ridership towards the target of 1.0 trip per bike per day. Based on that recommendation the project team placed stations at potential locations in Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View to reach the target coverage and station density. TDG considered the heat map prepared previously by MTC, large employment centers, commercial, retail, and entertainment destinations, civic destinations, and access to transit in placing stations. Note that these locations are intended to be general (e.g., to the intersection level). Additional work will be required to identify precise locations for each station considering available right-of-way, adjacent property interest, and public feedback. Potential station locations are shown on the online map accessed at: https://ennslisa.github.io/BayAreaBikeshareDemographics.html ·Based on these stations placements, the service area of the system was calculated by drawing a 1/4 mile radius circle around each potential bike share station (to approximate the distance that a potential bike share user would walk to access a station) and joining these circles where there was overlap. A series of maps were created to explore the following demographics of the proposed service area including: (1) population density; (2) diversity; and (3) income. PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECnJAE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Map (1) Population Density Page 18 This map shows population density in the potential service area and was created using ESRI population estimates for 2015 based on the 2010 census. The map shows that there is potential for an expanded program to serve higher population density areas of the peninsula cities, which will increase the primary functions of the program as a connection to transit and a potential commuting option to employment centers. Map (2) Diversity Th is map shows diversity in the potential service area as calculated by ESRl's Diversity Index, a measure of the percentage likelihood that two random people chosen from the same area would be of different races. The average Diversity Index for Mountain View is 76-percent, for Palo Alto is 59-percent, and for Redwood City is 85-percent. Map (3) Income This map shows median household income in the potential service area. The average household income in the entire area is approximately $91,000 for Mountain View, $114,000 for Palo Alto, and $64,000 for Redwood City. Figures are ESRI estimates for 2015 based on the 2010 census. 4. Review of San Mateo Pilot Program The City of San Mateo completed a bike share feasibility study in 2013. The City was originally left out of the Bay Area Bike Share pilot program and the subsequent Motivate expansion of the program. More recently, the City was approached by Social Bicycles (SoBi) to implement a pilot program of their own featuring smart bike technology. Because SoBi had already been vetted through an extensive RFP process and awarded the contract to establish the City of Santa Monica's Breeze bike share program, staff at the City of San Mateo reviewed this information and recommended to Council in November 2015 that they be granted a sole source contract to establish a 50 bicycle smart bike system. Smart bike systems, as opposed to smart dock systems such as the Motivate program, provide the locking mechanism on the bicycle itself, which offers greater flexibility in where the bicycle can be parked. SoBi also offers an a-la-carte menu of station options. San Mateo is purchasing only the bicycles and will use regular bike racks to serve as pseudo-stations. There are also options to purchase custom built bike racks to give the station a unique look to other street furniture and an option to purchase kiosks. Because bikes are reserved via mobile phone or online, there is little need for kiosks except at stations that are likely to receive high casual usage. Because of these choices, the cost of providing stations is relatively low meaning that creating more stations is possible for the same or lower price. About the System Based on discussions with Kathy Kleinbaum at the City of San Mateo and information contained in the City's Administrative Report dated November 16, 2015, the following describes some of the key features of the proposed bike share system: PLANNING E.NGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECTURE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis • The pilot will include SO smart bikes distributed at 10 to 12 hubs. Page 19 • The program will be named "Bay Bikes" and the system will be branded using a light blue color that will be distinguishable from the Motivate program. • The City used TDM funding allocated from developers to purchase the bicycles. The City did not take up the option to purchase custom bike racks or kiosks. They will use regular U-racks with a vinyl wrap to distinguish them from other city bike racks. • The City will own the program and its assets. A local non-profit called Bikes Make Life Better will operate and maintain the system performing day-to-day operations such cleaning the stations, repairing the bikes, and rebalancing the bikes between stations. SoBi will be responsible for creating and maintaining the website and mobile phone-based membership and reservation system as well as performing revenue collection and disbursement. • The San Mateo program will have a different pricing structure to the Motivate system. Users can sign up for a membership for $15/month with which they receive one hour of free riding time per day. For casual users, and annual members exceeding their one hour of riding time, the cost is $5/hour, prorated to the nearest minute. There is a $3 fee for locking the bike outside a hub and a $1 credit for returning a bike that is parked outside to a hub. There is also a $100 fee for parking the bicycle outside of the service area (likely to be the City boundaries). • The City is seeking sponsorship. They are offering the bike basket and online assets to a potential sponsors. Other bike elements will likely be retained for system branding. • Currently, a user travelling between San Mateo and one of the BABS pilot cities would need to maintain two separate bike share memberships to be able to use bike share in both cities. • The City is intending to pilot the program for three years and evaluate the program based on overall usage and customer experience. At the end of the pilot term, the City can decide to continue the program, expand it, or to terminate it. • The City is hoping to launch the system in May 2016. Potential for Expansion of the San Mateo Bike Share Program The introduction of a second bike share system to the Peninsula offers some opportunities and some challenges. There may be an opportunity to expand this system to the other peninsula cities to create a peninsula region bike share system. Opportunities • Regional Expansion -San Mateo has kept open the option for regional expansion to other cities. They have named the program "Bay Bikes" to leave open this possibility and to create a regional brand. They are also open to different regional governance models including the Cities working together under an MOU or turning the system over to a non-profit or some other model. • Cost -the a-la-carte nature of SoBi's pricing structure means that per station capital costs are lower. The cost per station is reduced by purchasing fewer kiosks and having the flexibility to use regular bike racks in place of customized docking points. PLANNING GINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECTURE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page I 10 • Flexibility -smart bike systems allow users to park bicycles at or near hubs or at any location outside of a hub for an additional fee. This provides more flexibility in suburban settings where destinations are more spread out and would require a large number of stations. Challenges The following aspects of the San Mateo system may hinder expansion capabilities. • Inter-operability-Smart dock bikes cannot be locked at smart bike hubs (as they need a custom docking point to lock to). However, smart bike systems can be locked at any bike rack in a smart dock area. Because of the distances between San Mateo and the other systems, it is unlikely to be an issue that a smart dock bike would be ridden between systems. However, as program areas expand over time, this may become more of an issue. • System Integration and Different Pricing Structures -Users of the San Mateo system will need to maintain two memberships if they also use the Bay Area Bike Share program in another city. SoBi and Motivate may over time offer reciprocal membership where a membership card for one system may provide access to the other system. However, it will still be necessary for users to maintain two accounts or be aware of the two different pricing structures. It would also require some form of revenue sharing agreement between the two companies. 5. Future Funding Opportunities MTC has continued to express interest in funding bike share equipment. It is expected that in the next few months MTC will release a regional call to fund bike share programs. MTC has $4.5 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds that can be used to purchase capital equipment for bike share. As is the case with any bike share program funded under CMAQ, operations and maintenance funds are not eligible. It is expected that these funds will be released in two phases with approximately $2.25 available in the first phase. While MTC is currently developing the program, it will most likely be a competitive program with priority given to communities that have done planning or feasibility studies. It is expected that a draft of this call will be released in March of 2016. There is also activity at a national level to clarify funding for bike share programs. The Bike Share Transit Act, introduced to Congress at the beginning of 2016, would make federal funds for bike share available through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and make it clear that bike share projects and associated equipment are eligible for federal transit funds and CMAQ. This may change some of the eligibility of projects and may allow operations and maintenance as an eligible expense. While the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) funded the initial Bay Area Pilot Program, they have not made a clear determination if future Transportation For Clean Air (TFCA) funds will be available to fund bike share programs. MTC and BAAQMD conducted an evaluation of bike share under the Climate Initiative Program and bike share had a high cost per ton of C02 reduced and minimal reductions of other criteria pollutants. The program evaluates projects based on the cost effectiveness of improving air quality and while bike share may have other benefits, the Climate Initiatives evaluation PLAN NINO ENGINt;l!RING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECTURE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 111 showed high capital costs mostly due to a lack of any other subsidy such as sponsorship and the upfront capital costs associated with the program. There are many other funding opportunities that could be explored further. Some of those that have been successfully implemented elsewhere include: • Travel Demand Management (TOM) and developer traffic impact fees going towards purchase of bike share equipment, as is being used to fund San Mateo's pilot program. • Seeking a system sponsor to help fund capital or operations and maintenance. Corporate memberships could be offered as part of a sponsorship deal or independently. • Integrating bike share stations into other infrastructure improvements as part of other capital projects such as roadway reconstructions, trail construction, parking improvements, Caltrain station improvement plans, etc. • Revenue sharing agreement with transit providers that integrate bike share into the transit fare structure (this has not yet been implemented in the United States). • Crowdsource funding has been used in Kansas City to fund bike share stations in communities that want to expedite bike share in their neighborhoods. • There may be other grants available to fund different elements or specific programs related to bike share, e.g., public health and equity partnerships and grants may be available. PlANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Attachment D TooleDestgnGroup I . I& MEMORANDUM 319 SN Wluihingtan Sbeet: Suite 410 Portland, OR 97204 503..205.4607 www..tooledesign.am Project: Bay Area Bike Share -Peninsula Communities Strategic Plan Subject: Deliverable 3 -Program Options Date: March 15, 2016 To: Melissa Reggiardo, SamTrans From: Sean Co and Adrian Witte, Toole Design Group CC: Peninsula Bike Share Working Group This memorandum is the third of a series of memoranda to help Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Mountain View (referred to as "the peninsula cities") make their decision on how to move forward with bike share. It includes: l. A summary of four potential system options that the peninsula cities could pursue including a streamlined, no-gap-in-service scenario; a streamlined, new ·vendor scenario; and expanded system options with either the current vendor or a new vendor. 2. A review of procurement options to understand potential gaps in service and how to work regionally if a new vendor or operator is to be procured. 3. A review of potential regional governance options for the peninsula communities to move forward with a coordinated program. 4. Funding options including a review of how cities might be able to fund capital for their systems and short-and long-term operations. 1. Service Scenarios The Peninsula Bike Share Technical Committee discussed possible service options for bike share service in their communities. Firstly, in the interim, that the current pilot program be "streamlined" in each city. In Redwood City, staff felt that streamlined service would remove the two lowest performing stations to operate with fewer, well-performing stations. In Palo Alto and Mountain View, staff felt that streamlining the system could occur by relocating under-performing stations to better performing locations and/or adding a few new stations at key attractions and destinations. PLANNING ENGINE!;RING LAJl.:OSCAPE ARCHITECnJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 12 Longer term, the peninsula cities might look to greatly increase the size of the program to between 30 to 40 stations to add significant utility to the program. This size increase comes with much greater capital and operating costs. Under any service scenario, any new equipment and operations would need to be funded by the cities and sources for this funding would need to be identified. The larger scale program increases this commitment. The general consensus of the Technical Committee is that there are already two bike share equipment vendors operating on the peninsula and it seems confusing and challenging to introduce a third (or more) vendors. That means that the peninsula cities will chose between the Motivate and the Social Bikes equipment assuming this fits with their procurement protocols. However, the cities can decide between one of the existing vendors (Motivate or Bikes Make Life Better) or select a new vendor or vendors to operate their systems. Distilling all of this information, four service options were considered for cost analysis: 1. Streamlined service, current vendor: streamline the number of stations in each city, purchase any additional equipment needed, and pay Motivate to continue operations. This option results in no gap in service. Cost estimates are based on quoted rates from Motivate (assuming less than 1.0 trip per bike per day). 2. Streamlined service, new vendor: streamline the number of stations in each city, procure a new equipment vendor (Social Bikes) and operator to take over operations. Cities could add on to the Bikes Make Life Better operating contract with San Mateo or procure a different operator. Cost estimates are based on capital costs quoted by Social Bikes and operating costs procured by the City of San Mateo. 3. Expanded service, current vendor: applying a target size of 35 stations to each city, this scenario would continue with the current vendor and operator. This option results in no gap in service. Cost estimates are based on quoted rates from Motivate (assuming less than 1.0 trips per bike per day). 4. Expanded service, new vendor: applying a target size of 35 stations to each city, this scenario would procure a new vendor (Social Bikes) and operator. Cities could add on to the Bikes Make Life Better operating contract with San Mateo or procure a different operator. Cost estimates are based on capital costs quoted by Social Bikes and operating costs procured by the City of San Mateo. PLANNING ENGINEERINO LANDSCAPE. ARCHlTECnJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis System Plans Page 13 Service areas were developed for each city for the full build-out scenario by applying stations to meet target coverage and station densities and then adjusted for key attractions and destinations. City staff were asked to identify what a streamlined service would look like in each of their cities. Mountain View, as part of planning for initial Bay Area pilot program had identified 11 station locations that they took through their internal approval process and proposed to the pilot program. The pilot launched with only 7 station locations including 2 that were the recommendation of the operator. The City has since relocated these 2 stations to their preferred locations. A streamlined service in Mountain View would include the existing 7 locations and add 4 stations as shown on Figure 1. In Palo Alto, streamlined service would include 13 stations -the 5 existing stations, 5 stations identified for private funding, and 3 new stations (for which the City of Palo Alto submitted a TFCA grant application in March 2016). These are shown on Figure 2. The new stations will add density in Downtown Palo Alto and at the California Avenue Caltrain station and provide stations directly serving the Stanford Medical Center and the Stanford Research Park. Staff suggested that the most effective way to streamline service in Redwood City may be to actually reduce the system to the best performing stations. This would help boost ridership metrics and reduce operating costs. The streamlined system would reduce to 5 stations as shown on Figure 3. Staff indicated that they would be willing to talk to Motivate to allow their 2 unused stations to be transferred to Mountain View and/or Palo Alto. System Costs Capital and net operating costs were calculated for each of the scenarios describe above. Table 1 shows a breakdown of capital (including installation) costs, operating costs, estimates of potential user revenues (from membership and overage fees), and net operating costs for each city and for the collective program. Capital and O&M costs are generally well known and are outlined in the table footnotes. User revenues are more difficult to calculate are a combination of annual and casual membership sales and usage fees. Annual and casual membership sales are calculated as the number of annual or casual members (assumed to grow from existing membership levels in proportion to the number of stations in the system) multiplied by the cost of an annual or casual membership ($88 or $9 respectively). Usage fees are calculated first by estimating the number of annual trips from the equations developed as part of Deliverable 1 (and assuming a station density of 8 stations per square mile). Trips are then broken down into annual and casual member trips based on existing ratios in each city. Annual member trips are multiplied by the average overage fee recouped per annual member trip for the pilot program of $0.12 per trip. Casual user trips are multiplied by the average overage fee recouped per casual user trip for the pilot program of $8.79 per trip. PLANNING ENGIN!;ERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITECTURE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Table 1: Cost Scenarios (assumes one year of operations) OPTION 1 OPTION 2 Streamlined service, Streamlined service, current vendor (no-gap-in-service) new vendors CAPITAL Motivate Social Bikes $180,000 $335,000 Mountain View Receive 1 station from Purchase 11 stations from RWC, purchase 3 new new vendor stations $415,000 $400,000 Palo Alto Receive 1 stations from Purchase 10 stations from RWC, purchase 7 new new vendor stations -$150,000 Redwood City Give 1 station to MV and 1 Purchase 5 stations from station to PA new vendor Total Capital $595,000 $885,000 Cost OPERATIONS (REVENUE) Motivate New Operator NET COST $280,000 $250,000 Mountain View ($65,000) ($65,000) $215,000 $185,000 $335,000 $290,000 Palo Alto ($115,000) ($115,000) $220,000 $175,000 $130,000 $130,000 Redwood City ($20,000) ($20,000) $110,000 $110,000 Net Operating $545,000 $470,000 Cost (per year) Notes: Page 17 OPTION 3 OPTION4 Expanded service, Expanded service, current vendor new vendors Motivate Social Bikes $1,665,000 $1,075,000 Purchase 28 new stations Purchase 35 new stations $1,785,000 $1,075,000 Purchase 29 new stations Purchase 35 new stations $1,665,000 $1,075,000 Purchase 29 new stations Purchase 35 new stations $5,115,000 $3,225,000 Motivate New Operator $900,000 $735,000 ($290,000) ($290,000) $610,000 $445,000 $900,000 $735,000 ($565,000) ($565,000) $335,000 $170,000 $900,000 $735,000 ($285,000) ($285,000) $615,000 $450,000 $1,560,000 $1,065,000 1. Motivate retains ownership of existing stations in the pilot cities, but there is no capital cost to the peninsula cities to retain these stations. 2. New stations cost $55,503.56 per station plus a $4,000 per station installation cost based on Motivate quoted prices for a 19 dock station and 10 bikes per station. 3. All new equipment would be required if Social Bikes was selected. New stations cost $33,550 per station plus $4,000 per station for Installation based on prices quoted by Social Bikes for an equivalent 10 bike hub with 19 customized bike racks and a kiosk. Kiosks provided at one-third of stations. A $10,000 start-up cost for website design is also included in this price. 4. Operating cost of $112.50 per dock per month based on quoted rates from Motivate, assuming less than 1.0 trips per bike per day. 5. Operating costs based on rates procured by the City of San Mateo. This includes a $150 per bike operating cost, plus a $100 per bike per year allowance for replacement parts, a $2,500 per month software license fee, an $8 per bike per month platform connectivity fee, and a $50 per kiosk per month kiosk connectivity fee. PLANNING ENGINEERING LAr-:DSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis 2. Procurement Options Page IS Staying with Motivate requires no procurement (Options 1 and 3). For this reason there is no gap in service under these options. For the other service options where a new vendor (either for equipment, operations, or both) needs to be procured, there is likely to be some downtime between the end of one service and the start of another. Cities could procure individually or in some collective format. Equipment and operators could be procured separately in each city. Procuring separately for equipment could create the scenario of different, incompatible vendors between cities. However, procuring separate operators could be of benefit to each city to allow them to prioritize different price points, service levels, and other features. For example, Mountain View may want to select a private operator with high service levels, but at a higher price point than Redwood City, who may be prepared to accept lower service levels and a non- profit operator for a lower cost. Based on discussion with staff at the City of San Mateo, the City was able to procure Social Bikes equipment without having to issue an RFP because of a number of factors. Firstly, another charter city (Santa Monica) went through a similar evaluation process to select Social Bikes as their vendor; secondly, the amount of the procurement was relatively low (less than $100,000); and lastly, they had a cost proposal from Motivate to compare to so the project was not sole source per se. These factors allowed staff to recommend to Council that the City purchase equipment from Social Bikes. These same opportunities may exist in the other Peninsula cities too. Another way to coordinate procurement would be for an agency to lead the procurement with others joining in. The City of Palo Alto has expressed interest that they would take the lead on procurement if necessary. 3. Regional Governance Options There are any number of ways for a bike share system to be organized and each city or region evaluates their specific needs to determine which model works best for the funding, geographical, and political environments of that area. A series of questions were designed to narrow down the potential governance options. This flow chart is shown on Figure 4. Pl.ANNINO ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITEcnJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page I 10 The flow chart shows that there are several viable options to create a regional bike share program in the Peninsula cities. These include: • Cities work together under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) framework. This is the model used by the Boston area's Hubway system and for the Capital Bikeshare program in the Washington, D.C. area. Under this structure, an MOU would be developed between the participating cities that outlines collective program decisions such as system branding, pricing structure, revenue collection and distribution, marketing and fundraising responsibilities, etc. • Creating capacity outside of the city structures through the creation of a new non-profit organization to take on responsibility for the bike share program. The non-profit may also take on operations or contract out these services. This is the model used for Nice Ride Minnesota and Cincinnati Red Bike (the former operating in multiple cities and the latter operating in multiple cities across state lines). • Caltrain owned and operated program. This model is similar to the structure being used by LA Metro in Los Angeles where an agency that spans the entire region takes on the responsibility of the bike share program. Caltrain, although present in each community, does not have as much influence over the whole system area as would a regional planning or transit agency. Also, this model depends on interest and capacity within Caltrain that may not exist. Further discussions would be needed to pursue this model. Of the two most likely options, a collective MOU structure is the most expedient, maximizes control and involvement for each of the cities, and is the most cost-effective option. However, it relies on all of the participating cities to be on-board with this model and commit the necessary staff and financial resources to operate the program. The peninsula cities have a good history of working together cooperatively. The non-profit model would take the financial and public image risks of the program away from the city agencies. Non-profit operators also tend to be able to manage costs and can attract the greatest variety of funding sources. However, a new non-profit would take considerable time to establish and would turn over control of the program. Staff capacity for the non-profit would need to be built and a funding source established to build this capacity. As we have seen in the previous deliverables, the data suggests that the three (or more) systems working together offers benefits to bike share members on the Peninsula and in the rest of the region. The decision to work together to provide a unified bike share system ultimately rests with the individual cities. The Motivate bike share system offers substantial benefits to the Bay Area region with the possibility of rapid expansion into the East Bay and with large numbers of bikes not previously available with pubic funds. However the Motivate expansion may have inadvertently caused a fracture in bike share transportation for the region by causing cities not included in the expansion to examine their own options for bike share -which may include independent systems. The Bay Area is already burdened with 27 transit operators and regional coordination among them remains challenging. Should the Peninsula PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHITEC.TIJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 111 cities decide that a coordinated bike share model does not work, there are options for bike share which include independent programs and discontinuation of the service. Independent Programs Should the timing and coordination of a single regional system not fit into bike share plans for the cities, individual cities may want to move forward with the implementation of bike share on their own. The City of San Mateo has already moved forward with a small Social Bike system. The San Mateo system is independent of the Motivate system requiring members to sign up for the system even if they have a membership with Motivate. This is less than ideal from a customer service perspective requiring people that may live in San Mateo but work in San Francisco to carry two membership fobs with different pricing and different back-end customer service and membership systems. Moving independently allowed San Mateo to use available funds to quickly implement a system without waiting for other cities to come online. This option may become necessary if one or two of the Peninsula cities decide to discontinue bike share or move with a technology option that is different from each other. Discontinuing Bike Share Should the cities decide that there is not political support or funding available for bike share, the Motivate program can be discontinued thereby ending the pilot program. Supporters of bike share including the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and other advocacy groups may continue to lobby for bike share making that decision a political challenge. If bike share were to be removed, the interest and momentum would have subsided, making it difficult to bring bike share back at a future date. Funds that are available for bike share would be spent on other projects and the current regional bike share expansion funds may not be available in future years. 4. Funding Options Capital Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) MTC is in the process of developing guidelines for a standalone CMAQ funded grant program to specifically fund bike share. It is expected the program will total $4.5 million and will be released in two calls with the first call expected in the spring of 2016. Since the program is funded with CMAQ it is expected that it will cover equipment only and not operations and maintenance. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) The TFCA fund has two parts, the Regional Fund and the County Program Manager Fund. The Air District is no longer accepting applications for bike share under the Regional Fund as an eligible expense. However bike share is still eligible under the County Program Manager Fund. To apply to the County Program Manager Fund, projects are submitted directly to the County Congestion Management PLAN NINO ENGINEERING lANOSCA.DE. ARCHITECTURE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula C1t1es Analysis Page I 12 Agencies. Projects must include a cost/effective measure that shows that bike share is able to achieve a $500,000 per ton reduction for emissions. TFCA funds can be used to fund operations and maintenance for bike share for up to 5 years. It is worth noting that even though operations and maintenance for bike share are eligible, it is unlikely these expenses would make the application competitive. The cost effectiveness calculations are based on the number of bikes for a system. Any additional funds requested in the application that does not increase the number of bikes reduces the cost effectiveness number. Caltrans Active Transportation Program {ATP) The Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a new funding source in California that can be used to fund bicycle and pedestrian capital projects and plans. The program is a combination of different federal and state funding sources including the federal Transportation Alternative Program and Highway Safety Improvement Program. The state funds are part of the State Highway Account funds. Cycle 2 of the program was over programmed by $360 million over 3 fiscal years. The call for Cycle 3, which will cover fiscal years 2019/20 and 2020/21, will have applications due to Caltrans on June 15, 2016. Any grant requests will cover equipment but will be unlikely to cover ongoing operations and maintenance. Operations There may be some initial seed money available to either sustain interim operations or start new service. Given that MTC will no longer be funding the Bay Area Bike Share program, Samtrans and VTA will receive back their share of user revenues collected from the pilot program. This can be distributed to the peninsula cities for expenses related to bike share, operations, and capital incurred during the pilot program. It is expected that there is $281,000 in total and these funds can be used for continuation of the program. Based on the net operating cost shown in Table 1, this would allow a streamlined system to continue to operate under the current vendor for approximately 6 months. Longer-term, the program would need to find one or more sponsors to fill the expected gap between operating costs and system revenues. Any shortfall would need to be funded by the program owner (e.g., the city, a non-profit, etc.). 5. Next Steps Different equipment and operator scenarios will be discussed at the March committee meeting. Following that, the cities need to make some decisions about their internal goals and interests for bike share and decide if they'd like to move forward: (1) with bike share; and (2) as a region or as individual entities. The decision to move forward with bike share or not will likely come down to each city's funding capacity -particularly to meet any operating shortfall. This needs to be tested and opportunities sought to secure capital and operating funds. Assuming the cities decide to move forward collectively with bike share, they will need to decide how they would like to move forward -under what governance structure. The most expedient model would be to operate under a collective agreement that outlines regional versus local decisions, identifies roles PLANNING ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE. ARCHlTECTIJRE Bay Area Bike Share Peninsula Cities Analysis Page 113 and responsibilities for each partner, outlines how decisions will be made, and specifies cost and revenue sharing agreements between the partners. This does not preclude transitioning to a different model over time. For example, a non-profit could be formed to take over long-term operations of the program if internal capacity or risk become issues. Once a governance structure is decided, the cities much chose between the existing equipment provider and operator or whether to go out to bid for a new vendor. A common procurement process will be necessary -with the ability for one city to lead the process and others to be able to add-on to the contract with the selected vendor. The feasibility of this process should be determined with the cities' procurement departments. PLANNING ENGINl:ERING LAfl..:DSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Agenda Number: 15., Status: New Business a different outcome and would significantly delay the launch of a bike share system in San Mateo. Smart Bike System The SoBi bike share system is a "smart bike" system as opposed to the smart hub system used by the Bay Area Bike Share program. A smart bike system is one where the technology for locating, renting, releasing and locking is on the bikes themselves, as opposed to on the bike racks. This system has significant advantages in that the bikes can be parked at standard bike racks allowing for more flexibility at siting bike hubs, locking bikes mid-reservation, and allowing bikes to be left at non-hub locations at the end of a reservation. Smart bike systems can be implemented at a significantly lower capital cost than smart hub systems since they do not require that a pay kiosk be incorporated into each station. Instead, each bike is capable of accepting payments and releasing the bike-locking mechanism independently via mobile and web-based software that interacts with the smart bike hardware. Smart bike systems are easier to scale and can be successful with a small system such as the one proposed in San Mateo. San Mateo System The proposed San Mateo pilot bike share system will consist of 50 bikes spread out over a total of 10 to 12 hubs. The locations of the hubs have yet to be determined but will follow the guidance provided by the 2013 Bike Share Feasibility Study and will target transit nodes, large employers, retail districts, and high density housing sites. The City intends to use existing bike racks located throughout San Mateo for the program but may supplement some locations with additional bike racks to ensure adequate capacity. A typical hub would have roughly 4 bikes though some hubs will be larger, such as those located at the Caltrain stations. In order to develop and operate this system, the City first needs to purchase the bikes from SoBi and then enter into a services agreement with Bikes Make Life Better and SoBi to operate and maintain the system. Bikes Make Life Better would serve as the prime contractor to the City and SoBi would be a subcontractor under the proposed agreement. Bikes Make Life Better will be responsible for the day-to-day on-the-ground operations of the program, which includes repositioning the bikes between hubs, repairs and maintenance of the bikes. SoBi will be in charge of the web and mobile application-based membership and reservation system and the revenue collection and remittance. The City is intending to pilot the program for a 3-year trial basis and evaluate the program based on overall usage and customer experience. At the end of this term, the City can decide to continue the program, expand it, or to terminate it. The draft purchase contract with SoBi is included as Attachment 2 to this report. The contract is for an amount not to exceed $85,000. Staff is still finalizing negotiations on the language in Section 7, Indemnity and Limitation of Liability with SoBi. If any further modifications are made to this section following the publication of this report, staff will provide an updated contract to City Council at the meeting. Following the execution of the contract, SoBi bikes will place the order for the system bikes. The bikes take roughly 6 months to manufacture. The City hopes to launch the program in May 2016. A rendering of the proposed design for the bike share bikes is included as Attachment 4 to this report. The draft services agreement with Bikes Make Life Better is included as Attachment 3 to this report. The contract amount of $293,000 is based on per bike service fee of $1,800 per year for a three year period plus an additional start-up fee of $23,000 for system implementation. Test Phase Bikes Make Life Better and SoBi will be running a 10-bike test phase in San Mateo that is expected to launch a few months in advance of the implementation of the full system. This program will feature 3 bike hubs at the Downtown Caltrain station, the Hillsdale Caltrain station, and within Bay Meadows at the Nueva School property. This phase will allow the City to test the functionality of the program with a small group of users and to make adjustments to the operating model, as necessary. In addition, having bike share bikes at prominent CITY OF SAN MATEO Page 2 of 4 Printed on 21812016 powered by Leg1star™ Agenda Number: 15., Status: New Business locations will build interest and awareness in the bike share program. SoBi bikes will be providing the City with the 10 test bikes at no cost and will roll them into the larger 50 bike system. As a result, the City will only have to pay for the purchase of 40 bikes. The City will pay Bikes Make Life Better a nominal fee of $110 per month per bike for operating test phase program which will include repositioning the bikes between the 3 hubs a couple of times a day and maintaining the bikes during this period. User Fees The City worked closely with SoBi to develop program user fees that are consistent with their other bike share programs. The proposed fees are as follows: • $3 per half hour pay-as-you go use • $5 per hour for pay-as-you go use • $15 per month for a monthly membership (which includes 1 hour of use per day) • $3 fee for locking bikes outside of a bicycle hub • $100 for locking bikes outside of the bike share system boundaries (likely contiguous with City boundaries). These fees would apply during the 10-bike test phase and throughout the initial roll-out of the program and will be evaluated on an annual basis. The revenues from the user fees will help offset the annual operating costs of the program. In order to implement these bike share use fees, it is necessary to amend the Comprehensive Fee Schedule for 2015-2016. Attachment 1 includes the proposed resolution amending the Comprehensive Fee Schedule and the detailed fee structure. Sponsorships The City intends to seek out sponsors for the bike share system to further offset the annual operating costs. The City plans to approach major employers and property owners within the City. The sponsorships would be available on an annual basis and sponsors would be able to display their logo on the baskets of the bicycles. The City will retain the right to review and approve the sponsors and their logos to ensure appropriateness. BUDGET IMPACT The capital purchase costs and on-going annual operations will be paid from Project 465004 (Citywide Bike and Pedestrian Path Improvements Project). The initial capital costs to set up the bike share program are $85,000. This cost includes the provision of 40 bicycles. The bicycle provider, Social Bicycles, will provide the City with the 10 bikes used for the test phase at no cost. The services agreement with Bikes Make Life Better is for a fee not to exceed $293,000, which includes the start-up implementation expenses and operations for a three-year period. This cost will be offset by revenues from user fees and any sponsorships that the City attains which will be deposited back to Project 465004 to offset the expenses. Staff estimates that system revenues and sponsorships will cover approximately 50% of the operating costs in the first year and will eventually cover the full operating costs once the system reaches a stabilization level. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The adoption of a pilot bike share program is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. NOTICE PROVIDED All meeting noticing requirements were met. ATTACHMENTS Att 1 -Proposed Resolution Att 2 -Purchase Contract with Social Bicycles Att 3 -Agreement for Services with Bikes Make Life Better CITY OF SAN MATEO Page 3 of 4 Printed on 2/8/2016 powered by Leg1starm Agenda Number: 15., Status: New Business Att 4 -Rendering of San Mateo Bike Share bicycle STAFF CONTACT Kathy Kleinbaum, Senior Management Analyst kkleinbaum@cityofsanmateo.org (650)522-7153 CITY OF SAN MATEO Page 4 of 4 Printed on 218/2016 powered by Leg1starm PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR BIKE SHARE EQUIPMENT FROM SOCIAL BICYCLES INC. Attachment F This Purchase Contract (the "Contract"), made and entered into this 17th day of November, 2015, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATE O, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California (the "CITY"), and SOCIAL CYCLES INC, a Delaware Corporation ("VENDOR"). RECITALS: A. The CITY desires to purchase certain smart bicycles hereinafter described for a bicycle sharing program (the "Bicycle Sharing Program") in the City of San Mateo, California. B. The CITY desires to engage VENDOR to provide these smart bicycles by reason of its qualifications and experience and VENDOR has offered to provide the required goods on the terms and in the manner set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows: SECTION 1 -PURCHASE The goods to be purchased from VENDOR under this Contract are described in Exhibit A to this Contract, which is attached and incorporated by reference. SECTION 2 -PRICE AND TAXES All prices shall be as stated in this Contract and are finn and not subject to escalation except as stated in Exhibit A. This purchase is subject to all California sales tax. Municipalities are exempt from federal excise and transportation taxes. Prices shall exclude these taxes. SECTION 3 -PAYMENT Payment terms shall be as stated in Exhibit A. Invoices must cite the purchase order number to prevent delay in fayment. All invoices must be mailed to City of San Mateo, Attn: Accounts Payable, 330 West 201 A venue, San Mateo, CA 94403. SECTION 4 -DELIVERY AND PERFORMANCE If delivery of goods cannot be made at the specified time, VENDOR shall promptly notify the CITY of the earliest possible date for delivery. The CITY'S receipt or acceptance of all or part of a non- conforming delivery shall not constitute a waiver of any claim, right, or remedy the CITY has under this Contract or applicable law. 1 SECTION 5 -SHIPMENT AND INSPECTION VENDOR assumes full responsibility for all transportation, transportation scheduling, packing, handling, insurance, and other services associated with delivery of all products. No charges for transportation containers, packing, etc., will be allowed unless so specified in this Contract or Exhibit A. ~ All shipments shall be F.O.B. City of San Mateo. Transportation charges shall be shown as a separate item on the invoice. The CITY may revise shipping instructions as to any goods not as yet shipped. The CITY shall have the right to inspect any or all of the goods at VENDOR's place of business or upon receipt by the CITY. By reason of its failure to inspect the goods, the CITY shall not be deemed to have accepted any defective goods or goods which do not conform to the specifications provided or to have waived any of the CITY'S rights or remedies arising by virtue of such defects or non-conformance. VENDOR shall be responsible for payment of shipping for the return of any defective goods. Shipping documents and invoices must cite the Purchase Order number. SECTION 6 -WARRANTIES VENDOR warrants that the new products delivered hereunder shall be free from defects in workmanship and materials and in conformity with all samples, drawings, descriptions and specifications furnished by VENDOR for (i) thirty-six (36) months from the delivery date in the case of the frames of each bicycle and (ii) twelve (12) months from the delivery date in the case of the locks and all other components and accessories of the products. The warranty excludes damage caused by accidents, misuse, weather events, vandalism, neglect, and improper maintenance. In addition, VENDOR is providing ten (10) used bicycles to the CITY. The CITY expressly acknowledges and agrees that it is acquiring the used bicycles from VENDOR on an "AS IS, WHERE IS" and "WITH ALL FAUL TS" basis, without representations, warranties, or covenants of any kind or nature. VENDOR HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL OTHER WARRANTIES RELATING TO THE PRODUCTS PROVIDED HEREUNDER OR COMPONENTS THEREOF, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY. SECTION 7 -INDEMNITY AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY VENDOR agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense to the extent resulting from or arising out of VENDOR's delivery of the bicycles under this Contract, except to the extent: (a) caused by the CITY or its employees, officers, agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees or invitees; or (b) caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY or its employees, officers, agents, contractors, subcontractors, licensees or invitees. VENDOR agrees to defend the CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims. 2 SECTION 8 -TERMINATION This Contract may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties or by the CITY at its discretion. The CITY may cancel an order for goods at any time with written notice to VENDOR, stating the extent and effective date of termination. Upon receipt of this written notice, VENDOR shall stop performance under this Contract as directed by the CITY. If the Contract is terminated, VENDOR shall be paid in accordance with the Contract for all work commenced or performed by VENDOR prior to the date of termination that cannot be cancelled, meaning that VENDOR has already incurred costs for such work and such costs cannot be refunded. For any such work, when practicable, VENDOR agrees to use best efforts to assist the CITY in finding a suitable buyer for the goods. SECTION 9 -REMEDIES In the event ofVENDOR's breach of this Contract, the CITY may take any or all of the following actions, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to the CITY by law: (a) require Vendor to repair or replace such goods, and upon VENDOR'S failure or refusal to do so, repair or replace the same at VENDOR'S expense; and (b) reject any shipment or delivery containing defective or nonconforming goods and return for credit or replacement at VENDOR'S option, said return to be made at VENDOR'S cost and risk. In the event of the CITY's breach hereunder, VENDOR'S exclusive remedy shall be VENDOR'S recovery of the goods or the purchase price payable for goods shipped or work commenced or performed prior to such breach. SECTION 10 -COMPLIANCE WITH LAW VENDOR warrants that it will comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations applicable to its performance under this Contract. VENDOR shall obtain and maintain throughout the life of the Contract all permits or licenses required in connection with the manufacture, sale, and shipment of the products ordered under this Contract. SECTION 11 -ASSIGNMENT VENDOR shall not delegate or subcontract any duties and services or assign any rights or claims under this Contract without the CITY'S prior written consent. SECTION 12 -ARTWORK, DESIGNS, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS VENDOR hereby agrees that the sale, use, or incorporation into manufactured products of all machines, software, hardware, materials and other devices furnished under this Contract are free and clear of infringement of any valid patent, copyright, or trademark. VENDOR shall hold the CITY harmless from any and all costs and expenses, including attorney fees, liability, and loss of any kind growing out of claims, suits, or actions alleging such infringement, and VENDOR agrees to defend such claims, suits, or actions. SECTION 13 -GOVERNING LAW This Contract shall be deemed to be made in the State of California and shall in all respects be construed and governed by the laws of that state. 3 SECTION 14-VENUE In the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo. SECTION 15 -WAIVER The waiver of any tenn, condition, or provision hereof shall not be construed to be a waiver of any other such term, condition, or provision, nor shall such waiver be deemed a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same term, condition or provision. SECTION 16 -COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES Attorney fees in an amount not exceeding $85 per hour per attorney, and in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Contract. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this provision that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Contract. SECTION 17-MEDIATION Should any dispute arise out of this Contract, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the California State Board of Mediation and Conciliation, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a "blindfolded" process. The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties. SECTION 18 -NOTICES All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: To CITY: To VENDOR: City of San Mateo Attn.: City Manager 330 West 201h Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Social Bicycles Attn: Ryan Rzepecki, CEO 47 Hall Street, Suite 414 Brooklyn, NY 11205 4 SECTION 19 -MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE BICYCLE SHARING PROGRAM The CITY acknowledges that a third party will be responsible for the management and operation of the Bicycle Sharing Program contemplated by this Contract, including but not limited to the rental and maintenance of the products; the procurement of all parts, tools, labor, and other requirements associated with maintaining the products; the solicitation and enrollment of subscribed users; the marketing of the Bicycle Sharing Program; the provision of customer service to subscribed users; and the overall delivery of a safe and reliable program. VENDOR will, pursuant to a separate agreement, grant the third party provider a non-transferable, non- sublicensable, non-exclusive, limited right to access and use VENDOR's software operating platform for the purpose of enabling the rental of bicycles to subscribed users in the Bicycle Sharing Program. SECTION 20 -OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS The CITY acknowledges that the goods offered hereunder contain and/or incorporate certain intellectual property rights, including but not limited to trademarks, patent, patent application, moral right, trade secret, copyright and any applications or right to apply for registration, computer software programs or applications, tangible or intangible proprietary infom1ation, or any other intellectual property rights (the "Intellectual Property Rights"), that the Intellectual Property Rights used in conjunction with the products are proprietary to VENDOR and/or VENDOR's suppliers, and that VENDOR and/or its suppliers retain exclusive ownership of the Intellectual Property Rights and all copies thereof provided under this Contract. The CITY acknowledges that title to the Intellectual Property Rights will remain with VENDOR and its licensors, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, and that the CITY has no rights in the Intellectual Property Rights except those expressly granted by this Contract. When used in reference to the Intellectual Property Rights or in reference to Intellectual Property Rights embedded in the products, the word "purchase" and similar or derivative words are deemed to mean "non- transferable, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, limited license" to use the Intellectual Property Rights solely to the extent required for the CITY to use the products provided hereunder in accordance with this Contract. The CITY acknowledges that it is not entitled to receive the source code of any software. This limited license shall continue until this Contract is tenninated, until the license is tenninated in accordance with this Contract, for the useful life of the goods in which the Intellectual Property Rights are embedded, or for the useful life of the Intellectual Property Rights, whichever is shorter. Notwithstanding the above and anything contrary in this Contract, in the event the CITY, in accordance with this Contract and with VENDOR's prior written approval, transfers title to goods containing or incorporating Intellectual Property Rights, this limited license shall transfer to the CITY's transferee. Use of Intellectual Property Rights in violation of this Section shall automatically terminate the limited license. All data created and/or processed by the products and VENDOR's software platforms, including subscribed user data, is and will remain the sole property of VENDOR. The Parties acknowledge that the data in the CITY's possession may be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. The CITY shall not directly or indirectly: 5 1.1. Sell, lease, license, pledge, sublicense, loan, encumber, or otherwise transfer the Intellectual Property Rights, in whole or in part, to any third party or otherwise make the Intellectual Property Rights available to any third party, and shall keep the same free from any lien or encumbrance, or any other claim by a third party; 1.2. Copy, reproduce, or otherwise infringe the Intellectual Property Rights, in whole or in part, with respect to the goods or other materials developed or provided hereunder by VENDOR; 1.3. Decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code of any portion of the Intellectual Property Rights; 1.4. Write or develop any derivative software or any other software program based on the Intellectual Property Rights; 1.5. Make modifications, corrections, alterations, enhancements, or other additions to the Intellectual Property Rights; 1.6. Use the Intellectual Property Rights or allow someone to use the Intellectual Property Rights otherwise than for the Bicycle Sharing Program; or 1. 7. Remove or destroy any Marks, proprietary markings, or proprietary legends placed upon or contained with or on any Goods or any related materials or documentation by VENDOR. Trademarks associated with the CITY and VENDOR are and shall remain the property of the CITY and Vendor, respectively. Notwithstanding the above and subject to the limitations, tenns, and conditions set forth in this Contract, neither party shall use the other party's trademarks without the prior written consent of the other party. SECTION 21 -FORCE MAJEURE Neither party shall be liable to the other party for failure or delay in the perfonnance of a required obligation if such failure or delay is caused by strike, riot, fire, natural disaster, utilities and communications failures, governmental acts or orders or restrictions, failure of suppliers, or any other reason where failure to perform is beyond the reasonable control of and is not caused by the negligence of the non-performing party, provided that such party gives prompt written notice of such condition and resumes its performance as soon as possible. SECTION 22 -CONTRACT CONTAINS ALL UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the CITY and VENDOR and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both the CITY and VENDOR. 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and VENDOR have executed this Contract the day and year first above written. CITY OF SAN MATEO SOCIAL BICYCLES, INC. Larry A. Patterson, City Manager Ryan Rzepecki, CEO ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Patrice Olds, City Clerk Gabrielle Whelan, Assistant City Attorney 7 EXHIBIT A BICYCLES (m United Stales dollars> SMART BICYCLE Ouantitv Price Total B.l V3.5 Smart Bicycle 40 $ 1,500 $ 60,000 custom paint and decals (Pantone color palette) I I included onboard real-time GPS and accelerometer tracking I I included onboard GSM cellular connection I I included integrated keypad, LCD screen, and RFID technology I I included solar and dynamo power generators I I included three-speed hub with shaft drive transmission I I included 8.2 Replacement Parts and Custom Tools 50 $ 100 $ 5,000 B.3 Exterior Basket Printed Assets and Design Template 50 $ 50 $ 2,500 B.4 Interior Basket Printed Assets and Design Template 50 $ 50 $ 2,500 8.5 Additional Sponsorship Printed Assets and Design Template 50 $ 50 $ 2,500 8.6 Upgrade to Skirt Guard -$ 85 $ - 8.7 Skirt Guard Printed Assets and Design Template -$ 20 $ - B.8 Upgrade to Eight-Speed Hub with Shaft Drive Transmission -$ 135 $ - TOTAL SMART BICYCLE COSTS $ 72.500 TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMS SERVICES n uantitv Price Total I T.l Smart Bicycle Delivery Services (Item #B. l) I 1$ 12,500 T.2 Docking Point Delivery Services (Item #D. l) I 1$ - T.3 Payment Kiosk Delivery Services (Item #S. l) I 1$ - T.4 Panel Delivery Services (Item #S.2 and #S.3) I 1$ - TOTAL TRA NSPORT AND CUSTOMS SERVICES COSTS $ 12,500 SUMMARY Initial Goods Purchase and Setup Cost I $ 72,500 Transport and Customs Services I $ 12,500 TOT AL UP-FRONT ONE-TIME COSTS $ 85,000 TERMS TERMS •Fifty percent (50%) of the Total Up-Front One-Time Costs shall be paid by the CITY to VENDOR upon placing a Purchase Order. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the Total Up-Front One-Time Costs is due on the delivery date of the applicable Goods. •The delivery date of the Goods will be six (6) months after submission of a Purchase Order. Purchase Orders shall be deemed submitted when the CITY's initial payment and final branding designs are received by VENDOR. • The prices quoted above are valid for ninety (90) days from the effective date of the Contract. Social Bicycles Inc. • Brooklyn, NY AGREEMENT WITH BIKES MAKE LIFE BETTER, INC. FOR BICYCLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE SAN MATEO BIKE SHARE PROGRAM Attachment G This Agreement, made and entered into this 17th day ofNovember, 2015, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California ("CITY"), and Bikes Make Life Better, Inc., a California corporation ("CONTRACTOR"), whose address is 879 Hampshire, San Francisco, California 94110. RECITALS: A. CITY desires certain bike share program establishment and management services hereinafter described. B. CITY desires to engage CONTRACTOR to provide these bike share program services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services and CONTRACTOR has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows: SECTION 1 -SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services to be performed by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement is as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference. SECTION 2 -DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of all work furnished by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in its work. CONTRACTOR represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CONTRACTOR. SECTION 3 -DUTIES OF CITY CITY shall provide pertinent information regarding its requirements for the project. CITY shall examine documents submitted by CONTRACTOR and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of CONTRACTOR'S work. -1- SECTION 4 -TERM The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence on November 17, 2015, and be completed on or about June 30, 2019. SECTION 5 -PAYMENT Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR a fee pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B. Any amounts due Contractor tmder this Agreement upon which payment is not received within 30 days of City receiving an invoice shall accrue late fees equal to the lesser of: (i) 3% per month; or (ii) the highest rate allowable by law, in each case compounded monthly to the extent allowable by law. Without limiting Contractor's other rights or remedies, in the event City is more than 30 days delinquent in their scheduled payments, City agrees that Contractor may, at its choosing, terminate the relationship. In the event City's account becomes seriously delinquent, Contractor will have no choice but to resort to collection proceedings and City agrees to be responsible for Contractor's attorney's fees and costs incurred in those proceedings. SECTION 6-TERMINATION Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY or CONTRACTOR shall otherwise have by law, CITY or CONTRACTOR shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend work on the Project for any reason, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. CONTRACTOR agrees to cease all work under this Agreement upon receipt of said written notice. SECTION 7 -OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All documents prepared by CONTRACTOR in the performance of this Agreement are and shall be the property of CITY, whether the project for which they are made is executed or not. SECTION 8 -CONFIDENTIALITY All reports and documents prepared by CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public. CONTRACTOR shall not make any such documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by CONTRACTOR or CITY without the written consent of CITY before any such release. SECTION 9 -INTEREST OF CONTRACTOR -2- CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services under this Agreement. SECTION 10 -CONTRACTOR'S STATUS It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the services required under this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent contractor as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, under control of the CITY as to the result of the work but not the means by which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make CONTRACTOR an agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this Agreement. SECTION 11 -INDEMNITY CONTRACTOR agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of CONTRACTOR's performance of this Agreement, except for those claims arising out of CITY's sole negligence or willful misconduct. CONTRACTOR agrees to defend City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims. SECTION 12 -INSURANCE Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract the insurance specified in Exhibit C to this Agreement SECTION 13 -NONASSIGNABILITY Both parties hereto recognize that this Agreement is for the personal services of CONTRACTOR and cannot be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted by CONTRACTOR without the prior written consent of CITY. SECTION 14 -RELIANCE UPON SKILL OF CONTRACTOR It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that CONTRACTOR is skilled in the performance of the work agreed to be done under this Agreement and that CITY relies upon the skill of CONTRACTOR to do and perform the work in the most skillful manner, and CONTRACTOR agrees to thus perform the work. The acceptance of CONTRACTOR's work by CITY does not operate as a release of CONTRACTOR from said obligation. SECTION 15 -WAIVERS The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any provisions of any ordinance or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder shall not -3- be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any applicable law or ordinance. SECTION 16 -COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES Attorney fees in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The above $5000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals, or actions. It is the intent of this provision that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. SECTION 17 -NON-DISCRIMINATION CONTRACTOR warrants that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither CONTRACTOR nor any of its subcontractors shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. SECTION 18 -MEDIATION Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the State Mediation and Conciliation Service, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a blind draw. The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties. SECTION 19-LITIGATION CONTRACTOR shall testify at CITY'S request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with CONTRACTOR'S services under this Agreement. Unless the action is brought by CONTRACTOR, or is based upon CONTRACTOR'S wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate CONTRACTOR for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at CONTRACTOR'S standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony. -4- SECTION 20 -NOTICES All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: To CITY: To CONTRACTOR: City of San Mateo Attn: Public Works Director 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Bikes Make Life Better, Inc. Attn: Amy Harcourt 879 Hampshire San Francisco, CA 94110 SECTION 21 -AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL UNDERSTAND IN GS; AMENDMENT This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONTRACTOR and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and CONTRACTOR. SECTION 22 -GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and, in the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and CONTRACTOR have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF SAN MATEO CONTRACTOR Larry A. Patterson, City Manager Amy Harcourt, CEO APPROVED AS TO FORM Gabrielle Whelan, Assistant City Attorney -5- EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK The City of San Mateo continues to support and invest in the role of bicycle transportation. The City is exploring a pilot bicycle share system that could introduce bicycles to new users and further complement the City's existing multi-modal transportation network. The pilot bicycle share project will include 50 bicycles at ten to twelve locations within the City of San Mateo. Bikes Make Life Better will serve as the prime contractor for this project and will be responsible for the operations and maintenance of the system, including the redistribution of the bicycles. Social Bicycles (Sobi) will be a subcontractor to Bikes Make Life Better and will be responsible for the provision of the bicycles, the bike sharing website portal, and revenue collection and remittance. The Contract team, which includes Bikes Make Life Better and So bi shall be responsible for all of the following: A. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND INSTALLATION The budget for the installation and launch of the Bike Share system shall be consistent with Exhibit B of this contract. The scope of Work shall include all of the following: 1. System installation. Provide installation of all bicycles, electronics, and system software. 2. Create website. Work with Social Bicycles, and the City to create branding, marketing and public relations. 3. Station Locations. Work with the City of San Mateo to identify and establish station locations. The City will provide an initial list of locations that may be appropriate. The Contract team will assist the City with evaluating the locations and determining the final list. Locations may be adjusted during the term of the contract, based on usage rates and other factors. 4. Launch. Plan and execute a timely and effective system launch within 30 days of delivery of the bikes or within the time from when the bike racks locations are finalized and in place. B. SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION The Bike Share system shall be operated consistent with the budget included in Exhibit B of this contract. The scope of work shall include all of the following: 1. Reporting. Contractor shall submit monthly reports of gross revenues, ridership, and expenses, in a format approved by the City, with revenue broken down into categories of income. At the end of each operating year, the Contractor will be required to submit a detailed income, utilization/ridership, and expense statement for the past year's operation. 2. Open Data. Contractor shall provide open content data that will allow third party developers to provide applications to assist users in finding bicycles, and stations, and comparing travel and usage information consistent with reports from other US systems .. 3. Response to Complaints. All System structures shall contain a conspicuously posted telephone number, to the contractor's customer service operations to which the public may direct complaints and comments, and instructions for filing a complaint. All complaints received by Contractor shall be logged, Contractor shall cooperate with the City in providing a timely response to any such complaints. The Contractor shall provide a shared database in which the City can communicate complaints from the public and from the City, and in which the Contractor can report the resolution of such complaints. 4. Maintenance, Redistribution, and Repair. System maintenance shall include, but is not limited to, inspecting, maintaining, redistributing bikes between station hubs, cleaning, and removing graffiti from System structures on a timely basis, inspection and prompt repair or replacement of the system elements. Contractor shall comply with specified service standards as shown in Exhibit E of this contract. 5. Real-time Communication. Provide system to track bicycle and dock status and populate interactive map with status of bicycles at stations, station locations with optional address and directions, and transit information. 6. Safety information. Safety infonnation shall be provided to all customers. 7. Adaptive Website Design. Provide and correctly display web pages on all major web browsers and mobile devices/formats. 8. Branding, Marketing, Sponsor Fulfillment and Public Relations. Contractor shall work with City to oversee the implementation of all branding, marketing and public relations, and work with City to fulfill all obligations of any grants, sponsorships, advertisers and/or donors including placement of corporate messaging as appropriate on bicycles stations or other locations. 9. Performance Outcomes and Service Level Agreements. Contractor shall meet Service Level Agreements ("SLA") consistent with Exhibit E of this contract. 10. Customer Service. Contractor shall provide responsive and customer-friendly services that encourage repeat use, including timely response to complaints. C. FINANCIAL OPERA TIO NS 1. Registration. Provide and maintain in full operation a web page to register, submit credit card data, and execute a user agreement. After registration, members should be able to immediately access a bike at any station. Membership of various durations (such as 30 minutes, hourly, daily, Weekly, and/or monthly) shall be available. Rates and durations shall be determined by the City and Contractor. 2. Secure Financial Transactions. Complete secure financial transactions with data input at the web page or mobile device applications. Provide the capability to track whether bicycles are returned during a specified period and accurately assess overtime fees. Financial data must be held securely in a manner that complies with all laws, and only accessed by authorized personnel. The Contractor shall develop a robust security policy. The Contractor must ensure that its security policy is enforced, report any breaches to the City and develop corrective plan to prevent future breaches. The method for protecting financial data, user names, and addresses, must be Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliant and satisfy minimum specifications of the City. 3. Fee Collection. Accurately assess and collect fees for failure to return any bicycle within 24 hours or an established time period and clearly communicate rules to user. 4. Revenue. All revenues, including membership fees, use fees, and revenue from other sources, shall be collected by the Contractor on behalf of the City and returned to the City. The Contractor, as the City's fiduciary with respect to collection and treatment of such revenue, shall be responsible for all revenue from the time it is collected until the time it is deposited to City accounts. · 5. Records. Contractor shall maintain records and make them available to the City on appropriate notice for inspection and auditing. 6. Billing and Compensation. The Contractor shall submit invoices for service, operation, maintenance and repairs based on a monthly, per-bike fee. The monthly fee will cover a reasonable number of station relocations per year (up to 5). The Contractor shall submit invoices for compensation for the installation of new stations in additional locations at the price specified in the agreement. 7. Regular Operations Review. Contractor shall perform ongoing review of ridership, fees structure and development of recommendations that promote use of the system and reduce or eliminate any operating deficit. D. SAFETY AND LIABILITY Waiver of Liability Contractor's registration for all new system users will require agreement to a statement waiving liability and accepting responsibility for use of the City's bikeshare bicycles. The waiver language is subject to City approval prior to implementation. E. SYSTEM EXPANSION, INTEROPERABILITY AND REGIONAL COORDINATION 1. Contractor will work with the City to coordinate with Clipper and provide access to all bike share systems in the San Francisco Bay Area. 2. Contractor shall work with the City to expand the system within the City of San Mateo as directed, subject to an amendment of this contract. 3. Contractor must develop cooperative agreements with other regional bikeshare operators so that users can check out bicycles from bikeshare systems in San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, as feasible. 4. Contractor shall facilitate regional cooperation, interoperability with any other regional bikeshare system and regional fare media, and ongoing partnerships with transit and local businesses. Exhibit B: Budget and Fee Schedule Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements Exhibit D: San Mateo Bike Share Schedule Exhibit E: Service Level Agreements Exhibit B IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES (in United States dollars) SOBI IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES Ouantitv Price Total A.I Implementation Services (including expenses) I I 15,000 A.2 Website Landing Page Design I 1$ 8,000 TOTAL ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES COSTS $ 23,000 OPERATIONS Cin United States dollars) BMLB MONTHLY TURN-KEY OPERATIONS COSTS Ouantitv Price Total 0 .1 Per Bicycle Fee (per month) 50 $ 150 $ 7,500 TOTAL MONTHLY TURN-KEY OPERA T/ONS COSTS $ 7.500 TOTAL ANNUAL TURN-KEY OPERA T/ONS COSTS $ 90,000 All prices are for the SO-bike pilot and will be revisited for future expansion EXHIBITC INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 07 covering CGL on an "occurrence" basis, including products-completed operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Workers' Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer's Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. If the contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the contractor. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: Additional Insured Status The City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as insureds on the auto policy for liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor; and on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor's insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used). Primary Coverage For any claims related to this contract, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, or agents shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. Notice of Cancellation -8- Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City. Waiver of Subrogation Contractor hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor's obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. -9- Exhibit E -Service Standards MAINTENANCE+ OPERATIONS Schedule Location Staff Repairs and Adjustments Daily I Weekly On-site BMLB Station and Bicycle Inspection Daily I Weekly On-site BMLB Prevention Maintenance and Tune-ups Quarterly Facility BMLB Cleaning and Litter Removal Daily On-site BMLB Cleaning upon notification Within 48 hours On-site BMLB Address repair upon notification Within 48 hours On-site BMLB Maintenance: 88% of bikes operational Weekly On-site BMLB Replacement parts and bicycles As needed Facility BMLB Web and mobile updates On-going Wireless SoBi Customer Service dispatching to crew Immediately Facility to Site BMLB Redistribution of Bicycles at Priority Daily On-Site BMLB Hubs ('Priority' stations will not be empty more than 8 hours dally) Redistribution of Bicycles at 'Auxlllary' Daily On-Site BMLB Hubs ('Auxillary' stations will not be empty for more than 24 hours) Dally I Weekly Repairs, Adjustments, and On-site Inspections • Clean all visible dirt, ink, paint, litter, graffiti • Remove all trash from surrounding area • Inspect all stations and bikes for defects • Check all communications systems • Check lock functionality, keypad, enclosure • Check frame for damage, cracks, dents • Check tire pressure, basket. bell, headset • Check handlebar tightness and range of motion • Check seat tightness and seat quick-release • Check brake function and gears for alignment • Check LED lights (front and rear) for function • Check fenders and kickstand for damage • Check for wheels trueness, and broken spokes • Check hub or axle tightness • Check bottom bracket, pedals, cranks • Grease shaft drive; check for correct function • Brief test ride to ensure overall correct function Q!,larterly Prevention Maintenance and Tune-ups • Adjust tire pressure and replace tires if needed • Adjust headset and replace tires if needed • Adjust seat tightness and seat quick-release, and replace if needed • Adjust brake function and gears for alignment, and replace if needed •Adjust fenders and kickstand for damage, and replace if needed • Adjust for wheels trueness, and replace wheels if needed • Adjust hub or axle tightness, and replace if needed • Adjust bottom bracket, pedals, cranks, and replace if needed • Grease shaft drive; check for correct function, and replace if needed • Brief test ride to ensure overall correct function UR Stanford ,, HEALTH CARE March 8, 2016 Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Stanford Bay Area Air Quality Management District 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, California 94109 .. Stanford • MEDICINE Re: City of Palo Alto TFCA Grant Application for Bay Area Bike Share Expansion To Whom It May Concern; Attachment I Stanford Health Care (SHC) and the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford (LPCH) would like to express support for The City of Palo Alto's Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant application to continue to expand the existing Bay Area Bike Share system within the city. Expansion of the system will improve utility of the non-motorized. transportation network by functioning as a healthy and convenient "last mile" link between Caltrain stations and the Stanford Medical Center. SHC and LPCH currently employ a range of TOM strategies including frequent shuttle service, paid parking, transit passes, and continual program monitoring. However, many destinations are situated one to two miles from the city's Caltrain stations and existing bike share hubs. This distance, beyond accepted walking distance from a transit station, is within easy biking distance. Accordingly, we support new Bay Area Bike Share stations located within publicly accessible areas near major Stanford Medical Center destinations to provide another healthy, non-motorized option for employees and visitors to SHC and LPCH. With the expansion of the system to serve Medical Center destinations, we look forward to promoting the system as part of our TDM program. Best Regards, MV11Vl~ <fWow\ L£, Mark J. Tortorich, FAIA Vice President Planning, Design & Construction Stanford Health Care I Lucile Packard Children's Hospital 66 WUlow Place. Menlo Park, CA 94025-3601 MalHng-JOO Pasteur Drive, MIC 55:16 • Slanlotd, CA 94305-5788 • I: 650.723.7447 • f, 650.725.5396 e MF.TROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATlON COMMISSION Memorandum Attachment K Jo-.•ph P. Rnrt MetroCenter 101 Ei!(bth Street OakJ;utd, CA 94607-4i00 TF.L 510.!lli .5700 TODflT '{ 510.81 i . ii69 FAX i 10.817. 5848 F,.i\·IAIL info@mrc.ca.gov \VEU "'""·mtc.c:i.gnv TO: Active Transportation Working Group DATE: March 13, 2016 FR: Kevin Mulder RE: DRAFT Bike Share Capital Program This memo outlines the plan for the Draft Bike Share Capital Program in advance of the March 2016 Active Transportation Working Group, where staff will solicit feedback on questions listed below. Background/Goals & Objectives Bike sharing has been a mixed success in the Bay Area, as demonstrated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's pilot bike share program, Bay Area Bike Share (BABS). In May 2015, MTC's Commission approved a privately-funded BABS expansion in Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose by Motivate Inc. that will add over 6,000 bikes to the system at no public cost. MTC's Commission also set aside up to $4.5 million for the Bike Share Capital Program in the remaining Bay Area communities at the same May 2015 meeting. The Bike Share Capital Program will award grants over two phases, with the timing of the second phase to be determined following Phase 1. The funding is a one-time funding source to help project sponsors with capital purchase and initial implementation costs and will not be an on-going grant program. It will also not fund operations due to constraints on the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds committed to the program. Program Summary -Eligible projects Bike share capital projects in Bay Area communities other than the privately-funded BABS expansion. Typical capital items include: • Bicycles, stations, and station components • Support/rebalancing vehicles for bicycles • Testing equipment & membership cards/readers • Planning, engineering, design, & permitting • Site prep, installation, & roject management Total amount available Up to $2 million in Phase 1 Type of funds Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds (CMAQ) -Federal Funds administered b>.:: Caltrans Local Assistance Application Process The Bike Share Capital Program will follow a two-step application and evaluation process. First, MTC will invite interested applicants to submit Letters oflnterest (3-page maximum, excluding attachments) to describe proposed projects, anticipated impacts, project readiness, and funding plans. The evaluation S:\PLAN\TRAN\_NEW_PTC & City Council\CMRs\2016\6324 Mid-Peninsula Bike Share Study\Memo-MTC Draft Bike Share Capital Program.docx committee will review all LO Is and identify a small number of promising projects. These applicants will be invited to submit a more formal proposal for further evaluation. The evaluation committee will quantitatively evaluate proposals against the following criteria categories: • Potential for impact (including bicycle mode shift, reduced VMT, first/last mile solutions, etc.) • Full funding plan for ongoing operations • Readiness and local support (including feasibility studies, bike facilities, complete streets policies, other engagement, etc.) • Local match share of total project cost • Capability of the project partners to implement the project • Location within a Priority Development Area (PDA), Community of Concern (COC), or Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) Program area Schedule & Timeline -all dates are tentative LOI Development & Pre-Aoolication Workshops April -May 2016 LOI Review & MTC Committee Presentation June or July 2016 Full Proposals Development August -September or October 2016 Full Proposals Review October-November 2016 Recommended Program of Projects & December 2016 Commission Aooroval TIP Revision Approval January 2017 Request for Obligation I E-76 and E-76 Approval June or July 2017 from Caltrans Project Implementation Within 24 months of MTC Commission aooroval Questions for A TWG • What do you recommend for the minimum and maximum size of the grants? • What share of the total project amount do you anticipate for planning, engineering, and design? • Will you be able to provide a 100% operating funding commitment/plan by September or October of this year? • Do you have other concerns about implementation readiness? • Should a portion of the $4.5 million be redirected to install bicycle facilities instead of bike share? • Would you agree to a condition that poor system usage could result in equipment redistribution after a given period of time? Kevin Mulder Active Transportation Planner Metropolitan Transportation Commission kmulder@mtc.ca.gov 101 8th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510-817-5764 S:\PLAN\TRAN\ _NEW _PTC & City Council\CMR.s\2016\6324 Mid-Peninsula Bike Share Study\Memo-MTC Draft Bike Share Capital Program.docx Motivate-Palo Alto Term Sheet August 22, 2016 This term sheet is intended to be used to facilitate discussions between Palo Alto ("PA") and Motivate International Inc ("Motivate") in order to develop a contract for the operation of a bike share system that is interoperable with the Bay Area System. Contract Topic Contract Terms Responsibility for The City of Palo Alto will purchase the equipment and Capital Costs provide Motivate with the right to use the equipment for operations of the bike share system. Motivate will be responsible for maintaining and returning the equipment in a state of good repair at the end of the contract term. System Size The City of Palo Alto will initially purchase up to 350 smart- bikes for use in the system. Additional expansion phases to be determined in Palo Alto's discretion. Launch Date Anticipated launch date Spring 2017, contingent on site approvals, equipment fundinQ and delivery of equipment Supply Agreement In order to create a coordinated and accountable supplier relationship, Motivate will hold a supply agreement with Social Bicycles to govern terms such as software fees (which are paid by Motivate), warranties, spare parts purchasing, service level agreements, and customer support. Term 5-year term with two additional three year renewal terms upon mutual agreement of Palo Alto and Motivate. Operating Fees Motivate will cover the operating costs of the first 350 bikes. Additional bikes will be charged to Palo Alto at the cost of $100 per bike per month, subject to CPI Adjustment. Sponsorship Motivate will have the exclusive right to sell title and secondary sponsorship for the system and receive related revenues. Assets that may include sponsorship recognition include the bikes, kiosks, racks, ad panels, mobile app and docks. 1 Local Station Sponsorships Palo Alto may fund the costs of capital or operations of expansion bikes through selling local station sponsorships Sponsors secured by Palo Alto may be recognized on each station by receiving one sponsorship panel on each station that is sponsored locally. Palo Alto may not sell naming rights or the bike branding to station sponsors. These assets will remain consistent with the broader Bay Area system as part of the title sponsorship package, which will help financially support the Palo Alto system and reduce the need for subsidy. Allocation of Revenue Motivate will keep all title sponsorship, secondary sponsorship and user revenue generated by the system. Palo Alto will keep all funds raised through local station sponsorships. Pricing Annual pricing for the program will match the pricing of the broader program with the MTC and provide access to the bike share program in San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland , Emeryville, and Berkeley : • $149 annual pass that can be increased no more than CPI + 2% annually. • Annual pass can be paid in 12-monthly installments of no more than $15.00 • Pricing for other product types (e.g., day passes, single rides) will be set at Motivate's discretion Siting and installation Motivate to develop site locations in conjunction and with approval the city. Sites that maximize demand will be prioritized. Motivate will work together with Palo Alto on community engagement and outreach as part of the station siting process, including necessary business associations and city meetings. Motivate will hire planning and engineering firms to develop drawings and submit permits. Palo Alto to waive permit costs. 2 Palo Alto will reimburse Motivate $4,000 per station for the cost to develop site plans, conduct community outreach, and install the station and related street treatments. Interoperability Bike share customers will be able to sign up for the Palo Alto and the MTC system through a single registration process. Bike share members will be able to use a single key to access bikes. Motivate will work with the MTC to allow for the Clipper Card to be used to access bikes across the regional system. Brand Development Motivate will secure the title sponsor and develop and Sponsorship system name, color, and logo. MTC has approval rights over title sponsorship and branding. The sponsor is not in a category that is age- restricted (alcohol , tobacco or firearms), products banned by the local government, or deemed offensive to the general public. PCI Compliance System shall be compliant with the most recent version of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard ("PCI- DSS"). Supplier will maintain a full , current, up-to-date Level 2 PCI certification as demonstrated by an Attestation of Compliance. Exclusivity During the Term of this Agreement, Motivate shall have the exclusive right to operate a public bike sharing program in Palo Alto, as defined in the executed contract. Regional Cities Opt-in Other cities can opt in to join the system on similar terms to Palo Alto. Municipalities must fund the equipment costs. Motivate will determine by October 31 , 2016 whether it will retain the right to sell physical sponsorship assets including the bikes, racks, kiosks, and ad panels. If Motivate retains these assets for sale, Motivate will be responsible for operations costs for up to 350 bikes in each municipality. For bikes above 350, the cost to the municipality will be $100 per bike per month. If Motivate waives its right to sell sponsorship on the physical system, the local municipality can sell sponsorship on the physical system including the bikes, racks, kiosks, and ad panels. The cost for operations to the 3 municipality will be $100 per bike per month. Since the bike share system is interoperable with the broader regional system, naming rights and the mobile app will be branded with the larger system name and are not available for brandinq by the local municipality. 4 SUMMARY (In United States dollars) Description Bicycles (350 Smart Bicycles) Infrastructure (665 Docking Points, 35 Stations, O Kiosks) Program Setup Transport and Customs TOTAL UP-FRONT ONE-TIME COST MONTHLY ONGOING SERVICES Total Turn Key Operations (per mon=th=)=== TOTAL MONTHLY ONGOING SERVICES COST • Cost proposal assumes Social Bicycles is the system operator -s 596,750 s 333,025 s 25,000 s 66,028 1--1-1 -s 5,300 ==== - BICYCLES (In United Statos dollars) SMART BICYCLES B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7 V3.5 Smart Bicycle replacement parts and custom tools exterior basket printed assets and design template interior basket printed assets and design template upgrade to skirt guard skirt guard printed assets and design template upgrade to eight·speed hub with shaft drive transmission custom paint and decals (Pantone color palette) onboard real-time GPS and accelerometer tracking onboard GSM cellular connection integrated keypad, LCD screen, and RFID technology solar and dynamo power generators TOTAL SMART BICYCLES COST •wn•-- 350 s 1,500 s 525,000 350 s 100 s 35,000 350 s 15 s 5,250 350 s s -s 350 s 15 s 45 s 20 s 75 s 5,250 26,250 included included included included included --- I STATIONS (In United States dollars) DOCKING POINTS D.1 D.2 'Wave· Docking Point dock printed assets and design template base plate with high durability coating base plate connectors, end caps, and security bolts TOTAL DOCKING POINTS COST PAYMENT STRUCTURES P.1 P.2 Outdoor Payment Kiosk custom paint and decals (RAL color palette) payment terminal with credit card reader RFID access card dispenser and reader color LCD touch screen interface solar and battery power generators base plate with high durability coating base plate connectors, end caps, and security bolts Indoor Tablet Kiosk custom decals and design template payment terminal with credit card reader color LCD touch screen interface mounting stand and hardware TOTAL PAYMENT STRUCTURES COST INFORMATION STRUCTURES 1.1 1.2 Large Advertisement and Info Panel two-sided panel 1n· x 30" printable area per side) printed assets and design template base plate with high durability coating base plate connectors, end caps, and security bolts Compact Advertisement and Info Panel two-sided panel (43" x 11" printable area) printed assets and design template base plate with high durability coating base plate connectors, end caps, and security bolts TOTAL INFORMATION STRUCTURES COST 94250 .. ,. __ 665 s 400 s 266,000 665 s 35 s 23,275 included included •••·@•.•n•+•·-- -s 10,000 s -s 1,750 s included included included included included included included included included included included ---•wu·---s 2,750 s 35 s 1,250 s included included included included 43,750 included included included included --- SERVICES (In United States dollars) ' PROGRAM SETUP S.1 S.2 S.3 S.4 S.5 S.6 Implementation Services (including expenses) Website Landing Page Design Brand and Logo Design RFID Access Cards Printed Map and Ad Assets Design (per station) Site Design and Planning Services (per station) TOTAL PROGRAM SETUP COST TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMS T.1 T.2 T.3 Bicycle Freight and Customs Infrastructure Freight and Customs Accessories Freight and Customs TOTAL TRANSPORT AND CUSTOMS COST w.wu+-- s 25,000 s 10,000 $ s 5,000 s s s s 500 s s 1,000 s ---•wu·--s 51,228 s 13,800 s 1,000 --- M.1 M.2 M.3 M.4 OPERATIONS (in United States dollars) MONTHLY ONGOING SERVICES Bicycle Connectfvfty Kiosk Connectivity (per kiosk fee) (per month) Software Services (flat fee) (per month) Branded Mobile App (per app fee) (per month) TOTAL MONTHLY ONGOING SERVICES COST MMUM-- 350 s 8 s 2,800 s 50 s s 2,500 s 2,500 s 500 s --- ATTACHMENTS HA VE BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS DOCUMENT The Attachments below have been removed from this transcript to reduce paper use and are available for review online by clicking here or entering the following web address into your Internet browser: http:/ /www.cityofpaloalto.org/ civicax/filebank/ documents/ 53973 Attachments: 1. Bay Area Bike Share Program Agreement 2. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Continuation Agreement 3. Metropolitan Transportation Commission Program Agreement 4. Transcript for Council Bike Share Study Session -April 25, 2016 5. Motivate Palo Alto Program Agreement for Short Term Extension of Bike Share 6. TFCA (Transportation Fund for Clean Air) Bike Share Grant Application FOR: MINOR PUBLIC WORKS, JANITORIAL, MAINTENANCE, OTHER NON- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. [ GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 27th day of February, 2017 ("Effective Date"), by and between the CITY OF PALO AL TO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and Social Bicycles Inc., a Delaware Company, located at 55 Prospect Street, Ste. 304, Brooklyn, NY 11201, Telephone Number: (347) 400-1263 ("CONTRACTOR"). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: L SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (the "Services") for a bicycle sharing program (the "Program") described in the Scope of Services, attached at Exhibit A. Services shall also include CONTRACTOR's provision of bicycle sharing bicycles, panels, docking points, and kiosks ("Equipment") and technology services as set forth in the attached Exhibit C. CITY hereby grants CONTRACTOR the exclusive right and license to operate a bicycle sharing program within the Service Area during the Term. D Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements.) Services will be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order signed and approved by CITY's Project Manager. Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1. Each Task Order shall designate a CITY Project Manager and shall contain a specific scope of work, a specific schedule of performance and a specific compensation amount. The total price of all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall only be compensated for work performed under an authorized Task Order and CITY may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 5. 2 EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: x "A" -Scope of Services o "A-1" -On-Call Task Order (Optional) x "B" -Schedule of Performance x "C" -Schedule of Fees x "D" -Insurance Requirements o "E" -Performance and/or Payment Bond o "F" -Liquidated Damages (Optional) 1 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL INDICATED EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED. 3. TERM. The tem1 of this Agreement is from the Effective Date to five (5) years from the Operational Date ("Initial Tenn") with two successive three (3) year renewals, which shall renew automatically, subject to City Council or City Manager approval, unless either party provides ninety (90) day prior written notice ("Renewal Tenn," and together with the Initial Tenn and any prior Renewal Tenn, if any, the "Tenn"), subject to the provisions of Sections Q and V of the General Tenns and Conditions. 4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the tenn of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of Perfonnance, attached at Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. S. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not-to-exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any: r The total maximum lump sum compensation of OR dollars($ ); The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of dollars ($ ); OR P A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth at Exhibit c. Except as otherwise set forth in Exhibits A, B, and C related to expansion of the Program, CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY. r CITY has set aside the sum of dollars ($ ) for Additional Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from the City Manager or designee. CONTRACTOR, at the CITY's request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONTRACTOR's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services. Compensation shall be based on the hourly rates set forth above or in Exhibit C (whichever is 2 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, a negotiated lump sum. CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not perform any Additional Services for which payment would exceed the amount set forth above for Additional Services. Payment for Additional Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. 6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS. f'7 CONTRACTOR'S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original term; OR r CONTRACTOR's compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the commencement of each Additional Term. The lump sum compensation amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in section 5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area, published by the United States Department of Labor Statistics (CPI) which is published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional Term, which shall be compared with the CPI published most immediately preceding the commencement date of the then expiring term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR's compensation rates be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the rates effective during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR's compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to this Agreement. 7. INVOICING. Send all invoices to CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The Project Manager is: Chief Transportation Official, Planning & Community Environment. Telephone: (650) 329-2520. All invoices will be delivered via email to the following email address: pcecontracts@cityofpaloalto.org. Except as otherwise stated in Exhibit A, invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth in Sections 1 through 7 above, these General Terms and Conditions, and the attached Exhibits. B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled "SERVICES," and that every individual charged with the performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and 3 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law, to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR's representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations. C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under this Agreement. D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR's business, such as taxes on net income earned from this Agreement. Except as otherwise stated in Exhibit A, all prices quoted are in U.S. dollars and are exclusive of transportation, insurance, and federal, state, local, excise, value-added, use, sales, property (ad valorem), and similar taxes or duties now in force or hereafter enacted. CITY agrees to pay all taxes, fees, or charges of any nature whatsoever imposed by any governmental authority on, or measured by, the transaction between CITY and CONTRACTOR, between CITY and the Program Subscribers, and between CONTRACTOR and the Program Subscribers, in addition to the prices quoted or invoiced. In the event that CONTRACTOR is required to collect the foregoing taxes, fees, or charges, CITY will pay such amounts unless CITY provides CONTRACTOR with a valid tax exemption certificate authorized by the appropriate taxing authority. F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall, in the performance of the Services, comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders. G. PALO AL TO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONTRACTOR shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONTRACTOR shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section4.62.060. 4 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement H. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole expense, repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any damage to public or private property caused by CONTRACTOR that occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR's performance of the Services. CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as may be necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work not remedied or other damage to the CITY occurring in connection with CONTRACTOR's performance of the Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR's request. When the grounds described above are removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them. I. WARRANTIES. • Warranties. CONTRACTOR warrants that the Equipment shall be free from substantive defects in workmanship and materials (subject to fulfillment of CITY' s obligations of care and use in this Agreement) for (i) thirty-six (36) months from the delivery date in the case of the frames of each Bicycle and (ii) twelve ( 12) months from the delivery date in the case of the Locks, Racks, the housing of each Kiosk, and all other components and accessories of the Equipment (as set forth in the Piece Part Table, excluding wear parts). The warranty excludes (1) damage caused by accidents, misuse, vandalism, wear and tear, neglect, and improper maintenance, (2) Shimano hubs, for which CONTRACTOR shall pass through any Shimano-issued warranty, (3) Equipment that has its original serial number removed, ( 4) defects caused by modifications to Equipment not authorized by CONTRACTOR, or (5) a defect resulting from the interaction of the Equipment with a CITY -supplied component that is not authorized by CONTRACTOR. • LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SERVICES. NEITHER CONTRACTOR NOR ITS SUPPLIERS WARRANT OR REPRESENT THAT THE OPERATIONS, OPERA TOR PLATFORM, THE USER PLATFORM, PLATFORM CONNECTIVITY, OR KIOSK CONNECTIVITY WILL BE ERROR-FREE, UNINTERRUPTED, OR SECURE. OPERATIONS, OPERATION OF THE OPERA TOR PLATFORM, THE USER PLATFORM, PLATFORM CONNECTIVITY, AND KIOSK CONNECTIVITY MAY BE INTERFERED WITH BY NUMEROUS FACTORS OUTSIDE OF CONTRACTOR'S AND ITS LICENSORS' CONTROL. • DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, ALL SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUPPLIERS MAKE AND GIVE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, REPRESENTATIONS, 5 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement CONDITIONS, AND GUARANTIES, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT, AND ANY COMPONENTS THEREOF, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ALL WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, NON- INTERFERENCE, AND WARRANTIES ARISING FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE. J. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services perfom1ed under this Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR's work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement. K. CITY'S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or other material (including copyright interests) developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be prepared upon request from the CITY for use by the CITY solely for the Program will become the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use and will not be made available to any individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without the prior written approval of the City Manager. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all data generated by the Program, including but not limited to all data generated by Program Subscribers or Bicycle usage or rentals, shall be owned by CONTRACTOR, provided that CITY will be granted a non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual license to use all such data (with the exception of personally-identifiable information or other personal information of Program Subscribers or other individuals, which shall not be included in the aforementioned license) for non-commercial purposes and on a real-time basis. L. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement. M. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. N. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D. 0. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation by the provisions of section N relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all demands, claims, injuries, losses, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person, 6 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement property damage or any other loss and including without limitation all damages, penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses and defense costs (including, but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees, courts costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of, or resulting in any way from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, except that CONTRACTOR's obligations under this Section shall not apply to the extent arising from the active negligence or misconduct of the CITY. The acceptance of the Services by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement. P. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONTRACTOR certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Q. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during the performance of the Services. R. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving one hundred twenty (120) days' prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager will give CONTRACTOR written notice of such breach and sixty (60) days to cure such breach. If CONTRACTOR fails to cure such breach by the expiration of such sixty (60) day period, CITY will have the right to give CONTRACTOR a written notice of termination, including the date when the termination will be effective. Upon the effective date of the termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. If the termination is for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage, if any, sustained by CITY due to CONTRACTOR's failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement. Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City Manager any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR for the City or given to CONTRACTOR from the City, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials shall become the property of CITY, provided they are not CONTRACTOR's property pursuant to other provisions of this Agreement. 7 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement S. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of CITY. No amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of CITY. T. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no CITY Officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with CONTRACTOR has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises. U. GOVERNING LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of California. V. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the subject of this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written. W. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Contract. X. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall comply with CITY's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY' s Purchasing Division, which are incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONTRACTOR shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONTRACTOR shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: 8 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement • All printed materials provided by CONTRACTOR to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to , proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Contractor on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY' s Environmental Purchasing Policy including, but not limited to, Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division's office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONTRACTOR, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONTRACTOR shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. Y. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. Z. PREVAILING WAGES D This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the contract is not a public works contract, if contract does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the contract does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, 'improvement') project of more than $15,000. OR P' Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et ~and Section 1773 .1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department oflndustrial Relations ("DIR"). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division's office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall 9 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. AA.DIR REGISTRATION. In regard to any public work construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Agreement with CONTRACTOR without proof that CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR") to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. City requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. CITY provides notice to CONTRACTOR of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771. l(a), which reads: "A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded." CITY gives notice to CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors that CONTRACTOR is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and CONTRACTOR is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. CITY requires CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors, respectively. At the request of CITY, acting by its project manager, CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of CITY' s request. 10 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement D [For state-and federally-funded projects] CITY requests CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then CONTRACTOR and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and CITY shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to CONTRACTOR. Infom1 the project manager of the location of CONTRACTOR's and its listed subcontractors' payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five ( 5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. BB. INTELLECTUALPROPERTY. • Ownership of the Intellectual Property. CITY acknowledges that the Services and Equipment offered hereunder contain and/or incorporate intellectual property, that intellectual property used in conjunction with the Services and Equipment are proprietary to CONTRACTOR and/or CONTRACTOR's suppliers, and that CONTRACTOR and/or its suppliers retain full right, title, and interest worldwide and in perpetuity of the intellectual property and all copies thereof provided under this Agreement. CITY acknowledges that title to the intellectual property will remain with CONTRACTOR and its licensors, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, and that CITY has no rights in the intellectual property except those expressly granted by this Agreement. When used in reference to the intellectual property or in reference to intellectual property embedded in the Services or Equipment, the word "purchase" and similar or derivative words are deemed to mean "non-transferable, non- sublicensable, non-exclusive, limited license" to use the intellectual property solely to the extent required for CITY to use the Services and Equipment provided hereunder in accordance with this Agreement and, in the case of software, in binary executable form only. CITY acknowledges that it is not entitled to receive the source code of any software. This limited license shall continue until this Agreement is terminated, until the license is terminated in accordance with this Agreement, for the useful life of the Equipment in which the intellectual property is embedded, or for the useful life of the intellectual property, whichever is shorter. Notwithstanding the above and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, in the event CITY, in accordance with this Agreement and solely with CONTRACTOR's prior written approval, transfers title to Equipment containing or incorporating intellectual property, this limited license shall transfer to CITY's transferee. Use of Intellectual Property in violation of this Section shall automatically terminate the limited license. 11 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement All data created and/or processed by the Services and Equipment is and will remain the sole property of CONTRACTOR. • Restrictions on Use. CITY shall not directly or indirectly: • Sell, lease, license, pledge, sublicense, loan, encumber, or otherwise transfer the intellectual property, in whole or in part, to any third party or otherwise make the intellectual property available to any third party, and shall keep the same free from any lien or encumbrance, or any other claim by a third party; • Copy, reproduce, or otherwise infringe the intellectual property, in whole or in part; • Decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code of any portion of the intellectual property; • Write or develop any derivative software or any other software program based on the intellectual property; • Make modifications, corrections, alterations, enhancements, or other additions to the intellectual property; • Use the intellectual property or allow someone to use the intellectual property otherwise than for the Program; or • Remove or destroy any marks, proprietary markings, or proprietary legends placed upon or contained with or on any Services or Equipment or any related materials or documentation by CONTRACTOR. • Prosecution. CONTRACTOR shall maintain sole control and discretion over the prosecution and maintenance with respect to all intellectual property rights in and to the Services and Equipment. CONTRACTOR shall have the primary right, but not the obligation, to bring and control any suits against any unauthorized use, infringement, misappropriation, dilution, or other violation of the intellectual property rights. CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to retain the entirety of any award arising from such suit. CITY shall cooperate to police diligently the intellectual property. CITY shall promptly notify CONTRACTOR in writing of any unauthorized use, infringement, misappropriation, dilution, or other violation of the intellectual property of which it becomes aware. • Proprietary Marks. Marks associated with CITY and CONTRACTOR are and shall remain the property of CITY and CONTRACTOR, respectively. CITY acknowledges that "SoBi'', "Social Bicycles'', and any other marks adopted by CONTRACTOR to identify the Equipment or Services are 12 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement owned by SoBi. Notwithstanding the above and subject to the limitations terms, and conditions set forth in this Agreement, neither Party shall use the other Party's marks without the prior written consent of the other Party, unless expressly permitted by this Agreement. CC. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither Party shall be liable to the other Party for failure or delay in the performance of a required obligation if such failure or delay is caused by strike, riot, fire, natural disaster, utilities and communications failures, governmental acts or orders or restrictions, failure of suppliers, or any other reason where failure to perform is beyond the reasonable control of and is not caused by the negligence of the non-performing Party, provided that such Party gives prompt written notice of such condition and resumes its performance as soon as possible. DD. CONTRACT TERMS. All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Agreement. In the case of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONTRACTOR's proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONTRACTOR's proposal, the exhibits shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO AL TO SOCIAL BICYCLES INC. By ~ City Manager or Designee (Required on contracts $85,000 and over) Name Avra van der Zee Title coo ___________ _ Telephone: 347.400.1263 _______ _ Purchasing Manager or Designee Approved as to form: City Attorney or Designee 13 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Description of Services. CONTRACTOR will operate the Program within the municipal boundaries of the city of Palo Alto and any mutually agreed upon expansion locations ("Service Area") according to the description of Services set forth in this Attachment. 2. Siting. Permitting and Installation. 2.1 CONTRACTOR and CITY will work together to identify and develop site locations, (i.e., the anticipated usage of Bicycles located at such site), and CONTRACTOR will assist with community engagement and outreach as part of the station siting process, which may include business associations, homeowner's associations, and other public city meetings. 2.2 CITY will provide any site permits, installation scheduling permits, special traffic permits, and any other necessary permits, leases, licenses or other preferred implementing mechanisms to CONTRACTOR at no cost to CONTRACTOR. 2.3 CITY will place purchase orders for the Equipment set forth in Exhibit A and for additional Equipment from time to time upon mutual agreement between CITY and CONTRACTOR, and CONTRACTOR will inspect and store all Equipment prior to installation. 2.4 CONTRACTOR will assemble and install all Station components. 2.5 CITY will reimburse CONTRACTOR for the cost to develop site plans and install the Stations and any related street treatments as set forth in Exhibit A. 2.6 CONTRACTOR will provide integration with the Clipper 2.0 Fare Card for a reasonable integration fee. 3. Subscriber Information/Relations. 3.1 Age Requirement for Program Subscribers. Subscriptions will only be issued to individuals 18 years of age and older. 3.2 Subscriber Privacy. CONTRACTOR will, at all times, protect the privacy rights of all Program Subscribers. CONTRACTOR will strictly comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations concerning the privacy of all Program Subscriber information obtained by CONTRACTOR in the course of providing services under this Agreement. 3.3 Loss Fees. CONTRACTOR will deem a Bicycle as "lost or stolen" if not returned to a Station within 24 hours of being signed out, and charge the subscriber whose account is associated with that sign-out the amount of the "Loss Fee", which 14 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement covers the replacement value of the Bicycle, along with shipping fees and expenses and service charges for placing a new Bicycle into the operational fleet. Credit accounts will be charged the Loss Fee at the time a loss is determined. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CONTRACTOR will waive such fees for stolen Bicycles or Bicycles that are damaged in connection with a crime against the rider or in a collision with a motor vehicle, so long as an appropriate police report is filed for the incident. 3.4 Program Subscriber Membership and Fare Plans. CONTRACTOR shall set membership and fare plans for Program Subscribers and shall consider CITY' s input in good faith with the goals of increased ridership and regional participation as guiding principles. 4. Operations. 4.1 Operational Date. The Operational Date shall be no later than six months from receipt of payment and final branding files. Subject to the foregoing, CONTRACTOR shall use reasonable efforts to have an Operational Date by the end of August 2017. 4.2 Continuous Operation and Management. Except as otherwise stated herein or requested by the CITY due to an extraordinary weather event, and subject to scheduled downtime, the Program will commence operating on the Operational Date and will remain in operation 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. 4.3 CONTRACTOR's Call Center. CONTRACTOR will provide to all subscribers, and the public at large, a toll-free telephone number for CONTRACTOR's call center. 4.4 Complaints. CONTRACTOR will establish and maintain during the Term prompt and efficient procedures for handling complaints from the public for which CONTRACTOR receives a notification, including complaints and/or service requests relating to the Program received by the Palo Alto 311 System that are forwarded to CONTRACTOR by CITY staff. Such procedures will be consistent with all applicable laws, rules and regulations and the provisions of this section. 4.5 Program Website. CONTRACTOR will maintain a Program website. CONTRACTOR will maintain a mobile application that includes a suggest-a-station map. 4.6 CONTRACTOR Staffing Levels. CONTRACTOR, at all times, will provide sufficient staff to efficiently and promptly provide the services set forth in this Agreement. 4. 7 Relocation, Resizing, and/or Reconfiguration of Stations. (1) By CONTRACTOR. In the event that CONTRACTOR wishes to remove, relocate, resize, and/or reconfigure any Station, other than those Stations whose locations are fixed pursuant to the terms of a grant or Sponsorship agreement, due to under-utilization or lack of profitability, 15 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement it must notify CITY in wntmg, providing sufficient detail and description of the proposed relocation site prior to removal. If CITY does not disapprove the request within thirty (30) business days, CONTRACTOR may remove, relocate, resize, and/or reconfigure the Station consistent with CONTRACTOR's notice of same to CITY and subject to local review and pem1itting requirements. (2) By CITY. CITY may require that a Station or parts thereof be relocated to accommodate unexpected commuting patterns, construction or other reasons. At the request of CITY Program Manager, CONTRACTOR will adjust the placement or configuration of a Station. CITY will compensate CONTRACTOR as set forth in Exhibit C. (3) By Private Property Owner. Private property owners or contractors doing private construction on public or private property may request that a Station or parts thereof be relocated to accommodate such construction or other reasons. Upon receiving such a request, and prior to consent, CONTRACTOR will provide written notice of the request to the CITY Program Manager. Subject to the approval of the CITY, CONTRACTOR may adjust the placement or configuration of a Station at the request of a private property owner. The property owner will compensate CONTRACTOR as set forth in Exhibit C. CONTRACTOR will invoice and collect payment from a private property owner prior to any such moves. 4.8 Interruption of Service. (1) Intentional Interruption of Service. If, at any time, CONTRACTOR intends, or is required, to temporarily interrupt all or a portion of the service, for any reason beyond CONTRACTOR's reasonable control, including, without limitation, weather, safety, or other event or circumstance where continued service would be unsafe, unavailable, impractical, or impossible, then CONTRACTOR will notify CITY at least 24 hours before the interruption of service to the extent possible. (2) Unintentional Interruption of Service. If, at any time, a Program malfunction or an event or circumstance occurs where continuous service would be unsafe or unavailable for reasons beyond CONTRACTOR's reasonable control, and this causes or will cause a temporary interruption of service, then CONTRACTOR will immediately notify CITY. 4.9 PCI Compliance. Supplier and all Supplier-supplied hardware, software and networks will be compliant with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard ("PCI-DSS"). Supplier will maintain a full, current, up-to-date Level 2 PCI certification as demonstrated by an Attestation of Compliance. 5. Sponsorship. 16 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 5.1 Definition. "Sponsorship" means an arrangement pursuant to which, in connection with a payment or payments, the contributor (i.e., "Sponsor") of such payment or payments is acknowledged by the Parties for such contribution. 5.2 Sponsorship Rights. CONTRACTOR will solicit, manage, and engage Sponsorships and will be entitled to retain Sponsorship revenue, subject to Section 5.3 below. CONTRACTOR reserves the right to: (i) include Sponsorship within its mobile applications and its website (e.g., including targeted advertising based on the location of a Bicycle being used in the Program), (ii) include Sponsorship on the physical products, including Bicycles and Stations, (iii) grant naming and title rights to a Sponsor, (iv) name multiple primary and secondary Sponsors, and (v) grant additional Sponsorship rights as reasonable or beneficial to the Program. CITY reserves the right to approve such Sponsorships, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, to ensure that any such Sponsorships are appropriate and in accordance with local law. 5.3 Potential Offset to Sponsorship Revenue. With the exception of the Monthly Operating Fee related to the first 350 Bicycles in the Program, CITY shall be responsible for the Monthly Operating Fee of $100 per Bicycle for each additional Bicycle ordered ("Additional Bicycles") beyond the first 350 Bicycles provided herein ("Initial Bicycles"). At the time CITY places an Equipment order for Additional Bicycles, CITY must guarantee the payment of any applicable Monthly Operating Fee through its own funds or other funds made available by CITY to CONTRACTOR, unless CONTRACTOR has secured Sponsorship revenue that is equal to or greater than $100 per Bicycle for all Bicycles in the Program, including but not limited to for the Initial Bicycles and any Additional Bicycles already.ordered or being ordered. 17 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 6. Service Level Agreements ("Service Level Agreements" or "SLAs"). ~LA No. Performance Description Measure Period Measurement Meas Threshold Indicator Tool(s) ured Unit I Bicycle Availability Number of Bicycles available for use in a day relative to Average monthly Program % of Bicycles 90% the total number of Bicycles in the Bicycle Sharing databases Program ~ Bicycle Maintenance Number of Bicycles receiving a weekly maintenance Monthly CONTRACTOR % of Bicycles in 90% & Inspection inspection and monthly cleaning records I service databases; CITY inspection ~ Station Maintenance Stations receiving i:i cleaning and inspection Twice per month, no CONTRACTOR % of Stations 90% & Inspection more than 21 days records I between inspections databases; CITY inspection 14 Time To Respond Time to respond to instances of deficient, damaged, or Any given point in CONTRACTOR Hours 24 hours for Resolution of Bicycle unclean Station components or Bicycles must be timely time/ Monthly records I stations and Station Issues resolved following discovery or notification. databases; CITY 48 hours for Following Discovery inspection bicycles and Notification 5 Website/Mobile app Percentage of time that the website and mobile app are in Any given point in Program % of total minutes per 99% in Service service time/ Monthly databases month; exclusive of Excluded Downtime* K> Customer Service Contractor will maintain a customer service number with Availability a local area code, 8a-8p (live response), 2417 after hours Any given point in CONTRACTOR service (message) time/ Monthly records Hours 100% 7 Customer Service Response time between customer inquiry or complaint Any given point in CONTRACTOR Complaint 24 hours Response and resolution plan time/ Monthly records acknowledgement response time Resolution plan response time 8 Bicycles Distribution See below See below See below See below See below 6.1 DEFINITIONS AND SLA PERIODS. (I) Definitions. (a) "High Priority Area" means a smaller geographic area wholly within a Zone (defined below) designated for distribution purposes, initially designated upon mutual written agreement by the parties one (I) months prior to the Operational Date with any subsequent amended designations effected pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below. (b) "Excluded Downtime." "Excluded Downtime" shall mean: (i) downtime from Scheduled Maintenance (as defined below) and (ii) unplanned emergency maintenance downtime due to Force Majeure. (c) "Extraordinary Vandalism, Destruction, or Theft." Extraordinary Vandalism, Destruction, or Theft shall mean a single incident or series of incidents that results in destruction or damage to more than 1 % of the Bicycles or stations in the Bicycle Sharing Program in any given month. (d) "Scheduled Maintenance." Scheduled Maintenance windows are scheduled periods where the applicable App, Website, and/or Software Services may not be available in order for CONTRACTOR to continue to bring the best possible service, features, and performance to the Program and Program Subscribers. Scheduled maintenance is when upgrades or updates need to be applied (i.e., standard software releases, non-critical software updates). Scheduled maintenance shall start after midnight Pacific Standard Time ("PST"). CONTRACTOR shall also disclose to Program Subscribers via the Website and all other affected So'ftware Services that maintenance is underway. CONTRACTOR will provide CITY notice at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of scheduled maintenance. (e) "Wireless Carrier Connectivity Failures." Wireless Connectivity Failures shall mean a connectivity failure due to wireless carrier outages outside ofCONTRACTOR's control. (f) "Zone" means a geographic area designated for distribution purposes, initially designated upon mutual written agreement by the parties one (I) month prior to the Operational Date with any subsequent amended designations effected pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth below. (2) SLA Periods. The Service Level Agreements, shall become effective on the Operational Date and remain in effect for an initial six (6) months ("Initial SLA Period"). Within thirty (30) days from the end of the Initial SLA Period, the Parties shall discuss the SLAs in light of the Contractor's performance during the Initial SLA Period and negotiate any modifications or changes to the SLAs for the following six (6) months ("Second SLA Period"), as necessary, and in good faith with the success and financial sustainability of the overall Program as a guiding principle. Within thirty (30) days from the end of the Second SLA Period, the Parties shall discuss the then-current SLAs in light of the CONTRACTOR's performance during the Second SLA Period and negotiate any modifications or changes to the SLAs for the twelve (12) months ("Annual SLA Period") following the first annual anniversary of the Operational Date, as necessary, and in similar good faith. Thereafter, the Parties shall discuss the then-current SLAs within thirty (30) days from the end of each Annual SLA Period for the remainder of the Term to negotiate any modifications or changes to the SLAs, as necessary, and in similar good faith. (3) Redistribution. Distribution by CONTRACTOR shall be critically timed to increase the probability that each Zone and High Priority Area have sufficient Bicycles available to Program Subscribers. At least one month prior to the Operational Date, the Parties will agree to boundaries for each of up to four Zones and designate up to one High Priority Area per Zone. In addition, the parties will agree to a minimum of the total Bicycle fleet that will be in each of the specified four Zones during designated AM and PM peak hours. These thresholds, as well as the designated hours for those thresholds and the designations of the geographic areas of the Zones and the High Priority Areas, shall be reviewed by the Parties periodically, to coincide with the Second SLA Period and Annual SLA Periods and may be revised pursuant to mutual written agreement. (4) Corrective Action Plan. Excluding the Initial SLA Term, if CONTRACTOR fails to meet the threshold for SLA #8 on four (4) separate instances during the Second SLA Period or the Annual SLA Period, CONTRACTOR shall develop a mutually agreed upon corrective action plan ("Corrective Action Plan") within ten (10) business days of receiving written notice from the CITY; provided that no such instances of failure shall be recognized during any day in which the number of trips per Bicycle per day, as an average across the total number of Bicycles in the Program, is equal to or greater than four (4) trips. (5) SLA Exclusions. For the avoidance of doubt, the SLAs shall not apply in the event of wireless carrier connectivity failures, Extraordinary Vandalism, Destruction, or Theft, or other Force Majeure events. (Optional -for On Call Agreements only) EXHIBIT "A-1" GENERAL SERVICES TASK ORDER Contractor hereby agrees to perform the work detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item IA below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference. The Contractor shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. Purchase Requisition No. IA. MASTER AGREEMENT NUMBER I B. TASK ORDER NO. 2. CONTRACTOR ISSUE DATE 3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION: 4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $ ______ _ BALANCEREMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT$ ____________ _ 5. BUDGETCODE: ------ COST CENTER COST ELEMENT WBS/CIP_PHASE 6. CITYPROJECTMANAGER'SNAME/DEPARTMENT _____________ _ 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES MUST INCLUDE: • WORK TO BE PERFORMED • SCHEDULE OF WORK • BASIS FOR PAYMENT & FEE SCHEDULE • DELIVERABLES • REIMBURSABLES (with "not to exceed" cost) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Scope of Services B: -------------- I hereby authorize the performance of the work described above in this Task Order. APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO BY: ___________ _ Name ____________ _ Title ____________ _ Date ____________ _ City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of this Task Order and warrant that I have authority to sign on behalf of Contractor. APPROVED: COMPANY NAME: _______ _ BY: ______________ _ Name _____________ ~ Title _____________ _ Date _____________ _ 21 EXHIBITB SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE See below; combined with Exhibit C -Schedule of Fees. 22 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF FEES SUMMARY (in United States dollars) Description Bicycles (340 Smart Bicycles) Infrastructure (630 Docking Points, 35 Stations, 0 Kiosks, 0 Tablet Kiosks) Program Setup Transport and Customs (Estimate Only) TOT·IL UP-FRONT ONE-Tl.\/£ COS'T Description Monthly Operations Fee (per bicycle) (per month) TOTAL MO.VTHL r < JNGOINU COST • Monthly Operations Fee ($100/bike/month) is waived for the first three hundred fifty (350) Bicycles. Cost $ 579,700 $ 349,300 $ I 12,500 $ 63,050 Sl.10-1.550 Cost • Fifty percent (50%) of the Total Up-Front One-Time Cost shall be paid to CONTRACTOR upon placing a Purchase Order. An additional twenty-five percent (25%) is due on the shipping date of the Bicycles. The remaining twenty-five percent (25%) is due on the final delivery date of all applicable Equipment. • Estimated delivery date of Equipment is six (6) months after submission ofa Purchase Order. Purchase Orders shall be deemed submitted when the initial payment and final branding designs are received by CONTRACTOR. • "Transport and Customs" includes all transport and shipping fees and customs and import duties, including but not limited to ocean and ground freight fees and brokerage fees. CITY will pay any and all sales and use taxes (not included in cost proposal). • CONTRACTOR will provide ten (10) free bicycles to bring the total bike count to three hundred fifty (350) Bicycles. 23 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement BICYCLES (in United States dollars) SMART BICYCLES C·Jiim11 ' Price Total B.1 V3.5 Smart Bicycle 340 $ 1,500 $ 510,000 B.2 replacement parts and custom tools 340 $ 100 $ 34,000 B.3 Interior and exterior basket printed assets 340 $ 30 $ 10,200 B.4 upgrade to skirt guard $ 45 $ B.5 skirt guard printed assets $ 20 $ B.6 upgrade to eight-speed hub with shaft drive transmission 340 $ 75 $ 25,500 TOTAL SMART !3/CTCLES COST The V3.5 Smart Bicycle includes: custom paint and decals (Pantone color palette), onboard real-time GPS and accelerometer tracking, onboard GSM cellular connection, integrated keypad, LCD screen, and RFID technology, solar and dynamo power generators. DOCKING POINTS D.I "Wave" Docking Point INFRASTRUCTURE (in United States dollars) D.2 dock printed assets T07>1L DOCK/NU l'O!ATS COST Quantity 630 630 $ $ Price 450 35 Total $ 283,500 $ 22,050 s 305,550 The "Wave" Docking Point includes: custom paint and decals (RAL color palette), base plate with high durability coating, connectors, end caps, and custom security bolts. PAYMENT STRUCTURES P.l P.2 P.3 P.4 Outdoor Payment Kiosk Indoor Tablet Kiosk (steel wall mount) Indoor Tablet Kiosk (steel floor mount) Indoor Tablet Kiosk (aluminum floor mount) TOT-IL PA l'ME.\'T STRCCTURF.S COST Quantity Price $ 10,000 $ 300 $ 350 $ 400 $ $ $ $ Total • The Outdoor Payment Kiosk includes: custom paint and decals (RAL color palette), credit card (EMV upgradable), RFID access card dispenser and reader, color LCD touch screen interface, solar and battery power generators, and base plate with high durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts. • The Indoor Tablet Kiosk includes: printed and design template, mounting stand and hardware. INFORMATION STRUCTURES Quantity Price Total 24 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement l.l 1.2 Large Advertisement and Info Panel Compact Advertisement and Info Panel TOTAL IN FORM.4 T/01\' ,<;,'TR L'CTU RE,',' COST 35 $ $ 2,750 1,250 $ $ 43,750 s -13, -50 The Large Advertisement and Info Panel includes: two panels with printable areas of72" x 30", printed assets and design template, base plate with high, durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts. The Compact Advertisement and Info Panel includes: two panels with printable areas of 43" x 11 ",printed assets and design template, base plate with high, durability coating, connectors, end caps, and security bolts. LAUNCH SERVICES (in United States dollars) PROGRAM SETUP S.I Implementation Services (including expenses) S.2 Website Landing Page Design S.3 Brand and Logo Design S.4 RFID Access Cards S.5 Printed Map and Ad Assets Design (per station) S.6 Site Design and Planning Services (per station) TOTAL PROGR. fl\/ SETUP COST Quantity Price $ 10,000 $ 5,000 $ 35 $ 500 35 $ 1,000 CONTRACTOR and CITY will use Clipper cards for RFID access instead of CONTRACTOR custom cards. TRANSPORT AND CUSTOl\lS (ESTIMATE) Quantity T.l T.2 T.3 Bicycle Freight and Customs Infrastructure Freight and Customs Accessories Freight and Customs TOT·IL ESTIAIATED TR.-INSPORTAND CUSTOMS COST ONGOING TECHNOLOGY SERVICES (in United States dollars) CONNECTIVITY & SOFTWARE SERVICES Quantity M.l Monthly Operations Fee (per bicycle) (per month) TOT-IL MONTH Lr (J;\'(;()f,\'Ci ,C..,'ER/l!rES COST 350 $ Price Price 100 • Monthly Operations Fee ($100/bike/month) is waived for the first three hundred fifty (350) bicycles. 25 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Total $ 50,000 $ 10,000 $ $ $ 17,500 $ 35,000 s 112,500 Total I $ 48,250 $ 13,800 $ 1,000 s 63.()5 () Total 35,000 35, ouo EXHIBIT D INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 1.1 Minimum Coverages. The insurance requirements specified in this section will cover CONTRACTOR's own liability and the liability arising out of work or services performed under this Agreement by any subconsultants, subcontractors, suppliers, temporary workers, independent contractors, leased employees, or any other persons, firms or corporations that CONTRACTOR authorizes to work under this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agents"). CONTRACTOR will, at its own expense, obtain and maintain in effect at all times during the life of this Agreement the following types of insurance against claims, damages and losses due to injuries to persons or damage to property or other losses that may arise in connection with the performance of work under this Agreement. 1.2 In the event CONTRACTOR or its Agents procure excess or umbrella coverage to maintain certain requirements outlined below, these policies will also satisfy all specified endorsements and stipulations, including provisions that CONTRACTOR's or its Agent's insurance, as the case may be, be primary without right of contribution from CITY. 1.2. l Workers' Compensation Insurance with Statutory limits, and Employer's Liability Insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per employee for injury by disease and $1,000,000 for injury for each accident, and any and all other coverage of CONTRACTOR's employees as may be required by applicable law. Such policy will contain a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of CITY. Such Workers' Compensation & Employer's Liability may be waived, if and only for as long as CONTRACTOR is a sole proprietor or a corporation with stock 100% owned by officers with no employees. 1.2.2 Commercial General Liability Insurance for Bodily Injury and Property Damage liability, covering the operations of CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR's officers, agents, and employees and with limits of liability which will not be less than $1,000,000 per occurrence with a general aggregate liability of not less than $2,000,000, and Personal & Advertising Injury liability with a limit of not less than $1,000,000. Such policy will contain a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of CITY. CITY and its commissioners, directors, officers, representatives, agents and employees are to be named as additional insureds, per ISO form # CG 20 26 04 13 or its equivalent. Such insurance will be primary and contain a Separation of Insureds Clause as respects any claims, losses or liability arising directly or indirectly from CONTRACTOR's operations. 1.2.3 Business Automobile Insurance for all automobiles owned (if any), used or maintained by CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR's officers, agents and employees, including but not limited to owned (if any), leased (if any), non-owned and hired automobiles, with limits of liability which will not be less than $1 ,000,000 combined single limit per accident. 1.2.4 Errors and Omissions Professional Liability Insurance for errors and omissions and the resulting damages, including, but not limited to, economic loss to CITY and having minimum limits of $1,000,000 per claim. Such policy will contain cyber risk coverages including network and internet security liability coverage, privacy liability 26 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement coverage and media coverage. CONTRACTOR may delegate the obligation to maintain Errors and Omissions Professional Liability Insurance to an Agent, but the failure of such Agent to ~naintain such insurance will not relieve CONTRACTOR of its obligation to maintain such insurance. 1.2.5 Prooertv Insurance. Property Insurance covering CONTRACTOR's own business personal property and equipment to be used in performance of this Agreement, materials or property to be purchased and/or installed on behalf of CITY (if any). Coverage will be written on a "Special Form" policy that includes theft, but excludes earthquake, with limits at least equal to the replacement cost of the property. Such policy will contain a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of CITY. 1.3 Acceptable Insurers. All policies will be issued by insurers qualified to do business in California and with a Best's Rating of A-VIII or better. 1.4 Self-Insurance. CONTRACTOR's obligation hereunder may be satisfied in whole or in part by adequately funded self-insurance, upon evidence of financial capacity reasonably satisfactory to CITY. 1.5 Deductibles and Retentions. CONTRACTOR will be responsible for payment of any deductible or retention on CONTRACTOR's policies without right of contribution from CITY. Deductible and retention provisions will not contain any restrictions as to how or by whom the deductible or retention is paid. 1.6 Failure to Maintain Insurance. All insurance specified above will remain in force until the expiration or termination of this Agreement. The failure to procure or maintain required insurance and/or an adequately funded self-insurance program will constitute a material breach of this Agreement. 1.7 Certificates of Insurance. On the Effective Date, CONTRACTOR will deliver to CITY Certificates of Insurance verifying the aforementioned coverages. 27 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement 28 City of Palo Alto General Services Agreement Rev. April 27, 2016 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7373) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/27/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Planning Code Amendments - First Reading Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.30(F) Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District Regulations, 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), and 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards) Adding Sections 18.40.160 (Replacement Project Required), 18.40.170 (Deferral of Director’s Action), and 18.42.140 (Housing Inventory Sites Small Lot Consolidation) and Repealing Chapter 10.70 (Trip Reduction and Travel Demand). The Proposed Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15061(b)(3). From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends Council adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) to amend Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and find the ordinance exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Executive Summary: This report transmits proposed amendments to various sections of the Zoning Code of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) that were recently reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on December 14, 2016. The amendments are intended to implement the City’s Housing Element, modify code provisions to reflect current practice or policy, correct errors, and formalize and introduce some new policy initiatives related to affordable housing and transportation management plans. The proposed code modifications are focused on the items listed below. 1. Update two housing-related definitions as required by the Housing Element. 2. Correct the existing loading space requirements table and include Planning Director’s City of Palo Alto Page 2 discretion for adjusting loading zone requirements. 3. Add provisions to allow mechanical lift vehicle parking. 4. Require entitlement approval of replacement projects before demolition permitted. 5. Provide authority to the Planning Director to forward projects to City Council for action when deemed appropriate. 6. Add incentives to encourage consolidation of small-lots listed on the Housing Inventory Sites to support 100% affordable housing development as required by the Housing Element. 7. Clarify code language regarding when a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) is required. 8. For projects with an Automobile Dealership combining district, exempt floor area dedicated to meeting minimum parking requirements for service areas and vehicle queuing of customer cars dropping off or picking up service repair vehicles. Background: Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code contains the City’s zoning regulations. From time to time, the City reviews the zoning code and makes minor changes intended to better achieve the City’s goals, better reflect historic practices, provide clarity, or improve a process provided for in the ordinance. There are also instances where code changes are needed to address changes in State law or changes in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The various code amendments proposed are part of an on-going effort to bring the zoning code into alignment with current practices and regulations. Staff anticipates bringing another round of “clean-up” items later in 2017. PTC Review On November 9, 2016 staff presented a suggested list of code amendments for Study Session review with the PTC. There was one member of the public who provided comments related to changes to the loading requirements. For the majority of the proposed changes, the PTC indicated general support. For select topics (i.e. revising loading requirements, mechanical lift parking, small lot consolidation, and hotel conversions), the PTC provided more substantive discussion and comments that staff responded to at the following meeting. (PTC staff report available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54585 ) The formal action hearing by the PTC was held on December 14, 2016 where the PTC unanimously recommended approval to support the proposed amendments. The motion reflected staff’s recommendation with a minor amendment to the language for mechanical lifts. For this hearing, there were no members of the public present that spoke on this item. (PTC staff report available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55202) City of Palo Alto Page 3 The discussion at the December PTC meeting was brief, primarily because the PTC had conducted in-depth discussions on the issues at the November Study Session and staff was responsive to the issues that were raised; only a few modifications were needed for the formal hearing. The PTC’s primary talking points are highlighted in the related sections in the discussion section of this report. For specific details, please refer to the attached verbatim minutes for the two PTC meetings (Attachments B & C). Discussion: The proposed code amendments address different subjects as described below. The discussion includes the purpose of the amendment, PTC comments, and the proposed ordinance. Please refer to the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) for the specific language of the proposed code amendments. I. Housing-Related Definitions The City’s adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element commits the City to make minor adjustments to the existing definitions of Supportive and Transitional Housing in the Zoning Ordinance. More specifically, Housing Element Program H3.5.3 directs the City to “amend the Zoning Code to revise definitions of transitional and supportive housing to remove reference to multiple-family uses, and instead state that “transitional and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.” [Code section to be updated: 18.04.030(a)(135.5) & (138)] PTC Comments Other than staff providing clarification of the intent of the updating the definitions, there was no additional discussion on this issue. Proposed Ordinance The attached draft ordinance (Attachment A, Section 1) reflects the text changes referenced above to the transitional and supportive housing definitions contained in PAMC Section 18.04. II. Off-Street Loading Requirements Three proposed changes are recommended related to off-street loading requirements, including correcting an error, clarifying requirements for mixed use developments, and establishing an administrative process to reduce loading zone requirements. A. Corrections to the Minimum Off-Street Loading Requirements The City’s off-street loading standards are based on a scale that requires incrementally more loading zone spaces based on the size of the land use. Typically, a land use with less than 5,000 City of Palo Alto Page 4 or less than 10,000 square feet does not have to provide any loading spaces. One loading space is required when the use area exceeds a certain size and so on for still larger uses. In 1978, the off-street loading requirements were consolidated from the individual zone district chapters into a single parking chapter (then PAMC 18.83 “Off-Street Parking Regulations”). The specific loading requirements themselves have not changed since that time, but the format of the code has been revised over time. In the 1992 code update (Ord #4079), the loading requirements table was reformatted and information was erroneously omitted in the process. Those errors carried over into the 2005 and 2007 code amendments and are reflected in the current code. There are two errors that were made when this chapter was reformatted in 1992. First, under the Retail Services and Eating and Drinking Services section, there is a row missing to address land uses between 5,000 and 29,999 square feet (sq. ft.) in area. This row should be inserted and assigned a loading space requirement of one space. The second error was assigning a loading space requirement for smaller land uses between 0-4,999 sq. ft. in area. Historically, before the error, there was no off-street loading space required for this size of a retail store. A similar error occurred for warehousing/distribution and manufacturing uses. Additionally, there is another minor error for Hotel/Motel/Inns. The use size of 100,000 sq. ft. should have included the end range of 199,999 sq. ft. as reflected in the pre-1992 versions of the table. These changes are reflected in the attached ordinance. [Code section to be updated: 18.52.040(c) Table 3] B. Mixed-Use Projects The City’s practice has been to use the code provision for “other uses” from Table 3 Minimum Off-Street Loading Requirements (PAMC 18.52.040) when considering the requirement for mixed-use projects. The code specifies that the requirements for “other uses” shall be determined by the Director and have been waived for mixed-use projects when adequate on- street or alley loading areas can be made available. Community members and the City Council have recently questioned this practice, resulting in the need for clarification to this code section. The proposed text change specifies that each land use in the mixed use development shall be subject to the off-street loading requirements for those individual uses and combined for a total off-street loading requirement. [Code section to be updated: 18.52.040(c)] C. Director Approval for Off-Street Loading Adjustments At times there are circumstances that may arise with new construction where requiring off- street loading spaces (45 feet long by 12 feet wide, with 15 feet height clearance per space) is impractical to site development, creates unnecessary pedestrian/vehicle conflicts or adversely City of Palo Alto Page 5 impacts urban design objectives. Accordingly, to address these challenges, staff recommends that the Planning Director be granted the authority to make adjustments to required loading zone dimensions or modify the quantity of required off-street loading spaces. While this authority has been exercised in the past for mixed-use development, the proposed change would apply to all non-residential development. Requests for a modification would be evaluated based on the anticipated land uses, site conditions, availability of other alternative loading zone opportunities or solutions, and if providing the loading zone on-site would not advance city policies related to efficient circulation, safety, and urban design principles. Moreover, staff proposes limiting this discretion to permit the waiver of one space only. Some recent development examples that include loading space adjustments are provided in Attachment D. To provide for a Director’s adjustment for loading, two code sections are proposed to be modified, one that applies to sites within the parking assessment district (PAMC 18.52.080) and one that applies to sites not within the parking assessment district (PAMC 18.52.050, Table 4). The text would be the same for both sections. With support of the above mentioned Director’s adjustment, an additional administrative change would be required to address footnote 2 of Table 4. Footnote 2 states that no reductions may be granted that reduce required parking spaces to less than 10 spaces on site. Since the new row is being added to address loading zones, it is necessary to clarify this provision does not apply to loading zone spaces, which would not be able to meet this standard. [Code section to be updated: PAMC 18.52.050 Table 4; new section added: 18.52.080(e)] PTC Comments A majority of the commission appeared to support the three loading zone related amendments. There was a brief discussion regarding the loading zone waiver and the suggestion that the city explore eliminating the loading zone requirement in the downtown area and otherwise increase the threshold for when loading spaces would be required elsewhere in the city. There was also a request for more information about the circumstances of when the Director waived the loading zone requirements in the past, which was provided to the PTC. Proposed Ordinance The attached ordinance corrects the code errors from 1992, specifies how to address loading requirements for mixed use projects and grants the Planning Director the authority to waive one off-street loading space and dimensions subject to specific criteria. The attached draft ordinance (Attachment A, Sections 6-8) reflects the changes referenced above. City of Palo Alto Page 6 III. Mechanical Lift Vehicle Parking PAMC Chapter 18.54 Parking Facility Design Standards of the zoning ordinance specifies design standards for off-street parking facilities and does not currently contain standards applicable to mechanical stackers or lifts, despite the use of these in a number of development proposals in recent years. Mechanized lifts are becoming more commonplace in urbanized areas and can provide a way to increase parking supplies without devoting more land to surface parking and without the cost of structured parking. The purpose of this amendment is to formalize the requirements for the use of mechanical lifts in development projects subject to conditions and review by the Director or Council. The absence of such provision for supporters of this design solution is that the zoning code is, at best, unclear as to the applicability of mechanical lifts to meet off-street parking requirements or, alternatively, prohibitive. Addressing design standards for mechanical lifts in the City’s zoning ordinance would expressly permit these lifts to satisfy parking requirements and minimize unintended problems due to poor design, over-use, or the inability to access them efficiently. [Code section to be added: 18.54.020(b)(4)] PTC Comments The majority of the PTC comments supported the allowance of mechanical car lifts for use in the City; however, there were varying degrees of support and at times conflicting perspectives expressed by individual commissioners ranging from a full support of lifts to a more cautious tone and concerns about unintended consequences. Some comments that were expressed follow: Expand the list of applicable land uses (initially proposed for residential and office) to include hotels, automobile dealerships and visitor parking; Add standards to assure that use would not impact adjacent streets and sidewalks; Remove requirements for parking management plan and leave that as a private matter for the building owner and tenants; Should only be used indoors; Require proper maintenance to provide parking for the life of the project; and Allow the use of lift for residential guest parking. In addition to the above, the commission had different perspectives on whether the lifts should be designed to accommodate full-sized sport utility vehicles. Also, there was a discussion regarding whether the use of the lifts was a discretionary request or an administrative, by right action. Attachment E provides a list of recently approved projects that incorporated mechanical lifts into the project. Proposed Ordinance City of Palo Alto Page 7 The attached draft ordinance codifies the current practice to allow the use of mechanical lifts, on a case-by-case review by the approving authority, to meet the parking requirements for commercial and mixed-use projects. The new code language provides general direction regarding aesthetics, appropriate land uses, and site and systems analysis to support the proposed use of parking lifts for the associated project. All proposed lifts would be required to be located within an enclosed parking facility, screened from public views, and designed to be architecturally compatible with the site conditions. Lifts would be allowed in multi-family residential, office, hotel, automotive, industrial or institutional uses. The Director may approve the use of lifts for other uses, though such uses may be required to provide dedicated on-site valet assistance. Each proposal would include project specific details (e.g. circulation details, vehicle queuing, emergency procedures, etc.) that demonstrate the effectiveness of the lifts. The ordinance provides a defined framework for staff and applicants to work within while acknowledging each project will have unique circumstances to address. The attached draft ordinance (Attachment A, Section 9) reflects the updated code section in PAMC 18.54.020. IV. No Demolition Until Replacement Project Approval The City has had a longstanding practice to require the approval of a replacement project (i.e. planning entitlement) prior to allowing any related demolition to occur, for both residential and commercial developments. While staff has relied on this practice for many years, there have been times when the City has been challenged on this policy; codifying the requirement will eliminate any uncertainty as to this provision. Currently, the zoning code includes provisions in the Architectural Review permits section [PAMC 18.76.020(b) and (h)] that specifies the requirement for approval prior to demolition for projects requiring Architectural Review, but there is no language in the code to address all the other entitlements, including Individual Review of single family homes. Staff recommends adding a new code section to clarify this longstanding practice. [Code section to be added: 18.40.160] PTC Comments Two commissioners expressed concerns about the proposed code language, one citing concerns about negative implications to the deconstruction process and one suggesting the proposed language does not address an earlier stated goal of limiting vacant lots. Proposed Ordinance The proposed amendment seeks to codify the existing practice used in the City and does not seek to advance any new policy initiative or change. Since most new home applications are not City of Palo Alto Page 8 subject to architectural review, without the current practice and proposed code amendment, an owner could seek to demolish an existing home and leave the site vacant. Additionally, most new home construction includes a two story residence, which is subject to discretionary, Individual Review. Allowing demolition to occur before the filing or review of this application means the community would be unable to assess the potential loss of an historic resource. The proposed amendments would be a new section in PAMC 18.40 “General Standards and Exceptions,” see Attachment A, Section 3. V. Defer Director’s Decision Under the current review process regulations, when a project requires multiple entitlements that have different approval authority (e.g. Site and Design with Council action & Variance with Director’s action), each entitlement is acted upon separately by the respective approving body. Staff is seeking to amend the code to explicitly provide the Director the discretion to forward a project with multiple entitlements, where Council action is needed for at least one of those, as a complete package for Council review and action. The purpose of doing this is to provide Council a full understanding of all the project components and decisions that need to be considered prior to taking action on the project. This also avoids the scenario where the Director-level project component could be appealed to Council, resulting in possible multiple hearings on various aspects of the same project. [Code section to be added: 18.40.170] PTC Comments The PTC did not comment on this proposed code change. Proposed Ordinance The attached draft ordinance codifies this existing practice of deferring the Director’s decision on a case-by-case determination, see Attachment A, Section 4. VI. Housing Element – Small Lot Consolidation The Housing Element includes a program that calls for zoning changes to encourage the consolidation of “small” lots as identified on the Housing Inventory Sites list to facilitate the construction of affordable housing. With the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element in November 2014, the City committed to meeting the specifications of the H2.1.9 Program within two years (by January 20, 2017). H2.1.9 PROGRAM: Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the consolidation of smaller lots identified as Housing Inventory Sites and developed with 100% affordable housing projects. Incentives may include development review streamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units, or graduated density when consolidated lots are over one-half acre. Adopt amendments as appropriate. Provide information regarding zoning incentives to developers. City of Palo Alto Page 9 There are currently 27 parcels identified as “small” (generally less than 10,000 sq. ft.) on the Housing Inventory Sites (HIS) list, with the majority of them (21) in the Residential Transition RT-35 zone district, two in the Commercial Downtown CD zone, and four in the Commercial Service CS zone (see Attachment F for a map). The CD and CS zones allow for residential development only when part of a mixed-use project and the RT-35 allows both mixed-use and 100% housing projects. The Housing Element program suggested three types of incentives: development review streamlining; reduction in required parking for smaller units; and graduated density when consolidated lots are over one-half acre. Staff has developed incentives based on the first two concepts. Graduated density for lots over one-half acre was not pursued because it is highly unlikely that lots would be consolidated to create such a large parcel. [Code section to be added: 18.42.140] PTC Comments The majority of the PTC showed general support for new code language to implement the Housing Element program. The comments made by the PTC included: Allow for larger “small” units (500 sq. ft. instead of 300 sq. ft.) to be exempt from parking requirements; Allow mixed-use development; Eliminate parking requirements altogether for projects that qualify for HIS small lot consolidation; Perform specific outreach to the affected HIS properties; and To support development of these lots without requiring consolidation, allow property owners to develop the existing lots following the same standards proposed for consolidated lots with the exception of waiving 100% of the parking requirements for the residential component of the project. Proposed Ordinance The proposed amendment implements Housing Element Program H2.1.9. and provides development incentives for those property owners seeking to construct affordable housing when consolidating qualifying HIS small sites. The provisions include the requirement that development follow the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan RT-35 district development standards (for all non RT-35 and RT- 50 zoned sites). These standards were designed for transitional zones between low-density residential and commercial uses, which generally is the case for all these parcels. For the allowable commercial uses in mixed-use projects, they would be limited to ground floor retail/“retail-like” uses only and cannot be more than 15% of the project’s total gross floor area, leaving a minimum of 85% of the floor area to be dedicated to the housing units. City of Palo Alto Page 10 The development incentives proposed include: Expedited entitlement review; Waiver of planning entitlement fees; Require ARB review and Parcel Map process only (instead of Site and Design and Tentative Map process, if normally required); Waive parking for residential units smaller than 500 sq. ft.; and Waive requirement for residential guest parking spaces. After reviewing the PTC recommendation to eliminate parking for all qualifying projects, staff believes that this allowance could result in significant parking impacts to existing neighborhoods and is therefore not included in the code revision. The attached draft ordinance (Attachment A, Section 5) reflects the new code section. VII. Transportation Management Plan (TDM) Requirements The City has long had an interest in reducing traffic and parking demand by discouraging single occupant vehicles (SOV) commute trips, and by promoting alternatives to the private automobile. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are one way to do this, allowing greater ability to require site specific requirements. Currently the zoning code (PAMC 18.52.050) identifies TDM programs as one possible strategy for projects not located in a parking assessment area to request a parking adjustment. In this way, TDM plans are currently optional, at the discretion of the applicant. In order to address congestion management, staff proposes amending the code to require a TDM plan for all projects that generate 100 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) or weekend peak hour trips. In addition, there may also be a need to require TDM plans to justify requested parking reductions or lower vehicle trip generation figures. The specified trip threshold that staff is recommending is consistent with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Plan specifications for when a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required. In addition, staff recommends additional text refinement of the TDM section of the code (PAMC 15.52.050(d)). Additional language has been added to reference guidelines for TDM measures, three-year monitoring schedule, and penalties. [Code section to be amended: 18.52.050(d)(1)- (4); code section to be added: 18.52.030(i)] PTC Comments The PTC had no comments on the proposed project triggers for TDM plans. A few comments were made regarding specific TDM measures. These suggestions included adding the option for City of Palo Alto Page 11 a project to join a Transportation Management Association (TMA) and studying what San Mateo has done recently on this issue. Proposed Ordinance The attached draft ordinance incorporates the thresholds mentioned above for when to require a TDM plan for a project. The intent of the code change was specifically to establish when a TDM plan was needed for a project and not the specifics of the TDM measures. Transportation staff drafted a list of acceptable TDM measures (TDM Guidelines Table) for applicants to use and is provided in Attachment G. The TDM Guidelines include joining Palo Alto TMA as one of the options that can be used in a TDM plan. The TDM measures have been divided into levels (i.e. light, moderate, heavy) and proximity to transit. If a development is close to transit and requires “moderate” TDM measures, the applicant would follow the measures for that project type and location (see Attachment G for details). The TDM Guidelines are not included in the ordinance, but instead referenced. This will allow staff the ability to update the incentives and respond more quickly to different strategies and technologies that become available. Staff has also included the repeal of a now outdated practice (PAMC Chapter 10.70) of transferring TDM authority to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). While the BAAQMD at one time was actively administering TDM programs for the region, over time, most Santa Clara county cities have elected to supplement BAAQMD’s programs with their own. The attached draft ordinance (Attachment A, Sections 10-12) reflects the updated TDM language. VIII. Automobile Combining District (AD) Regulations Staff is proposing an amendment related to the calculation of floor area for auto dealership projects subject to the Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District. Several months ago the PTC and City Council reviewed plans for a new dealership near the Baylands. While there were a variety of perspectives about the project, at least some community members and City Council members were concerned that the project did not comply with the plain reading of the code with regards to the floor area calculation. The service/repair function is a fairly typical process among dealerships. Customers line up in a queue on a driveway, a service technician takes the customer’s information, and a porter takes the car to be worked on then or sometime later. When complete, the customer picks up the car and leaves. This drop-off/pick-up process is often done under a large “breezeway” type structure that is used to shelter customers and is open on two sides. City of Palo Alto Page 12 During the car service, the customer’s car is either parked in a parking space waiting for service, being serviced (in a mechanic’s bay), or re-parked pending the customer’s return. Staff has relied on the following code provision to exempt this customer parking space from the calculation of gross floor area (PAMC 18.04.030(a)65(B)(i)): B. Non-residential & Multifamily Exclusions: For all zoning districts other than the R-E, R-1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, “gross floor area” shall not include the following: i. Parking facilities accessory to a permitted or conditional use and located on the same site; The code also defines Parking Facility as follows (PAMC 18.04.030(a)111): “Parking facility” means an area on a lot or within a building, or both, including one or more parking spaces, together with driveways, aisles, turning and maneuvering areas, clearances, and similar features, and meeting the requirements established by this title. “Parking facility” includes parking lots, garages, and parking structures. It is clear from the code that the floor area for auto service and repairs (service bays) has associated required parking. Based on the definitions above, if this parking is within an enclosed and covered space, it is exempt from being counted towards a project’s floor area ratio. Based on this understanding, staff has not counted the area where a customer’s car is parked as floor area. The proposed text amendment would explicitly exempt this parking area from the calculation of gross floor area. A second point of concern related to the service drive aisle is where vehicles were queued with the driver, waiting for a service technician to take the customer’s information and where the porter drives the vehicle off for service. The zoning code provides guidance as to whether this area counts toward floor area (PAMC 18.04.030(a)65(A)(vii)): A. Non-residential & Multifamily Inclusions: For all zoning districts other than the R-E, R-1, R-2 and RMD residence districts, “gross floor area” means the total area of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, and including all of the following: vii. Permanently roofed, but either partially enclosed or unenclosed, building features used for sales, service, display, storage or similar uses; and City of Palo Alto Page 13 For the previously referenced project, the service drive was roofed and partially enclosed. Staff’s perspective, however, was that there were no sales, service, display or storage taking place at this location. Other than checking in for a scheduled appointment or describing the nature of the service needs and handing over the keys, not much else is happening at this location. Payment is handled at a different location inside the building and the car is not stored or worked on in the drive aisle. The countervailing argument is the interaction between the customer and service technician constitutes a service activity and, therefore, the service drive aisle should count toward gross floor area. While it clearly was arguable that a partially enclosed and covered driveway leading to a customer drop off area should have counted toward floor area on a previous project, the purpose of this amendment is to clarify whether this area should or should not count as floor area on any pending or future applications. Given that there are incentives in the code today to encourage automobile dealerships, the unique space requirements for these uses, branding and manufacturing requirements, and the sales tax benefits of auto dealerships to the local economy, staff believes it appropriate to exclude these non-service areas from the floor area calculation. Any concerns regarding the size of auto dealerships, the mass or bulk of buildings can be addressed through existing, discretionary processes. [Code section to be amended: 18.30(F).050] PTC Comments The PTC had no comments on the proposed amendments to the AD overlay. Proposed Ordinance The attached draft ordinance incorporates modifications to how floor area is calculated for the automobile dealership use located in the AD overlay. The following shall not count toward an automobile dealership’s maximum floor area: Parking facilities for required parking related to service and repair areas. Covered area dedicated to queuing of customer vehicles for drop off and pick up of service vehicles. The attached draft ordinance (Attachment A, Section 2) reflects the updated code section. Policy Implications: The proposed changes are intended to improve the administration of the zoning code, implement the housing element, and comply with state law. Staff anticipates that this and future efforts can be used to ensure implementation of the planning codes to better reflect city policy, provide greater transparency and clearer expectations when applying these codes to City of Palo Alto Page 14 projects. Resource Impact: The proposed code change that waives Planning entitlement fees as a development incentive for the consolidation of HIS small lots would have potential fiscal impacts in the form of reduced fee revenues. Staff does not anticipate a “rush” of new development to occur with the implementation of the proposed incentives, and is unable to estimate the (likely small) resulting impact, which could be absorbed within the department’s budget. Timeline: With Council approval of these revisions or further modifications on the first reading, the second reading would be scheduled as a consent calendar review for adoption. Following the second reading, the ordinance would become effective 31 days after. Environmental Review: The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the proposed amendments have been determined to be exempt from further environmental review per CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3) (Review for Exemption) because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significantly effect on the environment. Additionally, all future development that may be impacted by any of the proposed code changes will be subject to a project specific CEQA analysis as part of the required planning entitlement review (e.g. Architectural Review, Site and Design, Subdivision, etc.) to determine if there are any environmental impacts. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (PDF) Attachment B: PTC Meeting Excerpt Verbatim Minutes, 12/14/2016 (PDF) Attachment C: PTC Meeting Excerpt Verbatim Minutes, 11/09/2016 (DOC) Attachment D: Recent Development Proposals With Adjusted Loading Requirements (DOCX) Attachment E: Projects Approved with Mechanical Lifts (PDF) Attachment F: Map of Housing Opportunity Sites (PDF) Attachment G: Draft TDM Guidelines (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 1 February 13, 2017 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.30(F) ((Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District Regulations)), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), and 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards) Adding Sections 18.40.160 (Replacement Project Required), 18.40.170 (Deferral of Director’s Action), and 18.42.140 (Housing Inventory Sites Small Lot Consolidation) and Repealing Chapter 10.70 (Trip Reduction and Travel Demand) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows: 18.04.030 Definitions (a) Throughout this title the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed in this section. . . . (135.5) “Supportive housing” means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by target populations, as defined by Section 53260(d) of the California Health and Safety Code, and that is linked to on- or off-site services that assist the supportive housing residents in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Supportive housing shall be considered as a multiple-family use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other multiple-family uses of the same type in the same zone a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Supportive housing programs may use residential care homes wholly or as a part of their overall facilities. . . . (138) “Transitional housing” means buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that call for termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted units to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months. Support services may include meals, counseling, and other services, as well as common areas for residents of the facility. Transitional housing shall be considered a multiple- family use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other multiple family uses of the same type in the same zone residential use of property and shall be only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Transitional housing programs may use residential care homes wholly or as part of their overall facilities. [This is reflective of State law and implements Housing Program H3.5.3.] NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 2 February 13, 2017 SECTION 2. Section 18.30(F).050 (Site Development Regulations) of Chapter 18.30(F) ((Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District Regulations)) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows: 18.30(F).050 Site Development Regulations The site development regulations in this Section 18.30(F).050 apply to automobile dealership uses in the (AD) combining district, in addition to the regulations of the underlying district. Where the regulations of the underlying district conflict with this Section 18.30(F).050, this section shall control. (a) Floor Area Ratio 1) The maximum floor area ratio for automobile dealership uses shall be 0.4 to 1. 2) An additional 0.2:1 FAR is permitted exclusively for automobile showroom space, for a total FAR of 0.6:1. "Automobile showroom space" is that area for the display of new automobiles, located only on the first floor and excluding all other uses associated with the automobile dealership including sales office and sale of related merchandise. The director of planning and community environment is authorized to determine whether floor area is automobile showroom space, as described above. Floor area used for automobile showroom space shall not be converted to any other use if the total floor area devoted to uses other than automobile showroom space would exceed a floor area ratio of 0.4:1 following the conversion. 3) Notwithstanding Section 18.04.030 (65), the following shall not count toward an automobile dealership’s maximum floor area: i. Parking facilities for required parking related to service and repair areas shall be excluded from the calculation of gross floor area as provided in Section 18.52.040(b)(2), however, any enclosed or covered parking in excess of this requirement shall count toward total gross floor area; ii. Covered area dedicated to queuing of customer vehicles for drop off and pick up of service vehicles shall be exempt from the calculation of gross floor area; only one contiguous designated area shall be excluded in a development. . . . [This codifies existing practice.] SECTION 3. Section 18.40.160 (Replacement Project Required) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) is added to read as follows: 18.40.160 Replacement Project Required No permit required under Title 2 (Administrative Code), Title 12 (Public Works and Utilities), or Title 16 (Building Regulations) shall be issued, except for tenant improvements or where necessary for health and safety purposes (as determined by the City’s Building Official), unless plans for a replacement project have been approved. [This codifies existing practice.] NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 3 February 13, 2017 SECTION 4. Section 18.40.170 (Deferral of Director’s Action) of Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) is added to read as follows: 18.40.170 Deferral of Director’s Action The director shall have the authority to forward projects to City Council for final action in the circumstances listed below. No action by the Director shall be required, and the appeal process and or request for hearing process shall not apply to such referred actions. (a) In the case of projects having multiple entitlements, where one requires City Council approval, all entitlements may be referred to City Council for final action; (b) Projects involving leases or agreements for the use of City-owned property; and (c) Projects, as deemed appropriate by the director. [This codifies existing practice.] SECTION 5. Section 18.42.140 (Housing Inventory Sites Small Lot Consolidation) of Chapter 18.42 (Standard for Special Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) is added to read as follows: 18.42.140 Housing Inventory Sites Small Lot Consolidation The following incentives and standards shall apply to sites listed in the Housing Element’s Housing Inventory Sites list and identified as “small lot, co n solid at ion opportunity” that are merged to form a larger parcel for development of an 100% affordable rental or ownership housing project. For purposes of this section only, a “100% affordable rental or ownership housing project” shall include mixed use projects containing ground floor retail and retail like use provided the residential square footage is at least 85% of the project’s gross floor area. (a) All projects shall comply with the respective development standards and allowable uses as specified in the underlying zone district, except as modified below; (b) For HIS properties not located in the RT 35 or RT 50 zones, the RT 35 development standards shall apply and development of a mixed use development is not required; (c) In the case of a conflict between the provisions of this section and the RT development standards (Chapter V, SOFA 2), this section shall control; (d) Any HIS property in excess of 10,000 square feet prior to consolidation shall not be entitled to any of the incentives in this section; (e) The applicable Housing Inventory Site (HIS) can be merged with both HIS and non- HIS sites; (f) The housing units shall be deed restricted as 100% affordable housing units for no less than 30 years; (g) Rental units shall be made affordable to households earning no more than 80% o f the Count y’s Are a Median In co me (AM I) an d ownership un its shall be made affordable to households earning no more than 120% of AMI; NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 4 February 13, 2017 (h) Application processing shall be prioritized throughout the planning entitlement phase to the maximum extent feasible; (i) All such projects shall be subject to Architectural Review. Site and design review required in the Code for mixed use projects shall be waived for such projects; (j) All subdivisions, regardless of the number of parcels created, shall be subject to the administrative Parcel Map subdivision process; however, maps requiring exceptions as specified in PAMC 21.32 shall follow the standard review process; (k) No parking is required for residential units less than 500 sq. ft., regardless of bedroom count; (l) Guest parking for the residential use, as required by PAMC 18.52.040, shall be reduced by 30%; fractional amounts shall be rounded down; and (m) Waiver of planning entitlement fees: Waive all planning application fees except for direct costs for consultant fees associated with project review. This waiver shall not include applicable parking in lieu or development impact fees. [This implements Housing Element Program H2.1.9.] SECTION 6. Section 18.52.040 (Off-Street Parking, Loading, and Bicycle Facility Requirements) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows: 18.52.040 Off-Street Parking, Loading, and Bicycle Facility Requirements . . . (c) Tables 1, 2 and 3: Parking, Bicycle, and Loading Requirements Tables 1 and 2 below outline vehicle and bicycle parking requirements in general and for Parking Assessment Districts, respectively. Table 3 outlines loading requirements for each land use. For mixed-use projects, the requirement for each land use shall be applied and required for the overall project. . . . Table 3 Minimum Off-Street Loading Requirements Use Gross Floor Area Loading Spaces Required RESIDENTIAL USES • Single-family residential use • Two-family residential use • Multiple-family residential use No requirement established 0 • Dormitory, Fraternity/Sorority, or group housing where meals are provided in common dining facilities • Housing for the elderly or other community facility, 0 – 9,999 sq. ft. 0 10,000 – 99,999 sq. ft. 1 NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 5 February 13, 2017 where meals are provided in common dining facilities 100,000 sq. ft. or greater 2 HEALTH CARE SERVICES • Hospitals • Convalescent facilities 0 – 9,999 sq. ft. 0 10,000 – 99,999 sq. ft. 1 100,000 – 199,999 sq. ft. 2 200,000 sq. ft. or greater 3 NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 6 February 13, 2017 [Continued on Next Page] Use Gross Floor Area Loading Spaces Required SERVICE USES • Automotive Uses 0 – 29,999 sq. ft. 1 30,000 – 69,999 sq. ft. 2 70,000 – 120,000 sq. ft. 3 Each additional 50,000 sq. ft. over 120,000 sq. ft. 1 additional space • Financial services • Personal services • Administrative office services 0 – 9,999 sq. ft. 0 10,000 – 99,999 sq. ft. 1 100,000 – 199,999 sq. ft. 2 200,000 sq. ft. or greater 3 RETAIL USES • Hotel/Motel/Inn 0 – 9,999 sq. ft. 0 10,000 – 99,999 sq. ft. 1 100,000 sq. ft. or greater-199,999 sq. ft. 2 200,000 sq. ft. or greater 3 • Retail Services • Eating and Drinking Services 0 – 4,999 sq. ft. 10 5,000 – 29,999 sq. ft. 1 30,000 – 69,999 sq. ft. 2 70,000 – 120,000 sq. ft. 3 For each additional 50,000 sq. ft. over 120,000 sq. ft. 1 additional space OFFICE USES • Medical offices • Professional offices • General business offices 0 – 9,999 sq. ft. 0 10,000 – 99,999 sq. ft. 1 100,000 – 199,999 sq. ft. 2 200,000 sq. ft. or greater 3 NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 7 February 13, 2017 [This corrects clerical codifying errors and implements prior Council direction re how to calculate parking requirements for mixed use projects.] SECTION 7. Section 18.52.050 (Adjustments by the Director) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows: 18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director Automobile parking requirements prescribed by this chapter may be adjusted by the director in the following instances and in accord with the prescribed limitations in Table 4, when in his/her opinion such adjustment will be consistent with the purposes of this chapter, will not create undue impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the site or in the general vicinity, and will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the development, including for visitors and accessory facilities where appropriate. No reductions may be granted that would result in provision of less than ten (10) spaces on a site. The following are adjustments that apply to developments not located within a parking assessment district. Adjustments within the parking assessment districts are contained in Section 18.52.080. The decision of the regarding parking adjustments may be appealed as set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals). Table 4 Allowable Parking Adjustments Purpose of Adjustment Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction 2a On-Site Employee Amenities Square footage of commercial or industrial uses to be used for an on-site cafeteria, recreational facility, and/or day care facility, to be provided to employees or their children and not open to the general public, may be 100% of requirement for on- site employee Use Gross Floor Area Loading Spaces Required MANUFACTURING AND P ROCESSING USES • Warehousing and distribution • Manufacturing 0 – 4,999 sq. ft. 10 5,000 – 29,999 sq. ft. 1 30,000 – 69,999 sq. ft. 2 70,000 – 120,000 sq. ft. 3 For each additional 50,000 sq. ft. over 120,000 sq. ft. 1 additional space • Research and development 0 – 9,999 sq. ft. 0 10,000 – 99,999 sq. ft. 1 100,000 – 199,999 sq. ft. 2 200,000 sq. ft. or greater 3 OTHER USES All uses not specifically listed To be determined by the director NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 8 February 13, 2017 exempted from the parking requirements amenities Joint Use (Shared) Parking Facilities For any site or sites with multiple uses where the application of this chapter requires a total of or more than ten (10) spaces, the total number of spaces otherwise required by application of Table 1 may be reduced when the joint facility will serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for each use or site. In making such a determination, the director shall consider a parking analysis using criteria developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) or similar methodology to estimate the shared parking characteristics of the proposed land uses. The analysis shall employ the city's parking ratios as the basis for the calculation of the base parking requirement and for the determination of parking requirements for individual land uses. The director may also require submittal and approval of a TDM program 1to further assure parking reductions are achieved. 20% of total spaces required for the site Housing for Seniors The total number of spaces required may be reduced for housing facilities for seniors, commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities, and subject to submittal and approval of a parking analysis justifying the reduction proposed. 50% of the total spaces required for the site Affordable Housing Units and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units The total number of spaces required may be reduced for affordable housing and single room occupancy (SRO) units, commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities. The reduction shall consider proximity to transit and support services and the director may require traffic demand management measures 1 in conjunction with any approval. a. 40% for Extremely Low Income and SRO Units b. 30% for Very Low Income Units c. 20% for Low Income Units Housing Near Transit Facilities The total number of spaces required may be reduced for housing located within a designated Pedestrian/Transit Oriented area or elsewhere in immediate proximity to public transportation facilities serving a significant portion of residents, employees, or customers, when such reduction will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities, and subject to submittal and approval of a TDM program.1 20% of the total spaces required for the site. Transportation and Parking Alternatives Where effective alternatives to automobile access are provided, other than those listed above, parking requirements may be reduced to an extent commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by such alternative programs. Examples of such programs may include, but are not limited to, transportation demand management (TDM) programs or innovative parking pricing or design solutions.1 (note: landscape reserve requirement is deleted). 20% of the total spaces required for the site Combined Parking Adjustments Parking reductions may be granted for any combination of the above circumstances as prescribed by this chapter, subject to limitations on the combined total reduction allowed. a. 30% reduction of the total parking demand otherwise required NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 9 February 13, 2017 b. 40% reduction for affordable housing projects c. 50% reduction for senior housing projects Modification to Off- Street Loading Requirements The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off-street loading requirements for non-residential development based on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon a finding that the off-street loading may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles. One loading space may be waived . . . 2. No parking reductions may be granted that would result in provision of less than ten (10) parking spaces on a site. SECTION 8. Section 18.52.080(e) (Modification to Off-Street Loading Requirement) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is added to read as follows: . . . (e) Modifications to Off-Street Loading Requirements The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off-street loading requirements for non-residential development based on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon a finding that the off-street loading may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles; maximum reduction is one loading space. [This is a new section, but also reflects past staff practice for mixed use projects.] SECTION 9. Section 18.54.020(b)(4) (Vehicle Parking Facilities) of Chapter 18.54 (Parking Facility Design Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) is added to read as follows: 18.54.020(b) Off-Street Parking Stalls . . . (4) Mechanical lifts may be used to satisfy off-street parking requirements, subject to approval by the director or city council, as applicable, and in accordance with the following provisions: A. The regulations in this section apply to mechanical lifts, elevators and turn-around devices specified for vehicle use, and other mechanical devices that facilitate vehicle parking; NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 10 February 13, 2017 B. Mechanical vehicle lifts may be used for multi-family residential, office, hotel, automotive, industrial or institutional uses. Other uses may use mechanical vehicle lifts subject to approval from the Director of Planning and Community Development and may be required to provide dedicated on-site valet assistance for no fee to the user. C. The location of mechanical lifts shall be located within an enclosed parking facility. All lifts and associated equipment shall be screened from public views and the screening shall be architecturally compatible with the site conditions; D. Applicant shall submit an analysis and report, prepared by a qualified professional, for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment that demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed parking lift system; operational details; schematic or technical drawings; regular and emergency maintenance schedule, procedures and backup systems; vehicle queuing, access and retrieval efficiency; and potential impacts, delays, or inconveniences to all of the following: i. site residents, workers, and visitors ii. pedestrian and bicycle movement and safety on and nearby the site iii. vehicular movement and safety on and nearby the site E. Mechanical car lifts shall not be used for accessible parking spaces or loading spaces; F. Mechanical car lifts shall accommodate full-size sport utility vehicles G. For all non-residential uses, a minimum of two spaces or 10% of the total number of parking spaces provided, whichever is greater, shall be provided as standard non-mechanical parking spaces. The required accessible spaces shall not be counted as one of the standard spaces for this requirement; H. Additional information, reports and analysis may be required and conditions may be imposed to ensure the use, operation and function of the lift system is not detrimental to the public welfare, property, land uses and users of the property, other properties, or the public right of way, in the general vicinity. I. The Director shall have authority to adopt regulations to implement this provision. [This new section is added to address new mechanical parking lift technology.] SECTION 10. Chapter 10.70 (Trip Reduction and Travel Demand) is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 11. Section 18.52.030 (i) (Transportation Management Plan) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is added to read as follows: NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 11 February 13, 2017 (i) Transportation Demand Management Plan (a) Requirement for TDM Plan: A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to reduce and manage the number of single-occupant motor vehicle trips generated by the project shall be prepared and submitted by the applicant in the following circumstances: 1. For all projects that generate 100 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) or weekend peak hour trips; 2. For all projects claiming a reduction in net new trips due to proximity to public transit or the implementation of a TDM plan; and 3. For all projects requesting a parking reduction. (b) The Director shall have the authority to adopt guidelines for preparing TDM plans and when applicable shall coordinate such guidelines with the Transportation Management Authority. SECTION 12. Section 18.52.050 (d)(1) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as follows: . . . (d) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (1) A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program may be (a) proposed by an applicant, or may be (b) required by the director for any project requesting a reduction in parking or generating 100 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) or weekend peak hour trips; or (c) may be required as CEQA mitigation for identified potential significant parking impacts. (2) Where a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is proposed or required, the TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. The Director shall have the authority to adopt guidelines for preparing TDM plans. Required mMeasures may include, but are not limited to: participation in the Transportation Management Authority or similar organization, limiting "assigned" parking to one space per residential unit, providing for transit passes, parking cash-out, enhanced shuttle service (or contributions to extend or enhance existing shuttle service or to create new shared or public shuttle service), car-sharing, traffic-reducing housing, providing priority parking spaces for carpools/vanpools or "green" vehicles (zero emission vehicles, inherently low emission vehicles, or plug-in hybrids, etc.), vehicle charging stations, additional bicycle parking facilities, or other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the director, shall include proposed performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction and indicate the basis for such estimates, and shall designate a single entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.) to implement the proposed measures. (3) Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the director two years after building occupancy and again every three years thereafter five years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial performance targets, and NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 12 February 13, 2017 implementing suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. (4) Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require further program modifications and may impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not addressed within six months. . . . [Sections 10-12 are added to codify and standardize the City’s TDM requirements.] SECTION 13. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 14. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 15. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline sections 15061(b) and 15301, 15302 and 15305 because it simply provides a comprehensive permitting scheme. SECTION 16. This ordinance shall not apply to any planning or land use applications deemed complete as of the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 17. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT YET APPROVED 161129 jb 0131563 13 February 13, 2017 NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Excerpt Minutes: December 14, 2016 2 Council Chambers 3 250 Hamilton Avenue 4 6:00 PM 5 6 7 4. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 8 Title 18 (Zoning), Chapters 18.04 (Definitions), 18.30(F) ((Automobile Dealership (AD) 9 Combining District Regulations)), 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), and 18.54 10 (Parking Facility Design Standards) Adding Sections 18.40.160 (Replacement Project 11 Required), 18.40.170 (Deferral of Director’s Action), and 18.42.140 (Housing Inventory Sites 12 Small Lot Consolidation) and Repealing Chapter 10.70 (Trip Reduction and Travel Demand). 13 The Proposed Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 per Sections 15061(b)(3). 15 16 Chair Alcheck: It is 10:00. What I would like to do is see how much we can get through of this 17 item, Item Number 4. I’m wondering if are we comfortable setting a time limit of 10:30? Ok. 18 19 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Well what do we have to get done on this today? Is there anything we 20 have to get done today? 21 22 Chair Alcheck: I'm going to suggest that we just get let staff make their presentation and then 23 we can begin and we'll see how we're doing and if there's a concern we can sort of bifurcate. 24 Staff if you would? 25 26 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: So due to the time and the Commission's interest we're going 27 to be have a we’re going to breeze through this presentation because we'd rather hear your 28 comments. Ok. 1 2 Clare Campbell, Senior Planner: Ok. Good evening, Commissioners. So basically tonight I'm 3 going to review the proposals that were the proposed amendments that were brought forward 4 to you last month on the November 9th study session. We've got some objectives that we 5 talked about before addressing state law, Housing Element implementation, updating the code 6 for text changes and such, and so forth. And these changes are related to our Affordable 7 Housing Code, our entitlement review process, our off-street loading requirements, and our 8 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. And we're adding a new topic tonight and 9 that is related to the floor area calculations for auto dealerships located in the AD, Auto 10 Dealership overly. 11 12 So I'm just going to jump right into it. So all of these amendments we had brought forward last 13 month to discuss it and basically I've made the notation for all of these if something's changed 14 we haven't changed anything unless noted on these slides. So we have proposed definition 15 updates for some housing related definitions and we're going to be correcting some loading 16 space or updating some loading space items. The first one is to correct the error in the loading 17 space requirement table. The second is to clarify the mixed use requirements for projects. And 18 the last loading one is to allow Director’s adjustments for loading spaces. And the next ones we 19 have to allow the deferral of the Directors’ decision to Council for action, establish standards 20 for when a TDM plan is required for a project, and the next one is to update the Housing 21 Density Bonus regulations. So this one is going to be deferred to next year; staff didn't have 22 enough time to prepare the appropriate ordinance language. So that will come to you soon 1 early next year. 2 3 The next one is the to allow to require discretionary approvals to be completed before the 4 demolition permit is approved and no changes there. And the next one is to allow the use of 5 mechanical lifts in projects. So this one and the following one we did have extensive 6 conversation at the last meeting and staff has basically incorporated your comments and 7 feedback into the draft ordinance that's attached to the staff report. So allowing the kind of 8 lifts and the next one is to provide incentives to encourage consolidation of small housing 9 inventory sites. 10 11 And the very last one that we also discussed was to allow hotel conversions to affordable 12 housing units. So we're not planning to pursue this at this time. It was clear that there was 13 definitely more analysis needed. So that's going to be postponed to a future time. 14 15 Alright so the very last one here is the newly added item. So we have some changes being 16 proposed for floor area for auto dealership uses in the AD overlay. So the first one is to exempt 17 a floor area used for customer vehicle queuing for service drop off and the second one is to 18 exempt floor area used for parking requirements related to service areas. 19 20 So that was a quick wrap up that's all of them. So basically upon your recommendations were 21 we've got this tentatively scheduled for Council review on February 13th. Thank you. 22 1 Chair Alcheck: Ok thank you, staff. We did review this very recently and if you reviewed the 2 minutes and you looked at the current staff report then you know that a majority of our 3 comments are included. I think that the actually the best I'm going to ask if anybody wants to 4 speak on anything that they believe is controversial, but if someone is inclined I will absolutely 5 accept a Motion to make this recommendation and give people an opportunity to make 6 adjustments in the same process that we've used now for two meetings which is by 7 amendment, by unfriendly amendment. So I see one light, Commissioner Tanaka is that you? I 8 see a… you… I see another light so do you want me to call on that person? Ok, alright. So 9 Commissioner Rosenblum I see a light. Go ahead. 10 11 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, I this item I know that we reviewed for also something like 12 three hours the previous time and I was gratified to see all of our comments included and also 13 just the changes included. I'd be prepared whenever we want to make the Motion and go by 14 our previous process where if anyone wants to add an amendment, but I found it consistent 15 with our discussion. Everything was reflected. I think that we had a pretty deep discussion on 16 each of these items previously. So whenever it's time to make a Motion I'm happy to make it. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: I will accept Motions now. 19 20 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, I'd like… 21 22 Chair Alcheck: I have no other lights, so… 1 2 MOTION 3 4 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok then I'll make a Motion to accept staff recommendation as 5 written. 6 7 SECOND 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Do I have a second? I have a second. Would you like to speak as a second to 10 your Motion? Ok. Commissioner Tanaka. At this time if anybody would like to amend to 11 suggest an amendment this would be the time. Commissioner Tanaka. 12 13 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 14 15 Commissioner Tanaka: So page, Packet Page 87. So I see that E. says mechanical car lifts shall 16 not be used for required guest parking residential developments and I don’t see a good reason 17 why not so I think we should strike that. Page, Packet Page 87 E. basically I think we should 18 allow… Yeah. I can’t see why, why would we not want it to use in residential unless staff has a 19 good reason, but I don’t I can’t see why not. 20 21 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so the proposed amendment is to strike Item E. Do I have any seconds? 22 1 Commissioner Gardias: I’m sorry, which one? A? 2 3 Chair Alcheck: So this is Page 87. The proposal is to lift the restriction that mechanical car lifts 4 shall not be used for any required guest parking in a residential development or for accessible 5 parking spaces or loading spaces. Or is it actually just to remove it for guest parking? Let me 6 clarify. Are you suggesting that parking lifts could be used for accessible parking and how 7 (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, no. I was really talking about the guest parking (interrupted) 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so it's, sorry. 12 13 Commissioner Tanaka: Sorry. 14 15 RESTATED UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Proposed amendment is to modify E. and remove the words “required guest 18 parking in residential development.” So that would mean that mechanical boat [Note-car] lifts 19 could be used for required guest parking in a residential development. Like an apartment 20 complex that had to have a certain number of guest spots those could be operated with 21 mechanical lift. 22 1 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, I agree with this. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: You second it? 4 5 SECOND 6 7 Commissioner Gardias: I second it. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok, great. Would you like to speak your second? 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah I just I don't see justification for not applying the car, the 12 mechanical car, the car lifts for this purpose. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: Oh, should I speak or no? 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Would you like to speak to it? 19 20 Commissioner Tanaka: Sure, real quick. So I mean land value is real expensive in Palo Alto. We 21 should maximize the use of our land. Having mechanical car lifts does that so I can't see why 22 we should not allow that. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Do you mind if I ask of staff a point of clarification? When we're talking about 3 just so I'm clear I used the example of an apartment complex and guests which I assume are 4 overnight guests or maybe even evening guests. Is there another subset of residential guest 5 parking different than what I'm thinking of in this scenario? 6 7 Ms. Campbell: No. So for residential projects there is a requirement that there's a certain 8 number of guest parking spaces. So it could be used for just a short term visit, something 9 overnight, but there are no other types of guest parking. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Would like a prospective tenant, someone who wants to apply to live at a 12 residential apartment complex be considered a guest? 13 14 Ms. Campbell: Yeah, I would assume so because guests’ spaces are the ones that are not 15 dedicated to the units. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Got it. Ok. Thanks for that point of clarification. Does anybody else have a 18 question or clarification on this item? Ok, so let's put it to a vote. All those in favor of removing 19 the language that I’ve identified in Section E. please raise your hand. All those opposed? 20 Would the opposition like to speak to their opposition? That's three for and two opposed. 21 Please do. 22 1 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 PASSED (3-2-0-1, Commissioner Fine absent) 2 3 Commissioner Rosenblum: The reason the language was inserted I believe was that there’s 4 skepticism that if you have mechanical lift people will actually use it. So if you're short term 5 guest and so that will lead to more on street parking. So part of the parking requirements for 6 residential is to assuage neighbors for example that you’re not going to create parking 7 problems in the neighborhood. So counting their parking requirements for short term being 8 mechanical left I think will be met with skepticism by neighbors and I think rightfully so. 9 10 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. Would you like to speak your? 11 12 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: I concur with Mr. Rosenblum’s comments. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. I think Council will appreciate that information. Are there any 15 other amendments? Ok. 16 17 Commissioner Gardias: If you don't mind I just I'm trying to find I was on the phone back then 18 and so I'm trying to find out I proposed insertion of removal of the small lots that are subject of 19 the consolidation. I proposed removal of those small lots from the parking requirements and I 20 was going through the 18.42.140 on Page 81 trying to find where this found its place. 21 22 Ms. Campbell: So I can respond to that. We did not eliminate the parking requirements for the 1 small lots. 2 3 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. 4 5 Ms. Campbell: Because that [unintelligible] recommendations. 6 7 Commissioner Gardias: So it means that not all of the comments were inserted so then I have a 8 following questions, which items were not inserted or were changed from [unintelligible] 9 conversation? So I would like to get the list of those. That's Number 1 because it just puts into 10 doubt the this whole Motion. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Ok, hold on. Hold on. I need to clarify something here. We went through this 13 process last time and it was the onus was on staff to determine based on our process whether 14 there was support for certain changes. And that is a tough process to determine whether or 15 not there's enough support for a proposed change. The flipside of that is the onus is upon us 16 during our review of this project, this item to determine whether or not our proposed changes 17 were incorporated and if they weren't to re-suggest them as amendments now and have an 18 opportunity to make a case to your fellow Commissioners. I don't think that there it would be 19 possible for staff to prepare a list of which of your comments last time were incorporated or 20 not. Do you have that list? 21 22 Ms. Campbell: So for the specific item it's actually I did call it out in the staff report. It's on Page 1 9 of the or Page 9 of the staff or Page 72 of the packet on the top and then it includes our staff 2 response. So basically our staff response was that we felt that eliminating parking 3 requirements altogether for these types of projects could have a significant parking impact so 4 that's something that we didn't pursue at this time. So definitely if it's a recommendation 5 (interrupted) 6 7 Commissioner Gardias: Right. So on which page it is? 8 9 Ms. Campbell: It is on Page 72 of the packet and the bullet points up at the top it's the third 10 bullet down and it says, “Eliminate parking requirements altogether from projects.” 11 12 Chair Alcheck: What I really want to highlight real quick is this process that I’ve set us in for the 13 last few meetings is really designed for us to be very specific about our changes, make cases for 14 them, to really have an opportunity to address everybody's specific concerns. The onus though 15 is upon each of us to do the homework to know what has changed in a particular ordinance and 16 how staff has dealt with it and if they feel like the staff response still doesn't address your 17 concern to make your concern to your fellow Commissioners in the in this amendment process 18 so that we can deal specifically with an issue and determine whether or not there's consensus. 19 If there isn't consensus regardless of how anybody feels then that amendment is not going to 20 happen. So what I suggest we do is if you feel strongly about this why don’t you make 21 (interrupted) 22 1 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 2 3 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, so I'm going to just it’s just responding to this, right? I mean just 4 took me by surprise because I heard different story as a neutral direction, right? I understood 5 that all of them were incorporated and now I understand that not all of them, right? So this 6 was one of them. 7 8 So let me just make a case why I proposed this because there is number of the small property 9 owners that would have ability or that to develop and care about their properties. If we 10 propose a policy that pretty much drives this specific the specific consolidation of the small lots 11 we pretty much select the winners and we select the losers. And the losers may be those that 12 because of some reason will not be will not have comparable power, economic power, to 13 develop their property as the guys that have ability to buy them out and then develop the 14 property. And then I think that from perspective of our City that has number of the small 15 business owners and the property owners it's not the right move. So for this reason I think that 16 we should support those small property owners as we would support others equally. For this 17 reason I propose that we should remove the burden on the parking requirements to set the 18 field straight. So I would like to propose Amendment to Paragraph 18.42.140 to remove 19 parking requirements on the for the small properties subject of the consolidation. 20 21 Chair Alcheck: Ok before I ask for a second does anybody want to ask any clarifying questions or 22 need clarification on this? Commissioner Tanaka. 1 2 Commissioner Tanaka: So wait, so which there’s A through I. Which one did you want to 3 change? 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: This is 18, this is Page 81. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: Oh, I know. I’m on there. Wait, wait… 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: On Page 81 there is a Paragraph 18.42.140 Housing Inventory Sites 10 small lot consolidation. It is pretty much expression of the policy that we define in the Housing 11 Element in 2014 and that policy was to drive number of the affordable units by allowing parties 12 to consolidate small lots into larger lots (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: No, I get that, but did you want to change on… like so I see sub-bullets A 15 through I. Which bullet (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Gardias: I would like to add the sub-bullet to this whole section that would allow 18 owners of the small lots subject of the consolidation to be exempt from the parking 19 requirements. 20 21 Mr. Lait: So I think that’s specified if I may Chair. That’s specified on Packet Page 82, letter J. 22 where we stay no parking is required for residential units less than 500 square feet regardless 1 of bedroom count. If I'm understanding the Commissioner's comment there's no parking 2 requirement for any units produced. 3 4 Commissioner Gardias: That's correct. 5 6 Mr. Lait: So it's an amendment to the Letter J. on Packet Page 82. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: So if you turn to Page 82, Number J., Letter J. on Page 82 you would amend no 9 parking is required for residential units less than 500 square feet regardless of bedroom count 10 you would amend that to no parking is required for residential units. 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: Right, but there would be (interrupted) 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Am I understanding that right? Is that what your question was? Ok. 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: There would be distinction, right? Because I believe that if they are 17 they would be under this Paragraph 18.42.10 that they would have to contribute to the 18 affordable units. 19 20 Mr. Lait: Well so these are for 100 percent affordable this is for the production of 100 percent 21 affordable rental. So you're not paying into a fee also for that. 22 1 Commissioner Gardias: Right. So if you if we exempt them under this section then if they 2 contribute to the affordable rental or ownership units then they would be exempt fully from 3 the parking restrict… the parking requirements? 4 5 Mr. Lait: So just so I'm clear, this provision would only apply for these I don’t know, 20 some 6 odd properties where they were to join with another and build 100 percent affordable housing 7 units. 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: That's correct. 10 11 Mr. Lait: Ok. And so what I'm hearing you're saying is that if somebody were to do that you 12 don't want to have a parking requirement for the residential units that are produced. 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: On their own before without consolidation. 15 16 Mr. Lait: Oh, without consolidation. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Without consolidation. I understand that this is applicable for the 19 consolidation so if the room is somewhere else that you know (interrupted) 20 21 Chair Alcheck: Maybe this (interrupted) 22 1 Commissioner Gardias: [unintelligible] relevant for this. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Maybe I'm hoping staff can help us figure this out. Maybe you can identify the 4 concern. What are you trying to prevent? 5 6 Mr. Lait: It’s the existing Housing Inventory Sites so it has nothing to do really with this because 7 this is seeking to consolidate. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: This is pre-consolidation I think is what (interrupted) 10 11 Mr. Lait: But you're saying for the existing parcels as they exist today you want to create 12 incentives (interrupted) 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: Exactly. 15 16 Mr. Lait: For those owners to build housing. Affordable housing? 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, exactly. 19 20 Mr. Lait: And not have parking be a part of the (interrupted) 21 22 Commissioner Gardias: Subject to the same condition as those that would be subject of the 1 consolidation conditions give them credit for parking. 2 3 Mr. Lait: So if you can give, so let can we just talk about that while you move onto the next, if 4 there is another? 5 6 Chair Alcheck: So just so I’m clear is staff understanding this as an entirely new section or do 7 they perceive this as an amendment to an existing section? 8 9 Mr. Lait: Yes, we do believe that it’s a new section. What we're trying to do and what the 10 objective here is is to implement the Housing Element which is seeking to encourage lot 11 consolidation so that you get more efficiency, probably more units, and so what I'm hearing is 12 to create an incentive to not keep them, to not consolidate them by means of having parking be 13 not provided, not required for the development. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Ok. What I would like to do if are you open to suggesting that as a second 16 Motion after we deal with this Motion? 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Well I mean it could be considered in a number of ways. I mean I 19 understand that because of the policy that we have and we have to implement it under 20 Housing Element we are pursuing the lot consolidation, but we can either create a separate 21 section or we can just pretty much change the title of this section and then or just pretty much 22 create exemption under the same section. It would meet the requirements. 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Ok. I'm trying to figure out how we can proceed with this so there’s sort of two 3 questions. Number 1 is we don't really have precise language to review on this item and so 4 without that I think what I would like to do is suggest that you propose and see if there's a 5 consensus for asking staff to create that language and bringing it to us to review. 6 7 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: And I think what staff is struggling with here is that it 8 appears to us that your recommendation is to give some zoning incentives to a few properties 9 in town and that has not been agendized. 10 11 Commissioner Gardias: I totally understand, but I also have a concern that just by meeting this 12 without creating a level playing the level fields that we incentivize some over the others. And I 13 totally understand that this hasn't been agendized so for this reason I was proposing this as a 14 either exemption or change of the title of the section so we can still meet this proposal from my 15 perspective. I might be the only one. My colleagues may might disagree with this, right? But 16 from my perspective if this passes without the other it just pretty much it shifts the balance of 17 power toward certain property owners. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Ok so I'm not really sure how to proceed. What I would like to do is suggest that 20 either we operate on the premise… yeah. We operate on the premise that this is an 21 amendment and I ask for a second or we treat it as a Motion to ask staff to come back to us and 22 see if there’s support for that. Either way we get to vote on whether or not there’s support for 1 this. 2 3 Mr. Lait: Ok. So I think our perspective on this is that this is not been properly agendized to 4 establish that (interrupted) 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Ok. It would be fair though to have a Motion to see if we could revisit this at a 7 next meeting and see if there's consensus for that. 8 9 Mr. Lait: You could. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok. So what I'm going to do is suggest that we vote on the Motion on the table 12 as amended and then I'll allow Commissioner Gardias to make another Motion tonight asking 13 staff to bring this item back to us and see if there is a second for that Motion. So wanted… are 14 you comfortable with that? 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: Could you repeat it please how we? 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so the issue is that you would like to discuss a topic that hasn’t been 19 agendized. So the process for doing that would be to make a Motion tonight and see if it 20 carries requesting that staff bring us this item agendized for the purposes of reviewing a 21 Planning Code amendment that would (interrupted) 22 1 Commissioner Gardias: As a separate topic? 2 3 Chair Alcheck: As a separate topic because it hasn't been agendized. 4 5 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, but I can also just propose another Motion? I can propose a Motion 6 to remove this section entirely from tonight's consideration. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Yeah an amendment to remove this from the current Motion. You can propose 9 that. 10 11 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: Yes so I'm going to propose this Motion [note-Unfriendly Amendment] 14 to remove this section because of that reason from the consideration tonight. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Ok, alright there is an amendment. I under (interrupted) 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Section 18.42. (interrupted) 19 20 Chair Alcheck: The entire Section A. through J., Page 80. So if I'm stating correctly there is 21 currently an amendment to remove the Housing Inventory Site small lot consolidation section. 22 Do I have a second? Do I have a question about a second? 1 2 Commissioner Tanaka: I… ok. Can the maker talk about rationale why he wants to do that? 3 4 Commissioner Gardias: So rationale is pretty much this that it would elevate some property 5 owners over the others. That the consideration. That’s the concern, I'm sorry. So for this 6 reason I would like to just change the language of this, have the staff come back to us on a 7 separate time, and then revise it so similar rights of building out their properties would be 8 giving to those owners that want to build affordable housing, but doesn't want to consolidate. 9 10 SECOND 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Any more questions? Ok so we have a second of the amendment. 13 14 Mr. Lait: Chair? Just one comment; this section is the reason we're here. This is the reason why 15 we're moving this ordinance forward. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: I understand that. 18 19 Mr. Lait: Ok. 20 21 Chair Alcheck: I’m… I understand that. Ok, so I have a second for an amendment to the 22 proposed Motion. Do you want to speak your second? 1 2 Commissioner Tanaka: Sure. So the reason why I support it is although I’m a little bit confused 3 by it, but the reason why I support it is because I think he's trying to fix a problem and I think 4 the Commission should have time to fix the problem because I think if we’re trying to fix it on 5 Council we’re going to be even more confused. So that's why I’m entertaining it. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Does anybody else wish to address this issue before we vote? 8 Commissioner Rosenblum. 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah I want to address this issue. So this does gut the entire 11 purpose of this of a lot of our discussion. The City's policy is to state that in trying to create 12 affordable housing we need to have enough lot liquidity you need to have a large enough lot to 13 have the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing be offset by market rate housing. And when you 14 have small lots the reason that we're doing this is because empirically we found that small lots 15 don't result in affordable housing for that reason. And so the whole reason to have this there is 16 to force this incentive towards consolidation. So you're right it is providing incentives for 17 certain kinds of property owners specifically to achieve a policy goal. So yeah so this does 18 confuse me because this is the empirical result of observing that small lots don't provide the 19 opportunity to have either BMR be offset or just an efficient place for someone like Palo Alto 20 Housing Corp. to develop a property. That's just not the way to do it. 21 22 VOTE 1 2 Chair Alcheck: Ok. I literally couldn't agree with you more. At this time though I'm going to put 3 this proposed amendment to the current Motion to a vote; all of those in favor please raise 4 your hand. We have one in favor. All those opposed? We have three opposed. All abstaining? 5 We have one abstainer. So that fails. So we have a Motion on the table as amended. Would 6 staff like to clarify the current Motion as amended? 7 8 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 FAILED (1-3-1-1, Commissioner Fine absent) 9 10 Mr. Lait: So I have move the staff report amending Section 9 to Item E. removing the required 11 parking, the lifts for guest parking to allow that. 12 13 VOTE 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so all those in favor of the Motion as amended please raise your hand. It’s 16 unanimous; unanimous support for the Motion. Ok. That concludes Item Number 4. 17 18 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-1, Commissioner Fine absent) 19 20 Commission Action: Recommend that the City Council Adopt the staff recommended 21 ordinance. Motion made by Commissioner Rosenblum, seconded by Commissioner 22 Tanaka motion is APPROVED 5-0. 23 Amended Motion: 1 A. Amend Section 9 - 9.18.54.020(b) Item E to remove required parking in guest 2 parking, motion made by Commissioner Tanaka, seconded by Commissioner 3 Gardias, APPROVED 3-2 Commissioner Waldfogel and Rosenblum AGAINST. 4 B. Amend the ordinance to remove Section 5 18.42.140 from the ordinance. Motion 5 made by Commissioner Gardias, seconded by Commissioner Tanaka; motion FAILED 6 3-1-1; Vice-chair Waldfogel and Chair Alcheck Against; Commissioner Rosenblum 7 Abstained. 8 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission 1 Regular Meeting Agenda: November 9, 2016 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 EXCERPT 4 5 5. Study Session to Review Modifications and Updates to Title 18 to Implement Housing 6 Element Programs and Zoning Code Clarifications 7 8 Chair Alcheck: [recording starts in progress] would be the Planning Code Amendments study 9 session. 10 11 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Thank you, Chair Alcheck. We're going to, I’m going to ask 12 Clare Campbell who has recently… who's been with the City for some time, but has now 13 switched over to our Long Range Planning Team to help us with our list of policy items to lead 14 you in the presentation and we're here to answer any questions that you may have. 15 16 Clare Campbell, Senior Planner: Great, thank you. Good evening, Commissioners; Clare 17 Campbell, Senior Planner. So tonight we have a collection of proposed code amendments for 18 our zoning code that we'd like to get some direction from you. We’re looking to get some 19 comments and suggestions for our code language so we can bring that forward for 20 recommendation next month. So tonight we're basically focused on four different areas. 21 We've got some housing related amendments, some review process modifications, corrections 22 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and modifications to our off street loading and parking standards, and a brief discussion on our 1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan requirements. 2 3 So the first one up today is our housing definitions. So in our Housing Element the City 4 committed to updating these two definitions for transitional housing and supportive housing, 5 to remove the references to multiple family uses. And the text that we're using or that we're 6 proposing is taken directly from the Housing Element program language and it's shown here on 7 our screen and it's also in the staff report. 8 9 The second item is for our housing inventory sites small lot consolidations. With the adoption 10 of our Housing Element the City also committed to meeting specifications of Program H2.1.9 by 11 January 2017 which involves amending the zoning code to create incentives that encourage 12 consolidation of smaller lots that are specifically identified on our housing inventory sites and 13 developed with 100 percent affordable housing units. So here I have a map it's not as clear as 14 I'd like it to be, but I have a separate one if we need to pull that up. But basically here we have 15 the distribution of our housing inventory and we have a cluster in the Downtown, we have 16 some along the El Camino corridor, there's a cluster in the Cal Ave. area, and also along the San 17 Antonio corridor. So there are 27 sites that have been identified as consolidation opportunities 18 and these cluster basically in the Downtown area and near the Fry’s site. So in the Downtown 19 area we've got two lots that are zoned CD and we have 21 lots in South of Forest Avenue 2 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. (SOFA 2) which are RT35. So this is the majority of the lots that have been identified as a small 1 lot opportunity sites for consolidation. So RT is the predominant zone for these properties. 2 3 So the next one is in the Fry's area, we have four CS lots near the Fry's area and so for moving 4 forward we've come up with some suggested standards and incentives for these consolidations. 5 So as far as the standards go basically we're saying we'd like to recommend that these housing 6 inventory sites can be merged with both inventory sites and non-inventory sites. The units 7 have to be deed restricted for a minimum of thirty years as 100 percent affordable housing. 8 We've established or suggested some affordable levels of income for these for ownership units 9 and for rental units and we're also suggesting that we use RT35 development standards for all 10 of these project types. For the incentives we're suggesting that the these projects have priority 11 processing for their entitlements, that we streamline the subdivision process for the project, we 12 would establish a legal conforming status for non RT35 lots, we would eliminate parking for 13 small units that are less than 300 square feet (sf), and we would provide a reduction in the 14 required guest parking for the project. 15 16 Alright, so moving on to housing density, so earlier this year we had four bills that were related 17 to density bonus that were adopted and we have some recommended amendments or 18 amendments that we have to comply with. And basically we've got a 20 percent density bonus 19 where at least 10 percent of the total housing units are designated for foster youth, disabled 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. veterans or homeless persons and are offered at the same affordability levels as very low 1 income units and this is AB 2242. Another amendment is to adopt specific procedures and 2 timelines for processing a density bonus application and this is related to AB 2501. And the last 3 one is guidance on what to do you when a density bonus replaces existing housing units and 4 this is related to AB 2556. 5 6 Alright, so the last housing item is a new policy and it's related to converting older hotels or 7 motels to housing units and if we assume that we want to go in this direction we've been 8 thinking about what can the City do to facilitate the change in use. So we know that we have 9 these types of projects we have code required upgrades for life and safety issues that those 10 cannot be waived whatsoever, but we are suggesting to waive some other types of zoning 11 requirements when it when there's a change in use such as changing the parking requirements 12 and for example, open space requirements for residential units. So we would ask the question: 13 what do we do to encourage this type of housing and what would we want in return for this? 14 So some of our suggested terms or requirements for this project would be a 30 year term for 15 affordable housing, 100 percent affordable housing, and priority given to Palo Alto residents or 16 employees. 17 18 So the next item is our first process item and this is regarding approvals. So we have a 19 longstanding practice of requiring all relevant planning entitlements to be approved before any 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. consideration of acting on the associated demolition permit. The zoning code has specific 1 requirements for this when it relates to architecture review applications, but it’s silent on its 2 applicability to any other type of entitlement. So we're looking to update the code to require 3 entitlement approvals prior to related demolition approvals for all projects and not just the 4 architecture review, so just to be explicit about that requirement. 5 6 Ok, so the next one is forwarding entitlements to Council for action. So when a project requires 7 multiple entitlements where the required action is split between the Planning Director and City 8 Council for example, site and design where that needs Council action and a variance which 9 needs a Planning Director's action maintaining separate authority can be a drawback to the 10 overall review of the project. We're suggesting that we make some code changes to allow the 11 Planning Director to forward all relevant planning entitlements to the Council for action where 12 Council action is required for one of those entitlements as a complete package for 13 consideration. So this allows the Council to get a complete picture of what's being proposed for 14 this project and can act accordingly. There are also other scenarios where forwarding projects 15 to Council for action may be recommended such as when projects involve leases or agreements 16 with City owned property and if on a case by case basis when the Director deems it to be 17 appropriate. And we can get into discussion a little bit more about that later. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ok, so moving on to TDM plans. We’d like to establish when a TDM plan is required for a 1 project. Our code includes references to TDM plans in association with requested parking 2 adjustments in non-parking assessment areas and we’d like to establish some citywide 3 standards for when a project triggers the preparation of a TDM plan. So some of the 4 recommended thresholds are 100 or more new weekday trips, a.m. or p.m. peak hour or 5 weekend peak hour trips, reduction on onsite parking or in order to support claims for projects 6 for a projects lower trip generation when the applicant claims that. 7 8 And the very last… oh no, next we’re moving on to loading. So our loading table was basically 9 established in 1978. There was a consolidation of the parking chapter to create a one parking 10 chapter information was consolidated from the individual zone districts and basically over the 11 years through formatting changes and updates some information has been lost in the updates 12 and erroneously emitted from this table. So here we have a red line version of the errors that 13 we need to correct. So basically I mean it's pretty straightforward. So somehow we've dropped 14 this upper threshold here for the for this room or area size for this building. So this is to put 15 that back in. We have a threshold here from 0 to 4,999 that was dropped off the table before 16 so we're putting that back in and adding this second level of square footage where it requires 17 one. So this is all what was consistent in the original tables for the loading requirements 18 previously and lower for manufacturing processing. We have the same error that was made 19 when the format was changed for this particular table. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Alright, so the next loading item is adjustments. So some developments in dense areas like the 2 Downtown can be significantly impacted when required to provide the off street loading space 3 and this space by our code definition is 45 feet long by 12 feet wide and requires a 15 foot 4 height clearance. Staff is proposing to allow the Planning Director the discretion to reduce or 5 modify this loading requirement when conditions are appropriate. And later on we do have 6 some examples of some site plans that we can show you to kind of help with this discussion. 7 8 Ok and then we need to clarify mixed use loading requirements. Our current loading table 9 doesn't specifically have a line item that's for mixed use, but basically we just want to make it 10 clear that loading requirements shall be based on the specific land uses that are being proposed 11 for that project. So it's just a clarification that we’ll change there. 12 13 And the last item is regarding mechanical lifts for the parking. And basically the proposed use 14 for mechanical this is becoming more popular. We're seeing more applicants coming in and 15 suggesting it or wanting to use these types of mechanisms to help satisfy the parking 16 requirements. We've had several projects and maybe in the last five years that we've 17 approved. It's gone through the process and we've approved them. They've all been mixed use 18 projects, residential and commercial, and they've all been projects where these lifts are in a 19 garage facility. So nothing is outside that’s visible. So we'd like to have some parameters in the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. code to basically allow this type of solution for parking and these are some of our suggested 1 standards for these lifts. So we want to clarify that we would it would be for residential or 2 office land use only, not to be used for guest parking, accessible parking or loading zones, it 3 needs to accommodate a full size sport utility vehicle (SUV), and basically to have some 4 provisions for nonresidential use to have some non-mechanical lift spaces so if someone needs 5 to just pull in and park real quick they have that opportunity to do that. So we can talk through 6 that. 7 8 We can also include in the past with some of the projects that I've personally worked on we've 9 had conditions of approval that there's parking management plans and plans that provide 10 emergency guidelines for when something goes wrong so that way everyone in the building is 11 aware of what they need to do and what, who you're supposed to call when something isn't 12 working the way that it needs to. And we can definitely include provisions in the code to 13 require maintenance and usability for the life of the project. I know that that can be a concern 14 so we can specify that as well. 15 16 Ok, so next steps. So we're looking to get your feedback today for these changes and we're 17 hoping to return in December with some of the supported changes that we're talking about 18 tonight for formal recommendation and ideally we would go to City Council in early 2017 with 19 your recommendations for these code amendments. Thank you. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Mr. Lait: And Chair we didn’t have a chance to strategize about how we might approach this. 2 So I might unless you have some ideas I might recommend that we go through the items in the 3 staff report starting on packet Page 16, Page 2 of the staff report where we list through Roman 4 numbers perhaps? 5 6 Ms. Campbell: Yes. 7 8 Mr. Lait: The nine proposed amendments. That might provide the process and I would just like 9 to make one other point that and we included some staff report last year there was a little bit 10 of awkwardness and when staff approached this last time and we're, we want to not have that 11 this time around. So I want to be clear that whatever the recommendation is from the Planning 12 Commission that's the recommendation we're going to advance to the City Council. There's not 13 going to be a staff recommendation and a Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) 14 recommendation. That didn't turn out the way that we thought it would last time and so we 15 want to be making some changes this time around. There is I think one or two state mandated 16 changes. Those ones we do need to move forward regardless of where the PTC may be on that, 17 but we can include the policy conversation in the staff reports. So with that we're here to help 18 with that discussion. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: Alright, so we do have a speaker card so let’s see, Steve Pierce, if you could come 1 up and I’ll give you five minutes. 2 3 Steve Pierce: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Steve Pierce of the 4 Downtown North neighborhood. Like to speak to you for just a few moments about the loading 5 zone changes that are before you and I certainly support what's in the staff report, but I don't 6 think it really goes far enough to cause to kind of remedy a problem I think is in the code. 7 8 Now this off street loading the zones are huge 45 feet long, 12 feet wide, 15 foot vertical 9 clearance and they apply to many uses such as restaurants and retail and so forth. So they 10 really don't apply to a number of the areas that we have in town. So if you consider for 11 example the Apple Store that was built some years ago, spectacular glass building, they being 12 more than 5,000 sf would have been required to have somewhere within those premises a 13 truck loading zone which obviously is absurd. I'm involved in a project on Cambridge Avenue 14 which is recently been rezoned so that the first floor is supposed to be retail and then again 15 now we're supposed to provide a loading zone somewhere within that small footprint which 16 basically is impossible. So while the City on one hand saying hey we want retail here, the 17 loading zone provision makes it impossible to even provide that. The result is you don't do 18 anything because you can't. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. So I would recommend… well, let's put this way I mean the loading zones certainly have their 1 purposes for shopping centers, grocery stores, your large box stores of which I don't think we 2 have any in town. Well, maybe one. So basically we know as Clare mentioned they really don't 3 work in our urban centers. So they don't work in Downtown, there's no purpose for them 4 there. There's alleys, there's off site loading zones. Cal Ave. area really doesn't work and 5 there's probably the other areas in town where it doesn't work either. So what I would suggest 6 is that we actually do a couple things. Number one, with respect to loading zones that we 7 exclude certain areas of town such as the Downtowns that we have and also that we really pick 8 up the need for the loading zones at a much higher threshold where now it's anything over 9 5,000 sf which is a reasonable size restaurant it really needs to be geared more to the grocery 10 store, to the shopping center so we're probably talking 30,000, 50,000 sf and above should 11 have a loading zone and requiring it for at these much smaller levels and areas of the City which 12 are just can't accommodate them basically just pushes a lot of projects through. Well, if you 13 approve this sort of Director approval and having to consider these things a lot of which just 14 don't make sense on the face of it. So I would just suggest that we change the criteria so that 15 this loading zone requirement is made more operable. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. I do have an idea of how I'd like to do this tonight. And I actually 18 really appreciate you sort of setting the framework for how we're going to get through this 19 process because in the past it's been a little, it has been a little hairy. This is what I would like 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. to do. Since this is going to be a two meeting study session what my preference tonight is for 1 us to go through the items that each of us feels particularly interested in discussing and being 2 very specific about a change that you'd like to see. I'd like to go one at a time and not 3 necessarily item by item. I'm going to let each individual sort of go through the items in this 4 packet that they'd like to comment on. I am hopeful that staff can essentially take notes, 5 copious notes. And what I would like to see if a Commissioner either feels, finds himself in 6 strong agreement with some other comment just make that point. Like oh, I agree with that, 7 I'd like to see that. And if they feel strongly against it make that point and if there isn't a strong 8 opinion about a particular change don't. 9 10 And my response, my request also will be that for example, I imagine maybe some 11 Commissioners will respond to our speaker’s comments. Ideally if staff feels like let’s I’m going 12 to use this as an example, we had a suggestion tonight that the loading sites not apply to 13 certain areas like Downtown. If for example a Commissioner suggests that we adopt that into 14 this study session or that we should pursue that what I'd love to see is staff come back in the 15 follow-up meeting if they believe that that change could result in sort of a negative 16 consequence. Like for example, tonight you don't really know if that is an applicable or suitable 17 adjustment if when we come back in the next study session we could say ok we know we 18 explored this idea of certain zones and here's where we think that could be problematic or 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. here's where it isn’t so that we get sort of immediate feedback on the suggestions we make 1 tonight. Ok, so that's my suggestion. 2 3 I'm going to go first by way of example. And I'm going to speak to the issues that I'd like to 4 speak to and everybody can kind of jump in on their issues. So I'll just reiterate that I think that 5 the comments related to the off street loading made by our guest are interesting to me and I 6 would like to see sort of a little bit broader discussion about whether or not we can eliminate 7 some of those requirements in the certain zones specifically in Downtown so that we can 8 alleviate some of the tougher standards where they really potentially aren't possible. And I 9 don't know that I need to explore the anymore except that if staff feels strongly and what I'll do 10 is after we finish we can have staff respond. Ok? 11 12 The next item I want to talk about is mechanical lifts. I thought it was particularly unappealing 13 for these lifts to only apply to residential and office land uses. I know from personal experience 14 that they can be very effective in hotel uses and so I find that the fact that it's not included as 15 potential uses… I almost think that maybe restricting the use is not a suitable way of doing this. 16 I think we should leave it open and if there is a specific concern that a mechanical lift isn't 17 suitable for a specific use I think we should sort of highlight that as opposed to having to 18 continue to broaden. Well, ok we’ll use them in residential maybe in office. Ok, maybe in 19 hotel. Ok, maybe in retail. I would prefer almost that we eliminate that distinction. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 I felt the same way about the notion of guest parking. I wasn't entirely sure why certain types 2 of users couldn't necessarily use of a mechanical lift. That felt overly restrictive. Even the 3 Bullet 3 about full size utility vehicles I wondered if there wasn't some sort of data where 4 certain populations, our population uses a certain percentage of full size and a certain 5 percentage of small size. Do they all have to accommodate what would be a full size SUV. That 6 seems a little onerous. 7 8 And then I'm going to skip forward the no demolition until replacement project approval; one 9 of the concerns I've had throughout this process of what was initially described as cleaning up 10 the code is that I think sometimes when we attempt to sort of create clarification by subtle 11 adjustments in the language we don't realize that we're actually making policy changes. So I'll 12 give you an example, right now if you don't have a project that's subject to the review you can 13 theoretically get your permit to demolish or even more importantly deconstruct your project in 14 anticipation of approval. And I think the reason why that's the case is because when you know 15 the rules going in your application is more likely to comply with those rules as opposed to with 16 the review board there's so much grey area to how your project could go and it could take 17 months before you have resolution. So having a site that's basically demolished is unappealing 18 in our neighborhoods. I will say this, there we this is an example of an area where I think more 19 thought should take place. Are we theoretically discouraging deconstruction? Deconstruction 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. typically takes a lot longer than demolition. Being able to get started on a project’s 1 deconstruction which is a very green way of dealing with old materials is something that if you 2 can get started with earlier in your process you have an incentive to do it. Time is money when 3 it comes to this process and so if for example you have to wait till the very last minute to 4 demolish your structure you may elect to demolish instead of deconstruct. I think we're 5 creating incentives here. So I would love to see us either table that one or spend a little time 6 talking about that. 7 8 And those are my comments on the items. So what I'd love to see is you guys light up the 9 board and we and go through your things. If you have specific comments just make them and 10 we'll give staff an opportunity I think at the end of this first round to sort of respond so that you 11 can kind of understand where we're at. And then if we need to we can do more discussion and 12 then finally we can let staff come back to us in the following study session. Ok, Commissioner 13 Rosenblum. 14 15 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. I'll try to use this process. We’ll see how I do. I want to 16 divide this list into big things and small things. And I agree with the comment that these for the 17 most part are not wording changes. These are all kind of big items. So just I know that we had 18 the discussion before. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Lait: We did. 1 2 Commissioner Rosenblum: And I don't want to revisit it. 3 4 Mr. Lait: I just want to so on this process I want to… I hope there's an opportunity for a little bit 5 of give and take because my concern is we're going to hear from all six of you about something 6 that I might want to clarify so we don't have to have that conversation. 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Absolutely, if you have a clarification just jump in. 9 10 Mr. Lait: Great, thank you. And just on that point we were, I feel like we were clear in the 11 report summary we're not expressing the... we don't have the position that these are minor 12 tweaks. I mean 80 percent of them, 70 percent of them may be, well actually less than that I 13 mean there may be a I’m just picking a number. Like 20 percent may be like legitimate code 14 errors that we just need to fix. There's another percentage that reflect City policy and how 15 we've done things. And that’s we're not do anything really new, we’re just memorializing how 16 we've done it. And then there are definitely some new concepts that we're introducing and we 17 talked about that. And we say that there are new policy new initiatives related to affordable 18 housing and transportation management plans and so forth. So I agree, some of these things 19 aren't little tweaks. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. So in my category of really big things I think that the City's 2 affordable housing crisis and housing in general is top of the list we look at our City’s citizen 3 survey around greatest source dissatisfaction is the affordability and availability of housing. So 4 the two items the consolidation of small lots to encourage denser affordable housing units I'm 5 quite supportive of this and the map identifying the actual places they all seem to be clustered 6 around our two major transit hubs. The item I would suggest for consideration by Council is to 7 have and one of the big incentives is that units under 300 sf are exempt from parking 8 requirements regardless of number of bedrooms. I would like to see that increased to 500 sf, 9 300 sf is an extraordinarily small unit and again we're building affordable housing close to 10 transit. It's a significant incentive to give a parking reduction and this one would be in 11 combination with the TDM measures that we’ll talk about in one moment. 12 13 The second implementation of state law density bonus 20 percent where at least 10 percent of 14 total housing units are designated for foster youth, disabled veterans, homeless people, 15 etcetera. My gut on that is given the nature of these units a 20 percent bonus may still not 16 make it attractive to build these units for this population. This is very low income units and so 17 again my advice to Council would be consider to go up to 40 percent or at least study that, to 18 study the economics of building something with 20 percent bonus for very low income and that 19 you may have to increase the density bonus. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 TDM I think is the last of the really big ones to me. I like the staff suggestion which is 100 net 2 new trips fires off the TDM requirement. The advice that I would have as part of the packet 3 that goes to Council is to study what San Mateo did. So if San Mateo has implemented 4 something like this around basically what measures seem sufficient in order to basically you're 5 having TDM measures in place in exchange for some sort of parking reduction I think is part of 6 the intent of this. That you're going to have to have some measures in place in exchange for 7 that the benefit is that you build fewer parking spaces. And so my advice is I don't have any 8 specific input on levels, but that San Mateo has gone through this process quite recently and so 9 for Council to consider that would be germane information. 10 11 And then the things I think are a little bit smaller, I agree with our Chair for the most part on the 12 use of mechanical parking except on two items. I agree with him that we should not restrict 13 use types meaning I see no reason why hotels or auto dealerships, etcetera wouldn’t benefit 14 from mechanical parking. However, I do agree with staff’s recommendation that you have to 15 have normal guest parking of people coming in and out I think it's a serious impediment to have 16 100 percent mechanical. And I also think that we do need to accommodate full sized SUVs and 17 not get too fancy around having different proportions of different kinds of mechanical lifts that 18 support different sides of cars. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. The loading zone I am persuaded by our speaker that there are certain parts of town and 1 certain size of buildings where it doesn't make sense and undermines other ordinances like our 2 want for retail in the Downtown cores and I understand that and agree that that's an important 3 distinction and would encourage staff to look at exemptions for certain areas for certain types 4 of uses. 5 6 And then the final one that I think is a little bit niche is around the hotel conversion for 7 affordable housing. This seems to make sense to me. It seems to have been done once. Staff 8 doesn't think that's necessarily going to be done quite often, but has identified seven other 9 sites. The incentives seem to make sense to me. So this is one I don't have any… I would pass 10 this one. That’s it. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Thank you. That was excellent. Commissioner Fine. 13 14 Commissioner Fine: So thank you very much to staff for this. I was particularly pleased to see 15 some of the small lot of maps. That was actually really helpful to envision what those changes 16 might look like. Some information that might help us make a decision here on 17 recommendations or for Council; how many of the loading area exceptions have been made 18 across the City in the past few years? Are they concentrated in the Downtown area? I was 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. persuaded by the speaker and by my colleagues here. I’d just like to know what are the 1 exceptions there? Why have they been made? What are the specifics? 2 3 On terms of lifts I agree about the additional uses, I'm just wondering how they've been used at 4 all in Palo Alto. Do you guys, do any of you know of mechanical lifts used in the City so far? 5 6 Ms. Campbell: We have, so we have some projects that have been built. One’s across the 7 street, the 240 Hamilton. So that one has a unique system where it's not actually it's an 8 elevator so you drive in there's an elevator that takes you down into the basement and it has a 9 turnaround system that helps the car get turned around and you can come back out and you 10 can drive out. So that's one example of a mechanical assisted parking system. There's another 11 project at 102 University where that also has a lift. You park, you drive in and then the lift will 12 take you down into the basement where it's a full parking lot for cars. And that's also a mixed 13 use building just like 240 Hamilton. 611 Cowper that is a mixed use project where they've 14 added lifts, a few lifts, so basically it's just the two and it just goes down. I have a couple 15 pictures of what these lifts generally look like, but and they have that it's not a full load of lifts 16 like against a wall or something like that. But there is the 2500 El Camino project that's a 17 housing project and they have a significant number of lifts that they're using for their housing 18 parking requirements. And they’re actually staggered like you've got one set against the wall 19 and another set so you actually have to drive through two sets of or if you’re in the back you 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. could drive through the two. So we do have projects that we've reviewed that we've approved 1 lifts for. 2 3 Commissioner Fine: It would be nice just to have a quick index of that for those things. Two last 4 points. So one TDM, there may be something in there in terms of when we're triggering TDM 5 for that user or entity or building to look at the Transportation Management Association (TMA) 6 and see if there's any way to opt in to some of their projects, just kind of backfill on the efforts 7 the City's making with the TMA. 8 9 And the last one is kind of on the replacement projects. So I've heard from some folks that 10 generally after the first round of plan checks you're still allowed to go to the Chief Building 11 Official to get your demo permit and this can cut a lot of time off the project as a whole. I just 12 want to make sure we retain that flexibility here. That if you're going through plan check you 13 would still get your demo permit if things look good. And that's all for me. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. Commissioner Tanaka. 16 17 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, thank you. So… yeah so… ok, yeah so I agree with the comments 18 about the lifts. I think in general it makes better utility of the land so it makes total sense. So 19 what the parts that I thought I wanted to have more discussion on is around the fact or around 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. the proposal to have as you consolidate small lots to make it 100 percent affordable housing 1 and we certainly have affordable housing crisis here, but some of these locations are actually in 2 areas where there's retail and I think it can't be 100 percent because I think if you convert like 3 especially ground floor to housing that could be a bit of an issue. So I think for areas there are 4 in retail areas we need to actually have some retail facing businesses because it really hurts the 5 other retailers around there. So I think that's important. I don’t know if staff has any 6 comments on that? 7 8 Mr. Lait: So what staff is contemplating here is the reason this is before us is because of the 9 Housing Element policy that was adopted and the requirement is that in the Element is that it's 10 for we do this to accommodate 100 percent affordable housing. So the question that we're 11 asking ourselves is the question that you've asked us which is: does that preclude an 12 opportunity for some kind of retail mixed use component? I do think housing projects with 13 mixed use sometimes they get a little more challenging on the financing and that might be a 14 reason why it was discouraged, but we can take a look at that and then we can also take a look 15 at this in the context of the other work that we're doing right now with retail preservation and 16 our expanding of the ground floor protection to make sure that we're not having a conflict 17 between that effort and this one. 18 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah. I mean because I think for retail especially we have blank spots 1 (interrupted) 2 3 Mr. Lait: Right. 4 5 Commissioner Tanaka: In the retail for frontage, right? It’s just not good. You don’t want to do 6 that. 7 8 Mr. Lait: Right. 9 10 Commissioner Tanaka: So. 11 12 Mr. Lait: Ok. 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: I think it's a intention, but I think you have to also think about what 15 happens, right, to retail. I think the other aspect is converting the hotels to housing. So hotels 16 we get quite a bit of money from, right? From the hotel tax essentially. So it doesn't sound like 17 this is going to impact [unintelligible] it’s not going to have a really big impact or not maybe you 18 could tell me, how many properties could be affected by this? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Ms. Campbell: In our analysis of the hotel properties there's probably just a handful like maybe 1 six or seven sites that we think that maybe are in a older condition that they might have 2 consideration for taking advantage of this change in use. 3 4 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, because hotels are top three revenue generators for the City and 5 right now we’re in kind of a booming economy, but it's not always going to be like this and their 6 might be a time when we actually want that revenue. And if you convert it to housing we lose 7 it forever. So I think that's something we have to consider as well. So how many rooms are we 8 talking about? You said a handful of properties, how many rooms? 9 10 Ms. Campbell: I’ll look it up in a sec, thanks. Ok so the total for the rooms in Palo Alto that we 11 have available now is 2,133. 12 13 Commissioner Tanaka: 2,000 rooms? 14 15 Ms. Campbell: So that's total, all hotels. So these represent roughly 250 rooms. 16 17 Commissioner Tanaka: 250 rooms, ok. So I’m going say (interrupted) 18 19 Ms. Campbell: That's roughly 10 percent. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Ok, so how much of a revenue loss is that? So we take our hotel tax 2 times the average rate of room times… what would that be in a yearly number? 3 4 Mr. Lait: Great. In this what you're asking for basically is an economic analysis of what this 5 impact may have if we were to go forward with that and we don't have that information today 6 and I do need to note that Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues are protected and we can't 7 share with the public that information. But the bigger issue is that you don't want to advance a 8 policy to the Council without knowing what the economic implications are and I think that 9 might be a comment we hear further on in the discussion. So it may be that this one requires a 10 little bit more research and analysis before we advance it on to Council. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Before we sort of leave this topic can either one of you sort of talk about how 13 this because I the way I understood this is this was a very unique amendment that sort of 14 specifically applied to this specific situation. That's how I read it. And so I'm wondering if I just 15 want to if you guys could provide a little more clarity on how you got to this specific notion. 16 17 Mr. Lait: Yes. So this was this concept comes about from a recent article that you may have 18 read where a local building used as a, approved as a hotel and still considered a hotel for 19 planning purposes was… a deal was made with the between a third party and the property 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. owner to rent out those spaces for low income housing. And what we were talking about when 1 this conversation was going on with this with the individual was gosh, it's kind of a shame 2 because we're not going to get any credit for providing low income housing for this use because 3 we still consider it a hotel. And the reason we consider it a hotel is because that conversion to 4 residential would have required parking and it wouldn’t have met different standards. 5 6 And so and the hotel I’m talking about is Hotel California. And so this isn't just for Hotel 7 California though it in theory could apply for it, but that type of hotel that you we see in Palo 8 Alto and we think there's about a half dozen of these kind of if you imagine that as a profile or a 9 prototypical type of hotel that we have in the City then we thought it would be an interesting 10 policy conversation to advance to this body and then on to Council. Is this something where if 11 it didn't have a significant impact to our TOT revenues and impact our that revenue stream is 12 there a good opportunity for here for us here to provide affordable housing, get credit for it in 13 the eyes of Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and in doing so we 14 would just we would be yielding on a couple of zoning issues which wouldn’t really change how 15 the building exists on the land today. They just don't provide additional parking and maybe 16 they have to do some egress or access to the building for stairways and things like that and we 17 would say ok if that's the case we would look favorably upon providing that access and so we 18 may have to make some deviations from the code. There’s also open space and some other 19 things, but this is a new policy initiative. It’s an interesting concept and we also recognize that 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. there may be some more work that we need to do on this before we move it forward, but we're 1 we welcome the Commission's comments. 2 3 Chair Alcheck: Do you have any more comments on that? 4 5 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah I just… yeah, I think that so hotels tend to be in kind of busy 6 locations, right? And they definitely tend to be in different locations, in busy visible locations, 7 and I think what residential tends to be is not necessarily that. It tends to be in other areas. So 8 I think that I would definitely love to learn more about how this works, what projects are 9 affected, [honeymoons] what the revenue impact is because I think that at this I think it’s 10 definitely a noble goal, but I think we have to be careful as to when we lose revenue generating 11 properties. 12 13 Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. Commissioner Gardias, would you like to? 14 15 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, thank you very much. So I will add to the discussion, but I will 16 share some other items, right? So when I was looking and thinking about this chapter about 17 the hotel conversion I had similar feelings that my colleagues had and I pretty much would 18 require that would go forward some analysis that would prove truly that the objective or the 19 noble goal is truly supported with some fiscal analysis of the all the type overthrow of the other 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. on the other hand there is there is a question about what could be on the site. Also the other, 1 on the other hand there is a question about what could be on the site if that hotel investment is 2 replaced by something else. So I don't believe that we can just tweak it in a vacuum because if 3 there is always opportunity to build some more affordable housing on that site and then maybe 4 even have more appropriate units then the hotel ones that maybe not are appropriate for all 5 the types of populations that we would like to have in there. So that’s about this point. 6 7 If I may just go to the other one I have a question about the housing related definition and the 8 change that was that it made for the Paragraph 135.5 and 138 before I proceed with my 9 question. So there is a change that calls to remove that multiple family use in both cases and 10 replace it with the residential use of property. What’s the intention of those changes? 11 12 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you, Commissioner Gardias; Cara Silver, Senior 13 Assistant City Attorney. So these changes are something that are required by state law. The 14 state law says that cities in their housing elements need to provide for supportive housing and 15 transitional housing along the same rules that apply to all residential neighborhoods. So our 16 current code permits supportive housing and transitional housing only in multifamily and 17 residential zones. And so we need to now just align our local law with the state law 18 requirement that requires that this housing also be permitted in single family neighborhoods. 19 So we agreed to implement this state law change in our Housing Element and the Council 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. adopted this Housing Element and directed us to do it. And this ordinance is just implementing 1 that prior directive. 2 3 Commissioner Gardias: So what I would like to understand if that change would have any 4 impact on the code compliance because California has some codes that are specific for the 5 multifamily housing. So if we adopt this change would this would the code would be 6 disregarded or they would that they still apply? Because those would be truly multifamily 7 housing, right? That’s what we are going to have in those area regardless that they would be 8 called differently. 9 10 Ms. Silver: Right. So if supportive housing and transitional housing is implemented in the single 11 family neighborhoods they need to occupy single family dwellings in a similar manner as other 12 single family dwellings are occupied. So if there are… you can't subdivide a house into separate 13 units because that would be converting a single family home to a multifamily home, but 14 provided that these types of housing are contained in a in a single family dwelling they really 15 are very similar uses to other comparable properties. So that's really the intent of the state 16 law. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, very good. I just was looking for more understanding of this so 19 thank you very much Cara. So I'd like to move go move to the off street loading requirements 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. and a question I have is very simple. If we're going to change the bracket and then we going to 1 have we’re going to insert that omitted 0 to 4,999 sf requirement will there be any properties 2 that would be relieved of this out of this requirement after this change? 3 4 Mr. Lait: So Jonathan Lait, the Assistant Director; so Commissioner Gardias when you say 5 relieved I’m trying to understand what you mean by relieved. 6 7 Commissioner Gardias: So the question I have, right, because right now in the code we have 8 that there is the one loading space required for up to 5,000 sf. If we're going to change the 9 code to zero are there any properties that because of this historical [unintelligible] we’re 10 burdened with this requirement now under the change would be relieved from the 11 requirement. 12 13 Mr. Lait: So thank you. I think I understand what you're saying. So in in the past if there were a 14 project the short answer is yes. If in the past there was a project that we required an offsite or 15 an onsite loading zone because it was between zero and 4,999 sf then yes by changing that 16 they're no longer required to have that loading zone. And our perspective on that is they 17 shouldn’t have ever been required to have that loading zone because that's the way the code 18 was originally drafted. This is a formatting error and we believe that the loading zone for that 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. size building shouldn’t be required, at least historically it has not been. The intent has been 1 that it has not been required. 2 3 Commissioner Gardias: Understood. But the question was pretty much are there any physical 4 properties that we can list today that are under this requirement, this erroneous requirement? 5 6 Mr. Lait: There may be. I don't know because this error occurred back in what was it 1992. So 7 it’s (interrupted) 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: My let me just get where I am getting to, right? If there are any if we 10 make this change probably it would be proper to also follow up and then identify if there are 11 any properties that are currently meeting this requirement and then follow up with the owner 12 and then allow them to remove this requirement or convert the space to something else. 13 14 Mr. Lait: So thank you. I have the comment written down. 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. So the next question that I have is about… if I may come back to 17 this? Let me just speak to the lift. So that’s a third item that you're proposing to change. So in 18 terms of the lift in that preamble or in the paragraph following it’s on Page Number 21. In the 19 requirement that the mechanical lift may be used to satisfy off street parking requirements 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. subject to approval by the Director or City Council. I'd like to propose that there is a change of 1 this language to some performance that would need to be attained by the property owner. 2 This way it would relieve the owner from the requirement to seek the Director or the City 3 Council approval or review and approval for this change. It would make it may be simpler and 4 easier for the owner to implement as opposed to just going through the process and be a 5 subject of the of maybe various factors, judgmental factors. 6 7 Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Gardias can you, would you mind actually repeating the specific 8 suggested language? 9 10 Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, so what the proposal is like this to change the requirements of 11 the approval by the Director or City Council to the performance base of the site that it would 12 have to meet when it has mechanical lift. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Which paragraph are you suggesting be changed? 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: So under it’s on Page Number 21 under the title Number 4, mechanical 17 stacker and lift. There is a paragraph that starts with mechanical lift may be used to satisfy and 18 then it ends with the following provisions. So I would propose to change the part of this 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. paragraph that talks about the approval of the Director or City Council to the performance 1 metrics that this site would have to meet. 2 3 Mr. Lait: So I can speak to that. The reason we have that… so there are two entities that 4 approve projects, discretionary projects, in Palo Alto it's the Director of Planning and 5 Community Environment and the City Council for some applications or on appeal of certain 6 applications. So it's pretty standard language that we say these lifts are approved subject to 7 the review of the Director. We review every project that's submitted to the City and it's just 8 pretty standard language that we include that. 9 10 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, I totally understand this, right? But for the ease of the developer or 11 the owner of the property (interrupted) 12 13 Mr. Lait: Ok, so (interrupted) 14 15 Commissioner Gardias: I thought it would be may be easier for them if we just tell them that 16 pretty much that requirement is of this that we're not uploading or unloading the car or parking 17 or bringing up back to the street the cars, they pretty much they cannot [unintelligible] blow up 18 the street. They, this needs to be done in the in some indentation so pretty much it doesn't 19 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. stop the pedestrian or the vehicular traffic from continuing. So I think that this would be the 1 performance threshold. 2 3 Mr. Lait: So if I can I think Commissioner Gardias the interest that perhaps you were speaking to 4 a moment ago was that it's not an ask of the Director for an adjustment, but rather a right that 5 somebody can do this. And I think that's an important conversation that I think the Commission 6 should discuss. We would be interested in getting guidance from the Commission on that. It 7 does have implications on how an applicant would be designing their project at the conceptual 8 stages and could have some implications that might be better addressed early on. They would 9 be able to go forward with a certain amount of understanding if it were by right. Obviously 10 there's a little more uncertainty if there's a discretionary component. 11 12 Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Gardias I think what we'll do is we'll give other individuals an 13 opportunity if they wish to to sort of reiterate their support for that. So why don't we move 14 on? 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Do you have any other items that you'd like to touch upon? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commissioner Gardias: Yes I do, but if you want to move on (interrupted) 1 2 Chair Alcheck: No, I mean I'd like you to move on to the next item. 3 4 Commissioner Gardias: Oh you want me to move on? 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, we’ve made a note of it and then we’ll give others an opportunity to 7 comment on your comment on your language recommendation. 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: Ok. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: So I'd like you to move on to the next item on your list. 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: Just a moment I'm going through my notes. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: That’s fine, take your time. 16 17 Commissioner Gardias: Also there is another comment that I had to the Section 18.52.080e, a 18 modification to off street loading requirement. It’s on Page 20. So my proposal is that is to 19 notify PTC writing within the 30 days before granting such exceptions and this is to pretty much 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. to allow Commission if that is, if that review under this paragraph the Director may modify the 1 quantity or dimensions of off street loading requirement. It would allow the Commission to 2 pretty much keep track of any specific exceptions that were done for the off street loading. 3 4 Mr. Lait: So if I’m understanding it, it's related to the off street loading and wherever there is a 5 modification made or granted by the Director that the PTC be notified within a certain number 6 of days. Is that? 7 8 Chair Alcheck: Yeah, 30. 9 10 Mr. Lait: Ok, 30. Ok. So yeah, I mean that can certainly be a thing that be we discuss. I will tell 11 you that there's a lot of items that we report out on and we're not hitting that 100 percent. So 12 unless we’re really critical to do that I would have some concerns. 13 14 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, thank you. And then just going back to the item about mechanical 15 lifts that we discussed I propose to add a paragraph about unloading the impact on the 16 adjacent streets. I don’t have a precise language, but pretty much there would have to be a 17 requirement that unloading or loading the cars on the lift, right, should have very limited and 18 just it would need to be somehow quantified impact on the adjacent street. And that goes back 19 to the comment that I made before so the traffic is not blocked extensively. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 The next question that I, now I have a question about Paragraph 5 under the same section of 2 the lifts, the mechanical stopper and lifts. It just talks about the Paragraph Number 5 it talks 3 about if the spaces are not independently accessible for individual user a parking management 4 plan should be prepared for review and approval and approval that details the operations, 5 emergency procedure, and appropriate contact. So I am not really sure if that need to be, if 6 there needs to be a plan that needs to be reviewed. I propose just to change it to reduce it to 7 the requirement that such plan needs to be prepared or need to be, needs to exist. I think that 8 this would be left between to resolve between the owner of the property and the users of the 9 parking. 10 11 Chair Alcheck: Ok. 12 13 Commissioner Gardias: That’s it. Thank you very much. 14 15 Chair Alcheck: Ok, before I call on Commissioner Tanaka I just I want to shed a little light about 16 how I’d like this to work. Ideally in places where you haven't gotten a specific recommendation 17 on language I'd like you to create a placeholder. I’ll give you an example; Commissioner 18 Rosenblum suggested exploring the idea of increasing the percentage for the density, right? 19 What I would like you to do is if he didn't provide specific language, you provided sort of 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. general guidance there. I'd like staff to explore that concept and if we, if staff can't get to a 1 place where they can give sort of specific new idea or response to that what I’d like them to do 2 is create a placeholder. Similarly for next meeting, for our next time we agendize this topic… 3 similarly in the suggestion here where Commissioner Gardias specifically said he doesn't really 4 have language the comment that he made just before this last comment about he doesn't really 5 have specific language for how he would word this, what I’d ideally like to do is if staff doesn't 6 sort of appreciate his goal and create an opportunity for a little sort of placeholder that we… of 7 specific language they could create a placeholder about potentially achieving his goal. And 8 what I would ideally like is that at the next time we review this packet if individual 9 Commissioners have specific ideas of specific language that they spend the time and they come 10 to that meeting with that language and ideally what we'll do is we will review these ideas with 11 that specific language and we can quickly up or down vote across the board how we feel about 12 it. 13 14 So I don't intend for tonight for example for us to all get on the same page about whether SUVs 15 have to be specifically lifted. I would like us to have sort of a discussion in general based on the 16 feedback you've got and then if somebody wants to make specific changes to language next 17 time we’ll say hey, anybody in favor of this… That will actually give the opportunity for anybody 18 that's paying attention to this discussion to come back and opine on some of these changes and 19 provide any of their specific language edits. Ok, so let's keep going Commissioner Tanaka. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah actually I had another thought about hotels being converted into 2 affordable housing. So instead of taking a old rundown hotel and leaving it as an old run down 3 hotel that now has residential units maybe what a better idea or something that staff could 4 consider and maybe flush out this idea fully is maybe some sort of density bonus where if 5 because there's actually a lot of hotels now that actually have a mix of hotel plus residential. 6 And then I think but the nice thing about hotels is the rooms are actually kind of small. They 7 are by nature generally small compared to a housing unit. And so I think Commissioner Fine 8 and myself talked a lot about micro units. So maybe this is an area to actually explore where 9 you can get a density bonus if you actually have kind of a mix of hotel units where we're not 10 going to lose the hotel revenue, but we get more affordable units. And it’s more affordable 11 because units are smaller and inherently they will be more affordable and they're going to be in 12 kind of a busy transit areas because that’s where most hotels are. And so I'm just trying to 13 think about kind of a more of a win-win solution where instead of just keeping a old rundown 14 hotel an old rundown hotel that's now housing units it's at least still a revenue generator and 15 yet it’s also providing affordable housing. So I’d like to throw this idea out there and maybe it's 16 something that could be developed further as we get to our next meeting. 17 18 Chair Alcheck: Commissioner Waldfogel [note-Vice-Chair]. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Thank you. Let's see, I have a couple questions for staff. One is in 1 districts with that where we might exempt loading areas would those properties be entitled to 2 a street loading area? Maybe time of day street loading area or is that something we'd have to 3 think about relative to this? 4 5 Mr. Lait: So thank you, Commissioner or Vice-Chair. We are not proposing to exempt loading 6 zones from geographic areas in the City. And that it is not our interest that we understand the 7 public speakers (interrupted) 8 9 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah well if we were to contemplate that, would that be a feasible 10 tradeoff if we were to allow street loading areas say 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. or something like that? 11 I just wonder if that's a possible tradeoff we could make? 12 13 Mr. Lait: It is. I think it would require more study and exploration than we were contemplating 14 for this particular ordinance, but it doesn't mean we need to abandon the thought. I mean we 15 could (interrupted) 16 17 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, no I don't want to push you into more work, but I would hate to 18 just see loading turn into something that just blocks the street. So. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Lait: Again our, I kind of feel like our recommendation addresses the issue of graphic areas. 1 We have projects that have been reviewed in the Downtown area for instance where we've 2 made the determination that on site loading was not practical due to urban design 3 considerations or the availability of on street loading or an alley. And so we are already doing 4 this and what we're trying to do is memorialize our practice. 5 6 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Ok. That's great. On the demo permit question on the staff report talks 7 about avoiding vacant lots or preventing vacant lots as an objective of this change and I support 8 that objective although I'm not quite sure that this is the perfect tool to get there. I mean in old 9 Palo Alto I can think of three demos that have resulted in multi-year vacant lots. I can just think 10 of one 5 plus year stalled project on Mariposa Street. And so we're trying to reduce vacant lots 11 I would just encourage you to bring something forward that actually goes after vacancy because 12 I'm not sure this is either necessary or sufficient, but just a thought on that. 13 14 On the Housing Element small lot consolidation I think that any feedback on just what will 15 happen if we make these changes. Do we, have we talk, have we reached out to any of the 16 property owners? Do we think that these incentives will cause anything to happen? I mean I 17 would just hate to go down this track if nothing will happen. So it’d be great to get some 18 positive reinforcement just to know that whatever we do will matter. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I agree with several of my colleague’s suggestion on hotels that we need a economic impact 1 study on the TOT. Ironically I can think of two cases where low income housing has been 2 converted to hotels, but now we're thinking about the reverse case. So that's a I'm not sure 3 how many more of those we'll see. 4 5 Then on everybody's favorite topic mechanical lifts, seems to have been a popular one. My 6 view on this is that it feels a little bit like it's still early days with this technology. We're tying 7 this to buildings have 60 to 100 year life spans. We don't really know about the life spans of the 8 technology. So I would strongly encourage you to what you might want to do is have less 9 prescriptive or proscriptive language here, but be thinking about how do we learn more about 10 this? How do we try this? How do we set up performance requirements that ensure that these 11 will function for the life of the project? They that they'll do the things that we are saying here? 12 The other comment I have is I am uncomfortable with authorizing these for outdoor use. I 13 think indoor use only may be a reasonable first step to take with mechanical lifts so that would 14 be the other thing that I would explore. And it doesn't sound like there have been any cases 15 where applicants have requested an outdoor lift to date. Is that true? 16 17 Ms. Campbell: I don't know if anything has been requested, but I don't think anything’s been 18 approved. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah. 1 2 Ms. Campbell: I can say that. 3 4 Vice-Chair Waldfogel: Yeah, so I mean I think until we know more until we sort of know more 5 about how this ties into architectural review it's really hard to say if this is something that that 6 we want to do at this point. I mean just again I just want emphasize it feels like early days with 7 this technology and I would love to learn more. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Ok. So I want to be really clear the goal is not to sort of cut anybody off or not 10 give anybody an opportunity to speak. I do want to sort of highlight something that Assistant 11 Director commented on which is that some of these topics may have large policy implications. 12 And to the extent that when we meet next we feel like some of them really need a little bit 13 more extensive study I hope that we will feel comfortable tabling those and moving forward 14 the suggestions that we are comfortable moving forward and that's really the goal. I would like 15 us sort of perfect is the enemy of good here. So I would like us to accomplish as much as we 16 can and if there are items that we feel like we need to spend more time on we will identify 17 those in our next meeting as items that we just don't feel comfortable moving forward and 18 we’ll set those aside. 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. I also just want to acknowledge that Commissioner Waldfogel [note-Vice-Chair] made a really 1 great point here which is that the concept of using prescriptive language on items that are so 2 new to this to the area is I think something that I personally would love to see less of. It's an 3 opportunity for us to create. I know we always want to sort of protect ourselves from some 4 result we can't imagine, but yeah, this technology is new and particularly with parking I feel like 5 what we're going to see in the next 10 to 15 years is such a dramatic change in our relationship 6 with cars that it's this is and car ownership and car sharing that I almost it’s hard to imagine 7 that anything that we do today or even next year could literally be relevant in 15 years. 8 9 Ok. I want to give anybody else an opportunity to make a comment about specific language. 10 Commissioner Gardias, do you have something you’d like to say? 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: Yes I’d like to talk to a different paragraph. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: Please do. 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: But also for the record, right, I mean I just I think that the technology on 17 the [auto league] has been for the last 60 years and I think that in terms of the maturity it being 18 popular at many places around the world I think that maybe we should be open to move 19 forward in some areas of Palo Alto it may serve us better. But the comment that I want to 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. make is about the combination of the lots. And this is the, this is Housing Element the small lot 1 consolidation 23. I remember when we talked about the Housing Element in 2014. We 2 [unintelligible] policy requirement and I'm totally conscious that we need to pretty much meet 3 our own obligations and do something with this because that’s the goal that we our goal that 4 we want to obtain. But what is amazing here is pretty much some nods of approval for the 5 small property owner that we, that would be a subject of this consolidation. We are, we have 6 this policy that would make it easier to consolidate the lots, but we have still number of the 7 small property owners that I think that it would be proper to retain and that may be at risk, we 8 may be at risk of losing them with this small consolidation for of course the noble objective that 9 we have. 10 11 But I would like to propose I would like to in addition to this I would like to propose that we 12 remove the parking requirements for [RT35] for those small property owners to allow them 13 [spur] investment on their own. And then I think that in addition when we going to come back 14 next time it would be also valuable I know that we have around 30 properties or so. We talk 15 with Jonathan Lait about this at the pre-Commission meeting and I thought that it would be 16 good to understand those small properties that are on the map at the back of the of today’s 17 handout. That’s the comment I wanted to make. Thank you. 18 19 Chair Alcheck: Ok. Commissioner Rosenblum did you have a final comment? 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Commissioner Rosenblum: [Unintelligible] comments I had given kind of an overview of the 2 things I think are big versus small and so the two housing related issues and TDM. I want to just 3 add a couple of specific items to the TDM thing. What you've done here is suggest a trigger 4 point. So 100 net new trips generated will trigger TDM requirement for the building and I think 5 Commissioner Fine had a great idea which is around adding language that has the option of 6 them joining an existing TMA versus being their own TDM program. I think it's also an 7 opportunity to add the some definitions around TDM components. I know this is something 8 that based on the paragraph description in this package has already requested, but around 9 specific guidelines for parking reductions, unbundling parking, etcetera. So ultimately it's really 10 about what kinds of transit benefits you're giving in exchange for some sort of parking 11 alleviation. And so this is a good chance to cross-reference. Because just having the trigger 12 won’t really mean much if you don't define what happens when you cross that threshold. So I 13 guess the language request is that Council consider the two things together. Consider the 14 implications on parking along with the threshold. That’s it, thank you. 15 16 Chair Alcheck: Ok, so when we come back together on this topic my hope is that we will have 17 we’ll be very familiar with it. We can look at the items that have been changed and then we 18 can begin as we do our round to sort of up and down indicate where we stand on any changes 19 and any particular terms. And finally I just want to say I want to suggest that if anybody on the 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Commission comes has a comment that they'd like to make that they didn't make tonight and 1 they come up with it next week or tomorrow or whenever just send it. Forward it to Planning 2 so that they can incorporate it and we'll treat those as sort of comments made in anticipation 3 of the next meeting. Ok, with that I'd like to close this particular item on the agenda and unless 4 staff has any other comments they’d like to make? 5 6 Mr. Lait: Is it fair to us, is it fair to conclude that the items that were not discussed are good as 7 presented? 8 9 Chair Alcheck: Yeah. I think what I do think that what will happen is that we’ll probably have a 10 moment where we'll ask, I’ll ask individual Commissioners to sort of suggest are they 11 uncomfortable moving forward some of these topics without a greater discussion and when we 12 start next meeting. And if that's the case will probably set those aside and deal with the items 13 that we're comfortable moving forward. And then we'll probably have to figure out how we 14 want to deal with the items that require greater debate whether we want to create a study 15 session for those or simply I’ll ask staff what they would like to do also. 16 17 Mr. Lait: Great, just one last question. To advance that effort do you want to see an ordinance 18 that reflects our interpretation or no ordinance at the next meeting just a staff report? 19 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Chair Alcheck: No I'd love to see an ordinance that reflects your interpretation of the 1 discussion. I think you may have received some (interrupted) 2 3 Mr. Lait: Language. 4 5 Chair Alcheck: Competing ideas here. 6 7 Mr. Lait: Right. 8 9 Chair Alcheck: And I think I wouldn’t want you to spin your wheels too long on whether or not 10 lifts should handle sport utilities or micro compacts. 11 12 Mr. Lait: Ok. 13 14 Chair Alcheck: I would just suggest that you write the language sort of with your interpretation 15 of what's the best way forward based on the discussion and then if we want to make changes 16 we will get really specific. I said I suspect we won't have tremendous disagreement here on 17 some of the specific language items. 18 19 Mr. Lait: Ok. And then we can simply just strike the ones that don't get advanced. 20 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1 Chair Alcheck: Exactly. 2 3 Mr. Lait: Perfect. And so we’ll agendize that as a public hearing excuse me, because ordinances 4 are public hearings. 5 6 Chair Alcheck: Yeah and I think would be fantastic if that language was specific so people could 7 respond to it. 8 9 Mr. Lait: Fantastic. Thank you. 10 11 Commission Action: None 12 3225 El Camino Real Mixed-use project Required 1 loading space for the commercial use (retail & office) Solution: Utilized 5 on- site parking spaces for a time-limited loading zone area (mornings only) 2515/2585 El Camino Real Mixed-use project Required 1 loading space for the commercial use (retail & office) Solution: Add an on-street loading space on side street 411 Lytton Avenue Mixed-use project Required 1 loading space for the commercial use (retail & office) Solution: No loading space proposed 429 University Avenue Mixed-use project Required 1 loading space for the commercial use (retail & office) Solution: Utilize the existing loading space on Kipling Street, across from the site. Address Project Type Approved Status Spaces Required # Lift Spaces Comments 2555 Park Blvd Office Aug-15 Entitlement Approved 93 89 Puzzle lift systems in below grade garage 2500 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Apr-14 Under Construction 145 95 Tandem puzzle lifts, standard stacker inside garage 636 Waverley St Mixed-Use Dec-13 Under Construction 21 20 Standard stackers in below grade garage 240 Hamilton St Mixed-Use Dec-13 Constructed 4 4 Standard stackers and turn-around inside garage 3159 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Nov-13 Entitlement Expired 216 196 Puzzle lift systems in below grade garage and parking deck 611 Cowper St Mixed-Use Aug-13 Constructed 60 2 Standard stacker in below grade garage 420 Cambridge Ave Mixed-Use Mar-09 Constructed 10 8 Standard stackers in garage 102 University Ave Mixed-Use Sep-06 Constructed 10 10 Elevator to basement Approved Projects Using Car Lifts/Mechanical Devices El Camino Real El Camino Real Alma Street Alma Street Alma St University Avenue Foothill Expr S. Rengstorff Avenue Independence Avenue Del Medio Avenue Los Altos Avenue Bay Laurel Drive Peter Coutts Circle Lasuen Street Panama Dr Governors Ave University Drive Cambridge Avenue Middle Avenue Arbor Road Creek Drive Escondido Road Olmstead Road Middlefield Road Middlefield Road Middlefield Rd Bayshore Fwy Bayshore Fwy Embarcadero Road Charleston Rd Sand Hill Road Loma Verde Ave Lytton Ave Homer Ave Channing Ave Cowper St Emerson St Addison Ave E Meadow Dr W Meadow Dr Maybell Ave Stanford Ave California Ave Chimalus Dr Heather Ln Churchill Ave Park Blvd Raimundo Way Bryant St College Ave Louis Rd Greer RdColorado Ave Ross Rd Arastradero Rd Los Robles Ave Georgia Ave La Donna St Laguna Ave Amaranta Ave Barron Ave Matadero Ave Seale Ave South Ct Park Blvd La Para Ave Birch St Lincoln Ave Page Mill Rd El Verano Ave El Dorado Ave Emerson St Amarillo Ave N California Ave Hawthorne Ave Ash St Olive Ave Ventura Ave Alma St Wilkie Way Ferne Ave San Mateo Drive San Antonio Ave Junipero Serra Blvd Sand Hill R d Palm Dr El C a m ino R eal Alm a St Middlefield Rd E m b a r ca d e r o Rd Oregon Expwy Wa v erley St Louis Rd Old Middlefiel Rengstorf f Ave astradero Rd E ast Me ad o w D r C h a r l e s t o n R d C a m p us D r E a st Dr supmaC E West Los RoblesAve Junipero Serra Blvd SanAntonioRd Encina Grand e Dr Cereza Dr Los Robles Ave Villa Vera Verdosa Dr Campana Dr Florales Dr Maybell Way Maybell Ave Frandon Ct Florales Dr Georgia Ave Amaranta Ave Term Baker Ave Vista Ave Pena Ct Coulombe DrCherry Oaks Pl Pomona Ave dero Road Abel Ave Clemo Ave Villa Real El Camino Way Curtner Ave Ventura Ave Cypress Ln Fairmede Ave Irven Ct Alta Mesa Ave Kelly W ay Lo s P alos A ve S uz a nne Dr El C amin o R e al M c K ellar La n e Jam e s R d Maclane Second St Wilkie Way Thain Way Barclay Ct Carolina Ln Tennessee Ln Park BoulevardWilkie Ct Monroe Dr Whitclem Dr Duluth Cir Edlee Ave Dinah's Ct Cesano Ct Monroe Dr Miller Ave Ben Lomond Dr Fairfield Ct Ferne Ave Ponce Dr l Ruthelma Ave Wright Place Shasta Dr Mackay Dr Diablo Ct Scripps Ave Scripps Ct Ne lson Dr Tioga Ct Creekside Dr Greenmeadow Way Parkside Dr Dixon PlEly Place Dake Ave Ferne Ave San Antonio Ct Ely Pla ce N els o n Ct Keats Ct Middlefield Rd Carlson Ct D u n c an PlMu mford Pl C h arlesto n R d San Antonio Rd Leghorn St Montrose Ave Maplewood Ave S e min ole W a y Sutherland Dr El C apita n Pl Fabian St Bryson A v e Midtown Ct Cowper St Gary Ct Alma Street Coastland Dr Byron St Gaspar Ct Moreno Ave El Carmelo Ave Campesino Ave Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Towle Way Mackall Way Lo ma Verde Ave El Verano Ave Wellsbury Way St Claire Dr Alg er DrMaureen Ave Co w per Ct Rambo w Dr Murdoch Dr et St Michael Ct t Mayview Avenue E n sign W ay Gaile n Av e Grove Ave Commercial St Industrial Ave Bibbits Dr E Charleston Rd Fabian WayChristine Dr C orina Way Ross Road Corina Wa y Nathan Way Transport St Ortega Ct E M e a do w Dr Allen Ct Ross Ct Richardson Ct H olly O a k Dr Ames Ave Middlefield Road Ames CtRorke Way Stone LnToyon Pl Torreya Ct Lupine Ave Thorn w ood Dr Talisman Dr Arbutus Ave Aspen Way Evergreen Dr E Meadow Dr Corporation W ayElwell Court Janice Way E Meadow Cir Ellsworth Pl San Carlos Ct Wintergreen Way Sutter Ave Price Ct Stern Ave Randers Ct Ross Road Sevyson Ct David AveStelling Dr t Kenneth Dr Stockton Pl Vernon Ter Louis Road Thomas Dr Morris Drive Porter Drive Hillview Ave Hanover Street Mir Amherst St Columbia StBowdoin St Dartmouth St Hanover St College Ave Ramos Way Barron Ave Josina Ave Kendall AveMatadero Ave Ilima Way Ilima Ct Carlitos CtLa CalleLaguna Ave Paradise Way R o ble Ridg e Chimalus Dr Paul Ave Kendall Ave Whitsell Ave Laguna Way La Para Ave El Centro St Timlott LnLa Jennifer Way La Donna Av Manzana Ln HubbarttD Willmar Dr Donald Dr San Jude Ave Magnolia Dr Military Way Orme St Fernando Ave Lambert Ave Hansen Way Margarita Ave Matadero Ave Wilton Ave Oxford Ave Harvard St California Ave Wellesley St Princeton StOberlin St Cornell St Williams St Yale St Staunton Ct Park Ave Escobita Ave S e q u oia Ave Mariposa Ave Castilleja Ave M adrono Ave Portola Ave Leland Ave Stanford AveBirch St Ash Street Alma St Grant Ave Sheridan Ave El Camino Real Sherman Ave Chestnut Ave Portage AvePepper Ave Olive Ave Acacia Ave Emerson St Birch St Ash Street Park Boulevard College Ave Cambridge Ave Birch St California Ave Rinconada Ave Park Blvd Washington Ave Santa Rita Ave Bryant Street High St Ramona St Bryant St South Ct Alma Street Washington Ave Nevada Ave North California Ave Marion Ave C olorado A ve Waverley St Kipling St Nevada Ave Tasso St Middlefield Road Warren Way Iris Way Tulip Ln Garland Drive Louis Road Hilbar Ln Alannah Ct R Marshall Dr Dennis Dr Agnes Way Blair Ct Santa Ana St Elsinore Dr El Cajon Way S yca more Dr Amarillo Ave Bruce Dr Colonial Lane Moreno Ave Celia Dr Indian Dr W es t B aysho re R oadSandra Pl Gre er Road C olorado Ave Simkins Ct Otterson Ct Higgins PlaceLawrence Ln Maddux Drive Genevieve Ct E ast B ays h ore Road Santa Catalina St Chabot Ter Carmel Dr Tanland Dr Ivy Ln St Francis Dr Wildwood Ln Watson Ct La O'Brin e Lane E m barcadero RoaGeng Road dero Way Pasteur Drive Quarry Road Welch Road Encina A ve Urb a n Lane W ells Ave Emerson Street Alma Street El Cam ino Real Mitchell Lane High Street Gilman StreetUniversity Ave Florence St Tasso St Ruthven Ave Hawthorne Ave Everett Ave Poe St St Lytton Ave Churchill Ave Lowell Ave Seale AveTennyson Ave Cowper St Tasso St Webster St Byron St North California Ave Coleridge Ave Emerson Street Portal Pl Oregon Avenue Embar c a d ero Rd Forest Ave Homer Ave Hamilton Ave Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Scott Street Byron St Fulton Street Kellogg Ave Tasso St Addison Ave Lincoln Ave Boyce Ave uinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Ave Regent Pl Fulton Street Melville Ave Byron Street Kingsley Ave Melville Ave Somerset Pl Fife Ave Fulton St Northampton Dr W Greenwich Pl Newell RdGuinda St E Greenwich Pl Southampton Dr Kent Place Tevis Pl Martin Ave Harriet St Wils o n S t Cedar St Harker Ave Greenwood Ave Hutchinson AveHopkins Ave Emba rcadero Ro a d Arcadia Pl Louisa Ct Newell PlSharon Ct Erstwild Court Walnut Dr Parkinson Dr Pin e St Mark Twain St Barbara Dr Primrose Way Wa lter Hays Dr Jordan Pl Lois Ln Heather Ln Bret Harte St Stanley Way De Soto Dr Alester Ave Channing Ave Kings Ln Jeffe Patrici Madi McG regor Way Silva Ave Silva Ct Miller Ct Bri arwood Way Driscoll Pl Ore g o n Ex pre s sw a y Oregon Expressway Page Mill Road Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Cerrito Way Calcaterra Pl CalTrain ROW CalTrain RO W Kipling St D ura nd W ay Swain Wa y Clark W ay Mos her W ay C harles Marx W a y Orchard Ln Vineyard Lane O ak R o ad Blake Wilbur Dr Campus Drive East Campus Drive W est Campus Drive West Palm Drive Ca m pus Dr ive East Bayshore Free w ay Palo Road Shopping Ctr W ay Shopping Ctr Way Shopping Ctr Way London Plane Way Plum Lane S w eet Olive Way Pear Lane Stanford Avenue Arguello Way Galvez St Arboretum Rd Lausen St Museum Way Roth WayLomita Drive Serra St Bowdoin Street Escondido Road Comstock Cir Pistache Place Santa Ynez St S alva tierra St L a n e B Alvar a do Ave Mayfield Ave Costonzo St Cabrillo A v e San Juan St Lane C Coronado Ave Dolores Ave Clara Drive Bellview Dr Mor t o n S t El Dorado Ave Aztec Dr Van AukenCir So uth CtBryant StRamona St El Cerrito Rd Rincon Cir Glenbrook Dr S uza n n e Dr Hemlock Ct V arian W ay Clark Way Newell Rd Fab er Place Galvez Mall Santa Teresa St Panama Mall Panama St Lane L Lasuen Mall Stanford Ave R aim u n do W ay Peter C outts R d Cedro Way Lathrop Drive Esplanada Way P i ne Hi ll Rd Lane W Lagunita Dr Gerona Rd Frenc hm a ns R d Rosse Ln Searsville Rd Welch Rd C a m p u s D r Campus Dr k Farm Rd Via Pueblo Mall Nelson Rd Nelson Mall Churchill MallSam M cD onald Rd Serra St Olmsted Rd Links Rd Bonair Siding Escondido Mall Serra Mall N/S Axis Los Arboles Ave Crothers Way Junipero Serra Blvd Alta Rd Vista Ln T o l m a n Dr Allardice Way W e bster St St Francis Dr Sierra Ct Bowdoin Lane Governors Ave O'C o n n or L n Downtown North Crescent ParkDuveneck-St. Francis Duveneck-St. Francis CommunityCenter OldPalo Alto University South Leland Manor MidtownSouthgate Evergreen Mayfield VenturaCollege Terrace Palo Verde Adobe Meadows Meadow Park CharlestonGardens CharlestonMeadows Fairmeadow WalnutGrove Greenmeadow MonroePark Barron Park Palo AltoOrchard Greenacres I Greenacres II Matadero Creek Charleston Slough Matadero Creek San Francisquito Creek Matadero Creek Barron Creek Barron Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek E mily R enzel W etla nds Adobe Creek Coast Casey Forebay Matadero C r eek Matadero Creek A dobe Creek Dry Creek Dry Creek LagunitaLake San Francisquito StanfordUniversity Mountain 120-28-091 120-28-085120-28-084 120-28-051 120-28-090 120-28-082120-28-081120-28-080 120-28-036120-28-099 120-27-073 120-27-072120-27-049 120-15-007 120-15-090 132-38-047 132-38-017 132-38-018 132-41-025 132-41-085 120-30-048120-30-049 120-28-092 120-28-093120-28-094 120-28-004 120-28-005 120-28-033 120-28-003 Landscape Overlay70' from center line ofpublic right of way Landscape Overlay50' from property line Landscape Overlay100' from property line 65' 75' Landscape Overlaymeasured fromcenter line ofpublic right of way 20' Landscape Overlaymeasured fromproperty line 20' LandscapeOverlay from property line 100' Landscape Overlay measured from centerline of public rightof way Landscape Overlaysmeasured fromproperty line5' 5' For location of zone boundarySee Ord. # 4848 PF PF PF PF RP(L) PF RP(L) CC(2) PF RP RP RMD(NP) RP PF(AS3) CS(AS1) R-1 RP-5(D) PF(R) PF(R) RM-15 R-2 R-2 RM-15 RM-30 CN RM-30 R-2 PF(R) CC(2)(R) RM-30 CC(2) PF R-2 PF(R) CC(2)(R) PC-4127 PF(R) R-1 CC(2)(R) R-2 CC(2)(R)(P) RM-30 PF RM-40 R-2 PF RM-15 RM-15 R-1 CS PFRP(L) CS RM-30 RM-30 RM-15 RE CNRM-30 RM-15 PF PF CS(H) RM-30 R-1(10000) CS R-1 R-1 PF PC-2930 R-1(S) RM-30 R-1 PF CN CC RM-40 CC(2)(R) CN PC-2224 RM-15 R-2 PF PF PC-4268 PC-2293 RM-40 PC-4354PC-4463 PC-3028 PC-4637 PF RM-30 RM-30 PC-2952 RM-30 PF RM-15 PF R-2 PF RM-30 RM-30 PF RM-15 R-1 RM-30R-2 RM-30 R-2 CS RM-15 RM-30(L) GM GM RM-30 RM-15 CS CS RM-40 ROLM GM CS R-1 RP R-1 R-2 R-2 RM-15 RM-15 R-1 CN CN(GF/P) RM-40 HD PC-1992MOR MORRM-30(D) CS CC R-2R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 RP R-2 RM-15 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-1(10000) R-1 R-1(10000)PF R-2 PC-2967PC-3266 PF PFPF RM-15 HD CN R-1 PC-4182 PC-3707 PC-4283 PF RT-35 PC-4389 CS CS PC-4465 CS CD-C(P)R-1(10000) RM-30AMF(MUO) DHS R-2 CD-S(P)AMF PC-4612 R-1 PFCC PF PF PC-4426 CC CN(L)(GF/P) PF R-1 RM-30 PFPF RM-30 PC-4063 PC-3872 PF PF PC-2130 PFCD-C (P) PC-4374 PF PF PF CD-C(P) CD-C(P) CD-N (P) PF PC-3111 PC-3007 PC-3974 PFPF PC-4262 PC-4243 PC-4195 RM-15RMD(NP)RM-40 PC-3429 CD-N (P) CD-C(GF)(P) RM-40CD-C (P) CD-C (P) PFAMF DHS DHS PF PC-4611 CC(L) PC-4053 RMD(NP) RMD(NP) RM-30 PF PC-2049 PC-3102 R-2 RM-15 R-1 RM-30 PC-4339 RM-30 RM-30 PF PC-4052PF PC-2545 RM-40 PC-2145 RM-30 PC-2968 PC-3995 R1 RP(AS2) CN R-1 (S) RM-30 PC-2656 R-2 R-1 CN RM-15 RM-30(L) PC-2218 PC-5116 PF R-1 PC-3023 RM-15 PC-4511 R-1 PC-3041 RM-15PF RM- 30 PC-5034 RM-30 CS CS(H) RM-15 PC-3133 RM-40 RM-30 PC-4190 RM-40 RM-30CS CS(L) R-1(S) R-1 PC-4448R-1 CS(L) PC-3036CS CS RM-30 RM-15 R-1 CS PF RM-15 CS(H) R-1(10000) RM-15 R-1(8000) R-1 R-1 R-1(S) PF CS(L) RM-15 RM-30 PC-3517 PF CN RM-15 R-1 PF R-1 ROLM(E)(D)(AD) ROLM(E)(D)(AD)ROLM(E)(D)(AD) PC-3753 R-1(S) PC-4782CS PC-4753 RT-50 CD-S(P) RT-50 RT-35 RT-35 R-2 RT-50 RT-50 CC(2)(P) R-1(S) GM GM(AD) CS(AD) CS CSCS(AD) CS PC-4779 CS(AD) PC-4831 PC-1643 RMD RM-30 CD-C(P) PC-2649 PC-4296 RM-15 PC-4173 PC-4436 PC-3437 RM-15 RM-30PC-8659 PC-2836PC-2152 R-1PF R-1 RM-15RM-30 PF R-2 RM-30 R-2 R-2 R-1 (S) R-1 PF PF RM-30 RM-15 RM-30 RM-15 PC-3405 RM-30 PC-4956 PF R-1(8000) R-1(7000) R-2 R-1(7000) R-1 R-1 PF RM-15 PC-3623 R-2 CS PF PC-3693 GM PF CS(AD) RM-30 R-1(8000)(S) R-1(8000) ROLM PF R-1(7000)(S) PC-2711 ROLM PF CS R-1 R M-3 0 RM-30 ROLM(D)(AD) R-1(8000) PC-2236 PC-2640 RM-15 PC-1417 PC-4843 RM-15 R-1(7000) R-2PF(D) RM-15 PC-2744 R-1(8000)(S) R-1(8000) GMR-1(8000) ROLM PF CN(GF/P) PC-2197 R-2 R-1 R-2 RM-15 RM-30 RM-15 PC-3183 RM-15 R-2 PF PF PC-1752 PC-1889 ROLM R-1 PF(D) RM-15 PF PC-3726 R-2 PF(D)R-1 PF PF ROLM PC-3020 PC-2962GM PF PF(D) PF ROLM(E)(D)(AD) ROLM(E)(D)(AD)PC-4847 CS(D) PC-4846 CN PC-4917 PC-4918 CD-C(GF)(P) PC-4973 R-2 CN (R) PC-5069 CN RM-15 CS(L)(D) RM-40 PTOD CC(2)(R) CC(2)(R) PTOD(R) PC-5158 PC-5150 CS(D) CD-C(P)CD-C(GF)(P) CD-S(GF)(P) PF(D) R-1 (7000)R-1 (7000) (S) CC(2) CC(2) CC(2) R-1 (7000) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Housing Opportunity Sites (2015-2023 Housing Element) Small Lot Consolidation Housing Opportunity Sites 0'1800' Ho u s i n g O p p o r t u n i t y S i t e s 20 1 5 - 2 0 2 3 H o u s i n g E l e m e n t Sm a l l L o t C o n s o l i d a t i o n S i t e s CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altoccampbe, 2016-10-20 10:22:15 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\ccampbe.mdb) TDM Levels TDM Measures Within ½ Mile of Transit TDM Measures More Than ½ Mile From Transit Light •Transportation Kiosk •Website •Rideshare promotion •Carpool/vanpool parking or permit •Join Palo Alto TMA •Bike parking: required + 10% •Promote flexible work schedules/telework •Guaranteed Ride Home program •Provide transportation information to all new employees •Transportation Kiosk •Website •Rideshare promotion •Carpool/vanpool parking or permit •Join Palo Alto TMA •Bike parking: required + 10% •Promote flexible work schedules/telework •Guaranteed Ride Home program •Provide transportation information to all new employees Moderate Light program plus: •Annual transportation fair •Protected long‐term bike storage/lockers •Shower access (on‐site or gym) •Subsidized transit passes (at least 50%) •Carshare membership Light program plus: •Annual transportation fair •Protected long‐term bike storage/lockers •Shower access (on‐site or gym) •Bike subsidy •Carpool/vanpool subsidy •Partially subsidized employer‐specific rideshare/vanpool program/TNC provider •Carshare membership Heavy Moderate program plus: •Parking cashout for tenants •Unbundled parking for tenants •On‐site transportation coordinator •Fully subsidized transit (pass or paid) •Commute planning for employees •Shuttle program to/from home or transit •Provide on‐site amenities •Add real‐time amenities to existing bus structure *Annual monitoring required if requesting a reduction in required parking. Additional measures may be necessary if not meeting parking reduction goals. Moderate program plus: •Parking cashout for tenants •Unbundled parking for tenants •Paid parking for tenant employees •On‐site transportation coordinator •Fully subsidized employer‐specific rideshare/vanpool program/TNC provider •Commute planning for employees •Fund a new shuttle program or buy into existing shuttle to/from home or transit •Provide on‐site amenities •E‐bike program •High quality bicycle/pedestrian connection to existing network Suggested TDM Guidelines* City of Palo Alto (ID # 7823) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/27/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolutions 9473 and 9577 to Continue the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Resolutions 9473 and 9577 to Continue the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program With Minor Modifications and Finding the Action Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (Continued From February 13, 2017) (STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 6, 2017) From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk Staff requests this item be continued to March 6, 2017.