Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-03-06 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. March 6, 2017 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 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 Study Session 5:00-6:00 PM 1.Status Report Regarding the Stanford Research Park Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) Special Orders of the Day 6:00-6:10 PM 2. The Mayor’s Green Business Awards Recognizing Palo Alto’s Businesses That Have Earned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star Certification Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:10-6:20 PM Oral Communications 6:20-6:35 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. REVISED 2 March 6, 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. Consent Calendar 6:35-6:40 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3. Approval of the 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan Guidelines 4.Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Design Contract Number C15158029 With Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for an Additional Amount of $99,850 for a Total Amount Not-to-exceed $699,850, for Programming of the Program Logic Controllers (PLC) for Fiber Optic Connections to Pump Stations and Creek Monitors as Part of the Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation Project SD-06101 5. Approval of an Update to the City's Ten-year Electric Energy Efficiency Goals (2018 to 2027) 6. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to the Promissory Note and Amendment Number 1 to the Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) for the Acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments at 360 Sheridan Avenue; and Approval of an Expenditure of Funds Held by PAHC for the Acquisition of a Property Interest in the Sheridan Apartments. The Project is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15061(b)(3) 7. Approval of a 3-year Contract With SoftwareOne, Inc. for Microsoft Licensing in the Amount of $455,707 Annually 8. Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Facility Naming Plan for the Junior Museum & Zoo 9. Adoption of a Resolution Donating a Surplus Fire Truck to our Sister City, Oaxaca, Mexico and Accepting $25,000 From Neighbors Abroad as the Purchase Price of the Fire Truck 9a. 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." (Continued from February 27, 2017) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:40-9:15 PM 10. 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 3 March 6, 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. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Continued From February 13 and 27, 2017) 9:15-10:30 PM 11. Review and Direction to Staff Regarding Comments on the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for Stanford University’s Application for a Major Modification to Their General Use Permit (GUP) With Santa Clara County 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Update Code Sections Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. The Ordinance is Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15061(b), 15301, 15303 and 15305 and was Recommended for Approval by the Planning & Transportation Commission on November 30, 2016 (Continued From February 6, 2017)(Staff Requests This Item be Continued to March 7, 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. MEMO 4 March 6, 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 Finance Committee Meeting CANCELLATION March 7, 2017 City Council Meeting CANCELLATION March 13, 2017 Policy and Services Committee Meeting CANCELLATION March 14, 2017 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Annual Update on Energy/Compost Technologies and the Organics Facilities Plan Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2017 Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 - March 13, 2017 Set 3 - March 13, 2017 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7586) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Stanford Research Park TDM & Palo Alto TMA Title: Status Report Regarding the Stanford Research Park Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and the Palo Alto Transportation Management Authority (TMA) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is a study session and no Council action is requested. Executive Summary There are two separate initiatives underway focused on reducing commute trips by single occupant vehicle (SOV): one in the Stanford Research Park, and one in downtown Palo Alto. The Stanford Research Park initiative is being undertaken by a collection of businesses in the Park, with support and staffing provided by Stanford University’s Research Park team. The downtown initiative is being undertaken by a new non-profit organization called the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA). The City funded and supported establishment of the TMA and a City representative sits on the TMA board of directors. Also, while the TMA is initially focused on downtown, its mission and bylaws would allow it to expand to other business districts once there is sufficient funding and organizational capacity. This study session will allow both entities to provide the City Council with results of employee surveys conducted in the spring of 2016, showing the mode share of commuters to the Research Park and downtown Palo Alto, and to provide a status report on the programs underway to encourage a shift from SOV to other modes. Background For background on the Palo Alto TMA and a preview of their 2016 employee survey, see the TMA website at: http://www.paloaltotma.org/ and http://www.paloaltotma.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/16-5932-Report-13.pdf. (A copy of the 2016 survey is City of Palo Alto Page 2 included as Attachment B.) For background on the Stanford Research Park TDM efforts, see their website at: http://stanfordresearchpark.com/transportation. (A letter from Stanford representatives is included as Attachment A.) Policy Implications The Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan has reducing reliance on single occupant vehicles as its first goal (Goal T-1) and includes multiple policies in furtherance of this goal. Similar goals and policies are being discussed for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan Update and the City Council has made a significant investment in projects and programs to address traffic congestion over the last several years. While the Palo Alto TMA and the Stanford Research Park efforts are just getting underway, they have the potential to mature into programs that will dramatically alter commuting to major employment centers in Palo Alto. Attachments: Attachment A: SRP TMA TDM Letter February 2017 Attachment B: TMA 2016 Downtown Palo Alto Employee Mode Split Survey February 16, 2017 Hillary Gitelman Director Planning & Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association Overview for March 6, 2017 City Council Hearing Dear Ms. Gitelman: Per your request, below is a summary of the information Stanford Research Park (SRP) will present to City Council on March 6, 2017. Stanford Research Park Overview Tiffany Griego, Managing Director, Stanford Research Park will provide a brief overview of SRP. SRP has been a university-affiliated business park since 1951 and is Palo Alto’s home base for cutting-edge and influential companies. The Research Park consists of 700 acres and 10 million square feet of R&D and office space. SRP is home to 140+ companies and approximately 29,000 employees. Additional details at www.StanfordResearchPark.com Worker commutes and transportation options are a top issue for SRP companies and their employees. Difficult commutes reduce a company’s ability to recruit and retain valued employees and adversely impact employees’ productivity and quality of life. Many large employers in SRP have robust in-house Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs. SRP TDM efforts support these employers and engage smaller employers who do not have the expertise or resources to offer significant TDM programs. Both large and small employers benefit from the scale and partnerships afforded to them by working with the SRP Transportation Management Association (TMA) on TDM programs for their employees. Commute Survey Results and TDM Program Metrics Jamie Jarvis, Transportation Demand Manager for Stanford Research Park will present a summary of the 2016 SRP Employee Commute Survey results. Responses were received from 4,560 employees. The survey results include current commute mode use, as well as respondents’ interest in commute options and TDM programs. This valuable information is being used to guide and prioritize SRP TDM programs. In addition, SRP will share on-going program metrics, including shuttle ridership, bus ridership and carpool registrations. SRP-wide TDM Programs offered by the TMA When Stanford presented to City Council in March 2016, the SRP TDM program consisted of a TMA comprised of the 12 largest employers, a full time TDM Manager, a new Stanford Research Park web site featuring transportation information, VTA Eco Pass, free Caltrain shuttle service, an enhanced Guaranteed Ride Program, and a Bicycle Champions Advisory Group. Since this time, the Stanford Research Park TMA has expanded to 18 employers, including the largest property manager in SRP, who represents 43 tenants. In addition, the SRP TDM program now also includes a trip planner and tracker at SRPgo.com, an outreach coordinator and contact database, Scoop carpool promotion and subsidies, vanpool formation assistance and a $300 rider subsidy, on-site bicycling clinics and park-wide Bike to Work Day, monthly commuter prize drawings and Spare the Air day rewards, free Zipcar registration and $25 use credit, and a San Francisco Commuter Bus. New programs for 2017 include free EcoPasses to employers with fewer than 100 employees, direct communications to commuters, new Caltrain last mile connections, additional Zipcar carshare vehicles, and enhanced bicycling programs, including participation in the Palo Alto Bikeshare expansion planned for this summer. Keys to Successful TDM in SRP Tiffany Griego will share our views on the successful TDM in SRP. These include customized solutions focused on our unique population and geography, flexibility to experiment and evolve programs as needed, and collaboration among SRP employers, all under the leadership of Stanford Research Park’s TMA. In addition, a partnership between the City and SRP to improve and increase commute options will be key to the long-term success of TDM efforts in Stanford Research Park. Stanford would like to work with the City to increase local and regional public transit options, support HOV projects, and improve bicycle and pedestrian access. In addition, Stanford would like to work with the City to develop land use strategies and zoning to support the use of commute alternatives. We thank Council and Staff for this opportunity to provide an update on the Stanford Research Park TMA and TDM Programs. Sincerely, Tiffany Griego Jamie Jarvis Managing Director TDM Manager Stanford Research Park Stanford Research Park Downtown Palo Alto Mode Share Survey May 2016 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 2 `The percentage of downtown employees who drive alone to work hasn’t changed much in the last two years, but it varies widely within specific business sectors. `The overall single occupancy vehicle (SOV) rate for downtown workers is 57%, but is lowest (26%) in the technology sector, where all employers surveyed offer transit passes and other commute benefits; and highest (80%) in the service sector, where most employers offer no benefits. Light office workers have the second highest SOV rate at 74%, followed by government workers at 57%. `Tech companies have the highest use of both transit and active transportation modes, which include biking and walking. Some 31% of tech workers use public transit, and another 28% either bike or walk to work. This contrasts with service workers, who use transit just 3%, and active modes 11%. Overall Findings: Mode Share 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 3 `Higher use of public transit is directly affected by the provision of transportation benefits, including high value benefits such as the Caltrain Annual Go Pass. `Many large employers (including the City and most tech companies) already provide transportation benefits. The 31% use of transit and 24% use rate for government workers is testimony to the effectiveness of providing no or low cost transit passes. `Workers in the service and light office industries, who do not generally receive such benefits, only use transit 3% and 14%, respectively. Overall Findings: Impact of Transportation Benefits 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 4 `The cost of using public transit to commute to work is a major barrier for many in the service sector. `While a Go Pass is frequently a ‘free’ commute benefit for employees of larger firms, even if employees reimburse their employers for an annual pass, it costs less than $20 per month. `Without the advantage of ‘bulk pricing’ using Caltrain costs anywhere from $84.80 to $191.50 per month, which can make it the most expensive way to get to work. `Some 40% of service workers surveyed cite the cost of using public transit as the reason they don’t use it. Overall Findings: Cost as a Barrier 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 5 `This data reinforces the TMA’s pilot programs which provide low income workers with a free transit pass for up to six months. `The pilot launched in mid-August 2016, and offers downtown employees who earn less than $50,000 a year a free monthly transit pass on Caltrain, Dumbarton Express, SamTrans or VTA buses. `Funded by a private donation for the six-month pilot, the program has enrolled 28 workers so far of the 30 slots available. It is reported that by far, Caltrain is the pass selected by participants. The program is poised to expand with additional City funding in the next few weeks. Overall Findings: Data for TMA Pilot Programs 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 6 `The survey methodology of the 2016 mode share survey follows the same approach as the 2015 mode share survey. `829 surveys were conducted with employees at businesses located within an area of Downtown Palo Alto bound by El Camino Real, Webster Street, Everett Avenue, and Forest Avenue. `A stratified random sample of worksites was pulled by worksite size, including small, medium and large businesses. Sampled worksites were contacted directly to identify and recruit an onsite survey coordinator who distributed the surveys to all employees at their respective worksites. `The survey was offered in online and paper formats for employees of businesses with 5 or more employees, and was conducted by telephone with employees of businesses with 4 or fewer employees. `Data collection began May 2nd and ended the week of May 23rd. Each respondent was asked commute mode questions for one calendar week previous to the date on which they took the survey. `Where applicable, results are compared to the first Downtown Palo Alto Mode Share Survey conducted in May 2015 among 1,173 employees. Methodology 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 7 Downtown Palo Alto For this study, Downtown Palo Alto was defined as the area bound by El Camino Real, Webster Street, Everett Avenue, and Forest Avenue. 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 8 Home Regions Survey respondents were categorized into home regions based on zip code data. 2015 2016 Region % % San Francisco 10% 10% Peninsula 20% 26% South Bay 33% 26% Palo Alto 22% 19% East Bay 7% 10% Else 8% 9% 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 9 Total Amount of Survey Respondents 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 10 Worksite Size The survey sample was stratified and the data weighted to reflect the distribution of businesses by worksite size. Business Size (Survey Sample) % of survey sample (weighted) 2015 2016 1 to 25 employees 24% 24% 26 to 100 employees 32% 32% 101+ employees 44% 44% Business size categories are based on counts from the Palo Alto Business Registry. Modes of Transportation 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 12 55%57% 17%16% 8%7%7%7%5%6%5%4%2%3%1%1% 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 Drove alone Caltrain Walked Rode a bicycle Carpooled Worked remotely Other transit Other Mode Share - Overall Mode share has not changed significantly since 2015. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? %’s reflect the total amount of trips taken during the week 2015 2016 SOV Total 55% 57%Includes drive alone and motorcycle Transit Total 19% 19%Includes bus and rail Non-motorized Total 15% 14%Includes walking and riding a bicycle Rideshare Total 5% 6%Includes car/van pool and rideshare services like Uber or Lyft Other 6% 5%Includes worked remotely and other 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 13 Mode Share by Worksite Size Employees working at larger companies drive the least and utilize transit the most. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? 68% 78% 34% 15% 9% 28% 6%7% 23% 7%3% 7%5%3%7% 1-25 emp. (24%) 26-100 emp. (32%) 101+ emp. (44%) Drove alone Transit Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Business Size by Number of Employees Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 14 Mode Share by Home Geography 10% 66%69% 36% 79%75% 13% 17% 5%9% 0% 13% 3% 47% 0%3%5%7%8%5% 12% 4%4%5%6% San Francisco (10%)Peninsula (26%) South Bay (26%) Palo Alto (19%)East Bay (10%) Drove alone Transit Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other San Francisco commuters are the least likely to drive. Those in the East Bay are the most likely to drive. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Refused to report=8%Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 15 Mode Share by Business Type 57% 26% 80% 74% 24% 31% 3% 14% 7% 28% 11% 3%4%8%4%4%8%7% 2%5% Government (9%) Technology (35%) Service (19%) Light office (35%) Drove alone Transit Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Service workers are the least likely business category to use transit. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 16 Mode Share by Amount of Transit Benefits 76% 50% 40%40% 10% 27% 14% 24% 7% 13% 30% 19% 4%6%9%8% 3%5%7%10% 0 of 3 benefits (35%) 1 of 3 benefits (36%) 2 of 3 benefits (15%) 3 of 3 benefits (12%) Drove alone Transit Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other The more transit benefits that a worker receives, the less likely they are to drive alone. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. Transit benefits include, transit subsidies, pre-tax payroll deduction for transportation, and information about commute alternatives 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 17 Mode Share by Transit Benefits 30% 50% 83% 41% 25% 5% 18%16% 1%6%3%6%5%6%4% Receive transit subsidies only (19%) Receive Pre-tax payroll deduction only (6%) Receive information only (12%) Drove alone Transit Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Among workers who receive transit benefits, those who receive transit subsidies alone are the most likely to use transit. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 18 Mode Share Over Time – Business Size 1-25 Among businesses with 1-25 employees, SOV trips decreased and transit trips increased compared to 2015. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? 74% 68% 7% 15% 7%6%5%7%7%5% 2015 2016 Drove alone Transit Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Among Businesses Size 1-25, 199n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 19 Mode Share Over Time – Technology Among technology businesses, SOV trips dropped compared to 2015. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? 33% 26% 31%31% 26%28% 4%8%7%7% 2015 2016 Drove alone Transit Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Among Technology Businesses, 290n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 20 Mode Share Over Time – Service Among service businesses, SOV trips increased and transit trips have decreased since 2015. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? 73% 80% 8% 3%8%11%6%4%6%2% 2015 2016 Drove alone Transit Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Among Service Businesses, 158n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 21 Mode Share Over Time – Business Size 26-100 Among businesses with 26-100 employees, SOV trips increased and transit trips have decreased compared to 2015. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? 61% 78% 17% 9%12%7%6%3%4%3% 2015 2016 Drove alone Transit Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Among Businesses Size 26-100, 265n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 22 Multiple Modes of Transportation About a quarter of workers in downtown Palo Alto use multiple modes of transportation to commute to work. Q2. Do you use more than one mode of transportation to commute to work? Yes, 24% No/DK, 76% Do you use more than one mode of transportation to commute to work? 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 23 Multiple Modes of Transportation Among those who use multiple modes of transportation to commute downtown, Caltrain is largely the mode that brings them into downtown. 3. Which mode of transportation brings you INTO Downtown Palo Alto? Among respondents who take more than one mode of transportation to work. 197n 63% 16% 12% 3%3%2%0% Caltrain Walk Car Bike Bus Shuttle Rideshare Which mode of transportation brings you into downtown Palo Alto? Transportation Attitudes 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 25 Transit Attitudes Many SOV drivers are open to taking transit if service were faster, more frequent, or it ran when needed. Q13-Q26. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. 23% 20% 19% 16% 16% 14% 22% 22% 18% 14% 14% 15% 45% 42% 36% 31% 31% 29% I would take transit to work if the service was faster or more frequent. I would take transit to work if the schedule was better and it ran when I needed it. I would take transit to work if it was easier to get to a transit stop. I would take transit if parking at transit stops was available. I would take transit to work if it was less expensive or I was given a discounted transit pass. I would take transit if parking at transit was less expensive. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Total Agree Among SOV Drivers, 539n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 26 Driving Attitudes Nearly 3 out of 4 SOV drivers prefer to drive to work and plan on continuing to do so. Q13-Q26. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. 50% 45% 35% 25% 12% 22% 23% 16% 20% 18% 72% 68% 51% 46% 31% I prefer to drive to work and plan on continuing to do so. I need to drive to work because I make other stops (school, kids, errands) before or after work I need to drive to work because I use my car for meetings, deliveries, or other work-related tasks. I would rather not drive to work, but I have no other good options. I would take a carpool or vanpool to work if it was convenient, safe, and easy to find. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Total Agree Among SOV Drivers, 539n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 27 Driving Attitudes Over Time Compared to 2015, a larger percent of SOV drivers agree that they prefer to drive, plan to continue to do so, and need to drive. Q13-Q26. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. 72% 68% 51% 46% 31% 67% 60% 44% 50% 35% I prefer to drive to work and plan on continuing to do so. I need to drive to work because I make other stops, such as for school, kids, or other errands, before or after work. I need to drive to work because I use my car for meetings, deliveries, or other work-related tasks. I would rather not drive to work, but I have no other good options. I would take a carpool or vanpool to work if it was convenient, safe, and easy to find. 2016 2015 Total % AgreeAmong SOV Drivers, 2015: 772n 2016: 539n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 28 30%28% 40% 26%24% 33% 38% 44% Government (9%) Tech (35%) Service (19%)Light office (35%) Agree Disagree Transit Attitudes by Business Type Service workers agree the most of any business type that they would take transit if it was less expensive. Q13-Q26. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. I would take transit to work if it was less expensive or I was given a discounted transit pass. Among SOV drivers Government : 56n Tech: 111n Service: 133n Light office: 231n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 29 28%28% 36% 26%27% 35% 28% 41% Government (9%) Tech (35%) Service (19%)Light office (35%) Agree Disagree Transit Attitudes by Business Type Service workers agree the most out of any business type that they would take transit if parking was less expensive. Q13-Q26. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. I would take transit if parking at transit was less expensive. Among SOV drivers Government : 56n Tech: 111n Service: 133n Light office: 231n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 30 34%33% 28%29% 20% 31%33% 41% Government (9%) Tech (35%) Service (19%)Light office (35%) Agree Disagree Transit Attitudes by Business Type Agreeing with the statement “I would take transit if parking at transit stops was available” is similar across business types. Q13-Q26. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. I would take transit if parking at transit stops was available. Among SOV drivers Government : 56n Tech: 111n Service: 133n Light office: 231n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 31 44%44% 28% 34% 26%28% 36% 41% Government (9%) Tech (35%) Service (19%)Light office (35%) Agree Disagree Transit Attitudes by Business Type The ability to get to a transit stop is less important to service and light office workers compared to other transit attitudes. Q13-Q26. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. I would take transit to work if it was easier to get to a transit stop. Among SOV drivers Government : 56n Tech: 111n Service: 133n Light office: 231n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 32 57%54% 47% 36% 22%19% 23% 34% Government (9%) Tech (35%) Service (19%)Light office (35%) Agree Disagree Transit Attitudes by Business Type Nearly half of service workers who drive alone agree that they would take transit if the service was faster or more frequent. Q13-Q26. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. I would take transit to work if the service was faster or more frequent. Among SOV drivers Government : 56n Tech: 111n Service: 133n Light office: 231n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 33 51%49% 44% 35% 20%24% 29% 35% Government (9%) Tech (35%) Service (19%)Light office (35%) Agree Disagree Transit Attitudes by Business Type About half of government and tech workers who drive alone agree that they would take transit to work if the schedule was better and it ran when they needed it. Q13-Q26. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. I would take transit to work if the schedule was better and it ran when I needed it. Among SOV drivers Government : 56n Tech: 111n Service: 133n Light office: 231n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 34 Non-Motorized Attitudes A small portion of SOV drivers are interested in active transportation options. Q13-Q26. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements. 11% 6% 13% 9% 24% 16% I would walk or bike to work if there were better paths, trails, and sidewalks. I would bike to work if there was better parking or storage options for my bike at my work location. Strongly agree Somewhat agree Total Agree Among SOV Drivers, 539n 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 35 Interest in Learning Commuter Options 41% of respondents are interested in learning more about commuting options and incentives. 26. I am interested in learning more about commuting options and incentives that may be available to me. Strongly 16%Strongly 17% Somewhat 25% Somewhat 10% Agree 41% Disagree 27% Don't know 33% I am interested in learning more about commuting options and incentives that may be available to me. 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 36 Reasons for NOT Taking Transit Those who don’t take transit mostly need their cars for errands or they prefer to drive. 27. What is the main reason you do not take transit more often? 21% 17%16% 2% 12%12% 5%5%6% 29% 18% 15% 9%9%7% 4% 2%4% Need car for errands/ meetings I prefer to drive Schedule is not convenient Transit takes too long/ too many transfers Routes not where needed Location of stops is not convenient I take transit as often as I can It’s too expensive Don't know/Other 2015 2016 Why do you not take transit more often? Among SOV drivers, 539n Employer Transit Benefits 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 38 Employer Transit Benefits About one third of workers in downtown Palo Alto report receiving no transit benefits from their employer. 4. Does your employer offer any of the following? 47% 21% 38%35% Transit subsidies Pre-tax payroll deduction for transportation Information about commute alternatives None Does your employer offer any of the following? Multiple answers accepted, percentages do not add to 100% 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 39 Amount of Transit Benefits About two thirds of workers report receiving 1 or more transit benefits from their employer. 4. Does your employer offer any of the following? 35%36% 16%12% 0 of 3 benefits 1 of 3 benefits 2 of 3 benefits 3 of 3 benefits Amount of transit benefits a worker receives Transit benefits include, transit subsidies, pre-tax payroll deduction for transportation, and information about commute alternatives 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 40 44% 18%17%21% 33% 50% 31%37% 13%14% 35% 24% 10%17%16%19% SOV (66%) Transit (24%) Non-motorized (15%)Rideshare (10%) 0 of 3 benefits 1 of 3 benefits 2 of 3 benefits 3 of 3 benefits Amount of Transit Benefits By Commute Modes 44% of SOV drivers report not receiving any transit benefits from their employer. 4. Does your employer offer any of the following? Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. Transit benefits include, transit subsidies, pre-tax payroll deduction for transportation, and information about commute alternatives 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 41 2%4% 31% 77% 25% 45% 61% 17% 39%32% 5%2% 35% 19% 3%5% Government (9%) Technology (35%) Service (19%)Light office (35%) 0 of 3 benefits 1 of 3 benefits 2 of 3 benefits 3 of 3 benefits Amount of Transit Benefits By Business Type Light office workers report receiving very few transit benefits. 4. Does your employer offer any of the following? Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. Transit benefits include, transit subsidies, pre-tax payroll deduction for transportation, and information about commute alternatives Parking 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 43 Parking Fewer respondents report parking on neighborhood streets in 2016 but employees are parking in timed zones and public garages and lots. 5. Where do you typically park when you drive to work? 30% 21% 15% 4%3%2% 24% 34% 22% 7% 4% 8% 2% 23% Public garage or parking lot Private/employer garage or parking lot Neighborhood streets It varies In a 2- or 3-hour on-street parking zone Caltrain parking lot Other/DK/ Don’t drive 2015 2016 Where do you typically park when you drive to work? 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 44 Parking by Business Type Service workers largely park on the street. 5. Where do you typically park when you drive to work? 56% 21% 30% 43% 29%25% 9% 23% 0% 9% 38% 14% Government (9%) Technology (35%) Service (19%) Light office (35%) Public garage or parking lot Private/employer garage or parking lot Neighborhood streets/2-3 hour street park Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 45 Parking Permits A little less than half of workers surveyed have a permit for on street parking or a garage. 6. Do you have a Residential Parking Permit for on-street parking or a permit to park in a Downtown garage? Yes, 40% No, 60% Don't know, 0% Do you have a Residential Parking Permit for on-street parking or a permit to park in a Downtown garage? Awareness of Palo Alto TMA 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 47 11%9% 29% 51% Favorable Unfavorable Heard of but can't rate Never heard of Awareness of Palo Alto TMA About half of respondents have heard of the Palo Alto TMA. 12. Do you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA)? If you have never heard of the Palo Alto TMA or heard of but can’t rate, please select that option. Total awareness=49% Focus on Service Workers 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 49 `Service workers report working in the restaurant or food industry, in hospitality, or in personal services (beauty salon). They make up 19% or 158n of the total sample for the 2016 Palo Alto Commuter Mode Survey. `Service workers have the highest SOV rate of any worksite category. `Service workers receive fewer transit benefits from their employers than other workers. They also express less flexibility with their work schedule. `Service workers mostly park on the street. `Service workers have differing attitudes towards driving and transit compared to workers as a whole. Service Workers 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 50 Mode Share by Business Type 26% 57% 74% 80% 29% 23% 9% 2% 28% 7%3% 11%8%4%4%4%8%8%9% 3% Technology (35%) Government (9%) Light office (35%) Service (19%) Drove alone Caltrain Walk/Bike Carpooled Worked Remotely/Other Service workers report the highest level of SOV trips among all business types. They also use transit less than any other business type. Q1. Thinking back to last week, what mode of transportation did you use to commute TO downtown Palo Alto? Numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of the sample for each respective subgroup. 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 51 Driving Attitudes Among Service Workers Compared to respondents overall, service workers are more likely to prefer to drive to work and plan on continuing to do so. They also express that they need to drive for other stops or work related tasks more so than respondents overall. Q13-26. Do you agree or disagree with the following? 76% 66% 44% 51%49% 37% I prefer to drive to work and plan on continuing to do so. I need to drive to work because I make other stops, such as for school, kids, or other errands, before or after work. I need to drive to work because I use my car for meetings, deliveries, or other work-related tasks. Service workers (19%)Overall% Agree 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 52 Driving and Transit Attitudes Among Service Workers Service workers have similar attitudes towards transit and transit alternatives as the population overall, but are more likely to say they “need” to drive. Expense also appears to be a concern. Q13-26. Do you agree or disagree with the following? % Agree Bolded numbers and color bars are of particular interest. Service Workers (19%)Overall (100%) I prefer to drive to work and plan on continuing to do so.76% 51% I need to drive to work because I make other stops, such as for school, kids, or other errands, before or after work.66% 49% I need to drive to work because I use my car for meetings, deliveries, or other work-related tasks. 44% 37% I would take transit to work if the service was faster or more frequent.42% 41% I would take transit to work if the schedule was better and it ran when I needed it.40% 39% I would take transit to work if it was less expensive or I was given a discounted transit pass. 38% 29% I would rather not drive to work, but I have no other good options.37% 33% I am interested in learning more about commuting options and incentives that may be available to me.37% 41% I would take transit if parking at transit was less expensive.32% 25% I would take a carpool or vanpool to work if it was convenient, safe, and easy to find.32% 29% I would take transit to work if it was easier to get to a transit stop.27% 32% I would take transit if parking at transit stops was available.25% 26% I would walk or bike to work if there were better paths, trails, and sidewalks.22% 25% I would bike to work if there was better parking or storage options for my bike at my work location.18% 15% 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 53 Employer Transit Benefits Service workers receive fewer transit subsidies and payroll deductions for transportation from their employers than workers overall. 58% report receiving information about commute alternatives from their employer. 4. Does your employer offer any of the following? (Multiple answers accepted) 12%13% 58% 47% 21% 38% Transit subsidies Pre-tax payroll deduction for transportation Information about commute alternatives Service workers (19%)Overall Does your employer offer any of the following? 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 54 Parking Among Service Workers Service workers park on neighborhood streets and in 2-3 hour parking zones more than other workers. 5. Where do you typically park when you drive to work? 30% 9% 21%18% 34% 22% 7%8% Public garage or parking lot Private/employer garage or parking lot Neighborhood streets In a 2 or 3-hour on-street parking zone Service workers (19%)Overall Where do you typically park when you drive to work? Conclusions 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 56 `Mode share has not changed significantly since 2015 and has stayed steady with an SOV rate of 57% and a transit rate of 19%. `Employer transit benefits like transit subsidies and pre-tax payroll deductions for transportation appear to have an impact in making SOV trips lower and transit use higher. `Service workers are a potential target for decreasing SOV trips. `About half of respondents have heard of the TMA. Conclusions Mode Share Trend Data 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 58 Mode Share Over Time Business Type Government Technology Service 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 59% 57% -2% 33% 26% -7% 73% 80% +8% Caltrain 20% 23% +3% 31% 29% -1% 4% 2% -1% Walk/Bike 6% 7% +1% 26% 28% +3% 8% 11% +3% Carpooled 6% 4% -1% 4% 8% +4% 6% 4% -3% Worked Remotely/Other 10% 8% -1% 7% 8% +1% 10% 3% -7% Business Type Light office 2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 71% 74% +3% Caltrain 11% 9% -1% Walk/Bike 9% 3% -6% Carpooled 5% 4% -0% Worked Remotely/Other 4% 9% +5% 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 59 Mode Share Over Time Employee size 1-25 26-100 101+ 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 74% 68% -6% 61% 78% +17% 41% 34% -7% Caltrain 7% 14% +7% 14% 3% -11% 25% 27% +1% Walk/Bike 7% 6% -1% 12% 7% -4% 22% 23% +1% Carpooled 5% 7% +2% 6% 3% -3% 4% 7% +3% Worked Remotely/Other 8% 5% -2% 8% 8% +1% 7% 8% +2% Miles driven to work <1 to 10 10 to 30 30+ 2015 2016 Diff.2015 2016 Diff.2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 52% 55% +3% 69% 66% -3% 40% 45% +5% Caltrain 6% 5% -1% 19% 20% +1% 39% 42% +2% Walk/Bike 30% 28% -3% 1% 0% -0% 1% 0% -1% Carpooled 4% 6% +1% 5% 5% -0% 5% 4% -1% Worked Remotely/Other 7% 7% -0% 6% 8% +2% 15% 9% -6% 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 60 Mode Share Over Time Home Geography San Francisco Peninsula South Bay 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 18% 10% -8% 63% 66% +3% 65% 69% +4% Caltrain 70% 74% +4% 16% 11% -4% 20% 16% -4% Walk/Bike 1% 0% -1% 12% 13% +1% 3% 3% +1% Carpooled 1% 3% +3% 3% 5% +2% 6% 7% +1% Worked Remotely/Other 10% 12% +2% 7% 5% -2% 6% 5% -1% Home Geography Palo Alto East Bay 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 41% 36% -5% 76% 79% +3% Caltrain 0% 1% +1% 3% 5% +2% Walk/Bike 48% 47% -2% 0% 0% -0% Carpooled 5% 8% +3% 9% 5% -4% Worked Remotely/Other 5% 8% +3% 12% 10% -2% 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 61 Mode Share Over Time Age 18-29 30-39 40-49 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 43% 36% -7% 51% 47% -4% 67% 69% +2% Caltrain 21% 21% -0% 23% 22% -1% 11% 11% -1% Walk/Bike 26% 29% +3% 13% 15% +2% 7% 7% +1% Carpooled 4% 7% +3% 5% 8% +4% 6% 3% -3% Worked Remotely/Other 5% 6% +1% 8% 8% -0% 9% 10% +1% Age 50-64 65+ 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 68% 76% +8% 81% 69% -12% Caltrain 7% 12% +4% 5% 8% +4% Walk/Bike 10% 4% -6% 5% 6% +1% Carpooled 4% 3% -1% 6% 5% -1% Worked Remotely/Other 10% 5% -5% 3% 11% +9% 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 62 Mode Share Over Time Parents Parent Not a parent 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 66% 70% +3% 50% 50% -0% Caltrain 11% 9% -2% 20% 19% -1% Walk/Bike 8% 8% -0% 19% 18% -1% Carpooled 7% 4% -3% 4% 7% +2% Worked Remotely/Other 8% 10% +2% 7% 7% -0% Work Schedule Required to start at a specific time My work schedule is flexible My schedule varies 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 64% 69% +5% 49% 43% -6% 63% 66% +2% Caltrain 14% 15% +1% 20% 19% -1% 11% 11% -0% Walk/Bike 8% 7% -2% 19% 22% +3% 15% 8% -7% Carpooled 5% 3% -2% 5% 8% +2% 2% 6% +4% Worked Remotely/Other 9% 6% -2% 7% 8% +2% 8% 9% +1% 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 63 Mode Share Over Time Job Type Full time Part time More than one job 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 53% 52% -0% 75% 69% -6% 66% 77% +11% Caltrain 19% 19% -0% 3% 3% -0% 4% 4% -0% Walk/Bike 16% 15% -1% 8% 15% +6% 11% 10% -2% Carpooled 5% 6% +1% 7% 7% +0% 5% 3% -2% Worked Remotely/Other 7% 7% +0% 6% 6% +0% 14% 7% -7% Peak Hour Commuters Yes (6-9am) No 2015 2016 Diff. 2015 2016 Diff. Drove alone 54% 52% -2% 57% 64% +7% Caltrain 23% 21% -2% 7% 6% -1% Walk/Bike 11% 13% +3% 22% 17% -5% Carpooled 6% 6% +0% 3% 4% +1% Worked Remotely/Other 6% 8% +2% 12% 9% -2% 16-5932 Palo Alto TMA | 64 Contact Information Tom Patras tom@emcresearch.com 614.827.9677 Doug MacDowell doug@emcresearch.com 614.827.9673 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7634) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan Title: Approval of the 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan Guidelines From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that Council approve the updated 2017 Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP) Guidelines. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The current season’s deluge notwithstanding, the past several years have brought unprecedented drought conditions and regulatory action by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB), including the first-ever mandatory potable water use reductions. During this time, much focus has been placed on the sustainability of water supply in California. The WIRP Guidelines, which were last updated in 2003, are a roadmap for the City of Palo Alto’s future potable water supply. In this WIRP, the following potable water supply alternatives were evaluated: 1) water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC); 2) groundwater (with or without groundwater recharge); 3) treated water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD); and 4) Demand Side Management (DSM). Recycled water is being evaluated outside of the WIRP in the Recycled Water Strategic Plan process that will include an evaluation of direct and indirect potable reuse as well as the feasibility and advisability of expanding the existing non- potable recycled water distribution system. The evaluation concluded that DSM is the best resource, but potable water supplies are still needed. While SFPUC water is more expensive, it has higher water quality than groundwater or treated water from the SCVWD. In addition, groundwater and SCVWD treated water supplies may increase in cost and aren’t likely to offer additional protection in droughts. In summary, the proposed 2017 WIRP Guidelines are: 1. Pursue all cost-effective water efficiency and conservation; City of Palo Alto Page 2 2. Continue to investigate the technical feasibility and financial impact of increasing the use of non-traditional, non-potable sources such as black water, storm water, and water incidentally produced in an excavating project; 3. Proceed with the Recycled Water Strategic Plan to determine how to reduce the demand for imported water; and 4. Survey potentially impacted customers about their preference for SFPUC water versus blended water. The WIRP Guidelines will need to be revisited after the Recycled Water Strategic Plan is completed so that a comprehensive, regional water strategy can be developed. BACKGROUND The City prepared its first WIRP in 1993 when the City was faced with a decision to participate in a regional recycled water expansion program. The 1993 WIRP assessed the costs and benefits of the recycled water project compared to other supply alternatives, and ultimately concluded that recycled water was not cost effective relative to existing supply. In 2003, the City updated the WIRP. The 2003 WIRP indicated that supplies from the SFPUC were adequate during normal years, but additional supplies were needed in dry years to avoid shortages. The key conclusions from the 2003 WIRP analysis were: The City’s existing contractual entitlement with the SFPUC provides adequate supplies; The cost to connect to the SCVWD treated water pipeline was prohibitive; Continuous use of groundwater was not recommended; The City should continue to evaluate recycled water; and Continue the current Demand Side Management programs and explore additional measures. In December 2003, Council adopted WIRP Guidelines (Attachment B) for the development of new water resources and the preservation of existing supplies, which are summarized below: 1. Preserve and enhance SFPUC supplies 2. Continue to advocate for an interconnection between SFPUC and SCVWD 3. Participate in the development of cost effective regional recycled water programs 4. Scope water conservation programs to comply with Best Management Practices (BMPs) 5. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of droughts 6. Retain groundwater supply options in case of changed future conditions 7. Survey community to determine its preferences regarding the best water resource portfolio As a first step toward updating the 2003 WIRP, a Preliminary Assessment (Attachment C) was completed and provided to the UAC in February 2013. The Preliminary Assessment provided a general evaluation of the following water resources: 1) water from the SFPUC; 2) groundwater; 3) treated water from the SCVWD; 4) recycled water; 5) DSM; and 6) sale of the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee. No recommendations were made based on the Preliminary Assessment, City of Palo Alto Page 3 although staff found that groundwater, SCVWD treated water, recycled water and the sale of the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee merited further evaluation. At its November 2, 2016 meeting, the UAC reviewed the draft 2017 WRIP guidelines. The UAC was generally pleased with the report, but expressed a desire to represent more SFPUC water supply availability scenarios in the future. The minutes from the UAC’s November 2, 2016 meeting are provided as Attachment D. The WIRP was revised with an expanded description of the short and long term threats to SFPUC water supply availability, the most significant of which are climate change and state regulation1. The revised plan was unanimously recommended for Council approval by the UAC at its January 11, 2017 meeting. The minutes are provided as Attachment E. Additional questions were asked at that meeting about long term climate impacts to water supply and about the taste and odor impacts of using groundwater. With respect to climate impacts on water supply, these are highly uncertain, and an in-depth analysis is not included in the WIRP. In addition, the City is well positioned to handle potential impacts given its robust water supply and efficiency achievements. Any impacts would materialize gradually, allowing time for the City to respond, and untapped resources like ground water and recycled water would provide additional measures of security. However, staff is aware of the concern and will likely be in a better position to analyze these types of impacts when the WIRP is revisited after the Recycled Water Strategic Plan is completed. The taste and odor concerns arose due to a recent incident where the SFPUC’s water supply was affected by a release of algae during a routine blend change, which led to the greatest number of taste and odor complaints in recent years. Blending ground water with SFPUC water would not result in this magnitude of taste and odor impact. While blended water would be harder and would have a different taste, the water would not have taste and odor issue experienced as a result of the algae bloom in December 2016. However, customers may significantly prefer the taste of Hetch Hetchy water to the taste of blended water. Assessing customer preferences would be a priority before recommending any use of blended water in Palo Alto’s water supply. DISCUSSION For the current analysis, each potable water supply alternative was evaluated for normal and dry year availability, water quality, cost, sustainability, emergency robustness, and sensitivity to regulations and environmental review. For each alternative, the following attributes were considered: 1. Normal and dry year availability; 2. Water quality; 3. Cost; 1 The State’s 2016 Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan Substitute Environmental Document includes a proposal to double unimpaired flow on the Tuolumne River from 20% to 40%. Such a change would result in severe water shortages to SFPUC customers during dry periods. Palo Alto is participating in the environmental review and comment process, along with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency and the SFPUC, to work with the State to achieve stated environmental goals while mitigating resulting impacts to water customers. City of Palo Alto Page 4 4. Sustainability; 5. Emergency robustness; and 6. Sensitivity to regulations and environmental review. The current analysis made the following conclusions: 1. Cost-effective DSM is the superior resource, but DSM alone can’t eliminate the City’s need for potable water. 2. While SFPUC water is expected to be slightly more expensive than other potable water alternatives, it has the highest water quality. 3. The cost of SCVWD supplies—both groundwater and treated water—may increase dramatically if purified water is fully developed and/or if the California Water Fix (“twin tunnels”) project is constructed. However, SCVWD does not have excess treated water to sell. 4. Groundwater in the county is susceptible to mandated water use reductions just like imported supplies. 5. Blending groundwater with SFPUC water at only the El Camino well is the least expensive, most sustainable alternative to 100% SFPUC supplies. Whether the residents and businesses that would receive the water would consider the tradeoff between cost and quality to be acceptable is worth investigating. 6. The most promising way to increase reliability and increase sustainability is to reduce the demand for potable water by expanding the use of recycled water. The Recycled Water Strategic Plan will provide valuable analysis and information to help the City and SCVWD formulate a comprehensive strategy for the future. Table 1 shows a summary of the WIRP analysis. Table 1: Summary Comparison of Potable Water Supply Alternatives Water Resource Normal Year Availability Dry Year Availability Quality Cost Emergency Robustness Sustainability Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review SFPUC Groundwater Groundwater (w/recharge) ? SCVWD Treated Water Demand Side Management Fo r th e m os t p ar t, d e m a n d si d Fo r th e m os t p ar t, d e m a n d si d Fo r th e m os t p ar t, d e m a n d si d Fo r th e m os t p ar t, d e m a n d Fo r th e m os t p ar t, d e m a n d Fo r th e m os t p ar t, d e m a n d Fo r th e m os t p ar t, d e m a n Fo r th e m os t p ar t, d e m a Fo r th e m os t p ar t, d Fo r th e m os t p ar t, d Fo r th e m os t p ar t, City of Palo Alto Page 5 On December 7, 2016, the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee reviewed the proposed 2017 WIRP and suggested one clarifying change to Guideline 4. The proposed 2017 WIRP Guidelines now read: 1. Pursue all cost-effective water efficiency and conservation; 2. Continue to investigate the technical feasibility and financial impact of increasing the use of non-traditional, non-potable sources such as black water, storm water, and water incidentally produced in an excavating project. 3. Proceed with the Recycled Water Strategic Plan to determine how to reduce the demand for imported water; and 4. Survey potentially impacted customers about their preference for SFPUC water versus blended water. NEXT STEPS The WIRP Guidelines will be updated after the completion of the Recycled Water Strategic Plan. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Adoption of the proposed WIRP Guidelines will replace the 2003 Guidelines and will determine the water resource planning activities for the next three years. The proposed 2017 WIRP Guidelines are consistent with the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, the Utilities Strategic Plan, and the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Council’s approval of the 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan Guidelines does not require California Environmental Quality Act review, because the plan does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as an administrative governmental activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Attachments: Attachment A: 2017 Final WIRP Attachment B: 2003 WIRP Guidelines Attachment C: 2013 Preliminary Assessment of Water Resource Alternatives Attachment D: Excerpted Final UAC Minutes of November 2, 2016 Attachment A 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan January 2017 i 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan Table of Contents List of Figures ___________________________________________________________ iii List of Tables ___________________________________________________________ iii List of Acronyms _________________________________________________________ iii I. Executive Summary ____________________________________________________ 1 II. WIRP Drivers _________________________________________________________ 2 III. Background __________________________________________________________ 3 IV. Water Supply History ________________________________________________ 6 V. Water Use Projections __________________________________________________ 7 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) ________________________________________ 8 Summary Water Resource Mix _________________________________________________ 8 VI. Attributes Evaluated and Water Resource Alternatives Examined ____________ 9 Attributes Evaluated for each Water Resource Alternative ___________________________ 9 Water Resource Alternatives Examined __________________________________________ 9 Water Resource Alternatives NOT Examined _____________________________________ 10 VII. Water from the SFPUC ______________________________________________ 13 Availability ________________________________________________________________ 13 Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 15 Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 16 Sustainability ______________________________________________________________ 17 Emergency Robustness ______________________________________________________ 18 Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review ______________________________ 19 VIII. Potable Groundwater _______________________________________________ 19 Availability ________________________________________________________________ 21 Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 22 Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 23 Sustainability ______________________________________________________________ 25 Emergency Robustness ______________________________________________________ 26 Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review ______________________________ 26 ii IX. Treated Water from the SCVWD _________________________________________ 27 Availability ________________________________________________________________ 29 Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 29 Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 30 Emergency Robustness ______________________________________________________ 31 Sustainability ______________________________________________________________ 32 Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review ______________________________ 32 X. Demand Side Management ____________________________________________ 33 Availability ________________________________________________________________ 34 Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 35 Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 35 Emergency Robustness ______________________________________________________ 37 Sustainability ______________________________________________________________ 37 Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review ______________________________ 37 XI. Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives _________________________________ 38 Availability ________________________________________________________________ 38 Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 38 Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 39 Emergency Robustness ______________________________________________________ 41 Sustainability ______________________________________________________________ 41 Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review ______________________________ 41 XII. Conclusions _______________________________________________________ 41 iii List of Figures Figure 1: Historic Water Use (1988-2016) ...................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: 2010 and 2015 UWMP Demand Forecast Projection Comparison ................................. 8 Figure 3: Summary of 2015 UWMP Water Resource Composition ................................................ 9 Figure 4: Projected Frequency of Shortage for RWS Based on 91-Year Historical Hydrologic Record and Estimated Demand .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5: SFPUC Actual and Projected Cost of Water ................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Map of SFPUC Regional Water System .......................................................................... 18 Figure 7: Estimated Well Production for Various Treatment Options ......................................... 23 Figure 8: Cost at Each Well for Each Treatment Option ............................................................... 24 Figure 9: Unit cost of Various Treatment Options ........................................................................ 25 Figure 10: West Pipeline Extension Map ...................................................................................... 28 Figure 11: SBx7X7 Targets, Results, and Projections .................................................................... 34 Figure 12: Monthly Potable Water Consumption......................................................................... 35 Figure 13: Water Demand Forecast with Future Water Efficiency .............................................. 37 Figure 14: Commodity Cost Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives ...................................... 40 Figure 15: Present Value Unit Cost Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives ........................... 40 List of Tables Table 1: Estimated Well Capacity ................................................................................................. 21 Table 2: Water Quality Resulting from Various Treatment Options ............................................ 23 Table 3: SCVWD Treated Water Connection Cost Summary ........................................................ 30 Table 4: Water Efficiency Costs ($/AF) ......................................................................................... 36 Table 5: Water Quality Parameters for Water Resource Alternatives ......................................... 39 Table 6: Summary Comparison of Potable Water Resource Alternatives .................................... 42 List of Acronyms AFY Acre Feet per Year AMI Advanced Metering Infrastructure BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency BMP Best Management Practice CCF One hundred cubic feet CDPH California Department of Public Health CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CPAU City of Palo Alto Utilities CVP Central Valley Project DPR Direct Potable Reuse iv DSM Demand Side Management EIR Environmental Impact Report ESA Endangered Species Act FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GHG Greenhouse gas GPCD Gallons per capita per day GWMP Groundwater Management Plan IPR Indirect Potable Reuse ISA Interim Supply Allocation ISG Individual Supply Guarantee ISL Interim Supply Limitation MGD Million gallons per day PPM Parts per Million RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plant RWS Regional Water System (refers to SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy system) SBx7-7 Water Conservation Bill SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District S/CAP Sustainability and Climate Action Plan SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS Total Dissolved Solids UAC Utilities Advisory Commission UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WIRP Water Integrated Resource Plan WSA Water Supply Agreement WSIP Water System Improvement Program Page 1 I. Executive Summary The past several years have brought unprecedented drought conditions and regulatory action by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) including the first-ever mandatory potable water use reductions. During this time, much focus has been placed on the sustainability of water supply in California. The Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP) Guidelines, which were last updated in 2003, are a roadmap for the City of Palo Alto’s future potable water supply. In this WIRP, the following potable water supply alternatives were evaluated: 1) water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC); 2) groundwater (with or without groundwater recharge); 3) treated water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD); and 4) Demand Side Management (DSM). Recycled water is being evaluated outside of the WIRP in the Recycled Water Strategic Plan process that will include an evaluation of direct and indirect potable reuse as well as the feasibility and advisability of expanding the existing non- potable recycled water distribution system. For each alternative, the following attributes were considered: 1. Normal and dry year availability; 2. Water quality; 3. Cost; 4. Sustainability; 5. Emergency robustness; and 6. Sensitivity to regulations and environmental review. Major findings of the evaluation are: 1. Cost-effective DSM is the superior resource, but DSM can’t eliminate the City’s need for potable water. 2. While SFPUC water is slightly more expensive than groundwater and SCVWD treated water, it has the highest water quality. 3. The cost of SCVWD supplies may increase dramatically if purified water is fully developed and/or if the “twin tunnels” project in the Delta is constructed. 4. SCVWD does not have excess treated water available to sell. 5. Like other potable water supplies, groundwater in the county is susceptible to mandated water use reductions. 6. Blending groundwater with SFPUC water at only the El Camino well is the least expensive, most sustainable alternative to 100% SFPUC supplies. It is unclear whether the customers that would receive the water would consider the tradeoff between cost and quality to be acceptable. 7. Expanding the use of recycled water and other non-potable sources will reduce the reliance on potable water, but more work needs to be done and no conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of those resources can be drawn from this study. Page 2 In summary, the recommended 2017 WIRP Guidelines are: 1. Pursue all cost-effective water efficiency and conservation; 2. Continue to investigate the technical feasibility and financial impact of increasing the use of non-traditional, non-potable sources such as black water, storm water, and water incidentally produced in an excavating project from basement construction; 3. Proceed with the Recycled Water Strategic Plan to determine how to reduce the demand for imported water; and 4. Survey potentially impacted customers about their preference for SFPUC water versus blended water. II. WIRP Drivers There are several drivers for updating the WIRP Guidelines at this time. a) Dry year need – The City has an Individual Supply Guarantee of 17.07 million gallons per day (MGD) from the regional water system operated by the SFPUC. The City has no foreseeable supply deficiency in normal years, but SFPUC supplies will likely be inadequate during dry years. Many of the supply alternatives available to the City are also subject to drought shortfalls. A critical question to address is the level of reliability the City will provide to residents and businesses and at what cost. b) Legislative & Regulatory Risks – In 2015, the SWRCB overrode individual supplier water shortage assessments and mandated potable water use reduction targets. It is prudent to evaluate Palo Alto’s water supply alternatives relative to this new regulatory risk. c) Cost Increases – The SFPUC’s Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) is 90% complete. The WSIP included 81 projects for a cost of $4.8 billion (including $1.6 billion for projects within, and completely paid for by ratepayers within, the City and County of San Francisco). The largest project remaining is the re-build of the Calaveras Dam which has encountered unexpected geological challenges. As a result of the WSIP and other capital projects, the cost of SFPUC water has risen dramatically and is projected to continue to increase in the future. With the increase in costs, other alternatives are increasingly competitive with SFPUC supplies, although other supply alternatives such as groundwater from the SCVWD and treated water from the SCVWD have also increased in cost and are expected to continue on that trajectory. d) Recycled Water and the Nexus with Potable Supplies - Recycled water from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is an available local supply source with the potential to reduce the City’s demand for SFPUC water. Recycled water could be deployed for non- potable uses or converted to potable water through Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR or recharging the deep aquifer followed by groundwater pumping) or Direct Potable Reuse (DPR or highly purified water that can be injected directly to the potable water distribution system). A renewed commitment at the State level may change the viability of recycled Page 3 water projects. There is also regulatory pressure to reduce the amount of water discharged to the San Francisco Bay. e) Council Commitment to Sustainability - The issue of climate change has become an important factor in water resources planning in the State, though the extent and precise effects of climate change remain uncertain. There is convincing evidence that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses have caused, and will continue to cause, a rise in temperatures around the world, which will result in a wide range of changes in climate patterns. Moreover, observational data show that a warming trend occurred during the latter part of the 20th century and virtually all projections indicate this will continue through the 21st century. Climate change could result in the following types of water resource impacts, including impacts on the watersheds in the Bay Area: Reductions in the average annual snowpack due to a rise in the snowline and a shallower snowpack in the low and medium elevation zones, such as in the Tuolumne River basin (the primary source of SFPUC’s regional water system), and a shift in snowmelt runoff to earlier in the year; Changes in the timing, intensity and variability of precipitation, and an increased amount of precipitation falling as rain instead of as snow; Long-term changes in watershed vegetation and increased incidence of wildfires that could affect water quality and quantity; Sea level rise and an increase in saltwater intrusion; Increased water temperatures with accompanying potential adverse effects on some fisheries and water quality; Increases in evaporation and concomitant increased irrigation need; and Changes in urban and agricultural water demand. The updated Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) will include aggressive goals and robust strategies for ensuring Palo Alto has a sustainable long-term water supply. In particular, local water sources need to be considered with this new focus in mind. f) Community Engagement on All Things Water Related – The current drought shined a spotlight on the lack of adequate water supplies for the state as a whole. Media attention and actions by the Governor raised awareness among Palo Alto’s educated, engaged community resulting in a need to provide to the public more information on the City’s water supply planning efforts. III. Background The first WIRP was prepared largely because the City was faced with a decision regarding participation in a regional recycled water program. This 1993 WIRP assessed the costs and benefits of a recycled water project compared to other supply alternatives, and ultimately determined that recycled water was not cost effective relative to existing supplies. In 1999, the Page 4 City began working on a new WIRP, and completed the effort with approval by the City Council of seven WIRP Guidelines in December 20031: 1. Preserve and enhance SFPUC supplies. 2. Advocate for an interconnection between SFPUC and the District 3. Actively participate in development of cost-effective regional recycled water plans 4. Focus water DSM programs to comply with BMPs 5. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of droughts 6. Retain groundwater supply options in case of changed future conditions 7. Survey community to determine its preferences regarding the best water resource portfolio During the process to prepare the 2003 WIRP, several studies were conducted to inform the effort: 1. Water, Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution System Study, 1999, Carollo Engineers2 – This study identified system improvements to the distribution system to meet water demands and fire flows following a catastrophic interruption of service on the SFPUC system. Among the recommendations was to refurbish the 5 existing wells and construct three new wells and a new water storage tank. 2. Long Term Water Supply Study, 2000, Carollo Engineers – The report examined the issues and costs of using new or rehabilitated wells as active sources of supply. The alternatives examined in the report included: (1) Using the wells for active supply either on a long term basis or during droughts; (2) using groundwater for irrigation; and (3) connecting to the SCVWD treated water pipeline. 3. Groundwater Supply Feasibility Study, 2002, Carollo Engineers – The report evaluated whether operating one or two of the City’s water wells as active supplies would cause significant decrease in groundwater levels or deterioration in groundwater quality. 4. Santa Clara Valley Water District’s West Pipeline Extension Conceptual Evaluation Final Report, 2003, SCVWD. – The report evaluated an extension of the existing SCVWD West Pipeline to enable an interconnection of the Palo Alto and SCVWD systems at Page Mill turnout. The 2003 WIRP analysis indicated that SFPUC supplies were adequate during normal years, but additional supplies were needed in dry years to avoid shortages. Since SFPUC supplies were adequate in normal years, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. The City’s existing ISG through its water supply contract with San Francisco provides adequate supplies; 1 CMR:547:03: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51715 2 See Executive Summary here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/25618 Page 5 2. The cost to connect to the SCVWD treated water pipeline is prohibitive assuming that Palo Alto would bear the entire project cost; 3. Continuous use of groundwater was not recommended; 4. The City should continue to evaluate recycled water; 5. Continue the current DSM programs and explore additional measures; and 6. Additional supplies are needed in a drought if water use restrictions are to be avoided. Following Council approval of the 2003 WIRP Guidelines, staff surveyed residential customers to gain a sense of community preferences on the use of groundwater during a drought. The survey asked respondents to rank several options for water supply during a drought: (A) blend groundwater with existing SFPUC supplies; (B) use no groundwater; and (C) treat groundwater at the well location prior to introduction to the distribution system. Survey respondents generally preferred Options B (no groundwater) and C (treat groundwater), but Option A (blend groundwater) was not soundly rejected. The results of the survey were presented to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) in June 20043. Based on the results staff made the following recommendations: 1. Do not install advanced treatment systems for the groundwater at this time. This option is expensive, both in terms of capital and operating costs. 2. Blending at an SFPUC turnout is the best way to use ground water as a supplemental drought time supply while maintaining good water quality. 3. Staff should await the conclusion of the environmental review process before proceeding with any site selections for wells to be used in dry years. 4. Actively participate in the development of long term supply plans with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and/or SCVWD. 5. Continue efforts identified in the Council-approved WIRP guidelines: a. Evaluate a range of demand side management options to reduce long term water demands. b. Evaluate feasibility of expanding recycled water. c. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activities in case of droughts. In 2013, a Preliminary Assessment of Water Resource Alternatives was prepared and presented to the UAC4 as a first step toward updating the WIRP. Other high-priority tasks, such as drought management and completion of the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, delayed work on the WIRP until now. The City has several policies embodied in the Comprehensive Plan that relate to groundwater and water supplies. The relevant policies are listed below, with program elements, if applicable. An update of the Comprehensive Plan is underway. 3 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/3354.pdf 4 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33029 Page 6 1. POLICY N-51: Minimize exposure to geologic hazards, including slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and to seismic hazards including ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and land sliding. 2. POLICY N-18: Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. a. PROGRAM N-22: Work with the SCVWD to identify and map key Groundwater recharge areas for use in land use planning and permitting and the protection of groundwater resources. 3. POLICY N-19: Secure a reliable, long-term supply of water for Palo Alto. In April 20165, Council approved the framework of the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. The section, “Getting Smart about Water” included two goals: (1) Reduce consumption of potable water and (2) Supplement existing water supplies. As part of the S/CAP Implementation Plan process, a revised set of goals and strategies will be presented to Council for approval. IV. Water Supply History The water utility was established on May 9, 1896, two years after the City was incorporated. Local water companies were purchased at that time with a $40,000 bond approved by the voters of the 750-person community. These private water companies operated one or more shallow wells to serve the nearby residents. The city grew and the well system expanded until nine (9) wells were in operation by 1932. In December 1937, the City signed a 20-year contract with the City and County of San Francisco for water deliveries from the newly constructed pipeline bringing Hetch Hetchy water from Yosemite to the Bay Area. Water deliveries from San Francisco commenced in 1938 and well production declined to less than half of the total citywide water demand. A 1950 engineering report noted, "The capricious alternation of well waters and the [San Francisco] water...has made satisfactory service to the average consumer practically impossible." Groundwater production increased in the 1950s leading to lower groundwater tables and increasing water quality concerns. In 1962, a survey of water softening costs to City customers determined that the City should purchase 100% of its water supply needs from San Francisco. A 20-year contract was signed with San Francisco and the City’s wells were placed in a standby condition. Since 1962 (except for some very short periods) the City’s entire potable water has come from San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy regional water system administered by the SFPUC. In 1974, several wholesale customers joined Palo Alto and filed a lawsuit against San Francisco in protest of an increase in water rates that was higher for wholesale customers than it was for 5 Staff Report 6754: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51856 Page 7 direct retail customers. In 1984, settlement negotiations resulted in the “Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract between the City and County of San Francisco and Certain Suburban Purchasers in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties”. The 25-year agreement was approved in 1984. The 1984 agreement included the creation of a “Supply Assurance” equal to 184 million gallons of water per day (MGD) for the benefit of the wholesale customers.6 The agreement included a mechanism to allocate the 184 Supply Assurance between the wholesale agencies. The City’s allocation, its “Individual Supply Guarantee” or ISG, is 17.07 MGD. Each agency’s ISG is perpetual in nature and survives termination or expiration of the water supply contract with San Francisco. In 2009, a new 25-year Water Supply Agreement (WSA) was executed between San Francisco and the City7. The City’s historical water use and supply sources are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: Historic Water Use (1988-2016) V. Water Use Projections The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) regularly prepares water supply and demand forecasts to prepare financial forecasts, to meet regulatory requirements, or as part of ongoing regional planning efforts. Like many water agencies in California, the City has experienced a significant 6 The Supply Assurance is expressed as an annual average and does not constitute an obligation on the part of the SFPUC to meet daily or hourly peak demands. 7 CMR: 269:09: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/15985 Page 8 drop in water use since 2007, which is largely attributable to the 2008 economic recession and the recent drought and resulting water conservation. Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) The UWMP is submitted to the Department of Water Resources every five years; the City Council approved the most recent 2015 UWMP in June 20158. Water demand forecast for the 2015 UWMP are shown in Figure 2. For comparison purposes, the forecast from the 2010 UWMP is also included in Figure 2. The water use projection results are revealing in that the City, along with most water agencies in California, did not anticipate the dramatic drop in water demand from 2007 to 2009. Potable water demands from 2009 to the present appear to have leveled off and have begun to trend upwards again, albeit slowly, and it remains to be seen if water demands will follow the increase forecasted in the 2010 UWMP. Figure 2: 2010 and 2015 UWMP Demand Forecast Projection Comparison Summary Water Resource Mix The 2015 UWMP provided detailed information on baseline water resources through 2040. SFPUC supplies were assumed to remain the primary potable supply for the foreseeable future. Recycled water consumption was projected to continue at current levels and no expansion was assumed in the 2015 UWMP. Finally, demand side management and conservation program penetration and savings were projected contribute to a modest decrease in potable water use. A representation of the future water resource mix is provided in Figure 3. 8 Staff Report 6851: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52272, Resolution 9589: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53456 Page 9 Figure 3: Summary of 2015 UWMP Water Resource Composition VI. Attributes Evaluated and Water Resource Alternatives Examined Attributes Evaluated for each Water Resource Alternative In this section, each potential water resource option is evaluated and compared based on the following attributes: 1. Normal and Dry Year Availability – The quantity, timing, peak flow or capacity, and any expected changes over time during normal years and during dry years. 2. Water Quality – All options must meet water quality regulations, but supply resources may differ in their relative water qualities (i.e. taste, odor, color, hardness, mineral content, trace levels of contaminants, etc.). 3. Cost – The capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of the resource. 4. Sustainability – The long-term outlook for the supply source given climate change, sea level rise, and the Council preference for local resources. 5. Emergency Robustness – The availability of the resource under various emergency scenarios. 6. Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review – Vulnerability to existing or potential federal, state, or local regulations and required environmental review. Water Resource Alternatives Examined The potable water resource alternatives evaluated in this 2017 WIRP process include: 1. Water from the SFPUC Page 10 2. Groundwater (with or without groundwater recharge) 3. Treated Water from the SCVWD 4. Demand side Management Water Resource Alternatives NOT Examined The WIRP is an analysis of potable water resource alternatives. However, non-potable water sources can both satisfy unmet water needs and reduce dependence on potable water. The City is moving forward on several fronts regarding recycled water and other non-potable supplies, but an evaluation of those supplies is not included in this analysis. The following is a summary of the water resources not included in WIRP due to cost, technical obstacles, or regulatory restrictions. A number of non-potable water sources are under development or are being studied in parallel with the WIRP effort. 1. Recycled Water – The City of Palo Alto operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. The City, in partnership with the SCVWD, is embarking on a Recycled Water Strategic Plan that will include a holistic evaluation of this important resource. The costs and benefits of expanding the current recycled water distribution system will be re-examined. The study will include an analysis of the nexus between recycled water and potable water through Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR), whereby highly purified wastewater in used to recharge the groundwater for future potable use, and Direct Potable Reuse (DPR), whereby highly purified wastewater is injected directly into the potable water distribution system. a. Non-potable Recycled Water - In September 20159, Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a project that includes capital improvements to the existing distribution system needed to increase deliveries to the Stanford Research Park. The Recycled Water Strategic Plan will re- evaluate the cost effectiveness of this project given an updated demand assessment for non-potable water, current cost estimates including potential outside funding sources. The potential impact on potable water demand of expanding the use of non-potable recycled water is considered in this analysis. b. IPR and the Nexus with Groundwater – State regulations allow recharging groundwater with purified water, and projects are in operation in other parts of the state. A project in Palo Alto would include a pipeline to a suitable site where a facility could be constructed to successfully recharge the aquifer. Because understanding the hydrology is such an important aspect of successful recharge and because data for this part of the county is incomplete, the Recycled Water 9 Staff Report 5962: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49079, Resolution 9548: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49865, and Resolution 9549: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49866 Page 11 Strategic Plan includes a study of the upper and lower aquifers and the connectivity between the two and they relate to the water balance. The WIRP does include an analysis of groundwater as an alternative resource but does not include a cost estimate to recharge groundwater with purified water from the RWQCP. c. DPR – While it is technically possible, as evidenced by the new SCVWD Advanced Water Purification Plant, to produce recycled water that meets all drinking water requirements, state law still prohibits injecting purified recycled water directly into drinking water distribution systems. In addition, the cost of treating recycled water to this degree is not yet cost-competitive. State lawmakers, however, are embarking on a process to establish the regulations for DPR, and since the supply is drought-proof, it will likely be a viable alternative in the future. 2. Desalination – BAWSCA is evaluating a desalination project as part of its long-term water supply plan. The demand analysis, however, revealed that current water resources are adequate in normal water years through 2040. Less expensive, more flexible alternatives such as water transfers are more suited to filling the supply gaps during dry years. Because the projected timeline for completing any desalinization project is very long, BAWSCA intends to continue studying this resource and seeking alternate funding for such projects. 3. Sale of the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) - The City’s access to water from the SFPUC Regional Water System is embodied in the 2009 WSA. The City’s ISG of 17.07 MGD is a perpetual guarantee, but the delivery of water is subject to interruption for reason of water shortage, drought, or emergency. The City’s average year water needs, after consumption bounces back from the recent drought, are projected to be about 9.5 MGD. The City of East Palo Alto (EPA) lacks adequate long-term water supplies for development and is interested in increasing its ISG. Any transfer of Palo Alto’s ISG would be permanent and may impact the percentage Palo Alto would be required to cutback in a water shortage. Discussions between the City and EPA are underway and are separate from this analysis. 4. Small scale irrigation wells - Individuals may drill their own wells without City review or permits, but are subject to SCVWD’s rules, restrictions, and permitting requirements. The City does have the option of using small wells for irrigation of large landscapes, such as for City parks. However, locating, maintaining, and operating small wells is cost- prohibitive and operationally problematic. 5. Treated Contaminated Groundwater – There are several entities in the City that treat contaminated groundwater and discharge the groundwater to the storm drain system and, to a lesser extent, the sanitary sewer system. The primary purpose of these Page 12 facilities is to remediate contaminated groundwater with finite operations. The potential end uses for this water are limited due to its very low quality. 6. Nuisance Groundwater from the Oregon Expressway Underpass - The Santa Clara County Oregon Expressway dewatering pumps discharge significant amounts of nuisance groundwater to the storm drain system to keep the underpass dry. The City evaluated the capture and conveyance of the Oregon Expressway groundwater for irrigation purposes and determined the effort would require significant conveyance and storage infrastructure investments that are not cost effective. 7. Nuisance Groundwater from Basement Dewatering - Basement construction groundwater pumping occurs when a basement is constructed in areas of shallow groundwater, typically in the neighborhoods closer to the bay or near current or former creek beds. Dewatering continues until enough of the house has been constructed to keep the basement in place. The shallow and deep aquifer research to be undertaken by the City in coordination with the SCVWD in the Recycled Water Strategic Plan will provide valuable insight to the relationship between the aquifers in the north part of Santa Clara County. While the City has long regulated several aspects of basement groundwater pumping for both residential and commercial sites, recent public concern over the appearance of wasted water prompted Council’s adoption of several new requirements for builders. Where groundwater pumping is needed, builders must install a fill station and submit a Groundwater Use Plan describing how use of the pumped groundwater will be maximized. On February 1, 201610, Council approved the following additional requirements and actions: Public outreach to encourage greater fill station use; Increased outreach on the water cycle and value of fresh water flows to storm drains, creeks and bay; Additional requirements for Groundwater Use Plans such as maximizing on-site water reuse (e.g. watering on-site and nearby vegetation), providing water truck hauling service for neighbor and City landscaping, and piping to nearby parks or major users where feasible; Expansion of fill station specifications to address water pressure issues from multiple concurrent users, including separate pumps for neighbors where needed and sidewalk bridges for hoses to reduce tripping hazards; and Submission of a determination of the effects of groundwater pumping on nearby buildings, infrastructure, trees, or landscaping. 10 See Staff Report 6478: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50690 Page 13 8. Graywater and Black Water – Graywater is relatively clean waste water from baths, sinks, washing machines, and other kitchen appliances while black water is waste water from toilets. Treating and reusing both types of water at the building level can decrease the demand for potable water. The City’s draft Sustainability Implementation Plan includes designing programs for cost-effective incentives for grey water and black water systems and developing a local ordinance that facilitates the use of non-traditional water sources such as grey water and black water. 9. Storm water – Storm water is precipitation that can soak into the soil (infiltrate), be held on the surface and evaporate, or run off and end up in nearby streams etc. Capturing and using storm water in Palo Alto can reduce the demand for potable water, help to recharge the aquifer, and prevent pollutants from entering the San Francisco Bay. Storm water can be a useful resource for keeping Palo Alto’s urban canopy well-watered. The draft Sustainability Implementation Plan includes developing a Storm Water Infrastructure Plan by 2019 to include design guidelines, funding sources, and prioritized projects. The draft plan also includes promoting permeable paving material through mandates and rebates and incentives and exploring new applications for permeable paving. VII. Water from the SFPUC The City currently purchases 100% of its potable supplies from the SFPUC under the 2009 WSA. The WSA is administered for the City by BAWSCA which represents the interests of 24 cities and water districts and two private utilities that purchase wholesale water from the San Francisco regional water system. These entities provide water to 1.7 million people, businesses and community organizations in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. The City of Palo Alto is a member of BAWSCA and has a Council-appointed representative on the BAWSCA Board of Directors. Availability The City’s right to water from the SFPUC system is embodied in the 2009 WSA. The City’s ISG of 17.07 MGD is a perpetual right, but the delivery of water is subject to interruption for reason of water shortage, drought, or emergency. Normal Year SFPUC Water Availability While the City’s ISG is 17.07 MGD, the City’s long-term projected potable water demand forecast is only about 9.5 MGD. The WSA includes an interim water delivery limitation11 from the SFPUC system of 265 MGD until its expiration in 2018. The City’s share of the interim 11 This limitation applies to all users of the San Francisco regional water supply system, the City of San Francisco and all the BAWSCA member agencies. Page 14 limitation, or its Interim Supply Allocation (ISA), is 14.70 MGD12. Based on the water demand forecast from the 2015 UWMP, there is no foreseeable need for additional supply beyond the City’s ISG, or the ISA. There is one situation where the City’s ISG could be involuntarily reduced. Under the terms of the 1962 contract between the City of Hayward and San Francisco, the City of Hayward’s contractual entitlement from the SFPUC system essentially equals its water demand. In theory, since the collective Supply Assurance of the wholesale customers cannot exceed 184 MGD, if Hayward’s water usage increases substantially, the other wholesale agencies could experience a proportional ISG reduction to ensure the 184 MGD limit is not exceeded. However, BAWSCA’s 2014 Regional Demand and Conservation Projections Project showed total agency demand for SFPUC water to be 168 MGD in 2040, well below the 184 MGD limit. Dry Year SFPUC Water Availability SFPUC’s WSIP includes a level of service goal of no greater than a 20% system-wide supply shortage during a drought. The 2009 WSA includes a water shortage allocation plan to share water from the regional system between the SFPUC retail and group of BAWSCA agencies (also known as the “wholesale customers”) during a shortage of up to 20% (Tier I plan). The wholesale customers further divided the wholesale allocation based on a formula adopted by all the wholesale customers (Tier II plan)13. The Tier II formula results in larger cutbacks from the wholesale customers compared to SFPUC’s retail customers, however, the formula expires in 2018, unless extended by mutual agreement of the BAWSCA members. This analysis assumes that, in the future, any voluntary or mandatory water use reductions will be commensurate with the needed system-wide reduction. Based on the 2040 regional demand assumptions and using 91 years of historical hydrologic data and the SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy/Local Simulation Model, drought year supply shortages of 10 percent to 20 percent on SFPUC’s Regional Water System are estimated to occur up to 8 times during the 91-year historical hydrologic sequence (i.e., 1920 through 2011) that the SFPUC uses for water supply planning purposes. This is the equivalent of a shortage event on the Regional Water System approximately every 11 years. The estimated frequency of shortage is conceptually illustrated Figure 4. 12 See informational Staff Report 1321: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/26211 13 Staff Report 1308: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/40970, Resolution 9141: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31879 Page 15 Figure 4: Projected Frequency of Shortage for RWS Based on 91-Year Historical Hydrologic Record and Estimated Demand As identified in the 2015 UWMP, the City has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan for implementation during a drought. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan identifies several stages of drought response, depending on the degree of supply reduction required. Responses range from informational outreach to severe water use restrictions and modified rate structures. SFPUC supplies, like other imported supplies, are subject to a whole host of other short and long term threats. The State is proposing to increase natural flow requirements on the Tuolumne and other rivers which would result in significant shortfalls to the SFPUC and its customers during water supply shortage periods. A lawsuit calling for the SFPUC to study removal of the O’Shaughnessy dam is still pending. Finally, the SFPUC is studying the impact of climate change on Sierra snowpack and the availability of water. Impacted agencies will have time to adjust water supply strategies if significant changes to the availability of SFPUC supplies are anticipated. While the City has the option of pumping groundwater as supplemental supply in a water supply shortage determined by the SFPUC, this may not be a viable option in a State-mandated potable water reduction. This is discussed in more detail in the groundwater section below (Section VIII Potable Groundwater). Water Quality SFPUC supplies are of extremely high quality. See Table 2 (in Section VIII Potable Groundwater) which lists key water quality parameters for SFPUC water, SCVWD treated water and Page 16 groundwater. Water provided by the SFPUC is a mix of Hetch Hetchy water and water from the East Bay and Peninsula reservoirs. In a normal year, Hetch Hetchy water makes up 85% of the mix. Due to maintenance requirements, the SFPUC typically will shut down the Hetch Hetchy supply for a period during the low demand winter months and draw from the local reservoirs. It is not unusual to experience temporary water quality changes due to these events, though the water still meets all drinking water quality standards. The SFPUC uses chloramine as the primary drinking water disinfectant and adds fluoride14. Cost The City purchases 100% of its potable water supply from the SFPUC, with the current cost structure composed of a volumetric charge and a small fixed monthly meter charge. With the $4.8 billion WSIP nearly complete, the cost of SFPUC water has increased significantly over the past 10 years. The recent decline in region-wide water consumption has intensified the problem since the cost, which is almost all fixed, is spread over fewer sales units. The historic and projected wholesale volumetric rate for SFPUC water is illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 5: SFPUC Actual and Projected Cost of Water While the SFPUC charges wholesale customers based on how much water is used, the costs of the SFPUC system are almost entirely fixed costs—in other words, even if usage drops the cost to operate the system (O&M, debt service, etc.) remains essentially the same15. 14 In 1957 the voters in Palo Alto adopted a measure that requires fluoride be added to the City’s water supply (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.24.010). 15 The SFPUC system is largely gravity fed, so little variable O&M is required for water deliveries. Page 17 The SFPUC wholesale water rate projections in Figure 5 assume that the current rate structure remains in place. However, the WSA provides some flexibility for the SFPUC to adjust rate structures and the SFPUC has signaled an interest in exploring alternative rate structures16 including increasing the fixed charge component or allocating charges based on the ISG, rather than actual water usage. The City’s ISG of 17.07 MGD is approximately 9.23% of the total BAWSCA agencies’ Supply Assurance of 184 MGD. If collection of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement is based on each agency’s ISG and if the City chose to not permanently transfer any of its ISG, the City could pay 20-30% more for SFPUC water annually. Sustainability The SFPUC views assessment of the effects of climate change as an ongoing project requiring periodic updates to reflect improvements in climate science, atmospheric/ocean modeling, and human response to the threat of greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change research by the SFPUC began in 2009 and continues to be refined. In its 2012 report “Sensitivity of Upper Tuolumne River Flow to Climate Change Scenarios,”17 the SFPUC assessed the sensitivity of runoff into Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to a range of changes in temperature and precipitation due to climate change. Key conclusions from the report include the following: With differing increases in temperature alone, the median annual runoff at Hetch Hetchy would decrease by 0.7-2.1 percent from present-day conditions by 2040 and by 2.6-10.2 percent from present-day by 2100. Adding differing decreases in precipitation on top of temperature increases, the median annual runoff at Hetch Hetchy would decrease by 7.6-8.6 percent from present-day conditions by 2040 and by 24.7-29.4 percent from present-day conditions by 2100. In critically dry years, these reductions in annual runoff at Hetch Hetchy would be significantly greater, with runoff decreasing by up to 46.5 percent from present-day conditions by 2100 utilizing the same climate change scenarios. In addition to the total change in runoff, there will be a shift in the annual distribution of runoff. Winter and early spring runoff would increase and late spring and summer runoff would decrease. Under all scenarios, snow accumulation would be reduced and snow would melt earlier in the spring, with significant reductions in maximum peak snow water equivalent under most scenarios. Given the current regional system demand projection, the shorter-term effects of climate change are not expected to be relevant. The potential impact of runoff decreasing by nearly 50% by the next century, however, represents a dramatic shift in the availability of water sourced in the Sierra Nevada including water in the Hetch Hetchy system. 16 SFPUC Comments, July 2012 BAWSCA Board of Director’s meeting 17Accessed September 29, 2016: http://bairwmp.org/docs/climate- change/Bay%20Area%20Impacts/Water%20Supply/SFPUC%202012%20Sensitivity%20of%20Upper%20Tuolumne% 20River%20Flow%20to%20Climate%20Change%20Scenarios.pdf/view Page 18 The SFPUC is planning to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the potential effects of climate change on water supply. The assessment will incorporate an investigation of new research on the current drought and is anticipated to be completed in 2017. Emergency Robustness Since the SFPUC is the City’s primary potable supply source, the City is vulnerable to service interruptions on the SFPUC system. One of the major drivers behind the WSIP was to address reliability deficiencies, which under some circumstances could have resulted in an interruption of SFPUC service for up to 60 days following a catastrophic event such as an earthquake. The WSIP level of service objective for seismic reliability is to deliver basic service18 within 24 hours after a major earthquake. The performance objective is to provide delivery to at least 70 per cent of the turnouts in each region, and full restoration to meet average day demand within 30 days after a major earthquake. Palo Alto may be better situated than other agencies in having two distinct connection points to the SFPUC system: three SFPUC connections are served by the Palo Alto Pipeline connection to Bay Division Pipelines 1 and 2, and two SFPUC connections are served by Bay Division Pipelines 3 and 4. Figure 6 below is a schematic of the SFPUC Regional Water System. Figure 6: Map of SFPUC Regional Water System19 18 Basic service is defined as average winter month usage. 19 Source: SFPUC: http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=355 accessed September 29, 2016. Page 19 Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review The SFPUC supply is the current baseline supply source for the City. Subsequent sections analyze several alternatives to the current and projected supply mix, and the resulting potential environmental impacts. Increased water use within an agency’s ISG does not require any action by an agency’s governing body, and therefore does not trigger any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review obligation. For many water systems in California, the availability of water supplies depends on many factors, including legislative and regulatory changes that may impact future supply conditions. The SFPUC system is no different, and has several future regulatory risks that could impact water supply reliability and/or cost20: 1. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of the Don Pedro Project a. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 401 Certification of FERC relicense b. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for FERC relicense 2. Central Valley Total Maximum Daily Load regulations 3. Bay-Delta proceedings (SWRCB, Legislative actions) 4. ESA Habitat Conservation Plans for SFPUC local watersheds The SFPUC manages these risks, with support from BAWSCA and the wholesale customers. VIII. Potable Groundwater The SCVWD manages an integrated water resources system that includes the management of groundwater, supply of potable water, flood protection and stewardship of streams on behalf of Santa Clara County's 1.8 million residents. The SCVWD manages ten dams and surface water reservoirs, three water treatment plants, nearly 400 acres of groundwater recharge ponds and more than 275 miles of streams. The SCVWD provides wholesale water and groundwater management services to municipalities, private water retailers, and individual property owners operating groundwater wells in Santa Clara County. In 2012, the SCVWD prepared a Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP)21 which provided information regarding general groundwater conditions in the area and characterized the SCVWD groundwater activities in terms of basin management objectives, strategies, and outcome measures. The GWMP described the Santa Clara sub basin as being divided into upper and lower aquifers separated by low permeability clays and silts. The SCVWD refers to these as the shallow and principal aquifer, with the latter generally defined as 150 feet below ground surface. The principal aquifer is the primary drinking water aquifer, and is the source for the any increased reliance on groundwater to meet current or future potable water demands. 20 Source: SFPUC’s 2010 UWMP 21 See SCVWD website: http://www.valleywater.org/services/groundwater.aspx accessed September 26, 2016. Page 20 The SCVWD is responsible for managing Santa Clara County’s groundwater basin to ensure there is adequate supply and overdraft conditions are minimized. The SCVWD accomplishes this goal by maximizing conjunctive use, the coordinated management of surface and groundwater supplies, to enhance supply reliability. Programs to accomplish this goal include the managed recharge of imported and local supplies, in-lieu groundwater recharge through the delivery of treated surface water22 and acquisition of supplemental water supplies, and programs to protect, manage and sustain water resources. The SCVWD adopted level of service goals as part of its 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan23 effort, including the development of water supplies designed to meet at least 100% of average annual water demand identified in the SCVWD 2010 UWMP during non-drought years and at least 90 percent of average annual water demand in drought years24. Managed and in lieu recharge programs are in balance with withdrawals. Groundwater levels have dropped significantly over the past several years as a result of the drought conditions and lack of State Water Project water imported to the county. The groundwater conditions in the Santa Clara sub-basin vary, and groundwater pumping from different locations will have different effects depending on location, elevation, recharge conditions, and pumping activity. In September 2014, Governor Brown signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to promote the local, sustainable management of groundwater supplies. SGMA requires sustainable groundwater management for all medium and high priority basins in California. SGMA identifies the District as the exclusive groundwater management agency for Santa Clara County. The SCVWD’s 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan described how the SCVWD will support future water supply needs and reliability. The adopted strategy identifies conservation, increased recycled water use, indirect potable reuse, additional groundwater recharge ponds, grey water, imported water reoperations, and dry year options as important components of the plan. The City maintains close involvement with the SCVWD as it is an important water wholesaler and the steward of groundwater resources in Santa Clara County. The City also partners with the SCVWD on conservation activities. The community is represented on the SCVWD Board of Directors by the District 7 Director. The City’s mayor also appoints a representative to the SCVWD Commission, an advisory body to the SCVWD Board of Directors. In 2015, the City completed the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project25. The project consisted of the repair and rehabilitation of five existing wells, construction of three new wells, 22 The SCVWD and the SFPUC wholesale customers in Santa Clara County are partners in conjunctively managing the water resources in the county. The SFPUC customers in the county have contracts with the SFPUC. 23 See SCVWD website: http://www.valleywater.org/Services/WaterSupplyPlanning.aspx accessed Sept. 26, 2016 24 SCVWD Board Agenda Item 4.2, June 12, 2012 25 See more at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/eng/water/emergency/default.asp Page 21 and construction of a 2.5 million gallon storage reservoir and associated pump station, and other upgrades to the water distribution system. Availability Normal Year Availability As a city in Santa Clara County, Palo Alto has the ability to pump groundwater with the understanding that SCVWD will appropriately manage the groundwater resources in the county. If the basin has been drawn down to critical or severe levels over multiple years of drought, it may take several years of normal or above-normal precipitation for the aquifer to recover. Assuming groundwater levels in the county are healthy, the City could use potable water from some or all of its eight wells. As shown in Table 1, if all eight wells were used full time at full capacity, they could produce more than 18,000 acre-feet per year (AFY). These well capacities26 compare to 11,000 AF/Y, the average forecasted demand for the 20-year WIRP planning. This level of pumping, however, may be beyond the basin’s sustainable yield, estimated in the 2000 Carollo Study to be 3,500 to 6,100 AFY. The Recycled Water Strategic Plan will result in an updated estimate of that yield. Production levels will be impacted by the treatment options chosen as discussed in the section regarding quality. Table 1: Estimated Well Capacity Dry Year Groundwater Availability Because groundwater discharge and recharge happens at different rates, the available groundwater supply may not coincide precisely with wet and dry years. During dry periods, water users pump more groundwater and recharge is reduced or halted exacerbating the situation. Even though the SCVWD may prudently manage local water supplies, the reliance on imported water subjects water users in the county to potential water supply shortfalls. 26 Estimate provided by Utilities Engineering 2015 Well Capacity (AF/Y Hale 2,340 Rinconada 5,326 Fernando 1,130 Peers 2,744 Matadero 1,130 El Camino 2,986 Eleanor 1,614 Library 968 Total 18,238 Page 22 In 2014 imported water from the State Water Project was reduced to almost zero, and the SCVWD asked for voluntary reductions of 20%. In 2015, groundwater levels continued to drop prompting the SCVWD to call for a 30% reduction in potable water use. This reduction was, in many cases, more drastic than the targets imposed by the SWRCB imposed to meet the Governor’s 25% state-wide water use reduction goal. Notwithstanding average precipitation experienced in 2016, as of September 2016, the SCVWD continues to request a 20% reduction while groundwater levels slowly recover. A prolonged drought could result in a request for cuts of 40%. Water Quality The water quality of the groundwater is considered good, though historically the groundwater in the area has had iron (Fe), manganese (Mn) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels that exceed secondary27 drinking water quality standards. All potable water scenarios must comply with water quality requirements. Wells are sampled based in accordance with the SWRCB requirements. It is permissible to be out of compliance with secondary standards on a short-term basis during emergencies, but for full-time operation the City must be in compliance with secondary standards or apply for a waiver28. The waiver requires justification and includes a community survey demonstrating a high degree of acceptance to establish support for the provision of water that exceeds secondary standards. Several treatment and blending options for the wells were evaluated in 2000 in the “Long Term Water Supply Study”, including: 1. Blend water with SFPUC water to meet water quality limits for manganese and iron. The blended water will meet regulatory limits, but will have TDS levels 2-3 times the current level in the distribution system29. 2. Provide iron and manganese treatment at each well site. The water will likely not exceed TDS limits, but it will be 5-7 times the current TDS levels in the distribution system. 3. Provide iron and manganese treatment at each well site and blend with SFPUC supplies to reduce the well water TDS levels. 4. Provide iron, manganese and TDS treatment at each well site. The treated water at the injection point will be comparable to SFPUC supplies. The resulting water quality of each treatment option is provided in Table 230. 27 Primary drinking water quality standards apply to contaminants that affect health while secondary standards apply to those constituents that affect aesthetics, taste and odor. 28 Title 17 Code of Regulations, Chapter 64449.2 29 Since completion of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, the El Camino Well water can be blended with SFPUC water in the new 2.5 million gallon storage tank in El Camino Park in a similar manner to Option 1. 30 Estimate provided by Utilities Engineering 2015 Page 23 Table 2: Water Quality Resulting from Various Treatment Options Water Quality Parameter31 Option 1 (blend) Option 2 (treat for Fe, Mn) Option 3 (treat for Fe, Mn and blend) Option 4 (treat for Fe, Mn and TDS) TDS (500 ppm) 130-300 440-700 120 120 Manganese (<0.05 ppm) 0.04-0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 Iron (<0.3 ppm) 0.08-0.3 <0.3 0.05-0.06 <0.3 Treating and/or blending the groundwater affect the well production. Figure 7 shows the production potential for all eight wells using each of the treatment options. Figure 7: Estimated Well Production for Various Treatment Options Cost The SCVWD levies a groundwater extraction fee, or “pump tax”, on each acre-foot of water that is pumped from the groundwater basin. The charge varies depending on a variety of factors, including end use (agriculture vs. municipal) and geographic location in the County. The new and refurbished wells were constructed with chlorine disinfection injection points and the capability to accommodate fluoride and other needed chemical injection points. The use of the wells on a regular basis will require a detailed operational plan and some or all of the sites will need modifications to accommodate backup power, chemical storage, and any equipment associated with the selected treatment option. Not all sites will have the space to 31 Manganese and Iron have single consumer acceptance contaminant levels, while TDS is a consumer acceptance contaminant level range (recommended = 500; short term= 1000 and upper limit = 1500) Page 24 accommodate these additional requirements, so an estimate of land acquisition needs was included. The total annualized unit cost in 2017 dollars including O&M and capital cost for each treatment option at each well is shown in Figure 832. Capital costs include equipment, pipelines, and land acquisition, if needed. O&M costs include the SCVWD groundwater production charge, chemicals, replacement parts, personnel, and energy. The cost for the blending alternatives is only for the groundwater and does not include the cost of SFPUC water. Figure 8: Cost at Each Well for Each Treatment Option The total annualized unit cost in 2017 dollars including O&M and capital cost for each treatment option, assuming all wells are used, is shown in Figure 9. Because El Camino is already configured to be a blending facility, the least cost option is blending at that site. If a decision to use groundwater is made, a site-by-site evaluation of cost and operational challenges will be needed, and it is likely that not all wells will be practical to use. 32 Costs are only those costs incurred by Water Utility. Customer costs, including water softening or filtration devices will be additional costs borne by individual customers Page 25 Figure 9: Unit cost of Various Treatment Options The various treatment options will generate waste streams with elevated levels of iron, manganese, TDS, and chemical residuals used in the treatment process. Due to regulatory restrictions on the RWQCP and environmental protections for the San Francisco Bay, discharging the raw waste stream to the storm water system or the wastewater collection system for delivery to the Palo Alto RWQCP is not acceptable. Additional costs to manage this waste stream are not included in this analysis. Sustainability Managing the groundwater resource in Santa Clara County is, ultimately, the SCVWD’s responsibility. Palo Alto, however, would collaborate with SCVWD to ensure the basin remains healthy. While the 2000 Carollo study estimated sustainable yield to be between 3,500 and 6,100 AFY, there are still unanswered questions regarding the hydrology in this part of the county. The Recycled Water Strategic Plan will shed more light on the water balance, the sustainable yield, the interconnectivity between the shallow aquifer and the lower aquifer, and the possibilities for groundwater recharge. Using the lower end of Carollo’s estimate, the City may be able to safely rely on groundwater for about 30% of its potable water needs. In that case, one or two high-production wells would likely be operated with treatment at those sites only. Should the City chose to use groundwater on an ongoing basis for a significant amount of its potable water needs, IPR may prove beneficial. Since the City does not have land for percolation ponds, IPR would not only require advanced treatment at the RWQCP, but a new pipeline to an injection facility as well. The cost of an IPR Page 26 project is not included in the cost analysis of groundwater in this WIRP. If imported water supplies are required to be delivered to the recharge facilities, those supplies need to be identified. Emergency Robustness Refurbishing the five older wells and constructing three new wells and a 2.5 million gallon storage reservoir and pump station was all part of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, the primary goal of which was to maintain basic water service and fire flows in all pressure zones in the City following a catastrophic interruption of SFPUC service. The City can provide a minimum of eight hours of normal water use at the maximum day demand level and four hours of fire suppression at the design fire duration level and will be capable of providing normal wintertime supply needs during extended shutdowns of the SFPUC system. The groundwater system may also be used to a limited extent during drought emergencies, but is subject to the following mitigation measures, as stated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) completed for the project33: 1. An aquifer test shall be conducted following the City’s well construction and rehabilitation efforts to verify the basin’s response to pumping; and 2. Emergency demand pumping shall be limited to 1,500 acre-feet (AF)34 in one year. Following this level of pumpage, groundwater production shall be restricted until groundwater levels recover to pre-pumping levels. Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review All wells are currently permitted and designated by the California Department of Public Health as “Standby” and, as such, can only be used for 5 consecutive days up to 15 days in a year35. The wells may collectively supply up to 1,500 AF per year during a drought, with restrictions on when the wells can resume pumping following that level of groundwater extraction. It is important to note that the pumping restriction only applies to the project as defined in the EIR prepared for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project. This includes the 5 existing wells and 3 new wells. Individual property owners can install their own wells and pump groundwater. The SCVWD has indicated that the process to increase the current limitation will require supporting information on the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin in order to demonstrate increased pumping by the City will not have significant impacts36. 33 Environmental Impact Report, Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, Mitigation Measure 3.5-4(a) & 4(b). See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8372/ accessed September 29, 2016 34 1500 AF/Year is equal to 1.34 MGD, or approximately 12% of FY 2012 water consumption 35 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 64414(c). 36 In summer 2012, staff met with SCVWD representatives to discuss the current limitation and the process to increase/remove the limitation. Page 27 With the current 1,500 AFY dry year groundwater extraction limitation, there is little risk any dry year pumping program could result in significant impacts to the groundwater basin37. The use of the wells to meet dry year needs is currently permitted subject to a pumping limitation of 1,500 AF per year. A significant increase to this limitation could require supplemental environmental review. Staff anticipates issues such as sustainable yield, dry year availability, subsidence risk, saltwater intrusion, dewatering of local creeks and contaminated plume migration, would be considered in such an environmental analysis. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SB 1168, SB 1319 and AB 1739) was a first step toward more regulation of California’s groundwater resource. Santa Clara County, however, is already managed by the SCVWD, an agency considered to be a model for the rest of the state. It is very unlikely, therefore, that the new state regulations will have any impact on groundwater activities in the county. The San Francisquito cone is the aquifer below the City, and this formation includes part of San Mateo County. In general, more management of the groundwater basin by the District in the north county would be beneficial for the City should groundwater become a part of the City’s long-term water supply. Potential State and Federal water quality regulations for potable water are a concern. Changes in regulations could make the groundwater supply less attractive and more expensive due to additional needed treatment. IX. Treated Water from the SCVWD In addition to managing the groundwater, the SCVWD produces and delivers treated drinking water to water retail agencies in Santa Clara County. The existing treated water delivery system does not serve the northwest portion of the county. A potential project known at the SCVWD as the “West Pipeline Extension” involves extending the treated water pipeline from its current terminus at Foothill Expressway and Miramonte Road to SFPUC’s Bay division Pipelines 3 and 4 at Foothills Expressway and Arastradero Road (a distance of about 4.5 miles). A map of the potential project is provided in Figure 10. 37 The 1500 AFY limitation is a CEQA derived mitigation measure that has undergone the public review process. Page 28 Figure 10: West Pipeline Extension Map In 1999, the City sent a letter to the SCVWD advising it that information was needed to analyze the City’s option to connect to the SCVWD West Pipeline. The SCVWD responded with an estimated cost for the extension of the West Pipeline that would have to be fully borne by Palo Alto. In February 2002, Palo Alto and four other county retailers requested that the SCVWD conduct a feasibility study of a West Pipeline extension from both a supply perspective and the additional reliability of having an additional interconnection with the SFPUC system. The SCVWD prepared a report on extending the West Pipeline, entitled: “Santa Clara Valley Water District’s West Pipeline Extension Conceptual Evaluation Final Report”38. The report evaluated an extension of the existing SCVWD West Pipeline to enable an interconnection of the Palo Alto and SCVWD systems at Page Mill turnout39. 38 The City of Palo Alto participated in the preparation of the 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan (WSIMP). As part of that process, staff requested the SCVWD include the West Pipeline extension for project consideration. The SCVWD noted in the Final 2012 WSIMP that the project is not recommended in the WSIMP because it does not contribute to long-term supply reliability. However, the SCVWD stated that it would be considered during a planned Infrastructure Reliability Master Plan. 39 The SFPUC and the SCVWD have an emergency interconnection near Milpitas that could theoretically be used to wheel water to Palo Alto. Staff does not anticipate it will be feasible to wheel normal year supplies via the intertie, but the use of the intertie during dry years may be possible. However, in general the SCVWD system is more dry Page 29 Because the pipeline extension by itself would not increase water supply to the county, it is not likely to be recommended in the SCVWD’s 2017 Water Supply Master Plan. The pipeline combined with an SFPUC intertie is, however, one of 15 projects being considered in the Bay Area Regional Reliability Project40. Availability Normal Year Treated Water Availability The SCVWD has a diverse water supply portfolio, including State Water Project, Central Valley Project, and local reservoirs. SCVWD’s 2015 UWMP41 indicated the SCVWD anticipates having adequate supplies to meet future needs through 2040. As in other parts of the state, water demand has decreased dramatically due to mandatory water use restrictions and usage reduction targets. SCVWD’s water supply and demand projections do not assume any treated water deliveries to Palo Alto or any other agency that does not currently receive treated water from the SCVWD. If the SCVWD extends the West Pipeline and the City negotiates a contract to receive water from that pipeline, the terms of the treated water contract would determine the amount of water delivered during normal years. Dry Year Availability It is unlikely treated water will be available during dry years. SCVWD’s 2015 UWMP showed an adequate supply of available water to meet demands for one dry year, but multiple dry years result in insufficient water supply to meet demand. The water produced at SCVWD’s state-of-the-art purified water plant is currently blended with recycled water for non-potable uses. Future plans include IPR and, possibly, DPR which could increase SCVWD’s potable water supply availability. The cost of that water will also be impacted and is not included in this analysis. Water Quality Carollo Engineers evaluated the SCVWD treated water line in the 2000 Long Term Supply Study and provided information on the issues of blending SCVWD supplies with SFPUC supplies. In general, SFPUC supplies are of superior quality to SCVWD supplies, but there were several specific issues that were identified in the previous study. If the district decides to extend the West Pipeline to achieve system reliability and if Palo Alto is interested in moving forward with an interconnection with the SCVWD system, additional analysis will need to be performed to determine if the previous issues still remain, and what additional issues have arisen. year sensitive than the SFPUC system, so it is unclear whether supplies would be available to be wheeled to Palo Alto via this mechanism. 40 http://www.bayareareliability.com/ accessed September 29, 2016 41 See SCVWD website: http://www.valleywater.org/Services/WaterSupplyPlanning.aspx accessed Sept. 29, 2016 Page 30 On the positive side, the SCVWD’s decision to include fluoridation at its treatment plants removes the need to provide fluoridation at the interconnection points to ensure the water supply complies with the municipal code. In a similar manner, the SFPUC uses chloramine for residual disinfection. This removes some water quality related issues associated with blending treated water from different sources that use different disinfectants. There may be other issues related to water quality that could require the two water supplies to be isolated in the distribution system. This would result in water from difference sources being provided to customers depending on their location in the distribution system. Cost SCVWD’s West Pipeline Extension Report provided detailed cost estimates for several pipeline configurations, which are summarized in Table 3. Both scenarios require a new parallel pipeline from Rinconada Water Treatment plant to the current terminus of the West Pipeline at Miramonte Road. From there, a new pipeline would be constructed to Page Mill Road. The cost differential between the two scenarios is largely attributed to different pipe sizing requirements and an intertie pump station. Table 3: SCVWD Treated Water Connection Cost Summary42 Alternative Assumptions Total Cost of Alternative ($million) Cost to SFPUC ($million) Cost to Palo Alto ($million) Rate Increase to SCVWD Retailers ($/AF) Parallel and Extension Existing treated water contractors and new retailers share cost of parallel pipe New retailers pay for extension $160 N/A $64 $8 Parallel, Extension and Intertie Existing treated water contractors and new retailers share cost of parallel pipe SFPUC pays for half of incremental cost of intertie Existing and new retailers share cost of extension and half of incremental cost of intertie $120 $23 $37 Pump Tax: $14 Treated Water: $20 SCVWD’s West Pipeline Extension Report concluded that the City and neighboring jurisdictions must pay for the costs of constructing the extension via a “take or pay” contract, which is a common payment mechanism for all retail water agencies in the county that purchase SCVWD treated water. The amount of the take or pay contract is determined by the amortized 42 Cost of additional supply is not included in project cost. Costs have been escalated 3% from 2003 dollars to provide a representation of potential cost ranges. Page 31 construction costs divided by the annual treated water rate. For example, if Palo Alto’s obligation for a West Pipeline extension was $37 million, it would pay an annual cost of $2.5 million (assuming an interest rate of 3%/year for a 20-year financing period). Using a treated water rate of $1,350 per AF43, Palo Alto would be required to purchase about 2,000 AF/year ($2.5 million divided by $1,350/AF), or about 18% of the City’s expected average water usage for the WIRP planning horizon. During the term of the contract, the City would have limited ability to adjust its annual water purchase from the SCVWD. There are several agencies in Santa Clara County that purchase both SCVWD and SFPUC treated water, and they are subject to minimum “take or pay” contract provisions from both providers. The City would receive similar treatment. The cost estimates in Table 3 do not account for any distribution system improvements that may be required to configure Palo Alto’s distribution system to receive SCVWD treated water. If the pipeline extension came to fruition through a regional reliability implementation plan, the terms of a potential treated water supply contract with Palo Alto may be adjusted to account for the regional system reliability provided to all customers as a result of the project. The California Water Fix (also known as the “Twin Tunnels”) is a proposal to address the co- equal goals of water supply reliability and environmental sustainability. The proposed water conveyance solution is a pair of tunnels underneath the Delta from an intake on the Sacramento River to the South Delta Diversion/Pumping facilities. Such a facility will take decades to build and the costs will likely be borne by State and Federal water contractors, including the SCVWD. The SCVWD will likely continue to collect revenue for all SWP costs through property taxes rather than through water rates. Palo Alto property owners will, thus, bear those costs whether or not water is delivered to Palo Alto. Emergency Robustness The SCVWD’s Water Utility Infrastructure Reliability Plan was completed in in 2005. The project measured the baseline performance of critical facilities in emergency events and identified system vulnerabilities. The plan concluded that the water supply system could suffer up to a 60- day outage if a major event, such as a 7.9 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, were to occur. A series of projects were implemented and the expected outage time in a major event is now estimated to be 30 days. The SCVWD is currently updating its Infrastructure Reliability Plan. The goal of the update is to identify new reliability improvements that are more regional, less capital intensive alternatives to the well fields. The updated plan and final recommendations will be complete in in the near future. 43 This is SCVWD’s projected treated water rate for FY 2018 Page 32 If the West Pipeline was extended to provide potable water service to Palo Alto, the City would have one connection to the SCVWD system44, compared to 5 connections to the SFPUC system. It is unclear what level of reliability would be provided in the event of catastrophic event. The SFPUC level of service goal following an earthquake is to provide for average wintertime demands with delivery to 70% of the turnouts within 24 hours following a major earthquake. The SCVWD level of service goal provides for service resumption to one turnout within 7 days of a similar event, though the location of a Palo Alto interconnection at the end of the treated water line may be a weak point, so it is unclear if there will be adequate supplies or system pressures to provide meaningful service. In addition, the SCVWD plans on extracting groundwater for raw water delivery to the treatment plants and on to the retailers during an emergency. The Emergency Water Supply and Storage project was designed to serve this purpose for Palo Alto. Sustainability Like all water suppliers in California that rely on imported water, the SCVWD’s ability to provide a reliable, clean water supply is challenged by the potential of warmer temperatures, changing precipitation and runoff patterns, reduced snow pack, and rising sea levels. The SCVWD’s water supply vulnerabilities to climate change include a potential decrease in imported water supplies as a result of a reduction in snow pack and a shift in the timing of runoff, a decrease in local surface water supplies as result of reduced precipitation, more frequent and severe droughts, changes in surface water quality associated with changes in flows and temperature, and changes in imported water quality due to salinity intrusion in the Delta. Additional vulnerabilities include infrastructure and water quality issues from more frequent algal blooms, invasive and/or non-native species, and wildfire. During the drought in the late 1980’s and again in recent years, SCVWD supplies from both the state and federal sources were drastically reduced. Groundwater was relied upon heavily causing levels to rapidly decrease. Sustainability will be improved if purified water from the SCVWD’s plant is ultimately used for IPR or DPR in the county. Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review A West Pipeline extension will require CEQA review. The SCVWD would be the lead agency for the CEQA process. Because the SCVWD imports water from both the State and Federal water projects, it is vulnerable to actions that impact those sources. Since Council approved the 2003 WIRP, federal and state water deliveries have been reduced on several occasions due to Delta related issues. Most recently, state water deliveries were curtailed dramatically due to the drought. 44 There may be additional connection options to a new SCVWD treated water pipeline, such as a new extension to the existing Arastradero SFPUC turnout. However, the cost of additional connections was not included in the initial cost estimate and would likely be borne by the City. Additional connections may allow increased use of and more efficient distribution of SCVWD treated water, though they may not provide any additional reliability assurances. Page 33 X. Demand Side Management The City is committed to support conservation and efficient use of its water supply. It is the goal of the City to continue to look for opportunities, innovative technologies, and cost-effective programs that best utilize the City’s water conservation budget. The City works with other BAWSCA members, the SCVWD, and other water agencies in the Bay Area to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to water conservation programs. The Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (SBx7‐7) was enacted in November 2009. It requires water suppliers to reduce the statewide average per capita daily water consumption by 20% by December 31, 2020. To monitor the progress towards achieving the 20% by 2020 target, the bill also requires urban retail water providers to reduce per capita water consumption 10% by 2015. The City met the interim 2015 SBx7‐7 target and is projected to meet the 2020 target. The following measures have been implemented over the past five years and/or will be implemented to achieve the City’s water use target pursuant to SBx7-7: 1. Water Waste Prevention Ordinance: The City has enforced water waste prevention as part of the City’s Municipal Code since 1989 (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 12.32). Enforcement includes written warning notices and may result in fines and installation of a flow restrictors, and billing the costs of such installation to the responsible customer or purchaser, as applicable. 2. Metering: The City is currently implementing a pilot program using advanced electric, gas and water meters at 300 single-family homes. Customers with these advanced meters can monitor their hourly water usage from a secured website. The City plans to deploy advanced water meters to all customers by 2022. 3. Conservation Pricing: Since 1976, the City has implemented conservation-based pricing for water usage, within an overall cost-based rate structure. 4. Public Education and Outreach: Since 2006, the City has partnered with BAWSCA to offer free workshops on water efficient landscaping, irrigation and water conservation. In addition to public workshops, CPAU staff attends community, corporate and school events to promote water conservation programs and practices, in addition to energy efficiency, waste reduction and other sustainability practices. The City carries out various seasonal and general water conservation campaigns via the use of television, online, social media and print advertisements. Palo Alto also regularly updates the City’s website on water conservation programs and public workshops. The City utilizes utility bill inserts, brochures and email newsletters to customers as part of its outreach efforts. 5. Programs to Assess and Manage Distribution Systems Real Loss: For over two decades, the City has pursued an aggressive Water Main Replacement Capital Improvement Program. In addition, the City maintains a Water Meter Replacement Program that Page 34 replaces 500 to 1,000 meters per year in accordance with American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards. 6. Water Conservation Program Partnership with SCVWD: Since 2002, the City has partnered with SCVWD to promote and cost-share a wide range of water conservation programs to encourage residents and businesses to improve water use efficiency. These programs include free indoor and outdoor water audits, as well as rebates for upgrading a wide range of water-using fixtures to high efficiency models, including toilets, urinals, clothes washers, laundry to landscape graywater systems, high water-using landscapes, irrigation hardware, commercial food service and other process equipment. 7. Greywater Use: Laundry to Landscape Graywater rebates are available from the City and SCVWD for residents who properly connect a clothes washer to a graywater irrigation system following rebate program and California Plumbing Code guidelines. Availability Normal Year Availability The SBx7-7 goal is consistent with the City’s longstanding policy of providing cost effective conservation programs to the community. Figure 11 shows the targets, the City’s progress to date, and a projection of the City’s future water demand. Figure 11: SBx7X7 Targets, Results, and Projections Dry Year Availability Page 35 During SFPUC water shortage events or state-mandated potable water use reductions, the City implements its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) as outlined in the UWMP. The WSCP included water use restrictions and other actions to be taken to achieve specific water use reduction targets. The stages are: Stage I: 5%-10% water use reduction Stage II: 10%-20% water use reduction Stage III: 20%-35% water use reduction Stage IV: 35%-50% water use reduction From June 1, 2015 until February 28, 2016, the City was subject to a mandatory 24% potable water use reduction by the SWRCB using usage during calendar year 2013 as the baseline. All of Stage II actions, a subset of Stage III actions and the additional State-mandated actions were implemented. The City was able to achieve a 31.4% reduction in potable water use over the compliance period, proving the WSCP is an effective means to reduce water demand when needed. Figure 12 demonstrates the City’s successful drought response. Figure 12: Monthly Potable Water Consumption Water Quality Demand side measures do not present any water quality issues. Cost The City takes advantage of opportunities, innovative technologies, and cost effective programs that best utilize the water conservation budget. In FY 2011, the City dramatically increased Page 36 conservation program savings goals to meet the requirements of SB7x-7, the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 which required water suppliers to reduce the average per capita water consumption in their service territories 20% by 2020. Each demand side measure is assessed in terms of financial impact to the utility, which includes rebate costs as well as any other administrative costs. Table 4 depicts the actual cost of water efficiency to the utility for the past several years. For comparison, as shown in Figure 5 above, the cost of SFPUC water is currently almost $2,000 per AF and is expected to increase to $2,800 per AF in 10 years. Table 4: Water Efficiency Costs ($/AF) FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 3-Year Average $1,294 $1,359 $2,008 $1,555 As the cost of potable water increases, some conservation programs become more cost effective, though the easiest, most cost-effective measures have largely been deployed. Adjustments are made to conservation programs depending on several factors, including program penetration and community preferences. The 2015 UWMP identified Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) as the primary future water efficiency program. Anticipated savings from AMI and other incremental water efficiency activities are shown in Figure 13. New efficiency programs are projected to shave off about 1.2% from the expected demand forecast. Page 37 Figure 13: Water Demand Forecast with Future Water Efficiency Emergency Robustness The 2015 UWMP contains a summary of demand side options that can be implemented under various scenarios. During a catastrophic interruption of SFPUC supplies, the City will immediately initiate emergency supply options to meet potable demands and fire flow requirements. At the same time, the City will begin informational outreach programs to inform the community that emergency conditions are in effect and water consumption behavioral changes are required (i.e. no irrigation). Sustainability Demand side management is the most sustainable resource. Every cubic foot of water saved can be put to some beneficial use. Measures that specifically target landscape conversions or efficiency changes have been the subject of concern by tree advocacy groups who are concerned about impacts on trees due to decreased landscape watering. The City includes information on proper tree maintenance for those customers converting to drought resistant landscapes. Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review Demand side measures are not limited by any regulations. In light of the current drought, State agencies are reviewing the existing long-term conservation targets and water shortage contingency planning scenarios. It is likely that by the 2020 UWMP cycle, new conservation Page 38 targets and new planning criteria will be in place. Additionally, requirements to implement measures may be proposed, or compliance with certain efficiency standards (e.g. per capita water use) may be required, especially if seeking State or Federal grant or loan assistance for a project such as the recycled water project. XI. Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives Availability Normal Year Availability SFPUC supplies are sufficient in normal years. Groundwater without recharge may not always be available depending on the amount of water pumped by the City, the sustainable yield determined in the Recycled Water Strategic Plan, and the groundwater levels throughout the county. o A coincident recharge project with purified recycled water would improve the availability of this resource. o Using the El Camino well alone for blending will meet only about 15% of the City’s demand. Treated water from the SCVWD is not in abundance. Demand side management is possible, but many of the easy cost-effective measures have already been implemented. Dry Year Availability All potable water supplies, including SFPUC supplies, are subject to 20% reductions or more by the State. SFPUC supplies are subject to reductions in availability of up to 20% due to drought. Groundwater may be restricted up to 40% by the SCVWD or subject to State-mandated reductions. Water deliveries from State and federal projects may impact the amount of treated water available from the SCVWD requiring water use reductions of up to 40%. Demand side management is very effective during dry years. Water Quality Key water quality parameters for untreated groundwater, water from the SFPUC and treated water from the SCVWD are compared in Table 5. All of these sources meet primary drinking water standards. The table lists several secondary standards and a sampling of other parameters. Groundwater used as a regular long-term supply source would require treatment and/or blending to meet the secondary standards. Page 39 Table 5: Water Quality Parameters for Water Resource Alternatives Water Source Fe (ppm) Mn (ppm) TDS (ppm) Sodium (ppm) Hardness (as CaCo3) (ppm) Turbidity (NTU) Drinking Water Quality Standard .300 .050 500 N/A N/A 5 SFPUC Water (1) ND ND 132 13.5 57 0.16 SCVWD Treated Water (2) ND ND 209 37 90 0.07 Groundwater (3) 0.25-1.3 0.13-0.31 440-710 75-170 - 0.33-7.7 (1) SFPUC values are average water quality values reported by the SFPUC in its 2011 Water Quality Report (2) Average values from 2011 SCVWD Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Water Quality Data Summary (3) Based on the City’s well water testing records ND = non detect Cost Figure 14 shows projected commodity rates for SFPUC water and groundwater and treated water from the SCVWD. In the near term, SFPUC water is expected to be more expensive. By 2037, even with SCVWD subsidizing the cost of its State Water Projects costs by collecting those costs via property taxes, SCVWD and SFPUC rates are expected to converge. These projected rates for the SCVWD do not include the cost of using the purified water plant to supply potable water nor do these rates include the cost of the California Water Fix (the “twin tunnels” project in the Delta). Both of those projects will cause steep increases for SCVWD rates. The total groundwater rate does not include the cost of local treatment that may be required to improve the water quality from that shown in Table 5 above. In addition, both SFPUC and SCVWD rates are extremely sensitive to the volume of water sold as both systems’ costs are mostly fixed. Cost-effective demand side management measures are, by definition, the lowest cost resource. Costs of demand side measures were assumed to rise with inflation. The exhaustion of easy measures may cause costs to be higher, but technology developments may result in lower costs. Page 40 Figure 14: Commodity Cost Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives Figure 15 shows the present value unit cost over 20 years for each option including the cost of groundwater treatment. The cost of blending at the El Camino well is shown as a separate option because blending at that specific wellsite is the least cost groundwater alternative. Figure 15: Present Value Unit Cost Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives Page 41 Emergency Robustness The SFPUC has nearly completed a massive capital project to improve the reliability of the regional water system, however some risks still exist. Groundwater is a reliable and available emergency resource. Treated water from the SCVWD may not be available in an emergency. Demand side management is very effective during emergencies. Sustainability SFPUC supplies originate as snowpack in the Sierra and may be impacted by climate change. Groundwater may be sustainable at lower pumping rates and sustainable at higher pumping rates with a recharge project. Treated water available from the SCVWD originates as Sierra snowpack, which may be impacted by climate change, and the Delta, which has already been determined to be unsustainable in its current state. Demand side management is very sustainable as long as the urban canopy is properly cared for. Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review SFPUC supplies may be sensitive to future regulations. Groundwater is managed by the SCVWD. A groundwater recharge project would be subject to environmental review. Water deliveries from State and Federal projects may be sensitive to future regulations. The Delta is experiencing environmental challenges now. Demand side management is not sensitive to regulations or environmental review. XII. Conclusions Table 6 is a side-by-side comparison of the potable water resource alternatives based on the attributes considered in this WIRP. Page 42 Table 6: Summary Comparison of Potable Water Resource Alternatives Water Resource Alternative Normal Year Availability Dry Year Availability Quality Cost Emergency Robustness Sustainability Sensitivity to Regulations and Environmental Review SFPUC Groundwater Groundwater (w/recharge) ? SCVWD Treated Water Demand Side Management Cost-effective demand side management is the superior resource and should be diligently pursued but can’t eliminate the City’s need for potable water. While SFPUC water is slightly more expensive, it has higher water quality. The cost of SCVWD supplies may increase dramatically if purified water is fully developed and/or if the twin tunnels project is constructed. However, SCVWD does not have excess treated water to sell and groundwater in the county is susceptible to mandated water use reductions just like SFPUC supplies are, arguably more so. Blending groundwater with SFPUC water at only the El Camino well is the least expensive, most sustainable alternative to 100% SFPUC supplies. Whether the residents and businesses that would receive the water would consider the tradeoff between cost and quality to be acceptable is worth investigating. The most promising way to increase reliability and increase sustainability is to reduce the demand for potable water by expanding the use of recycled water. The Recycled Water Strategic Plan will provide valuable analysis and information to help the City and SCVWD formulate a strategy for the future. In summary, the recommended 2017 WIRP Guidelines are: 1. Pursue all cost-effective water efficiency and conservation; 2. Continue to investigate the technical feasibility and financial impact of increasing the use of non-traditional, non-potable sources such as black water, storm water, and nuisance water from basement construction; 3. Proceed with the Recycled Water Strategic Plan to determine how to reduce the demand for imported water; and 4. Survey potentially impacted customers about their preference for SFPUC water versus blended water. WIRP Guidelines Adopted by Resolution by the City Council on December 8, 2003 [CMR:547:03] Guideline 1 – Preserve and enhance SFPUC supplies: With respect to the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU’s) primary water supply source, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), continue to actively participate in the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) to assist in achieving BAWSCA’s stated goal: “A reliable supply of water, with high quality, and at a fair price.” Objectives in support of that overall goal include: A. That the regional water system gets rebuilt cost-effectively and that BAWSCA monitor implementation of AB 1823 – San Francisco should safeguard the water system against damage from earthquakes and other foreseeable hazards. BAWSCA will monitor progress on the system repairs and on completing the requirements of the legislation that the BAWSCA agencies supported to oblige San Francisco to repair and rebuild the regional system. B. That the cost of improvements is fairly allocated – San Francisco should commit to maintaining cost-based pricing, with the costs of the wholesale water system shared between the City and its wholesale customers based on their proportionate share. C. That future water needs can be met – San Francisco must evaluate the ability of the regional system to meet future supply and capacity requirements and must use the BAWSCA agencies’ long-term water demand forecasts as the basis for regional water demand projections. D. That there are adequate supplies during droughts – San Francisco should arrange back-up supplies for dry years and should “drought proof” the entire service area, not just San Francisco itself. If rationing becomes necessary, San Francisco should use a system that allocates available water between San Francisco and wholesale customers in a way that (1) is fair and (2) avoids penalizing long-term conservation efforts and/or development of alternative supplies, such as recycled water. E. That communities prepare for potential water outages – San Francisco should coordinate with the BAWSCA agencies to develop a crisis management plan. F. That agencies implement cost-effective water conservation activities – San Francisco should provide agencies enough information so that they can prepare for possible outages, including the provision of conservation programs for their communities. BAWSCA can act as coordinator for these programs to improve the cost- effectiveness of agencies offering such programs. G. That water received must meet drinking water standards – San Francisco should continue to protect the purity of Hetch Hetchy water and commit to provide its wholesale customers with water that meets EPA and California drinking water standards. H. That the Master Contract is properly implemented and a new Master Contract is in place prior to 2009 – San Francisco should commit to maintaining cost-based pricing, with the costs of the wholesale water system shared between the City and its wholesale customers based on their proportionate share. I. That there is ongoing support of efforts to protect health, safety and economic well being of the water customers and communities – BAWSCA should maintain the support of the many allies who supported the legislative effort to ensure San Francisco repairs, rebuilds, and maintains the regional system. Attachment B Guideline 2 – Advocate for an interconnection between SFPUC and the District: Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) and the SFPUC to pursue the extension of the District’s West Pipeline to an interconnection with the SFPUC Bay Division Pipelines 3&4. Continue to re-evaluate the attractiveness of a connection to an extension of the District’s West Pipeline. Guideline 3 – Actively participate in development of cost-effective regional recycled water plans: Re-initiate discussions with the owners of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) on recycled water development. In concert with the PARWQCP owners, conduct a new feasibility study for recycled water development. Since the feasibility of a recycled water system depends upon sufficient end-user interest, determine how much water Stanford and the Stanford Research Park would take. Guideline 4 – Focus water DSM programs to comply with BMPs: Continue implementation of water efficiency programs with the primary focus to achieve compliance with the Best Management Practices (BMPs) promoted by the California Urban Water Conservation Coalition. Guideline 5 – Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of droughts: Review, retain, and prioritize CPAU’s emergency water conservation measures that would be put into place in a drought time emergency. Guideline 6 – Retain groundwater supply options in case of changed future conditions: Using groundwater on a continuous basis does not appear to be attractive at this time due to the availability of adequate, high quality supplies from the SFPUC in normal years. However, SFPUC supplies are not adequate in drought years and circumstances could change in the future such that groundwater supplies could become an attractive, cost-effective option. Examples of changing circumstances could be that the amount of water available to CPAU from the SFPUC for the long-term is reduced. This could occur if regulations or legislation require additional water to be made available to the Tuolumne River fisheries. In addition, in the future allocations or entitlements to SFPUC water may be developed. If those allocations are based on the dry- year yield of the system, allocations to all the users of the system, including CPAU, could be well below their current and projected future needs. CPAU should retain the option of using groundwater in amounts that would not result in land surface subsidence, saltwater intrusion, or migration of contaminated plumes. Guideline 7 – Survey community to determine its preferences regarding the best water resource portfolio: Seek feedback from all classes of water customers on the question of whether to use groundwater during drought to improve drought year supply reliability. At the same time, seek feedback on the appropriate level of water treatment for groundwater if it were to be used in droughts. Survey all classes of water customers to determine their preferences as to the appropriate balance between cost, quality, reliability, and environmental impact. Attachment B PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF WATER RESOURCE ALTERNATIVES February 2013 i 2013 Preliminary Assessment Table of Contents List of Figures ___________________________________________________________ iii List of Tables ___________________________________________________________ iii List of Acronyms _________________________________________________________ iii I. Introduction __________________________________________________________ 1 II. Background __________________________________________________________ 2 III. Water Supply History __________________________________________________ 3 IV. Water Use Projections _______________________________________________ 6 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) _________________________________________ 6 Water Conservation Bill of 2009 _________________________________________________ 7 Summary Water Resource Mix __________________________________________________ 7 V. Attributes Evaluated and Water Resource Alternatives Examined ______________ 8 Attributes Evaluated for each Water Resource Alternative ___________________________ 8 Water Resource Alternatives Examined __________________________________________ 9 VI. Water from the SFPUC ______________________________________________ 10 Availability _________________________________________________________________ 10 Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 12 Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 13 Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 13 Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 15 Environmental impacts _______________________________________________________ 16 Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 16 VII. Groundwater _____________________________________________________ 17 Availability _________________________________________________________________ 18 Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 20 Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 21 Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 24 Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 24 Environmental impacts _______________________________________________________ 24 Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 24 VIII. SCVWD Treated Water ______________________________________________ 25 Availability _________________________________________________________________ 26 Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 26 Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 28 Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 28 Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 28 Environmental Impacts _______________________________________________________ 30 ii Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 30 IX. Recycled Water ______________________________________________________ 31 Availability _________________________________________________________________ 32 Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 35 Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 36 Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 37 Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 37 Environmental Impacts _______________________________________________________ 37 Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 37 X. Demand‐Side Management ____________________________________________ 38 Availability _________________________________________________________________ 38 Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 40 Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 40 Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 41 Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 41 Environmental Impacts _______________________________________________________ 41 Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 42 XI. Individual Supply Guarantee Sale ________________________________________ 42 Availability _________________________________________________________________ 42 Cost ______________________________________________________________________ 42 Water Quality ______________________________________________________________ 43 Long Term Reliability ________________________________________________________ 43 Emergency Robustness _______________________________________________________ 43 Environmental Impacts _______________________________________________________ 43 Sensitivity to Regulations _____________________________________________________ 44 iii List of Figures Figure 1: Historic Water Use ........................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: 2005 and 2010 UWMP Demand Forecast Projection Comparison ................................. 6 Figure 3: 20% by 2020 Compliance Forecast .................................................................................. 7 Figure 4: Summary Water Resource Composition .......................................................................... 8 Figure 5: SFPUC Actual and Projected Cost of Water ................................................................... 12 Figure 6: Historic Water Shortages at Maximum Demand Level (265 MGD) ............................... 15 Figure 7: Map of SFPUC Regional Water System .......................................................................... 16 Figure 8: Projected SFPUC and SCVWD Water Rates ................................................................... 21 Figure 9: West Pipeline Extension Map ........................................................................................ 26 Figure 10: Proposed Recycled Water Project ............................................................................... 32 Figure 11: Palo Alto Existing Recycled Water Uses for FY 2004‐FY 2012 .................................... 34 Figure 12: Water Conservation Savings Goals .............................................................................. 39 List of Tables Table 1: City Of Palo Alto Water Shortage Allocation .................................................................. 11 Table 2: Dry Year Shortfall under different demand scenarios .................................................... 14 Table 3: Projected Well Capacities ............................................................................................... 20 Table 4: Water Quality Parameters for Various Water Sources ................................................... 22 Table 5: Well Treatment Alternative Preliminary Cost Analysis ................................................... 23 Table 6: SCVWD Treated Water Connection Summary Costs ...................................................... 27 Table 7: Recycled Water Gross Cost Estimate .............................................................................. 35 Table 8: Water Savings vs. Goals .................................................................................................. 39 Table 9: Conservation Program Costs ........................................................................................... 40 List of Acronyms AFY Acre Feet per Year BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency BMP Best Management Practice CDPH California Department of Public Health CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council CVP Central Valley Project DSM Demand Side Management EIR Environmental Impact Report ESA Endangered Species Act FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission iv GWMP Groundwater Management Plan ISA Interim Supply Allocation ISG Individual Supply Guarantee ISL Interim Supply Limitation MGD Million gallons per day MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEPA National Environmental Policy Act PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report PPM Parts per Million RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plant SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SRF State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving Fund SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS Total Dissolved Solids TRC Total Resource Cost UAC Utilities Advisory Commission UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WIRP Water Integrated Resource Plan WSA Water Supply Agreement WSIP Water System Improvement Program Page 1 I. Introduction Preparation of a Preliminary Assessment of Water Resource Alternatives is the first step towards development of a Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP). The Preliminary Assessment collects the available information and data about all water resource alternatives available to the City of Palo Alto. The following are a summary of the main drivers for updating the WIRP at this time. a) Cost Increases – The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is midway through the $4.6 billion Water System Improvement Program (WISP), which includes an upgrade of the regional water system. As a result of the WSIP, the cost of SFPUC water has risen dramatically and will continue to do so. With the increase in costs, other alternatives are increasingly competitive with SFPUC supplies. b) SFPUC Wholesale Water Charge – The SFPUC currently collects the wholesale revenue requirement primarily through a volumetric water rate. The SFPUC may propose changes to the current wholesale rate structure that include a fixed charge based on the Individual Supply Guarantee. Since the City has a relatively high Individual Supply Guarantee, this could change the City’s cost dramatically and make other alternatives more cost‐effective. c) Dry year need – The City has an Individual Supply Guarantee of 17.07 million gallons per day (MGD) from the SFPUC system. The City has no foreseeable supply deficiency in normal years, but SFPUC supplies are inadequate during dry years. A critical question to address is the level of reliability the City will provide to residents and businesses and at what cost. d) Disposition of “Surplus” SFPUC Individual Supply Guarantee– The City currently uses substantially less than its Individual Supply Guarantee. Considering long lead times to execute water transfers, it may be the time for the City to proceed towards a sale of a portion of the Individual Supply Guarantee. The sale could generate revenue for a variety of options, including increased dry year reliability, conservation programs, a recycled water project, or to reduce rates. e) Alternative Supplies – The Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD’s) groundwater and treated water charges have historically been similar to the cost of SFPUC supplies. Over the last few years, and for the foreseeable future, SCVWD water charges will be lower than SFPUC charges, making groundwater or a connection to the SCVWD’s treated water system potentially cost‐effective alternatives to SFPUC water. f) Use of Palo Alto Groundwater System – The City has recently refurbished the five older wells, developed two new wells and is completing another new well. One or more of the Page 2 wells could be used to provide supplemental dry year supplies or as an alternative to SFPUC supplies during normal years. g) Legislative & Regulatory Risks – The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) incorporates recent and future legislative and regulatory requirements to provide a comprehensive forward looking review of the water utility. A major new development is Senate Bill 7x‐7 (2009), which requires a 20% reduction in per capita water use by 2020. II. Background The first WIRP was prepared largely because the City was faced with a decision to participate in a regional recycled water program. This 1993 WIRP assessed the costs and benefits of a recycled water project compared to other supply alternatives, and ultimately determined that recycled water was not cost effective relative to existing supplies. In 1999, the City began working on a new WIRP, and completed the effort with approval by the City Council of the WIRP Guidelines in December 2003 (CMR 547:03). During the process to prepare the 2003 WIRP, several studies were conducted to inform the effort: 1. Water, Wells, Regional Storage, and Distribution System Study, 1999, Carollo Engineers – This study identified system improvements to the distribution system to meet water demands and fire flows following a catastrophic interruption of service on the SFPUC system. Among the recommendations was to refurbish the 5 existing wells and construct three new wells and a new water storage tank. 2. Long Term Water Supply Study, 2000, Carollo Engineers – The report examined the issues and costs of using new or rehabilitated wells as active sources of supply. The alternatives examined in the report included: (1) Using the wells for active supply either on a long term basis or during droughts; (2) using groundwater for irrigation; and (3) connecting to the SCVWD treated water pipeline. 3. Groundwater Supply Feasibility Study, 2002, Carollo Engineers – The report evaluated whether operating one or two of the City’s water wells as active supplies would cause significant decrease in groundwater levels or deterioration in groundwater quality”. 4. Santa Clara Valley Water District’s West Pipeline Extension Conceptual Evaluation Final Report, 2003, SCVWD. – The report evaluated an extension of the existing SCVWD West Pipeline to enable an interconnection of the Palo Alto and SCVWD systems at Page Mill turnout. The 2003 WIRP indicated that SFPUC supplies were adequate during normal years, but additional supplies were needed in dry years to avoid shortages. Since SFPUC supplies were adequate in normal years, the following conclusions were drawn: Page 3 1. The City’s existing Individual Supply Guarantee provides adequate supplies; 2. The cost to connect to the SCVWD treated water pipeline was prohibitive; 3. Continuous use of groundwater is not recommended; 4. The City should continue to evaluate recycled water; 5. Continue the current Demand Side Management programs and explore additional measures; and 6. Additional supplies are needed in a drought. Following approval of the 2003 WIRP, staff surveyed residential customers to gain a sense of community preferences on the use of groundwater during a drought. The survey asked respondents to rank several options for water supply during a drought: (A) blend groundwater with existing SFPUC supplies; (B) use no groundwater; and (C) treat groundwater at the well location prior to introduction to the distribution system. Survey respondents generally preferred Options B (no groundwater) and C (treat groundwater), but Option A (blend groundwater) was not soundly rejected. The results of the survey were presented to the UAC in June 2004. Based on the results staff made the following recommendations: 1. Do not install advanced treatment systems for the groundwater at this time. This option is expensive, both in terms of capital and operating costs. 2. Blending at an SFPUC turnout is the best way to use ground water as a supplemental drought time supply while maintaining good water quality. 3. Staff should await the conclusion of the environmental review process before proceeding with any site selections for wells to be used in dry years. 4. Actively participate in the development of long term supply plans with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and/or SCVWD. 5. Continue efforts identified in the Council approved WIRP guidelines: a. Evaluate a range of demand side management options to reduce long term water demands. b. Evaluate feasibility of expanding recycled water. c. Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activities in case of droughts. III. Water Supply History The water utility was established on May 9, 1896, two years after the City was incorporated. Local water companies were purchased at that time with a $40,000 bond approved by the voters of the 750‐person community. These private water companies operated one or more shallow wells to serve the nearby residents. The city grew and the well system expanded until nine (9) wells were in operation by 1932. Page 4 In December 1937, the City signed a 20‐year contract with the City and County of San Francisco for water deliveries from the newly constructed pipeline bringing Hetch Hetchy water from Yosemite to the Bay Area. Water deliveries from San Francisco commenced in 1938 and well production declined to less than half of the total citywide water demand. A 1950 engineering report noted, "The capricious alternation of well waters and the [San Francisco] water...has made satisfactory service to the average consumer practically impossible." Groundwater production increased in the 1950s leading to lower groundwater tables and increasing water quality concerns. In 1962, a survey of water softening costs to City customers determined that the City should purchase 100% of its water supply needs from the San Francisco. A 20‐year contract was signed with San Francisco and the City’s wells were placed in a standby condition. Since 1962 (except for some very short periods) the City’s entire potable water has come from San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy regional water system administered by the SFPUC. In 1974, several wholesale customers joined Palo Alto and filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco in protest of an increase in water rates that was higher for wholesale customers than it was for direct retail customers. In 1984, settlement negotiations resulted in the “Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract between the City and County of San Francisco and Certain Suburban Purchasers in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties”. The 25‐year agreement was approved in 1984. The 1984 agreement included the creation of a “Supply Assurance” equal to 184 million gallons of water per day (MGD) for the benefit of the wholesale customers.1 The agreement included a mechanism to allocate the 184 Supply Assurance between the wholesale agencies. The City’s allocation, or Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG), is 17.07 MGD. Each agency’s ISG is perpetual in nature and survives termination or expiration of the water supply contract with San Francisco. 1 The Supply Assurance is expressed as an annual average and does not constitute an obligation on the part of the SFPUC to meet daily or hourly peak demands. Page 5 In 2009, a new 25‐year Water Supply Agreement (WSA) was executed between San Francisco and the City. The City’s historical water use and supply sources are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: Historic Water Use Page 6 IV. Water Use Projections The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) regularly prepares water supply and demand forecasts to prepare financial forecasts, to meet regulatory requirements, or as part of ongoing regional planning efforts. Like many water agencies in California, the City has experienced a significant drop in water use since 2006, which is largely attributable to weather, water conservation, and the recent economic recession. Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) The UWMP is submitted to the Department of Water Resources every five years, and City Council approved the most recent 2010 UWMP in June 2011 (Staff Report 1688)2. Water demands forecast for the 2010 UWMP are shown in Figure 2 below. For comparison purposes, the forecast from the 2005 UWMP is also included in Figure 2. The water use projection results are revealing in that the City, along with most water agencies in California, did not anticipate the dramatic drop in water demand from 2007 to 2009. Potable water demands from 2009 to the present appear to have leveled off and have begun to trend upwards again, albeit slowly, and it remains to be seen if water demands will follow the increase forecasted in the 2010 UWMP. Figure 2: 2005 and 2010 UWMP Demand Forecast Projection Comparison 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 7,000,000 8,000,000 9,000,000 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 An n u a l W a t e r U s e ( C C F / Y e a r ) Year Water from San Francisco 2010 UWMP Forecast 2005 UWMP Forecast Individual Supply Guarantee Actual Forecast 2 Typically, UWMPs are due December 31 of years ending in 0 and 5. However, a six‐month extension was granted to allow suppliers to comply with new legislation (Senate Bill X7‐7). Page 7 Water Conservation Bill of 2009 The City is subject to ongoing changes in the regulatory and legislative environment, though few are as explicit as SB X7‐7, the Water Conservation Bill of 2009. SB X7‐7 was enacted in November 2009 and requires water suppliers to reduce the average per capita daily water consumption in their service territories 20% by 2020. To monitor the progress towards achieving the 20% by 2020 target, the bill also requires urban water retail providers to reduce per capita water consumption 10% by 2015. Figure 3 illustrates the projected 2015 and 2020 state‐mandated compliance targets and provides preliminary information on the City’s need for future action to meet SB7x‐7 requirements. Figure 3: 20% by 2020 Compliance Forecast 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 Ga l l o n s P e r C a p i t a P e r D a y Year Actual Forecast 2015 Target = 200.6 SB7 Baseline 2020 Target = 178.6 Figure 3 indicates that the City is on track to meet both the 2015 and 2020 state‐mandated compliance targets. Summary Water Resource Mix The 2010 UWMP provided detailed information on baseline water resources through 2030. SFPUC supplies were assumed to remain the primary potable supply for the foreseeable future, Page 8 but were not forecasted to increase dramatically over the 20‐year planning horizon. Recycled water consumption was projected to continue at current levels and no expansion was assumed in the 2010 UWMP. Finally, demand side management and conservation program penetration and savings were projected to increase dramatically from the 2005 UWMP. A representation of the future water resource mix is provided in Figure 4. Figure 4: Summary Water Resource Composition V. Attributes Evaluated and Water Resource Alternatives Examined Attributes Evaluated for each Water Resource Alternative In this section, each potential water resource option is evaluated to allow each alternative to be compared to each other. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide the best available information on each water resource alternative and to identify data deficiencies that need to be addressed. The attributes evaluated for each alternative are listed below: 1. Availability – The quantity, timing, peak flow or capacity, and any expected changes over time. 2. Cost – The capital and O&M costs of the proposed action (including system upgrades, project lifetime, energy costs, chemicals, technical innovation, customer costs, etc.), the manner which the cost is incurred (pay‐as‐you‐go, debt finance, etc.). Page 9 3. Water Quality – All options must meet water quality regulations, but options may differ in their relative water qualities (i.e. taste, odor, color, hardness, mineral content, trace levels of contaminants, etc.). 4. Long Term Reliability – What is the reliability of the source under different conditions? What future conditions could affect water deliveries? 5. Emergency Robustness – Will the resource perform under various scenarios, including an interruption of SFPUC supplies? 6. Environmental impacts – Are there anticipated environmental impacts and what level of environmental review is required? 7. Sensitivity to Regulations – Is the resource vulnerable or does it have strength in view of existing or impending federal, state, or local regulations? Water Resource Alternatives Examined The water resource alternatives evaluated in this report include: 1. Water from the SFPUC 2. Groundwater 3. Treated Water from the SCVWD 4. Recycled Water 5. Demand‐Side Management 6. Sale of the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee Water resources that were evaluated in the 2003 WIRP process, but are not included in this Preliminary Assessment, include: 1. Desalination – BAWSCA is evaluating several desalination alternatives as part of recent long range supply studies. When this effort is complete, this alternative can be evaluated. 2. Small scale irrigation wells – The City is focusing its efforts on the capital program to improve the municipal well system to meet the dual purpose of providing emergency and supplemental potable supplies. Currently, individuals may drill their own wells without City review or permits, but are subject to rules and restrictions of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and must obtain a permit from the SCVWD. The City does have the option of using small wells for irrigation of large landscapes, such as for City parks. However, the cost to maintain and operate small wells and locate a site for such facilities is problematic. 3. Treated Contaminated Groundwater – There are several entities in the City that treat contaminated groundwater and discharge the groundwater to the storm drain system and, to a lesser extent, the sanitary sewer system. The primary purpose of these facilities is to remediate contaminated groundwater with finite operations. The Santa Clara County Oregon Expressway dewatering pumps are the exception, and they discharge significant amounts of nuisance groundwater to the storm drain system to Page 10 keep the underpass dry. The City evaluated the capture and conveyance of the Oregon Expressway groundwater for irrigation purposes and determined the effort would require significant conveyance and storage infrastructure investments that are not cost effective. VI. Water from the SFPUC The City currently purchases 100% of its potable supplies from the SFPUC under the 2009 Water Supply Agreement (WSA). The WSA is administered for the City by the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). BAWSCA represents the interests of 24 cities and water districts and two private utilities that purchase wholesale water from the San Francisco regional water system. These entities provide water to 1.7 million people, businesses and community organizations in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. The City of Palo Alto is a member of BAWSCA and has a City Council appointed representative on the BAWSCA Board of Directors. Availability The City’s right to water from the SFPUC system is embodied in the 2009 WSA. The City’s Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) of 17.07 MGD is a perpetual right, but the delivery of water is subject to interruption for reason of water shortage, drought, or emergency. Normal Year SFPUC Supplies While the City’s ISG is 17.07 MGD, the City’s water needs are currently only about 11.5 MGD. The WSA includes an interim water delivery limitation3 from the SFPUC system of 265 MGD until its expiration in 2018. The City’s share of the interim limitation, or its Interim Supply Allocation (ISA), is 14.70 MGD. Based on the water demand forecast from the 2010 UWMP, there is no foreseeable need for additional supply beyond the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee, or the ISA. Dry Year SFPUC Supplies SFPUC’s WSIP includes a goal of no greater than a 20% system‐wide supply reduction on the SFPUC system during a drought. The 2009 WSA includes a water shortage allocation plan to share water from the regional system between the SFPUC retail and wholesale customers during a shortage of up to 20% (Tier I plan). The wholesale customers further divided the wholesale allocation based on a formula adopted by all the wholesale customers (Tier II plan). The detail of the allocation methodology is included in the City’s 2010 UWMP (Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan) and was approved by City Council in February 2011 (Staff Report 1308). The Tier II formula expires in 2018, unless extended by mutual agreement of the BAWSCA members. Table 1 summarizes the effect of the water shortage allocation formula on 3 This limitation applies to all users of the San Francisco regional water supply system, the City of San Francisco and all the BAWSCA member agencies. Page 11 Palo Alto during a 20% SFPUC system‐wide reduction under low demand and high demand scenarios.4 Table 1: City Of Palo Alto Water Shortage Allocation Palo Alto Allocation (low demand) Palo Alto Allocation (High demand) (a) Baseline Demand (MGD) 11.63 13.33 (b) Drought Allocation (MGD) 8.94 10.011 (c) Reduction from Baseline Demand (b‐a) (MGD) ‐2.69 ‐3.32 (d) Percentage reduction from Baseline Demand (c/a) ‐23.12% ‐24.90% The results in Table 1 indicate that the City will experience a water supply deficit of 23‐25% in the event of a 20% system‐wide water shortage on the SFPUC system. 4 In general, changes in Palo Alto demand patterns track many of the other BAWSCA members. However, the ultimate allocation to each BAWSCA agency depends on many factors, including the water use of each agency relative to each other. For these reasons, staff can only provide an approximation of the potential cutback. Page 12 Cost The City purchases 100% of its potable water supply from the SFPUC, with the current cost structure composed of a volumetric charge and a small fixed monthly meter charge. With the $4.6 billion WSIP well underway, the cost of SFPUC water has increased sharply. Recent region‐ wide water consumption declines have intensified the problem since the cost is spread over fewer sales units. The historic and projected cost of SFPUC water is illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 5: SFPUC Actual and Projected Cost of Water 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 $/ A c r e ‐Fo o t Fiscal Year SFPUC Cost Projection SFPUC Projected Rate SFPUC Actual Rate While the SFPUC charges wholesale customers based on how much water is used, the costs of the SFPUC system are almost entirely fixed costs – in other words, even if usage drops the cost to operate the system (O&M, debt service, etc.) remains essentially the same5. The SFPUC water cost projections in Figure 5 assume that the current rate structure remains in place. However, the WSA provides some flexibility for the SFPUC to adjust rate structures and the SFPUC recently signaled an interest in exploring alternative rate structures6 including increasing the fixed charge component and allocating charges based on the ISG, rather than actual water usage. The City’s share of the costs paid by the BAWSCA agencies (the “Wholesale Revenue Requirement”), steadily decreased from 8% in 1998 to 7.2% in 2010 as the City’s proportional share of water purchases dropped relative to the other BAWSCA agencies. In 5 The SFPUC system is largely gravity fed, so little variable O&M is required for water deliveries. 6 SFPUC Comments, July 2012 BAWSCA Board of Director’s meeting Page 13 recent years the City’s share of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement has increased slightly, probably as a result of several SFPUC customers making economic decisions to reduce SFPUC purchases to minimum amounts in favor of other, less costly supplies. The City’s ISG of 17.07 MGD is approximately 9.23% of the total BAWSCA agencies’ Supply Assurance of 184 MGD. If collection of the Wholesale Revenue Requirement were to be based on each agency’s ISG, the City could pay 20‐30% more for water annually, with little apparent increase in benefit. Water Quality SFPUC supplies are extremely high quality. See Table 4 which lists key water quality parameters for SFPUC water, SCVWD treated water and groundwater. Water provided by the SFPUC is a mix of Hetch Hetchy water and water from the East Bay and Peninsula reservoirs. In an average year, Hetch Hetchy water makes up 85% of the mix. Due to maintenance requirements, the SFPUC typically will shut down the Hetch Hetchy supply for a period during the low demand winter months and draw from the local reservoirs. It is not unusual to experience temporary water quality changes due to these events, though the water still meets all drinking water quality standards. Since completion of the 2003 WIRP, there were two noteworthy operational changes on the SFPUC system that related to water quality: In 2004, the SFPUC starting using chloramine instead of chlorine as the primary drinking water disinfectant. In 2005, San Francisco began adding fluoride to the water supply. Up until then, the City introduced fluoride at the SFPUC turnouts, but ceased to do so once the SFPUC began providing fluoridation from a centralized facility7. Long Term Reliability Recent demand projections do not forecast a normal year supply deficiency, given the perpetual nature of the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee. However there is one situation where the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee could be reduced. Under the terms of the 1962 contract between it and San Francisco, the City of Hayward’s contractual entitlement from the SFPUC system essentially equals its water demand. In theory, since the collective Supply Assurance of the wholesale customers cannot exceed 184 MGD, if Hayward’s water usage increases substantially, the other wholesale agencies could experience a proportional ISG reduction to ensure the 184 MGD limit is not exceeded. The most recent water use projection shows this will not be an issue until at least 2030, and it will proceed gradually in any event. SFPUC’s level of service goal is to meet dry year delivery needs while limiting rationing to a maximum 20% system wide reduction in water service during extended droughts. However, 7 In 1957 the voters in Palo Alto adopted a measure that requires fluoride be added to the City’s water supply (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.24.010). Page 14 recent events have called into question the SFPUC’s ability to maintain a level of service of no greater than 20% reduction8. BAWSCA and its member agencies are developing the Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy to quantify when, where, and how much additional supply reliability and new water supplies are needed throughout the BAWSCA agencies’ service area through 2035. The report revealed that several agencies have normal year needs in excess of their ISG and all agencies have varying dry year deficiencies. The report also identified several potential resource alternatives to address these shortfalls, including desalinization, recycled water, and water transfers. The BAWSCA report (Section 3.2 of the Phase IIA report) includes a representation of potential dry year cutbacks based on historic hydrologic conditions for the period from 1920 through 2002. The analysis used the SFPUC hydrologic system’s operational model to evaluate the frequency and magnitude of droughts on the system over the 83 years with all WSIP related projects complete. The results, as shown in Table 2, indicate there is little supply cutback risk under low demand scenarios, but the risk rises as demands increase. Table 2: Dry Year Shortfall under different demand scenarios Demand Scenario Number of Years of Projected Supply Cutbacks to the Wholesale Customers Over 83‐year history 18% Average Wholesale Customer Supply Cutback (10% System‐wide shortfall) 29% Wholesale Customer Supply Cutback (20% System‐wide Shortfall) Minimum Demand Scenario (224 MGD) 0 0 Intermediate Demand Scenario (252 MGD) 7 1 Maximum Demand Scenario (265 MGD) 6 2 8 Environmental flow requirements at Crystal Springs and Calaveras Dam were greater than anticipated. A 2 MGD water transfer between the Modesto Irrigation District and SFPUC was also rejected recently by the MID Board. Page 15 Figure 6 provides a representation of the supply cutbacks that would have been experienced under the maximum demand scenario using historic hydrologic data with all WSIP projects complete. The results provide an illustration of the frequency and magnitude of droughts in the past under the high demand scenario, and are helpful in framing future dry year risks. As shown, over the 83 year hydrologic period, there would have been 8 years with water shortages – 6 years with a 10% system‐wide reduction and 2 years with a 20% system‐wide reduction. Figure 6: Historic Water Shortages at Maximum Demand Level (265 MGD) Clearly there is a potential deficiency in SFPUC supplies during dry years, though the overall impact and frequency will depend on decisions related to dry year contingency plans and future portfolio adjustments that could be made to remedy the supply deficiency. As identified in the 2010 UWMP, the City has developed a Water Shortage Contingency Plan for implementation during a drought. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan identifies several stages of drought response, depending on the degree of supply reduction required. Responses range from informational outreach to severe water use restrictions and modified rate structures. The City also has the option of pumping groundwater as supplemental supply in water shortage situations. This option is discussed in more detail in the section on groundwater. Emergency Robustness Since the SFPUC is the City’s only potable supply source, the City is vulnerable to service interruptions on the SFPUC system. One of the major drivers behind the WSIP was to address reliability deficiencies, which under some circumstances could have resulted in an interruption of SFPUC service for up to 60 days following a catastrophic event such as an earthquake. The Page 16 WSIP level of service objective for seismic reliability is to deliver basic service9 within 24 hours after a major earthquake. The performance objective is to provide delivery to at least 70 per cent of the turnouts in each region, and full restoration to meet average day demand within 30 days after a major earthquake. Palo Alto may be better situated than other agencies in having two distinct connection points to the SFPUC system: three SFPUC connections are served by the Palo Alto Pipeline connection to Bay Division Pipelines 1 and 2, and two SFPUC connections are served by Bay Division Pipelines 3 and 4. Figure 7 below is a map of the SFPUC regional water system. Figure 7: Map of SFPUC Regional Water System The City is currently completing the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project. The primary goal of the project is to maintain basic water service and fire‐flows in all pressure zones in the City following a catastrophic interruption of SFPUC service. The project allows the City to maintain water supply in the event that the SFPUC supplies are disrupted. Environmental impacts The SFPUC supply is the current baseline supply source for the City of Palo Alto. Subsequent sections analyze several alternatives to the current and projected supply mix, and the resulting potential environmental impacts. Increased water use within an agency’s ISG does not require any action by an agency’s governing body, and therefore does not trigger any California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review obligation. Sensitivity to Regulations For many water systems in California, the availability of water supplies depends on many factors, including legislative and regulatory changes that may impact future supply conditions. 9 Basic service is defined as average winter month usage. Page 17 The SFPUC system is no different, and has several future regulatory risks that could impact water supply reliability and/or cost10: 1. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of the Don Pedro Project a. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 401 Certification of FERC relicense b. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for FERC relicense 2. Central Valley Total Maximum Daily Load regulations 3. Bay‐ Delta proceedings (SWRCB, Legislative actions) 4. ESA Habitat Conservation Plans for SFPUC local watersheds The SFPUC manages these risks, with support from BAWSCA and the wholesale customers. VII. Groundwater The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) manages an integrated water resources system that includes the management of groundwater, supply of potable water, flood protection and stewardship of streams on behalf of Santa Clara County's 1.8 million residents. The SCVWD manages ten (10) dams and surface water reservoirs, three (3) water treatment plants, nearly 400 acres of groundwater recharge ponds and more than 275 miles of streams. The SCVWD provides wholesale water and groundwater management services to municipalities, private water retailers, and individual property owners operating groundwater wells in Santa Clara County. Although the City currently purchases all of its potable water from the SFPUC system, the City maintains close involvement with the SCVWD as it is an important water wholesaler and the steward of groundwater resources in Santa Clara County. The city also partners with the SCVWD on conservation activities. The community is represented on the SCVWD Board of Directors by the District 7 Director. The City’s mayor also appoints a representative to represent the City on the SCVWD Commission, an advisory body to the SCVWD Board of Directors. The SCVWD’s 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan describes how the SCVWD will support future water supply needs and reliability. The adopted strategy identifies conservation, increased recycled water use, indirect potable reuse, additional groundwater recharge ponds, grey water, imported water reoperations, and dry year options as important components of the plan. The City of Palo Alto has several policies embodied in the Comprehensive Plan that relate to groundwater and water supplies. The policies don’t provide a preference for the use of 10 Source: SFPUC’s 2010 UWMP Page 18 groundwater, but indicate preservation of groundwater conditions is of critical importance to the City. The relevant policies are listed below, with program elements, if applicable: 1. POLICY N‐51: Minimize exposure to geologic hazards, including slope stability, subsidence, and expansive soils, and to seismic hazards including ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and land sliding. 2. POLICY N‐18: Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses. a. PROGRAM N‐22: Work with the SCVWD to identify and map key Groundwater recharge areas for use in land use planning and permitting and the protection of groundwater resources. 3. POLICY N‐19: Secure a reliable, long‐term supply of water for Palo Alto. Availability As a city in Santa Clara County, Palo Alto has the ability to pump groundwater with the understanding that SCVWD will appropriately manage the groundwater resources in the county. Groundwater conditions throughout the county are generally very good11. Groundwater elevations have generally recovered from overdraft conditions throughout the basin since the 1987‐1992 drought, inelastic land subsidence has been curtailed, and groundwater quality supports beneficial uses. Background The SCVWD last published a Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) in 2001. Since that time, SB 1938 and other legislation have amended the requirements for groundwater management plans. The 2012 GWMP was prepared under existing groundwater management authority granted by the District Act. The purpose of the 2012 GWMP is to characterize the SCVWD groundwater activities in terms of basin management objectives, strategies, and outcome measures. General groundwater conditions in the area are detailed in the SCVWD 2012 GWMP. The City of Palo Alto overlies the Santa Clara sub basin. The Santa Clara sub basin is divided into upper and lower aquifers, which are separated by low permeability clays and silts. The SCVWD refers to these as the shallow and principal aquifer, with the latter generally defined as 150 feet below ground surface. The principal aquifer is the primary drinking water aquifer, and is the source for the any increased reliance on groundwater to meet current or future demands. The upper, or shallow, aquifer is of poorer quality and has limited uses beyond small to medium size distributed irrigation systems. The SCVWD is responsible for managing the groundwater basin to ensure there is adequate supply and overdraft conditions are minimized. The SCVWD accomplishes this goal by maximizing conjunctive use, the coordinated management of surface and groundwater supplies, to enhance supply reliability. Programs to accomplish this goal include the managed recharge of imported and local supplies, in‐lieu 11 SCVWD 2012 Groundwater Management Plan Page 19 groundwater recharge through the delivery of treated surface water12 and acquisition of supplemental water supplies, and programs to protect, manage and sustain water resources. Managed and in lieu recharge programs are in balance with withdrawals and the basin is not currently in overdraft conditions. The groundwater conditions in the Santa Clara sub‐basin vary, and groundwater pumping from different locations will have different effects depending on location, elevation, recharge conditions, and pumping activity. Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project As part of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, the City has refurbished five older wells, constructed two new wells, and is constructing another new well and a new 2.5 million gallon storage reservoir and pump station. The primary goal of the project is to improve the City’s emergency water supply capability. Together with the City’s existing water storage system, the project will support a minimum of eight hours of normal water use at the maximum day demand level and four hours of fire suppression at the design fire duration level and will be capable of providing normal wintertime supply needs during extended shutdowns of the SFPUC system. The proposed project would provide up to 11,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of reliable well capacity and an additional 2.5 million gallons of water storage for emergency use. The groundwater system may also be used to a limited extent during drought emergencies, but is subject to the following mitigation measures, as stated in the Environmental Impact report (EIR) completed for the project13: 1. An aquifer test shall be conducted following the City’s well construction and rehabilitation efforts to verify the basin’s response to pumping; and 2. Emergency demand pumpage shall be limited to 1,500 acre‐feet (AF)14 in one year. Following this level of pumpage, groundwater production shall be restricted until groundwater levels recover to pre‐pumping levels. All wells are currently permitted and designated by the California Department of Public Health as “Standby” and, as such, can only be used for 5 consecutive days up to 15 days in a year15. Once the project is complete, the wells may collectively supply up to 1,500 AF per year during a drought, with restrictions on when the wells can resume pumping following that level of groundwater extraction. It is important to note that the pumping restriction only applies to the project as defined in the CEQA documents. This includes the 5 existing wells and 3 new wells. Individual property owners can install their own wells and pump groundwater. 12 The SCVWD and the Santa Clara County SFPUC customers are partners in conjunctively managing the water resources in the county. The SFPUC customers in the county have contracts with the SFPUC. The SCVWD has no contractual relationship with the SFPUC. 13 Environmental Impact Report, Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, Mitigation Measure 3.5‐4(a) & 4(b) 14 1500 AF/Year is equal to 1.34 MGD, or approximately 12% of FY 2012 water consumption 15 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 64414(c). Page 20 The pumping restrictions for the well system are mitigation measures in the EIR prepared for the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project. Any increase in the current restriction could require new or supplemental environmental review. The SCVWD has indicated that the process to increase the current limitation will require supporting information on the sustainable yield of the groundwater basin in order to demonstrate increased pumping by the City will not have significant impacts16. The capacities of the City’s wells are listed in Table 3. As shown in the table, if all 8 wells were used full time, they could produce 13.3 MGD, which is equivalent to almost 15,000 AF per year. Table 3: Projected Well Capacities Name Capacity (MGD)Status Fernando 0.5544 Refurbished Well/Fully Operational Hale 1.8432 Refurbished Well/Fully Operational Matadero 0.864 Refurbished Well/Fully Operational Peers 1.872 Refurbished Well/Fully Operational Rinconada 4.464 Refurbished Well/Fully Operational Eleanor Pardee 1.296 New Well/Fully Operational Library 1.008 New Well/Fully Operational El Camino Park 1.44 New Well/Under Construction Total 13.3 During the drought in the late 1980’s, substantial pumping by pumpers in the county and neighboring jurisdictions resulted in a dramatic drop in the groundwater levels in the area. It is possible that this scenario could happen again during a drought of similar magnitude if imported water supplies were reduced. The SCVWD adopted level of service goals as part of its 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan effort, including the development of water supplies designed to meet at least 100% of average annual water demand identified in the SCVWD 2010 UWMP during non‐drought years and at least 90 percent of average annual water demand in drought years17. This goal is a countywide goal and includes Palo Alto demands. Cost The SCVWD levies a groundwater extraction fee, or “pump tax”, on each acre‐foot of water that is pumped from the groundwater basin. The charge varies depending on a variety of factors, including pumpage type (agriculture vs. municipal) and geographic location in the County. Historically, the cost of groundwater (including the pump tax and the O&M cost of operating a well) has been comparable to the cost of SFPUC supplies. However, due to the increasing cost of SFPUC water due to the WSIP, the cost to pump groundwater is projected to be less than the cost of SFPUC supplies (Figure 8). While the costs of SCVWD groundwater and treated water 16 In summer 2012, staff met with SCVWD representatives to discuss the current limitation and the process to increase/remove the limitation. 17 SCVWD Board Agenda Item 4.2, June 12, 2012 Page 21 are also projected to rise over the next decade due to capital investment requirements, the cost of SCVWD water is likely to be less than SFPUC supplies. The vertical lines above the groundwater and treated water bars in Figure 8 represent the SCVWD high cost scenario, and reveal that the cost differential between SFFPUC and SCVWD water remains significant even under a SCVWD high cost scenario. Figure 8: Projected SFPUC and SCVWD18 Water Rates 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 $/ A c r e ‐Fo o t Fiscal Year SFPUC vs. SCVWD SCVWD ‐ Groundwater Rate SCVWD Treated Water rate SFPUC Treated Water Rate ForecastActual Water Quality The water quality of the groundwater is considered good, though historically the groundwater in the area has had iron (Fe), manganese (Mn) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) levels that exceed secondary19 drinking water quality standards. All potable water scenarios must comply with water quality requirements. Staff currently samples the wells based on the conditions outlined in the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) permit(s). The City may be out of compliance with secondary standards on a 18 The SCVWD sets groundwater and treated water rates according to water pricing policies and SCVWD Board direction. In general, treated water charges are slightly higher than groundwater charges to account for O&M costs to pump groundwater. However, at times, the SCVWD may adjust rates to encourage use of groundwater instead of treated water, or vice versa depending on the health of the underground water supplies. 19 Primary drinking water quality standards apply to contaminants that affect health while secondary standards apply to those constituents that affect aesthetics, taste and odor. Page 22 short term basis during emergencies, but for full‐time operation the City must be in compliance with secondary standards or apply for a waiver20. The waiver requires justification and includes a community survey to establish support for the provision of water that exceeds secondary standards. The community survey must demonstrate a high degree of acceptance to justify the waiver. Key water quality parameters for groundwater, water from the SFPUC and treated water from the SCVWD are compared in Table 4. All of these sources meet primary drinking water standards. The table lists several secondary standards and a sampling of other parameters. Table 4: Water Quality Parameters for Various Water Sources Water Source Fe (ppm) Mn (ppm) TDS (ppm) Sodium (ppm) Hardness (as CaCo3) (ppm) Turbidity (NTU) Drinking Water Quality Standard .300 .050 500 N/A N/A 5 SFPUC Water (1) ND ND 132 13.5 57 0.16 SCVWD Treated Water (2) ND ND 209 37 90 0.07 Groundwater (3) 0.25‐1.3 0.13‐0.31 440‐710 75‐170 ‐ 0.33‐7.7 (1) SFPUC values are average water quality values reported by the SFPUC in its 2011 Water Quality Report (2) Average values from 2011 SCVWD Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Water Quality Data Summary (3) Based on the City’s well water testing records ND = non detect Normal Year Groundwater Supplies Several treatment and blending options for the wells were evaluated in 2000 in the “Long Term Water Supply Study”: 1. Blend water with SFPUC water to meet water quality limits for manganese and iron. The blended water will meet regulatory limits, but will have TDS levels 2‐3 times the current level in the distribution system21. 2. Provide iron and manganese treatment at each well site. The water will likely not exceed TDS limits, but it will be 5‐7 times the current levels in the distribution system. 3. Provide iron and manganese treatment at each well site and blend with SFPUC supplies to reduce the well water TDS levels. 4. Provide iron, manganese and TDS treatment at each well site. The treated water at the injection point will be comparable to SFPUC supplies. The estimated present dollar cost of each option is provided in Table 5 for information purposes. The treatment options focus on the costs to address the elevated iron, manganese and TDS levels under several water quality scenarios. 20 Title 17 Code of Regulations, Chapter 64449.2 21 Upon completion of the Emergency Water Supply and Storage project, the El Camino Well water can be blended with SFPUC water in the new 2.5 million gallon storage tank in El Camino Park in a similar manner to Option 1. Page 23 Table 5: Well Treatment Alternative Preliminary Cost Analysis Treatment Options22 1 (blend) 2 (treat for Fe, Mn) 3 (treat for Fe, Mn and blend) 4 (treat for Fe, Mn and TDS) Capital Cost23 (Total for 5 wells) $8.5‐10.8 M $8.5‐10.8 M $9.4 ‐ 11.8 M $37.4 ‐ 46.7 M Well production Acre feet per year 6300 12800 2500 12800 % of total Potable Demands 50% 100% 25% 100% Water Quality24 TDS (500 ppm) 130‐300 440‐700 120 120 Manganese (<0.05 ppm) 0.04‐0.05 <0.05 <0.01 <0.05 Iron (<0.3 ppm) 0.08‐0.3 <0.3 0.05‐0.06 <0.3 The new and refurbished wells are being constructed with chlorine disinfection injection points and the capability to accommodate fluoride and other needed chemical injection points. The use of the wells on a regular basis will require a detailed operational plan and some or all of the sites will need modifications to accommodate backup power, chemical storage, and any equipment associated with the selected treatment option. Not all sites will have the space to accommodate these additional requirements. These and other additional operating and capital costs will need to be incorporated as part of a future detailed cost‐benefit analysis. The various treatment options will generate waste streams with elevated levels of iron, manganese, TDS, and chemical residuals used in the treatment process. It is unknown if this can be discharged to the storm drain system. Options to address this issue include onsite treatment facilities at each site or discharging the raw waste stream to the wastewater collection system for delivery to the Palo Alto RWQCP25. In addition to these unknown costs, there may be several challenges that may need to be addressed related to wastewater constituent changes from the RWQCP. Dry Year Groundwater Supplies The City’s new well and reservoir at El Camino Park is currently being configured to blend with SFPUC supplies so the El Camino Well can be relied upon to provide groundwater during a drought up to the 1500 AFY limitation. As a result of blending, the water will meet all secondary water quality standards, but will be of lesser quality when compared to SFPUC supplies. To bring the water quality to a level comparable to SFPUC supplies, the City will need to install Iron, Manganese and TDS filtration at the new El Camino well site. 22 Costs are only those costs incurred by Water Utility. Customer costs, including water softening or filtration devices will be additional costs borne by individual customers 23 All costs were adjusted from the estimates in the 2000 study to provide a likely cost range in 2012 dollars. 24 Manganese and Iron have single consumer acceptance contaminant levels, while TDS is a consumer acceptance contaminant level range (recommended = 500; short term= 1000 and upper limit = 1500) 25 Discharges to the wastewater collection system for treatment at the RWQCP have associated costs that are not included in the preliminary cost estimates. Page 24 Long Term Reliability The wells are an important resource during a drought and could be an important resource to serve a portion of the normal year potable needs in the City. With the current 1500 AFY dry year groundwater extraction limitation, there is little risk any dry year pumping program could result in significant impacts to the groundwater basin26. Since SCVWD manages the groundwater in Santa Clara County, any plans to increase Palo Alto’s groundwater pumping would need to be discussed with the SCVWD. Emergency Robustness The City’s wells are being maintained to provide emergency service during a catastrophic interruption of SFPUC supplies. If the portfolio changes in the future such that groundwater becomes part of the normal year supply, emergency preparedness will need to be evaluated further to ensure the resource can perform under various scenarios. Such an increase could result in the need for the SCVWD to construct recharge facilities to ensure that the county’s groundwater supplies are properly maintained. If imported water supplies are required to be delivered to the recharge facilities, those supplies need to be identified. Environmental impacts The use of the wells to meet dry year needs is currently permitted subject to a pumping limitation of 1500 AF per year. A significant increase to this limitation could require supplemental environmental review. Staff anticipates issues such as sustainable yield, dry year availability, subsidence risk, saltwater intrusion, dewatering of local creeks and contaminated plume migration, would be considered in such an environmental analysis. Sensitivity to Regulations An area of concern is future State and Federal water quality regulations for potable water. Changes in regulations could make the groundwater supply less attractive and more expensive due to additional treatment. This becomes less of an issue depending on the level of treatment that is chosen. 26 The 1500 AFY limitation is a CEQA derived mitigation measure that has undergone the public review process. Page 25 VIII. SCVWD Treated Water Besides being the manager of groundwater in Santa Clara County, the SCVWD also produces and delivers treated drinking water to water retail agencies in the county. Long‐term plans of the SCVWD include extending the treated water pipeline from its current terminus at Foothill Expressway and Miramonte Road to a Palo Alto connection point at Foothills Expressway and Arastradero Road (a distance of about 4.5 miles). The SCVWD calls this extension the “West Pipeline Extension”. However, the project would only be constructed if the City requested water supply from the SCVWD and signed a treated water contract. Background In 1999, the City sent a letter to the SCVWD advising it that information was needed to analyze the City’s option to connect to the SCVWD treated water West Pipeline. The SCVWD responded with an estimated cost for the extension of the West Pipeline that would have to be fully borne by Palo Alto. In February 2002, Palo Alto and four other county retailers requested that the SCVWD conduct a feasibility study of a West Pipeline extension from both a supply perspective and the additional reliability of having an additional interconnection with the SFPUC system. The SCVWD prepared a report on extending the West Pipeline, entitled: “Santa Clara Valley Water District’s West Pipeline Extension Conceptual Evaluation Final Report”27. The report evaluated an extension of the existing SCVWD West Pipeline to enable an interconnection of the Palo Alto and SCVWD systems at Page Mill turnout28. A map of the potential project is provided in Figure 9. 27 The City of Palo Alto participated in the preparation of the 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan (WSIMP). As part of that process, staff requested the SCVWD include the West Pipeline extension for project consideration. The SCVWD noted in the Final 2012 WSIMP that the project is not recommended in the WSIMP because it does not contribute to long‐term supply reliability. However, the SCVWD stated that it would be considered during a planned Infrastructure Reliability Master Plan. 28 The SFPUC and the SCVWD have an emergency interconnection near Milpitas that could theoretically be used to wheel water to Palo Alto. Staff does not anticipate it will be feasible to wheel normal year supplies via the intertie, but the use of the intertie during dry years may be possible. However, in general the SCVWD system is more dry year sensitive than the SFPUC system, so it is unclear whether supplies would be available to be wheeled to Palo Alto via this mechanism. Page 26 Figure 9: West Pipeline Extension Map Availability If the City requested that the SCVWD extend the West Pipeline to serve the City, the terms of the treated water contract would determine the availability and amount of water that would be delivered during normal years. The SCVWD has a diverse water supply portfolio, including State Water Project, Central Valley Project, and local reservoirs. SCVWD’s 2010 UWMP and its 2012 WSIMP indicated the SCVWD anticipates having adequate supplies to meet future needs until 2030 when minor deficits begin to materialize. However, those projections do not assume any treated water deliveries to Palo Alto. In addition, there is no guarantee that the water will be available during dry years. Cost SCVWD’s West Pipeline Extension Report provided detailed cost estimates for several pipeline configurations, which are summarized in Table 6. Both scenarios require a new parallel pipeline from Rinconada Water Treatment plant to the current terminus of the West Pipeline at Miramonte Road. From there, a new pipeline would be constructed to Page Mill Road. The cost differential between the two scenarios is largely attributed to different pipe sizing requirements and an intertie pump station. Page 27 Table 6: SCVWD Treated Water Connection Summary Costs29 Alternative Assumptions Total Cost of Alternative ($million) Cost to SFPUC ($million) Cost to New Retailers ($million) Rate Increase to SCVWD Retailers ($/AF) Parallel and Extension Existing treated water contractors and new retailers share cost of parallel pipe New retailers pay for extension 94‐114 N/A Palo Alto: 44‐67 Purissima Hills: 5‐9 $5‐8 Parallel, Extension and Intertie Existing treated water contractors and new retailers share cost of parallel pipe SFPUC pays for half of incremental cost of intertie Existing and new retailers share cost of extension and half of incremental cost of intertie 127‐154 18‐22 Palo Alto: 23‐41 Purissima Hills: 4‐10 Stanford University: 4‐8 Pump Tax: 11‐14 Treated Water: 15‐ 22 The report concluded that the City and neighboring jurisdictions must pay for the costs of constructing the extension via a “take or pay” contract, which is a common payment mechanism for all agencies in the county that purchase SCVWD treated water. The amount of the take or pay contract is determined by the amortized construction costs divided by the annual treated water rate. For example, if Palo Alto’s obligation for a West Pipeline extension was $30 million with an annual cost of $2 million (using an interest rate of 3%/year for a 20‐ year financing period), and the treated water rate was $634.60 per AF30, then Palo Alto would be required to purchase about 3,150 AF/year, or about 25% of the City’s water usage in FY 2012. During the term of the contract, the City would have limited ability to adjust its annual water purchase from the SCVWD. There are several agencies in Santa Clara County that purchase both SCVWD and SFPUC treated water, and they are subject to minimum “take or pay” contract provisions by both providers. The City would receive similar treatment. The cost estimates in Table 6 do not account for any distribution system improvements that may be required to configure Palo Alto’s distribution system to receive SCVWD treated water. Recently, the City conducted an evaluation of property tax collected by SCVWD from Palo Alto property owners. It is not uncommon for water districts to rely wholly, or in part, on property related taxes to build water systems or for surplus capacity for future users. The SCVWD has historically relied on taxes to some degree to purchase imported water and fund local 29 Cost of additional supply is not included in project cost. Costs have been escalated 3‐5% from 2003 dollars to provide a representation of potential costs ranges. 30 This is SCVWD’s treated water rate for FY 2013 Page 28 groundwater and treated water programs, and continues to do so. The results of the property tax evaluation revealed Palo Alto taxpayers have contributed to the development of the SCVWD water supply, distribution and treatment system, and will likely continue to do so in the future. This information could be helpful in determining an equitable sharing of the capital costs of an extension to serve areas of the county that have historically supported the SCVWD system. Water Quality See Table 4 in the groundwater section for a comparison of certain water quality parameters of SCVWD’s treated water, SFPUC water, and groundwater. Carollo Engineers evaluated the SCVWD treated water line in the Long Term Supply Study and provided information on the issues of blending SCVWD supplies with SFPUC supplies. In general, SFPUC supplies are of superior quality to SCVWD supplies, but there were several specific issues that were identified in the previous study. If there is interest in moving forward with an interconnection with the SCVWD system, additional analysis will need to be performed to determine if the previous issues still remain, and what additional issues have arisen. On the positive side, the SCVWD’s recent decision to include fluoridation at their treatment plants removes the need to provide fluoridation at the interconnection points to ensure the water supply complies with the municipal code. In a similar manner, the SFPUC has completed the transition to chloramine from chlorine for residual disinfection. This removes some water quality related issues associated with blending treated water from different sources that use different disinfectants. However, there may be other issues related to water quality that could require the two water supplies to be isolated in the distribution system. This would result in water from difference sources being provided to customers depending on their location in the distribution system. Long Term Reliability It is likely the SCVWD has little surplus imported water to allocate to Palo Alto, so the details of a potential supply arrangement will need to be evaluated further. During the drought in the late 1980’s, SCVWD supplies from both the state and federal sources were significantly reduced. It is not clear what level of drought protection would be provided, though the recent level of service commitment by the SCVWD indicates that there would be no greater than 10% reduction in supplies during dry years. Emergency Robustness In 2003, the SCVWD initiated the Water Utility Infrastructure Reliability Project to determine the current reliability of its water supply infrastructure (pipes, pump stations, treatment plants) and to appropriately balance level of service with cost. The project measured the baseline performance of critical SCVWD facilities in emergency events and identified system vulnerabilities. The study concluded that the SCVWD water supply system could suffer up to a 60‐day outage if a major event, such as a 7.9 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, Page 29 were to occur. Less severe hazards, such as other earthquakes, flooding and regional power outages had less of an impact on the SCVWD, with outage times ranging from one to 45 days. The level of service goal identified for the Infrastructure Reliability Project was “Potable water service at average winter flow rates available to a minimum of one turnout per retailer within seven days, with periodic one day interruptions for repairs.” In order to meet this level of service goal, the project identified a recommended portfolio to mitigate the risks. The SCVWD has been implementing the recommended portfolio. The project is expected to reduce the post‐earthquake outage period from 45‐60 days to 7‐14 days. In 2007, the SCVWD created a stockpile of emergency pipeline repair materials including large diameter spare pipe, internal pipeline joint seals, valves, and appurtenances. The stockpile marks a significant increase in reliability of the SCVWD water supply system, as it helps to reduce outage time following a large earthquake from approximately 60 to 30 days. The SCVWD still needs to complete several other emergency planning projects to meet the goal of reducing outage time to 30 days. These include developing a post‐disaster recovery plan, developing mutual aid agreements or expanding participation in the California Water/ Wastewater Agency Response Network , setting up contractor, welder, and equipment rental company retainer agreements, and setting up post‐earthquake pipeline inspection teams. The addition of groundwater wells and line valves to the SCVWD system will further reduce outage time following a large earthquake from 30 days to 14 days. The wells will allow the SCVWD to convey supplies from the groundwater basin to the treated water pipelines following a hazard event to meet the project’s level of service goal. The line valves will allow the SCVWD to isolate damaged portions of pipelines. If the West Pipeline was extended to provide potable water service to Palo Alto, the City would have one connection to the SCVWD system31, compared to 5 connections to the SFPUC system. It is unclear what level of reliability would be provided in the event of catastrophic event. The SFPUC level of service goal following an earthquake is to provide for average wintertime demands with delivery to 70% of the turnouts within 24 hours following a major earthquake. The SCVWD level of service goal provides for service resumption to one turnout within 7 days of a similar event, though the location of a Palo Alto interconnection at the end of the treated water line may be a weak point, so it is unclear if there will be adequate supplies or system pressures to provide meaningful service. In addition, the SCVWD plans on extracting groundwater for raw water delivery to the treatment plants and on to the retailers during an emergency. The Emergency Water Supply and Storage project will serve this purpose for Palo Alto. 31 There may be additional connection options to a new SCVWD treated water pipeline, such as a new extension to the existing Arastradero SFPUC turnout. However, the cost of additional connections was not included in the initial cost estimate and would likely be borne by the City. Additional connections may allow increased use of and more efficient distribution of SCVWD treated water, though they may not provide any additional reliability assurances. Page 30 Environmental Impacts A West Pipeline extension will require CEQA review. The SCVWD would be the lead agency for the CEQA process. Sensitivity to Regulations The SCVWD imports water from both the State and Federal water projects, and is vulnerable to actions that impact those sources. Since publication of the 2003 WIRP, federal and state water deliveries have been reduced on several occasions due to Delta related issues. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is currently underway to address the co‐equal goals of water supply reliability and environmental sustainability. The most likely water conveyance solution will be a tunnel underneath the Delta from an intake on the Sacramento River to the South Delta Diversion/Pumping facilities. Such a facility will take decades to build and the costs will likely be borne by State and Federal water contractors, including the SCVWD. Page 31 IX. Recycled Water The City of Palo Alto operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. Approximately 220,000 people live in the RWQCP service area. Of the total plant flow, about 60 per cent is estimated to come from residences, 10 per cent from industries, and 30 per cent from commercial businesses and institutions. In 1992, the City and the other RWQCP partners completed a Water Reclamation Master Plan (Master Plan). The Master Plan identified a three stage implementation for recycled water in in the RWQCP service area. In 1995, City Council certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Master Plan projects. At the same time, Council decided not to pursue any of the recommended expansion stages of a water recycling system as the cost could not be justified. Council adopted a water recycling policy, which included continuation of the existing programs and monitoring of conditions that would trigger an evaluation of the Master Plan. The Water Recycling Policy described five conditions that would trigger evaluation of the Master Plan projects: 1) Changes in the RWQCP discharge requirements 2) Increased mass loading to the RWQCP 3) Requests from partner agencies or other local agencies 4) Availability of federal or other funds 5) Water supply issues: a. Water shortages b. Legislative or Regulatory Initiatives c. Advanced treatment for potable reuse. Since the Master Plan, the City prepared a recycled water survey in 2006 and a Facility Plan in 2009 for a project to deliver recycled water to the Stanford Research Park. The Facility Plan had four goals: 1) Define recycled water alternatives and identify a recommended project; 2) Develop a realistic funding strategy 3) Develop an implementation strategy ; and 4) Provide a basis for any future state and federal grant requests for the Project. Since completion of the Facility Plan, the City initiated the environmental review process for the project and is currently working on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The City is also focusing on outside funding sources to improve the project economics. The Facility Plan provided a comprehensive overview of the proposed recycled water project to serve the Stanford Research Park. The project would connect to the recently completed Page 32 recycled water transmission line serving the Mountain View area and extend through the City to serve the target area. A schematic of the proposed project including water demands and pipe sizes is provided in Figure 10. Figure 10: Proposed Recycled Water Project Availability The average dry weather flow capacity of the RWQCP is 38 MGD. The average treated wastewater discharge to the San Francisco Bay is approximately 22 MGD. In theory, all of this could be captured for reuse. Several RWQCP partners, including Palo Alto, have a contractual entitlement to the treated wastewater in proportion to the amount of wastewater that is sent to the RWQCP32. Palo Alto’s FY 2011 flow share to the plant was approximately 39.2%, or 8.624 32 Personal communication with James Allen, RWQCP Plant Manager, November 2012 Page 33 MGD. However, operational constraints and plant configuration limit the recycled water production capability from the RWQCP. The RWQCP collaborates with the partners to ensure needed capital improvements for future recycled water expansion goals are incorporated into long range plans. Considering the RWQCP’s primary role to provide wastewater treatment services for the partners and to ensure the RWQCP meets all associated regulatory and permit limitations, the necessary improvements to accommodate a substantial increase in recycled water deliveries are not a priority for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the RWQCP can deliver up to 4.5 MGD of recycled water via coagulation and filtration through a multi‐layered filter and disinfection process. This additionally treated effluent meets California Department of Health Services Title 22 requirements for “unrestricted reuse”. The new ultraviolet (UV) disinfection banks can add 6 MGD of recycled water production (8 MGD with an extra bank). The RWQCP plans to use UV as backup to the filtration/chlorination recycled water treatment train. Future plans include consolidating the systems into a 10.5 MGD recycled water facility, but this would require some modifications in plant piping and storage tanks to get bottlenecks out of the system. In constructing the project to extend the recycled water distribution system to serve the City of Mountain View, the CPAU Water Fund paid $1 million and committed to pay an additional $1 million connection fee in the event the project to serve the Stanford Research Park was built. By virtue of this arrangement, the CPAU Water Fund has secured capacity on the pipeline for future use. The RWQCP cannot currently meet projected recycled water demands under peak conditions, and additional pumping capacity and possibly storage is needed to accommodate all project users. Palo Alto’s recycled water project capital costs include the cost of retrofitting the RWQCP pump station to accommodate incremental recycled water deliveries to serve the Stanford Research Park. Page 34 The RWQCP has had a robust recycled water program for many years, including a substantial amount for RWQCP onsite needs and irrigation at Greer Park, the Duck Pond and the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course. As shown in Figure 11, the RWWCP uses about 0.5 MGD annually (about 560 AFY) for irrigation around the plant as well as some cleaning and treatment processes. Greer Park and the Duck Pond have each used about 0.04 MGD (45 AFY) on average over the past five years while the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course has used about 0.2 MGD (230 AFY) on average over the past five years. The 2009 Facility Plan identified about 0.8 MGD of new recycled water usage for the project to expand the recycled water distribution system. The project would primarily serve the Stanford Research Park area and the bulk (90%) of the recycled water would be used for irrigation purposes. Figure 11: Palo Alto Existing Recycled Water Uses for FY 2004‐FY 2012 Page 35 Cost The Facility Plan included a detailed cost plan to build the project (Table 7). The gross project cost is approximately $33 million, though this does not include potential outside funding sources that could lower the project cost. Table 7: Recycled Water Gross Cost Estimate 1,2 The cost estimates in Table 7 were developed for 2009 Facility Plan using March 2008 dollars and will need to be updated to reflect current capital and O&M costs. Based on the 2008 data, the recycled water cost is approximately $2,700/AF, compared to an SFPUC cost of $1260/AF (2013) to $2240/AF (2020). However, these cost estimates do not reflect several grant and low interest funding programs that the City has been pursuing that will help lower the unit cost of the recycled water to a more competitive level with SFPUC costs. These funding options are listed below: 1. Title 16 ‐ The Bureau of Reclamation's water reclamation and reuse program is authorized by the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 (Title XVI of Public Law 102‐575). The City of Palo Alto is a member of the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, a group of regional recycled water projects that collaborate to pursue federal funding for recycled water projects. In order to receive federal funding, all projects must receive federal authorization. The City is currently seeking authorization in the House of Representatives for a federal award of $8.25 million (H.R. 3910). Obtaining authorization is a first step and subsequent steps include submittal of Page 36 appropriation requests until the full authorized amount is received. While authorization provides a degree of certainty on a grant award, receipt of the full grant amount will depend on annual appropriations and the federal political process. 2. Proposition 84 through IRWMP – The City is pursuing Proposition 84 grant funds through the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The BAIRWMP project list was recently updated and the City will have the option to submit funding requests during future funding rounds. 3. State Revolving Fund Low Interest Loan – The City can apply for low interest construction loans through the State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. The program provides 20 year loans with an interest rate equal to half of the most recent General Obligation bond interest rate. The most recent SRF interest rate is 1.7%, though the historical rate is typically in the 2‐2.5% range. SRF loans have several attractive features, including a payment plan that commences 1 year after construction and the avoidance of bond issuance costs. The Title 16 and SRF loan programs represent the best State and Federal funding opportunities for the project at this time. The City’s recycled water project is on the SRF project list, and staff does not anticipate that obtaining an SRF loan will be problematic. However, obtaining Title 16 authorization for the project will be critical to making the project economically viable. An SRF loan and an $8.25 million federal grant would improve project economics such that recycled water would become competitive with SFPUC potable water within 4‐6 years. The City’s recycled water project was identified in BAWSCA’s Long‐term Regional Water Supply Strategy as a project with near term development potential to meet future water supply needs. Inclusion in the BAWSCA report does not change the project, but it does position the project for innovative funding opportunities with another BAWSCA agency in exchange for some equivalent benefit. Such a partnership could be combined with State and Federal funding sources to further improve project economics. Water Quality The recycled water from the RWQCP meets Title 22 requirements for unrestricted reuse. The main purpose of the Palo Alto recycled water project is to offset the use of high quality imported SFPUC water for irrigation and cooling purposes. A major challenge for the project is acceptance by the landscape community of using recycled water for irrigation purposes. Certain landscapes are particularly vulnerable to the higher salinity that is present in recycled water, especially those areas with poor drainage and clay soils. The RWQCP and the plant partners are undertaking efforts to address the elevated salinity levels in the recycled water by establishing the Salinity Reduction Policy and evaluating the wastewater collection system for areas where elevated salinity levels indicate Inflow and Infiltration may be an issue. For example, the City of Mountain View is currently spending $3‐4 Page 37 million to line a sewer trunk line that has indications of saline water intrusion. This large project may yield a significant salinity reduction when complete in February 2013. Long Term Reliability Recycled water is one of the most reliable new water supply sources. As previously mentioned, CPAU has paid for a future connection to the pipeline that extends from the RWQCP to serve Mountain View, which has a maximum capacity of 21 MGD. With the addition of the UV banks, the recycled water production train could provide up to 10.5 MGD of recycled water. As it is local, it is more reliable than imported supplies, which rely on lengthy networks of pipes, pumps and storage facilities. In droughts or other water shortage situations, landscape water use is normally targeted for the largest reductions, but recycled water use would not be subject to such reductions. Additional recycled water use will increase the City’s allocations of SFPUC water in drought times. Since the drought allocation formula is based on both a seasonal component and overall water use, increased use of recycled water would provide a double benefit since it lowers potable water use and also reduces the City’s potable usage during the peak irrigation season. While it is difficult to assess future drought allocations since much depends on the actions of other agencies, staff estimates the Stanford Research Park recycled water project could reduce the dry year cutback by 10‐20%. Emergency Robustness Recycled water will be used for irrigation purposes and, to a lesser extent, cooling. During a catastrophic emergency, CPAU will focus on operation of the emergency wells and the potable distribution system to ensure potable requirements and fire flows are maintained. The RWQCP will also focus its efforts on returning the RWQCP to normal operations. Recycled water does not provide additional emergency preparedness improvements over the current situation. Environmental Impacts The City has been preparing the requisite National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and CEQA documents for the project. The environmental review process has taken longer than anticipated, largely due to additional study of the use of recycled water on plants in areas of poor drainage and clay soils. Sensitivity to Regulations The recycled water supply is sensitive to regulations, but these can have both positive and negative impacts due to the unique nature of the recycled water supply. The RWQCP is subject to numerous regulatory requirements related to treated wastewater discharges to San Francisco Bay. The use of recycled water is recognized as one method to reduce discharges to the Bay and assists the RWQCP in complying with these requirements. For example, in March 2012, the Regional Water Board issued a Water Code Section 13267 Technical Report Order to Page 38 Bay Area wastewater dischargers, including the RWQCP, requiring submittal of information on nutrients in wastewater discharges (nitrogen and phosphorus). This information will be compiled over the next few years and will likely result in the development of future water quality objectives for the San Francisco Bay estuary. An increase in recycled water use would decrease the total nitrogen and phosphorus discharge to the Bay. As the regulatory environment for wastewater treatment plants becomes stricter, recycled water will become an increasingly useful tool to assist wastewater treatment plants in complying with these new regulations. In February 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted Resolution No. 2009‐0011, which established a statewide Recycled Water Policy. This policy encourages increased use of recycled water and local storm water. It also requires local water and wastewater entities, together with local salt/nutrient contributing stakeholders to develop a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for each groundwater basin in California. The SCVWD is the lead agency for this effort in Santa Clara County. Together with the benchmarks in the SCVWD 2012 GWMP, recycled water impacts on the groundwater basin will likely be monitored and subject to regulation in the event there are observed changes. X. Demand‐Side Management Demand‐side management measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are measures that can be implemented to conserve water. The BMPs are included in the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Water agencies that became signatories to the MOU pledged to implement the BMPs and to report progress biannually to CUWCC. Since becoming a signatory to the MOU in 1991, the City has saved an estimated 4,135 AF of water through conservation program implementation. The 2010 UWMP contains the City’s reports to the CUWCC, including compliance reports on the BMPs. The 2010 UWMP included an increased conservation program commitment, in large part driven by the requirements of SB X7‐7. Availability BAWSCA has assisted its members in assessing the potential for water efficiency measures. In October 2008, as part of the adoption of the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) Program Environmental Impact Report, BAWSCA coordinated the completion of the Water Conservation Implementation Plan, which provided a comprehensive analysis of cost effective conservation measures to identify additional programs that could assist the BAWSCA agencies in meeting future purchase limitations. Results from the Water Conservation Implementation Plan were also used to prepare the City’s 2010 UWMP. Figure 12 shows the water conservation goals Council adopted when it approved the 2010 UWMP. Figure 12 also compares the Page 39 conservation program commitment in the 2005 UWMP to the new commitments in the 2010 UWMP. Figure 12: Water Conservation Savings Goals 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Cu m u l a t i v e W a t e r S a v i n g s ( A c r e - F e e t ) Fiscal Year Actual Savings 2005-2010 Projected Savings from 2005 UWMP Projected Savings from 2010 UWMP 13% of Water Demand 4% of Water Demand The annual report to City Council on efficiency goals and achievements includes a summary for water demand side management goals and achievements as illustrated in Table 8. Table 8: Water Savings vs. Goals Note that the savings goal increased threefold starting in FY 2011. The increase is primarily a result of legislative requirements (SB 7x‐7) that were captured in the 2010 UWMP. This aggressive goal is consistent with the City’s longstanding policy of providing cost effective conservation programs to the community. Staff will monitor conservation program effectiveness and make necessary adjustments if it appears the current program is not meeting established targets. Page 40 Cost It is the goal of the City to look for opportunities, innovative technologies, and cost effective programs that best utilize the water conservation budget. In FY 2011, the City dramatically increased conservation program savings goals to meet the requirements of SB7x‐7. The 2010 UWMP contains a detailed analysis of the current suite of conservation measures that are offered by the City. For each program, the benefit/cost ratio from the Total Resource Cost (TRC) perspective is shown. The TRC cost‐effectiveness test compares the total cost of implementing a measure, regardless of who pays. The costs include the cost of the device, any installation costs, and the implementation costs of the program (advertising, tracking, performance monitoring, rebate processing, etc.). The benefits include the avoided costs of water purchases. The Water Utility assesses each measure in terms of financial impact to the utility, which includes rebate costs as well as any other administrative costs borne by the Water Utility. The water savings summary through 2030 is provided in Table 9, including cost to the utility. Table 9: Conservation Program Costs33 2015 2020 2025 2030 Total Savings (Acre‐feet) 672 560 168 448 Total Wastewater Savings (Acre‐feet) 403 314 67 157 Total Outdoor Savings (Acre‐feet) 269 246 101 291 Utility Implementation Cost ($2010) $754,058 $370,843 $364,762 $387,604 Cost/Acre‐feet $1,122 $662 $2,171 $865 Table 9 illustrates that the aggregate conservation program is cost effective when compared to SFPUC supply alternatives. As the cost of SFPUC water increases, many conservation programs become more cost effective, though the Water Utility adjusts conservation programs depending on several factors, including program penetration, community preferences and the TRC. Despite the very aggressive targets in the 2010 UWMP, it may be possible to further increase conservation program utilization to achieve additional savings. Water Quality Demand side measures do not present any water quality issues. 33 The large increase in cost per acre foot in 2025 reflects regular captured savings less a drop off of savings from those measures initiated in the 2012‐2020 time frame that begin to reach maturity. Water agencies offer rebates to make it more attractive for customers to install more efficient, and potentially costlier, measures. At some point in the future the measure reaches the end of its useful life and must be replaced. For some measures, the models assume the consumer will only have the choice of the more efficient model in the future and therefore no rebate is needed anymore. Absent a rebate, the Water Utility does not account for the savings anymore. Page 41 Long Term Reliability Staff forecasts and tracks DSM program effectiveness, but the ultimate effectiveness for different programs varies substantially depending on many factors, including individual behavioral patterns. Much research has gone into evaluating the reliability of DSM, and some of that research could be useful to the City in future efforts to plan and evaluate program effectiveness. Due to the large differential between water demand and the City’s Individual Supply Guarantee, there is no pressing need to strictly monitor DSM program effectiveness like there may be for an agency that is at risk of exceeding its Individual Supply Guarantee Water efficiency during a drought is a more complicated issue. One issue is the concept of “demand hardening”, which is the assumed loss of demand elasticity during a drought that results from water conservation programs implemented before the drought. In other words, the community may have little flexibility to reduce demand further if conservation programs have been truly effective. At the same time, there are certain DSM measures that are not suitable during normal years that can be implemented during dry years and achieve desired savings (i.e ‐ steep rate increases, irrigation restrictions). Emergency Robustness The 2010 UWMP contains a summary of demand side options that can be implemented under various scenarios (Section 7 – Water Shortage Contingency Plan). During a catastrophic interruption of SFPUC supplies, the City will immediately initiate emergency supply options to meet potable demands and fireflow requirements. At the same time, the City will begin informational outreach programs to inform the community that emergency conditions are in effect and water consumption behavioral changes are required (i.e no irrigation). For dry year scenarios, the City will implement informational outreach programs, incentive based demand‐side management programs, and water audits. In addition, rate schedules may be modified, as appropriate, to reflect the water shortage conditions. Due to the SFPUC/BAWSCA drought allocation formula, conservation programs provide a benefit in reducing dry year cutback requirements. Conservation programs that specifically target irrigation demands will provide an additional benefit because of the seasonal component of the drought allocation formula. Environmental Impacts For the most part, demand side measures do not present any environmental issues. Measures that specifically target landscape conversions or efficiency changes have occasionally been the subject of concern by tree advocacy groups who are concerned about impacts on trees due to decreased landscape watering. The City includes information on proper tree maintenance for those customers converting to drought resistant landscapes. Page 42 Sensitivity to Regulations Demand side measures are not limited by any regulations. However, additional requirements to implement measures may be proposed, or compliance with certain efficiency standards (e.g. per capita water use) may be required, especially if seeking State or Federal grant or loan assistance for a project such as the recycled water project. XI. Individual Supply Guarantee Sale Availability The City currently purchases approximately 12 MGD of potable water from the SFPUC and has an Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG), of 17.07 MGD. A sale of surplus ISG could generate income for a variety of potential purposes. Over the past several years there has been increased interest in an ISG transaction, but the mechanism and value of the ISG has been difficult to establish, and this has hindered movement on this issue. The City’s current water use is approximately 12 MGD, and the recent 2010 UWMP forecasted the City’s water use would increase slightly in the next few years, and then remain flat around 13.6 MGD through 2030. In the event the City transferred 1‐2 MGD of its ISG to another party, recent forecasts do not anticipate this will impact the City’s ability to meet normal year potable demands. The SFPUC/BAWSCA (Tier II) drought formula is based on the weighted average of two components, the smaller of which is the ISG34. This is beneficial to the City since current consumption is well below the City’s ISG. An ISG transfer would reduce that benefit and result in an increased dry year reduction requirement by the City. At the same time, this aspect of the role of the ISG in the drought formula would be viewed favorably by a purchasing entity as it would be acquiring normal year supply and improving its dry year allocation. There are several possible uses for the funds from an ISG transaction, including increasing dry year supply reliability. Examples of potential projects that could reduce the dry year supply deficiency include retrofitting the City’s wells to provide high quality groundwater, arranging a dry year water transfer arrangement that could be wheeled via the SFPUC system, or providing the funds necessary to complete the recycled water project, which is a “drought‐proof” water supply resource. Cost In May 2010, the Purissima Hills Water District indicated an interest in purchasing 0.5 MGD of the City’s ISG for a one‐time payment of $1 million. The City declined the offer, citing several 34 It is important to emphasize the Tier II formula expires in 2018, unless extended by mutual agreement of the Wholesale customers. It is possible the successor agreement to the current Tier II formula could be quite different, including a larger or smaller role for the ISG. Page 43 policy issues that needed resolution prior to any action to initiate an ISG transaction. With completion of the Tier II drought allocation process and the Interim Supply Limitation allocation process, the major policy obstacles have been addressed. In September 2012, the City of Brisbane executed a term sheet with the Oakdale Irrigation District to transfer water to Brisbane. The transaction will require additional agreements with the Modesto Irrigation District and the SFPUC as intermediate parties. As is the case with PHWD, Brisbane’s water use is close to its ISG and it needs additional supplies to meet anticipated needs. The term sheet is a preliminary step, but it provides a starting point to establish a proxy value for an ISG transaction. The term sheet contemplates a sale of up to 2,400 AFY, with a price of $500/AF for any delivered water and a price of $100 for any water not delivered (i.e, the difference between 2,400 AF and the delivered quantity). After five years, Brisbane must notify Oakdale Irrigation District how much water will be taken during the remainder of the agreement. All of that water is paid for at $500/AF, regardless of whether or not it is actually taken. If the City were to execute an agreement similar to the Brisbane/Oakdale transaction, a 2 MGD transfer might generate revenues of $224,000 to $1.1 million per year for the first five years, followed by up to $1.1 million per year for the duration of the transaction. Of course, such a transfer would also reduce the City’s ISG from 17.07 MGD to 15.07 MGD. Water Quality A water transfer does not present any water quality issues. Long Term Reliability A 2 MGD water transfer would reduce the City’s ISG from 17.07 MGD to 15.07 MGD. The City’s current normal year water use is well below 15.07 MGD, and recent forecasts indicate that the City’s usage will exceed 15.07 MGD for the foreseeable future. For dry years, a reduction in the City’s ISG will result in an increased water reduction requirement. For dry years, the Tier II drought allocation formula has an ISG component so a reduction in ISG will negatively impact the City’s allocation during a drought. Staff estimates a 2 MGD sale would require an additional 5‐7% dry year cutback from the City or could increase reliance on groundwater. A thorough evaluation of such a sale is necessary to provide a more detailed assessment. Emergency Robustness A nominal ISG transfer would not impact the City’s access to SFPUC supplies following a catastrophic interruption of SFPUC supplies. Environmental Impacts Staff anticipates that the receiving party will initiate any required environmental review under CEQA. Page 44 Sensitivity to Regulations An ISG transaction is subject to Section 3.04 of the WSA. The SFPUC review is limited to determining if the proposed transfer complies with the Raker Act and whether the affected facilities in the Regional Water System have sufficient capacity to accommodate delivery of the increased amount of water to the proposed transferee. Section 3.04(a) of the WSA also specifies the City may “transfer a portion….to one or more other Wholesale Customers...”, thus indicating an ISG transaction will likely be limited to another Wholesale Customer, or a third party that plans on receiving the water within the service territory of another Wholesale Customer. EXCERPTED FINAL MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 2, 2016 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION ITEM 2. DISCUSSION: Utilities Advisory Commission Review and Discussion of the Draft 2017 Water Integrated Resource Plan Guidelines Senior Resource Planner Karla Dailey provided a presentation summarizing the written report. She said that the Water Integrated Resources Plan (WIRP) was ready to be updated since the recent drought has reinforced that there is a need for water in water shortages and there is regulatory risk since the State Water Resources Control Board showed a willingness to regulate water use by mandating water use reduction. In addition, there are ongoing cost increases from both the City’s potable water supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and for the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD) supplies. The City effort to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for recycled water, the Council’s dedication to water sustainability through the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan process and the community’s interest in water are all also driving the need for a WIRP. Dailey listed the water supply options evaluated in the WIRP and the attributes considered. She noted that the WIRP did not evaluate recycled water (since it is being evaluated separately in the Recycled Water Strategic Plan), desalination, a sale of the City’s excess water allocation of SFPUC water, small-scale irrigation wells, the use of treated, contaminated water, “nuisance” groundwater from the Oregon Expressway underpass or basement dewatering, graywater, black (i.e. sewer) water, and stormwater. Dailey said that, after looking at all the attributes, staff concluded that SFPUC water is more expensive but has highest water quality, the cost of SCVWD supplies may increase dramatically and SCVWD does not have excess treated water to sell, groundwater is susceptible to mandated water use reductions like imported supplies, blending groundwater with SFPUC water at El Camino is the least expensive, most sustainable alternative to 100% SFPUC supplies, but water quality may be an issue, reliability and sustainability can be achieved by reducing potable water demand through expanding use of recycled water. The recommended guidelines include: Pursue all cost-effective water efficiency and conservation; Survey potentially impacted customers about their preference for SFPUC water versus blended water; Proceed with the Recycled Water Strategic Plan to determine how to reduce the demand for imported water; and ATTACHMENT D Continue to investigate ways to increase the use of non-traditional, non-potable sources such as black water, storm water, and nuisance water from basement construction. Public comment Keith Bennet, Save Palo Alto Groundwater, said that he wanted to talk about water pumped out from basement construction and groundwater protection. He said that 200 million gallons was dumped into the Bay from 8 residential basements in 2016, equal to 7% the amount the City buys from the SFPUC and 100% of the recharge of the aquifer from precipitation for a normal rain year. In 2015 there were 13 or 14 basements constructed in Palo Alto and the allowed pumping time was longer so he assumes the amount of water discharged to the Bay was greater than in 2016. He said discharging freshwater to the Bay according to the WIRP is to be discouraged. He said that the water moving through the soil instead of the storm drain is valuable for pushing saltwater out of the groundwater. He said shallow groundwater is of very high quality and can be used for irrigation, including irrigation of Redwoods. He said the water is usually at 10 feet or less and easily accessible. He said the San Mateo Basin study shows the shallow and deep aquifers are connected. Proven alternative construction methods exist and are used in the Netherlands. This is a valuable resource and pumping and dumping the water is not sustainable. Pumping for basements contradicts the desire to protect groundwater. Utilities should change the WIRP to recognize the value of the shallow aquifer. He wants Utilities to ask Council to protect groundwater and restrict pumping and dumping from basement construction. Commissioner Trumbull said the report was excellent. He urged the City to investigate the items that are recommended in the guidelines. Commissioner Johnston asked how we would do a survey to evaluate whether people would prefer Hetch Hetchy to Groundwater. Dailey said she had considered blind tastings but said Utilities would have to consult a survey expert. Commissioner Danaher said his wife doesn’t want water that tastes like Los Altos water. He suggested online surveys won’t be valuable but taste test might. It’s staggering that basement dewatering uses so much water and that alternative construction methods and/or more use of the water should be investigated. He wondered about how easily Palo Alto’s groundwater is recharged and was heartened that more studies on groundwater will be done and that more work will be done on recycling and grey water. Building codes should be examined to include more grey water. He said the assumed availability of SFPUC water is too rosy. Looking at last 80 years is not a good baseline to predict the impact of climate change. The plan should have different scenarios showing different assumptions regarding the future availability of Hetch Hetchy water. He asked if the plan will be updated after the Recycled Water Strategic plan is finished. Dailey confirmed that it would. Commissioner Forssell said she appreciated the report and public comment. We switched water supplies in the past and the change was noticeable. So that could be used to determine people’s attitude about water quality. Dailey said the SFPUC switches water supplies a couple of times a year, and customers always notice. Assistant Director Ratchye clarified that the water is still SFPUC water not groundwater. She is interested in the Recycled Water Strategic Plan. Chair Cook said he agreed with Danaher and that Palo Alto needs to be prepared for more dire cuts in water supply in the future. He said the public comment was compelling and that the scale is mind boggling. We recognize that groundwater is a shared resource. He pondered a temporary halt on dewatering may be in order while more studies are done. He said the way we source and use our water is very important. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7624) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Amendment No. One to Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Project Design Contract Title: Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Design Contract Number C15158029 With Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers for an Additional Amount of $99,850 for a Total Amount Not-to-Exceed $699,850, for Programming of the Program Logic Controllers (PLC) for Fiber Optic Connections to Pump Stations and Creek Monitors as Part of the Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation Project SD-06101 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract C15158029 with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers (Attachment A) for an additional amount of $99,850 for a total contract amount not to exceed $699,850, to develop Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) programs and configure Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) servers using iFIX software for communications from the new PLCs to the SCADA servers for eight pump stations and three creek monitor systems. Background In 2005, Palo Alto property owners passed a ballot measure to increase the storm drain fee to implement various storm drain projects to upgrade and improve the storm drain system in the City. The Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project is one of the high-priority storm drain projects identified in the ballot measure. Construction of this project, which is underway, provides an opportunity to improve other components of the creek monitoring and pump station systems. City of Palo Alto Page 2 A fiber optics connection will be installed from the PLC located at the storm water pump stations and from creek monitors to the City’s fiber ring splice points. The purpose of the fiber optics connection is to enhance the speed of communication from the pump stations to the City SCADA system. Updating the PLCs at the creek monitors will greatly enhance the real time view and accuracy of the Creek Monitor page on the City website. The existing communications from the pump stations and creek monitoring station PLC are linked to the City’s SCADA system by copper wire connections. This amendment is for the PLC programming that is needed for all the new fiber connections to these storm stations and creek monitor. The hardware needed for the fiber optics line connection from the storm water pump stations and creek monitoring stations to the fiber ring splice points will be installed in the Capital Improvement Program project SD-06101, Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation. Discussion The additional scope of work outlined in the contract amendment consists of developing PLC programs and configuring iFIX SCADA servers for communications from the new PLCs to the SCADA servers for Matadero Creek, Adobe Creek and Airport Storm Water Pump Stations; PLC programming for the San Francisquito Creek, University Underpass, Embarcadero Underpass, Colorado and Homer Storm Water Pump Stations, Tide gate Level, Hale Avenue and West Bayshore San Francisquito Creek Level Monitoring Stations; and configuration of Local Operator Interface Terminals for local monitoring and control for all eleven stations. Timeline The PLC programming and configuration of iFIX SCADA for communications from the new PLCs to the SCADA servers is scheduled to be completed by October 2017, within the same time frame as the completion of the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station project. The installation of fiber optics line from City storm drain pump stations and creek monitors to City fiber ring splice points including installation of necessary hardwares at the stations will also be completed by October 2017. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Resource Impact Funding for the PLC programming and configuration of iFIX SCADA for communications from the new PLCs to the SCADA servers is available in the Storm Drainage Fund Capital Improvement Program project SD-06101, Storm Drain System Replacement and Rehabilitation. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA) under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments: Attachment A: C15158029-Amendemnt No.1-Final 1 Revision July 20, 2016 AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO CONTRACT NO. C15158029 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS This Amendment No. One to Contract No. C15158029 (“Contract”) is entered into February 6th, 2017, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, a California Corporation , located at 1171 Homestead Road, Suite 255, Santa Clara, CA 95050 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of professional engineering design services in connection with Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Project. B. The parties wish to amend the Contract by increasing the compensation from six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000) to a not to exceed amount of six hundred ninety nine thousand eight hundred fifty dollars ($699,850) and by expanding the scope of services to include development of PLC programs and configuration of iFIX SCADA servers for communications from the new PLC’s to the SCADA servers as specified in Exhibit “A-1” and Exhibit “A”. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 1, SCOPE OF SERVICES is hereby amended to read as follows: “CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in the attached Exhibit “A-1” as an addition to the Scope of Services described in “Exhibit A” of original Contract in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY.” SECTION 2. Section 2, TERM, is hereby amended to read as follows: “The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached at Exhibit “B” of the original contract and Exhibit “B-1” of amendment No.1 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. Section 3, SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE, is hereby amended to read as follows: “Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 Attachment A 2 Revision July 20, 2016 forth in Exhibit “B” of the original contract and Exhibit “B-1” of amendment No.1, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. Section 4, NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION, is hereby amended to increase the not to exceed amount by $99,850, to read as follows: The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “A-1”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Six-Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand Forty Dollars ($647,040) (the original contract amount of $547,190.00 plus the increased amount of $99,850). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Six-Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars ($699,850.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C” of the original contract and Exhibit “C-2” of amendment No.1. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A” of the original contract or Exhibit “A-1” of amendment No.1. Additional Services for this Contract Amendment, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibits “C” and “C-2”. Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is not determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A” or Exhibit “A-1”. SECTION 5. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract are hereby added to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A-1” entitled “AMENDMENT NO. ONE SCOPE OF SERVICES”. b. Exhibit “B-1” entitled “AMENDMENT NO. ONE SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. c. Exhibit “C-2” entitled “AMENDMENT NO. ONE COMPENSATION” DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 3 Revision July 20, 2016 SECTION 6. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager (Contract over $85k) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee (Contract over $25k) Contracts Administrator (Checklist Approval) SCHAAF & WHEELER, CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Attachments EXHIBIT "A-1": AMENDMENT NO. ONE SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT "B-1": AMENDMENT NO. ONE SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C-2”: AMENDMENT NO. ONE COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 President Charles D. Anderson EXHIBIT “A-1” SCOPE OF SERVICES Amendment No. One The original SCOPE OF SERVICES, Exhibit “A”, is amended by adding “TASK 7: Programming and Configuration of the Project Logic Controllers (PLC) for Fiber Optic Connections to Pump Stations and Creek Monitors” to the Detailed Project Approach and Scope of Work as set forth below. Task 7: Storm Water PLC Programming CONSULTANT’S electrical engineering subconsultant, TJC & Associates, Inc. (SUBCONSULTANT) will develop PLC programs using the latest version of Schneider Electric’s Unity Pro (currently using version 11.0). Operator Interface Terminal (OIT) programming and configuration will be performed using the latest version of Schneider Electric’s Vijeo Designer (currently using version 4.3). SUBCONSULTANT is a Schneider Electric Automation Partner and maintains licensing and support contracts for all Schneider automation software. Task 7.1 Pre-Programming Design Task 7.1.1 Control Strategies & I/O List Development SUBCONSULTANT will develop a complete I/O list for all 11 facilities and develop brief Control Strategies that define how each facility currently operates under PLC control, based on the existing FasTrak program printouts provided by City. Control Strategies shall be written on a loop-by-loop basis and include a brief narrative of the control system, a list of available manual controls, automated controls, monitored system parameters, process alarms, setpoints, and interlocks. The I/O list and Control Strategies document will be used as the basis for testing documentation during the testing phases of the project. Task 7.1.2 Development of Defined Function Blocks for City of Palo Alto SUBCONSULTANT will develop Unity Defined Function Blocks (DFBs) for common functions that are used throughout the City’s PLC system. DFBs will be developed for analog scaling, analog alarming, digital alarming, flow totalization, equipment elapsed runtime meters, etc. SUBCONSULTANT will incorporate these DFBs into the City’s Unity library so that they can be used on future city projects. Task 7.2 Matadero, Adobe, and Airport PLC and OIT Programming Programming and configuration work for the Matadero Pump Station, Adobe Pump Station, and Airport Pump Station will be performed on the hardware that is provided by the Contractor and Process Control Systems Integrator selected for the pump stations improvement project. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 Task 7.2.1 PLC Program Development SUBCONSULTANT will develop and document PLC programs for the following project PLCs. - Matadero Storm Water Pump Station - Adobe Storm Water Pump Station - Airport Storm Water Pump Station Programs will be fully annotated and documented. Programming will be implemented per the Control Descriptions developed under Task 1. Task 7.2.2 SCADA Programming Development SUBCONSULTANT will revise the existing iFIX system for monitoring and control of the three storm water pump stations. Where possible, the existing process database and graphics will be re- used. New work will be limited to where new database points and alarms are required due to the additional information available from the new pump station control programs. New data will be added to the existing displays or associated pop-up displays. Software configuration will include: - Configuration of iFIX SCADA servers for communications from the new PLCs for the information required for this project. - Modifications of existing graphic displays to show new process data and control points. - Configuration of historical data collection and trending for important process values. - Configuration of alarm monitoring for new alarm points. Task 7.2.3 Local OIT Configuration SUBCONSULTANT will configure Magelis local Operator Interface Terminals for local monitoring and control of: - Matadero Storm Water Pump Station - Adobe Storm Water Pump Station - Airport Storm Water Pump Station OIT graphics will use the same graphic standards and layout that have been developed for the iFIX displays. Task 7.2.4 Project Workshops and Meetings SUBCONSULTANT personnel anticipate attending three (3) 2-hour project workshops at the job site, or City of Palo Alto offices to coordinate with the Contractor and the City. SUBCONSULTANT personnel anticipate participating in three (3) teleconference calls for project coordination. These are in addition to one-on-one phone calls with members of the design team. Task 7.2.5 Witnessed Factory Testing DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 SUBCONSULTANT will download and install the PLC and OIT programs at the PCSI’s facility prior to the Factory Testing required by Specification Section 40 60 00. During the PCSI’s factory test procedure, SUBCONSULTANT programmers will verify memory mapping, scaling and functional operation of the software. Task 7.2.6 Operational Readiness Testing and Functional Acceptance Testing SUBCONSULTANT will provide on-site support during the PCSI’s specified Operational Readiness Testing (ORT). During the ORT, SUBCONSULTANT will verify point to point testing between field devices and the SCADA system, and confirm correct analog scaling and alarms for each analog point. Once the ORT is complete, SUBCONSULTANT will perform Functional Acceptance Testing (FAT) of all software functions in the PLC and OIT programs. Task 7.3 Storm Water Site PLC and OIT Programming SUBCONSULTANT will provide upgraded PLC and OIT Programming and configuration for the eight sites that the City is upgrading from the existing Modicon Compact984 PLC systems to the new Schneider Electric M340 PLC systems. Programming work will be performed on the hardware that is purchased by the City. Task 7.3.1 PLC Program Development SUBCONSULTANT will develop and document PLC programs for the following project PLCs. - San Francisquito Creek Storm Water Pump Station - University Underpass Storm Water Pump Station - Embarcadero Underpass Storm Water Pump Station - Colorado Storm Water Pump Station - Homer Storm Water Pump Station - Tidegate Level Monitoring Station - Hale Level Monitoring Station - West Bay SF Level Monitoring Station Programs will be fully annotated and documented. Programming will be implemented per the Control Descriptions developed under Task 1. Data provided to the existing iFIX SCADA system will be mapped to the same memory address locations that are used in the existing PLCs so that no SCADA changes will be required. Task 7.3. 2 Local OIT Configuration SUBCONSULTANT will configure Magelis local Operator Interface Terminals for local monitoring and control of: - San Francisquito Creek Storm Water Pump Station DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 - University Underpass Storm Water Pump Station - Embarcadero Underpass Storm Water Pump Station - Colorado Storm Water Pump Station - Homer Storm Water Pump Station - Tidegate Level Monitoring Station - Hale Level Monitoring Station - West Bay SF Level Monitoring Station OIT graphics will use the same graphic standards and layout that have been developed for the iFIX displays corresponding to these sites. Task 7.3.3 Project Workshops and Meetings SUBCONSULTANT personnel anticipate attending one (1) 2-hour project workshops at City of Palo Alto offices to coordinate with the City staff that is performing the PLC upgrade. SUBCONSULTANT personnel anticipate participating in two (2) teleconference calls for project coordination. These are in addition to one-on-one phone calls with members of the design team and City staff. Task 7.3.4 Bench Testing SUBCONSULTANT will download and install the PLC and OIT programs for the new hardware that is purchased by the City and perform Bench Testing prior to installation at the project site. Bench Testing will include verification of I/O mapping, analog scaling, simulated functional testing. Bench Testing will be performed at SUBCONSULTANT offices and the City staff may witness this testing, if desired. Task 7.3.5 Installation, Testing, and Commissioning Support SUBCONSULTANT will provide on-site support for City staff during installation and testing of the new PLC systems. Testing will include verification of all I/O points from field devices to the existing iFIX SCADA server, and functional testing of the new PLC and OIT programs and configuration. We anticipate testing to take two 8-hour days for storm water pump stations, and one 8-hour day for the level monitoring sites. Task 7.4 Documentation In addition to the actual program source files and configuration files, the primary documentation for the project software will be the detailed Control Descriptions and I/O list developed during Task 1. These documents will be maintained in the current status throughout the construction and testing phases of the project, and form the basis of the Operations Manual to be turned over to city staff at the end of the project. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 Task 7.5 Warranty Period Support At the completion of the construction phase, SUBCONSULTANT will warranty the PLC and OIT applications, developed by SUBCONSULTANT staff, against errors or bugs for a period of 12 months. Warranty Period Support does not include regular software maintenance, program backups, software upgrades, or third-party application failures. SUBCONSULTANT can provide these services on a T&M basis under a separate contract. Task 7.6 Project Management SUBCONSULTANT will provide Project Management associated with the programming and software development elements of the project, including but not limited to the following: - Coordination with the City staff throughout the duration of the project as well as Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) activities for project deliverables. - Coordination with the Construction Manager so that software elements meet the requirements of the project schedule. - Coordination with process engineers to ensure that the process control system meets the requirements of the treatment plant process. Assumptions The scope of work detailed above is based on the current understanding of the project requirements and is based on the following assumptions: - Initial process control descriptions will be defined and developed by SUBCONSULTANT based on reviewing the existing FasTrak program listings. - SUBCONSULTANT anticipates performing these programming services out of its Oakland Office. - Bench Testing will be performed using the PLC and OIT hardware that the City will purchase for upgrading the PLCs at each of the project sites. Bench Testing will be performed at SUBCONSULTANT’s Oakland office. - Travel expenses are included for Workshops, on-site coordination, testing and commissioning services. - SCADA configuration is included for the Matadero and Adobe pump stations. It is assumed that no additional SCADA work will be required for the other sites. - Documentation provided for this project will be provided in electronic format only. No printed copies of documentation are included. - Factory Testing will be performed at the PCSI’s testing facility and will be within 500 miles of our Oakland office. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 - During testing for the software developed for the Matadero project, standby time caused by the project Contractor’s lack of preparation, in excess of 90 minutes during an eight- hour work day, will be tracked and invoiced separately. - This proposal does not include any of the hardware or software required for this project. This proposal includes labor only for development of control systems programs and associated documentation. - Configuration of the network switches and any fiber optic converters is not included in this scope of work. These tasks will be performed by the City’s IT department. - The following items are NOT included within the Scope of Work detailed here or the Fee quoted: o Field visits and/or attendance at construction meetings not specifically included in the scope of work above. o Construction inspections. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 EXHIBIT “B-1” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE AMENDMENT NO. ONE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. CONSULTANT (and SUBCONSULTANT TJC & A, with respect to Exhibit “A-1”) will coordinate the programming schedule with the City before the start of construction. It is anticipated that the project will commence in the beginning of 2017 and be completed (excluding the Warranty Period Support) by October 2017. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 EXHIBIT “C-2” COMPENSATION AMENDMENT NO. ONE The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1, Pre-Programming $ 10,400 Task 2, Matadero, Adobe & Airport Programming $ 32,450 Task 3, Other Storm Water Site Programming $ 47,770 Task 4, Documentation $ 3,530 Task 5, Warranty Period Support $ 2,200 Task 6, Project Management $ 3,500 Sub-total Basic Services $99,850.00 Reimbursable Expenses $0 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $99,850.00 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $0 Maximum Total Compensation $99,850.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project managerand CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC859A4-8132-4BE2-BCC1-D7639CEBACA0 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7718) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Updated Ten-year Electric Energy Efficiency Goals Title: Approval of an Update to the City's Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Goals (2018 to 2027) From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommended Motion (Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation) I move to approve the proposed annual and cumulative Electric Energy Efficiency Goals for the period 2018 to 2027 as shown in the following table. Recommendation Utilities Advisory Commission and Staff recommend that Council approve the proposed annual and cumulative Electric Efficiency Goals for the period 2018 to 2027 as shown in the following table. Summary Table: Annual Electric Energy Efficiency Goals (% of total City customer usage) Electric (%) Electric MWh 2018 0.75% 7,300 2019 0.75% 7,300 2020 0.80% 7,800 2021 0.80% 7,800 2022 0.85% 8,300 2023 0.85% 8,300 2024 0.90% 8,600 2025 0.90% 8,600 2026 0.95% 9,100 2027 0.95% 9,200 Cumulative1 10-year EE Goal 5.7% 54,900 1 Cumulative EE savings are not equal to the sum of the annual incremental goals due to the differences in how long the electricity savings persist for different measures and different types of EE savings. For example, new hardware City of Palo Alto Page 2 Executive Summary Palo Alto has long recognized cost-effective energy efficiency (EE) as the highest priority energy resource, given that EE typically displaces relatively expensive electricity generation, lowers energy bills for customers, and contributes to economic development and job creation. As required by state legislation, the City adopted its first set of 10-year energy efficiency goals in April 2007, and updated these goals in 2010 and 2012. For the electric EE savings targets the City is required to establish under state law (AB 2227), EE savings that can be counted towards these goals are restricted to those savings directly attributable to utility programs which are funded by a mandated public benefits charge (2.85% of electric retail revenue). EE upgrades that customers undertake without participating in utility programs as well as EE savings achieved through federal and state appliance and building standards currently cannot be counted towards the City’s EE goals. Therefore the savings reported here and targeted by these goals represent a narrow subset of the actual energy efficiency upgrades taking place in Palo Alto. Over the past five years, building and appliance efficiency standards have become increasingly stringent. As federal and state efficiency standards increase, the energy savings attributable to utility programs decline. For this current EE goals update, staff proposes annual electric EE savings targets of 0.75% in 2018, increasing to 0.95% in 2027, with a cumulative 10-year EE savings of 5.7% of the City’s projected electric load. These are aggressive targets for Palo Alto, and are roughly 30% more ambitious than the previous goals adopted in 2012. Staff will explore various program strategies as well as innovative EE technologies to achieve these goals over the next decade. Committee Review and Recommendation The UAC considered staff’s recommendation at its February 1, 2017 meeting. After discussion, the UAC voted 5-0, with two commissioners absent, to accept the staff recommendation and recommended that Council adopt the proposed electric 10-year EE goals. Staff described the history and context for these EE goals, including previous updates of the electric 10-year EE goals in 2007, 2010, and 2012. Staff also described some of the modeling that went into developing the proposed goals and a few of the new low-cost EE programs under development. Utilities Advisory Commissioners inquired why CPAU would push for goals greater than the minimum acceptable goals in the face of negative load growth. Staff explained that a) the California Energy Commission is considering setting goals for mid-size POUs such as CPAU, and b) that energy efficiency can make room for additional loads (such as electric vehicle charging) on existing transmission and distribution infrastructure, and c) doing so with cost- effective measures was beneficial to the community. Commissioners also inquired how increased electric vehicle charging might affect CPAU’s ability to meet these EE goals in the future. Staff explained that the adopted percentage goals are translated into absolute energy upgrades contribute savings over their expected lifetimes, perhaps 15 years, whereas electricity savings from changing thermostat set-points are assumed to contribute savings over a much shorter period of time. City of Palo Alto Page 3 savings based on the current forecast, and therefore not affected by future load growth. Council also asked about the “Willingness and Awareness values” in the model related to customer behavior in Palo Alto. Staff responded that the statewide Willingness and Awareness values will be updated by the state over the next two years. After discussion, the Utilities Advisory Commission voted unanimously (5-0, with 2 Commissioners absent) to recommend that the Council approve the proposed electric 10-year EE goals in this report as the updated electric EE goals for 2018 to 2027. The excerpted sense minutes from the Commission’s discussion is provided as Attachment D. Background Council adopted the City’s first 10-year electric EE goals in April 2007, which were to reduce the City’s electric usage cumulatively by 3.5% by FY 2017. These goals met the state legislative requirements established by AB 2021 (2006) requiring publicly owned electric utilities to adopt annual electric efficiency savings goals for the next 10-year period, with the first set of goals due by June 1, 2007 and every three years thereafter. These EE goals were used for the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU’s) resource planning as well as for EE program budget planning. In May 2010 City Council updated the 10-year EE goals to reduce cumulative electric load by 7.2% between 2011 and 2020. The most recent set of 10-year EE goals was adopted by City Council in December 2012, with cumulative 10-year electric savings of 4.8% between 2014 and 2023. AB 2227 (2012) changed the triennial energy efficiency target-setting schedule to a quadrennial schedule, beginning March 15, 2013 and every fourth year thereafter. The next EE goals update is due to be submitted to the California Energy Commission by March 15, 2017. Figure 1 provides a summary of the annual electric EE goals and achievements since Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. The figure shows that actual CPAU EE achievements have exceed goals for most years. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Figure 1. Electric Efficiency Goals and Achievements for 2011-2016. 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Actual Savings 2012 Goals 2010 Goals 2007 Goals Percentages represent EE savings relative to load In 2015 California passed a landmark piece of energy legislation called Senate Bill 350 (SB-350) the “Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015”. SB 350 reinforces California’s position as a leader in clean energy and greenhouse gas reduction, and codifies Governor Brown’s ambitious “50/50/50” plan to procure 50% of electricity from renewable resources, reduce petroleum use by 50%, and double building efficiency in both electric and natural gas end uses by 2030. The statute lists a variety of programs to achieve the doubling of efficiency savings, including: 1) appliance and building standards; 2) utility programs that offer financial incentives, rebates, technical assistance and support to customers to increase EE; 3) programs that achieve EE savings through operational, behavioral and retrocommissioning activities; and 4) programs that save energy in final end uses through reducing distribution feeder voltage (i.e. conservation voltage reduction). In the spirit of SB 350’s goal to double building energy efficiency, staff proposes an ambitious set of 10-year EE goals for 2018 to 2027. It should be noted that since Palo Alto’s electric supply has been carbon-neutral since 2012 and that electric efficiency does not contribute additional greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Discussion Overview of Palo Alto’s Past Energy Efficiency Activities CPAU has offered energy efficiency programs since the 1970s. Its Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP), approved by City Council in March 2007 and last updated in 2012, affirmed cost- effective energy efficiency as the highest priority resource, with the goal of reducing average customer bills. The portfolio of EE programs has evolved over time. Originally the programs focused on rebates for customers administered by CPAU staff, but now include programs administered by third parties that provide EE audit and turnkey EE services to customers. Some of the notable programs in recent years include a turnkey lighting and refrigeration upgrade program for small businesses (Right Lights+), a comprehensive home efficiency audit and retrofit program that targets low income residences, a direct install program that implements sensors to power down beverage and snack vending machines at no charge to businesses, a new construction assistance program for commercial customers to increase building efficiency, a program that offers building commissioning services to large businesses, and a Home Energy Report program that provides individualized reports comparing residents’ home energy usage with their neighbors in similarly sized homes. Palo Alto was one of the first cities to pilot LED street light technology in 2009, in collaboration with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Since 2014, the City has converted 85% of its streetlights to LED streetlights (the remaining are decorative streetlights.) CPAU also has an ongoing Program for Emerging Technologies to evaluate, test and implement innovative emerging technologies that could help customers manage or reduce energy and water use. Besides utility programs, Palo Alto is also pursuing energy savings through its local green building code. In June 2015, City Council adopted an energy reach code within the Green Building Ordinance that requires 15% energy efficiency savings beyond California’s 2013 Title 24 building energy standards for single family, multifamily and non-residential new construction projects. This energy reach code was effective for the period from September 2015 to December 2016. Beginning January 2017 through December 2019, the energy reach code requires 10% energy efficiency savings beyond the state’s 2016 Title 24 building energy standards for single family, multifamily and non-residential new construction projects. As a reach code specific to only the City of Palo Alto, energy savings from this code are savings which may be counted towards these EE goals. From a supply resource planning perspective, CPAU has incorporated both historic EE savings as well as forecast EE savings (from Council-approved EE goals) when forecasting the aggregate customer loads for a 10-year planning period. Energy efficiency related savings impacted directly by utility programs over the past 10 years is estimated at 6.8% of 2016 loads, i.e. without such programs, Palo Alto’s electrical loads would have been 6.8% (60,300 MWh) higher in 2016. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Proposed Electric Efficiency Goals Staff proposes new annual electric EE targets at 0.75% of forecast electric load beginning in FY 2018, increasing 0.05% every two years, and eventually reaching 0.95% in FY 2026 and FY 2027. These proposed goals are approximately 30% more ambitious than the annual electric EE targets adopted in 2012 (see Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the actual historical EE savings and the proposed 2018 to 2027 EE goals. While the proposed EE goals may not initially appear aggressive relative to past goals and the historical savings, the proposed goals are quite ambitious considering that a) the computational model built by Navigant Consulting for Palo Alto2 suggests a market potential lower than the adopted 2012 goals for a business-as-usual approach, and b) the diminishing market potential due to more stringent codes and standards3. Staff believes these goals are ambitious but achievable given Palo Alto has consistently exceeded predicted EE market potential and that Staff has a number of new program strategies in preliminary stages. These proposed goals are also projected to be cost-effective based on both the model projections and past EE program costs. Lastly, they are also consistent with the principles expressed in Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP). If adopted, these EE goals will be included in the Efficiency implementation plan currently being developed for the S/CAP. Savings from EE can be reported on a net basis, meaning they exclude energy impacts from free-riders (program participants who would have installed EE even without incentives), or on a gross basis, meaning they include impacts from program participants that are free-riders. The goals in Figure 4 are based on “net” EE savings rather than “gross” EE savings4. This means they do not include the energy savings that would have occurred in the absence of utility incentives, and therefore most accurately reflect the EE savings attributable to CPAU’s programs. CPAU also excludes savings attributable to building and appliance codes and standards. In order to allow comparison with other utilities which set goals on a gross basis, the proposed annual goals in Figure 2 are shown as proposed (on a net basis without including codes and standards), as well as on a gross basis. In addition, if energy savings from codes and standards were included, CPAU’s goals would be approximately 1.1% per year as illustrated in Figure 2. These distinctions are important, as California IOUs and a few large POUs actively participate in the development of these codes and standards and subsequently claim savings attributed to these codes and standards. For context, in 2015 nearly 45% of PG&E’s claimed savings came 2 Navigant Consulting was contracted by the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) to build specific computational models for each of the NCPA member utilities. This model incorporates CPAU’s avoided costs, retail rates, and building stock data. Additional explanation of the Navigant Consulting EE potential model and Staff goal development is in Attachment A. 3 EE savings attributed to state mandated codes & standards are excluded from the EE potential for CPAU, and therefore also cannot count toward meeting its EE goals. 4 The 2016 EE Potential model assumes free-ridership at the measure level using a net-to-gross (NTG) ratio. The NTG ratios are based on California statewide evaluation studies and are documented in Database of Energy Efficiency Results (DEER). Generally, mature, low-cost technologies tend to have higher free-ridership. City of Palo Alto Page 7 from these codes and standards so one would expect California IOUs to have substantially higher EE goals than CPAU for claimed savings. Figure 2. Comparison of Proposed 2017 Electric EE goals and 2012 Electric EE Goals. Figure 3 shows the reported EE savings as well as the proposed annual electric EE goals expressed in MWh. The big jump in 2012’s reported savings was due to the completion of a significant EE project at a large commercial site, which is unlikely to be replicable. Figure 3. Historic EE Savings and Proposed Annual Electric EE Goals on an Energy Basis. City of Palo Alto Page 8 On a cumulative basis, the total EE savings from the proposed 2018 to 2027 targets represent 5.7% of the forecasted electric load in 2027, a 19% increase over the goals adopted in 2012. If the EE savings from codes and standards are included, the cumulative EE savings in 2027 is 8.5% of the forecasted electric load. The cumulative impact of the annual targets for this 10-year period is shown in Figure 4. It is important to note that some EE savings have a longer-lasting effect than others, as different EE measures have different useful lifetimes. Measure life for Light Emitting Diode (LED) bulbs can be up to 12 years, whereas behavioral savings last only last a few years. Due to the differences in EE savings persistence, the cumulative EE impact over the 10-year period is not equal to the sum of the annual EE goals for the 10 years. Figure 4. Proposed 2018-2027 Cumulative Electric EE Goals. Strategies for Achieving the Proposed EE Goals Achieving these ambitious EE goals will require the deployment of new innovative programs structures, increasing awareness of existing programs, and developing other program approaches to reach previously stranded sections of the energy efficiency market potential. One example of an innovative program structure that research suggests is highly effective is the idea of gamification5 for behavioral residential energy savings. The Energy Lottery pilot program currently being developed by staff could provide extremely cost-effective residential behavioral savings through gamification. 5 Gamification is the concept of applying of game-design elements and game principles to other areas in order to improve user engagement and other metrics. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Another example of a new pilot program currently underway is a training seminar for facilities managers called Building Operator Certification. This training could help tap into potential energy efficiency savings for large commercial and industrial customers. Also, as discussed in an earlier section, Palo Alto has adopted Green Building Ordinance that requires additional energy savings beyond the state’s building energy standards. Staff is currently investigating how to track and verify the energy savings attributed to the Green Building Ordinance. In addition, if the City chooses to implement an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) backbone of a smart-grid system staff will investigate a conservation voltage reduction program using the AMI infrastructure on its 68 primary feeders. Potential savings from this program are estimated to be up to 1% of the City’s annual electricity load, and could be realized by 2025 or 2026. All these plans are subject to Council consideration and approval. Staff is also investigating a distributed energy resources pilot, which could potentially contribute EE savings from smart thermostats and other emerging technologies. There are also potentially large EE savings from many City facilities, particularly if EE measures do not impact other operating constraints. This evolution of our EE portfolio is consistent with the general consensus among utilities that new approaches are needed to reach increasingly aggressive EE targets as traditional EE programs approach market saturation limitations. Projected Electric EE Program Costs Funding for EE programs comes from a mandated Public Benefit (PB)6 surcharge of 2.85% of the electric utility bill for all customers. Since all EE portfolios must be cost-effective, they can also be funded by supply resource funds. To meet the proposed EE goals, staff estimates that the annual EE budget will grow from about $3.4 million in FY 2018 to about $4.2 million in FY 2027. This projected EE program budget is anticipated to be roughly 85% of the annual PB collections. Figure 5 shows the actual electric EE program expenditures for FY 2008 through FY 2016 and the estimated annual EE budget between 2018 and 2027. 6 Public Benefits funds are required to be collected by legislative statute and can only be used on cost-effective energy efficiency, low income programs, renewable electricity, and research and development. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Figure 5. Actual and Projected Electric EE Program Costs. Retail Rate & Average Customer Bill Impact of the Proposed Electric EE Goals: EE programs impact retail rates in two ways. First, a lower electric load means that fixed costs (capital investments and fixed operating costs to run the electric utility) must be distributed over a lower electric sales volume, thereby increasing the average electric retail rate. Second, the use of funds to support EE programs increases the revenue requirements for the electric utility. Overall, these proposed goals are estimated to amount to a cumulative increase in the retail rate of approximately 5% by the year 2027. The majority of this retail rate increase is due to the cumulative load reduction from the proposed 10-year EE goals. Increased charging of electric vehicles, electrification of natural gas appliances, and other electric load growth could mitigate the retail rate impact of the EE programs. The total bill impact of the proposed goals is estimated to be neutral over the lifetime of the EE savings. Resource Impact As discussed above, staff estimates that the annual EE budget will grow from about $3.4 million in FY 2018 to about $4.2 million in FY 2027, and these goals will have other rate and bill impacts. Although this report contains preliminary estimates of the costs of achieving the proposed electric and gas EE goals, the detailed budget plan and staffing needs to meet the annual EE goals will be part of the annual City budgeting process. The annual budget will present the costs for both internally administered, as well as contractor supported, efficiency programs. Policy Implications Adoption of the proposed electric 10-year EE goals will replace the 2012 10-year electric EE City of Palo Alto Page 11 goals and will inform the EE program planning and load forecasting for the next four years. These goals will also be included in the LEAP, the Electric Utility Integrated Resource Plan, and the City’s Sustainability Implementation Plan. The proposed 2017 electric EE goals are consistent with the Utilities Strategic Plan and the City’s S/CAP. Environmental Review Council approval of the 2017 10-year electric EE goals does not require California Environmental Quality Act review, because the plan does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as an administrative governmental activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Attachments: Attachment A: Energy Efficiency Potential Modeling Attachment B: Cost-Effectiveness Tests For Energy Efficiency Programs Attachment C: Top 20 Electric Efficiency Measures in 2018 Attachment D: Excerpted Draft UAC Minutes of February 1, 2017 Page A-1 ATTACHMENT A: ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL MODELING Energy Efficiency Potential Model Overview The first step in establishing EE goals is to model the potential for energy savings within the City. This step was completed using an EE potential model developed by Navigant Consulting. The 2016 EE potential model is similar to the one used by CPAU and other California publicly owned utilities (POUs) in 2012 as well as the model most recently used by the California Public Utilities Commission to determine the EE potential for investor-owned utilities (IOUs). The model estimates the technical, economic and market potential for energy efficiency measures for residential and non-residential customers, defined as follows: • Technical potential is the energy savings that would result from installation of the most energy efficient measures that are commercially available, regardless of cost- effectiveness. • Economic potential includes only savings from the installation of cost-effective EE measures. • Maximum Market potential is a subset of the economic potential which is scaled by customers’ awareness and willingness to adopt energy efficient equipment. • Market potential is the achievable portion of the maximum market potential calculated by the model, given: 1) the calibration of the model based on actual EE savings for a specific utility, and 2) the programs the utility chooses to include. The model is calibrated based on the achieved EE savings by end use, and uses a 3-year average from 2013 to 2015 is used as the base year. The model also takes into account past EE program achievements as well as user-specified input such as projected avoided energy costs, retail rates of electricity, discount rate, building stock, and assumptions regarding appliance and equipment penetration. Efficiency measures included in the analysis cover over 170 current and emerging electric efficiency measures. For each year starting in 2015, the model steps through the calculation of the technical potential, then filters out the uneconomic measures to determine the economic potential, then estimates the maximum market potential based on customers’ awareness and willingness to adopt and, finally, computes the market potential by applying a diffusion curve function to the maximum market potential for the portfolio of EE programs. The calculated market potential forms the basis of the proposed EE goals for 2018 to 2027. Figure A-1 shows the model’s sequential narrowing from technical potential to market potential. Page A-2 Figure A-1. 2016 Navigant EE Potential Model Steps for Modeling CPAU Market Potential. Limitations of the EE Potential Model The 2016 EE Potential model has some intrinsic limitations. One source of uncertainty is the values for “willingness and awareness” used within the model, which attempt to approximate customer awareness of energy efficiency measures and their willingness to install the measures. The projected market potential is extremely sensitive to these values, as the maximum market potential is essentially the product of the economic potential and the willingness and awareness values. The 2016 EE potential model applies generic values adopted from the IOUs’ EE potential model. Given the unique demographics of Palo Alto, the “willingness and awareness” numbers for Palo Alto will likely be different from the IOUs’. Cost projections from the model should also be treated as estimates, as the model’s measure costs are based on Navigant’s measure database, rather than actual CPAU measure costs. Also, the model does not readily accommodate analysis using different avoided costs. More broadly, this model cannot predict future disruptive technologies, or calculate savings from programs with completely new and different structures. One such example is the energy savings attributed to Palo Alto’s Green Building Code. Model Results For Palo Alto, this 2016 EE potential model estimates an annual incremental market potential of 0.6% of the forecasted load for 2018-2027 if Palo relies solely on a business as usual approach. This 10% decline in market potential from the 2012 EE goals is due to both the model limitations as well the effects of market saturation for mature EE programs like Palo Alto’s. However, given Palo Alto’s reputation as a leader in energy efficiency and the statewide vision for doubling energy efficiency, Staff has used the model to estimate the types of programs needed and funds required to achieve ambitious but still cost-effective EE savings goals. Page A-3 The 2016 EE Potential model also breaks down future market potential by end use. Figure A-2 shows that the majority of the 2018 energy savings are expected from the non-residential sector (74%) while only 26% of the savings are from the residential sector. Of the residential savings, over 80% is projected to come from behavioral programs, such as the Home Energy Reports. Savings from lighting make up another 27% of the total energy savings in 2018. However, it is important to note that with increasing lighting efficiency standards, lighting savings are predicted to only account for 12% of the incremental market potential by 2027. Non-residential comprehensive savings (14% of the incremental market share in 2018) are primarily energy savings from retrocommissioning activities such as resetting temperature and schedule of the building HVAC control system, recalibrating sensors and variable frequency drives. A list of the top twenty electric efficiency measures in 2018 is provided in Appendix B. Figure A-2. Composition of Electric EE Market Potential in 2018. Page B-1 ATTACHMENT B: COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS The primary aim of cost-effective energy efficiency programs is to reduce utility cost and hence customer bills while improving the environment. Cost-effectiveness can be measured in many ways. The four perspectives most commonly used in efficiency program cost-effectiveness testing are: 1. Participant: An energy efficiency measure that provides net savings to a customer is cost-effective for them as a “participant.” If a customer’s initial investment, after accounting for utility rebates and tax incentives, can be recouped with lower operating cost over the life of the measure, the measure is considered cost-effective from a participant’s perspective. 2. Utility: A measure that lowers overall cost for the utility is cost-effective for the utility (also referred to as “Program Administrator”). For CPAU, this could also be considered the “all ratepayers test” or “average utility bill test,” as it reflects the change in the utility bill to the average customer. To be cost-effective from the utility perspective, the cost of the program (administrative and rebate costs) must be less than the savings from not purchasing the energy supply. 3. Total Resource: If the combination of the utility and all customers together save money, it is cost-effective from a “Total Resource Cost (TRC)” or societal viewpoint. 4. Non-Participant: Even if the bill for the average customer shrinks significantly, retail rates could increase slightly, so that customers who do not reduce consumption could see a slight increase in rates and therefore bills. This effect is due to the portion of retail revenue that must be collected to pay for fixed costs. For this reason it is important to design diverse programs to be widely available in order to facilitate efficiency implementation in as broad a manner as possible. The Non-Participant perspective is also called the Rate Impact perspective. The Total Resource Cost reflects the financial perspective of the Palo Alto community as a whole. The Utility Cost, Participant and Rate Impact perspectives should also be considered to ensure lower average bills and sufficient incentives to achieve participation The costs and benefits that are used to calculate the benefit-cost ratios for each of these different perspectives are illustrated below: Page B-2 Table B-1: Cost-Effectiveness Perspectives and Associated Costs and Benefits Cost Effectiveness Test Costs Benefits Participant Cost Test (PCT) Does the participant save money? Measure Cost Incentive to customer Bill Savings Tax Savings Program Administrator Cost (PAC)- Average Bill Are utility revenue requirements lowered? Incentive to customer Program Delivery Cost Avoided Supply Costs Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) Sum of Participant + Non-participant Are total community expenditures lowered? Measure Cost Program Delivery Cost Avoided Supply Costs Tax Savings Rate Impact Measure (RIM) Also known as non-participant test Are utility rates lowered? Incentives to customer Lost Revenues (=Bill Savings) Program Delivery Cost Avoided Supply Costs The Electric EE potential analysis assumes the cost of renewable energy as the avoided supply cost. Page C-1 ATTACHMENT C: TOP 20 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY MEASURES IN 2018 The following table lists the top twenty electric efficiency measures in 2018. This list does not included behavioral programs. The combined energy savings from these 20 measures represents around 50% of the total market potential. Rank Top Fifty Measures – 2018 2018 - Energy Savings (MWh) Energy % of Total 1 Com-Office - Retro-commissioning (a) 565 12.3% 2 Com-ALL - Pump and Fan Variable Frequency Drive Controls (VFDs) 262 5.7% 3 Com-Office - Thermostat Replacement 172 3.7% 4 Res-SF New - T24 15% Stretch Goal Compliant Home 114 2.5% 5 Com-Office - Comprehensive Rooftop Unit Quality Maintenance (AC Tune-up) 112 2.4% 6 Electronics - Efficient Lighting Equipment 106 2.3% 7 Com-Retail - LED fixture: 33W, 3500 lumens 91 2.0% 8 Com-Retail - LED downlight, screw-in lamp, 1-3W, interior Average 2 Watts (a) 91 2.0% 9 Com-Office - Retro-commissioning (b) 86 1.9% 10 Com-Retail - LED downlight, screw-in lamp, 1-3W, interior Average 2 Watts (b) 74 1.6% 11 Other Industrial - Efficient Lighting Equipment 73 1.6% 12 Com-Office - Centrifugal Chiller - Average kW/Ton = 0.56 67 1.5% 13 Com-Office - Demand Controlled Ventilation 67 1.4% 14 Com-Lodging - LED fixture: 33W, 3500 lumens 59 1.3% 15 Com-Office - Bi-Level Lighting Fixture – Stairwells, Hallways, and Garages 58 1.3% 16 Com-Retail - Electronically Commutated (EC) Motor w/Fan Cycling Controls for Cold Storage Evaporator Fans 58 1.3% 17 Com-Office - Reciprocating Chiller - Average kW/Ton = 0.84 56 1.2% 18 Com-Office - Electronically Commutated (EC) Motor w/Fan Cycling Controls for Cold Storage Evaporator Fans 55 1.2% 19 Com-Office - Screw Chiller - Average kW/Ton = 0.68 52 1.1% 20 Com-Retail - LED fixture: 33W, 3500 lumens 49 1.1% Top 20 Total 2,267 49.2% EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 1, 2017 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION ITEM 3. ACTION: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation That Council Approve the Update on the City of Palo Alto’s Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Goals (2018 to 2027) Resource Planner Lena Perkins presented on the electric energy efficiency goals. She mentioned one important context for this goal-setting exercise was the adoption of SB 350 in 2015. The legislation required doubling of energy efficiency in the State of California. Utility energy efficiency is only one component of that doubling, and utilities with aggressive goals like the City had less room to increase their energy efficiency goals. A computational model was used to assess market potential. The 2015 model, as compared to the 2012 model, included high impact, low cost behavioral programs. These new types of programs included training of facility managers and green building code adoption. Most savings were expected from commercial and industrial customers as compared to residential customers. Most residential savings were likely to come from behavioral programs. She showed the proposed goals compared to the previous goals. The proposed goals were ambitious, a 20-30% increase over existing goals. There were a number of new programs staff planned to use to achieve the goals. However, they were even more aggressive considering the energy efficiency measures that could not be counted because they were incorporated into Building Codes and Standards. She showed historical savings, noting that 2012 savings were particularly high due to a large data center project that was unlikely to be replicated. She noted that the long term rate impact of the efficiency measures was roughly 5%, but that the loss of revenue could be offset by increases in load due to electric vehicle adoption or other load growth. Commissioner Johnston asked about the rate impact why we were setting such aggressive targets when we might be seeing negative load growth in the future. Perkins replied that the state was considering setting EE goals for mid-sized POUs. Perkins also stated that we were required to both collect funds to spend on EE and show that our EE programs delivered real, cost-effective savings. She noted that any EE savings in City facilities would allow the City to save money. Abendschein added that EE savings could make room on the existing distribution system for load growth such as increased EV charging. Abendschein also made the distinction between retail rates and bills, as bills are projected to remain nearly flat while the retail rates may go up. ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT D Commissioner Schwartz asked why we were setting such aggressive targets. Perkins stated that the State was considering setting utility specific EE targets, and that these goals might not be aggressive compared to those targets. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the cost effectiveness of the City’s portfolio. Perkins stated that staff was focused on creative, cost-effective programs. The portfolio as a whole is projected to be cost-effective. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the home energy reports, since many residents were unhappy with the comparison to their neighbors. Perkins replied that the Home Energy Reports had been discontinued two years ago, but that Staff was working on a Behavioral Program centered around “carrots” and gamification in the form of the potential residential Energy Lottery. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the Program for Emerging Technologies. Perkins responded that the Program for Emerging Technologies was housed within the Utilities Department, and offered to send more information about the program. Commissioner Forssell asked about the Navigant energy efficiency model discussed in Attachment A of the staff report. She referenced that the model was highly sensitive to the “Willingness and Awareness value” used. She asked what value was used for Palo Alto. Perkins said the values used were a bit stale but were in the process of being updated by the State. There is also a question of how people actually behave around conservation, whether there is a rebound effect or whether perhaps once people conserve in one area they view themselves as conservation type people. Commissioner Schwartz stated that she has seen people where they define themselves as “green” and they want to do more and more conservation and environmental programs. Commissioner Ballantine asked how EVs factored into these programs Perkins stated EVs were not factored in. The CEC had recommended that these not be included. Commissioner Ballantine asked how EVs were factored in to the behavioral programs. He noted that his EV had made him get a bad score on his Home Energy Report. ATTACHMENT D Perkins stated the savings were based on actual measures installed according to a reporting methodology. The City was only able to make savings claims based on rebates actually provided and assumptions about the savings from that specific measure. Commissioner Schwartz said this was a regular problem for measurement and verification, particularly for education and marketing programs. She disclosed she was starting a measurement and verification project with Navigant to do a project in Colorado, and asked the City Attorney to let her know if she needed to recuse herself. Commissioner Ballantine asked whether load increase from EVs would negatively affect the savings the City could claim. Perkins said that load increase from EVs or others would not affect those savings as the EE savings will be reported in absolute energy savings numbers to the CEC. Commissioner Schwartz recommended approval of the staff recommendation since any model is inherently limited. Perkins responded that a great deal of work and sensitivity analysis went into these recommended goals, but that any model was limited by the quality of the data and the structure of the model. Trumbull moved to approve the staff recommendation, Ballantine seconded staff recommendation. Passed 5-0 ACTION: Commissioner Trumbull moved, seconded by Commissioner Ballantine to recommend Council approve the proposed annual and cumulative Electric Energy Efficiency Goals for the period 2018 to 2027 as shown in the following table: Summary Table: Annual Electric Energy Efficiency Goals (% of total City customer usage) Electric (%) Electric MWh 2018 0.75% 7,300 2019 0.75% 7,300 2020 0.80% 7,800 2021 0.80% 7,800 2022 0.85% 8,300 2023 0.85% 8,300 2024 0.90% 8,600 2025 0.90% 8,600 ATTACHMENT D 2026 0.95% 9,100 2027 0.95% 9,200 Cumulative 10-year EE Goal 5.7% 54,900 The motion carried unanimously (5-0, with Commissioners Ballantine, Forssell, Johnston, Schwartz, and Trumbull voting yes and Chair Cook and Vice Chair Danaher absent). City of Palo Alto (ID # 7803) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Sheridan Apartments Loan Agreement: Amendment No. 1 Title: Approval of Amendment Number 1 to the Promissory Note and Amendment Number 1 to the Agreement Between the City and Palo Alto Housing Corporation for the Acquisition of Sheridan Apartments at 360 Sheridan Avenue; and Approval of an Expenditure of Funds Held by PAHC for the Acquisition of a Property Interest the Sheridan 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: 1. Amendment No. 1 to Loan Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing Corporation Regarding the Sheridan Apartments at 360 Sheridan Avenue; and 2. Amendment No. 1 to the related Promissory Note (Residential Housing In-lieu Funds/Community Development Block Grant Funds) Secured by (a) Assignment of Promissory Note Secured by Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents, and (b) Assignment of Affordability Reserve Account. 3. Pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Loan Agreement, the expenditure of Affordability Reserve Account Funds in the amount of Two Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty One Dollars ($279,731) to finance Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s December 2016 purchase of the property from the Limited Partnership. Background and Discussion The Sheridan Apartments is an existing 57-unit affordable housing project that serves income- City of Palo Alto Page 2 eligible seniors. The project is located at 360 Sheridan Avenue and is owned and operated by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), a non-profit housing provider and long-time partner of the City’s. The City and PAHC entered into a Loan Agreement (Attachment C) in the amount of $2,450,000 on December 8, 1998 to fund the acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments by PAHC for their use and operation as rental housing for low-income and very-low income households.1 In addition, PAHC executed a Promissory Note (Attachment D) in favor of the City. One of the provisions of both the loan agreement and the promissory note is that PAHC was to establish an Affordability Reserve Account to protect against the reduction or termination of affordability housing funds through the federal Section 8 assistance program. The Loan Agreement states that once the Affordability Reserve Account reaches a balance of $1,000,000, PAHC shall make payments according to the terms of the note and interest on the Note increases from 3% to 9%. The Note specifies that PAHC shall make payments of principal and interest to the City deferred until March 1st of the year following the calendar year during which the total amount deposited in the Affordability Reserve Account reaches $1,000,000. PAHC recently informed staff that the balance of the Affordability Reserve Account has reached $1,000,000, triggering both the increased interest rate and payments on the Note. At this time, repayment of the loan would not benefit the City, as the majority of the funds would be heavily restricted under federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) regulations. In addition, staff believes an increase in the Affordability Reserve Account is prudent in light of the passage of time since the existing threshold was established, increased housing costs in that period, and increased uncertainty regarding federal housing programs. Thus staff believes it is in the mutual interests of the City and PAHC to restructure the Loan Agreement and Promissory Note to increase the threshold amount of the Affordability Reserve Account to $2,600,000, delaying the due date of payments and the increase in interest rate. If these changes are made immediately, they would give the parties time to negotiate more comprehensive changes to the Loan Agreement and Promissory Note. In addition, PAHC has requested Council approval to draw $279,731 from the Affordability Reserve Account in order to fund its December 2016 buyout of the Sheridan Apartments property from the limited partnership that was formed when the property was first acquired. Staff supports this request, as such use of Affordability Reserve Account funds is specifically contemplated in the Loan Agreement. Section 5.3 of the Loan Agreement states, in pertinent part: 1 Low income households are those earning 51-80% of the area median income or around $54K-$85K for a family of four; very-low income households are those earning less than that. City of Palo Alto Page 3 “Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, and subject to City Council action and approval, and to any and all applicable CDBG and other federal regulations, funds from the Affordability Reserve Account may, in addition to the uses permitted under Section 5.2 of this Agreement, be considered for use to fund future rehabilitation expenses of the Property or to assist in the costs of purchase of the Property from the Partnership by PAHC or by PAHC Sheridan Apartments, Inc.” Policy Implications The actions recommended in this report implement the City’s Housing Element policies and programs supporting the development of low income housing, including: 1. H1.2 Policy – Support efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods; and 2. H3.1.4 Program – Preserve affordable housing stock by monitoring compliance, providing tenant education, and seeking other sources of funds for affordable housing developments at risk of market rate conversions. The City will continue to renew existing funding sources supporting rehabilitation and maintenance activities. Resource Impact With the requested action, PAHC’s payments of principal and interest will be deferred until the Affordability Reserve Account reaches $2,600,000 and Palo Alto Housing Corp will be able to use $279,731 from the reserve account to reimburse themselves for buy-out of the limited partnership as anticipated in the agreement. These actions will have no impact on the City’s general fund. Timeline The agreement will be executed and recorded after Council approval. 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 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: Sheridan Apartments Agreement Amendment No 1 (DOC) Attachment B: Sheridan Apartments Promissory Note Amendment No. 1 (DOC) Attachment C Loan Agreement (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 4 Attachment D Promissory Note (PDF) 1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION TO FUND THE ACQUISITION OF THE SHERIDAN APARTMENTS AT 360 SHERIDAN AVENUE This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”) to the Agreement to Fund the Acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments at 360 Sheridan Avenue (“Loan Agreement”) is entered into March ____, 2017 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“City”), and PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION, a California non-profit corporation, located at 725 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (“PAHC”), with reference to the following facts: R E C I T A L S A. The City and PAHC entered into the Loan Agreement on or about December 8, 1998 to fund the acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments by PAHC for their use and operation as rental housing for low-income and very-low-income households. B. The City and PAHC concurrently executed a Promissory Note (“Note”) in favor of the City in principal amount of $2,450,000. B. Section 5 of the Loan Agreement provides that PAHC shall establish an Affordability Reserve Account to protect against reduction or termination of affordable housing funds through the federal Section 8 Assistance program. C. Section 5 of the Loan Agreement further provides that once the Affordability Reserve Account reaches a balance of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), PAHC shall make payments to the City in accordance with the terms of the Note. D. In order to further secure the affordable status of the Sheridan Apartments, regardless of federal assistance for affordable housing, the parties wish to amend the Loan Agreement to increase the total amount that may be deposited in the Affordability Reserve Account before payments of principal and interest are due. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 5.1 of the Loan Agreement, Establishment of Affordability Reserve Account, is hereby amended to read as follows: PAHC will cause PAHC Sheridan to contribute to PAHC all incentive management fees paid to PAHC Sheridan by the Partnership. PAHC agrees that, to the extent that it receives payments of principal and/or interest from the Partnership pursuant to the terms of the Partnership Note (“Partnership Note Payments”) and/or contributions of incentive management fees from PAHC Sheridan (“Incentive Fee Payments”), PAHC will use such Partnership Note Payments and Incentive Fee Payments for the following purposes only: (a) first, PAHC will deposit 100% of all 2 Partnership Note Payments and Incentive Fee Payments in one or more segregated interest bearing accounts established in PAHC's name with one or more financial institutions satisfactory to City (collectively, the “Affordability Reserve Account”), until such time as the total amount deposited therein, together with interest thereon, equals the Affordability Reserve Completion Amount, as defined herein; and (b) thereafter, to make payments to the City in accordance with the terms of the Note. Effective January 1, 2016, the Affordability Reserve Completion Amount shall be Two Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,600,000). SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Loan Agreement, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // 3 SECTION 4. This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, without reference to the principles thereof respecting conflicts of laws. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ City Attorney APPROVED: _________________________________ City Manager _________________________________ Director of Administrative Services _________________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION By:______________________________ Name: ___________________________ Title:_____________________________ By:______________________________ Name: ___________________________ Title:_____________________________ SIGNTAURES TO BE NOTARIZED 1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROMISSORY NOTE (RESIDENTIAL HOUSING IN-LIEU FUNDS/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS) SECURED BY (a) ASSIGNMENT OF PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST AND ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS, AND (b) ASSIGNMENT OF AFFORDABILITY RESERVE ACCOUNT This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”) to the Promissory Note for Residential Housing In-Lieu Funds and Community Development Block Grant Funds (“Note”) is entered into March ____, 2017 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“City” or “Holder”), and PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION, a California non-profit corporation, located at 725 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (“PAHC” or “Maker”), with reference to the following facts: R E C I T A L S A. On or about December 8, 1998, the City and PAHC entered into an Agreement to fund the acquisition of the Sheridan Apartments by PAHC for their use and operation as rental housing for low-income and very-low-income households (“Loan Agreement”). B. Section 5 of the Loan Agreement provides that PAHC shall establish an Affordability Reserve Account to protect against reduction or termination of affordable housing funds through the federal Section 8 Assistance program. C. On or about December 8, 1998, PAHC executed the Note in favor of the City in principal amount of $2,450,000, which was secured, in part, by the Affordability Reserve Account required under the Loan Agreement. D. Section 5 of the Note provides that PAHC’s obligations to make payments of principal and interest to the City shall be deferred until March 1 of the year following the calendar year during which the total amount deposited in the Affordability Reserve Account reaches $1,000,000. D. Section 6 of the Note provides that the interest rate applicable to the principal amount of the note shall be 3% until the last day of the month during which the total amount deposited in the Affordability Reserve Account reaches $1,000,000. E. In order to further secure the affordable status of the Sheridan Apartments, regardless of federal assistance for affordable housing, the parties wish to amend the Note to increase the total amount that may be deposited in the Affordability Reserve Account before payments of principal and interest are due. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 5 of the Note is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 Maker shall pay Holder principal and accrued interest in annual installments on March 1 of each year until the entire amount of principal and interest hereunder have been paid in full. Maker shall make annual payments equal to the sum of (i) the amount required to be paid to Maker by the Partnership each March 1 under the Partnership Note; plus (ii) the amount paid by the Partnership to PAHC Sheridan Apartments, Inc. as its incentive management fee for the preceding calendar year; plus (iii) amounts from the Affordability Reserve Account that have become due and payable to Holder for application to interest and principal under this Note, as described in Section 5.2 of the Loan Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, effective January 1, 2016, Maker's obligation to make payments of principal and interest to Holder shall be deferred until March 1 of the year following the calendar year during which the total amount deposited in the Affordability Reserve Account (together with all interest earnings thereon) ·first reaches Two Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,600,000) (the “Affordability Reserve Completion Year”; the accumulation of $2,600,000 in the Affordability Reserve Account is referred to herein as “Affordability Reserve Completion”). Annual payments thereafter shall then be due and payable on or before March 1 of the calendar year following the Affordability Reserve Completion Year and each subsequent year during the term of this Note. Payments shall be credited first to any accrued but unpaid interest, then to current interest then due and owing, and then to principal. SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Note, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. // // // // // // // // 3 SECTION 4. This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, without reference to the principles thereof respecting conflicts of laws. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO _________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ City Attorney PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION By:______________________________ Name: ___________________________ Title:_____________________________ By:______________________________ Name: ___________________________ Title:_____________________________ City of Palo Alto (ID # 7584) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: New 3-year contract for Microsoft Licensing Title: Approval of a 3-Year Contract With SoftwareOne, Inc. for Microsoft Licensing in the Amount of $455,707 Annually From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the following: 1) A new three-year agreement with SoftwareOne, Inc. in the amount of $455,707 annually to pay for the City’s annual Microsoft licensing. 2) Authorize a 20% contingency in the amount of $91,141 each year for the purchase of Microsoft licensing for any unforeseen licensing needs. Executive Summary This is a support services contract for Microsoft Product Licensing and Maintenance as described in the Riverside County Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. The City of Palo Alto has used the Riverside Enterprise Agreement since 2005 to secure discounted pricing of Microsoft licensing. Riverside’s sheer volume of licenses of Microsoft products used has allowed them to obtain deep discounts on these products. This discount is allowed to be passed on to other agencies within the state. The products and services in this annual licensing run the City’s email system; a large proportion of our City data center core systems; productivity software such as Word, Excel, and PowerPoint both installed and online; video conferencing; SharePoint; and many more essential City solutions. Background On April 23, 2012, Council approved contract C12144913 with CompuCom Systems Inc. for a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (MEA) (Staff Report: 2649) for 4,260 licenses for various Microsoft software programs. This agreement was initially executed by the County of Riverside, California (RIVCO-20800-(002-007)-12/12 and is extended to local agencies to take advantage of the competitive pricing that has been negotiated through City of Palo Alto Page 2 this contract. The MEA covers all Microsoft licensing and maintenance at an annual cost of $210,617 and is valid through January 2017. Office 365 licenses were also added to this agreement back in December 2015 and additional Office 365 licenses in 2016 which increased the annual cost to $310,000. The City will again be piggybacking with the County of Riverside for Microsoft licensing. Every year on the City’s anniversary date an annual true-up is performed which compares the actual number of licenses used by City staff against how many licenses the City has already purchased. The cost associated with this true-up includes the license cost of these items as well as the Software Assurance for the remaining years on the agreement. Software Assurance provides the City with Planning Services to enable efficient deployment of licenses and solutions, in-person and online training for IT and end users, and rights to new software releases during the term of the agreement at no additional cost. Discussion The execution of this contract will ensure the current services provided by Microsoft, namely the annual licenses necessary for Office 365 which provides the City’s city-wide email services as well as critical applications such as Microsoft Office Word and Excel. The annual cost for this new three-year contract is $455,707 for a three-year term ($1.37 million), not to exceed $1.65 million when including the 20% contingency. Although the previous contract annual amount was $310,000 annually, annual true-ups over the term of the contract totaled approximately $380,000. The Information Technology Department diligently reviewed this new contract ensuring the City is accurately licensed for all necessary components such as server licensing, user licensing and security licensing. This contract not only renews the existing volume in the prior contract but it accounts for additional user licensing for position vacancies and for new hires. Variances such as these were accounted for in the annual true-up in the prior contract. The licensing level was marginally increased to provide more robust security capabilities such as enterprise mobility plus security and mobile device management. This increased security will allow the City to consolidate some security vendors. In addition to required licenses, staff has also included additional licensing that could be leveraged for future functionality such as Power BI (Business Intelligence) which allows for visual report writing and dashboard capabilities. Adding this minimal charge to the annual agreement allows the City to leverage the current discounted pricing should staff decide to implement the new functionality citywide. These licenses will allow the City to have even greater functionality with Office 365. Additional details of the services provided through this contract can be found in Attachment C. A contingency of twenty percent is recommended annually to be allocated for Microsoft City of Palo Alto Page 3 licensing in order to fund any unforeseen licensing purchase needs that occur. Resource Impact The funding for the current Microsoft contract is budgeted in the Information Technology Fund and allocated out to departments as part of the Information Technology Department’s allocated charges. The marginal increase of the annual base contract level will be incorporated into the development of the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget, and funding for subsequent years of the contract will be subject to approval through the annual budget process. Environmental Review Approval of these contracts do not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required. Attachments: Attachment A: Master Enterprise Agreement Attachment B: Microsoft Signature Form Attachment C: City of Palo Alto Licensing Quote Quoted to:City of Palo Alto Microsoft 3 Year EA Renewal SPE Revision #2 Year 2 and 3 Date 2/15/2017 EA# 6849237 Quantity Part #Description Unit Price Ext. Price 24 9GS-00135 CISSteDCCore ALNG SA MVL 2Lic CoreLic $154.89 3,717.36$ 248 9GA-00313 CISSteStdCore ALNG SA MVL 2Lic CoreLic $31.93 7,918.64$ 1,000 359-00961 SQLCAL ALNG SA MVL UsrCAL $31.81 31,810.00$ 15 810-04760 SQLSvrEnt ALNG SA MVL $1,309.05 19,635.75$ 12 228-04437 SQLSvrStd ALNG LicSAPk MVL $318.94 3,827.28$ 56 9EP-00208 SysCtrDatactrCore ALNG SA MVL 2Lic CoreLic $45.74 2,561.44$ 304 9EN-00198 SysCtrStdCore ALNG SA MVL 2Lic CoreLic $16.76 5,095.04$ 2 MX3-00117 VSEntwMSDN ALNG SA MVL $999.05 1,998.10$ 1 77D-00111 VSProwMSDN ALNG SA MVL $286.11 286.11$ 20 6VC-01252 WinRmtDsktpSrvcsCAL ALNG LicSAPk MVL UsrCAL $46.80 936.00$ 140 9EA-00278 WinSvrDCCore ALNG SA MVL 2Lic CoreLic $117.30 16,422.00$ 560 9EM-00270 WinSvrSTDCore ALNG SA MVL 2Lic CoreLic $16.76 9,385.60$ 100 3NS-00003 ExchgOnlnPlan2Gov ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr $65.36 6,536.00$ 1,100 AAA-11984 SPE E3 FromSA GOV ShrdSvr ALING SubsVL MVL PerUsr $254.96 280,456.00$ 100 AAA-11982 SPE E3 GOV ShrdSvr ALING SubsVL MVL PerUsr $310.28 31,028.00$ 30 3GU-00001 O365ATPGOV ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr $16.40 492.00$ 120 9K4-00003 VisioProO365GFromSA ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr $98.65 11,838.00$ 2 DDJ-00001 PowerBIProGOV ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr $81.15 162.30$ 2 7VX-00001 ProjOnlnPremGOV ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr $439.78 879.56$ 100 7E7-00001 ProjOnlnProfGOVFromSA ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr $204.04 20,404.00$ 2 LM9-00001 SfBPSTNCallingDmstcGOV ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr $118.85 237.70$ 2 LK3-00001 SfBPSTNConfGOV ShrdSvr ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr $39.66 79.32$ -$ -$ -$ Product-total 455,706.20$ Sub-Total 455,706.20$ 0 Tax ESD - nontaxable. Please type "Electronic Software Delivery" on your PO.-$ Shipping No Charge Total 12 Month Annual Payment Year #2 and Again Year #3 455,706.20$ Prices good for 30 days Quoted by Miles Allarea, SoftwareONE, Inc. Phone 916-934-6023 miles.allarea@softwareone.com Pass-Through Warranty and Other Rights. As a reseller, end-user warranties and liabilities (with respect to any third party software products provided by SoftwareONE) shall be provided as a pass-through from the manufacturer of such products. All software products are subject to the license agreement of the applicable software supplier, as provided with the software packaging or in the software at time of shipment. Important: Please provide the email address of the recipient designated to receive a SoftwareONE order confirmation and/or receive electronic software deliveries. Please fax your POs to our Client Assistance Center at 800-366-9994 or email to: statestore@softwareone.com - Call 800-400-9852, option 2, to check order status. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7810) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Junior Museum Naming Recognition Plan Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Facility Naming Plan for the Junior Museum & Zoo From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution approving the proposed Naming and Recognition Plan for the new Junior Museum & Zoo (Attachment A). Discussion The City’s Policy and Procedure 1-15, Naming City-Owned Land and Facilities, Section 3, (Attachment B), authorizes naming recognition for significant donations to capital fundraising campaigns. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached Naming and Recognition Plan developed by the Friends of the Junior Museum & Zoo (Friends) to support the capital fundraising effort for the new Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) facility. On November 10, 2014, Council approved a Letter of Intent (LOI) (Attachment C: Staff Reports: 7045, 5170, and 6212) for construction of the new JMZ building by the Friends. On November 11, 2016, (Attachment C: Staff Reports: 7045, 5170, and 6212), Council conducted a Study Session to discuss the planned rebuilding of the JMZ. At that meeting, the Friends summarized their 2013 commitment to raise $25 million for the proposed JMZ renovation project. The success of this campaign hinged upon securing a gift of $15 million from the Peery Family. In order to secure the gift, the Peery Family required that the Friends raise $10 million from additional sources. On February 8, 2017, the Friends confirmed with the Peery Family that they had secured gifts and pledges totaling $10 million and thereby met the conditions for the $15 million gift. Now that the Peery match has been met, staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution approving the attached Naming and Recognition Plan (Attachment A) to recognize significant donors with designations associated with interior or exterior City of Palo Alto Page 2 building elements or components. Staff and the Friends will return to Council for final approval of the naming program. At this time, staff estimates there will be fewer than 5 individual/family recognitions. In addition to the recognition described in the attached Naming and Recognition Plan, there is a potential for a proposal to develop for naming or recognition associated with the facility as a whole. Any such proposal would be brought to Council at a future date for discussion, input and approval. Resource Impact There is no budget impact from this report. Policy Implications The Naming and Recognition Plan is consistent with City Policy 1-15 (Naming of City Facilities). Support of youth programs through our partners with the Friends furthers Policy C-7 (Actively work with provide, nonprofit, and public community service organizations to coordinate services such as childcare, senior services, and recreation to avoid duplication and maximize efficiency). Environmental Review (If Applicable) The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: Attachment A - Reso Naming and Recognition Plan for JMZ Attachment B-City Policy 1-15, Naming City Owned Land and Facilities Attachment C- Staff Reports 7045, 5170, and 6212 170216 th 0140177 Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Naming and Recognition Plan for the New Junior Museum & Zoo R E C I T A L S A. The Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) is a center of excellence for early childhood science education which entices children to fall in love with the world of science and nature. The JMZ has been owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto for over 80 years and has more than 160,000 annual visits. B. The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (Friends) have been working with the City to renovate or replace the current facility to assure that the JMZ can continue to offer activities and services for children for years to come. C. The Friends have committed to a capital project to expand and remodel the JMZ facilities, and have committed to a capital campaign to raise $25 million to cover the project costs. D. The City and the Friends wish to express appreciation and recognize individuals and family foundations who have made significant gifts to the capital campaign. The attached Naming and Recognition Plan is consistent with the City’s Policy on Naming City-Owned Land and Facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The attached Naming and Recognition Plan for the new Junior Museum and Zoo (Attachment A) is adopted and approved, subject to Council approval of the specific naming plan and design elements to be proposed by the Friends in conjunction with final building design. SECTION 2. CEQA. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus, no environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required. / / / / / / / / / / / / 170216 th 0140177 SECTION 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately on its passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Community Services _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Memorandum To: Palo Alto City Council From: Aletha Coleman, Board President The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Date: February 7, 2017 Re: Naming and Recognition Plan Supporting the JMZ Initiative to Rebuild the City Owned Junior Museum and Zoo. Since 2001 the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) have been working with the City to renovate or replace the current facility with a new facility to assure that the JMZ can continue to offer services to the City’s youngest residents from this location for many years to come. The JMZ offers activities and services for children from ages 0 – 9 years of age and their family caregivers. The JMZ is a center of excellence for early childhood science education that entices children to fall in love with the world of science and nature. Owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto for more than 80 years, the JMZ has been a beloved local destination. With more than 160,000 annual visits – parents, caregivers, preschoolers and elementary students – it is a place where undirected, hands-on play with science exhibits and animals inspires children to discover how things work. As the JMZ approaches its 83rd year, the museum and zoo are constrained by a facility that no longer reflects the needs of its visitors, collections, and operations. Due to inadequate storage and support spaces, accreditation options for both the museum and zoo are unobtainable. While the educators continue to deliver outstanding educational programs, their work is limited by lack of office, preparation and storage spaces. In addition, there are many accessibility and safety concerns that can be ameliorated with a new facility. To assure that The Junior Museum remains a best in class organization, the Friends have committed to a capital project to expand and remodel the facilities, and raised $25 million to cover the project costs. The campaign has received commitments from donors with the understanding that recognition will occur but that any naming opportunities would be established only after a Naming and Recognition plan was passed by City Council. Now that the Peery Match is likely to be met, we need to offer opportunities to name parts of the building and zoo as a form of recognition for individuals and family foundations that have made significant gifts to the capital campaign. We have identified the following naming opportunities and approximate values. Please refer to the attached Site Plan for the location of each space. Attachment A Recognition Opportunities for the new Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Generous donors have made this project possible. As a private -public partnership between Friends of the JMZ and the City of Palo Alto, the capital investment for building the new Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo has come entirely from private donors eager to ensure the legacy of this outstanding community asset. Recognition opportunities are listed on the following pages. Future opportunities will be designed as the schematic drawings and approvals for the project are formalized. Investment of $10,000 or more allows donors to designate their funding and to be recognized on one of three donor recognition schemes placed in three discrete areas of the new JMZ: Exhibition Hall; Loose in the Zoo; and Nature and Science Education Wing. Donations of any amount will make the new JMZ a reality. All donations will be gratefully recognized during opening festivities. ENTRY PLAZA AND VISITOR EXPERIENCE AREA Sponsorships in the welcome area of the new JMZ are available in the range of $100,000 to $1 million. Exhibit Hall: $1 million Science Courtyard (Garden) $1 million Ball Machine: $750,000 Baby Space: $250,000 Experiment Modules (up to 15 Modules): $250,000 Conservation Station: $250,000 Quiet Nook: $150,000 Dawn Redwood Courtyard: $100,000 LOOSE IN THE ZOO Individual exhibits within Loose in the Zoo can be sponsored for a range of $250,000 to $1 million The Interactive Zone: $1 million Meerkat Habitat: 1 million Raccoon Habitat: $500,000 Tortoise Habitat: $300,000 Rabbit Habitat: $250,000 Underwater Habitat: $500,000 Animal Care Area: $500,000 Reptile Care Area: $250,000 NATURE AND SCIENCE EDUCATION CENTER Investment in the Nature and Science Education Center includes sponsorships ranging from $250,000 to $2 million Nature and Science Education Wing: $2 million Science Lab One (Classroom): $1 million Science Lab Two: $1 million Social Learning Laboratory $250,000 Recognition opportunities and associated gift levels are made in accordance with the board approved Gift Planning Policy. All naming opportunities are contingent upon City Council approval. The names will be associated with the spaces for the duration of the spaces useful life. Maintenance of these spaces will be the responsibility of City of Palo Alto, consistent with the terms of the gift of the building and zoo to the City. The project, which has not yet been approved, is currently in the entitlement process. We anticipate submitting an application for project approval and a building permit in the next few months. However, we are beginning conversations with donors, many of whom will want to know the naming opportunities in the new facility. Therefore, we respectfully request the City Council’s approval of this Naming Recognition Plan. This request is consistent with Section 3 of the City of Palo Alto Facility naming Policy (Policy 1-15: Naming City-owned land and facilities). POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR Revised: April 2008 Page 1 of 8 NAMING CITY-OWNED LAND AND FACILITIES POLICY STATEMENT The purpose of this policy is to ensure that City-owned land and facilities, when named for individuals, are persons who have made significant contributions or performed services deemed to have been of major importance to the community. This policy establishes uniform procedures for the naming of City-owned land and facilities as set forth by Council Resolution No. 6211, approved on December 12, 1983, and revised by Council on April 12, 2004. The policy is applicable to new and existing City-owned land and facilities. The policy provides a mechanism for citizens to suggest names which they believe should be considered for new City facilities or land acquisitions and for the renaming of existing facilities and lands. The policy also establishes criteria which will guide the Historical Association and the appropriate City Commission or Committee in recommending names to the Council for approval. Naming and renaming City-owned land and facilities shall be the responsibility of the City Council. However, places within City-owned land or facilities, such as a room or patio within a building or a trail or athletic field within a park, which do not require formal dedication by the City Council, may be named by the City Manager or his/her designee, subject to final approval by the City Council via the consent calendar. This process does not apply to the naming of streets which will continue to be processed through the Planning and Community Environment Department (Policy and Procedure 1-16: Naming of City Streets). The naming of a street may be considered an appropriate alternative means of honoring an individual. The City Council has determined that significant individual, family or foundation contributions to the construction/renovation of City facilities can be recognized through the naming of said facilities after these groups. This document outlines the procedure to be followed when a fund- raising group or board, with the approval of the City Council, embarks upon a capital campaign for the purpose of securing private funds for the acquisition of land, renovation/expansion of an existing building, or the construction of a new facility, and wishes to offer naming opportunities in recognition of significant donations of money or land. The City Council has determined that significant contributions from corporations or corporate foundations to capital campaigns will not be accepted in exchange for the ability to name entire facilities in recognition of these corporate entities. However, the City Council has agreed to allow naming recognition of corporate or commercial entities in facility interiors or on sub-facilities as described in this policy. Business logos associated with any benefactor seeking naming rights shall not be allowed on any City owned land, facility, building or sub-facility under this policy. POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR Revised: April 2008 Page 2 of 8 The City may remove any business name from a City facility or property if the business declares bankruptcy and goes out of business. The City may remove any individual name from a City facility or property if the person is convicted of a felony or other crime of moral turpitude. If a name is removed under this provision, the City shall not be required to return the donation. SECTION 1: PROCEDURE FOR NAMING NEW FACILITIES OR CITY-OWNED LANDS In cases involving a major capital fundraising campaign, there will be a separate and different procedure from the one outlined below. Section 3 below on “Naming Recognition for Capital Campaigns” further outlines this process. A. Responsibility of the Project Manager Implementation of this policy is the responsibility of the department in which the project to be named is managed. In the instance of a new City-owned land or facility, the project manager should incorporate the process for naming into the project schedule so the naming is accomplished in a timely manner. 1. Requests concerning a name to be given to the City-owned land or facility shall be made in writing on an approved suggestion form to the City Clerk. a. The project manager should alert the City Clerk when to expect the submission of names and the anticipated time frame for the naming process. b. The project manager may submit suggested names on an approved suggestion form on behalf of staff or citizens who have been involved in the project development. c. In some instances, it may be appropriate to actively solicit suggestions and, in those cases, the project manager should specify a time frame for submissions and method of notification. d. All submittals, whether from an individual or an organization, must include the name and address of the submitter. No anonymous submittals will be accepted. e. All suggestions will be given the same consideration without regard to the nomination source. 2. The project manager is responsible for conveying the name suggestion forms from the City Clerk to the Palo Alto Historical Association and presenting the recommendations from the Historical Association to the appropriate commission or committee whose sphere of influence is most closely associated with the facility in question. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall review name suggestions for acquired land to be dedicated as a park, recreational facilities, community centers and interpretive centers. The Library POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR Revised: April 2008 Page 3 of 8 Advisory Commission shall review name suggestions for library facilities. The Public Art Commission shall review name suggestions for art facilities. The Policy and Services Committee shall review name suggestions for police, fire or utility facilities as well as major civic complexes. a. The Historical Association may also originate suggestions for names or provide suggestions for appropriate alternatives as part of its recommendations. b. The project manager shall assure that adequate time is allowed for the Historical Association and the appropriate commission or committee to evaluate the recommended names. c. The Historical Association shall determine if the suggested names meet the criteria of appropriate significance, and shall submit the recommendations to the appropriate commission or committee together with the rationale for the recommendations. The response from the Historical Association shall acknowledge all the names that are submitted, but recommend only those which it feels meet the criteria and warrant serious consideration. B. Responsibility of the Reviewing Commission Or Committee 1. The commission or committee shall conduct a public hearing, confirm that the recommended names meet the criteria of appropriate significance, select recommendation(s) provided by the Historical Association, and shall forward its recommendation to the City Council. The report from the commission or committee shall acknowledge all of the recommended names together with their evaluation, but present only the name(s) which it feels best meets the criteria and merits serious consideration by the City Council. 2. Once approved, a transmittal and resolution will be prepared by staff for consideration and approval by the City Council. The transmittal shall include a narrative of historic reference prepared by the Palo Alto Historical Association for the name, a copy of the name suggestion form, and minutes of the Commission meeting when the recommendation was discussed. C. Criteria The following criteria shall be used in selecting an appropriate name for City-owned land and facilities. 1. The name should, if possible, have or preserve the geographic, environmental (relating to natural or physical features), historic or landmark connotation of particular significance to the area in which the land or facility is located, or for the City as a whole. Either connotation is equally valid. POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR Revised: April 2008 Page 4 of 8 2. Acknowledgement of contributions: Consideration may be given to naming the City- owned land or facility after an individual when the land or facility, or the money for its purchase, has been donated by the individual, or when otherwise warranted by some contribution or service which is deemed to be of major and lasting significance to the acquisition of that piece of land, or planning, development, construction or renovation of that particular facility. Donation of land or resources shall not constitute an obligation by the City to name the land or facility or any portion thereof, after an individual, family, or individual/family foundation. City-owned lands, parks, or entire facilities shall not be named for benefactor organizations, groups or businesses, but in special cases, may be considered for sub-facilities such as rooms or playgrounds. In cases involving a major capital fundraising campaign, see Section 3 below – Naming Recognition for Capital Campaigns. 3. Names honoring individuals or families, other than those of recognized historic importance, must be supported by compelling reasons. 4. In the event the City-owned land or facility was formerly school property or had other ownership such that the name of the school, building or site has community significance or community recognition, consideration may be given to preserving that name. 5. The City encourages naming which reflects the City’s ethnic and cultural diversity. 6. No City-owned land or facility shall be named after a seated elected or appointed official. 7. No City-owned land or facility shall be named after a person whose contribution to the City of Palo Alto was or is a part of that individual’s normal duties as an employee of the City. An exception may be made for former such employees who have contributed volunteer services of an exceptional nature beyond their normal duties. 8. When naming sub-facilities or interior spaces, such as rooms or playgrounds, after corporate or commercial entities or foundations, these entities must abide by the City’s anti-discrimination policy. D. Council Action 1. The recommendations received from the Historical Association and the commission or committee shall be placed on the Council agenda for final approval. 2. Action by the Council shall be by Council Resolution. E. Follow-up to Selection of the Name 1. The above-described process for selecting an appropriate name should precede the preparation of a park dedication ordinance. POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR Revised: April 2008 Page 5 of 8 2. Subsequent to approval by the City Council, the name for the City-owned land or facility shall be conveyed to the Department of Public Works for incorporation in City official maps and plans, and to the Palo Alto Historical Association for its records. F. Naming Places Within City-owned Land or Facilities In the case of places within City-owned land or facilities, where the policy does not require a Council resolution, responsibility for requesting Council approval of the new name shall reside with the department head who manages the land or facility. Ideally, the naming of features within a park and specific trails or facilities within open space lands will occur during the master plan or site plan process. Names within parks should be appropriate to the park by reflecting the expression of the place (topography, geology, natural features), flora and fauna, or history of the area. In advance of the naming, the department head shall send a memorandum to the City Manager advising of the proposed action and requesting approval. The City Manager will then seek approval of the name from the City Council via the consent calendar. SECTION 2: PROCEDURE FOR RENAMING EXISTING FACILITIES OR CITY- OWNED LANDS Existing place names are deemed to have historic recognition. City policy is not to change the name of any existing facilities or City-owned land, particularly one whose name has City or regional significance, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Further, the City will consider renaming to commemorate a person or persons only when the person or persons have made major, overriding contributions to the City and whose distinctions are as yet unrecognized. A. Renaming Suggestions 1. All requests concerning a new name to be given to the City-owned land or facility shall be made in writing on an approved suggestion form to the City Clerk. The suggestion must detail how the proposed name change is consistent with the criteria, the purpose of the name change, and how the new name is directly associated with the land or facility. 2. All submittals, whether from an individual, organization or City staff, must include the name and address or the submitter. No anonymous submittals will be accepted. 3. The City Council shall initiate the renaming process by referral of the public or staff request to the commission or committee whose sphere of influence is most closely associated with the facility in question. Council can also initiate the renaming of lands or a facility without a public request whenever deemed necessary or in the best interest of the City of Palo Alto, following established criteria. Once the referral is made by the City POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR Revised: April 2008 Page 6 of 8 Council to a specific commission or committee, the commission or committee will await comment and evaluation of the new name from the Palo Alto Historical Association. B. Responsibility of the Project Manager 1. The City Clerk is responsible for conveying the name suggestion form(s) received by the deadline to the Project Manager, who will be responsible for forwarding to the Palo Alto Historical Association and then transmitting the recommendation(s) from the Palo Alto Historical Association to the appropriate commission or committee as outlined in Section A above. 2. The recognized neighborhood association in the vicinity of the land or facility will be notified of the proposed name change at the time the reviewing commission or committee receives the report from the Historical Association. C. Responsibility of the Reviewing Commission Or Committee 1. The commission or committee shall conduct a public hearing, confirm that the suggested name(s) meet the criteria of appropriate significance, select recommendation(s) from the names provided by the Historical Association, and shall forward its recommendation to the City Council. The report from the commission or committee shall acknowledge any recommended names together with its evaluation, but present only the name or names which it feels best meets the criteria and merits serious consideration by the Council. 2. Once approved, a transmittal and resolution will be prepared by staff for consideration and approval by the City Council. The transmittal shall include a narrative of historic reference for the name or names, together with a copy of the name suggestion form. D. Criteria Each application for renaming a city park or facility must meet the criteria in this policy, but meeting all criteria does not ensure renaming. City-owned lands and facilities may be renamed for an individual(s) under the following conditions. Where the individual: 1. Has made lasting and significant contributions to the protection of natural or cultural resources of the City of Palo Alto, or 2. Has made substantial contributions to the betterment of a specific facility or park, consistent with the established standards for the facility, or 3. Has made substantial contributions to the advancement of commensurate types of recreational opportunities within the City of Palo Alto. POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR Revised: April 2008 Page 7 of 8 E. Council Action 1. The recommendations received from the Palo Alto Historical Association and commission or committee shall be submitted for Council approval. 2. Action by the Council shall be by Council Resolution. F. Follow-up to Selection of Name 1. Subsequent to approval by the City Council, the new name for the City-owned land or facility shall be conveyed to the Department of Public Works for incorporation in City official maps and plans, and to the Palo Alto Historical Association for its records. NOTE: Questions and/or clarification of this policy should be directed to the City Manager's Office. SECTION 3: PROCEDURE FOR OFFERING NAMING RECOGNITION FOR SIGNIFICANT DONATIONS TO CAPITAL FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGNS This section applies to any organized fundraising initiated by the City, a Board/Commission or other group whose sole purpose is to support City programs and operations in support of the renovation/expansion of an existing building, the construction of a new facility, the acquisition of a building/land, or the furnishings, fixtures and equipment in said facilities. A. Responsibility of the staff liaison to the Board, Commission, Task Force or group conducting the Capital Campaign Implementation of this policy is the responsibility of department in which the project to be acquired/constructed/renovated is managed. A staff liaison appointed to work with the board/committee will guide them through the process and manage appropriate contacts with other departments as necessary during the acquisition, design and construction process. This will ensure that appropriate information and materials are provided to the group and that opportunities and expectations are clear, understandable, and feasible within the framework of the project. B. When a Capital Campaign is initiated by the City, a Commission or other group whose sole purpose is to support City programs and operations, accommodations to the procedures outlined in Sections 1 and 2 shall be made as follows: a. The organizing body may meet and discuss preliminary plans with the City’s liaison, Department Head and the City Attorney’s office in order to facilitate any “silent” fundraising period. b. The organizing body shall request authorization from the City Council for a Naming Recognition Plan in support of a specific project. They shall provide the following information in their request: POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR Revised: April 2008 Page 8 of 8 i. Name of the organizing body; ii. Purpose of the campaign; iii. Monetary goal of the campaign; iv. Expected term of the campaign; v. Plan for naming recognition including a schedule of naming opportunities and associated gift levels vi. Maintenance/replacement of naming recognition items – City staff shall work with the organizing body to ensure that the plan includes acknowledgement of the maintenance responsibilities associated with any naming recognition items within the facility. c. Once the Naming Recognition Schedule has been approved by the City Council, the fund-raising body shall have the authority to proceed with making commitments for naming opportunities with potential donors subject to final Council review. d. The naming of a facility or sub-facility will not occur until the pledged donation is received. e. Consistent with the Gifts to the City policy, all gifts paid directly to the City shall be duly reported to the Administrative Services Department (ASD) Director and recognized appropriately in accordance with that policy (Policies and Procedures 1-18). If a donation was given anonymously, the donor’s identity shall be protected to the extent possible. f. Under this procedure, the organizing body must present a final report to the City Council for approval, detailing the funds received and any naming opportunities granted, along with a timeline for the completion of the recognition. The group may also come to the Council at any time during the capital campaign for approval of one or more naming recognition items. All naming recognition must be adopted by resolution of the City Council. The City Manager or designee can also request that any donations and associated naming recognitions be brought to the City Council at an earlier point in the capital campaign for approval. C. The one exception to this procedure shall be for the naming of an entire building as recognition for a significant monetary or land contribution. If a fund-raising group secures a donation significant enough to warrant naming the entire facility in recognition of that individual, family or foundation, this should be presented directly to the City Council for approval separately and as soon as possible after this type of donation is secured. As part of this approval process, the Council may solicit input from the Palo Alto Historical Association or the appropriate board/commission. Consistent with the policy statement, the City will not recognize significant corporate donations by naming an entire facility in honor of these entities. D. In cases of major building reconfigurations or disasters that destroy or damage portions of the building, the City reserves the right to remove and not replace naming recognitions. However, the City will consider the original donation intent in these instances and make accommodations as feasible. POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR Revised: April 2008 Page 1 of 3 APPLICATION FOR NAMING OR RENAMING CITY-OWNED LANDS OR FACILITIES Naming objectives: 1. Ensure that parks, recreational areas and facilities are easily identified and located. 2. Ensure that names designated for parks, recreational areas and facilities are consistent with the values and character of the area or neighborhood served. 3. Encourage public participation in the naming, renaming and dedication of parks, recreation areas and facilities. 4. Encourage the donation of land, funds for land acquisition or development by individuals and groups. Criteria for naming new facilities or parks: The following criteria shall be used in selecting an appropriate name for City-owned land and facilities. 1. The name shall have or preserve the geographic, environmental (relating to natural or physical features), historic or landmark connotation of particular significance to the area in which the land or facility is located, or for the City as a whole. Either connotation is equally valid. 2. Consideration may be given to naming the City-owned land or facility after an individual when the land or facility, or the money for its purchase, has been donated by the individual, or when otherwise warranted by some contribution or service which is deemed to be of major and lasting significance to the acquisition of that piece of land, or planning, development, construction or renovation of that particular facility. Donation of land or resources shall not constitute an obligation by the City to name the land or facility or any portion thereof, after an individual or family. City-owned lands or parks shall not be named for benefactor organizations, groups or businesses, but in special cases, may be considered for sub- facilities such as rooms or playgrounds. 3. Names honoring individuals or families, other than those of recognized historic importance, must be supported by compelling reasons. 4. In the event the City-owned land or facility was formerly school property or had other ownership such that the name of the school, building or site has community significance or community recognition, consideration may be given to preserving that name. 5. The City encourages naming which reflects the City’s ethnic and cultural diversity. 6. No City-owned land or facility shall be named after a seated elected or appointed official. 7. No City-owned land or facility shall be named after a person whose contribution to the City of Palo Alto was or is a part of that individual’s normal duties as an employee of the City. An exception may be made for former such employees who have contributed volunteer services of an exceptional nature beyond their normal duties. 8. When naming sub-facilities, such as rooms or playgrounds, after corporate or commercial entities or foundations, these entities must abide by the City’s anti-discrimination policy. POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR Revised: April 2008 Page 2 of 3 Criteria for renaming existing facilities of parks: Each application for renaming a city park or facility must meet the criteria listed above, but meeting all criteria does not ensure renaming. Existing place names are deemed to have historic recognition. City policy is not to change the name of any existing facilities or City-owned land, particularly one whose name has City or regional significance, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Further, the City will consider renaming to commemorate a person or persons only when the person or persons have made major, overriding contributions to the City and whose distinctions are as yet unrecognized. City-owned lands and facilities may be renamed for an individual(s) under the following conditions. Where the individual: 1. Has made lasting and significant contributions to the protection of natural or cultural resources of the City of Palo Alto, or 2. Has made substantial contributions to the betterment of a specific facility or park, consistent with the established standards for the facility, or 3. Has made substantial contributions to the advancement of commensurate types of recreational opportunities within the City of Palo Alto. Suggestions for naming or renaming City-owned lands or facilities shall be evaluated on the basis of the above criteria and upon appropriate documentation. Person making the name suggestion (required): Address (required):_____________________________________________________________ Contact phone number (required):_________________________________________________ E-mail (not required):___________________________________________________________ Location of site or facility to be named:_____________________________________________ Suggested name (required):_______________________________________________________ Biographical information: (Explain) ________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Civic involvement: (Explain) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR Revised: April 2008 Page 3 of 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Connection to the facility: (Please explain in depth) ____________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Reason for Nomination (required): _________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments (additional information may be attached): _________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Date Received by the City Clerk: ____________________________________ Submitted to Palo Alto Historical Association: _________________________ Date scheduled for review by commission: ____________________________ City of Palo Alto (ID # 7045) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 11/21/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: JMZ Rebuilding Project Title: Study Session to Discuss the Planned Rebuilding Project of the Junior Museum & Zoo From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation This is a study session and no action is recommended. Executive Summary This study session will discuss the progress and issues of interest regarding the planned rebuilding of the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ). The primary focus will be on the progress made regarding the design for the facility and plans for shared space including Rinconada Park and the parking lot. The session will also address the status of the fundraising program; the status of negotiations with the Friends on the construction agreement; plans for an interim site for the JMZ staff, program, animals and collections while the facility is under construction; and community outreach undertaken on behalf of the project. Background As the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ), a program of the Community Services Department’s Arts and Sciences Division, approaches its 82nd year of service, it is constrained by a facility that no longer reflects the needs of its visitors, collections, and operations. While the staff continues to deliver outstanding educational programs, quality experiences for the drop-in visitor, and reliable animal care, they are severely limited by lack of office, preparation and storage spaces. Due to inadequate storage and support spaces, zoo accreditation for the JMZ from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is unobtainable. In addition, bathroom facilities are severely limited, the facility is frequently overcrowded and there are many accessibility concerns in the existing facility and the surrounding site, which concern Palo Alto’s residents, as these impact the quality of the experience. The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum (Friends) engaged the architectural firm of Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects to work with a broad array of stakeholders to complete a facilities master plan in 2011 and 2012. They evaluated the program and operational needs, the inadequacies of the existing facility, and options for renovation or new construction to provide enhanced levels of service to the Palo Alto community. In 2014, the Friends completed the master planning process that culminated in a recommendation to replace the existing facility with a facility that is correctly sized for the JMZ’s programs and its current audience. The Friends also committed to raising the $25 million required to build the new facility. City of Palo Alto Page 2 On November 10, 2014, (Attachment A: CMRs 5170 and 6212), Council approved a Letter of Intent (LOI) for construction and operation of the new JMZ building by the Friends, and the City and Friends began negotiating potential terms and conditions for the construction and operation of the new center. On October 19, 2015 (Attachment A: CMRs 5170 and 6212), Council approved a change in direction recommended by Friends and staff to focus first on a construction agreement to build the new JMZ, and to postpone discussions regarding possible transition of operations to the Friends to a later date after the new facility is built and has been operated by the City for a period of time. Staff expects to return to Council in the Spring of 2017 with the Environmental Review and a Park Improvement Ordinance for the project, as well as the negotiated construction agreement for Council consideration and budget projections for operations of the new building. Discussion Design Friends engaged the architectural firm of Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects, Inc. to work with a broad array of stakeholders to complete a facilities master plan in 2011 and 2012 evaluating program and operational needs, inadequacies of the existing facility, and options for renovation or new construction. During the master plan process, the following criteria were developed: Visitor Experience o Tailor spaces for experiences to specific audience segments, including early childhood audiences and children with special needs; o Develop safe and effective ways to connect children with live animals; o Develop classrooms that improve student engagement and learning impact; o Improve access, safety, toilets and way finding; o Create opportunities for outdoor “play in nature” experiences’ o Improve access from the JMZ to Rinconada Park amenities: playground; Children’s Library; Children’s Theatre; Stern Community Center; Art Center; Walter Hays Elementary School. Collections o Provide facilities for animal health and quarantine to meet the standards of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums; o Improve the care and storage areas for the non-living collections, held in public trust by the Museum, to meet the standards of the American Alliance of Museums. Operations o Improve storage, access, and work areas to ensure staff safety, efficiency and effectiveness of operations; o Implement green building practices. Project Description and Scope Please refer to the attached project footprint and site plan for reference presented as Attachment B: Site Plan and Floor Plan. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The proposed new JMZ construction project would demolish the existing 9,000 square foot (SF) Junior Museum and 13,000 SF Zoo, except the existing 500 SF bobcat exhibit, which would be preserved. The proposed design for the JMZ includes constructing a new museum and education building, outdoor zoo with netted enclosure, and perimeter site improvements on the site of the current facilities. The 40,000 SF proposed museum and zoo project scope has been developed in coordination with the Draft Rinconada Master Plan for the surrounding park, parking lot, and adjacent public facilities. The design of the new JMZ was recently revised from a two-story building to a single story building, due to the escalation of costs over the last three years. The result has been a decrease in size of 4,422 square feet. Friends, staff and Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects are working on a master plan that would allow a phased-in design and construction, where we would add a small partial second story building and zoo features as funding becomes available. For the purpose of this study session, the following brief description and square footage description are for the one-story building and zoo and are followed by a summary of the second phase. Exterior Entry Courtyard: (2,660 SF) The new exterior entry courtyard is located underneath the existing large dawn redwood tree creating an exciting while pleasant gathering place and entry experience into the JMZ. The plaza will serve as an exterior lobby with areas for line queuing, guest storage and safe play zones for children. There will be views into the museum, strong connections to the park arrival area, and clear circulation for JMZ guests. The plaza will have hard and softscape, trellis covering and rain covering, and playful exhibits. The parking lot drop off zone will be adjacent to both the JMZ Entry courtyard and the Park Arrival Area. Junior Museum and Zoo Building: (14,500 SF) The new JMZ building will gracefully wrap around the existing large pecan tree and dawn redwood tree, and will align with the Middlefield Road grid as well as the grid of the Girl Scout and Lucie Stern Community Center buildings, observing the existing utility corridor. The building houses exhibit galleries, two classrooms, zoo support areas, and staff support areas. All of these spaces have strong connections to the entry courtyard and the zoo. The reduced program square footage and creative space layout creates a more efficient and dense building footprint and simplified building mass, thus reducing projected long-term operational costs and construction costs. Exterior Loose-in-the-Zoo: (12,912 SF) The concept for the zoo is a completely netted enclosure where birds, small mammals and children can roam about freely and discover animals where they live, on the surface of the land and water, underwater and underground, and up in the trees. Within the larger netted enclosure, there will be enclosed exhibits for larger animals including bobcats, raccoons, tortoises, and meerkats. The Loose-in- the Zoo enclosure will have a wall around its perimeter to meet zoo accreditation requirements. This wall creates opportunities for educational and interactive exhibits, gathering spaces, and play areas for visitors in the park beyond the zoo enclosure. Exterior Zoo Support Area: (3,006 SF) The exterior zoo support area provides homes for the zoo animals when they are not in Loose-in-the- Zoo or in education programs as well as space to store zoo maintenance materials. The area will have a wall around its perimeter and netting over the top. Exterior Phenomena Garden: (2,730 SF) City of Palo Alto Page 4 The exterior Phenomena Garden will provide outdoor space for JMZ guests to relax and interact with exhibits under the existing large pecan tree. The concept is to design this courtyard as a place where children discover and interact with outdoor phenomena –sand, soil, rocks, light and water. The garden will have a surrounding wall near the parking lot side and a mesh curtain separating it from the zoo. Exterior Service Access: (2,148 SF) This area will provide vehicular access to the JMZ maintenance shop and animal support spaces, house the trash enclosure, and provide an exterior corridor for staff and animal circulation. Phase Two Classroom / Insect Building (2,924 SF) This area will be constructed once funding is identified and will include indoor classrooms with tide pool touch experience, restroom, elevator, and envisioned interior walk-through living insect exhibit. Zoo Canopy Walk and Tree Fort (1,637 SF) Adjacent to the Classroom/Insect Building will be a partial second story exterior canopy walk and tree fort above the zoo. Pending funding, the future addition of the small classroom building with glassy insect exhibit on the second floor creates opportunities for shared park resources. Due to the costs of a butterfly exhibit that will require special underwriting, we may also exhibit arachnids and insects. Rinconada Park The draft Rinconada Park Long Range Plan, developed in FY 2014, examines external impacts that affect the park such as parking, park user groups, diverse park activities and traffic impacts. In addition, a comprehensive, community outreach process was conducted to engage the many stakeholders who utilize the park to obtain feedback on park usability and establish priorities for maintaining existing or adding new facilities. As a distinct element of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan, the JMZ proposed reconstruction and expansion footprint was highlighted in the draft plan for community review and feedback. Community input was positive concerning the proposed renovation of the JMZ. Reconfiguration of the existing Rinconada Park parking lot has a strong association with the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) renovation project because these two projects present the largest redevelopment portion of the long-range plan and are the major elements studied by the environmental assessment now underway. In anticipation of potential concerns over parking, the Friends design team and staff developed a plan to reconfigure the existing parking lot to increase the number of parking spaces by approximately 17, thereby improving circulation, and providing safer access off of Middlefield road to a single entry exit located at Kellogg Avenue and Middlefield Road. The proposed parking lot includes features for parking for bicycles, and crosswalks for pedestrians on foot and/or bus. The design and funding for the parking lot reconfiguration will be presented to Council in the Spring of 2017 as a component of the JMZ construction project. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed the design plans for the new JMZ on three occasions: February 2015, July 2015 and May 2016. The proposed design addresses the concerns of the PRC which were: 1) to minimize the zoo expansion into Rinconada Park; 2) to move the zoo support City of Palo Alto Page 5 building out of the dedicated parkland as much as possible; 3) to preserve the heritage and specimen trees as well as the two large mature shade trees in the parkland; and 4) to maintain the increase in parking stall count, and clear vehicular circulation. In response, the building has been incorporated into the museum building outside of the park. Only the exterior, open-air zoo is located in the park, consistent with the existing zoo condition. The proposed design integrates the new JMZ and Rinconada Park by creating an inviting park arrival area between the Girl Scouts Building and the future classroom/butterfly building, allowing the park experience to expand beyond its boundary, where the visitor may see new trees, benches, signage, public art, and potentially a science/nature themed exhibit. The proposed design creates opportunities to activate and enrich both the zoo and park visitors experience along the edge between the zoo and the park. The zoo wall enclosure can be a sculptural, artistic, educational feature allowing the zoo experience to integrate into the park. The project will also have a public art requirement and optimal sites for art, such as zoo wall, and others are being identified. A site survey was conducted that identified all trees, including three heritage trees, and a utility easement on the site. Property boundaries, park jurisdiction, zoning and code restrictions were studied and mapped. The footprint was limited in each direction by setbacks from: the property line along Walter Hays Elementary School, the park entrance and heritage oak, the parking lot, and Middlefield Road. Progress on Fundraising The Friends have intended to rebuild the JMZ for more than a dozen years. In 2013 Friends committed to raising $25M for the proposed JMZ renovation project. Recognition and thanks are due for the generosity of the Peery Family, who challenged Friends to raise $10M and pledged a $15M match. To date, thanks to our philanthropically-minded community, the Friends have raised $9,005,852 toward their $10M match. They have $994,148 left to raise in order to complete the $25M required to meet Phase One of the project budget. The City acknowledges and appreciates the Friends outstanding dedication and commitment to the betterment of the JMZ for the community. Naming and Recognition As a group whose purpose is to support the JMZ, a City program, the City’s Naming City-Owned Lands and Facilities Policy and Procedures apply to the fundraising initiated for the renovation of the JMZ. Friends has recently developed a Naming Recognition Schedule that will be presented to Council once Friends has secured the funding match from the Peery Family, as per SECTION 3: PROCEDURE FOR OFFERING NAMING RECOGNITION FOR SIGNIFICANT DONATIONS TO CAPITAL FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGNS in City Policy 1-15. City and Friends Agreements Staff and Friends have been meeting since February of 2015 to negotiate terms of an agreement addressing the construction phase of the rebuild and a second agreement addressing operations after construction is complete. The City staff and Friends team has made considerable progress toward completing the construction-phase agreement. A number of important issues regarding the redesign of the building and its budget, construction terms, the partnership, governance and operations have been agreed on with several more to be confirmed. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Because the project design and construction will be funded with private dollars, an open bidding process is not required. Instead, it is envisioned that the City would lease the JMZ project site to Friends. Friends would be required to meet all State and City laws, codes, and standards including insurance and prevailing wages requirements. Staff will bring a draft agreement to Council in Spring of 2017. Operational Terms The City and Friends have a current agreement for cooperation and support that defines the terms of the public private partnership as it has existed to date. The Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo for Mutual Cooperation and Support is provided as Attachment C. Consistent with the construction-phase agreement, staff and Friends are currently negotiating revisions to Cooperation and Support Agreement for Council consideration in Spring of 2017. The new operational terms will outline roles and responsibilities for each partner, including budgetary, management and operational responsibilities in the new building. Staff and Friends have been working with consultant Rick Biddle of Williams and Shultz Consulting to facilitate this process. Since 1992, Mr. Biddle has developed and provided oversight for more than 75 AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) accredited institutions with operating budgets ranging from less than $1 million to well over $42 million. He has completed governance and financial plans to guide the privatization and shift in governance of the Dallas Zoo, North Carolina Zoo, North Carolina Aquariums, Santa Ana Zoo, Tulsa Zoo, Kansas City Zoo, Fresno Chaffee Zoo, Woodland Park Zoo (Seattle, WA), Detroit Zoo, Houston Zoo and, most recently, the Toronto Zoo. Rick has also led the development of strategic plans for numerous cultural attractions and green-space initiatives, with a high level of experience in finance, strategic planning, operations and fundraising. Negotiations have pointed to the need for more time to work out the details of the partnership in the new building. Projected Operating Costs of the New JMZ Operating costs for the new JMZ are anticipated to increase above current levels. This is due primarily to the increased cost of operating the new and improved JMZ facility and program that will be accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The new JMZ program will require a modest increase in staffing for customer service, animal care and education programming. New costs will be partially offset by an increase in contributed income managed by the Friends, and a ticketed gate managed by the City. Early financial projections indicate that when the new building opens, after the completion of Phase One, the JMZ will plan to offer a ticketed gate of $4 for children and $7 for adults. With increased memberships and sponsorships managed by Friends, JMZ operations predict the need for an increase in general fund support of approximately $250K annually. These costs are not currently accounted for in the City’s Long Range Financial Forecast. All projections are being reviewed by staff as well as consultant Rick Biddle. Phase Two of the construction project, anticipated to cost $3 million, is tentative pending funding. Staff considers it essential to improving cost recovery as it will attract higher attendance and allow for a slightly higher entrance fee of possibly $5 for children and $10 for adults. Once Phase Two is complete, the general fund contribution is anticipated to decrease to $150K annually and expected to drop to under $100,000 within three years of operation. (Please note: regular, free admission hours will be provided to the public.) City of Palo Alto Page 7 After completing a schematic level of design and receiving and having more input from experts and consultants, Staff will produce and present extensive information to Council on this topic, including a pro forma that projects five years of contributed and earned income and expenses for the entire operation, including our fee-based education programs, and projected potential increase to the General Fund at the Council meeting currently projected for Spring 17. Interim Site In late calendar year 2017, the JMZ plans to vacate its current site at 1451 Middlefield Road at Rinconada Park in Palo Alto to make way for construction of the new facility. Staff has evaluated several options for temporary relocation of the JMZ during the two year construction phase and believes relocation to the Cubberley Community Center auditorium is the most viable option. The use of this site will not result in a reduction of rental revenues as the auditorium space has only been rented on Sundays and if possible, we hope that will continue. In order to retain JMZ’s dedicated and expert staff, to provide appropriate care for its animals, and to retain its school partners and loyal families, the plan for temporary relocation seeks to provide as stable of an environment as possible. The temporary JMZ will provide the same education services it currently offers at its Rinconada Park site, including science classes and summer camps for children, and will deploy instructors to teach science classed in over a dozen elementary schools in Palo Alto, as well as Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. The JMZ will not provide a public zoo at the Cubberley site, although several of the animals will be sheltered and cared for there. Community Outreach The JMZ renovation project has gone before the Council twice in the last two years. This is the first Council Study Session on the project. There have been two community meetings dedicated to the project, which received broad support from the public. The most notable concern has been potential impact on parking. The project has been on the agenda of three Park and Recreation Commission meetings, and one Architectural Review Board Meeting. A public community meeting will be planned as part of the CEQA process. The planned footprint for the JMZ was included in the park descriptions and drawings during five community meetings held in 2012 and 2013 as part of planning process for the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan. The planned footprint for the JMZ was has been included in the draft Rinconada Long Range Plan. The City and Friends are developing a communication strategy that will update the community on the JMZ renovation project through a regular e-newsletter and website announcements. Resource Impact The financial obligations of this project are anticipated to be primarily supported by the Friends who have committed to funding the design and construction of the facility at a budget of $25M. To date, they have gifts and pledges for $24M toward that budget. However, the other financial implications are not currently included in the City’s General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast; implications such as one- time transition costs, ongoing operations and maintenance costs, and phase II construction costs. Any estimated expense that is currently not funded will need to be evaluated and prioritized with other CIP projects and operating funding needs, and may result in the necessary deferral of one or more other projects to accommodate funding associated with this project. City of Palo Alto Page 8 The expected City support for the construction project, that would require Council approval, are anticipated to include significant resources including staff support across multiple departments such as CSD, DPW, Planning, Development Services, ASD, CAO, CMO; permitting fees of approximately $400,000 to be confirmed (TBC); and relocation expenses of approximately $400,000 (TBC). Should the project move forward the City would need to identify the funds to rebuild the Rinconada Park playground, parking lot, paving and restroom improvements; which are associated with the Rinconada Long Range Plan and are impacted by the JMZ project. A preliminary budget estimate for this work is estimated to be $3-$5M. Staff anticipates the City contribution could be $3.8-5.8M in hard costs plus significant in- kind staff costs. Staff will provide more specific estimates when we return to Council in Spring of 2017. Based on preliminary estimations, operating costs for the new JMZ are anticipated to increase by $250,000 annually after Phase One. After Phase Two staff anticipate increased revenues and improved costs recovery mitigating the $250,000 increase initially by $100,000. Detailed financial information will be provided to Council when we come again in the Spring of 2017 and considered concurrently during the planning of the FY 2018 budget process. The financial projections are purposefully conservative and every effort will be made to price entrance, programs and service fees such that no General Fund increases will be necessary, however, as this is a new venture with a number unknown factors regarding how residents and visitors will respond to the new facility staff are providing a conservative scenario as a prudent measure as we evaluate this project. Further, staff and Friends will work closely with a number of museum and zoo experts to engage the public in focus groups and surveys as we develop the program and the fee structure for the new facility in the months ahead to improve our financial projections and likely market reception to fees, membership and sponsorships. Policy Implications The proposed projects are consistent with existing City policy objectives, including C-17: Continue to support provisions, funding, and promotion of programs for children and youth; and C-26: Maintain and enhance existing park facilities. The project will require a Park Improvement Ordinance and a Naming Recognition Schedule, consistent with the Naming City-Owned Lands and Facilities Policy. This project is subject to the 1% public art ordinance and staff and the design team is working to identify opportunities for integrated public art that enhance the design features of the project. Environmental Review In December 2014, The Friends and the City entered into a funding Agreement for a joint environmental study for the Rinconada Park Long Range Master Plan and the Junior Museum and Zoo Project, with David J. Powers and Associates put under contract to assist staff in conducting the CEQA review. Through a process working with the City Attorney’s office, Community Services Department, Public Works and Planning, it was determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was appropriate. The CEQA review includes preparation of technical studies on various CEQA items to analyze existing conditions and identify potential impacts, preparation of Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Preparation of Technical Studies for the environmental review started in January of 2015. To date, the following reports have been completed: Air Quality Report, Arborist Report, and Historic Evaluation of the JMZ, Report Noise Assessment. A parking management plan is being drafted to complete the City of Palo Alto Page 9 Transportation Impact Report. A historical evaluation of the Girl Scout Building and a Historic Site Review are also being prepared. Once these reports are completed, staff will prepare the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration required for this project. CEQA analysis for this project is scheduled to be completed in the Spring of 2017. Attachments: Attachment A-CMRs 5170 and 6212 (PDF) Attachment C-AGMT Friends JMZ Mutual Cooperation and Support (PDF) Attachment B- Proposed Site Plans and Floor Plans for Junior Museum & Zoo (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 6212) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/19/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approve the change in direction by Friends of JMZ regarding operation of the new building Title: Approval of the Change in Direction by Friends of the Junior Museum & Zoo’s Regarding Operation of the New Building From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve change in direction by the Friends of the Junior Museum & Zoo’s regarding the operation of the new Junior Museum & Zoo building. Executive Summary On November 10, 2014, (CRM 5130), Council approved a Letter of Intent for Construction and Operation of the New Junior Museum and Zoo Building by the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo (Friends). In February of 2015, the City and FJMZ began negotiations. On August 27, 2015, the Friends of JMZ board unanimously voted to defer consideration of their role as the operator of the new facility, for possible re-consideration within 5 years after the new JMZ facility opens. The JMZ board believes this adjustment is necessary in order to meet their deadlines regarding the fundraising, design and construction demands of rebuilding the JMZ. Background The Letter of Intent (LOI) between the City and the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (Friends), approved by Council on November 10, 2014, facilitated the discussion of the key negotiating terms and conditions relating to the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) Project, which would lead to reconstruction of the JMZ. The LOI outlined that the City and the Friends endeavor to negotiate an agreement for the construction of a new JMZ and the operation of the JMZ by the Friends for forty years after completion of the building. The LOI specified that Friends will undertake a community outreach and fundraising program to garner the community's input and support for the project. The Friends hired an architect to develop a conceptual plan to reconstruct the existing JMZ facility. A JMZ project footprint within Rinconada Park for portions of the Zoo was included in many stakeholder and community meetings for the Rinconada Park Master Plan. City of Palo Alto Page 2 As directed by Council, Staff and Friends have been meeting twice a month since February of 2015 to negotiate terms and conditions of for possible agreements. In the negotiations, City staff and the Friends have been working on draft construction terms, developing budget and staffing models, defining the public private partnership as well as planning the transition of governance. Discussion This decision to postpone the Friends of JMZ operating the JMZ was unanimous among the Friends Board. In the negotiations, City staff and the Friends have been working on numerous complex issues regarding construction and operations of the new facility. Attempting to do all concurrently has proven difficult. The Friends board fundraising has been very successful but working with the donors of the new building is extremely time sensitive. Thus, they opted for this stepped approach, which still leaves the option for the Friends to become the operator of the JMZ at a later date. The issues encountered in building a realistic 5-year pro forma that reflected revenue and operating budgets are also quite complex with many variables. Additionally, defining the public private partnership with clear delineation between the City and Friends roles, which would result in a clear operating plan, is also complicated and requires considerable planning and evaluation. The amount of time and effort required for these important tasks were in conflict with the Friends’ need to satisfy their donors’ desire to see firm construction plans and agreements in place before they committed to the capital campaign. These competing needs were further heightened due to the City’s concern about perceived or actual conflicts of interest by JMZ staff, as described by the Fair Political Practices Commissions, in the Political Reform Act, which …prohibits any public official from making, participating in making, or influencing a governmental decision that directly relates to a prospective employer while negotiating or after reaching an employment arrangement (Section 87407, Regulation 18747). In short, this law expands the Act’s conflict of interest rules and related disqualification obligations to situations where a decision will have a reasonably foreseeable material financial effect on the prospective employer even though the official does not yet have an economic interest in the employer. Under the ban on influencing prospective employment, an official may not make, participate in marking or influence decisions that “directly relate’ to a prospective employer. Due to concerns about conflict of interest, the JMZ staff became increasingly removed from design, planning and budget issues. JMZ staff had worked closely with Friends for years on all City of Palo Alto Page 3 aspects of the JMZ Initiative and had been instrumental in developing the vision and plan. Curbing their involvement in order to avoid a possible conflict of interest impacted progress in the negotiations. The JMZ staff expertise is needed in order to develop a realistic pro forma, one that would accurately reflect the costs of exhibitions, animal care, programs, operations and staff. With the conflict of interest concerns slowing the negotiations, the Friends negotiating team assessed the situation and their priorities. The Friends Board and their donors are first and foremost interested in rebuilding the JMZ facility as soon as possible, and they believe that focusing on fundraising and construction first will be the most prudent course of action to achieving their primary goal, leaving possible the transfer of governance discussions to a later time. The Friends remain fully committed to fundraising and leading the construction of the new facility, and believe that focusing their efforts will be more expedient and in the best interests of the Friends and the City of Palo Alto. In effect this would mean the new facility - once built by the Friends in partnership with the City - would remain under the City to operate, with the Friends continuing to support the JMZ program through ongoing fundraising and increased responsibilities, to be determined. Staff believes this is a positive development and will allow for the construction of the new JMZ facility to progress more quickly. The complexities of negotiating several different agreements, including shaping the terms of the public private partnership, and the budget and staffing issues, meant significant time would lapse before the necessary agreements would be completed. FJMZ has time constraints for fundraising and wishes to proceed with construction as soon as possible. The project needs JMZ staff input to make the JMZ initiative successful. Their expertise is invaluable to the project’s success. If the City remains the governing authority, the conflict of interest concern is no longer an issue. Thus, the project could move ahead, and the JMZ Friends are far more likely to meet fundraising and construction goals. Staff remains very interested in exploring the transfer of governance to Friends at a later date. Staff and Friends have discussed that a graduated process has many advantages, allowing the fundraising and construction agreements to move forward more quickly, and affording more time to plan a potential transfer of governance from the City to Friends. The complexities of the budget, staffing and partnership plans and agreements would benefit from more time. Staff is confident the recommendation in this report will yield a positive and more achievable outcome for the rebuilding of the JMZ. Timeline JMZ Friends hope to begin construction within two years. Staff and the JMZ Friends will continue to meet regularly, and plan to return to Council with an update on a draft construction agreement in February of 2016. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Staff and FJMZ will bring to Council in 2016 reports that address: Construction and Operations agreements Construction Schedule Plan for relocation during construction Drawings of the project at a schematic design level Fundraising update Report back on community input including boards and commissions Conceptual Pro forma and budget documents for the new facility and program EIR Report Visitor experience concepts and outreach plan Resource Impact While staff and JMZ Friends remain interested in the model of transferring governance to the JMZ, delaying that negotiation allows JMZ staff to be full participants in the design of the building and programs. In either model, due to the larger planned facility, it is anticipated that cost for operating the new JMZ facility will increase. Staff, with input from Friends, will develop a pro forma that offsets operational increases with earned and contributed income, for Council’s review and approval in 2016. Environmental Review The operational agreement is not subject to CEQA review. The Rinconada Master Plan and JMZ Initiative are currently undergoing CEQA review. Attachments: Attachment A: CMR 5170 with Council Approved Letter of Intent (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 5170) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/10/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Letter of Intent - Junior Museum & Zoo Title: Approval of Letter of Intent for Construction and Operation of the New Junior Museum and Zoo Building by the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo in 2019 From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends a) Council’s approval of a Letter of Intent (Attachment A), by which the City and the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) will collaborate to develop agreements for the building of a new and enhanced Junior Museum and Zoo facility, and the operation of the new facility for up to 40 years. b) Staff seeks the Council’s guidance and approval on the guiding negotiation principles, noted on page 4 below. Background The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (Friends) have played an integral role in the support and operation of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) since 1962. From 1962 through 1990, the Friends were referred to as the Junior Museum and Zoo Associates. In 2002, the Friends approached the City to create a public-private partnership with the intention of raising the capital improvement funds required to completely renovate the JMZ facility (CMR 442:02). In February 2007, a Council Colleague’s memo from then Vice-Mayor Klein and Council Members Beecham and Mossar requested that staff work with the Friends to explore the possibility of a new public/nonprofit partnership that would strengthen the ties between the City and the Friends. Council approved an Agreement for Mutual Cooperation and Support with the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (the Agreement) in November 2007 (CMR 443:07), an agreement extension in January 1 2013 (CMR #3395), and a Second Agreement in December City of Palo Alto Page 2 2013 (CMR #4258) (Attachment B). The current Mutual Cooperation and Support Agreement allows the Friends to use the JMZ facility to benefit the City through the Friends’ support of the operations, education-related programs, and activities and opportunities offered by or within the JMZ facility. The public-private partnership between the City and the Friends was strengthened via the written agreement, because it provided the Friends with a greater opportunity to play a role in planning and decision-making processes, which has led to increased outside funding for the JMZ facility. The Agreement enabled the Friends’ board members and staff to work in a more integrated way with the City, for example, by (a) including the JMZ manager as an ex-officio member of the Friends’ Board; (b) the Council providing a liaison to the Friends’ Board, (currently Council Member Berman); and (c) other City staff working in unison with the Friends’ staff to realize mutual goals. Final responsibility for the planning and operation of the JMZ facility continued to lie with the City, but the Friends participated with a higher level of engagement in planning and implementing JMZ activities than in the past. The inadequacies of the current JMZ facility were documented in several reports. The 1997 Adamson Associates Infrastructure Management Study Report stated that the Junior Museum & Zoo was overdue for a major renovation. It was recommended that the building be scheduled for a seismic upgrade in 1998-99 and that the entire facility be upgraded during this work. The estimated the cost in 1998 dollars of upgrades to bring the facility into mechanical and code compliance was priced at $733,000. (The mechanical systems were upgraded around 2004 and the roof was replaced in 2011.) In 2002, a Feasibility Study was conducted by MKThink Team, a consultant hired by the Friends. The Study recognized the conditions of visitor overcrowding at the JMZ facility and carefully evaluated the existing building and site for areas of efficiency and opportunity. Through a gap analysis study, the consultant determined that the program space demands (such as staff offices, classrooms, events and gathering areas) exceed existing JMZ facility accommodations and capacity. The building systems were found to be substandard and to not meet certain code requirements, and the overall coherence and presence of the JMZ facility was also deemed poor. In December 2011, the Blue Ribbon Infrastructure Task Force’s Final Report, identified “Catch Up” (deferred maintenance) in 2011 dollars for the Junior Museum & Zoo at $221,000. They also reported that they did not include Friends funding as part of their recommendation: City of Palo Alto Page 3 “In Palo Alto, donations from Community members have financed construction or improvements at Lucie Stern Community Center, the Junior Museum, the Arts Center, Lytton Plaza, the libraries, and various athletic and recreation facilities. Although some projects in the catch-up or future new & replacement categories could attract friends co-funding, the Commission did not find reasonable evidence to include friends funding as part of our recommendations.” In a 2013, a Fundraising Feasibility Study, conducted by March Partners and funded by the Friends, showed that survey respondents overwhelmingly concluded that the rebuilding of the JMZ facility would be essential to the ongoing contribution of the Museum to the community and to JMZ visitors. In 2014, the Friends completed a conceptual strategic plan and cost estimate to rebuild the JMZ facility. The Friends have been assessing public interest in the construction project (the Project) through a fundraising campaign and evaluating the feasibility of funding the construction of a new building through private contributions and grants. The City and the Friends are interested in undertaking and completing the Project in accordance with two agreements subject to mutually acceptable terms and conditions, where the City would maintain ownership of the facility and Friends would operate the facility. The Letter of Intent (the Letter) is intended to facilitate discussion of the key contract terms and conditions relating to the Project, and it requests that the City and the Friends endeavor to negotiate and finalize such agreements within the next twelve months. Discussion The Letter recognizes that the City and the Friends (the Parties) wish to collaborate in regard to the Project that would result in the complete rebuilding of the JMZ facility, as well as the operation of the JMZ for 40 years after completion of the Project. The City and the Friends anticipate the costs of the operation of the newly designed JMZ facility will exceed the current City budget appropriations for the JMZ. Further, the City desires to stabilize and reduce long-term its financial support for the JMZ’s operations. The Parties are interested in undertaking and completing the Project as well as the long- term operation of the newly built facility in accordance with two or more agreements subject to mutually acceptable terms and conditions. The Parties will endeavor to City of Palo Alto Page 4 negotiate and finalize the drafting of the following agreements over the next twelve (12) months, as practicable: 1) An agreement pertaining to the design and construction of the Project. This design/construction agreement would, for a period of time, grant the Friends a license or permission for access to, and the non-exclusive use and possession of, the Project area of the site (including within Rinconada Park), in order that the Friends may develop this area in order to improve, replace, and rebuild the JMZ to provide enhanced levels of service to the existing Palo Alto community. 2) An operations and management services agreement with a term of up to 40 years that will address, among other items, the adequacy of financial resources to be made available in order to facilitate the successful operation of the remodeled JMZ facility. This operations/management services agreement will address the appropriate operating constraints and public benefits. Staff is requesting Council’s direction to staff to negotiate these agreements with the following guiding negotiation principles in mind: 1. Delineate methods for appropriate public and City input to programs and services; 2. Oversight and cooperation of the construction project; 3. Establish a long-term structure for financial and programmatic oversight of the operations; 4. Stabilize and reduce long-term the City’s financial support for the JMZ’s operation; 5. Outline the possible transition of the operation of the facility to the City at time of lease expiration; and 6. Endeavor to complete negotiations within 12 months. Both agreements will be subject to the approval of the Palo Alto City Council and the approval as to form by the Palo Alto City Attorney. Before construction of new facilities, Council will be required to adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance in regard to the Project for any portion of the Project that will be constructed within Rinconada Park, as required by the City Charter and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Such a Park Improvement Ordinance would be consistent with the draft Rinconada Park Long Range Plan. Upon the Friends’ acceptance of this Letter, the Friends will continue to raise funds for, design and prepare construction documents for, and obtain a construction contractor for the Project. All design and construction work will be reviewed by one or more of the City of Palo Alto Page 5 City’s Departments of Community Services, Development Services, Planning and Community Environment, Utilities, and Public Works, and then reviewed and approved, as appropriate by the City’s Boards and Commissions, including, but not limited to, the Architectural Review Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and the City Council. Under the terms of this Letter of Intent the Friends will be required to obtain and maintain all required City permits and other authorizations and furnish or caused to be furnish any financial and non-financial security, during the construction, as appropriate, and upon request, to the City, including, but not limited to, insurance, indemnity, lien waivers, performance and payment bonds and covenants. The Friends will continue to undertake a community outreach and fund-raising program to garner the community’s input and support for the Project. The City will provide reasonable staff support and other assistance, upon request, to the Friends in connection with the execution of the Project. The Friends must pay certain Project permit-related fees and charges that are due and payable to the City’s General Fund and also pay all utility services rates, fees and charges that are due and payable to the City’s Utilities Enterprise Fund in connection with the construction, operation and management of the Project. Resource Impact No additional City resources will be required beyond staff participation, review and oversight of the Project at this time. If the City’s staff and Friends’ staff reach agreement on the key terms and conditions of these agreements, then as part of Council’s approval of these agreements, any resource impacts will be identified for Council’s review and approval. The Friends will be responsible for raising the required funds for the Project and for advocating for the JMZ facility in the community and provide leadership support through their Board of Directors. Policy Implications The Letter is not intended to be a binding contract between the Parties with respect to the Project. It is intended to facilitate discussion of the key terms and conditions of the agreements concerning the Project and is only an expression of the basis on which the Parties would enter into the agreements regarding the Project. The City requests the Friends’ acknowledgement of this letter in order that the City may develop the key terms and conditions of the draft agreements concerning the Project. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Environmental Review The approval of the Letter of Intent does not qualify as a ‘project’ under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code section 21065 and the CEQA guidelines, Title 14, section 15378, therefore, no environmental assessment is required at this time. This Project will be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act as part of the Rinconada Park Master Plan. The draft Master Plan for Rinconada Park, including the Junior Museum & Zoo Project, must be reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. A separate request for approval of a contract for environmental review services and funding is scheduled to be considered by Council this fall. The request will include funding by the Friends for the JMZ Project portion of the environmental review. Attachments: Attachment A - Letter of Intent (PDF) Attachment B - Agreement with the Friends JMZ Mutual Cooperation and Support (PDF) October 10, 2014 Aletha Coleman, President Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94310 RE: Rebuilding of the Junior Museum & Zoo at Rinconada Park Dear Ms. Coleman: The City of Palo Alto (the "City") and the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (the "Friends") (previously known as the Junior Museum and Zoo Associates) (each a "Party" and collectively, the "Parties") have enjoyed a long-standing relationship since 1962. In 2013, the Parties entered into a new Mutual Cooperation and Support Agreement for a term of up to six years, as it pertains to the Junior Museum and Zoo. This Support Agreement allows the Friends to use the JMZ to the benefit of the JMZ's patrons and provides for the Friends' support of the operations, education-related programs, and activities. The City and the Friends now wish to collaborate in regard to a construction project (the "Project") that would result in the complete rebuilding of the existing Junior Museum and Zoo facility ("JMZ") as well as the Friends' operation of the JMZ for 40 years after completion of the Project. The Project will be located within the boundaries of Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, as depicted in the Draft Rinconada Park Master Plan . . The City does not have sufficient funds to rebuild the existing JMZ facility and the Parties anticipate that the costs of the operation of the newly designed JMZ facility will exceed the current City's budget appropriations for the JMZ. The City desires to stabilize and reduce on a long-term basis its financial support for the JMZ's operation and the Friends seek financial support from the City in the initial years of the operation of the rebuilt facility. The Parties envision that the JMZ's mission, core programs, and services would be enhanced with a strong public-private partnership between the Parties, comprised of excellent communication and mutual understanding. The Parties are interested in undertaking and completing the Project in accordance with two or more agreements subject to mutually acceptable terms and conditions. The Parties will endeavor to negotiate and finalize the drafting of the following agreements over the next twelve (12) months, as practicable: Aletha Coleman, President Letter of Interest October XX, 2014 Page 2 of3 Project Design and Construction Agreement This design/construction agreement would, for a period of time, grant the Friends a license or permission for access to, and the non-exclusive use and possession of, the Project's construction site (including within Rinconada Park), in order that the Friends may develop this area in order to improve, replace, and rebuild the JMZ to provide enhanced levels of service to the Palo Alto community and JMZ visitors. Operations and Management Services Agreement This operations/management services agreement will address, among other items, the methods for appropriate public input to programs and services, the structure for financial and programmatic oversight of the operations, the adequacy of financial resources to facilitate the successful operation of the new facility, and the transition of the operation of the facility to the Friends and then possibly back to the City after the expiration of the agreement with the Friends. As part of the development of this operations/management services agreement, the Friends will prepare detailed financial pro form as with underlying assumptions and an operational plan which support the successful operation ofthe new JMZ facility. This agreement will address the appropriate operating constraints and public benefits. Both agreements will be subject to the approval of the Palo Alto City Council and the approval as to form by the Palo Alto City Attorney. The Council will be required to adopt a park improvement ordinance in regard to the Project for any portion of the Project that will be constructed within Rinconada Park, as required by the City Charter and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Upon the Friend's acceptance of this letter, the Friends will continue raising funds for the design and construction of the JMZ facility as well as operating reserves for the operation of the facility and prepare construction documents and an operational plan. The Friends will undertake a community outreach and fundraising program to garner the community's input and support for the Project. The Friends will be required to obtain and maintain all required City permits and other authorizations and furnish or caused to be furnish any financial and non-financial security, during the construction, as appropriate, and upon request, to the City, including, but not limited to insurance, indemnity, lien waivers, performance and payment bonds and covenants. All design and construction work will be reviewed by one or more of the City's Departments of Community Services, Planning and Community Environment, Development Services, Utilities, and Public Works, and then reviewed and approved, as appropriate by the City's boards and commissions, including, but not limited to, the Architectural Review Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council. The City will provide reasonable staff support and other assistance, upon request, to the Friends in connection with the execution of the Project. Aletha Coleman, President Letter of Interest October XX, 2014 Page 3 of3 This letter is not intended to be a binding contract between the Parties with respect to the Project. It is intended to facilitate discussion of the key contract terms and conditions of the two agreements relating to the Project, and it is only an expression of the basis, on which the Parties would enter into the agreements regarding the Project. The City requests the Friends' acknowledgement of this letter below in order that the City may proceed to develop with the Friends the key terms and conditions ofthe two draft agreements concerning the Project. Once these key terms and conditions have been identified, the City will undertake to draft the final agreements that will be mutually acceptable to the parties. Sincerely, James Keene City Manager Copies to: Greg Betts, Director, Community Services Mike Sartor, Director, Public Works Lalo Perez, Director, Administrative Services Rhyena Halpern, Assistant Director, Community Services Grant Kolling, Senior Asst. City Attorney Walter C. Rossmann, Director, Office of Management and Budget John Aikin, Manager, Junior Museum & Zoo The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo hereby acknowledge a mutual interest in developing appropriate agreements between the Parties to complete the Project conditions described above. ~,U~~ f'-Aletha Coleman, President Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Date 131120 dm 00710304A 1 Contract No. _______________ AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO FOR MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SUPPORT Dated as of _______________________, 2013 131120 dm 00710304A 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page 1 Term; Extension; Termination 4 2 Responsibilities of the Parties 4 3 General License to the Friends 6 4 Insurance 6 5 Indemnity 8 6 Waiver 9 7 No Property Rights 9 8 Assignment 9 9 Independent Contractor 10 10 Nondiscrimination 10 11 Notices 10 12 Miscellaneous 11 Exhibit “A” Insurance Requirements Exhibit “B” Certification of Nondiscrimination 131120 dm 00710304A 3 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO FOR MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SUPPORT This MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), dated, for convenience, ____________________, 2013 (the “Effective Date”), is entered into by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (the "City"), and the FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO, a California public benefit corporation organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law (the "Friends") (individually, a “Party” and, collectively, the “Parties”), in reference to the following facts and circumstances: RECITALS: 1. The City owns and operates the Junior Museum (the “Museum”) and Zoo (collectively, the “JMZ"), located at 1451 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301. The JMZ is a program of the City’s Community Services Department (the “Department”) and exists within the Department’s Arts and Sciences division. 2. The Friends have assisted the City’s JMZ staff in supporting and advocating on behalf of JMZ operations, programs and activities over the past thirty‐eight years. The Friends intend to benefit the City and the Palo Alto community by providing certain services, which the Parties intend to be rendered in accordance with the general scope of the City’s policy on Public/Private Partnerships. By this Agreement, the Friends will, at the direction of the City Manager, or designee, and through the use of both City and/or Department employees and JMZ staff‐supervised and unpaid community volunteers, support the operations‐ and education‐related programs, activities and opportunities offered by or within the JMZ. 3. The Parties wish to more closely collaborate and mutually cooperate and support each other in the future, to improve, enhance and sustain the capacity of the JMZ to develop and provide educational opportunities and related services to the Palo Alto community. 4. The Parties entered into a Mutual Cooperation and Support Agreement in 2007 for a three‐year term with an option to extend for an additional three‐year term. By an Amendment No. One to Agreement, the Parties extended the agreement for the additional three‐year term. The Parties desire to renew the 2007 Agreement on the same terms and conditions. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the following 131120 dm 00710304A 4 covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. TERM; EXTENSION; TERMINATION 1.1 This Agreement will commence on the Effective Date, and the initial term is three (3) years (the “Term”), unless it is earlier terminated by a Party as herein provided. 1.2 The Term may be extended by the Parties for one (1) additional term of three (3) years (the “Extension Term”); provided, however, the City may require the City Council’s approval of the Extension Term. 1.3 A Party may terminate for convenience this Agreement, in whole or in part, by giving the other Party no less than ninety (90) days’ prior written notice. 1.4 This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the “PAMC”). This Agreement will terminate without penalty: (A) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the JMZ program for the following fiscal year; or (B) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section 1.4 will take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement and the Exhibits. Nothing in this Section 1.4 is intended to affect the Friends’ rights and remedies as may be available under applicable laws. SECTION 2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES 2.1 The responsibilities of the City will include the following: A. The management of the JMZ facilities, programs and the City’s staff employees, including any and all City‐hired contractors, subcontractors, consultants and volunteers. The City will hire, supervise, evaluate and otherwise exercise supervision and control of its employees. The City may permit the Friends’ duly authorized representatives to participate in the interview process for the hiring of a manager of the JMZ (the “JMZ Manager”); B. The feeding, care and maintenance of the JMZ wildlife residents and basic maintenance and repair of the JMZ facilities as well as the furnishing of internal and external landscaping and utility services to the JMZ; C. The selection of one or more individuals to serve as the City’s liaison(s) to the Friends’ board of directors and/or any board committees (the “Board”), including (1) a Council Member, if any, who will serve as the official liaison of the City to the Board, and (2) the JMZ Manager, whose duties may include providing assistance to the Friends, including the Board, in selected fundraising activities, as may be directed or approved by the City Manager, or 131120 dm 00710304A 5 designee; D. The review of all community‐related activities that the Friends may propose for inclusion in the JMZ programs. All activities of the Friends will be pre‐approved by the JMZ Manager, or designee; E. Develop and provide educational programs relating to JMZ and supervise community volunteers in connection therewith; F. Manage the JMZ collections and supervise the accessioning, deaccessioning, cataloging, and conservation of the JMZ permanent collection in accordance with City, Department, Museum, state, and federal laws and applicable professional standards; and G. Any other obligation(s) that the City, Department or the Museum may undertake in accordance with this Agreement, upon reasonable notice to the Friends; provided, however, any such undertaking will be memorialized, in writing, by an amendment to this Agreement, in order that such undertaking will be binding upon the City. 2.2 The responsibilities of the Friends will include the following: A. The supervision and management of its directors, officers, employees, volunteers, contractors, subcontractors and consultants, while they, and each of them, are performing obligations on behalf of the Friends pursuant to this Agreement; B. The rendering of assistance to the JMZ Manager (through the Board and/or staff), at the JMZ Manager’s request, including voluntary attendance and contribution at staff meetings of the JMZ Manager; C. The provision and staffing of programs to educate the public about the JMZ and its programs and amenities, and the mobilization of volunteers for JMZ projects and programs; D. The development and implementation of a development plan for the JMZ (the “Friends Plan”), that is consistent with the JMZ strategic plan, referred to in Section 2.3(A), and the annual work plan(s), referred to in Section 2.3(B). The Development Plan will include donor acknowledgment and activities consistent with City policies and practices; and E. The rendering of other services beyond those spelled out in the annual JMZ Plan and related to the preservation, protection and enhancement of the JMZ, will be approved, in writing, by the JMZ Manager. 2.3 The responsibilities of the Parties will include the following: A. Under the direction of the JMZ Manager, develop a long‐term strategic plan to 131120 dm 00710304A 6 enhance and improve the vision of the JMZ (the “Strategic Plan”); B. Under the direction of the JMZ Manager and consistent with the Strategic Plan, develop an annual work plan (the “JMZ Plan”), and, on an annual basis, effective July 1 of each year, establish program, budget, fundraising and administrative and operational priorities and activities for each fiscal year of operations. The JMZ Plan will delineate the rights and obligations of the Parties and identify each Party’s duly authorized representative. The JMZ Plan will include, without limitation, specific cash handling procedures to be followed by the Parties and the dispute resolution procedures for informally resolving differences of opinion of each Party regarding the substance and/or implementation of the JMZ Plan; and C. In regard to the JMZ Plan, the Parties will review, on a quarterly basis, the status of reaching and/or exceeding the goals of the JMZ Plan, including budget goals. The Parties will evaluate, annually, the JMZ Plan. 2.4 The responsibility of either Party or the Parties in regard to any capital improvement project (“CIP”) for the JMZ will not be established by this Agreement. The Parties agree to reserve for future consideration any existing or future CIP for the JMZ, including the scope of a capital fundraising program and the responsibilities of each Party in regard to thereto. The provision of any CIP may be addressed by amendment to this Agreement or by separate instrument, as determined by the Parties. 2.5 To the extent this Section 2 does not specifically identify the Party who will be primarily responsible for any action or decision in regard to the JMZ, the Parties agree that the City will be the party to assume all rights and obligations in connection with such decision. SECTION 3. GENERAL LICENSE TO THE FRIENDS 3.1 The City hereby grants the Friends, its directors, officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors and consultants a nonexclusive license to enter upon and use the JMZ facilities in connection with the Friends’ execution of its individual and/or joint responsibilities established by the JMZ Plan, including, but not limited to, organizing small group meetings and large group/community meetings and events at the JMZ, such as fundraising events, programs, and tours of the JMZ facilities, and using the office space afforded to the Friends for their use at the JMZ facilities in connection with this Agreement. Any use of the JMZ facilities will be approved by the JMZ Manager in regards to program scheduling, space availability, and the functionality of shared JMZ spaces for staff use. The City will provide to the employees of the Friends security card access to the JMZ; any additional cards will be approved by the JMZ Manager, upon request, in writing. SECTION 4. INSURANCE 4.1 As of the Effective Date, the Friends, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and 131120 dm 00710304A 7 maintain the following insurance coverage, and as further described in Exhibit “A,” acceptable to the City’s insurance risk manager (the “Risk Manager”) in full force and effect during the Term, insuring not only the Friends but, with the exception of worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurance, naming the City as an additional insured, concerning the Friends’ participation under this Agreement. POLICY MINIMUM LIMITS OF LIABILITY A. WORKER’S COMPENSATION Statutory B. COMPREHENSIVE Bodily Injury $1,000,000 ea. person AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Property Damage $1,000,000 each person, including owned, hired, and non‐owned automobiles C. COMPREHENSIVE Bodily Injury $1,000,000 each person, GENERAL $1,000,000 each occurrence, LIABILITY $1,000,000 aggregate including products, Property Damage $1,000,000 each occurrence & completed operations, Personal Injury $1,000,000 each occurrence, broad form contractual, and personal injury. 4.2 Any deductibles or self‐insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Risk Manager. At the City’s option, the insurer will reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self‐insured retentions as respects the City. The Friends’ insurance will be carried in full force and effect on or before the Effective Date. Every insurance policy required by this Agreement will contain the following or substantially similar clauses: A. "This insurance shall not be canceled, limited in scope of coverage or nonrenewed until after thirty (30) days written notice has been given to: City of Palo Alto/Junior Museum and Zoo Manager, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303". B. "All rights of subrogation are hereby waived against the City of Palo Alto and the members of the City Council and elective or appointive officers or employees, when acting within the scope of their employment or appointment." C. "The City of Palo Alto is added as an additional insured as respects operations of the named insured at or from the JMZ." 131120 dm 00710304A 8 D. "It is agreed that any insurance maintained by the City of Palo Alto will apply in excess of, and not contribute to, insurance provided by this policy." 4.3 Evidence of Insurance Coverage and/or Changes will be, as follows: A. Certificate of Insurance. The Friends agree to deposit with the JMZ Manager before the effective date of this Agreement, certificates of insurance necessary to satisfy the City that the insurance provisions of this Agreement have been complied with, and to ensure that such insurance is kept in effect, with the certificates on deposit with the City, during the Term. Should the Friends fail to provide evidence of such required coverage at least three (3) days prior to the expiration of any existing insurance coverage, the City may purchase such insurance, on behalf of and at the sole expense of the Friends, to provide an additional six‐month period of coverage. B. Review of Coverage. The City will retain the right, at any time, to review the coverage, form, and amount of the insurance required hereby. If, in the opinion of the Risk Manager, the insurance provisions in this Agreement do not provide adequate protection for the City and for members of the public using the JMZ, the City Manager, or designee, may require an amount to provide adequate protection as determined by the Risk Manager. The City's requirements shall be reasonable and shall be designed to assure protection from and against the kind and extent of risk which exists at the time a change in insurance is required. C. Changes in Coverage. The City Manager, or designee, will notify the Friends, in writing, of any change(s) in the insurance requirements; if the Friends does not deposit copies of acceptable insurance policies (or certificates) with the City, to the attention of the Risk Manager, incorporating such changes within sixty (60) days of receipt of such notice, or in the event the Friends fail to ensure that the required insurance coverage is maintained in effect, the City may terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 1. D. No Limit of Liability. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit the Friends’ liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provision and requirements of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the Friends will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or connected with this Agreement, with the Friends’ use of the JMZ. E. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:X. 131120 dm 00710304A 9 SECTION 5. INDEMNITY 5.1 Except as provided under Section 5.2, the Friends hereby waive all claims, liability and recourse against the City, including the right of contribution for loss or damage of or to persons or property arising from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or related to this Agreement. The Friends will protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officials, officers, employees, representatives and agents, from and against any and all claims, losses, liability, demands, damages, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees, caused by or arising out of the Friends’ negligent acts or omissions, or willful misconduct, in the performance or nonperformance of its obligations under the covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement. The preceding sentence notwithstanding, no personal liability will attach to any Board member under the provisions of this Section 5 for any negligent action or inaction. In the event the City is named as co‐defendant, the Friends will notify, in writing, the City, to the attention of the City’s City Attorney (the “City Attorney”), of such fact and it will represent the City in such legal action, unless the City undertakes to represent itself as co‐defendant in such legal action, in which event the Friends will pay to the CITY its reasonable litigation costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 5.2 The City will protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Friends, its directors. officers, employees and agents, against any and all claims, losses, liability, demands, damages, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees arising out of the City's negligent performance or nonperformance of its obligations under the terms of this Agreement. SECTION 6. WAIVER 6.1 The waiver by either Party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement or of the provisions of the PAMC or other City law, rule or regulation, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition, or provision or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or any other covenant, term, condition, or provision. The subsequent acceptance by either Party of any consideration which may become due or payable hereunder will not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other Party SECTION 7. NO PROPERTY RIGHTS 7.1 The Parties agree that this Agreement will not confer any property right upon the Friends, its directors, officers, employees, volunteers, contractors, subcontractors or consultants. Any work performed for the benefit of the JMZ and any improvements placed or constructed at the JMZ will conform to the City’s standards and approved by the City Manager, or designee, and will, upon acceptance, become the property of the City. SECTION 8. ASSIGNMENT 131120 dm 00710304A 10 8.1 Neither Party may assign, transfer, or convey this Agreement or any interest that it may have in this Agreement without the other Party’s express consent or approval. Any attempted assignment without the required consent or approval will be void and will confer no right, title, or interest in or to this Agreement, or part thereof. In the event of an unauthorized assignment, at the option of the Party not making the assignment, this Agreement may be terminated upon reasonable notice to the Party making the assignment. SECTION 9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR 9.1 In the exercise of its rights and responsibilities under this Agreement, the Friends act at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to establish a partnership, joint venture, group, pool, syndicate or agency between the Parties. No provision contained herein will be construed as authorizing or empowering either Party to assume or create any obligation or responsibility whatsoever, express or implied, on behalf, or in the name of, the other Party in any manner, or to make any representation, warranty or commitment on behalf of the other Party. In no event will either Party be liable for (a) any loss incurred by the other Party in the course of its performance hereunder, or (b) any debts, obligations or liabilities of the other Party, whether due or to become due. SECTION 10. NONDISCRIMINATION 10.1 The PAMC prohibits discrimination in the employment of any individual under this Agreement because of race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of that person. The Foundation acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of PAMC Chapter 2.30 relating to nondiscrimination in employment and the penalties for violations thereof, and it agrees to comply with all requirements of PAMC Chapter 2.30 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment, including the completion, execution and submission to the City of the Certification of Nondiscrimination, as described in Exhibit “B.” SECTION 11. NOTICES 11.1 Any notice, request, consent or approval by a Party that is required to be furnished by this Agreement, will be given, in writing, and delivered by personal service, the United States Postal Service, mailed, first class, postage prepaid, or by facsimile transmission, to the following: To CITY: To FRIENDS: City Clerk Executive Director City of Palo Alto Friends of the Palo Alto Junior P.O. Box 10250 Museum and Zoo 131120 dm 00710304A 11 Palo Alto, CA 94303 1451 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94303‐4303 with a copy to: Manager, Junior Museum and Zoo City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 SECTION 12. MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Parties will comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws in the exercise of their rights and the performance of their obligations under this Agreement. 12.2 All covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement, whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions. 12.3 This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and contracts, written or oral. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument, in writing, signed by the Parties. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 12.4 All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are by such references incorporated in this Agreement and made a part hereof. The following exhibits are (or will be) made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit “A” ‐ Insurance Requirements Exhibit “B” – Certification of Nondiscrimination. 12.5 At the request of the City, the Friends will furnish to the City Attorney for the City’s review and approval copies of its articles of organization, operating agreement, and other information relating to its organization status. 12.6 The Parties agree that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguity is to be resolved against the drafting party will not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement, the Exhibits, or any amendment thereto. 12.7 In the event that an action is brought, the Parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 131120 dm 00710304A 12 12.8 The prevailing Party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. 12.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement, the Exhibits, or any amendment thereto, is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement, the Exhibits, or any amendment thereto, will remain in full force and effect. 12.10 The term “day” means a calendar day, unless a “business day” is specified; for the purposes of this Agreement, “business day” excludes any “Regular Holiday” or “Other Special Day” referred to in PAMC Section 2.08.100 or any Friday that is considered a ‘9/80’ day, when the City does not require employees, electing to work nine (9) business days in a ten‐ business days biweekly period, to work on such days. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties by their duly authorized representatives have executed this Agreement on the Effective Date. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF PALO ALTO ___________ __________ _________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager APPROVED: FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO __________________________ ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services Member ______________________________ ______________________________ Director of Community Services Member ______________________________ Member 131120 dm 00710304A 13 EXHIBIT “A” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 131120 dm 00710304A 14 EXHIBIT “B” CERTIFICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATION 131120 dm 00710304A 1 Contract No. _______________ AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO FOR MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SUPPORT Dated as of _______________________, 2013 131120 dm 00710304A 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page 1 Term; Extension; Termination 4 2 Responsibilities of the Parties 4 3 General License to the Friends 6 4 Insurance 6 5 Indemnity 8 6 Waiver 9 7 No Property Rights 9 8 Assignment 9 9 Independent Contractor 10 10 Nondiscrimination 10 11 Notices 10 12 Miscellaneous 11 Exhibit “A” Insurance Requirements Exhibit “B” Certification of Nondiscrimination 131120 dm 00710304A 3 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO FOR MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SUPPORT This MUTUAL COOPERATION AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), dated, for convenience, ____________________, 2013 (the “Effective Date”), is entered into by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (the "City"), and the FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO, a California public benefit corporation organized under the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law (the "Friends") (individually, a “Party” and, collectively, the “Parties”), in reference to the following facts and circumstances: RECITALS: 1. The City owns and operates the Junior Museum (the “Museum”) and Zoo (collectively, the “JMZ"), located at 1451 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301. The JMZ is a program of the City’s Community Services Department (the “Department”) and exists within the Department’s Arts and Sciences division. 2. The Friends have assisted the City’s JMZ staff in supporting and advocating on behalf of JMZ operations, programs and activities over the past thirty‐eight years. The Friends intend to benefit the City and the Palo Alto community by providing certain services, which the Parties intend to be rendered in accordance with the general scope of the City’s policy on Public/Private Partnerships. By this Agreement, the Friends will, at the direction of the City Manager, or designee, and through the use of both City and/or Department employees and JMZ staff‐supervised and unpaid community volunteers, support the operations‐ and education‐related programs, activities and opportunities offered by or within the JMZ. 3. The Parties wish to more closely collaborate and mutually cooperate and support each other in the future, to improve, enhance and sustain the capacity of the JMZ to develop and provide educational opportunities and related services to the Palo Alto community. 4. The Parties entered into a Mutual Cooperation and Support Agreement in 2007 for a three‐year term with an option to extend for an additional three‐year term. By an Amendment No. One to Agreement, the Parties extended the agreement for the additional three‐year term. The Parties desire to renew the 2007 Agreement on the same terms and conditions. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and the following 131120 dm 00710304A 4 covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, the Parties agree: SECTION 1. TERM; EXTENSION; TERMINATION 1.1 This Agreement will commence on the Effective Date, and the initial term is three (3) years (the “Term”), unless it is earlier terminated by a Party as herein provided. 1.2 The Term may be extended by the Parties for one (1) additional term of three (3) years (the “Extension Term”); provided, however, the City may require the City Council’s approval of the Extension Term. 1.3 A Party may terminate for convenience this Agreement, in whole or in part, by giving the other Party no less than ninety (90) days’ prior written notice. 1.4 This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the “PAMC”). This Agreement will terminate without penalty: (A) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the JMZ program for the following fiscal year; or (B) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section 1.4 will take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement and the Exhibits. Nothing in this Section 1.4 is intended to affect the Friends’ rights and remedies as may be available under applicable laws. SECTION 2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES 2.1 The responsibilities of the City will include the following: A. The management of the JMZ facilities, programs and the City’s staff employees, including any and all City‐hired contractors, subcontractors, consultants and volunteers. The City will hire, supervise, evaluate and otherwise exercise supervision and control of its employees. The City may permit the Friends’ duly authorized representatives to participate in the interview process for the hiring of a manager of the JMZ (the “JMZ Manager”); B. The feeding, care and maintenance of the JMZ wildlife residents and basic maintenance and repair of the JMZ facilities as well as the furnishing of internal and external landscaping and utility services to the JMZ; C. The selection of one or more individuals to serve as the City’s liaison(s) to the Friends’ board of directors and/or any board committees (the “Board”), including (1) a Council Member, if any, who will serve as the official liaison of the City to the Board, and (2) the JMZ Manager, whose duties may include providing assistance to the Friends, including the Board, in selected fundraising activities, as may be directed or approved by the City Manager, or 131120 dm 00710304A 5 designee; D. The review of all community‐related activities that the Friends may propose for inclusion in the JMZ programs. All activities of the Friends will be pre‐approved by the JMZ Manager, or designee; E. Develop and provide educational programs relating to JMZ and supervise community volunteers in connection therewith; F. Manage the JMZ collections and supervise the accessioning, deaccessioning, cataloging, and conservation of the JMZ permanent collection in accordance with City, Department, Museum, state, and federal laws and applicable professional standards; and G. Any other obligation(s) that the City, Department or the Museum may undertake in accordance with this Agreement, upon reasonable notice to the Friends; provided, however, any such undertaking will be memorialized, in writing, by an amendment to this Agreement, in order that such undertaking will be binding upon the City. 2.2 The responsibilities of the Friends will include the following: A. The supervision and management of its directors, officers, employees, volunteers, contractors, subcontractors and consultants, while they, and each of them, are performing obligations on behalf of the Friends pursuant to this Agreement; B. The rendering of assistance to the JMZ Manager (through the Board and/or staff), at the JMZ Manager’s request, including voluntary attendance and contribution at staff meetings of the JMZ Manager; C. The provision and staffing of programs to educate the public about the JMZ and its programs and amenities, and the mobilization of volunteers for JMZ projects and programs; D. The development and implementation of a development plan for the JMZ (the “Friends Plan”), that is consistent with the JMZ strategic plan, referred to in Section 2.3(A), and the annual work plan(s), referred to in Section 2.3(B). The Development Plan will include donor acknowledgment and activities consistent with City policies and practices; and E. The rendering of other services beyond those spelled out in the annual JMZ Plan and related to the preservation, protection and enhancement of the JMZ, will be approved, in writing, by the JMZ Manager. 2.3 The responsibilities of the Parties will include the following: A. Under the direction of the JMZ Manager, develop a long‐term strategic plan to 131120 dm 00710304A 6 enhance and improve the vision of the JMZ (the “Strategic Plan”); B. Under the direction of the JMZ Manager and consistent with the Strategic Plan, develop an annual work plan (the “JMZ Plan”), and, on an annual basis, effective July 1 of each year, establish program, budget, fundraising and administrative and operational priorities and activities for each fiscal year of operations. The JMZ Plan will delineate the rights and obligations of the Parties and identify each Party’s duly authorized representative. The JMZ Plan will include, without limitation, specific cash handling procedures to be followed by the Parties and the dispute resolution procedures for informally resolving differences of opinion of each Party regarding the substance and/or implementation of the JMZ Plan; and C. In regard to the JMZ Plan, the Parties will review, on a quarterly basis, the status of reaching and/or exceeding the goals of the JMZ Plan, including budget goals. The Parties will evaluate, annually, the JMZ Plan. 2.4 The responsibility of either Party or the Parties in regard to any capital improvement project (“CIP”) for the JMZ will not be established by this Agreement. The Parties agree to reserve for future consideration any existing or future CIP for the JMZ, including the scope of a capital fundraising program and the responsibilities of each Party in regard to thereto. The provision of any CIP may be addressed by amendment to this Agreement or by separate instrument, as determined by the Parties. 2.5 To the extent this Section 2 does not specifically identify the Party who will be primarily responsible for any action or decision in regard to the JMZ, the Parties agree that the City will be the party to assume all rights and obligations in connection with such decision. SECTION 3. GENERAL LICENSE TO THE FRIENDS 3.1 The City hereby grants the Friends, its directors, officers, employees, contractors, subcontractors and consultants a nonexclusive license to enter upon and use the JMZ facilities in connection with the Friends’ execution of its individual and/or joint responsibilities established by the JMZ Plan, including, but not limited to, organizing small group meetings and large group/community meetings and events at the JMZ, such as fundraising events, programs, and tours of the JMZ facilities, and using the office space afforded to the Friends for their use at the JMZ facilities in connection with this Agreement. Any use of the JMZ facilities will be approved by the JMZ Manager in regards to program scheduling, space availability, and the functionality of shared JMZ spaces for staff use. The City will provide to the employees of the Friends security card access to the JMZ; any additional cards will be approved by the JMZ Manager, upon request, in writing. SECTION 4. INSURANCE 4.1 As of the Effective Date, the Friends, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and 131120 dm 00710304A 7 maintain the following insurance coverage, and as further described in Exhibit “A,” acceptable to the City’s insurance risk manager (the “Risk Manager”) in full force and effect during the Term, insuring not only the Friends but, with the exception of worker’s compensation and employer’s liability insurance, naming the City as an additional insured, concerning the Friends’ participation under this Agreement. POLICY MINIMUM LIMITS OF LIABILITY A. WORKER’S COMPENSATION Statutory B. COMPREHENSIVE Bodily Injury $1,000,000 ea. person AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY Property Damage $1,000,000 each person, including owned, hired, and non‐owned automobiles C. COMPREHENSIVE Bodily Injury $1,000,000 each person, GENERAL $1,000,000 each occurrence, LIABILITY $1,000,000 aggregate including products, Property Damage $1,000,000 each occurrence & completed operations, Personal Injury $1,000,000 each occurrence, broad form contractual, and personal injury. 4.2 Any deductibles or self‐insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Risk Manager. At the City’s option, the insurer will reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self‐insured retentions as respects the City. The Friends’ insurance will be carried in full force and effect on or before the Effective Date. Every insurance policy required by this Agreement will contain the following or substantially similar clauses: A. "This insurance shall not be canceled, limited in scope of coverage or nonrenewed until after thirty (30) days written notice has been given to: City of Palo Alto/Junior Museum and Zoo Manager, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303". B. "All rights of subrogation are hereby waived against the City of Palo Alto and the members of the City Council and elective or appointive officers or employees, when acting within the scope of their employment or appointment." C. "The City of Palo Alto is added as an additional insured as respects operations of the named insured at or from the JMZ." 131120 dm 00710304A 8 D. "It is agreed that any insurance maintained by the City of Palo Alto will apply in excess of, and not contribute to, insurance provided by this policy." 4.3 Evidence of Insurance Coverage and/or Changes will be, as follows: A. Certificate of Insurance. The Friends agree to deposit with the JMZ Manager before the effective date of this Agreement, certificates of insurance necessary to satisfy the City that the insurance provisions of this Agreement have been complied with, and to ensure that such insurance is kept in effect, with the certificates on deposit with the City, during the Term. Should the Friends fail to provide evidence of such required coverage at least three (3) days prior to the expiration of any existing insurance coverage, the City may purchase such insurance, on behalf of and at the sole expense of the Friends, to provide an additional six‐month period of coverage. B. Review of Coverage. The City will retain the right, at any time, to review the coverage, form, and amount of the insurance required hereby. If, in the opinion of the Risk Manager, the insurance provisions in this Agreement do not provide adequate protection for the City and for members of the public using the JMZ, the City Manager, or designee, may require an amount to provide adequate protection as determined by the Risk Manager. The City's requirements shall be reasonable and shall be designed to assure protection from and against the kind and extent of risk which exists at the time a change in insurance is required. C. Changes in Coverage. The City Manager, or designee, will notify the Friends, in writing, of any change(s) in the insurance requirements; if the Friends does not deposit copies of acceptable insurance policies (or certificates) with the City, to the attention of the Risk Manager, incorporating such changes within sixty (60) days of receipt of such notice, or in the event the Friends fail to ensure that the required insurance coverage is maintained in effect, the City may terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 1. D. No Limit of Liability. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit the Friends’ liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provision and requirements of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the Friends will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or connected with this Agreement, with the Friends’ use of the JMZ. E. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:X. 131120 dm 00710304A 9 SECTION 5. INDEMNITY 5.1 Except as provided under Section 5.2, the Friends hereby waive all claims, liability and recourse against the City, including the right of contribution for loss or damage of or to persons or property arising from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or related to this Agreement. The Friends will protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its officials, officers, employees, representatives and agents, from and against any and all claims, losses, liability, demands, damages, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees, caused by or arising out of the Friends’ negligent acts or omissions, or willful misconduct, in the performance or nonperformance of its obligations under the covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement. The preceding sentence notwithstanding, no personal liability will attach to any Board member under the provisions of this Section 5 for any negligent action or inaction. In the event the City is named as co‐defendant, the Friends will notify, in writing, the City, to the attention of the City’s City Attorney (the “City Attorney”), of such fact and it will represent the City in such legal action, unless the City undertakes to represent itself as co‐defendant in such legal action, in which event the Friends will pay to the CITY its reasonable litigation costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 5.2 The City will protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Friends, its directors. officers, employees and agents, against any and all claims, losses, liability, demands, damages, costs, expenses or attorneys' fees arising out of the City's negligent performance or nonperformance of its obligations under the terms of this Agreement. SECTION 6. WAIVER 6.1 The waiver by either Party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agreement or of the provisions of the PAMC or other City law, rule or regulation, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition, or provision or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or any other covenant, term, condition, or provision. The subsequent acceptance by either Party of any consideration which may become due or payable hereunder will not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other Party SECTION 7. NO PROPERTY RIGHTS 7.1 The Parties agree that this Agreement will not confer any property right upon the Friends, its directors, officers, employees, volunteers, contractors, subcontractors or consultants. Any work performed for the benefit of the JMZ and any improvements placed or constructed at the JMZ will conform to the City’s standards and approved by the City Manager, or designee, and will, upon acceptance, become the property of the City. SECTION 8. ASSIGNMENT 131120 dm 00710304A 10 8.1 Neither Party may assign, transfer, or convey this Agreement or any interest that it may have in this Agreement without the other Party’s express consent or approval. Any attempted assignment without the required consent or approval will be void and will confer no right, title, or interest in or to this Agreement, or part thereof. In the event of an unauthorized assignment, at the option of the Party not making the assignment, this Agreement may be terminated upon reasonable notice to the Party making the assignment. SECTION 9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR 9.1 In the exercise of its rights and responsibilities under this Agreement, the Friends act at all times as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to establish a partnership, joint venture, group, pool, syndicate or agency between the Parties. No provision contained herein will be construed as authorizing or empowering either Party to assume or create any obligation or responsibility whatsoever, express or implied, on behalf, or in the name of, the other Party in any manner, or to make any representation, warranty or commitment on behalf of the other Party. In no event will either Party be liable for (a) any loss incurred by the other Party in the course of its performance hereunder, or (b) any debts, obligations or liabilities of the other Party, whether due or to become due. SECTION 10. NONDISCRIMINATION 10.1 The PAMC prohibits discrimination in the employment of any individual under this Agreement because of race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of that person. The Foundation acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of PAMC Chapter 2.30 relating to nondiscrimination in employment and the penalties for violations thereof, and it agrees to comply with all requirements of PAMC Chapter 2.30 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment, including the completion, execution and submission to the City of the Certification of Nondiscrimination, as described in Exhibit “B.” SECTION 11. NOTICES 11.1 Any notice, request, consent or approval by a Party that is required to be furnished by this Agreement, will be given, in writing, and delivered by personal service, the United States Postal Service, mailed, first class, postage prepaid, or by facsimile transmission, to the following: To CITY: To FRIENDS: City Clerk Executive Director City of Palo Alto Friends of the Palo Alto Junior P.O. Box 10250 Museum and Zoo 131120 dm 00710304A 11 Palo Alto, CA 94303 1451 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94303‐4303 with a copy to: Manager, Junior Museum and Zoo City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 SECTION 12. MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Parties will comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws in the exercise of their rights and the performance of their obligations under this Agreement. 12.2 All covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement, whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions. 12.3 This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and contracts, written or oral. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument, in writing, signed by the Parties. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 12.4 All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are by such references incorporated in this Agreement and made a part hereof. The following exhibits are (or will be) made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit “A” ‐ Insurance Requirements Exhibit “B” – Certification of Nondiscrimination. 12.5 At the request of the City, the Friends will furnish to the City Attorney for the City’s review and approval copies of its articles of organization, operating agreement, and other information relating to its organization status. 12.6 The Parties agree that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguity is to be resolved against the drafting party will not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement, the Exhibits, or any amendment thereto. 12.7 In the event that an action is brought, the Parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 131120 dm 00710304A 12 12.8 The prevailing Party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. 12.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement, the Exhibits, or any amendment thereto, is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement, the Exhibits, or any amendment thereto, will remain in full force and effect. 12.10 The term “day” means a calendar day, unless a “business day” is specified; for the purposes of this Agreement, “business day” excludes any “Regular Holiday” or “Other Special Day” referred to in PAMC Section 2.08.100 or any Friday that is considered a ‘9/80’ day, when the City does not require employees, electing to work nine (9) business days in a ten‐ business days biweekly period, to work on such days. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties by their duly authorized representatives have executed this Agreement on the Effective Date. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF PALO ALTO ___________ __________ _________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager APPROVED: FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO __________________________ ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services Member ______________________________ ______________________________ Director of Community Services Member ______________________________ Member 131120 dm 00710304A 13 EXHIBIT “A” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 131120 dm 00710304A 14 EXHIBIT “B” CERTIFICATION OF NONDISCRIMINATION SCHOOL PARKING LOT LUCIE STERN COMMUNITY CENTER GIRLSCOUT BUILDING CHILDREN PLAY AREA M I D D L E F I E L D R O A D KEL L O G A V E N U E SHARED TOT PLAY OLDER CHILDREN PLAY OUTDOOR ANIMAL MANAGEMENT AREA OUTDOOR EXHIBITS PARK ARRIVAL DAWN REDWOOD COURTYARD PROPOSED MUSEUM & EDUCATION BUILDING TEMP. OUTDOOR CLASSROOM RINCONADA PARK ADULT EXERCISE WALTER HAYS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SECONDARY ENTRY ZOO/PARK INTERACTION ZONE EXTERIOR NETTEDENCLOSURE PROPOSED LOOSE IN THE ZOO EXTERIOR NETTED ENCLOSURE NET T E D VE S T I B U L E S E R V I C E Y A R D RECONFIGURED PARKING LOT TRE L L I S MAI N EN T R A N C E C A W A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 6 5 0 . 3 2 8 . 1 8 1 8 Copyright © 2014 by CODY ANDERSON WASNEY ARCHITECTS, INC. PROPOSED SITE PLAN - PHASE 1 NOVEMBER 8, 2016 SCALE: 1"= 30'-0" PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOON OUTDOOR EXHIBITS 2,250 SF NET T E D DO U B L E CO N T A I N M E N T CON F . PAN T R Y EXHIBITS 4,200 SF DAWN REDWOOD COURTYARD TEMPORARY OUTDOOR CLASSROOM 1,375 SF TI C K E T I N G A N D R E C E P T I O N 155 S F ENT R Y LOB B Y 160 SF LOOSE IN THE ZOO OUTDOOR ZOO ANIMAL MANAGEMENT AREA SHO P CLA S S R O O M MEC H . 940 SF ELE C . WOR K ZO N E ANI M A L SUP P L Y ANI M A L CAR E 160 SF 225 SF CAB I N E N T OF CU R I O S I T Y ANI M A L INT E R A C T I O N S 215 SF ST O R A G E LA U N D R Y 890 SF Q U A R A N T I N E VE S T . CLA S S R O O M STO R A G E HE R P Z O N E XL ANI M A L CAR E LAR G E LAR G E LAR G E 90 SF 700 SF 90 SF 85 SFDAT A CA S E W O R K TE A C H I N G KI T C H E N 90 SF C A R R I E R S STR O L L E R PA R K I N G SM S E R V I C E Y A R D PRO G R A M ANI M A L RM PRO G R A M AN I M A L RO O M 1,35 0 SF CO L L E C T I O N HU B 1,03 0 SF CLA S S R O O M 900 SF CLA S S R O O M STO R A G E C L I M A T E C O N T R O L L E D S T O R A G E 22 5 S F COP Y 172 0 SF STA F F O F F I C E S CLE R E S T O R Y NE T T E D E N C L O S U R E LOW CE I L I N G TRE L L I S AB O V E CL E R E S T O R Y A T H I G H R O O F T R A S H E N C L O S U R E FR $ DRY STO R A G E LOW CE I L I N G +9'- 0 " A.F.F +18'-0" A.F.F BI K E L O C K E R DE C O R A T I V E S C R E E N F E N C E NETTEDDOUBLE CONTAINMENT R B.O. STRUCTURE B.O. ST R U C T U R E +11'- 0 " A.F.F UN D E R C O U N T E R SM A L L FRI D G E R F D W F ST R O L L E R P A R K I N G EXISTINGBOBCAT EXHIBIT SER V I C E COR R I D O R INTERACTION ZONE RAINBOWBRIDGE FLAMINGO & DUCK POND INTERACTIVE EXHIBIT ENTRY TO'UNDER' RACCOON EXHIBIT RABBIT MEADOW TORTOISE HILL MEERKAT OR PRAIRIE DOG EXHIBIT TURTLE &CICHLIDS EXHIBIT KITTEN'S DEN COVEREDUNDERWATERVIEWING RR RR SHO W E R C A W A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 6 5 0 . 3 2 8 . 1 8 1 8 Copyright © 2014 by CODY ANDERSON WASNEY ARCHITECTS, INC. PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - PHASE 1 NOVEMBER 8, 2016 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOON OUTDOOR EXHIBITS 2,250 SF TEMPORARY OUTDOOR CLASSROOM 1,375 SF NE T T E D E N C L O S U R E DE C O R A T I V E S C R E E N F E N C E NETTEDDOUBLE CONTAINMENT RAINBOWBRIDGE FLAMINGO & DUCK POND INTERACTIVE EXHIBIT ENTRY TO'UNDER' RABBIT MEADOW TORTOISE HILL TURTLE & CICHLIDS EXHIBIT KITTEN'S DEN STAIR ELEVATOR BUTTERFLY EXHIBIT ANTI-ROOM DOUBLE CONTAINMENT BRIDGE TREE FORT C A W A R C H I T E C T S . C O M 6 5 0 . 3 2 8 . 1 8 1 8 Copyright © 2014 by CODY ANDERSON WASNEY ARCHITECTS, INC. PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - PHASE 2 NOVEMBER 8, 2016 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOON PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16" = 1'2 OUTDOOR EXHIBITS 2,250 SF NET T E D DO U B L E CO N T A I N M E N T CON F . PAN T R Y EXHIBITS 4,200 SF DAWN REDWOOD COURTYARD TEMPORARY OUTDOOR CLASSROOM 1,375 SF TI C K E T I N G A N D R E C E P T I O N 15 5 S F ENT R Y LOB B Y 160 SF LOOSE IN THE ZOO OUTDOOR ZOO ANIMAL MANAGEMENT AREA SHO P CLA S S R O O M MEC H . 940 SF ELE C . WOR K ZO N E ANI M A L SUP P L Y ANI M A L CAR E 160 SF 225 SF CAB I N E N T OF CU R I O S I T Y ANI M A L INT E R A C T I O N S 215 SF ST O R A G E LA U N D R Y 890 SF Q U A R A N T I N E VE S T . CLA S S R O O M STO R A G E H E R P Z O N E XL ANIM A L CAR E LAR G E LAR G E LAR G E 90 SF 700 SF 90 SF 85 SFDAT A CA S E W O R K TE A C H I N G KI T C H E N 90 SF C A R R I E R S STR O L L E R PA R K I N G SM S E R V I C E Y A R D PRO G R A M ANI M A L RM PRO G R A M AN I M A L RO O M 1,35 0 SF CO L L E C T I O N HU B 1,03 0 SF CLA S S R O O M 900 SF CLA S S R O O M STO R A G E C L I M A T E C O N T R O L L E D S T O R A G E 22 5 S F COP Y 172 0 SF STA F F O F F I C E S CLE R E S T O R Y NE T T E D E N C L O S U R E LOW CE I L I N G TRE L L I S AB O V E CL E R E S T O R Y A T H I G H R O O F TR A S H E N C L O S U R E FR $ DRY STO R A G E LOW CE I L I N G +9'- 0 " A.F.F +18'-0" A.F.F BI K E LO C K E R DE C O R A T I V E S C R E E N F E N C E NETTEDDOUBLE CONTAINMENT R B.O. STRUCTURE B.O. ST R U C T U R E +11'- 0 " A.F.F UN D E R C O U N T E R SM A L L FRI D G E R F D W F ST R O L L E R P A R K I N G EXISTINGBOBCATEXHIBIT SER V I C E COR R I D O R INTERACTION ZONE RAINBOW BRIDGE FLAMINGO &DUCK POND INTERACTIVE EXHIBIT ENTRY TO 'UNDER' RACCOON EXHIBIT RABBIT MEADOW TORTOISE HILL MEERKAT OR PRAIRIE DOG EXHIBIT TURTLE &CICHLIDSEXHIBIT KITTEN'S DEN COVEREDUNDERWATERVIEWING RR RR SHO W E R CLASSROOM 650 SF MECH.RR ZOO RR STAIR ELEVATOR PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16" = 1'1 KEY NOTES BENCH ARTIFICIAL TREE/STUMP GLASS RAILING 5'-0" HT. SHOTCRETE MUD BANK 5'-0" KOPJE ROCK FORMATION (SHOTCRETE) KEEPER GATE MESH VIEW PANEL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 71 2 2 4 3 6 4 5 2 5 3 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 1 LEGEND TURTLE BARRIER - 12" VERT. METAL RODS @ 2" OC RABBIT BARRIER - 24" HT. VERT. METAL RODS @ 2" OC VISITOR BARRIER - 3' 6" HT. MAJOR TREE PLANTING LOCATION PLANTING AREA VISITOR PAVING (COLORED CONCRETE) WATER ANIMAL AREA RESILIENT RUBBER FLOORING RACCOON RACCOON STREAM RACCOON CAVE/HOLLOW LOG WITH GLASS FRONT FOR CHILDREN'S VIEWING RACCOON SAND DIG AREA MUST BE LOWER THAN POOL ARTIFICIAL LOG FOR CHILDREN TO CLIMB INTO. ACRYLIC TOP WITH RACCOON POOL ABOVE TO WATCH RACCOON WASH FOOD INSECT EXHIBIT OR FLORESCENT MINERAL COLLECTION RACCOON PERCH & LOG JAMB: NATURAL LOGS & BRANCHES (FLOOD DEBRIS) FOR ENTRY TO UNDERWATER VIEWING. MESH ENCLOSURE FOR RACCOON TUCKED INTO SHADED LOG DEBRIS WORK BENCH TOOL STORAGE BOBCAT (EXISTING) BOBCAT OVERHEAD MESH TUNNEL TO TREE FORT CRYSTALS & GLOWING MUSHROOMS (NOT IN ZOO BUDGET) STREAM BANK ENTRY TO ACRYLIC TUNNEL. ARTIFICIAL STUMP WITH EXPOSED ROOTS ABOVE, TRANSFER PLATFORMS IN MUD BANK @ BOTH ENDS UNDERWATER ACRYLIC DOME LIGHT SHAFTS COVERED UNDERWATER VIEWING LOGS & SOLID ROOF COVER OVER ENTIRE UNDERWATER VIEWING AREA "HOBBIT MINER" HOUSE CLIMB-IN GEODE (ACTUAL GEODE INTERIOR NOT IN ZOO BUDGET) OVERSIZED WOOD ADIRONDACK CHAIR FOR ANIMAL (RABBITS) ENCOUNTER RABBIT MEADOW SEATING ROCKS RAINBOW BRIDGE TURTLE & CICHLIDS STREAM +1 +2 +3 +4 +0 INSECT HUTCH 4' WIDE PATH ROOT CRAWL SANDY BEACH SANDY BEACH 7 SEAT ROCK FOR ANIMAL ENCOUNTERSINTERACTION ZONE TORTOISE HOLDING TORTOISE HILL TORTOISE SHOWER. (MOTION DETECTOR TURNS ON SHOWER WHEN TORTOISE PASSES UNDER) 2 2 UP VERTICAL LOG TORTOISE BARRIER IN SERPENTINE LAYOUT WITH UNDULATING TOP PLANE RECYCLED PLASTIC WOOD TORTOISE BARRIER 24" HT, HORIZONTAL BOARDS FEEDING POOL RABBIT HUTCH BUILT INTO TREE W/ HOBBIT HOUSE FACADE, DOOR & WINDOW. (SIMILAR VERSION OF HOBBIT MINERS HOUSE: FACADE, ENTRY DOOR, WINDOW & AWNING. %QR[TKIJVlD[%1&;#0&'45109#50';#4%*+6'%65+0% C o d y A n d e r s o n W a s n e y A r c h i t e c t s, I n c. .CODGTV#XGPWGŖ2CNQ#NVQ%# Ŗ(CZ STAMP CONSULTANTS REVISION DATE PROJECT NAME SHEET TITLE SHEET NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BY 11011 JUNIOR MUSEUM & ZOO 1451 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD PALO ALTO, CA, 94301 SHR SHR 50% SD 10 JUNE 16 2 5 0 M a d r o n a W a y N E #2 2 0 B a i n b r i d g e I s l a n d , W A 9 8 3 4 6 2 0 6 .8 42 .83 3 2 s t u di o -h an s on r o be r ts .c o m "LOOSE IN THE ZOO" SITE PLAN X01 SCALE : 1/8"=1'-0" Z1.0 REFER TO FLOOR PLAN City of Palo Alto (ID # 7737) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Donation of a Surplus Fire Truck to Oaxaca, Mexico Title: Adoption of a Resolution Donating a Surplus Fire Truck to our Sister City, Oaxaca, Mexico and Accepting $25,000 From Neighbors Abroad as the Purchase Price of the Fire Truck From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution accepting $25,000 from Neighbors Abroad as the purchase price for a surplus fire truck that will be transferred to the Sister City of Oaxaca, Mexico. Background Neighbors Abroad, a volunteer community organization operating under the auspices of the City of Palo Alto, directs the activities of Palo Alto’s officially recognized Sister Cities Program. Its purpose is to promote international and intercultural understanding. Neighbors Abroad was founded on January 18, 1963 after the Palo Alto City Council initiated a Sister City organization in concert with President Eisenhower’s Town Affiliation Program. Neighbors Abroad has received recognition from the United Nations and was given the Tall Tree Award from the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce for Outstanding Community Organization. It has also received awards from Sister Cities International for several of its programs, including the 25th Anniversary Celebration, the Observatory and Planetarium in Oaxaca, a Reforestation Program in Oaxaca, and the Vocational Resource Center in Palo. Oaxaca became a sister city in 1964. Summer exchanges by groups of high-school students have been a longtime tradition, along with periodic visits by groups of Palo Altans organized by Neighbors Abroad. On several occasions, the City of Palo Alto has contributed surplus fire equipment to Oaxaca and provided training for its firefighters. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion In 2014 the Fire Department acquired a tractor drawn aerial ladder truck. This ladder truck was purchased in 2013 to replace the 1999 Quint aerial ladder truck. The 1999 Quint aerial ladder truck is the unit that is recommended to be donated to Oaxaca, Mexico. This unit cannot be utilized by the City of Palo Alto as a reserve apparatus due to its age and its mileage (92,181). The City has agreed to a joint purchase agreement of a reserve ladder truck with the City of Mountain View to replace the 1999 Quint ladder truck. Therefore, there is no need to retain the 1999 Quint ladder truck in the City’s fleet. Considering that this apparatus is no longer of use to the City of Palo Alto, it would be of great benefit to the City of Oaxaca. Neighbors Abroad has agreed to coordinate the delivery of the 1999 Quint ladder truck to Oaxaca. Staff estimates the 1999 Quint ladder truck salvage value at approximately $87,500. Neighbors Abroad and the City of Oaxaca have offered $25,000 towards the purchase price and requests the Council waive the remaining $62,500 of the salvage value as part of the donation to the Sister City of Oaxaca. Timeline After the Council’s approval of the resolution, Neighbors Abroad will support the transportation of the vehicle to the Mexico/United States border where the balance of the transportation will be provided by the State of Oaxaca. The goal is to have this transfer executed in April of 2017. Resource Impact The 1999 Quint ladder truck has a salvage value of $87,500. Neighbors Abroad of Palo Alto has extended an offer of $25,000 for the purchase of the 1999 Quint ladder truck. Neighbors Abroad requests that the City make an in-kind contribution of the remaining salvage value of $67,500. Policy Implications This donation is consistent with the existing City Policies and furthers international and intercultural understanding. Attachments: Letter of interest from Manuel A. Maza Sanchez Letter from Neighbors Abroad Certificate of Appraisal Attachments: letter NeighborsAbroad_Quint_Offer CoA_6122 Resolution Re: §ecretaría de §egwidad Pública "2016, ANA DEL F(X4ENTO A I-11 IECTURA Y IA ESCRTTURA'' HERO¡CO CUERPO DE BOMBEROS Oaxaca deJuárez, Oax.,16 juneZALG City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, California USA 94301 Attn.Eric Nickel, Fire Chief of Ci§ of Palo Alto Mike Sator, Director of Public Works Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer Letter of lnterest to Purchase Surplus Fire Truck 6122 The State of Oaxaca Mexico appreciates this opportunity to state our interest to purchase the surplus fire truck 6L22, a 1999 Quint Fire LadderTruck. Given the magnitude of this financial commitment we request the City of Palo Alto allow 60 days to gain approval by our state government. During the 6O days, we will enter into a discussion toward a mutually acceptable purchase price. The City of Oaxaca continues to enjoy the long term freindship between our cities, and in this case, as it relates to providing for the safety of our citizens. While this letter states our interest this letter cannot bind the State of Oaxaca to a purchase. Please acknowledge receipt by emailing to attention at bomberosoaxaca@hotmail.com. please identify a point of contact for us tolontinue our discussions. Thank you again. Sincerely.w SEGUBIDAD SANCHEZ.HEROICO t AV. JoRGE L. TAMAYO S/N, COLoNIA CANDIANI, OAXACA DE JUAREZ, oAX., C.P,68130. TEL Y FAX: (9s1) 14 4 83 91 OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA PO BOX 52004, PALO ALTO, CA 94303 USA www.neighborsabroad.org THE OFFICIAL SISTER CITY ORGANIZATION OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, USA SISTER CITIES: PALO, PHILIPPINES; OAXACA, MEXICO; ENSCHEDE, NETHERLANDS; LINKOPING, SWEDEN; ALBI, FRANCE; TSUCHIURA,JAPAN MEMBER, SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL November 8, 2016 Mayor Burt and Honorable Council Members, On behalf of the State of Oaxaca, Neighbors Abroad of Palo Alto extends an offer of $25,000 for the purchase of the Spartan Aerial fire vehicle. Also referred to as a quintuple combination pumper or Quint, the vehicle is a fire service apparatus that serves the dual purpose of an engine and a ladder truck. Even though the City of Palo Alto by regulation must surplus the Quint, the vehicle still can provide a long life protecting Oaxaca citizens and even Palo Alto citizens as they visit Oaxaca. The vehicle would be a capstone to a new fire station that lacks vehicles to fill its bays. The Quint has approximately 93,000 miles, a VIN of 4S7AW4w94XC029384 and California plates 1059401. In 2015 the City of Palo Alto notified Oaxaca that a series of fire vehicles would be designated as surplus during 2016. Since then, Oaxaca has waited for the vehicles to become ready for purchase. The State of Oaxaca provided the City notice that they wished to make an offer, but then needed to arrange authorization. This authorization from the Governor of the State of Oaxaca has been received. Oaxaca has reviewed photographs of the vehicle, and arranged estimates for the nearly 2,500 miles transport from Palo Alto to Oaxaca. If authorized, the transport will occur with the previously donated ambulance. We have celebrated that the last ambulance donated was a safe place to deliver more than 150 babies in Oaxaca’s remote communities. With the payment accepted, we would ask the City transfer the title to the State of Oaxaca. Neighbors Abroad is a conduit for the payment as wire transfers from Oaxaca to Neighbors Abroad are readily accomplished. Neighbors Abroad and other community organizations such as Kiwanis International will work to support Oaxaca in transportation expenses. We appreciate the Council’s consideration of this offer, and express the gratitude from Oaxaca, Mexico, a sister city for over 50 years to Palo Alto. As the vehicles are sent, we will arrange an appropriate celebration including our Fire Department representatives who have long been an integral component to this enduring sharing of surplus fire vehicles. Sincerely, Bob Wenzlau President Neighbors Abroad of Palo Alto Cc. Lic. Manuel Maza Sanchez, Director del cuerpo de Bomberos del Estado de Oaxaca, México. RESOLUTION NO. ____ RESOLTUION RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DONATING SURPLUS FIRE EQUIPMENT TO OAXACA, MEXICO WHEREAS, the Council did in 1964, establish a sister city affiliation with Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, 2017 marks the 53nd anniversary of the sister city relationship between City of Palo Alto and Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to continue to serve the community interests of international and intercultural understanding; and WHEREAS, the Fire Department has a surplus quint ladder truck; and WHEREAS, Neighbors Abroad is a volunteer organization that maintains and carries out the activities of the City of Palo Alto’s officially recognized Sister City Program; and WHEREAS, Neighbors Abroad has collaborated with the Fire Department to donate this surplus ambulance quint ladder truck to Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, the surplus quint ladder truck would serve the Fire Department of Oaxaca, Mexico; and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto Fire Department has communicated with the Fire Chief of Oaxaca and has confirmed the desire to accept the surplus quint ladder truck; and WHEREAS, Neighbors Abroad has agreed to coordinated the transfer of said surplus quint ladder truck; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 3711.0 authorizes a city to spend money for promotion of sister city and town affiliation programs. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. To authorize the City Manager to cause the donation and transfer of the surplus quint ladder truck to the City of Palo Alto’s Sister City of Oaxaca, Mexico. SECTION 2. To authorize the Fire Chief of Palo Alto to coordinate with the Fire Chief of Oaxaca, Mexico, and the Palo Alto Neighbors Abroad for the delivery of the surplus quint ladder truck. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES; NOES; ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ___________________________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ City Manager ___________________________________ ____________________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney Fire Chief • 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 # 7814) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Permanent Downtown 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) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and take the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution amending Resolutions 9473 and 9577 to make permanent the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program (Attachment A) and direct staff to make corresponding changes to the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Administrative Guidelines; and 2. Find the program exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Executive Summary In early 2014, the City began significant efforts to address the parking and traffic challenges, particularly in the Downtown core, through a strategic multi-pronged approach of parking management, parking supply and transportation demand management programs. The strategy includes implementation of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program, which went into effect in September 2015. The introduction of this program has required the development and launch of a new online permit sales website and sales support, installation of signage in the permit area, negotiation and oversight of an enforcement contract, extensive community outreach and data collection. Phase 1 of the program regulated non-resident parking around the Downtown commercial core by introducing Resident and Employee Parking Permits and restricting non-permit holders to two-hour parking between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday. Resident Parking Permits are for residents who live within the Downtown RPP program area while the Employee Parking Permits are for any individuals who are employed within and City of Palo Alto Page 2 commuting to the Downtown area. Phase 2 of the program, which went into effect on April 1, 2016, capped the number of Employee Parking Permits and established ten Employee Parking Zones in an effort to better distribute non-resident parkers. Eligibility Areas, which can petition to join the program administrative, were also created as part of Phase 2 of the program. The minor program modifications in the attached Resolution to make the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program permanent include: Reduction of the Employee Parking Permit term from one year to six months; Elimination of the five-day employee scratcher hangtag permits; Expansion of the hours of enforcement from 8:00am to 6:00pm (currently enforcement is from 8:00am to 5:00pm); Reduction of the number of employee permits by 10% per year until they are zeroed- out; and Insertion of a reference to the program goals of reducing impacts of overflow parking from the commercial district on the neighborhood and maintaining an on-street parking occupancy of 85% or less. Implementation of the recommended program changes, if approved by the City Council, will occur when Phase 2 permits expire on March 31, 2017. Background and Discussion The Citywide Residential Preferential Parking Ordinance originally, adopted in December 2014 and amended in February 2016, includes parameters for all residential preferential parking programs citywide, and is included as Attachments B and C. Resolutions 9473 and 9577 provide specific direction on the details of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program and are included as Attachments D and E. The Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Administrative Guidelines outline the administrative rules and guidelines for the program, and can be amended by the Planning and Community Environment Director. These are included as Attachment F. Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 parking permits were made available through an online permit sales website in March 2016, and were required for parking on-street in the district as of April 1, 2016. Permit holders were notified of the required new permits via mailed notices, email, social media, and the City’s website. Staff supported the sale of permits by responding to email and phone inquiries, hosting an employer workshop at City Hall, conducting on-site help sessions at the Avenidas Senior Center, and through customer service contract staff on-site at City Hall for one month before and one month after permits were required. All residents and individuals who are living or are employed and working within the geographic area of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program are eligible to purchase permits. A map of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program is included as Attachment G. The following types of permits have been available to residents and employees City of Palo Alto Page 3 during Phase 2: Resident Annual Sticker: one free of charge and up to three additional at $50/year Resident Annual Hangtag: up to two per residence at $50/year Resident One-day Scratcher Hangtag: $5/each; limit of 50 per year Employee Full-price Sticker: $466/year Employee Reduced Sticker: $100/year; available to those who qualify based on income Employer Annual Hangtag: $466/year Employee One-day Scratcher Hangtag: $5/each Employee Five-day Scratcher Hangtag: $15/each Attachment H shows the number of Phase 2 Resident Parking Permits and Employee Parking Permits sold as of December 22, 2016—a total number of 7,014, 5,679 of which were Resident Parking Permits and 1,335 of which were Employee Parking Permits. In Phase 2, employee permits are zone-specific, meaning that employees and employers purchase a permit for a specific Employee Parking Zone. A total of 2,000 Employee Parking Permits are authorized for Phase 2, however a portion of these permits are being held in reserve until additional streets within Employee Parking Zones 9 and 10 elect to join the program through the Eligibility Area administrative annexation process. Half of the available permits in each Employee Parking Zone were reserved for low-income workers and the majority have sold out, requiring the release of additional low-income reduced Employee Parking Permits. The City Council received a status report on Phase 2 on September 6, 2016 and the staff report and correspondence from that hearing are available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53641. At that meeting, the Council directed staff to return to Council by January 15, 2017 with proposals for changes to implement at the end of Phase 2, that include: Freeze sale of Employee Parking Permits in Employee Parking Zones 9 and 10 and allow future streets in these zones to be added for resident-only parking, reducing the total number of available employee permits in all zones by this amount; Eliminate five-day scratcher hangtag permits; Propose quantitative objectives; Give priority to low-income workers (already included in the program); Require employer registration in the Business Registry (already included in the program); and Require employer participation in the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) or a staff-approved transportation demand management program (TDM), if legally permissible. Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 included priority for low-income employees and required registration City of Palo Alto Page 4 in the Business Registry for employers wishing to purchase Employee Parking Permits. The proposed resolution would continue these aspects of the program, eliminate five-day scratcher hangtag permits, and articulate program objectives. The recommended Resolution does not require participation in the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA), but this requirement should be considered in the future as the TMA expands, retains additional staff, and identifies a regular stream of funding. This requirement, if implemented today, would add additional administrative burdens to the fledgling organization, as its cooperation would be required to verify initial and continuing membership for businesses. The recommended Resolution would continue the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program with a number of minor modifications identified by City Council, Staff and stakeholders. To support the recommendation, the parking occupancy survey data from Phase 2 is included as Attachment I. The Phase 2 parking citation data is included as Attachment J The recommended Resolution amends Resolutions 9473 and 9577 to make permanent the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program, by making the following minor modifications: Reduce the Employee Parking Permit term from one year to six months in order to ensure that Employee Parking Permits are not sitting unused due to employee departures and turnover. The most recent daytime parking occupancy survey counted only 436 Employee Parking Permits on-street at one point in time. With a total of 1,335 total Employee Parking Permits issued for Phase 2, this represents a show-rate of only 32%. Staff believes that this is the result of many Employee Parking Permits being withheld from circulation due to the one-year term and relatively high turnover in the retail and services industries. Reducing the term of the Employee Parking Permits to six months will allow unused permits to reenter circulation more quickly and also reduce the upfront costs of an Employee Parking Permit. Staff recommends that six-month Employee Parking Permits be priced at $233 and low-income reduced-price permits be sold for $25. Both of these rates reflect 50% of the current annual permit or the current six month cost if prorated. Eliminate the five-day employee scratcher hangtag permits due to their unpopularity. During Phase 2 only one five-day employee scratcher hangtag has been sold. The added administrative burden of offering an additional permit type is not justified with such low sales. Expand the hours of enforcement to 8:00am to 6:00pm from the current hours of 8:00am to 5:00pm in order to better mitigate the impacts of employee parking on residential streets and ensure consistency with the recommendations to be included within the Downtown Parking Management Study, scheduled for Council consideration in March 2017. This study will make a strong recommendation to extend the enforcement of the downtown commercial area parking regulations to 6:00pm, and in order to prevent the displacement of vehicles to the Downtown Residential Preferential City of Palo Alto Page 5 Parking (RPP) Program, staff believes that the enforcement hours should be consistent. Reduce the number of Employee Parking Permits by 10% per year, as directed by City Council in February 2016. This reduction in permits is in support of the City Council’s goal to reduce the downtown employee drive-alone rate by 30% by 2030 through the efforts of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA). In lieu of a reduction in permits in the outermost Employee Parking Zones initially, as originally proposed, Staff is instead recommending a reduction across the board in all ten Employee Parking Zones, but a larger reduction in the zones closest to the downtown commercial area which have a higher concentration of two-hour parkers. The table below outlines the staff recommendation for permit reduction in year one of the program. Staff will continue to conduct occupancy counts and monitor permit sales by Employee Parking Zone. The Employee Parking Permit allocation per Employee Parking Zone is subject to change annually with approval from the Planning and Community Environment Director. Table 1: Recommended Reduction in Employee Parking Permits by Zone Permit Type Total Issued Current Max Authorized Max Recommended Max Recommended Rate of Reduction Employee Annual Zone 1 75 75 75 60 20% Employee Annual Zone 2 117 120 120 96 20% Employee Annual Zone 3 282 225 225 202 10% Employee Annual Zone 4 182 190 190 152 20% Employee Annual Zone 5 177 175 175 140 20% Employee Annual Zone 6 101 100 100 90 10% Employee Annual Zone 7 135 135 135 128 5% Employee Annual Zone 8 270 365 365 348 5% Employee Annual Zone 9 1 25* 245 233 5% Employee Annual Zone 10 35 105* 370 351 5% Total Employee Annual 1,335 1,515 2,000 1,800 10% *Permits in Employee Parking Zones 9 and 10 are being held in reserve until additional streets are annexed. Source: Department of Planning and Community Environment, December 2016 Insert a reference the program goals of reducing impacts of overflow parking from the commercial district on the neighborhood and maintaining an on-street parking occupancy of 85% or less in order to provide the Planning and Community Environment Director a framework to measure the performance of the program and justify modifications to the Administrative Guidelines and/or the Employee Parking Permit allocation per Employee Parking Zone. (85% has been the metric used to determine streets where parking is saturated since data collection for the downtown RPP program began in 2014.) City of Palo Alto Page 6 Petitions from Eligible Streets The Citywide Residential Preferential Parking Ordinance, as amended in February 2016, enables the designation of Eligibility Areas adjacent to existing residential preferential parking program areas. An Eligibility Area was created for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program through Resolution 9577, whereby streets within the area are pre-approved by City Council to join the program through an administrative annexation process. This process requires residents to self-organize and submit a petition including signatures from at least 50% of households on the block requesting annexation into the program. Staff then mails a survey to all households on the block regarding the program, and at least 70% of households must reply with a positive response. If the required positive response is received, the block is approved for inclusion into the program, signage is installed, permit information is shared with residents, and a pro-rated number of Employee Parking Permits are released from reserve. During Phase 2, the following blocks within the Eligibility Area have been administratively annexed into the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program: 500 Chaucer Street 500 Hale Street 600 Hale Street 800 Palo Alto Avenue 1000 Hamilton Avenue 1100 Hamilton Avenue Public Input Phase 1 and Phase 2 were the result of over 12 months of work by a dedicated group of resident and business stakeholders. The City Council thanked the group for its service upon initiation of Phase 2, but many of the stakeholders have remained engaged. Staff met with these stakeholders and other interested members of the public on January 4, 2017 to discuss the data provided in this staff report and potential changes to the program that should be considered at the end of Phase 2. The notes from this meeting and subsequent communications from the stakeholders are included as Attachments K and L. Timeline Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 permits expire on March 31, 2017. Assuming the City Council adopts a resolution making desired program adjustments on February 13, 2017 as requested, Staff expects to make signage modifications and outreach to permit holders in the next month or so, such that enforcement can continue after March 31, 2017. Resource Impact The amended resolution and RPP Administrative Guidelines will have a small impact on the adopted budget for Downtown RPP Program. The current FY 2017 Adopted Operating Budget City of Palo Alto Page 7 assumed revenues of $461,000 inclusive of a $230,000 transfer from the General Fund and expenses of $850,000 to administer the Downtown RPP Program. These current operating funds as well as funding from the Capital Improvement Project Residential Preferential Parking (PL-15003) approved at $330,045 in the FY 2017 Adopted Capital Budget are sufficient to continue the Downtown RPP Program beyond the March 2017 expiration in the current fiscal year. Permit generation and customer service costs are estimated at $86,000 while updates to signage are estimated at $36,410 for a total cost of $122,410. No ongoing implications to budgeted levels are anticipated as a result of the recommendations in this report. Related contract amendments (for this program and the Evergreen Park/Mayfield program) will be placed on the Council’s consent agenda for approval later this month or next month. Policy Implications The implementation of Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program is consistent with the three-pronged approach staff has presented to optimize parking within the Downtown core. It is also consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals: 1. Goal T-8, Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto 2. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts Environmental Review Adoption of a resolution regarding an Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this document may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed document will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Attachments: Attachment A - Resolution for Downtown RPP Attachment B - Citywide RPP Ordinance 5294 Attachment C - Citywide RPP Ordinance 5380 Attachment D - Downtown RPP Phase 1 Resolution 9473 Attachment E - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Resolution 9577 Attachment F - RPP Administrative Guidelines Approved Attachment G - Downtown RPP Program Area Map Attachment H - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Permits Sold 03-01-2016 to 12-22-2016 Attachment I - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Parking Occupancy Surveys Attachment J - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Citation Data Attachment K - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Stakeholder Meeting Agenda & Notes 2017-01- 04 Attachment L - Downtown RPP Phase 2 Stakeholder Data & Input City of Palo Alto Page 8 Attachment M Letters from the Public ****NOT YET APPROVED**** 1 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolutions 9473 and 9577 to Continue the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District (RPP) Program with Minor Modifications R E C I T A L S A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other categories of parkers. B. A stakeholders’ group comprised of Downtown residents and business interests was convened to discuss the implementation of Residential Preferential Parking Districts (RPP Districts). C. On December 15, 2015 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Municipal Code. This Chapter establishes the city-wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city. D. On December 1, 2014, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9473 implementing the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Pilot Program. The implementation anticipated a two-phased pilot program. Parking permits issued for Phase 1 of this pilot program expired on March 31, 2016. E. On February 23, 2016 the Council adopted Resolution No. 9577 to update the process for implementing Phase 2 of the Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking pilot program. Permits issued for Phase 2 of this pilot program will expire on March 31, 2017. F. It is the goal of the City to reduce the impacts of non-resident overflow parking from the Downtown Commercial District on the surrounding neighborhoods, and to maintain an on-street parking occupancy in those neighborhoods of 85% or less. G. The Council desires to amend Resolution Nos. 9473 and 9577 to conclude the pilot program and implement the permanent Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program. These modifications shall apply to all Downtown Residential Employee Parking Zones. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for the designation of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District described in 3.A of this Resolution have been met as follows: ****NOT YET APPROVED**** 2 (1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents, in that based on observation there are few available parking spaces available midday, while the streets are relatively unoccupied at midnight thus demonstrating the parking intrusion is largely by non-residents. (2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly, in that the parking intrusion is contained to the daytime hours during the regular workweek. (3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life, in that based on information from residents and other city departments the vehicle congestion is interfering with regular activities. (4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical in that the City has implemented a series of alternative parking strategies in the past and concurrently and there is still a shortage of parking available SECTION 2. Duration and Issuance of Permits. The following provisions shall apply to the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District: A. Resident Parking Permits: Resident Parking Permits will be distributed pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. Resident Parking Permits shall be valid for one-year increments, commencing on April 1, 2017. Resident Parking Permits will be valid anywhere within the boundaries of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District. B. Employee Parking Permits: The City shall also issue permits to Downtown Employees pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. Employee Parking Permits shall be in effect for six months. The first round of permits shall become effective on April 1, 2017 and expire on September 30, 2017. New Employee Parking Permits will be available for purchase every six months thereafter. C. Temporary Work Parking Permits: The City shall also issue Temporary Work Parking Permits for contractors or construction workers completing work for households located within the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District. Prices and duration of the Temporary Work Parking Permits will be determined by the Development Services Director at the time of application. D. Duration: These regulations shall commence on April 1, 2017. The City will make permits available for Residents, Employees, and Contractors prior to April 1, 2017. ****NOT YET APPROVED**** 3 E. Permanent Regulations: The Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program shall remain in force until the City Council takes action to extend, modify, or rescind. SECTION 3. Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District Boundaries. A. Annexed Zones. The areas shown on Exhibit A are included in the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District. B. Eligibility Areas. The areas shown on Exhibit A as Eligibility Areas are eligible for administrative annexation, as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.085. SECTION 4. Hours and Days of Enforcement. A. Hours. The Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program parking regulations shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, except holidays as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.100. Outside of these enforcement hours, any motor vehicle may park in the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District, subject to other applicable parking regulations. B. Re-parking Prohibited. During the regulated days and hours of enforcement, no person shall park in the same Employee Parking Zone within the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. C. Exemptions. A vehicle lawfully displaying a valid Resident Parking Permit or Employee Parking Permit in the proper fashion shall be exempt from the two-hour time limit. Electric vehicles parked at and using an electric charging station within the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District shall be exempt from the two-hour limit. Other vehicles exempt from the parking regulations are identified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.070. SECTION 5. Residential and Employee Parking Permits. A. Duration. Resident Parking Permits shall be available on an annual basis. One-day Resident Parking Permits shall also be available. Employee Parking Permits shall be available on a six-month basis. One-day Employee Parking Permits shall also be available. B. Purchase of Permits. Requirements and eligibility for purchase of both Resident Parking Permits and Employee Parking Permits shall be listed in ****NOT YET APPROVED**** 4 the Residential Preferential Parking Administrative Guidelines, as approved by the Planning and Community Environment Director. C. Parking Permit Sales. 1. Resident Parking Permits. a. Annual Resident Parking Permit Stickers. Each residential address may obtain up to four (4) annual Resident Parking Permit Stickers at the costs listed in Section 6.A. b. Annual Resident Parking Permit Hangtags: Each residential address may purchase up to two (2) annual Residents Parking Permit Hangtags, which are transferable within a household. The permit shall clearly indicate the date through which it is valid. c. Daily Resident Parking Permits. Each residential address may purchase up to 50 Daily Resident Parking Permits annually. These permits may be in the form of scratcher hangtags, an on-line issuance system, or such other form as the City may decide. The permit shall clearly indicate the date through which it is valid. 2. Employee Parking Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits for use by employees working in the Downtown area as specified in Exhibit A. Employee Parking Permits shall be subject to the following regulations: a. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the exclusive use by employees working for businesses within the proposed Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District boundaries while commuting to work. b. Employee Parking Zones. No person shall park in the same employee parking zone within the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program District for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. Re- parking on the same day in the same zone by any person without a valid parking permit or otherwise exempt from Chapter 10.50 shall be prohibited. c. Employee Parking Permit Cost. Employees may purchase permits at the costs listed in Section 6.D. d. Six-month Employee Parking Permit Cap. The City shall issue no more than 1,800 Employee Permits during the first year of the permanent Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program implementation. The Employee ****NOT YET APPROVED**** 5 Parking Permits thereafter are to be allocated among the existing, annexed, and eligible Employee Parking Zones according to Table 1 of Exhibit B initially, and which shall be updated annually by the Planning and Community Environment Director. Only streets participating in the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program may be allocated permits. e. Six-month Employee Parking Permit Reduction Strategy. Following the first year allocation of 1,800 Six-month Employee Parking Permits, the City will decrease the total number of issued Employee Parking Permits by 10% per year. The Planning and Community Environment Director shall be authorized to adopt Administrative Guidelines to implement this reduction in a manner that encourages the City Council’s goal of reducing the drive-alone rate by 30% by 2030 through the efforts of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association and the further goal of minimizing parking impacts to residential neighborhoods. f. Six-month Employee Parking Permit Priority for Low-income Employees. The Planning and Community Environment Director shall reserve approximately half of the annual employee permits in each zone for purchase by employees who qualify for reduced price permits based on hourly or annual income. The other half will be sold on a first come, first serve basis to all employees. g. Employee Parking Zones. Each Employee Parking Permit shall be issued for only one of the Employee Parking Zones as shown in Exhibits A and subject to the Permit Allocation totals in Exhibit B. The issued Employee Parking Permit shall entitle the permit holder to park only in that zone for more than two hours. ****NOT YET APPROVED**** 6 h. Daily Employee Parking Permits. Daily Employee Parking Permits will be available to employees only, and will not be available for sale to employers. Employees will be limited to purchase up to four (4) daily parking permits per month, or roughly one per week. 1. Distribution of daily employee permits. Daily employee permits will be zone- specific and will be sold randomly. No daily employee permits will be sold in Zones 9 and 10. Employees will not select a specific zone when purchasing a daily permit, and will receive a zone specific daily employee permit selected at random at the time of mailing. SECTION 6. Cost of Parking Permits. The cost of Parking Permits shall be as follow and may be adjusted from time to time to maintain consistency with parking permits issued for Downtown lots and garages: A. Annual Resident Parking Permit Sticker: First permit $0/year; second permit $50/year; third permit $50/year; fourth permit $50/year. No more than four parking permits will be sold per residential address. B. Annual Resident Parking Permit Hangtag: A residential address may purchase up to two Annual Resident Parking Permit Hangtags at $50/year. Additional permits may be approved by the Planning and Community Environment Director upon a showing of good cause. C. Daily Resident Parking Permit: A residential address may purchase up to 50 Daily Resident Parking Permits per year at $5/each. D. Employee Parking Permits 1. Full-price Permit: $233/six months 2. Reduced-price Permit for Low-income Employees: $25/six months 3. Reduced-price Permit for Addison Elementary School employees: $25/six months E. Temporary Work Parking Permit: Issued by Palo Alto Development Center with cost and duration determined at time of application by the Development Services Director. SECTION 7. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no ****NOT YET APPROVED**** 7 possibility the adoption and implementation of this resolution may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 8. Supersede. To the extent any of the provisions of this resolution are inconsistent with the regulations set forth in Resolution 9473 or Resolution 9577, this resolution shall control. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately, except that Section 3(B) shall not go into effect until the corresponding implementing ordinance becomes effective. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: February 13, 2017 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _______________________ ____________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Univ e r s i t y A v e Lyt t o n A v e Eve r e t t A v e Haw t h o r n e A v e Ruth v e n A v e Poe S t Pa l o A l t o A v e Eve r e t t C t Hi g h S t Al m a S t El C a m i n o R e a l E m e r s o n S t Br y a n t S t W a v e r l y S t Ki p l i n g S t Co w p e r S t W e b s t e r S t By r o n S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Fu l t o n S t G u i n d a S t Bo y c e A v e Forest Ave Hamilton Ave Fife Ave Channing Ave Parkinson Ave Guinda St Greenwood Se n e c a S t Ch a u c e r S t Ha l e S t Ra m o n a S t Hi g h S t E m e r s o n S t Br y a n t S t Sc o t t W a v e r l y S t Kip l i n g Co w p e r S t W e b s t e r S t By r o n S t By r o n S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Fu l t o n S t Ra m o n a S t Fl o r e n c e Gil m a n Ta s s o Ham i l t o n A v e For e s t A v e Hom e r A v e Cha n n i n g A v e Add i s o n A v e Linc o l n A v e King s l e y A v e Melv i l l e A v e Kell o g g A v e MENLO PARK STANFORD Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program Li n c o l n A v e Ad d i s o n A v e Embarca d e r o R o a d 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 1 Visit http://paloalto.parkingguide.com/parking-program/downtown-residential-preferential-parking-program/ for additional information or contact 650-329-2520. PaloAlto A v e Downtown RPP District Approved Eligibility Area Non-RPP Parking in RPP District Downtown Non-RPP Downtown RPP Program Area Approved Eligibility Area Non-RPP Parking in RPP District (check signs) RPP Employee Parking Zones Exhibit A Table 1. Downtown RPP Program Employee Parking Zones and Allocations Employee Parking Zone Boundaries Permit Allocation 1 Lytton Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street (where RPP restrictions are in place) 300 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street Everett Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street 60 2 200 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street Hawthorne Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street 96 3 100 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street Poe Street Ruthven Avenue Tasso Street 202 4 Palo Alto Avenue between Webster Street and Guinda Street 600 block of Hawthorne Avenue 600 and 700 blocks of Everett Avenue, Lytton Avenue, University Avenue 100-500 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, Fulton Street 152 5 600 and 700 blocks of Hamilton Avenue 200-700 blocks of Forest Avenue and Homer Avenue 700 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street 600-700 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, Fulton Street 1401 6 800 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street, Middlefield Road Channing Avenue between Ramona Street and Guinda Street 90 7 900 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street, Middlefield Road Addison Avenue between High Street and Guinda Street 128 8 1000 and 1100 blocks of High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, 348 Exhibit B Employee Parking Zone Boundaries Permit Allocation Fulton Street Lincoln Avenue and Kingsley Avenue between Alma Street/Embarcadero Road and Guinda Street Embarcadero Road from Alma Street to Kingsley Avenue 9 1200 block of Bryant Street 1200-1300 blocks of Waverley Street 1200-1400 blocks of Cowper Street, Webster Street, Byron Street 1300-1400 blocks of Tasso Street 1200-1500 blocks of Middlefield Road 1200-1300 blocks of Fulton Street Melville Avenue between Embarcadero Road and Guinda Street Kellogg Avenue between Cowper Street and Middlefield Road Embarcadero Road between Kingsley Avenue and Middlefield Road 25 (233)* 10 Guinda Street between Palo Alto Avenue to Melville Avenue Palo Alto Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street 500 blocks of Chaucer Street and Hale Street 600 block of Hale Street 800 blocks of Lytton Avenue, Homer Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue 800 and 900 blocks of University Avenue, Hamilton Avenue 800-1100 blocks of Forest Avenue Boyce Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street 1000-1100 blocks of Fife Avenue 800-900 blocks of Channing Avenue and Addison Avenue 800-1000 blocks of Lincoln Avenue 800 block of Melville Avenue 1000-1100 blocks of Hamilton Avenue 105 (351)* Total Six-month Employee Parking Permits 1,800 *A portion of Six-month Employee Parking Permits in this Employee Parking Zone are held in reserve and only released as additional streets within that zone opt into the Downtown RPP Program. The number in parenthesis is the total maximum number of permits if all streets within the zone were to opt in. Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, January 2017 Ordinance No. 5294 Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferential Parking Districts) and Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor) The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does 0 RDAIN as follows: Section 1. Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferred Parking Districts) is hereby added to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: Sections: RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS Purpose Definitions RFP Designation Criteria Initiation by City Council Initiation by Neighborhood Petition 10.50.010 10.50.020 10.50.030 10.50.040 10.50.050 10.50.060 10.50.070 10.50.080 10.50.090 10.50.100 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts Administration of Districts Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts Modification or Termination of Districts Violations and Penalties 10.50.010 Purpose. Residential preferential parking districts are intended to restore and enhance the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses and institutional uses. The procedures and standards in this chapter are intended to provide flexibility so that the city council may adopt, after consultation with residents and neighboring businesses and institutions, parking programs that appropriately protect each neighborhood's unique characteristics. Residential preferential parking districts should be designed to accommodate non-residential parking when this can be done while meeting the parking availability standards determined by the city to be appropriate for the district in question. Residential preferential parking programs may be designed to reduce non-residential parking over time to give non-residential parkers time to find other modes of transportation or parking locations. 10.50.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: 140826 jb 01312SOC 1 December 9, 2014 a) "Director" shall mean the director of planning and community environment. b) "Dwelling unit" shall mean a self-contained house, apartment, stock cooperative unit, or condominium unit occupied by a single household exclusively for residential purposes. These residential purposes may include lawful home occupations. c) "Employee permit" shall mean a permit issued to an employee working at a business located within an RPP District or as defined in an RPP district specific resolution. d) "Guest permit" shall mean a permit issued to a Resident on an annual basis for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District or for workers providing services such as caregiving, gardening, repair maintenance and construction, to the Resident. The number of Guest permits issued to Residents shall be specified in administrative regulations adopted by the Director. e) "Non-resident vehicle" shall mean a vehicle operated by a person whose destination is not to a residence within the Residential Preferential Parking District. f) "Resident" shall mean a natural person living in a dwelling unit in an RPP District. g) "Residential Preferential Parking District" or "RPP District" shall mean a geographical area in which the city council has established a preferential parking permit system pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22507. h) "Visitor permit" shall mean a temporary 24-hour permit issued to a Resident for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District. 10.50.030 RPP Designation Criteria The council may designate an area as a Residential Preferential Parking District based upon the following criteria: (1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; (2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; (3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; ( 4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. 10.50.040 Initiation by City Council The city council may, by motion, initiate consideration of a RPP District by directing staff to undertake the analysis and outreach process set forth in Section · 10.50.0SO(d) and (e). 10.50.050 Initiation by Neighborhood Petition Residents may request the formation of an RPP District in their neighborhood. The request shall be made, and considered, in the following manner: (a) Form of Application. 140826 jb 0131250C 2 December 9, 2014 (1) The director shall establish a standard form for the application for the formation of a new RPP District, as well as a list of submittal requirements for use by interested residents. These requirements shall include a narrative describing the nature and perceived source of non-residential parking impact, as well as suggested district boundaries. The director shall also approve a standard form for use in demonstrating resident support for the application. (2) Residents shall initiate a request for establishment of an RPP District by neighborhood petition by completing the official application form. (3) Residents are encouraged to consult with the employers and employees thought to be the source of the parking impact as they develop their proposals. (b) Timing and Review of Applications. Each calendar year, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall review all applications received prior to March 31st of that year to determine whether the RPP District criteria established in this Chapter are met. ( c) Prioritization of Applications. Applications determined by the Director to meet the criteria in paragraph (b) above shall be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The commission shall review the requests and recommend to the director which proposal or proposals should be given priority for review and possible implementation in the current calendar year. In making its recommendations, the commission shall consider the severity of non-residential parking impact, the demonstrated level of neighborhood support, and the staff resources needed to process requests. ( d) Staff Review of Applications and Community Outreach. Once an application has been selected for council consideration during the current calendar year, staff shall promptly review the application, gather additional information and conduct a community outreach program. At a minimum the review process shall include the following: (1) The City shall complete parking occupancy studies to quantify the nature of the problem identified in the petition. Data shall be collected when schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University are in session, unless these institutions are irrelevant to the problem to be addressed. (2) Upon completion of the consultation and outreach process, the city attorney shall prepare a draft resolution containing the proposed boundaries and hours of enforcement. Staff shall undertake a survey of resident support within the RPP District. The results of this survey shall be included in and reported to the planning and transportation commission and the city council. ( e) Planning and Transportation Commission Review. Staff shall bring the proposed RPP District to the planning & transportation commission no later than September of the calendar year in which consideration began. The commission shall review the draft resolution at a noticed public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council regarding the RPP District. This recommendation may include 140826 jb 0131250C 3 December 9, 2014 proposed modifications of the boundaries. The commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council no later than September 30th. 10.50.060 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts (a) Adoption of Resolution Establishing District. Following the completion of the procedures described in Section 10.50.050, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on a proposed resolution to establish the residential preferential parking district. The resolution may specify a trial period of up to two years. Any such trial period shall begin running after the signs have been posted and permits issued. The council may adopt, modify, or reject the proposed resolution. (b) Resolution. The resolution shall specify: (1) The findings that the criteria set forth in Section 10. 50.030 have been met. (2) The term of the trial period, if applicable. (3) The boundaries and name of the residential preferential parking district. The boundary map may also define areas which will become subject to the regulations of the residential preferential parking district in the future if the council approves a resident petition for annexation as provided in Section 10.50.080 below. ( 4) Hours and days of enforcement of parking regulations and other restrictions that shall be in effect for non-permit holders, such as two-hour parking limits, overnight parking limits, or "no re-parking" zones. (5) The number of permits, if any, to be issued to merchants or other non- residential users, which number may be scheduled to reduce over time. (6) Resident permit rates which are set by City Council policy will be uniform across each district. (7) Such other matters as the Council may deem necessary and desirable, including but not limited to fee rates and whether non-residential parking permits are allowed to be issued and transferred. ( c) Permanent Adoption. Before the expiration of the trial period, if applicable, the city council shall hold a noticed public hearing and determine whether the RPP District should be made permanent as originally adopted, modified or terminated. The council's action shall be in the form of a resolution. 10.50.070 Administration of Districts (a) Issuance and Fees. (1) No permit will be issued to any applicant until that applicant has paid all of his or her outstanding parking citations, including all civil penalties and related fees. (2) A residential parking permit may be issued for a motor vehicle if the following requirements are met: A. The applicant demonstrates that he or she is currently a resident of the area for which the permit is to be issued. 140826 jb 0131250C 4 December 9, 2014 B. The applicant demonstrates that he or she has ownership or continuing custody of the motor vehicle for which the permit is to be issued. C. Any motor vehicle to be issued a permit must have a vehicle registration indicating registration within the area for which the permit is to be issued. (3) Visitor or guest parking permits may be issued for those vehicles or to those individuals or households that qualify for those permits under the resolution establishing the RPP District. ( 4) Employee parking permits may be issued to those individuals and for those vehicles that qualify for such permits under the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) No Guarantee of Availability of Parking. A parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the permit holder an on-street parking space within the designated residential preferential parking zone. ( c) Restrictions and Conditions. Each permit issued pursuant to this Section shall be subject to each and every condition and restriction set forth in this Chapter and as provided for in the resolution establishing the specific RPP District, as may be amended from time to time. The issuance of such permit shall not be construed to waive compliance with any other applicable parking law, regulation or ordinance. (d) Exemptions. The following vehicles are exempt from RPP District parking restrictions in this Chapter: · (1) A vehicle owned or operated by a public or private utility, when used in the course of business. (2) A vehicle owned or operated by a governmental agency, when used in the course of official government business. (3) A vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit has been issued by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, when used in the course of business. ( 4) A vehicle parked or standing while actively delivering materials or freight. (5) A vehicle displaying an authorized exemption permit issued by the City of Palo Alto. (6) A vehicle displaying a State of California or military-issued disabled person placard or license plates. (7) A vehicle parked for the purpose of attending or participating in an event taking place at a school within the Palo Alto Unified School District or another event venue within the RPP District, provided that the vehicle is parked within two blocks of the venue, the venue has requested and received approval from the City at least fourteen days before the event date, and the venue distributes notices to all addresses within a two -block radius of the venue. The RPP District Resolution shall specify the covered venues and number of permitted events per year. (8) All vehicles are exempt from parking restrictions pursuant to this Chapter on the following holidays: January 1, July 4, Thanksgiving Day, and December 25. 140826 jb 0131250C 5 December 9, 2014 ( e) Authority of Staff a. The director is authorized to adopt administrative regulations that are consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. Prior to adoption the director shall conduct a noticed public meeting soliciting input on such guidelines. b. The Police Department or private parking enforcement contractor as approved by the Chief of Police shall have the authority to enforce the administrative regulations established pursuant to this Chapter. 10.50.080 Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts Residents of any block may petition the director for annexation into a contiguous RPP District. The petition shall be on forms provided by the department. If the petition meets the criteria established in administrative regulations adopted by the director, a resolution annexing it to the RPP District shall be prepared by the city attorney and submitted to the city council, together with the director's recommendation on the proposed annexation. The city council may approve, deny, or modify the annexation. 10.50.090 Modification or Termination of Districts (a) Opting out. After final adoption of an RPP District, Residents may file an application with the director to opt out of the RPP District. The minimum number of blocks and percentage of units supporting the opt-out shall be specified by the director in the administrative guidelines. Applications for opting out shall be made in the form and manner prescribed by the director and shall be acted up on by the director. Any opt out application shall be filed within ninety (90) days after council adoption of the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) Dissolution. The city council following a noticed public hearing may adopt a resolution dissolving the RPP District: (1) Upon receipt and verification of a petition signed by 50% or more of all the households within an approved RPP District boundary, or (2) Upon findings by the City Council that the criteria for designating the RPP District are no longer satisfied. 10.50.100 Violations and Penalties (a) No person shall park a vehicle adjacent to any curb in a residential preferential parking zone in violation of any posted or noticed prohibition or restriction, unless the person has a valid and current residential preferential parking permit, visitor permit, guest permit or employee permit for that vehicle, or is otherwise exempt. Violations of this sub-section shall be punishable by a civil penalty under Chapter 10.60.010. (b) No person shall sell, rent, or lease, or cause to be sold, rented, or leased for any value or consideration any RPP District parking permit, visitor permit or guest permit. Upon violation of this subsection, all permits issued to for the benefit of the 140826 jb 0131250C 6 December 9, 2014 dwelling unit or business establishment for which the sold, rented, or leased permit was authorized shall be void. Violation of this sub-section (b) shall be punishable as a n infraction. ( c) No person shall buy or otherwise acquire for value or use any RPP District parking permit, guest permit or visitor permit except as provided for in this chapter. Violation of this sub-section (c) shall be punishable as an infraction. SECTION 2. Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as .follows: 10.04.086 Parking Enforcement Contractor "Parking Enforcement Contractor" means any duly qualified company that the City has entered into a contract with and that has been approved by the Chief of Police to provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to Palo Alto Municipal Code infractions only in parking zones. Enforcement includes both the issuance and processing of citations for RPP District parking violations. SECTION 3. Section 10.08.015 (Authority of Parking Enforcement Contractor) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 10.08.015 Authority of Parking Enforcement Contractor The City may enter into a contract with a duly qualified company, approved by the Chief of Police, to provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to RPP District parking violations (as permissible by the Palo Alto Municipal Code). SECTION 4. Section 10.60.010 (Parking violations punishable as civil penalties) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 10.60.010 Parking Violations Punishable as Civil Penalties Except as otherwise provided, violations of any provision of Chapters 10.36, 10.40, 10.44, 10.46, aru:l 10.47. and 10.50 of this Title 10 (hereinafter referred to as a "parking violation") shall be punishable by a civil penalty (hereinafter referred to as a "parking penalty"). These parking penalties, together with any late payment penalties, administrative fees, and other related charges shall be established by ordinance or resolution of the city council. SECTION 5. CEQA. T~is ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuantto Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have 140826 jb 0131250C 7 December 9, 2014 a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: December 2, 2014 PASSED: December 15, 2014 AYES: BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, KLEIN, KNISS, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID SHEPHERD NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ~ Interim City Clerk APPROVED: 140826 jb 01312SOC 8 December 9, 2014 019 Planning 1 Ordinance No. 5380 Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Add Section 10.50.085 (Eligibility Areas) and to Amend Section 10.50.090 (Modification or Termination of Districts) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Residential Parking Programs The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows: A. In response to resident concerns about their ability to optout of their evaluated the existing procedures. B. To provide greater opportunity and a fairer process for residents, the optout procedures related to the Residential Preferential Parking program should be revised. SECTION 2. Title 10, Section 10.50.085 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is added to read as follows: 10.50.085 Eligibility Areas When it is determined that particular areas may experience spillover from previously designated RPP Districts, the Council may designate by resolution those areas as an Eligibility Area. Designated Eligibility Areas may petition the director for annexation into an existing RPP District. The petition shall be on forms provided by the department. If the petition meets the criteria established in the administrative guidelines adopted by the director, the director shall approve the Eligibility Area for annexation. SECTION 3. Title 10, Section 10.50.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 10.50.090 Modification or termination of districts. (a) Opting out. After final adoption of an RPP District, Residents may file an application with the director to opt out of the RPP District. The minimum number of blocks and percentage of units supporting the optout shall be specified by the director in the administrative guidelines. Applications for opting out shall be made in the form and manner prescribed by the director and shall be acted up on by the director. Any opt out application shall be filed within ninety days after council adoption of the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) Timing and Review of Opt Out Applications. Each calendar year, the director of planning and community environment shall review all opt out applications received prior to March 31st DocuSign Envelope ID: 363324BA-55E5-41DA-ABAB-0377F4F4770F 019 Planning 2 of the year to determine whether the opt out criteria established in the administrative guidelines are met. (b)(c) Dissolution. The city council following a noticed public hearing may adopt a resolution dissolving the RPP District: (1) Upon receipt and verification of a petition signed by 50% or more of all the households within an approved RPP District boundary; or (2) Upon findings by the city council that the criteria for designating the RPP District are no longer satisfied. SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this ordinance may have significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. // // // // // // // // // // // // // DocuSign Envelope ID: 363324BA-55E5-41DA-ABAB-0377F4F4770F 019 Planning 3 SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirtyfirst date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: February 1, 2016 PASSED: February 23, 2016 AYES: DUBOIS, FILSETH, KNISS, SCHMID, WOLBACH NOES: ABSTENTIONS: BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, SCHARFF ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor City Manager Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment DocuSign Envelope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esolution No. 9473 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District Under Chapter 10.50 ofthe Municipal Code RECITALS A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other categories of parkers. B. A stakeholders' group comprised of Downtown residents and business interests met 9 times and made its recommendations to the City on (1) the provisions of a master ordinance establishing city-wide procedures for Residential Preferential Parking Districts (RPP Districts) and (2) the particular program rules to be applied to the Downtown RPP District. C. On June 11, 2014, September 10, 2014 and November 12, 2014, the Planning and Transportation Commission held public hearings to consider the proposed master ordinance and the proposed Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking programs. D. On December 15, 2015 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) ofthe Palo Municipal Code. This Chapter establishes the city-wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for designating a Residential Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows: (1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; (2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; (3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area ofthe proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; (4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. SECTION 2. Duration and Trial Period. The Trial Period for the Downtown RPP District shall be divided into two phases. 1 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 1. Phase 1: The first phase shall start from the date that the both installation of signage is complete and enforcement of the District has begun, and last for a period of 6 months. Resident permits will be distributed pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. During the first phase the City shall also issue permits to Employees pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. All permits shall expire at the end of the trial period. The City will collect parking occupancy data on all blocks within the Downtown RPP District to determine how many Employee Permits (both low-wage and professional) should be sold during the subsequent phase of the program. During Phase 1, both Employee and Resident permits will be valid anywhere within the boundaries ofthe RPP District. During this phase the City may issue a survey to elicit qualitative and quantitative feedback on the program. 2. Phase 2: The second phase shall follow Phase 1 and last for at least 12 months. The City will make permits for Phase 2 available prior to the initiation of Phase 2. During the second phase the City will regulate the number of Employee Permits issued based on parking occupancy data collected in the first phase. It is expected this distribution of permits will be iterative and adjusted during the course of Phase two. 3. The RPP District shall remain in force until the City Council takes action to extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall consider whether to make the RPP District and its parking program permanent, modify the District and/or their parking regulations, or terminate them no later than December 31, 2016. SECTION 3. District Established. Pursuant to Chapter 10.50, the Downtown Residential Preferred Parking District is hereby established. The boundaries of the Downtown RPP District are shown on Exhibit A attached to this resolution and made a part of it. Blocks that are directly adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity ofthe Downtown RPP District may become subject to the regulations of the Downtown RPP District in the future if the council approves a resident petition for annexation as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.080. SECTION 4. Hours and Days of Enforcement. In both Phase 1 and Phase 2, the parking regulations shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM. During the regulated days and hours of enforcement, no person shall park in the same on-street parking space within the Downtown RPP for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. A vehicle lawfully displaying an Employee Parking Permit or a Resident Parking Permit shall be exempt from the two-hour limit. Other vehicles exempt from the parking regulations are contained in Chapter 10.50. Outside of these 2 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 enforcement hours, any motor vehicle may park in the Downtown RPP, subject to other applicable parking regulations. SECTION 5. Residential Parking Permits. A. Duration. With the exception of the 6-month trial period, both Employee and residential permits shall be made available on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis and may be renewed if the applicant continues to be eligible to receive a permit. One-day visitor permits for residents will also be available during both Phases 1 and 2. B. Purchase of Permits. Requirements and eligibility for purchase of permits for both residents and Employees shall be listed in the Administrative Regulations. C. Permit Sales a. Phase 1. i. Each residential address within the Downtown RPP District may receive up to two 6-month permits at no cost. ii. Guest and Visitor permits may be sold at the costs listed in section GB and GC. iii. Permit costs will be pro-rated for the 6 month period (e.g. half of the annual fee). iv. All Employees may purchase permits pursuant to the costs listed in Section GD, pro-rated for 6 months. b. Phase 2. 141016 jb 01312528 i. Resident Permits. 1. Residential Permits. Each residential address may purchase permits at the costs listed in Section GA. 2. Daily Visitor Permits. Each residential address may purchase up to 50 Daily Visitor Parking Permits annually. These permits may be in the form of "scratcher" hang tags, an on-line issuance system, or such other form as the city may decide. The permit shall clearly indicate the address to which it was issued and the date for which it is valid. 3. Annual Guest Permits: Each residential address may purchase up to two (2) annual guest permits, which are transferable within a household. The permit shall clearly indicate the address to which it was issued and the date for which it is valid. 3 Rev. November 17, 2014 ii. Employee Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits for use by employees working in the area as specified in Exhibit A. Employee Permits shall be subject to the following regulations: 1. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the exclusive use by employees working for businesses within the proposed District boundaries while commuting to work. 2. Limit of Sales. The Director will limit Employee permit sales according to a threshold listed in the Administrative Regulations, and give priority to low-wage workers. Employees may purchase permits at the costs listed in Section 6D. 3. Reduced Allocation. After Phase 1, the Director may reduce the allocation of Employee Parking over time as additional parking and transportation options become available. D. Signage and Allocation of Spaces. During Phase 2, the City shall regulate which on-street parking spaces shall be dedicated to Employee Parking by selecting one of the following methods: 1. Employee Parking Permit spaces shall be clearly signed and marked as such by the City; 2. Employee Parking Permits shall be assigned by block/blocks; or 3. Other reasonable method designed to distribute Employee Parking throughout the Downtown District and to avoid undue parking saturation in one neighborhood at the expense of others. E. Permit Priority. During Phase 1, the Director will recommend to the City Council the maximum number of Employee permits to be issued during Phase 2, such that the issuance of Employee Permits does not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the District in accordance with Section 22507 (b) of the Vehicle Code. The Director shall give permit priority to lower wage earners. SECTION 6. Cost of Residential and Residential Visitor Parking Permits. During the Initial Trial Period the cost of Parking Permits shall be: A. Resident Permit: a. Phase 1: Residents shall receive up to two permits per residential address at no cost. b. For Phase 2, the prices are as follows: First permit $0/year; second permit $50/year; third permit $50/year; fourth permit $50/year. No more than four parking permits will be sold per residential address in either phase. 4 141016 jb 01312526 Rev. November 17, 2014 B. Annual Guest Permit-A residential address may purchase up to two Annual Guest Permits at $50/year ($25 each for Phase 1). C. Visitor Daily Permit--$5/each D. Employee Permits a. Standard Permit --$466/year ($233/6 months) b. Reduced Rate for income qualifying employees--$100/year ($50/6 months) SECTION 7. ~· This ordinance is exempt from the requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. 5294, amending Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferential Parking Districts) and Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor). Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: December 2, 2014 AYES: BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, KLEIN, KNISS, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID, SHEPHERD NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ~ Interim City Clerk APPROVED: 5 141016 jb 01312526 Rev.November17,2014 Exhibit A -Boundaries of Downtown RPP District Fig. 1 PRELIMINARY DOWNTOWN RPP DISTRICT >.:'i~: .. -.. {~'~( .-'('::~~< ::c 10' :r m 3 <1l ii! 0 :l ~ ·;;. 'T1 0 ~ :l n <1l DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SOFA m 3 OJ <1l -< ii! 0 "' :l ::c :l ... 10' VI VI :r ... ... VI ... Ruthven Ave Hawthorne Ave A Everett Ave -g; ~ tE 0" Lytton Ave ;;;! ., ., 0 University Ave Hamilton Ave Forest Ave ~ < !!l -< VI Homer Ave ... A -o· :l Ul Channing Ave ~ !!l Addison Ave n 0 :E "0 Kingsley Ave Boundary includes Melvi the 300 and 400 block of Lincoln, · but not the 500, 600 or 700 block. is appro~iT~~e •·. ··.· .. s:: a: Q. iD ::!> <1l 0:: ;;o Q. 0 ~ •• 0 .,, '~ ·!;. ,;·,.-·' Figure 1 illustrates the Downtown RPP District as currently proposed. Residents living within the bound- ary would need to purchase Parking Permits to park on the streets for more than two hours during the hours of the permit enforcement if the program is implemented. *Downtown Business District and the SOFA Business District (shown on the map) are not included in the RPP District Existing 2-hour parking will not be altered as part of the RPP District plan. 1 160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016 Resolution No. 9577 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Resolution 9473 to Implement Phase 2 of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District Pilot Program R E C I T A L S A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other categories of parkers. B. A comprised of Downtown residents and business interests has been meeting to discuss the implementation of Residential Preferential Parking Districts (RPP Districts). C. On December 15, 2015 the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Municipal Code. This Chapter establishes the citywide procedures for RPP Districts in the city. D. On December 1, 2014, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9473 implementing a Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking pilot program. The implementation anticipated a two phased pilot program. Permits issued for Phase 1 of this pilot program will expire on March 31, 2016. E. The Council desires to amend Resolution 9473 to update the process for implementing Phase 2 of the Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking program pilot. These modifications shall only apply to Phase 2 of the pilot. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for annexing the additional areas described in 3(A) of this Resolution as part of the Downtown Residential Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows: (1) That nonresident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of onstreet or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents, in that based on observation there are few available parking spaces available midday, while the streets are relatively unoccupied at midnight thus demonstrating the parking intrusion is largely by nonresidents. (2) That the interference by the nonresident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly, in that the parking intrusion is contained to the daytime hours during the regular workweek. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2 2 160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016 (3) That the nonresident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life, in that based on information from residents and other city departments the vehicle congestion is interfering with regular activities. (4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical in that the City has implemented a series of alternative parking strategies in the past and concurrently and there is still a shortage of parking available SECTION 2. Duration and Trial Period. The following provisions shall apply to Phase 2 of the Trial Period for the Downtown RPP District: A. Resident Permits: Resident permits will be distributed pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. Phase 2 permits shall be in effect for one year commencing on April 1, 2016. Resident permits will be valid anywhere within the boundaries of the Downtown RPP District. B. Employee Permits: The City shall also issue permits to Employees pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. The first round of Phase 2 permits shall be in effect from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017. Subsequent Phase 2 Employee permits shall be in effect for one year. C. Duration: The second phase shall commence on April 1, 2016 and last for at least 12 months. The City will make permits for Phase 2 available prior to the initiation of Phase 2. D. Permanent Regulations: The RPP District shall remain in force until the City Council takes action to extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall consider whether to make the RPP District and its parking program permanent, modify the District and/or their parking regulations, or terminate them no later than December 31, 2016. SECTION 3. Phase 2 Downtown RPP Boundaries. A. Annexed Zones. The areas shown on Exhibit A are hereby annexed into the Downtown Residential Parking Zone. B. Eligibility Areas. The areas shown on Exhibit A are eligible for administrative annexation as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.085. C. Employee Parking Zones. No person shall park in the same employee parking zone within the Downtown RPP for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. Reparking on the same day in the same zone by any person without a valid permit or otherwise exempt from Chapter 10.50 shall be prohibited. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2 3 160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016 SECTION 4. Hours and Days of Enforcement. In Phase 2, the parking regulations shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, except holidays as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.100. During the regulated days and hours of enforcement, no person shall park in the same onstreet parking space within the Downtown RPP for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. In addition, no person shall park in the same employee parking zone within the Downtown RPP for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. A vehicle lawfully displaying an Employee Parking Permit or a Resident Parking Permit shall be exempt from the twohour limit. Other vehicles exempt from the parking regulations are contained in Chapter 10.50. Outside of these enforcement hours, any motor vehicle may park in the Downtown RPP, subject to other applicable parking regulations. SECTION 5. Residential and Employee Parking Permits. A. Duration. Phase 2 Residential Permits shall be available on an annual basis only. Oneday visitor permits for residents will also be available during Phase 2. B. Purchase of Permits. Requirements and eligibility for purchase of permits for both residents and Employees shall be listed in the Administrative Regulations. C. Permit Sales Phase 2. 1. Resident Permits. a. Residential Permits. Each residential address may obtain up to four Resident permits at the costs listed in Section 6A. b. Daily Visitor Permits. Each residential address may purchase up to 50 Daily Visitor Parking Permits annually. tags, an online issuance system, or such other form as the city may decide. The permit shall clearly indicate the date through which it is valid. c. Annual Guest Permits: Each residential address may purchase up to two (2) annual guest permits, which are transferable within a household. The permit shall clearly indicate the date for which it is valid. 2. Annual Employee Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits for use by employees working in the area as specified in Exhibit B. Employee Permits shall be subject to the following regulations: a. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the exclusive use by employees working for businesses within DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2 4 160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016 the proposed District boundaries while commuting to work. b. Employee Permit Cost. Employees may purchase permits at the costs listed in Section 6D. c. First Year Permit Cap. The City shall issue Employee permits on an iterative basis to ensure that the issuance of Employee Permits does not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the District in accordance with Section 22507 (b) of the Vehicle Code. Notwithstanding the above, the City shall issue no more than 2,000 Employee Permits during the first year of Phase 2, which are to be allocated among the existing, annexed, and eligible Employee Parking Zones according to Council adopted administrative guidelines. Only streets participating in the RPP program may be allocated permits. d. Employee Permit Reduction Strategy. Following the first year of Phase 2, the City will begin decreasing annual employee permits by approximately 200 permits per year, based on parking occupancy analysis and mode split analysis. The reduction in permits will occur in the outermost zones of the Downtown RPP district initially, and affect inner zones in subsequent years. The Director shall be authorized to adopt administrative guidelines to implement this reduction in a goal of reducing the drivealone rate by 30% by 2030 through the efforts of the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association and the further goal of minimizing parking impacts to residential neighborhoods. e. Permit Priority for lower wage earners. The Director shall reserve approximately half of the annual employee permits in each zone for purchase by employees who qualify for reduced price permits based on hourly or annual income. The other half will be sold on a first come, first serve basis to all employees. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2 5 160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016 f. Employee Parking Zones. Employees may only park in the zone authorized by the employee permit. The zones are described and depicted in Exhibit B and Exhibit C. g. Daily and Five Daily and five available to employees only, and will not be available for sale to employers. Employees will be limited to purchase up to four (4) daily parking permits per month, or roughly one per week. Alternatively, employees may purchase one (1) fiveday scratcher per month, which allows them to park in the RPP district up to five (5) times in one calendar month. 1. Distribution of daily and scratcher permits. Daily and fiveday employee scratchers will be zonespecific and will be sold randomly. No daily or fiveday scratchers will be sold in Zones 9 and 10. Employees will not select a specific zone when purchasing a daily or five day permit, and will receive a zone specific daily or viveday permit selected at random at the time of mailing. SECTION 6. Cost of Parking Permits. During Phase 2 the cost of Parking Permits shall be: A. Resident Permit: First permit $0/year; second permit $50/year; third permit $50/year; fourth permit $50/year. No more than four parking permits will be sold per residential address. B. Annual Guest Permit A residential address may purchase up to two Annual Guest Permits at $50/year. Additional permits may be approved by the Director upon a showing of good cause. C. Visitor Daily Permit $5/each D. Employee Permits 1. Standard Permit $466/year 2. Reduced Rate for income qualifying employees $100/year 3. Reduced Rate for Addison Elementary School employees $100/year DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2 6 160211 jb 0131499 Rev. February 11, 2016 SECTION 7. CEQA. This resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this resolution may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 8. Supersede. To the extent any of the provisions of this resolution are inconsistent with the Phase 2 regulations set forth in Resolution 9473, this resolution shall control. SECTION 9. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately, except that Section 3(B) shall not go into effect until the corresponding implementing ordinance becomes effective. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: February 23, 2016 AYES: DUBOIS, FILSETH, KNISS, SCHMID, WOLBACH NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, SCHARFF ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment DocuSign Envelope ID: 6BDB2611-4168-4F6F-90B0-F43B17F6E1C2 University Ave Lytton Ave Everett Ave Hawthorne Ave Poe St Forest Ave Forest Ave Channing Ave Addison Ave Lincoln Ave Kingsley Ave Melville AveMelville Ave Kellogg AveKellogg Ave Churchill Ave Coleridge Ave Downtown RPP District SOFA DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Downtown RPP District Proposed Eligibility Areas Proposed Annexed Streets (SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( &(& ** &*&*)' Downtown RPP Parking Zones 5 6 7 8 9 10 4 1 2 3 (SGY7MKR)RZIPSTI-( &(& ** &*&*)' Zone Boundaries Permit Allocation 1 Lytton Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street (where RPP restrictions are in place) 300 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street Everett Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street 75 2 200 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street Hawthorne Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street 120 3 100 blocks of: Alma Street, High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue between Alma Street and Webster Street Poe Street Ruthven Avenue Tasso Street 225 4 Palo Alto Avenue between Webster Street and Guinda Street 600 block of Hawthorne Avenue 600 and 700 blocks of Everett Avenue, Lytton Avenue, University Avenue 100 500 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, Fulton Street 190 5 600and700blocksofHamiltonAvenue 200 700 blocks of Forest Avenue and Homer Avenue 700 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street 600 700 blocks of Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, Fulton Street 175 6 800 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Kipling Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street, Middlefield Road Channing Avenue between Ramona Street and Guinda Street 100 7 900 blocks of Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street, Middlefield Road Addison Avenue between High Street and Guinda Street 135 8 1000 and 1100 blocks of High Street, Emerson Street, Ramona Street, Bryant Street, Waverley Street, Cowper Street, Webster Street, Byron Street, Middlefield Road, Fulton Street Lincoln Avenue and Kingsley Avenue between Alma Street/Embarcadero Road and Guinda Street Embarcadero Road from Alma Street to Kingsley Avenue 365 9 1200 block of Bryant Street 1200 1300 blocks of Waverley Street 1200 1400 blocks of Cowper Street, Webster Street, Byron Street 1300 1400 blocks of Tasso Street 1200 1500 blocks of Middlefield Road 1200 1300 blocks of Fulton Street Melville Avenue between Embarcadero Road and Guinda Street Kellogg Avenue between Cowper Street and Middlefield Road Embarcadero Road between Kingsley Avenue and Middlefield Road 25 (245)* 10 Guinda Street between Palo Alto Avenue to Melville Avenue Palo Alto Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street 800 blocks of Lytton Avenue and Homer Avenue 800and900blocksofUniversityAvenue,HamiltonAvenue 800 1100 blocks of Forest Avenue Boyce Avenue between Guinda Street and Hale Street 1000 1100 blocks of Fife Avenue 800 900 blocks of Channing Avenue and Addison Avenue 800 1000 blocks of Lincoln Avenue 800 block of Melville Avenue 55 (370)* Total Permits 2000 *A portion of permits in this zone will be held in reserve and released as additional streets opt into the Downtown RPP district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esidential Preferential Parking (RPP) Administrative Guidelines Updated October 31, 2016 Version 2.0 City of Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Administrative Guidelines Updated October 31, 2016 PURPOSE The City of Palo Alto is committed to preserving the quality of life of its residential neighborhoods. On December 2, 2014, City Council adopted a City‐wide RPP Ordinance which allows any neighborhood within the City to petition to become a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District, where neighborhood parking is regulated for non‐permit holders. Three documents govern the creation of an RPP District in Palo Alto: 1.Chapter 10.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which outlines the criteria which must be met and the process which must be taken for a residential neighborhood to become an RPP District; 2.A neighborhood‐specific resolution, which must be adopted by the City Council and outlines the specific characteristics of the RPP program; 3.The document within, “RPP Administrative Guidelines”, which provides additional detail on RPP program implementation. The Guidelines may be modified at a City staff level, and provide detail on policies and procedures related to RPP Districts. All three documents work in concert to govern the development and operation of the City’s RPP Districts, and all should be reviewed prior to an RPP District’s initiation. PARKING PERMIT POLICIES Resident Permit Eligibility The requirements to obtain a parking permit as a resident are: A completed application form (online) in the residents’ name and address. A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle the applicant is requesting a parking permit. Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a driver’s license, the vehicle registration, a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a preprinted personal check with the resident’s name and address. 1.The residential permit can be purchased on an annual duration online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking. Parking permits are issued for uses within the RPP District area. Standard long‐term residential parking permits are not transferable between vehicles. Annual permit cost may be pro‐rated for purchase midway through the annual timeframe. 2.Guests of Residents: A resident is also eligible to purchase up to two (2) transferable hang‐tag permits for guests, which are annual permits that may be used for a nanny, baby‐sitter, caregiver, household employee, or other regular visitor to the household. Annual hangtag permits must be purchased by the resident of the household and may be transferred between vehicles. Only two (2) annual hangtag permits are allowed per household. 3.Visitors of Residents: Any resident within the RPP District area is eligible to purchase daily permits annually for events which may take place at a household. Daily permits must be purchased by a resident of the household and are only valid for a single day use. Each household can receive a maximum of 50 daily permits each calendar year. Version 2.0 Employee Permit Eligibility (applicable to downtown RPP and others as designated by resolution): Annual, quarterly, five‐day and daily Employee permits are available. The requirements to obtain a parking permit as an employee are: A completed application form (online) with the employees’ name and address. A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle for which the applicant is requesting a parking permit. Proof of employment at a business in the employee’s name, which includes an address within the RPP District. Acceptable proof of employment shall be a W‐2 wage statement or letter from employer. All employees who work at a registered, code‐compliant business within an RPP District are eligible to purchase permits, unless otherwise restricted by the City for parking capacity reasons. Parking permit stickers or hangtags are issued to employees within the RPP District. Where applicable, the City may decide to issue permits which are transferrable between employees of the same business. These permits will be in the form of a hangtag, which must be placed on the rearview mirror of the employee vehicle. Possession of an employee permit which is assigned to a specific block or zone does not entitle the employer to renew a permit in the same block or zone. Annual permit cost may be pro‐rated for purchase midway through the annual timeframe. If an employee with an annual permit leaves the company, the employer may transfer the remaining balance of the unused permit to another employee by returning the original permit and transferring the balance of time to a new one. The new permit will expire at the same date of the original permit expiration. The City may, at its discretion, issue Employee Guest permits to eligible employers within an RPP district, for use by their guests or visitors. The City may immediately revoke all permits issued to businesses and employees at businesses that are unregistered and/or operating in violation of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and/or state and federal regulations. Reduced Price Permits: Certain employees may be eligible for a reduced‐price permit if they meet either of the income requirements listed below. Proof of income must be provided at the time of purchase, and information may be audited at any time by the City. INCOME VERIFICATION OPTIONS a. Option A: Employees who earn an annual income which is exactly or less than $50,000. The City will evaluate this limit annually and adjust for inflation. b. Option B: Employees who make a pre‐tax hourly wage which is exactly or less than 2x the governing city or state minimum wage (whichever is greater) are eligible for a reduced price permit. Submittal requirements provided for proof of income include: tax return and two consecutive wage statements. Version 2.0 Other Policies 1. Any attempt to alter the permit shall immediately render the permit invalid. 2. Permit holder assumes full responsibility of any loaning of their vehicle. 3. Possession of an RPP permit does not guarantee a parking spot. It is understood that a greater amount of parking permits may be issued than there are available on‐street parking spaces. This may create an environment of natural competition for on‐street parking between neighborhood residents and other permit holders. 4. Permit validity: RPP permits are not valid in any City parking garage or lot, and City‐issued garage or lot permits are not valid in RPP Districts. RPP permits are only valid for the RPP District for which they are issued. 5. The City of Palo Alto is not responsible for the loss of or damage to any vehicle or its contents. 6. Abandoned Vehicles: Parking a vehicle unmoved longer than 72 consecutive hours on a City street is in violation of PAMC 10.60.07(d). Parking permits shall not exempt vehicles from this requirement. 7. For new vehicles or license plates, the permit holder must surrender the current valid permit to the Revenue Collections office. If the permit does not come off intact, pieces will be accepted. 8. Temporary Permits: Temporary permits can be printed online once a valid permit holder has submitted payment for a permit. The temporary permit must be displayed on the front dashboard. 9. Replacement Fees: There is a permit replacement fee of $10.00 for regular permits reissued for any reason, prior to the normal renewal period. 10. Refunds: Refunds are issued on annual permits only, and a refund will only be given through the third quarter and prorated at the quarterly rate. The permit holder must remove the current permit and return it to the Revenue Collections office. 11. Permit Placement: The permit must be affixed on the outside of the rear windshield driver’s side lower left corner, or left side of the bumper. Do not place your permit in any other location. Placing your permit in another location or behind tinted windows may invalidate your parking exemption. 12. Vehicle Eligibility: Parking permits may be issued only for passenger non‐commercial and passenger commercial (i.e., SUV’s, small pick‐up trucks, etc.) vehicles registered to residents residing within the residential parking permit area. Vehicles defined as oversized by the City’s Oversized Vehicle Parking ordinance, such as commercial trucks, boat trailers, RV’s (camping trailers, motor homes, etc.), trailers and work‐type commercial vehicles, including taxis and limousines, are not eligible for residential parking permit program permits. Eligible Exceptions for a Parking Permit Sticker Company Cars – A residential parking permit sticker may be issued for residents who have company cars as their primary transportation vehicle. To obtain a permit, the person must be a legal resident within the residential permit parking area who has a motor vehicle for his/her exclusive use and under his/her control where said motor vehicle is registered to his/her employer and he/she presents a valid employee identification card or other proof of employment that is acceptable to the City. Leased Cars – A residential parking permit sticker may be issued for a resident who has a leased car. To obtain a permit, the person must be a legal resident within the residential permit parking area who has a motor vehicle registered to a vehicle‐leasing company and/or leased to the resident’s employer, providing said vehicle is for the resident’s exclusive use and provides proof or the lease agreement which is acceptable to the City. Version 2.0 The requirements to obtain a parking permit sticker for a company or leased car are: A completed application form in the residents’ name and address. A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle the applicant is requesting a parking permit. Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a driver’s license, the vehicle registration, a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a preprinted personal check with the resident’s name and address. Caregivers – Caregivers may be issued a parking permit sticker for a permit parking area provided the address of the resident receiving the care is within said parking area. The requirements to obtain a parking permit sticker for a caregiver are: A completed application form in both the residents’ and caregivers name and address. A current DMV vehicle registration for each vehicle for which the applicant is requesting a parking permit. Proof of residency/ownership in the resident’s/owner’s name reflecting the permit address in the permit area. Acceptable proof of residency shall be a utility bill, car insurance policy, lease agreement or a preprinted personal check with the resident’s name and address. A letter from the resident identifying the permit applicant as the caregiver. Fine Amount The fine for violation of the Residential Parking Permit Program regulations is set within the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule. Misuse of Parking Permits Any person selling, fraudulently using, reproducing or mutilating a parking permit issued in conjunction with the residential parking permit program shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject to a citation for each offense and the forfeiture of all permits in conflict, or such other fine or penalty as the City Council may set by ordinance. Neighborhood Support for RPP District Implementation As outlined in the ordinance, the City may choose to conduct a survey of a proposed neighborhood to determine whether support exists for RPP District implementation. The survey may be conducted either prior to the recommendation of RPP District implementation to Council, or during a trial period of the program, but before final implementation. The survey shall be conducted electronically or via U.S. mail. Each household using a separate U.S.P.S. address will be allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against the implementation of an RPP program. The current threshold for RPP District implementation is a vote of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of implementation. Eligibility Areas As outlined in the ordinance, the City Council may adopt a resolution identifying particular areas as RPP Eligibility Areas. Following the adoption of the RPP Eligibility Areas, residents within these areas may petition the Director of Planning and Community Environment to be annexed into an existing RPP District. The petition must include the following: • A completed application form (online) including the residents’ names and addresses. Version 2.0 • A current DMV vehicle registration of each vehicle for which any RPP District parking permit had previously been approved in the applicants’ names. Upon the receipt of a petition that includes the above information for a simple majority, or 50%+1 of the identified segment’s neighbors, the City may choose to conduct a survey of the proposed neighborhood to determine whether additional support exists for annexation into the existing RPP District. The survey shall be conducted electronically or via U.S. mail. Each household using a separate U.S.P.S. address will be allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against annexation into the existing RPP District. The current threshold for RPP District implementation is a vote of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of implementation. Approval of annexation for RPP Eligibility Areas will take effect without Council adoption. Opt Out Procedures Current residents of an existing RPP District that no longer wish to participate in the RPP program may petition to opt out of their RPP District between January 1st and March 31st of the year. The petition must be submitted to and will be approved at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Residents of the same existing RPP District shall initiate a request to opt out of their RPP District by neighborhood petition. The petition will be available as a standard form online, and must include the following: • A completed application form (online) including the residents’ names and addresses. • A current DMV vehicle registration of each vehicle for which any RPP District parking permit had previously been approved in the applicants’ names. Upon the receipt of a petition that includes the above information for a simple majority, or 50%+1 of the identified segment’s neighbors, the City may choose to conduct a survey of the proposed neighborhood to determine whether additional support exists for opting out of the RPP District. The survey shall be conducted electronically or via U.S. mail. Each household using a separate U.S.P.S. address will be allowed one (1) vote either in favor or against opting out of the existing RPP District. The current threshold for RPP District implementation is a vote of 70% of the returned surveys in favor of opting out. Petitions that do not include a simple majority of the identified segment’s neighbors will not be considered for opt out. Effective upon approval of their opt‐out petition, residents will no longer be entitled to RPP District resident parking permits. Approval of an opt‐out petition may not be construed to waive compliance of the RPP District parking restrictions that remain in place. Upon the approval of an application, the City shall provide written notice electronically or via U.S. mail to all residents impacted by the opt‐out, including the effective date of the opt‐out, the expiration date of any remaining valid parking permits, and contact information for further inquiries or concerns. Occupancy Study Requirements Version 2.0 During the course of RPP District initiation, the City will conduct parking occupancy studies for the neighborhood in question. Studies will be conducted at various hours and be compared to an inventory calculation to show percentages of occupancy by block face. Weekday studies will not be conducted on Mondays, Fridays or holidays. Version 2.0 Neighborhood Petition Form City of Palo Alto Residential Parking Permit Program Request Form The purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request to be annexed to an existing Residential Preferential Parking area or the initiation of a Residential Preferential Parking Program in accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s adopted Residential Parking Permit Program Policy and Procedures. This form must be filled out in its entirety and submitted with any request to: City of Palo Alto Transportation Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Floor 5 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Feel free to attach additional sheets containing pictures, occupancy maps, additional testimony or additional text if the space provided is insufficient. 1. Requesting Individual’s Contact Information Name: ____________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________ Phone Number: _______________________________________ Email: _______________________________________ 2. Please describe the nature of the overflow parking problem in your neighborhood. 1. What streets in your neighborhood do you feel are affected by overflow parking? 2. How often does the overflow occur? 3. Does the impact vary from month to month, or season to season? 3. Can you identify a parking impact generator that is the cause of overflow parking in the neighborhood? Are there any facilities (churches, schools, shopping centers, etc.) near this location that generate a high concentration of vehicle and pedestrian traffic? Please list your understanding of the causes: Version 2.0 4. Please describe how a Residential Parking Permit Program will be able to eliminate or reduce overflow parking impacting the neighborhood. Please include your suggestion for the boundary of the program: 5. Is there neighborhood support for submittal of this Residential Parking Permit Program application? Have you contacted your HOA/Neighborhood Association? Version 2.0 Neighborhood Petition Form (Street by Street Basis) THE UNDERSIGNED BELOW AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. All persons signing this petition do hereby certify that they reside on the following street, which is being considered for residential preferential parking: ______________________________________ 2. All persons signing this petition do hereby agree that the following contact person(s) represent the neighborhood as facilitator(s) between the neighborhood residents and City of Palo Alto staff in matters pertaining to this request: Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________ Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________ Name: _________________________ Address: ___________________ Phone #: __________________ ONLY ONE SIGNATURE PER HOUSEHOLD Name (Please Print) Address Phone Number Signature 1.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 2.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 3.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 4.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 5.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 6.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 7.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 8.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 9.________________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 10._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 11._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 12._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 13._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 14._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 15._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 16._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 17._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 18._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 19._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 20._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 21._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 22._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 23._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 24._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 25._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 26._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 27._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 28._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 29._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 30._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ Version 2.0 31._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 32._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 33._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 34._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 35._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 36._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 37._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 38._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 39._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ 40._______________ _________________________ __________________ ___________________ Univ e r s i t y A v e Lyt t o n A v e Eve r e t t A v e Haw t h o r n e A v e Ruth v e n A v e Poe S t Pa l o A l t o A v e Eve r e t t C t Hi g h S t Al m a S t El C a m i n o R e a l E m e r s o n S t Br y a n t S t W a v e r l y S t Ki p l i n g S t Co w p e r S t W e b s t e r S t By r o n S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Fu l t o n S t G u i n d a S t Bo y c e A v e Forest Ave Hamilton Ave Fife Ave Channing Ave Parkinson Ave Guinda St Greenwood Se n e c a S t Ch a u c e r S t Ha l e S t Ra m o n a S t Hi g h S t E m e r s o n S t Br y a n t S t Sc o t t W a v e r l y S t Kip l i n g Co w p e r S t W e b s t e r S t By r o n S t By r o n S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d Fu l t o n S t Ra m o n a S t Fl o r e n c e Gil m a n Ta s s o Ham i l t o n A v e For e s t A v e Hom e r A v e Cha n n i n g A v e Add i s o n A v e Linc o l n A v e King s l e y A v e Melv i l l e A v e Kell o g g A v e MENLO PARK STANFORD Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program Li n c o l n A v e Ad d i s o n A v e Embarca d e r o R o a d 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 1 Visit http://paloalto.parkingguide.com/parking-program/downtown-residential-preferential-parking-program/ for additional information or contact 650-329-2520. PaloAlto A v e Downtown RPP District Approved Eligibility Area Non-RPP Parking in RPP District Downtown Non-RPP Downtown RPP Program Area Approved Eligibility Area Non-RPP Parking in RPP District (check signs) RPP Employee Parking Zones Permit Type Full-price Hangtag Reduced Hangtag Full-price Sticker Reduced Sticker Free Sticker Total Issued Current Maximum Authorized Maximum Resident Annual 1,221 2,681 952 4,854 N/A N/A Resident One-day Scratcher 825 825 N/A N/A Total Resident Permits 2,046 2,681 952 5,679 Employee One-day Scratcher 163 163 N/A N/A Employee Five-day Scratcher 1 1 N/A N/A Total Employee Scratcher 164 164 Employee Annual Zone 1 23 14 38 75 75 75 Employee Annual Zone 2 40 16 61 117 120 120 Employee Annual Zone 3 143 25 114 282 225 225 Employee Annual Zone 4 49 37 96 182 190 190 Employee Annual Zone 5 46 41 90 177 175 175 Employee Annual Zone 6 27 24 50 101 100 100 Employee Annual Zone 7 33 35 67 135 135 135 Employee Annual Zone 8 104 40 34 92 270 365 365 Employee Annual Zone 9 1 0 0 1 25 245 Employee Annual Zone 10 18 8 9 35 105 370 Total Employee Annual 484 234 617 1,335 1,515 2,000 Notes 1. A total of 40 Employee Annual Zone 8 Reduced Hangtags were purchsed by PAUSD for Addison Elementary School staff. 2. A handful of individuals purchased the bulk of the hangtags in Employee Parking Zones 3 and 8. Additional research is warranted. A cap on hangtags may be considered. 3. Employee Parking Zones 3, 5 and 6 have been slightly oversold. Contractor states that this may be due to errors in issuing replacement permits. This needs to be addressed. Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Permit Program Permits Sold (March 1 to December 22, 2016) 27% 63 % 0% 0%0% 33 % 63 % 10 0 % 38 % 20 % 25 %0% 33 % 63 % 0% - 49% Parking Occupancy 80%54%31%20%69%82%81%33%75%30%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy75%70%25%38%100%125% 89 % 86 % 14%Legend 38 % 38 % 75 % 43 % 38 % 30 % 63 %0% 70 % 25 % 25 % 40 % 63 % 67 % 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 38 % 63 % 60 % 44 % 10 % Ad d i s o n 73% 40 % 69%54%23%57%69%50%71%33%19%33%23% Lin c o l n 40% 56 % 50 % 11 % 43 % 38 %0% 0% Ramona St Ramona25%56%25%83%35%93%73%58% 0%37% Kin g s l e y 0% 28 % 33 % 60 % 38 %0%83 % 86 % 45 % 75 % 56 % 43 % 20 % 60 % 17%77%21%69%60%57%33% 38%0%44%7%0% Bryant St Bryant64% Ha w t h o r n e A v 43% Ev e r e t t A v 40% Ly t t o n A v 45% Un i v e r s i t y A v 63% Ha m i l t o n A v 25% Fo r e s t A v 80% Ho m e r A v 53% Ch a n n i n g A v 0% 25 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 31 % 13 % 11 % 0%64% 75% 56 %9%33 % 78 % 56 % 20%85%100%38%55%80%85% 59 % 77 % 63 % 33 % 39 % 24 % 35 % #D I V / 0 ! 67 % 6%67% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 8% 59%100%44%36%67%35%10%120%20%58%75%12%21%17% 29 % 42 % 72 % 0% 56%85%123%40%138%69%62%64%13%19% 90 % 33 % 10 0 % 89 % 75 % 39 % 44 % 29 %0% 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 14%63%64%57%33%45%54%76%64%79%24%0%0%0% 25 % 60 % 0% 17 %0% 13 % 33 % 73 %0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 50%50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%23%200%0%17% 0%30%75%77%50%75%59%59%40%0%0%0% 21% 39 % 41 % 12 0 % 13 6 % 79 % 62 % 56 % 83 % 76 % 18 % 0%44%77% 50% 25%69%22%75% 57 %0%11 %0% 17 % 61 % 44 % 56 % 12 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%40%69%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%86% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 29%53%53%80%27%71%43%88%75% 50% 15 7 % 0%11 % 14 %0%0%11 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 23%36%40%0%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 15 % 35 % 33 %0%19 % 47 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 64% Ad d i s o n 8% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 64 % 6%40%15%0%0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%60%40%0% 0% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 80 % 25%0% 8%0% Fulton 13%70%58%91%0% Fulton St 25% 0% 0% 33 % 33 % 33 % 0%14 % 0%57 % 22 % 38 % 50 % 87 % 12 0 % 61 % 54 % 36 % 29 % 0%0%0% 15 0 % 25 % 0% City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 6/30/2016 8 AM - 10 AM Total Occupancy 0%114%17%62%33%8%36%25%30%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 10% 38%46% Un i v e r s i t y A v 47% Ha m i l t o n A v 46%36%0%32% 44%63%23%0% 25 %4% 14 3 % 33 % 0% 12 % 0%33% Ha w t h o r n e A v 58% Ev e r e t t A v 47% Ly t t o n A v 50 % 14 % 29 % 29 % 11 % 11 % 0% 38 % 43 % 0%0% 54% 0%0% 33%58%30% Kipling 21% 45 % 57 % 33 % 0% 47% Kipling St 24%45%46% 11 % 33 % 33 % 33 %0% 30 % 25 % 25%73% 68 % 53 % 67 % 33 % 12 9 % 50 % 29 % 83 % 14 %0% 18 6 % 89 % 53 % 42 % 70 % 32 % 25 % 71 % 14 % 84 % 50 % 17 % 25 % 10 0 % 93 % 62 % 100%93% 36 % 89 % 25 % 78 % 4% 29 % 91% 0% 75 % 50 % 50 % 10 0 % 0% Emerson St Emerson 86 % 12 9 % 10 0 % 60 % 63 % 86 % 11 3 % 45 % 75 % 85%33%47% 80%30% 48 % Pa l o A l t o A v 69%75%46%33%100%93%65% 63 % 0% 31%7%0%29%75%100%64%0%0% 0%0% 33 % 63 % 10 0 % 38 % 20 % 25 %0% 33 % 38 % 38 % 0% 75 % 50 % 50 % 10 0 % 0% Alma St Alma4% 48 % Pa l o A l t o A v 18% 10 0 % 33% 0%0% 67 % 63 % 10 0 % 88 % 40 % 88 % 10 0 % 67 % 50 % 0% - 49% Parking Occupancy 80%77%100%80%100%94%81%133%100%0%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy92%100%63%92%100%100% 10 0 % 10 0 % 14%Legend 25 % 62 % 75 % 11 4 % 63 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 11 0 % 63 % 25 % 40 % 50 % 83 % 10 0 % 17 % 75 % 50 % 25 % 12 0 % 44 % 40 % Ad d i s o n 67% 40 % 106%92%92%57%106%93%100%92%31%67%0% Lin c o l n 40% 67 % 67 % 78 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 38% Ramona St Ramona42%75%75%100%82%93%93%100% 0%26% Kin g s l e y 25% 22 % 33 % 80 % 38 % 80 % 83 % 86 % 82 % 50 % 56 % 43 % 40 % 40 % 28%100%86%106%60%100%50% 75%0%44%0%25% Bryant St Bryant18% Ha w t h o r n e A v 50% Ev e r e t t A v 100% Ly t t o n A v 45% Un i v e r s i t y A v 63% Ha m i l t o n A v 75% Fo r e s t A v 87% Ho m e r A v 80% Ch a n n i n g A v 0% 25 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 31 %0% 79 % 100%82% 75% 33 % 10 0 % 56 % 89 % 67 % 20%0%75%75%100%60%100% 76 % 10 0 % 63 % 52 % 56 % 33 % 25 % #D I V / 0 ! 0% 18%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 8% 59%125%89%100%100%106%30%110%47%67%69%35%5%17% 53 % 32 % 50 % 0% 78%100%131%60%162%69%54%50%47%31% 14 0 % 87 % 50 % 33 % 25 % 33 % 94 % 12 %0% 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 21%100%36%71%67%91%92%29%57%43%35%0%0%0% 19 % 60 % 29 % 17 %0% 13 % 83 % 10 0 % 0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 85% Ha m i l t o n A v 83%50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 14%30%75%100%60%83%82%47%47%0%0%0% 21% 83 % 41 % 90 % 82 % 71 % 92 % 69 % 83 % 59 % 12 % 107%69%62% 6% 69%69%22%75% 0%14 % 11 % 25 % 22 % 67 % 67 % 78 % 82 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%30%77%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%100% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 57%60%93%80%27%100%29%88%75% 50% 29 % 11 % 11 %0%57 % 75 % 78 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 31%57%67%100%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 75 % 47 % 47 % 67 % 10 6 % 21 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 43% Ad d i s o n 8% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 18 % 6%40%69%92%0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%50%27%0% 5% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 20 % 33%0% 33%0% Fulton 25%60%50%100%0% Fulton St 58% 0% 0% 17 % 50 % 17 % 0%57 % 0%43 % 11 % 25 % 39 % 27 % 80 % 56 % 77 % 57 % 29 % 0%0%0% 12 5 % 0% 0% City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 6/30/2016 12 PM - 2 PM Total Occupancy 0%57%33%8%33%0%14%8%20%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 8% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 70% 54%54% Un i v e r s i t y A v 53% Ha m i l t o n A v 46%36%18%26% 33%63%23%50% 63 % 22 % 43 % 22 % 0% 0% 20%44% Ha w t h o r n e A v 67% Ev e r e t t A v 80% Ly t t o n A v 67 %0%29 % 43 % 11 % 56 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 57 % 0%0% 38% 0%0% 92%92%50% Kipling 29% 10 0 % 57 % 50 % 0% 60% Kipling St 71%100%100% 56 % 67 % 50 % 67 % 15 0 % 52 % 25 % 38%91% 42 % 60 % 10 0 % 56 % 12 9 % 25 % 57 % 83 % 71 % 86 % 10 0 % 95 % 89 % 63 % 70 % 47 % 10 0 % 43 % 86 % 84 % 50 % 0%75 % 10 0 % 93 % 90 % 117%100% 73 % 78 % 63 % 56 % 8% 53 % 82% 0% 75 % 50 % 10 0 % 75 % 86 % Emerson St Emerson 10 0 % 12 9 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 11 3 % 82 % 50 % 77%33%47% 80%90% 64 % Pa l o A l t o A v 81%75%100%78%100%100%88% 10 0 % 33% 69%57%89%71%81%100%64%62%25% 0%0% 67 % 63 % 10 0 % 88 % 40 % 88 % 10 0 % 67 % 25 % 62 % 0% 75 % 50 % 10 0 % 75 % 86 % Alma St Alma13% 64 % Pa l o A l t o A v 36% 38 % 0% 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 50 % 38 % 56 % 38 % 0% - 49% Parking Occupancy 80%54%115%110%100%94%106%56%100%40%50% - 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% - 100%+ Parking Occupancy58%90%63%100%100%108% 89 % 12 9 % 0%Legend 44 % 38 % 38 % 10 0 % 38 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 50 % 11 0 % 50 % 50 % 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 50 % 10 0 % 63 % 25 % 30 % 67 % 40 % Ad d i s o n 67% 10 0 % 69%77%108%107%106%71%107%108%13%17%8% Lin c o l n 27% 67 % 50 % 67 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 0% Ramona St Ramona58%88%69%142%94%107%87%25% 0%16% Kin g s l e y 50% 39 % 17 % 80 % 25 % 90 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 9 % 10 0 % 78 % 43 % 20 % 70 % 39%115%93%106%320%43%22% 81%0%44%13%33% Bryant St Bryant50% Ha w t h o r n e A v 29% Ev e r e t t A v 50% Ly t t o n A v 73% Un i v e r s i t y A v 88% Ha m i l t o n A v 25% Fo r e s t A v 80% Ho m e r A v 67% Ch a n n i n g A v 0% 19 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 46 % 33 % 26 % 71%64% 75% 78 % 10 0 % 78 % 10 0 % 44 % 20%65%50%50%73%120%100% 65 % 69 % 38 % 29 %6%10 % 15 % #D I V / 0 ! 0% 6%83% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 8% 35%125%67%73%100%112%10%100%13%42%44%29%32%0% 35 % 32 % 50 % 0% 72%69%123%87%154%62%62%71%20%6% 15 0 % 60 % 50 % 11 1 % 25 % 39 % 67 % 12 %0% 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 29%50%45%64%100%73%85%41%7%64%29%0%0%0% 13 % 27 % 14 % 17 %0% 38 %0% 73 %0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 54% Ha m i l t o n A v 67%50% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%15%0%0%17% 21%10%58%92%50%50%47%53%53%0%0%0% 21% 50 % 35 % 11 0 % 10 0 % 71 % 46 % 63 % 58 % 82 % 6% 0%31%69% 56% 19%69%22%75% 0%0%0%0% 6%44 % 17 % 56 % 29 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%40%46%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%71% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 57%27%47%50%27%7%36%38%75% 50% 0%0%0%14 % 43 %0%33 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 44 % 31%43%47%69%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 30 % 53 % 27 % 53 % 38 % 26 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 15% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 27 % 24%27%38%23%0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%70%27%0% 5% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 0% 17%0% 17%0% Fulton 8%70%58%36%0% Fulton St 67% 0% 0% 33 % 50 % 33 % 17 % 14 % 0%43 % 78 % 38 % 33 % 80 %0%39 % 54 % 50 % 29 % 0%0%0% 10 0 % 63 % 0% City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 6/30/2016 5 PM - 7 PM Total Occupancy 0%114%17%15%33%17%50%17%40%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 12% Ev e r e t t A v 14% Ly t t o n A v e 60% 77%46% Un i v e r s i t y A v 47% Ha m i l t o n A v 23%27%0%11% 17%50%38%58% 0%22 % 57 % 22 % 0% 0% 0%56% Ha w t h o r n e A v 50% Ev e r e t t A v 60% Ly t t o n A v 50 % 14 % 43 % 71 % 11 % 67 % 50 % 13 % 10 0 % 0%0% 38% 0%0% 75%92%70% Kipling 36% 64 % 57 % 50 % 0% 60% Kipling St 65%64%92% 22 % 44 % 17 % 83 % 12 5 % 30 % 35 % 38%73% 74 % 53 % 83 % 44 % 15 7 % 25 % 14 % 50 % 71 % 10 0 % 71 % 63 % 42 % 26 % 90 % 21 % 38 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 84 % 11 0 % 50 % 75 % 11 7 % 20 % 67 % 111%79% 73 % 78 %0%89 % 17 % 35 % 100% 10 0 % 88 % 75 % 10 0 % 12 5 % 0% Emerson St Emerson 12 9 % 15 7 % 11 3 % 80 % 75 % 11 4 % 13 8 % 10 9 % 10 0 % 100%33%29% 107%30% 36 % Pa l o A l t o A v 50%42%85%61%94%129%100% 38 % 0% 50%50%78%100%69%100%64%0%0% 10 0 % 0% 10 0 % 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 50 % 38 % 56 % 44 % 38 % 10 0 % 88 % 75 % 10 0 % 12 5 % 0% Alma St Alma9% 36 % Pa l o A l t o A v 77%25%0% 80%80% Alma St Alma9% 20 % Pa l o A l t o A v 0%17%54%78%94%100%88% 27 % 56 %0%22 % 4% 35 % 18% 0% 38 % 38 % 10 0 % 75 % 71 % Emerson St Emerson 10 0 % 12 9 % 10 0 % 60 % 13 %0%38 % 73 % 50 % 70 % 32 % 10 0 % 43 % 86 % 74 % 50 % ## # # # 63 % 17 % 47 % 24 % 117%36% 25 % 25%27% 16 % 40 % 10 0 % 56 % 12 9 % 13 % 29 % 17 % 71 % 86 % 10 0 % 84 % 74 % 58 % 15% 0%0% 42%92%20% Kipling 14% 82 % 14 % 33 % 0% 27% Kipling St 53%36%100% 56 % 44 % 33 % 67 % 15 0 % 30 % 25 %9%29 %0% 0% 0% 20%0% Ha w t h o r n e A v 17% Ev e r e t t A v 20% Ly t t o n A v 33 %0%0%0%0% 56 % 0% 63 % 21 % 0%0% 10%13%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 20% 23%23% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 23%9%9%11% 0%13%0%25% City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 6/30/2016 12 PM - 2 PM No Permits 0%0%33%0%7%0%0%8% 0% 0% 17 % 0%17 % 0%57 % 0%14 % 0%0% 11 % 20 % 60 % 33 % 31 % 21 % 29 % 0%0%0% 10 0 % 0% 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%20%20%0% 0% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 20 % 25%0% 33%0% Fulton 4%20%8%27%0% Fulton St 17% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 29% Ad d i s o n 8% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 0% 0%7%31%31%0% 44 % 23%7%33%31%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 10 % 18 % 27 % 20 % 44 % 21 % 40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 14 %0%0%0%43 % 50 % 56 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 7%27%13%70%27%71%14%44%25% 0% 19%69%22%75% 0%0%11 % 13 % 0%17 % 33 % 78 % 76 % Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%0%77%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%86%21% 83 % 41 % 40 % 64 % 36 % 62 % 31 % 25 % 47 % 12 % 53%25%23%46% Ha m i l t o n A v 33%36% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 7%20%25%38%60%75%76%12%20%0%0%0% 29 %0%0%0% 83 % 91 %0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 4% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 0%88%0%29%58%73%92%6%14%29%12%0%0%0% 6%33 %0% 22%54%115%60%162%8%8%43%27%19% 60 % 27 % 13 % 22 % 25 % 11 % 44 %6%0% 6%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 4% 0%75%22%55%93%106%30%10%33%33%0%24%5%0% 35 % 21 % 22 % 41 % 54 % 13 % 24 % 11 % 10 %5% #V A L U E ! 0%25 %Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 23 %0% 21 % 100%82% 75% 33 % 10 0 % 56 % 11 % 11 % 20%0%25%63%64%60%100%38%#VALUE!44%0%8% Bryant St Bryant5% Ha w t h o r n e A v 43% Ev e r e t t A v 50% Ly t t o n A v 45% Un i v e r s i t y A v 63% Ha m i l t o n A v 75% Fo r e s t A v 53% Ho m e r A v 33% Ch a n n i n g A v #VALUE!#VALUE!0% Kin g s l e y 0% 17 % 17 % 60 % 25 % 80 % 83 % 86 % 73 % 50 % 11 %0%0% 20 % 22%31%86%106%40%14%11%13% Ramona St Ramona33%13%75%100%82%47%67%8% 33 % 20 % Ad d i s o n 33% 40 % 25%54%31%57%106%93%93%92%31%28%0% Lin c o l n 0% 33 % 33 % 56 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 89 % 10 0 % 7%Legend 13 % 54 % 38 % 71 % 63 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 40 % 10 0 % 63 % 25 % 40 % 50 % 83 % 10 0 % 17 % 75 %0%0% 50 %0% 67%38%100%70%100%94%75%133%17%0% High St High 0% - 25% 25% - 50% 50%+25%30%63%92%93%100% 18% 25 % 11% 19%57%78%71%81%100%64%62%0% 0%0% 67 % 50 % 88 % 88 % 40 % 88 % 10 0 % 33 % 0%8%18% 0%0% 12 % Pa l o A l t o A v 69%8%31%0%0%0%0% 27 %0%13 % 11 % 4% 12 % 18% 0%0% 13 %0%0% 14 % Emerson St Emerson 0%0%0%20 % 13 % 43 % 38 %9%0% 0% 5%0% 0%0% 0%0% 0%0% 33 %7%38 % 0%36% 0% 13%36% 0%0% 0%0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0% 5%0%0% 0% 0%0% 8%0%0% Kipling 0% 0%14 %0% 0% 7% Kipling St 18%18%0% 0%11 %0%0%0% 17 % 0%0%14 %0% 0% 0% 0%0% Ha w t h o r n e A v 0% Ev e r e t t A v 40% Ly t t o n A v 0%0%0%0%0% 0% 10 0 % 25 % 14 % 0%0% 0%0%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 0% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 40% 0%0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 7% Ha m i l t o n A v 8%0%0%0% 0%25%0%0% City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 6/30/2016 12 PM - 2 PM Employee Permits 0%0%0%0%7%0%0%0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 6%0%10 % 17 % 38 %0% 29 % 0%0%0% 0%0% 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%30%0%0% 0% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 0% 0%0% 0%0% Fulton 0%0%17%27%0% Fulton St 17% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 14% Ad d i s o n 0% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 0% 0%0%0%62%0% 44 % 0%0%20%69%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 25 %6%7%33 % 50 %0%40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 0%0%0%0%14 % 25 % 22 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 0%0%60%10%27%14%0%31%19% 0% 25%69%22%75% 0%0%0%13 % 0%6%11 % 0% 0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%0%0%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%0%21% 0%0%10 % 18 % 7%15 % 6%8%0%0% 13%44%23%15% Ha m i l t o n A v 8%0% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%24%7%0%0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 0%13%9%0%0%0%0%12%7%0%0%0%0%0% 0%0%0% 33%15%8%0%0%38%0%7%7%0% 10 %7%13 % 0%0% 6%17 %0%0% 0%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 0% 41%0%22%9%0%0%0%40%7%25%50%0%0%0% 12 %0%0%24 % 31 % 13 % 0%6%5%0% #D I V / 0 ! 0%0%Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 0%0% 32 % 0%0% 0% 0%0%0%11 %0% 20%0%0%0%18%0%0%25%0%44%0%0% Bryant St Bryant5% Ha w t h o r n e A v 7% Ev e r e t t A v 20% Ly t t o n A v 0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 0% Fo r e s t A v 20% Ho m e r A v 20% Ch a n n i n g A v 0%0%0% Kin g s l e y 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%9%0%0%0%0% 0%0%15%0%0%0%36%6%6% Ramona St Ramona0%25%0%0%0%40%7%58% 0%10 % Ad d i s o n 0% 0% 75%15%23%0%0%0%7%0%0%28%0% Lin c o l n 7% 0%0%11 %0%0%0%0%0% 0%Legend 0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 25 % 13 % 50 %0% 7%15%0%0%0%0%0%0%42%0% High St High 0% - 25% 25% - 50% 50%+42%10%0%0%0%0% 0% 25 % 11% 0%0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% Alma St Alma4% 12 % Pa l o A l t o A v 0%0% 13 %0%0% 14 % 0%0% 25 % 11% 44%0%11%0%0%100%64%0%17% 0%0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% 0%0%29% 0%10% 24 % Pa l o A l t o A v 13%50%8%0%6%0%0% 18 % 22 % 50 % 22 % 0% 6% 45% 0% 25 %0%0%0%0% Emerson St Emerson 0%0%0%20 % 50 % 57 % 38 %0%0% 0% 11 %0% 0%0% 5%0% 0%13 % 50 % 40 % 29 % 0%29% 0% 0%27% 26 % 20 % 0%0%0% 13 % 29 % 67 %0%0%0% 5%16 %5% 23% 0%0% 25%0%30% Kipling 14% 18 % 29 % 17 % 0% 27% Kipling St 0%27%0% 0%11 % 17 %0%0% 4% 38 % 13 %0%22 % 0% 0% 0%44% Ha w t h o r n e A v 42% Ev e r e t t A v 13% Ly t t o n A v 33 %0%29 % 43 % 11 % 0% 0% 13 % 21 % 0%0% 10%0%0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda 4% Ev e r e t t A v 0% Ly t t o n A v e 10% 31%31% Un i v e r s i t y A v 47% Ha m i l t o n A v 15%27%9%16% 33%25%23%25% City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 6/30/2016 12 PM - 2 PM Resident Permits 0%57%0%8%20%0%14%0% 0% 0% 0%50 % 0%0%0%0%29 % 11 % 25 % 22 %7%10 %0%8%36 % 29 % 0%0%0% 25 %0% 0% 50 %0%0%0% 0%0%7%0% 5% Pa l o A l t o A 10 0 % 0% 8%0% 0%0% Fulton 21%40%25%45%0% Fulton St 25% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 0% Ad d i s o n 0% Lin c o l n 0% Kin g s l e y 0% Pa l o A l t o A v Byron St Byron 18 % 6%27%31%0%0% 44 % 8%50%13%0%0%0%0%52% Ke l l o g g 38% 40 % 24 % 13 %7%13 %0%40 % 0%0%0%0%0%38 % 50% 14 % 11 % 11 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 43%33%20%0%27%0%14%13%31% 6% 25%69%22%75% 0%14 %0%0% 22 % 28 % 22 % 0% 6% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0%30%0%0% 0%0% Me l v i l l e 0%0%21% 0%0%40 % 0%29 % 0%31 % 50 % 12 % 0% 40%0%15%23% Ha m i l t o n A v 42%14% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%0%17% 7%10%33%31%0%8%6%12%20%0%0%0% 0% 17 %0% 13 %0%0%0%0% 22 % 0%0%0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n A v 21%0%27%43%8%18%0%12%36%14%24%0%0%0% 13 % 27 %0% 22%15%8%0%0%23%46%0%13%13% 70 % 53 % 25 % 11 %0% 17 % 33 %6%0% 12%0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 4% 18%50%44%9%7%0%0%60%7%8%13%12%0%17% 6%11 % 28 % 12 % 15 % 38 % 29 % 39 % 19 % 20 % #D I V / 0 ! 0%0%Pa l o A l t o A v 0% Po e S t 8%0% 21 % 0%0% 0% 0%0%0%67 % 56 % 20%0%50%13%9%0%0%13%0%44%0%17% Bryant St Bryant9% Ha w t h o r n e A v 0% Ev e r e t t A v 20% Ly t t o n A v 0% Un i v e r s i t y A v 0% Ha m i l t o n A v 0% Fo r e s t A v 13% Ho m e r A v 27% Ch a n n i n g A v 0%0%26% Kin g s l e y 25% 6% 17 % 20 % 13 %0%0%0%0%0%44 % 43 % 40 % 20 % 6%38%0%0%20%50%33%19% Ramona St Ramona8%19%0%0%0%7%20%33% 11 % 10 % Ad d i s o n 33% 0% 6%23%15%0%0%0%0%0%0%11%0% Lin c o l n 33% 33 % 33 % 11 %0%0%0%0%0% 7%Legend 13 %8% 38 % 43 %0%0%0%0% 10 %0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 25 % 13 % 20 % 50 % 7%15%0%0%0%0%6%0%42%0% High St High 0% - 25% 25% - 50% 50%+17%50%0%0%7%0% 0% 50 % 11% 0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% 33 % Alma St Alma0% 24 % Pa l o A l t o A v 0% 25 %0%0%0%0% 13 %8% 50 % 11% 6%0%0%0%0%100%64%0%8% 0%0%0% 13 %0%0%0%0%0% 33 % 0% 27% 50 % 0%0% 43 % 75 % 64% 83%50%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy42%90% 63 % 88 % 80 % 29%Legend 44 % 31 % 13 % 71 % 50 % 10 % 62%33%71% 50 % 0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 67%38% 28 % Pa l o Alt o Av 44%67%77% 67 % 38 % 50 % 60 % 88%38%69% 14 0 % 63 % 29 % 0%44%8% 50 % 33 % 40 % 13% Ramona St Ramona 33%44%87%100%47% Li n c o l n 60% 44 % 50 % 33 % 43 % Emerson St Emerson 27 % 22 % 63 % 78 % 13 % 24 % 44 % 17 % 20 % 63 % 30 % 80% Ho m e r Av Un i v e r s i t y Av Ha m i l t o n Av 22%62% 12 9 % 47%8% Bryant St Bryant 63%56%44% 53% Kin g s l e y 50%67% Ch a n n i n g Av 36%56% 44 % 61% 50% Ad d i s o n 22 % 29 % 80 % 30 %43% 70 % 32% Ha w t h o r n e Av 86% Ev e r e t t Av 60% Ly t t o n Av 93% Fo r e s t Av 86 % 6%14 % 75 % 10 0 % 78 % 37 % 50 % 33 % 56 % 18%5%33% 24 % 37 % 37 % 27 % 33 % 53 % 25 % 120%33%50%38% 35 % 75 % 0% 19 % 87 % 62 % 59 % 23 % 0% 59%125%56%64% Pa l o Alt o Av 0% Po e St 20%45%200%50%55% 38 % 27 % 0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 108%46%36%20%19% 50 % 25%91%39%77%18% 0%0% 40%67%80% Kipling St Kipling 24%73% 44 % 22 % 18 % 0%0%0% 13 0 % 80 % 44 % 33 % 50 % 50% 10 0 % 57% 14 % 50 %0%57 % 71% 50 % 20 % 13 % 40 % 50 % 57 % 33 % 56 % 50% 27 % Cowper St Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 43%0% 67%69%50%0%0%0% 57%47%0%0%0%45%0% 0% 50 % 39 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 85% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%17% 0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 0%0%0% 0%0%22 % 56 % 42 % 59 % 18 % 0% Me l v i l l e 0%21% 14 %0%0% 88 % 39 % Ha m i l t o n Av 42%64%85%67%44% 70 % 45 % 71 % 77 % Ev e r e t t Av 40% Ly t t o n Av 86% 0% 0% 80%44% Ha w t h o r n e Av 42% 75%69%56%69% 0% 0%0%38 % 14%10%No Parking Zone 0%59% 0% 36%60%73%70%136%50%36%21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 22%75% 0%50% 29 %0%11 % 43 % 43 % 88 %0%0%0%0%0% 52% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 18 % 6%33%23%92%0% 44 % Ke l l o g g 38% 17 % 43 %0%29 % 44 % 44 % 10 0 % 88 % 31% Lin c o l n 0% 38 % 44 % 38%50%27%92%0%0%0%21 % 40 % 0%0%0%0% 0% 0%0%0% 86 % 65 % 35 % 33 % 73 % Kin g s l e y 0%0% 0% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 50% Ad d i s o n 0%60%27%0% 0% 30 % 43 % 33 % 10 0 % 80 % 10 0 % 50 % 13 % 50 % 0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda Pa l o Alt o A 0% 0% Fulton St Fulton 8%70%25%27%62%46%0% 0%0%0% 6%33%50%13%38%33%0% 0%0%61 % 92 % 57 % 29 % 0%0%0% 19%43%0%0% 17 % 33 % 67 % 17 % 71 %0% Un i v e r s i t y Av 13% Ha m i l t o n Av 21%36%27% 0% 22 % 13 % 28 % Ev e r e t t Av 12% Ly t t o n Av e 17% 17%38%58%25%8%0% City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12/1/2016 8 AM ‐ 10 AM Total Occupancy 0%157%14%31%36% 17% Alma St Alma13% 0%50 % 0% 38%0%0% 0% 43 % 75 % 44 % 31 % 28 % Pa l o Alt o Av 67 % 38 % 50 % 22 % 27% 25 % 11% 13 % 43 % 10 0 % 91% 100%60%50% ‐ 84% Parking OccupancyHigh St High 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy100%110% 75 % 75 % 10 0 % 0%Legend 44 % 85 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 90 % 85%92%118% 38 % 0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy 80%85% 32 % Pa l o Alt o Av 88%83%108% 10 0 % 75 % 18 8 % 20 % 88%77%92% 71 % 56%8% 38 % 33 % 20 % 44% Ramona St Ramona 50%88%100%87%73% Li n c o l n 60% 56 % 67 % 10 0 % 10 0 % Emerson St Emerson 73 % 10 0 % 38 % 44 % 13 % 24 % 33 % 17 % 80 % 88 % 10 0 % 80% Ho m e r Av Un i v e r s i t y Av Ha m i l t o n Av 33%77% 12 9 % 53%8% Bryant St Bryant 69%94%44% 16% Kin g s l e y 25%73% Ch a n n i n g Av 79%63% 33 % 61% 92% Ad d i s o n 0%0%60 % 50 %79% 80 % 64% Ha w t h o r n e Av 86% Ev e r e t t Av 100% Ly t t o n Av 93% Fo r e s t Av 10 0 % 0%0% 75 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 37 % 75 % 38 % 44 % 12%5%17% 18 % 32 % 32 % 27 % 50 % 58 % 94 % 130%27%50%44% 35 % 13 0 % 0% 19 % 80 % 62 % 47 % 54 % 0% 88%125%133%82% Pa l o Alt o Av 0% Po e St 20%65%100%138%118% 38 % 27 % 0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 108%69%43%33%25% 33 % 38%100%89%85%0% 0%0% 73%83%80% Kipling St Kipling 47%91% 33 % 10 0 % 12 % 0%0%0% 15 0 % 17 3 % 56 % 22 % 25 % 50% 10 0 % 36% 86 % 67 % 67 % 57 % 71% 19 % 20 % 4%35 % 50 % 86 % 44 % 11 1 % 50% 31 % Cowper St Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 29%13% 67%46%31%0%0%0% 36%47%0%0%0%0%0% 0% 39 % 39 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 77% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%0%0%17% 0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 0%0%0% 0%0%22 % 56 % 58 % 94 % 12 % 0% Me l v i l l e 0%21% 14 %0%0% 63 % 17 % Ha m i l t o n Av 92%71%77%60%38% 60 % 55 % 43 % 69 % Ev e r e t t Av 113% Ly t t o n Av 100% 0% 0% 80%78% Ha w t h o r n e Av 42% 69%56%50%69% 0% 0%0%63 % 50%0%0%23%59% 0% 29%60%73%80%136%71%79%21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 22%75% 0%50% 14 %0%0%29 % 71 % 11 3 % 10 0 % 0%0%0%0% 52% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 9% 0%33%23%100%0% 25 % Ke l l o g g 38% 0%29 % 14 % 43 % 78 % 89 % 10 0 % 75 % 38% Lin c o l n 0% 38 % 44 % 23%43%20%100%0%0%0%37 % 40 % 0%0%0%0% 0% 0%0%0% 64 % 50 % 18 % 20 % 53 % Kin g s l e y 0%0% 0% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 29% Ad d i s o n 0%50%13%0% 0% 17 % 29 % 56 % 10 0 % 40 % 75 % 50 % 25 % 50 % 10 % Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda Pa l o Alt o A 0% 0% Fulton St Fulton 13%60%58%73%62%54%0% 0%0%0% 28%33%50%50%54%42%0% 0%0%56 % 85 % 50 % 29 % 0%0%0% 31%57%0%0% 17 % 33 % 50 % 83 % 86 %0% Un i v e r s i t y Av 53% Ha m i l t o n Av 14%50%55% 0% 22 % 13 % 39 % Ev e r e t t Av 0% Ly t t o n Av e 33% 33%38%75%25%46%0% City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12/1/2016 12 PM ‐ 2PM Total Occupancy 2%114%0%38%36% 25% Alma St Alma22% 22 %25 % 11% 69%36%33% 13 % 43 % 10 0 % 44 % 85 % 32 % Pa l o Alt o Av 10 0 % 75 % 18 8 % 0% ‐ 49% Parking Occupancy Legend 85% ‐ 100%+ Parking Occupancy 50% ‐ 84% Parking Occupancy 11 % 18% 38 % 0% 13 % 57 %0% 82% 58%60% High St 67%80% 63 % 75 % 14 0 % 14% 44 % 54 % 75 % 86 % 38 % 70 % 77%42%53% 50 % 67%77% 32 % Pa l o Alt o Av 50%58%92% 67 % 50 % 75 % 20 % 56%77%92% 10 0 % 12 9 % 11 3 % 14 0 % 50 % 14 % 93%83%56%78%8% 50 % 33 % 10 % 6% Ramona St Ramona 67%44%40%93%53% Li n c o l n 53% 33 % 17 % 22 % 86 % Emerson St Emerson 82 % 89 % 50 % 67 % 8% 24 % 33 % 17 % 60 % 50 % 60 % 67% Ho m e r Av Un i v e r s i t y Av Ha m i l t o n Av 44%115% 12 9 % 45% Ha w t h o r n e Av 64% Ev e r e t t Av 33%8% Bryant St Bryant 69%63%44% 42% Kin g s l e y 17%80% Ch a n n i n g Av 64%19% 11 % 61% 67% Ad d i s o n 0%0%80 % 40 %64% 90 % 80% Ly t t o n Av 71% Fo r e s t Av 11 4 % 18%5%33%100%47%67%38% 35 % 50 0 % 0% 13 % 73 % 43 % 53 % 31 %0%5% 53 % 50 % 33 % 44 % 31 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 78 % 0% 29%100%33%73% Pa l o Alt o Av 0% Po e St 20%65%75%100%73% 31 % 27 % 24 % 32 % 37 % 33 % 33 % 26 % 0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 69%62%43%0%19% 8% 35%0%0%0%9% 17 % 38%36%28%77%24% 0%0% 73%58%80% Kipling St Kipling 53%82% 33 % 39 % 0%0%0%0% 15 0 % 80 % 38 % 22 % 50 % 29% 10 0 % 36% 71 % 83 % 33 % 43 % 53%0% 6%7%9%20 % 25 % 71 % 78 % 56 % 50% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 50%0% 40%92%31%0%0%0% 57% 0% 33 % 22 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 62% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0%15%0%17% 0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 0%10%0% 0%0%22 % 50 % 50 % 76 % 24 % 0% Me l v i l l e 0%21% 0% 14 % 22 % 13 % 56 % Ha m i l t o n Av 33%86%69%53%38% 60 % 36 % 64 % 54 % Ev e r e t t Av 60% Ly t t o n Av 86% 14 % 6% 100%67% Ha w t h o r n e Av 42% 50%69%0%69% 0% 0%0%38 % 71%0%0%0%47% 0% 71%67%60%60%136%64%64%21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 22%75% 0%50% 29 % 11 % 22 % 43 % 29 % 75 % 56 %0%0%0%0% 52% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 0% 6%47%15%46%0% 50 % Ke l l o g g 38% 50 % 43 % 71 % 57 % 22 % 22 % 50 % 50 % 0% Lin c o l n 0% 38 % 44 % 38%50%27%77%0%0%0%21 % 40 % 0%0%0%0% 0% 0%0%0% 93 % 60 % 47 % 20 % 27 % Kin g s l e y 0%0% 0% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 36% Ad d i s o n 0%60%20%0% 0% 26 % 29 % 22 % 10 0 % 80 % 75 % 75 % 63 % 50 %0%0% 5% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda Pa l o Alt o A 0% 0% Fulton St Fulton 29%50%75%45%54%23%0% 0%0%0% 44%17%17%88%54%33%0% 7%10 % 39 % 77 % 71 % 29 % 0% 25%7%0%0% 0% 17 % 50 %0% 43 %0% Un i v e r s i t y Av 93% Ha m i l t o n Av 21%43%36% 43 % 11 %0% 44 % Ev e r e t t Av 35% Ly t t o n Av e 58% 42%15%42%25%23%0% City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12/1/2016 5PM ‐ 7PM Total Occupancy 2%171%14%54%43% 17% Alma St Alma13% 11 %38 % 0% 44%43%0% 13 % 57 %0% 44 % 54 % 32 % Pa l o Alt o Av 67 % 50 % 75 % City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Survey 12PM‐2PM Employee Permits 0% 0% 0% 0% 43 % 0% 36% 42% 20%50% ‐ 84%High St 85% ‐ 100%+17%20% 50 % 38 % 30 % 0%Legend 6%8% 25 % 57 %0%0% 0%41% 0%0% ‐ 49% 7%8% 4% Pa l o Al t o Av 44%8%23% 33 % 0% 10 0 % 0% 44%31%8% 0%0%0%0% 29 % 0%17%0% 0% 11 % 10 % 0% Ramona St Ramona 17% 6%0% 40% 33% Lin c o l n 0% 0%0% 22 %0% Emerson St 0% 22 %0%0% 4% 24 %0% 0%0% 25 %0% 7% Ho m e r Av Un i v e r s i t y Av Ha m i l t o n Av 11%15% 0% 0%0% Bryant St Bryant 0%38%44% 0% Ki n g s l e y 0%0% Ch a n n i n g Av 36%38% 0% 17% 42% Ad d i s o n 0%0%0% 0%29% 0% 41% Ha w t h o r n e Av 29% Ev e r e t t Av 20% Ly t t o n Av 21% Fo r e s t Av 0% 0%0% 13 % 0% 11 % 0% 13 % 0% 0% 0%0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%5%0% 20%0%8%6% 10 % 10 0 % 0%0% 7%0%0%15 % 0% 41%50%67%27% Pa l o Alt o Av 0% Po e St 20%30%0%100%27% 0%0% 0% Waverley St Waverley Waverley0% 31% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13%64%22%0%0% 0%0% 20%17%0% Kipling St Kipling 6%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%20 % 27 % 6% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0% 29% 0%0%0%0% 13 % 14 % 0% 11 % 50% 0% Cowper St Cowper Cowper Ru t h v e n Av 0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0% 0%0%0%0%0%0%0% 0%0%11 % Un i v e r s i t y Av 46% 18% Tasso St Tasso 0% 0%0% 17% 0%0% 0% ## # # # 22 % 0%0%0% 0%0% 22 % 38 %0%0%0% 0% Me l v i l l e 0%21% 0%0%0%0% 0% Ha m i l t o n Av 17%29%31%0%6% 10 % 27 %0%31 % Ev e r e t t Av 33% Ly t t o n Av 0% 0% 0% 0%0% Ha w t h o r n e Av 0% 25% 19% 31% 69% 0% 0%0%0% 0%0%0%0%6% 0% 0%0%40%0%0%0%0%21% Webster St Webster Webster Webster 22%75% 0%50% 0%0%0%0%0%0%67 % 0%0%0%0% 52% Pa l o Alt o Av Byron St Byron 0% 0%0%0%92%0% 0% Ke l l o g g 38% 0%0%0%0%0% 0% 0% 38 % 31% Lin c o l n 0% 38 % 44 % 0%0%0%77%0% 0% 0%16 % 40 % 0%0%0%0% 0% 0%0%0% 14 % 20 %0%0%27 % Ki n g s l e y 0%0% 0% 0% Middlefield Av Middlefield Middlefield 60 % Fo r e s t Ho m e r Ch a n n i n g 29% Ad d i s o n 0%30% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0% 10 0 % 20 %0%0%0%50 % 0% Palo Alto Av Guinda Guinda Pa l o Alt o A 0% 0% Fulton St Fulton 0%0%17%18%0%0%0% 0%0%0% 0%0%17%6%0%0%0% 0%0%0%15 %0% 29 % 0%0%0% 0%0%0%0% 0%0% 17 % 33 % 14 %0% Un i v e r s i t y Av 7% Ha m i l t o n Av 0%0%0% 0%0%0% 11 % Ev e r e t t Av 0% Ly t t o n Av e 0% 8% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 12/1/2016 0%0%0%0%0% 0% Alma St Alma17% 0%0% 0% 13%0%0% 43 % 0% 6%8%4% Pa l o Al t o Av 33 % 0% 10 0 % Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District Pilot Program Serco Enforcement Citations Given January 18, 2017 Citations in 2015 Citations in 2016 Downtown RPP Meeting Wednesday January 4th Meeting Notes A. Concerns/Comments • Zone 8 enforcement could be more robust, as Zone 6/7 employee tags are seen in the area. • 10 permit cap for employees are hard for employers, accommodations could possibly be made for larger employers. • Occupancy data should begin red threshold at 80%, not 85%. (Against industry standard). • What is 2,000 maximum authorized permit based on? More data should justify this, not a conservative guess. • Data that uses an “urban standard” should be possibly switched to a “residential standard”, if it exists. • Some of the occupancy data is hard to understand or looks incomplete (references to Zone 10 data). • Who parks in occupancy data maps? Employees or residents? • RPP program seems too aggressive in some areas, noticing empty streets in RPP. • Outreach of RPP needs to be more robust, especially for retailers and their employees. • 12-2 employee occupancy is not red at all. • Southern boundaries of zones 5-7 are totally solid all day long. • Zone system seems outdated, especially for residents close to Downtown core (feel as though it isn’t working well). • Enforcement robustness is working well. • Deeper analysis for retailers would be great so they can identify employee/resident parking in their area. Suggestions/Recommendations • Align contractor permits available at the MSC with scratchers as they are perceived to be expensive (~$72/week). • Scratchers should be expanded. Especially employees. • It would be great to see citation numbers. • Maybe a 0$ low-income permit for employees, or a quarterly rate. • A different tiered employee system for 1st floor retailers (mixed use areas find it hard to purchase permits). • We feel there is a supply issue-tweak permits numbers allowed. • Experiment with making subzones in really high-use areas. • Please break down who is parking where (alluding to making T2 reporting more comprehensive) • The 10% phase down of permits will really hurt employers, even with the TDM, more lots/garages, etc. • Investigate sliding enforcement hours later in the day, or add more hours in the afternoon (early morning employees not really a problem). • 2 hour parking limit could be shifted (perhaps longer?) • High use areas (bordering Downtown core) can stand to use the 10% phase down, but not in the outer extents like 9 and 10. B. Ancillary Resident/Employer notes: 1) The parking for a school in an RPP district is a unique issue. Addison School covers one block, but one block face is on Middlefield which is not suitable for parking. Perhaps permits should be sold for Addison through the principle's office. They could sell them only to school employees and they would only be valid for use on one of the school's 3 face blocks. These permit parking signs and stickers must have a unique color. I would suggest parking stickers that go on the inside lower left corner of the rear car widow. These type of stickers could be moved from one vehicle to another but it not as convenient as a hang tag to move. The stickers could be coded to a particular vehicle but that could be changed in the computer at the schools request if an employee moves or is transferred. I have mentioned before that buying a parking permit should not authorize anyone to park in front of a school all day who does not belong there. Also having a parking sticker on your car should not prevent police from having "probable cause" to approach a vehicle and inquire the nature of their business if parked in front of a school all day. Just my thoughts, thanks for your consideration, Paul 2) I remain very pleased that you are making the time to engage stakeholders in an update of the Downtown RPP. And I wish to thank you and Josh for taking our questions into consideration. Since these open meetings have significant time constraints, I would like to ask that in the future city staff share any new data and analysis AHEAD OF TIME so that participants can have the opportunity to become familiar with it before we meet. I believe this will make our time together more productive. 3) The clustering issue to which Neilson referred in his message and which we wish to discuss at our meeting on January 4 is especially prevalent on the West side of the Downtown RPP district in the areas immediately adjacent to the commercial core. In DTS the area bounded by Bryant Street, High Street, Forest Avenue and Embarcadero Road is consistently fully parked. In fact, 13 of the 17 blocks in that area are fully parked or overly parked on a daily basis during working hours. It is this specific area for which we believe we have a low cost, easy to implement solution . . . and that is to turn this specific area into an unique zone the permits for which can be more granularly managed. Please see the attached files for details of the data we collected at the beginning of December. Thanks! Michael mehodos@mac.com 4) We are prepared to elaborate on these concerns on Jan 4 and look forward hearing your responses. Call John Guislin or Neilson Buchanan if you have any questions. Our primary concerns are: Council policy requires annual reduction in the number of non-resident vehicles parked on residential streets. We dont have information to understand the numbers and types permits issued during the last nine months of Phase 2. Therefore, we submitted the attached request for public records covering Aug 1 thru Dec 31. Severe clustering on some streets is evident and this too must be addressed by staff and Council. Residents have compiled data and will continue through January 2017 and beyond. Michael Hodos will be submitting data demonstrating the clustering problems. He also has a low-cost solution for you to consider. Reduction of non-resident vehicles can be managed by reducing number of non- resident vehicles permits and balancing among the 8 zones. This requires active management and review by city staff quarterly. We are hopeful that the January 4 meeting and staff report to Council will also address the long-standing concerns below. Cost of enforcement and technology. Consistent placement of permits on vehicles can be improved. Some technology was introduced in 2016 but more technology is warranted. We are confident that staff and residents are in agreement that permits must be consistently placed on vehicles at designated locations to lower enforcement costs. Lack of technology, especially garage guidance technology, restricts efficiency of city garages and lots. This creates more parking pressure upon residential neighborhoods. Two-hour parking. Unlimited 2-hr will compromise integrity of the Council's commitment to reduce non-resident vehicles. Certain zones obviously are vulnerable to commercial parking spillover from the commercial core. The current study of commercial core parking and pricing will highlight the scope of this problem as it impacts RPP. Inconsistent Quality Standards. Inconsistent quality standards for bumper/window stickers compromises RPP. Attached are the photos of stickers in use within the commercial core and neighborhoods. The highest quality sticker (for city garages and lots) contains serial number, location, license plate and expiration. We noted that many of the parking permits in use in the City Hall garage (CC) do not comply with RRP or commercial core sticker standards. Also the orange "CC medalion" stickers are not consistently on rear bumpers or windows to reduce enforcement costs. Hangtag Design. Hangtags are subject to fraud and abuse. We will present to you and Council examples of easily counterfeited hang tags. Only technology can eliminate this abuse which will escalate over time as prices incentives are created. We have not found technology which can read hang tag through a window shield. Use of hangtags next year should be exception not the rule. Temporary Permits. Phase 2 resulted in temporary paper permits without expiration dates. Some of these dashboard paper permits are still in use by residents and non- residents. It is possible that bumper stickers are in use on other vehicles. Next year all temporary paper permits must have expiration dates to eliminate abuse and lower enforcement costs. Admin Guidelines. We are still unclear about the notification and approval process for Administrative Guidelines for RPP. Please cover this issue on January 4 and in your upcoming staff report to City Council. Loss of Residential Parking Spaces. We understand that parking spaces may be reduced soon only to improve bike safety on a limited number of intersections. We ask that Administrative Guidelines prescribe a notification and comment period for reduction of any parking capacity in the residential neighborhoods. The number of permits to be issued must be reduced in proportion to the loss of parking capacity. Expectations for January 4. We are hopeful that you can address most of these issues during Wednesday's community meeting. If you are unable to address the issues, then lets conclude the meeting with understanding of a follow-up timetable. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District Pilot Program Resident Compiled Data Report 1/4/2017 Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District Pilot Program Residents Response to RPP Stakeholder Meeting January 4, 2017 1/23/2017 Residents Response to RPP Stakeholder Meeting Jan 4, 2017 I.Starting April 1, 2017, the total number of employee permits authorized must be reduced to 1,135. This reduction is based on Resolution 9577 passed Feb. 23, 2016, Council directions in Action Minutes from the Special Meeting on Sept. 6, 2016, and data collected from actual permit sales. The reduction calculation is detailed below: !Resolution 9577 states: Following the first year of Phase 2, the City will begin decreasing annual employee permits by approximately 200 permits per year…. The reduction in permits will occur in the outermost zones of the Downtown RPP district initially, and affect inner zones in subsequent years. !Council’s Action Minutes from Sept 6, 2016 state: o Direct Staff to return to Council by Jan 15, 2017 with proposals for changes to implement at the end of Phase 2 that include: o Elimination of 5 day passes o Propose quantitative standards to reduce the impact on neighborhoods, to eliminate spillover and to reduce parking congestion o Give priority to lower wage employees o Require registration in the Business Registry Certificate Program and, if legally permissible, participation in the Downtown TMA o Return with a draft of overriding RPP goals o Implement a freeze on the sale of employee permits in Zones 9 and 10 and reduce the number of available permits in all zones by this amount. Direct Staff to return with options to allow additional streets to petition to be added as resident only parking in zones 9 and 10. !Employees permit sales in Phase 2 totaled 1,335 !The initial estimate of employee permits authorized was set at 2,000 with no real data to support this number. Now that we have data, it is time to adjust the maximum employee permit number to reflect actual demand and the mandated annual reduction. Initial employee permit estimate 2,000 Actual employee permits sold 1,335 DELTA 665 Employee permits allocated for zones 9 & 10 615 Initial allocation – unsold permits – annual reduction = New Max Employee Permits 2,000 -665 -200 = 1135 NOTES: 1. Reducing the total employee permits available next year to 1,135 aligns with both the number of employee permits sold in year one, the termination of selling employee permits in zones 9 and 10 and the annual reduction as directed by Council. 2. Commercial interests have long requested data on which to base decisions. After 9 months of RPP, we have clear data on the demand for employee permits. 3. Reducing the number of employee parking permits also supports Council’s goal of reducing the number of SOV trips to the downtown area. II. Given the significant clustering problem in parts of zones 1-8, Residents recommend that: On Feb 6 Council should direct staff to report back to Council not later than August 28, 2017 with a plan to reduce non-resident permits and 2-hr parking in the zones which have severe street face clustering (less than 20% vacant space midday) with that plan to be implemented no later than April 1, 2018. III. Staff must follow through on all of Council’s ACTION MINUTES from the special Meeting on Sept 6, 2016 as stated in the minutes below: “Direct Staff to return to Council by Jan 15, 2017 with proposals for changes to implement at the end of Phase 2 that include: 1. Elimination of 5 day passes 2. Propose quantitative standards to reduce the impact on neighborhoods, to eliminate spillover and to reduce parking congestion 3. Give priority to lower wage employees 4. Require registration in the Business Registry Certificate Program and, if legally permissible, participation in the Downtown TMA 5. Return with a draft of overriding RPP goals 6. Implement a freeze on the sale of employee permits in Zones 9 and 10 and reduce the number of available permits in all zones by this amount. Direct Staff to return with options to allow additional streets to petition to be added as resident only parking in zones 9 and 10.” IV. Residents recommend that Staff return to Council by August 1, 2017 with reports on the following topics: 1. The impact of paid parking in the downtown core on Residential 2 hour parking 2. Pricing disparities among parking programs 3. Permit formats that allow effective enforcement (i.e. clearly marked dates of validity) and that are tamper resistant 4. Program cost updates (to be reported to Council every 6 months) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/15/2017 11:42 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mika Kameda <mikakameda@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 12:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Employee parking Hello, I am an employee in down town Palo Alto & heard the news that you may be taking our street parking away! I am here to protest this decision. We are the people who are running the businesses in your beautiful city. Please don't take away our parking that we pay for! Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/15/2017 11:10 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mary Shapero <mary_shapero@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 6:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Opposed to expanding permits in zone 10 Hello, I am unable to attend tonight’s city council meeting. I live on Hamilton Ave, in a completely residential area, which is now part of RPP zone 10. Before the RPP, we had zero commercial parking in our neighborhood. Once the RPP began, my block was only a few blocks outside the zone so we had commuters begin to park on our streets and bike or walk to work. We saw an increase in litter and had our parked car hit 3 times in the past year. We opted in to the RPP after being told that the number of commercial permits would be capped and would decrease over time. I now understand that the council is considering increasing the number of commercial permits and not phasing them out of zone 10. As a homeowner and resident, I STRONGLY OPPOSE this. Thank you, Mary Shapero Homeowner and resident in Crescent Park City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/15/2017 11:14 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lisa Kerr <leasekerr@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 7:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Dear City Council, Please do not extend the number of parking permits to non-residence in the Crescent park area. We already have to have a parking permit to park in front of our own house, and when we have company over they have to park down the block. We are paying Palo Alto City Taxes, and feel that we should be able to park in front of our house. When we found our house 20 years ago we were several blocks away from downtown. A downtown that had toy stores, coffee shops, drug stores, restaurants. The city has approved way more large buildings without providing requiring enough for extra parking for all the big businesses that have moved in. The solution is not to push it out further and further. Please try to solve the problem by building another parking lot, limiting the amount of huge office buildings, condos, etc. that have the option to park longer. for non-residents. Thank you kindly, Lisa Kerr leasekerr@gmail.com 650-326-8112 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/15/2017 11:11 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net> Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 6:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Reduce Employee Parking in Outlying Areas Hello City Council Members, We urge you to not approve issuing employee parking permits in the outlying residential areas. These neighborhoods in Zones 9 and 10 (Crescent Park and blocks near Embarcadero) were never meant to be commercial parking lots. What is now being proposed by city staff is in conflict with the City Council's direction last September to freeze employee parking permits in Zones 9 and 10. Also, the lower level of demand for employee parking during the first two phases of the Downtown RPP shows that employee permits are not warranted. Thank you, Mary Dimit, 30-year Palo Alto resident Guinda and University Ave. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/15/2017 11:13 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 6:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Residental Parking Permits To the Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to you again to emphasize the importance of tonight's presentation by Neilson Buchanan for the City's Residential Parking Permit regulations. I know you have seen the PDF written by the lawyers. I am in full support of the reasoning and the documents. More over other neighborhoods will have a unique need for permit parking beyond Crescent Park, Downtown North, Downtown South and Professorville. Such as College Terrace, Evergreen Park/Mayfield and Newell Bridge. They will each have some difference but also common issues. Please address each neighborhood RFPP based on it's individual needs. Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 650 493 1373 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:25 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2017 12:35 PM To:Scharff, Gregory (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Wolbach, Cory; Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Gitelman, Hillary; City Mgr Subject:Fwd: RPP: Staff Report fails to report ACTUAL number of employee permits available April 1st Attachments:RPP Employee Permit Calculations.xlsx Mayor and City Council - Mr. Josh Mello has confirmed to me that the ACTUAL number of Downtown RPP EMPLOYEE permits that are proposed to be available for the upcoming RPP sales period is 1,346. It is NOT the 1,800 permits as is prominently identified as "Recommended Max" in Table 1, page 5, of the Staff Report at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55817 Please see my email below to Mr. Mello. It shows my calculations which determine the actual number to be 1,346. The number 1,800 is only a theoretical maximum which will NOT be available for purchase on April 1, 2017 and is unlikely to ever be available for employees to purchase. What is especially concerning to me is that the actual number of proposed employee permits to be made available appears NOWHERE in the Staff Report. It can only be inferred by calculation from the other data given in the report. I have recommended that the Staff Report be revised to prominently state the ACTUAL number of permits that the City proposes to make available to employees for the upcoming RPP period. I have spoken to both business people and residents who mistakenly believe that the actual number of permits available to employees will be 1,800. This misconception (created by the misleading Staff Report) leads residents to claim that too many permits are being made available to employees because less than 1,800 were actually sold during Phase 2. It also leads businesses to believe that the 10%/year cuts won't be felt for a number of years. BOTH residents and businesses people are wrong on these points because the actual number of employee permits available for purchase is 1,346, not 1,800. Additionally, the Staff Report understates the number of permits actually sold to date. Table 1, Page 5 of the Staff Report shows "Total Issued" as 1,335. This is the total sold as of Dec 22, 2016 ... more than two months before RPP permit sales end for the current RPP period. To date (2/17/2017), approximately 1,450 employee permits have already been sold. This is about 100 permits GREATER than the maximum number of permits that the City proposes to make available for the upcoming RPP period. (See my note* below regarding information I received at the RPP Service window in City Hall.) I hope the City Council will reject the proposed 10%/year cuts, for the following reasons: 1. The number of employee permits available is only loosely related to the actual number of employee cars parked on residential streets. The Staff Report cites a "show rate" of only 32%. (page 4). In other words, removing 100 permits from purchase by employees will make it impossible for 100 employees/businesses to obtain parking, but will only remove 32 vehicles from residential streets. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:25 AM 2 2. 20% of the RED overparked blockfaces have ZERO employee RPP permit parkers. In other words, reducing the number of RPP permits available will have no affect on these overparked blockfaces. Another 20% of the RED blockfaces have only between 1-25% parking by RPP employee permit holders meaning that these RED blockfaces are minimally impacted by RPP permit parkers. 3. Reducing the availability of employee permits, will only create more "two hour parkers" when employees who can't get RPP permits start moving their vehicles every two hours causing more overparking, traffic, and congestion in the Downtown and surrounding residential streets. The City Staff at the Jan 4th RPP meeting identified "two hour parkers" as a major component of the RED overparked blocks, yet no solution to this major problem is presented in the Staff Report. 4. Lastly, and I hope of great concern to the Council, is the tremendous harm caused to employees and businesses who cannot get permits because too few have been made available by the 10%/year cuts. When demand exceeds supply, employees and businesses will suffer WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE. A business that was able to obtain permits for employees at the beginning of a sales period, may not be able to obtain them later in that same sales period. The Staff Report provides no solution or "safety net" for these employees or business. This is worse than poor planning, it is simply cruel. RPP has already reduced the RED block overparking by over 50% in the residential neighborhoods. The original Downtown RPP Resolution ... approved unanimously by Council, including Council members Holman and Kniss ... did NOT include automatic cuts, instead it stated "After Phase 1, the Director may reduce the allocation of Employee Parking over time as additional parking and transportation options become available." Permit reductions should be based on actual alternative resources becoming available, not on a preset 10%/year formula. See Resolution #9473, page 4, Section 5.C.b.ii.3 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46362. The same policy was unanimously approved by the Downtown RPP Stakeholder group. See RPP Stakeholder minutes, page 4, item 1d at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42452 THE BOTTOM LINE: The proposed 10%/year cuts will do little to reduce parking, traffic, and congestion on Downtown residential streets and will instead cause great harm and unnecessary pain to employees and businesses. Please remove the automatic 10%/year cuts from the proposed Resolution. *Note regarding current RPP permit sales count: According to information provided to me at the RPP Service Window at City Hall ... as of Feb 17, 2017 ... employee permits in ALL 10 Downtown RPP zones are sold out except for approximately 50 permits remaining available in Zone 9 (the south east segment bordering Embarcadero). Even zone 10 (east of Guinda) is now sold out. Since the maximum number of permits made available for sale is 1,515 and there are only about 50 permits left unpurchased, I calculate that there have been approximately 1,450 permits sold to date. I was informed that there may be a few permits ... in the single digits ... available in the "sold out" zones, but these few are of little consequence to the issue at hand. Thank you for your consideration ... Simon Cintz Cintz Commercial Properties, LP P.O. Box 1216 Palo Alto, CA 94302 831-247-2387 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:50 PM City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:25 AM 3 Subject: RPP: Staff Report fails to report ACTUAL number of employee permits available April 1st To: "Mello, Joshuah" <joshuah.mello@cityofpaloalto.org> Josh - I have talked with many Downtown business people who mistakenly believe that based on the RPP Staff Report, there will 1,800 employee permits actually available for purchase for the 6 month period beginning April 1, 2017. The staff report fails to mention that the ACTUAL number of employee permits which will be available is only 1,346. This number does NOT appear anywhere in the Staff Report. The Staff Report only alludes to a lower number being available in an asterisk footnote at the bottom of the Exhibit B table. The Staff report should do more than present an extremely important number only by inference from the data presented. The number of of permits which will actually be available to employees needs to be stated prominently in the report. I hope you will rectify this misleading presentation in a revised report prepared for the upcoming Council meeting on Downtown RPP. Below are my calculations based on information in Exhibit B of the report. Please review this information and let me know if the actual number of permits available to employees is different from the 1,346 which I have calculated below. If my calculation is incorrect, please provide me with the correct number and how that number is calculated. Please be aware that the percentage decrease in permits actually available to employees will be 11.16%, not the 10% stated in the Resolution. I understand the 10% cut is from the original 2000 cap to a new 1,800 cap, BUT ... what matters to employees is how many permits are actually made available to them for purchase. I have also attached a copy of my Excel spreadsheet (same as the data below) so that you are able to review my formulas/calculations, if you wish. RPP Employee Permits ACTUALLY available April 1, 2017 per currently proposed Downtown Resolu Zone Available 4/1/2017 Held in Reserve Total Max Allowed (theoretical) 1 60 0 60 2 96 0 96 3 202 0 202 4 152 0 152 5 140 0 140 6 90 0 90 7 128 0 128 8 348 0 348 9 25 208 233 10 105 246 351 Total 1346 454 1800 Note: Above figures per Exhibit B in Staff Report 2/13/2017 MAX Available During Phase Two per Resolution #9577 (Exhibit C): Proposed MAX Available April 1, 2017 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:25 AM 4 Reduction in permits ACTUALLY available Percent reduction in permits ACTUALLY available Above calculations assume: 1. Proposed Downtown Resolution is approved as is. 2. No new changes prior to 4/1/2017 in the geography or blockface participation in Downtown RPP residential zones. Simon Cintz Cintz Commercial Properties, LP P.O. Box 1216 Palo Alto, CA 94302 831-247-2387 RPP Employee Permits ACTUALLY available April 1, 2017 per currently proposed Downtown Resolution Zone Available 4/1/2017 Held in Reserve Total Max Allowed (theoretical) 160 0 60 296 0 96 3 202 0 202 4 152 0 152 5 140 0 140 690 0 90 7 128 0 128 8 348 0 348 9 25 208 233 10 105 246 351 Total 1346 454 1800 Note: Above figures per Exhibit B in Staff Report 2/13/2017 MAX Available During Phase Two per Resolution #9577 (Exhibit C): 1515 Proposed MAX Available April 1, 2017 1346 Reduction in permits ACTUALLY available 169 Percent reduction in permits ACTUALLY available 11.16% Above calculations assume: 1. Proposed Downtown Resolution is approved as is. 2. No new changes prior to 4/1/2017 in the geography or blockface participation in Downtown RPP residential zones. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:07 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:David Lieberman <lieberman7@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:parking Once again the city of Palo Alto has it all wrong. On Monday it will vote to reduce the number of parking permits available to downtown workers by ten percent, to be followed by yearly reductions of ten percent until no more permits are available. This is an act of municipal suicide. The continued vitality of the city depends far more on the dishwashers, waiters, retail clerks and, yes, engineers who work downtown than on the over-entitled residents who bought a house years ago and think that they own a piece of the street. A very large percentage of downtown residents are retired and have no need for even one car. Most residents have off-street parking (driveways and garages) that they are simply too lazy to use. Yet all of them get one free parking permit and can buy up to four more for $50 each. Here is a much more sensible approach to controlling parking and traffic: Any household where all residents are over 70 years old will get no permits. (In case anyone is interested, that would include mine.) In addition every effort should be made to convince them to surrender their drivers licenses for their own and others safety. Any household with off street parking available will get no permits. All others can buy one to four permits at the same price as permits sold to downtown workers, currently $466. The maximum number of four permits will be reduced by one each year until it is zero. David Lieberman 319 Kingsley Ave 650-281-6430 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7519) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Stanford GUP Draft Comment Letter Title: Review and Direction to Staff Regarding Comments on the Preparation of and Environmental Impact Report for Stanford University’s Application for a Major Modification to Their General Use Permit With Santa Clara County From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council review the draft letter in Attachment A, make desired adjustments, and direct staff to transmit a final letter to Santa Clara County with the City’s comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being prepared regarding the proposed amendment to Stanford University’s General Use Permit. Executive Summary On November 28, 2016, Stanford University (Stanford) submitted an application to Santa Clara County (County) for a major modification to their 2000 General Use Permit (GUP) with an associated amendment to the County’s General Plan (specifically the Stanford Community Plan), and amendments to some zoning designations to conform to existing conditions. Stanford’s application will be reviewed by Santa Clara County and requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The County issued a Notice of EIR Preparation (NOP) on January 10, 2017, which is provided as Attachment B, and has invited the City to comment on the scope of the EIR. The County also provided the City with some additional time to comment, such that the City’s written comments are due at the Santa Clara County Planning Department no later than March 10, 2017. City staff from multiple departments have contributed to the draft letter provided in Attachment A, which focuses on CEQA-related comments but also highlights a number of other City of Palo Alto Page 2 issues that will require coordination between the City, the County, and Stanford. Background Stanford is proposing an amendment to their 2000 General Use Permit, referred to as the 2018 GUP, which would authorize: 2.275 million net new square feet of academic and academic support space 3,150 net new housing units (2,600 student beds, 550 DU staff and faculty) Up to 40,000 net new square feet of child care centers and facilities to support trip- reducing uses Continued use of 50,000 SF of temporary trailers for surge space during construction. Stanford University’s contiguous lands occupy 8,000 acres, with 4,017 of these acres in unincorporated Santa Clara County. The Academic Growth Boundary occupies 1,370 acres of the area located within Santa Clara County. Fourteen percent (1,161 acres) of Stanford owned lands are located within the City of Palo Alto.1 The development of the Stanford land in unincorporated Santa Clara County currently is subject to conditions of approval in the 2000 GUP. The 2000 GUP authorized the development of 2.035 million square feet of net new academic space and 3,018 net new housing units. In March 2016, the Santa Clara County Planning commission authorized an additional 1,450 housing units for total authorized housing units of 4,468 net new units. As of December 2015, 769,354 SF of academic buildings remained to be built under the 2000 GUP. Stanford’s recent application states that the entire allocation of academic space and housing in the 2000 GUP will be permitted/built by 2018, completing the total request of the 2000 GUP including the additional housing units. Therefore the requested development in the 2018 GUP will be in addition to that approved in the 2000 GUP. During the 2000 GUP period (2000 to 2017) Stanford also built the following 1,256 dwelling units (not including health care beds) on Stanford land outside of the Academic Growth Boundary: Senior housing at the Vi (388 independent living units, 106 beds in a Health Center) Stanford West, Sand Hill Road (628 faculty/staff units-156 below market rate) University Terrace under construction completed by 2018 (180 faculty units) 2500 El Camino Real (70 units below market rate) 1 Distribution of Stanford lands by Jurisdiction: Santa Clara County 4,017 a. 49%; Palo Alto 1,161 a. 14%; San Mateo County 2,710 a. 33%; Woodside 114 a. 1%; Menlo Park 111 a.1%; Portola Valley 76 a.1%. Source: Stanford Community Plan, pg. 2. These numbers do not include land that Stanford may have purchased recently in Redwood City, Mountain View or other areas. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Public Outreach The County required public outreach following submittal of the application, and on January 25, 2017, Stanford presented its proposal at a public meeting at the Mitchell Park Community Center here in Palo Alto. At the City’s request, Stanford also presented its proposal at a City Council meeting on February 27, 2017 (rescheduled from February 6, 2017). In addition, the County conducted a public scoping meeting on February 8, 2017 at the Art Center in Palo Alto. Public comments on the scope of the EIR were also invited in writing by the close of business on February 17, 2017, (the County granted the City an extension to March 10, 2017). Following preparation of the Draft EIR, the County will hold public hearings on the draft and invite additional comments. It will be important for the City and other interested parties to review the Draft EIR to ensure that comments and suggestions made during the scoping period have been addressed. This is also the time when the City will have to ensure that the Draft EIR adequately discloses potential impacts and feasible mitigation, and that the EIR will meet the City’s needs if it is called upon to make decisions as a “responsible agency” under CEQA. Possible City decisions include encroachment permits for the use of City streets and approval of off-campus improvements proposed as part of the application or as mitigation. For example, the present application includes a one-time contribution for park maintenance in the College Terrace neighborhood based on projected use by new Stanford population. City Comments The City’s draft comment letter requests that the Draft EIR evaluate all of the potential environmental impacts related to Stanford’s proposed development between today and 2035.2 The letter also requests an evaluation of cumulative impacts arising from the current application and other development on Stanford lands, focusing on those in Palo Alto. Additional comments focus on specific environmental issues of concern, posing questions and requests regarding the EIR analysis and mitigation. Environmental issues typically addressed in an EIR include the following: Aesthetics/Cultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazardous and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use 2 While Stanford has proposed a baseline of 2018, CEQA practice is to evaluate impacts against the baseline of conditions existing at the time of the Notice of Preparation. County planning staff will have to consider this issue carefully and ensure the Draft EIR is both consistent with the law and understandable for a layperson who might not be familiar with the 2000 GUP and its current status. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Noise and Vibration (addressed in Traffic) Population Housing Public Services (Police, Fire, Emergency Services) Recreation Transportation and Circulation (includes parking and bicycle access) Cumulative Impacts Growth Inducement Alternatives to the Requested Action, including an Environmentally Superior Alternative As the Stanford application for the 2018 GUP proceeds through the review process at the County there are also a number of issues outside of the environmental analysis that the City will want to pursue with both the County and Stanford. Among these is negotiation of a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Transfer Agreement similar to the one that accompanied the 2000 GUP. Resource Impact There are no resource issues associated with submittal of the City’s comment letter; however when the Draft EIR is released, there may be a need for the City to hire technical experts to review the document. Also there maybe some costs to the City based on the implementation of the 2018 GUP that is finally approved; these will be better determined when the Draft EIR is available. Timeline The response to the Notice of Preparation is due no later than March 10, 2017 to the Santa Clara County Planning Department. County staff indicates that it will take 10 to 12 months (February 2018) to complete the Draft EIR. The City will be given a minimum of 45 days to review and comment on the Draft EIR. The environmental document must be certified before the County can act on the 2018 General Use Permit application. Based on the experience of the 2000 GUP, the County’s action on the appliction is likely to occur in late 2019 to 2020. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Commente Letter (Will be provided "At Places") (TXT) Attachment B: GUP Notice of Preparation (PDF) Public Comments (PDF) 19938 In order to reflect Council comments provided at the February 27, 2017 study session, the City's draft letter will be provided "at places" on March 6, 2017. Page 1 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 | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:09 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 17, 2017 4:17 PM To:PAN Subject:GUP 2018 Scoping Comments Thank you for the follow-up input I have received. Below is what I will submit in a few minutes via email to the county’s manager of the CEQA process, David Rader, david.rader@pln.sccgov.org There’s a whole lot more (that was sent to me and beyond) than can be communicated to better define the “scope” of the EIR, so if you can do it today (the deadline day for public comment), please do. FYI. The city council was allotted an extension; is now rescheduled to meet for a study session on this item on Feb 27, and consider draft comments of their submission to the county on March 6. -Fred Balin GUP 2018 EIR Scoping Input 1a. What is the additional number of people that Stanford plans to have as students and hires as per the GUP 2018 proposal? What will be the cumulative totals, including those from the GUP 2018 proposal? 1b. Break down all totals above into categories of undergraduates, graduate students, post-doctorates, faculty, staff working usual business hours, and staff working other than usual business hours? 1c. How many people will be housed on campus (both in GUP 2018 and cumulative)? 1d. How many people housed on campus will be children, for the purpose of better determining impacts on neighboring public facilities 2a. What will be the mix of housing (both in GUP 2018 and cumulative) for each category in #1 2b. Define the terms “beds” and “units” and how they used? 3a. Provide the current overall jobs to housing ratio on campus, in each employment category in #1 3b. What will be the jobs to housing ratio on campus for each employment category in #1 for the GUP 2018 growth additions and the cumulative totals? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:09 AM 2 4a. Examine the results of the GUP 2000 EIR and carefully determine the accuracy of projections made at the time and whether mitigations specified in GUP 2000 adequately addressed those impacts. If not, explain how and determine why? 4b. In detail, review GUP 2000 Condition Section I. 2, which begins: "Stanford shall dedicate easements for, develop, and maintain the portions of the two trail alignments which cross Stanford lands … “ Determine if the end result fulfilled the intent and spirit of this condition. Explain clearly why or why not. Describe what additional protections should be included in GUP 2018 to prevent a repeat of the problems of interpretation of this section of GUP 2000 5. The major check on potential development in the Foothills District will expire midway through GUP 2018. Growth projections in Stanford’s 2000 Community Plan indicate that both the constraint of 17,300,000 sf of building area of academic and support facilities and student housing as well as its co-condition in the community plan (Page 16, Policy SCP-GD2) to retain the current academic growth boundary, will expire in 2025. It is essential that the GUP 2018 EIR determine a "maximum build out” or "maximum carrying capacity” for the Stanford academic campus so the public, governmental agencies, and the university can adequately address the community’s desire for uninterrupted and permanent or very long term protections for the Foothills District. 6a. Obtain a current, accurate, baseline of traffic in areas around the campus using actual counts 6b. Extend the areas of the baseline beyond the typical Level of Service intersections to key entry points in surrounding neighborhoods. 6c. Extend the baseline traffic analysis to cover non-peak hours. 6d. Obtain expert, independent, third party review of (a) the traffic and transportation analysis work plan, and (b) the final projections and conclusions made in the draft report/analysis. 6e Fully determine any additional impacts in off-campus traffic and transportation against various growth scenarios. ## City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 2/22/2017 8:09 AM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:tom@tomvlasic.com Sent:Friday, February 17, 2017 2:34 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Meg; Shepherd, Nancy; McFall, Jim; Keith (via; Christine Shambora Subject:Stanford GUP NOP Comments Attachments:Stanford GUP-Southgate-Rader-SCC.pdf Dear Council Members, Attached is a letter the Southgate Neighborhood Committee has transmitted to Santa Clara County Planning relative to the NOP on the proposed 2018 Stanford GUP application and EIR process. We wanted you to have a copy for the record. Best regards, Tom Vlasic for the Southgate Neighborhood Committee Southgate Neighborhood Committee Palo Alto, California c/o Tom Vlasic 1540 Mariposa Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 February 16, 2017 Transmitted by email: david.rader@pln.sccgov.org County of Santa Clara Planning Office Attention: David Rader County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street, 7th Floor, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 Subject: Comments on NOP for Proposed Stanford University 2018 GUP Dear Mr. Rader, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject NOP. Our committee members and our neighbors live in the Southgate Neighborhood of Palo Alto. This neighborhood is bounded by El Camino Real, Churchill Avenue, Alma Street and Park Avenue. Southgate is Stanford’s immediate neighbor northeast of the University and just across El Camino Real from the DAPER/Administrative and East Campus districts of the Stanford plan area. Of the plans proposed 2,275,000 sf of new academic space and 3,150 new dwelling units (dus), 220,000 sf of the academic space and 1,600 of the dus are planned in the two districts adjacent to our neighborhood. Southgate has been, and continues to be, impacted by traffic and parking from non-residential uses outside of, and immediately adjacent to, our part of the City of Palo Alto and this is what concerns us about the proposed 2018 GUP. We have been struggling to cope with and address the parking problems from non-residential uses and have been working with the City in this regard. Traffic on the Churchill corridor between Alma and El Camino Real is compounding each year, therefore the anticipated growth of Stanford University as set forth in the proposed 2018 GUP plan causes additional alarm within our neighborhood. We are particularly concerned with the lack of a truly verifiable plan for monitoring and dealing with off campus traffic and parking impacts, particularly when we consider the manner in which the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan proposals are set forth in the Stanford application. We find them inadequate and to rely on only committing to partially solving problems well after the impacts are felt by the adjacent neighborhoods. Under section 7.1 No Net Commute Trips Goal in the plan application, we specifically request that the draft EIR fully evaluate the practical application of the proposed TDM programs, and particularly their ability to be realistically monitored and implemented to reduce potential impacts of traffic and parking to insignificant levels. There should be detailed implementation strategies for the TDM operations that, under direct Santa Clara County Planning oversight and control, require Stanford to fully address evolving off site traffic and parking problems well BEFORE they mature to significant impact levels. Specifically, these strategies should ensure verification that TDM mitigations are functioning as intended and that, for example, the TDM stipends, VTA, Page - 1 Caltrain, SamTrans, carpool gas cards and other passes or subsidies issued to workers/ commuters, are being used and, most importantly, achieving the intended results. Today, modern TDM programs can incorporate technology that correlates directly to a commuter, and their public transportation activity to verify that trips into Palo Alto are based on public transit, not driving and parking adjacent to a Marguerite shuttle route in a local neighborhood. What we are suggesting will likely require a hands-on TDM management program that issues subsidies directly to Clipper Cards, gas reimbursement applications, and other trip reduction techniques that can verify transit use and commute activity. Our concerns are underscored by comments we have heard recently from Stanford representatives about the potential for off site parking, traffic and other impacts as “not Stanford’s problem” since this is a typical issue between universities and adjacent neighborhoods. Instead, they argue that such problems should be addressed by the City of Palo Alto. Southgate objects to this conclusion, and believes that Stanford does and will contribute to increased traffic congestion in and around our neighborhood, the city and other communities and therefore should be responsible for this impact with mitigations that include clear and specific verification methods that ensure workers offered TDM programs are using public transit for the entire commute. As a reminder, Stanford is not a public university and does not have the same relief from the discretionary review process that a California public university would. Stanford should be held accountable for its share of off site impacts as would any other private use seeking such a permit. At the same time, we recognize the many benefits that a private school like Stanford offers, and the efforts it has made relative to TDMs. Our request is that Stanford update their TDM techniques so that there is verifiable accountability so that neighbors like Southgate can be confident these programs will achieve trip reduction mitigations to fully offset potential growth impacts relative to the proposals set forth in the requested GUP application. Again, we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP and look forward to a full and complete draft EIR addressing not only our concerns, but the many other growth impact issues the 2018 GUP proposals will trigger. Sincerely, Southgate Neighborhood Committee: Nancy Shepherd Jim McFall Christine Shambora Keith Ferrell Tom Vlasic ____________________________________________________________ Signed by Tom Vlasic on behalf of the Southgate Neighborhood Committee cc. Palo Alto City Council Page - 2 TO: FROM: DATE: Cl TY OF PA 0 ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 11 HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT MARCH 6, 2016 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11-REVIEW AND DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING COMMENTS ON THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR STANFORD UNIVERSITY'S APPLICATION FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THEIR GENERAL USE PERMIT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY Attached is staff's draft comment letter regarding the preparation of Santa Clara County's -1-....-Hl~~~~~;._:_~_t~~ct~R-e-p-ort for Stanford's application for ~i:a?.1 r J~ {}- City Manager Planning and Community Environment 1of1 DRAFT For City Council Review March 6, 2017 [On Letterhead] County of Santa Clara Planning Office Attention: David Rader County Government Center 70 West Hedding, ih Floor, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 Subject: Stanford University's Application for a 2018 General Use Permit Dear Mr. Rader, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIR being prepared to evaluate Stanford University's application for a 2018 General Use Permit (GUP). Members ofthe Palo Alto community are keenly interested in this project, and the City Council is happy to provide comments to inform preparation of the DEIR and its technical analyses. At the end of this letter, we have also identified a number of shared concerns that we look forward to working on with you as the County considers Stanford's application. Project Description We understand that the University has requested approval of 2.275M square feet of academic and academic support space, 3,150 dwelling units or beds (approximately 450 of which would be classified as affordable units), and 40,000 square feet of additional building space for child care and Transportation Demand Management (TOM) program administration. We further understand that all of this would occur within the current a· Academic Growth Boundary and that concu_rrent changes to the Stanford Community Plan and zoning would be extremely limited in scope, essentially reflecting existing use of limited areas, and adoption of the County's housing element several years ago. While the magnitude of this proposal means that it will require careful review, we applaud the University's long term commitment to the Academic Growth Boundary and to managing the impacts of growth. Throughout the planning process, we will be seeking as much certainty as possible regarding the number of students, staff, employees, and residents that will be accommodated by the proposed development over time, and on ways the County will ensure that the intensity of use on campus will not increase unless clear performance standards (established as mitigation measures or conditions of approval) are met. We will also be 1 DRAFT For City Council Review March 6, 2017 interested in fully understanding the relationship between onMcampus development and the various land uses and developments that the University has or is developing at offMcampus locations within Palo Alto and nearby jurisdictions. Our community deserves a comprehensive description of the University's footprint in the region, and a full accounting of its cumulative impacts and benefits ifthe 2018 GUP is approved as proposed. Aesthetics & Cultural Resources Given the flexibility and performance criteria that are the underpinning of the 2018 General Use Permit (GUP) proposal, the City is concerned that we will not be able to adequately assess the impacts of proposed development without specific information on the location and scale of the proposed changes. The DEIR should carefully identify scenic resources, including mature vegetation and historic resources that may be affected, and should identify those resources that are likely to be impacted by the proposed development program. A specific performance standard should be identified to minimize potential impacts, and mitigation measures should provide for review and consultation with the City of Palo Alto as each development proceeds. Air Quality, Green House Gas Emissions, Noise, & Vibration With the similarities in the amount of development in the 2000 GUP and 2018 GUP within the academic growth boundary and the almost continuous construction we have experienced during the 2000 GUP, a detailed study of the impact of construction is needed. Construction activities and construction equipment will have an ongoing impact on air emissions and noise and vibration. The DEIR should provide a quantitative analysis of air emissions and noise/vibration attributable to construction (including the use of heavy equipment, construction worker traffic, etc.), and provide appropriate control measures. Land Use & Biological Resources The EIR should address the proposed changes in land use and open space within the academic growth boundary, as well as potential impacts resulting from activities and mitigation measures that extend outside that boundary. Please be specific regarding any existing land uses that will be replaced. For example, will the 200,000 SF of academic and support development proposed in the area of the playing fields on El Camino Real (DAPER development district) affect the continued use of this area for recreation, intramural sports events, and parking for major events at the stadiums? Will rezoning of the driving range affect that existing land use? The study should extend to include impacts from corollary uses and development on other Stanford lands located in Palo Alto, including new offMsite housing, nonMresidential uses in the East Bayshore Area, at the Stanford Research Park, the Stanford University Medical Center and at the transit center site. 2 DRAFT For City Council Review March 6, 2017 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Palo Alto's regulations governing the use of hazardous materials in proximity to sensitive receptors (such as residences) are evidence of this community's concern regarding this issue. The DEIR should describe current and potential future hazardous materials uses on site with some specificity with regard to type and location. The DEIR should also describe ways to ensure that sensitive receptors are not adversely impacted in the event of an unexpected release of hazardous materials caused by human error or an emergency (fire, earthquake, and explosion). The notification and safety of first responders to such an event involving hazardous materials should also be addressed. Hydrology and Water Quality While Stanford proposes to avoid an increase in impervious surfaces, thereby avoiding an increase in storm water flows, the EIR should describe existing deficiencies (i.e. downstream flood risks) that existing flows contribute to. A study of potential flood control measures should be included along with a discussion of upstream control measures and protections. The city understands that Stanford uses groundwater for irrigation purposes and that there is a countywide groundwater study ongoing. The aquifer is shared by Stanford and a number of jurisdictions, and the capacity and availability of water from this source will affect Palo Alto and other jurisdictions, particularly during drought years and in the event of region wide emergencies. The DEIR should quantify any expected increase in Stanford's use of groundwater, and provide some discussion regarding the health of the aquifer. If increased groundwater use is expected, we request that the DEIR discuss and evaluate plans for recharge of the aquifer from detention basins, including dams/reservoirs, and creek management. Mitigations should be included in the form of recharge areas so that the basin can meet the available supply needed by Stanford and others drawing from the aquifer in years of drought and variable water supply. Ideally, detention basins also can be planned to help alleviate the flood risks referred to above. The City of Palo Alto provides wastewater treatment for Stanford University including transport for the wastewater to the treatment facilities located on the Bayfront. The DEIR should include a detailed study of the impacts of development proposed over the 17-year period of the 2018 GUP on the city's wastewater treatment plant capacity and treatment facilities. The impact on the location and capacity of the collection system, both on campus and through the city to the treatment facilities, should also be studied. Appropriate mitigations to any impacts should be identified and addressed. Population and Housing As noted earlier, the City will be looking for detailed information about the number of new students, staff, and residents that would accommodated on and off-campus by the development Stanford is proposing between today (the appropriate CEQA baseline) and 2035 3 DRAFT For City Council Review March 61 2017 (the proposed horizon year). Along with the population analysis, we would appreciate an assessment of housing demand, including existing and future demand by employees and students qualifying for below market rate housing. The study should indicate how the supply of housing on campus, existing and projected, correlates with this demand, and should identify areas where those who are not provided housing on campus are likely to seek housing. Section 5 of the application materials notes that with 550 new multiple family housing units occupied by faculty and staff on Stanford owned lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County there will be 275 additional school-aged children by 2035 (assuming 0.50 school aged children/dwelling). The City would ask for a clarification of 'multiple family' since many of the units built during the 2000 GUP particularly along Stanford Avenue were free standing single family units in close proximity to one another. More detailed study needs to be made of the family size of the current Stanford graduate, post doctorial, faculty, and staff living on campus since this is a unique population. An accurate estimate of the age range within the pre-school and school aged population is important in order to determine the impacts of these additional children on city facilities including safe routes to school, bicycle trails and travel routes, recreation needs. This analysis will also define the need for the 2018 GUP to address providing the additional square footage to meet demands for daycare and other on campus services and their related traffic impacts. Impacts on the Palo Alto Unified School District's capacity and services should also be addressed. The City strongly supports the hc:>using linkage/ratio concept used in the 2000 GUP and its continued use in the 2018 GUP. The proposed ratio is 605 new beds for every 500,000 SF of new academic and academic support space. The City would urge that the housing become available as close as possible to the availability of the new academic space. The City also appreciates the University's proposal to continue funding affordable housing projects elsewhere in the region, and supports continued use of a six-mile radius from campus for expenditure of these funds, with an additional focus of such development on transit corridors within that radius. We also understand that Stanford is seeking a condition that would allow it to build additional housing beyond the proposed development limit of 3,150 housing units/beds proposed in the 2018 GUP. We have no objection to this proposal, as long as the environmental review effectively addresses potential impacts and/or provides a mechanism to do so, if and when, these additional housing units/beds should be proposed. Public Services Under contract with Stanford University, the City of Palo Alto Police Department Palo Alto 9-1-1 Communications Center (a.k.a. Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)) provides 9-1-1 call taking service for the University campus and dispatches the Stanford University Department of Public Safety. The DEIR should provide a detailed study of how the demand for these services will increase as the 2018 GUP progresses and is completed. 4 DRAFT For City Council Review March 6, 2017 The City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services (OES) works closely with Stanford University on topics related to natural disasters, technological and accidental hazards, and human-caused events, such as crime and terrorism. In particular, the Stanford University Department of Public Safety (SU DPS) and the Stanford University Environmental Health & Safety (EH&S) group routinely work with OES to conduct joint training, emergency planning, and work together on planned special events and other higher-risk events. Some clarification is needed in Section 8.5, Emergency Preparedness and Response, of the application materials. Specifically, the Background Conditions Report verbiage has to do with Palo Alto Fire Department and related topics, not emergency preparedness. The OES is a separate City Department. OES operations are closely aligned with the Palo Alto Police and Fire Departments and the 9-1-1 Communications Center. Stanford University generally receives support by OES at no additional charge despite many shared activities. The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) has been providing fire, rescue and emergency medical services (EMS) to Stanford University (Stanford) under contract since 1976. Under the proposed 2018 GUP, additional public safety impacts would be created by the increase in residential and daytime populations as well as construction and regular traffic impacting already congested road networks. The city understands that a court decision, City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, 242 Cal. App. 4th 833 (2015) minimizes the environmental impacts under CEQA related to emergency services. However, these effects as they relate to the 2018 GUP proposal should be studied in detail in the DEIR. Without mitigation the ability of the PAFD to meet acceptable performance standards could be negatively impacted by the anticipated growth impacting public safety. The PAFD notes that they have been challenged to meet the response time performance noted in the 1976 contract as well as in the 2000 GUP and updated annual reports. The primary reason for response time performance challenges have been due to increased calls for service, the frequency of simultaneous calls for service, the location of the fires, speed limits, and the frequency of detours and lane closures due to construction activities. The DEIR should assess how the 2018 GUP will affect response times and provide appropriate mitigations. Recreation The NOP states that the DEIR will describe the environmental setting for parks and recreation, discuss the potential for increases i_n the use of non-Stanford recreation facilities so that substantial impacts could occur, and assess whether the construction of any proposed recreational facilities would have a significant effect on the environment. The DEIR should also address impacts and appropriate mitigations for impacts on City park and recreation facilities including available parking, over-use of recreational facilities, parks, open space trails and habitat. The study should include impacts to city recreational programs, including youth camps and classes resulting from an increased number of Stanford campus residents and employees. 5 DRAFT For City Council Review March 6, 2017 The Stanford application for the 2018 General Use Permit states that due to the size of the district and regional parks (Foothill Park/Open Space Preserve, Baylands Nature Preserve, and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve), increased visitor ship is less likely to lead to substantial deterioration. The application refers to the low increases in visits per acre for district and regional parks shown in Section16, Table 7 to demonstrate that such projected increases in visits per acre are negligible given the size of the parks. The City of Palo Alto disagrees with these statements because --although the open space preserves are large --the areas where people actively recreate are a very small percentage of the entire preserve area. The impact of concentrating more people into these areas should be studied and identified impacts should be addressed with appropriate mitigation. In Section 16, Parks and Recreation Analysis, of the application materials, Stanford includes a section assessing recreation impacts on nearby public park and recreation facilities located in the City of Palo Alto focusing on the College Terrace neighborhood. The city notes that the number of visitors per day cited (41 visits to Foothills Park, 32 visits to the Baylands, and 27 visits to the Pearson Arastradero) clearly demonstrate that visitation to parks by Stanford campus residents is not limited to the nearby College Terrace parks, and appropriate mitigation should include a larger area. Please consider whether provision of funding for acquisition of new parkland (in addition to funding to address impacts on existing parks) would address identified impacts. The premise of the 2018 GUP involves concentration of uses within the core campus, increasing the density of the population within the academic growth boundary and requiring new construction that will reduce open space from 15.1 acres/1000 in the Fall of 2018 to 12.2 acres/1000 at build out of the 2018 GUP. While infill development is preferable to the alternative, the City requests an assessment of how any changes open space within the Academic Growth Boundary might affect recreational uses/facilities on and off-campus. Transportation & Circulation Members of the Palo Alto community appreciate the University's focus on reducing commute trips to/from campus by single occupant vehicle (SOV) during peak commute hours but are increasingly skeptical that the University's trip reduction programs are living up to their promise. We would ask the County to take a hard look at how the "no net trips" goal is structured, starting with the baseline, and including the methodology, reporting, peer reviews, and penalties for not achieving the promised results. As the basis for this analysis, the DEIR should include the following data collection and background Information: 6 DRAFT For City Council Review March 6, 2017 1) Identify peak travel periods for the campus based on vehicle volumes collected across an entire day. Due to the University's unique land use mix, the city is interested in understanding how travel patterns may differ from typical morning and afternoon peak periods. Consider using the 24-hour cordon count data from the most recent version of the Stanford University Traffic Monitoring Report. 2) Identify the University's existing and planned primary and secondary transit corridors, especially within the Campus Drive ring-road, as this area is described as limited to most motorized vehicles. Primary corridors should be routes with frequencies greater than 15 minutes in the peak periods. 3) Additional background information Is needed on transit serving the University: Include an inventory of applicable local and regional transit lines serving the project area, their ridership, capacity, and utilization. 4) The Marguerite is the backbone of the University's transit system. Please include current performance data such as boardings, speed, and frequency for individual lines. 5) Consider estimating person trip generation and then estimate mode split. Mode split estimates may be important to assist with impact analysis for transit capacity. Based on information provided in the application materials, the DEIR traffic impact analysis should include the following items: 1) Include intersection, freeway segment, and ramp impact assessment consistent with the latest version of the Valley Transportation Authority's TIA Guidelines. 2) Evaluate impacts to emergency response times. 3) Estimate transportation-related construction impacts including capacity impacts to roadways. 4) Pending review of daily vehicle volumes, consider resetting the "no net new trips" baseline, as peak hours, periods, and directions may have changed since 2001. 5) Evaluate transit performance and efficiency as it relates to site design, mobility, and access. a. Consider setting transit performance metrics such as speed, passenger travel time, boardings/hour. The city is concerned that dispersed development patterns may result in inefficient transit routes b. Of the major transit corridors identified, show the location of development areas relative to X mile walksheds around stops. It is unclear whether transit accessibility was considered as a factor when the distribution of growth was proposed. 7 DRAFT For City Council Review March 6, 2017 c. Include a qualitative discussion around the optimal land use and site design principles that support effective, user-friendly, and efficient transit networks. Evaluate the transit system serving the University with these principles. 6) Assess demand, capacity, and utilization of Caltrain servicing the Downtown Palo Alto lntermodal Transit Center in all scenarios. Many peak-period trains already exceed capacity. How will impacts on Caltrain be addressed, and how will current conditions impede the University from meeting its TOM goals? 7) Assess demand, capacity, and utilization of connecting transit services at the Palo Alto lntermodal Transit Center (PAITC). Consider requiring improved circulation and access to the transit center for transit vehicles as a prerequisite for additional development. Transit service would be greatly enhanced with improved access from El Camino Real. 8) Assess the performance, capacity, access, and operations of transit, bicycles, and pedestrians the Palo Alto lntermodal Transit Center (PAITC). Include capacity assessment for bus bays, layover facilities, and potential operational impacts to other transit providers using the PAITC. 9) Evaluate the relationship between mode and distance travelled to the University. Similar recent evaluations have shown persons who travel 3-5 miles may be the most likely to drive, but are still within biking distance of their destination. When evaluating the "no net trips" methodology, please account for lengthening of "peak" traffic conditions as the University shifts more and more trips to traditionally off-peak or shoulder periods. Also consider ways to simplify the accounting process and make the annual counts and calculations more transparent to the public. The traffic analysis should also study the extent to which Stanford commuters are avoiding cordon counts by parking on local streets in adjacent city neighborhoods. The DEIR should assess the magnitude ofthis practice, and propose a realistic program for addressing these "hidden" vehicle trips and the neighborhood parking problems they create. The DEIR should identify critical intersections on bicycle routes that currently have inadequate integration of bicycle facilities and determine needed improvements to facilitate the No Net New Commute Trips program going forward. This should include an evaluation of Stanford population's use of these locations and their impact on the need for improvements. The City of Palo Alto appreciates the University's proposal to support the City's Safe Routes to School program via "walk and roll" improvements needed for Escondido and Nixon Elementary Schools. To continue this cooperative effort, the City would ask that the DEIR study 8 DRAFT For City Council Review March 6, 2017 the impacts of the 2018 GUP on other school routes and expand their support to include Improvements needed for Terman and Jordan Middle Schools and Gunn High School. Finally, if the County seeks to off-set trips that cannot be reduced by requiring payments to agencies or organizations like the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association, these should be negotiated in advance, and not on an annual basis when we learn whether the University has or hasn't met its goal. This is because successful TOM programs require thoughtful planning and consistent funding; they cannot be funded on an ad hoc or intermittent basis. Other Issues There are a number of issues that warrant discussion outside of the EIR process and the City would be interested in discussing these with County representatives as the Draft EIR is being prepared. These include several issues identified in the comments above: upstream detention of storm water flows; compensation for Stanford-related impacts to City parks and recreation facilities; support for pedestrian and bicycle linkages; and support for transit services/access improvements including the Palo Alto lntermodal Transit Center and TOM programs. These issues also include the project's proposal to provide below market rate housing and the opportunity to execute a transfer agreement for the next Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle similar to the agreement that was negotiated concurrent with the 2000 GUP. Thank you for the understanding you have shown the City in providing time for the preparation of these responses. We encourage County staff to contact the City with any questions you might have or information you might need during the environmental review process. If you have any questions regarding these comments please reach out to me or Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment, at (650) 329-2321 and Hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org. Sincerely, Mayor Gregory Scharff City of Palo Alto CC. Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian Palo Alto City Council Members James Keene, City Manager 9 DRAFT For City Council Review March 6, 2017 Jean Mccown, Stanford University Director of Community Relations Catherine Palter, Stanford University land Use and Environmental Planning Kirk Girard, Santa Clara County Director of Planning & Development Hillary Gitelman/Margaret Monroe/File 10 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7600) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability Summary Title: Annual Update on Energy/Compost Technologies Title: Annual Update on Energy/Compost Technologies and the Organics Facilities Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation This report is provided for information only and requires no Council action. Executive Summary This report provides an annual update on the City programs that, as directed by Council, were implemented in 2016 or are being developed to extract energy and compost from the City’s organic residuals (wastewater solids, food scraps and soiled paper, and yard trimmings). Progress includes: 1. Completing CEQA and the design for a sludge dewatering and haul-out facility for the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) and issuing an Invitation for Bid (IFB) for the project’s construction; 2. Implementing the first phase of a new Recycling and Composting Ordinance; and 3. Investigating new technologies that include gasification of wood waste and gasification of biosolids. Background In May 2014, Council approved a four component Organics Facilities Plan (OFP) City of Palo Alto Page 2 (Staff Report #4744) to direct the processing of wastewater biosolids, food scraps, and yard trimmings. 1. Component One: Biosolids Dewatering and Truck Haul-Out Facility. 2. Component Two: Wet Anaerobic Digestion Facility utilizing the thermal hydrolysis process. 3. Component Three: Food Preprocessing Facility; preprocessed food scraps would then be fed into the anaerobic digester (component two above). 4. Component Four: The pursuit of technologies to harness the energy and resource potential of yard trimmings. Council directed staff to look first at Component Four as a composting option for yard trimmings on the 10-acre Measure E site. Council approved using existing facilities to process food scraps and yard trimmings (Staff Report #5182) and directed staff to return to Council annually with an update on new organics processing technologies and opportunities. This report is that annual update. The previous update from February 22, 2016, is Staff Report #6503. Discussion Biosolids Processing In 2016, the design and environmental documentation for the sludge dewatering and truck loadout facility was completed and partner agencies pledged to repay construction loan payments for the project. An IFB was issued in November 2016 with bid opening scheduled in February 2017. Construction is expected to be complete two years after the Notice to Proceed is issued. Upon facility completion and successful startup, the sewage sludge incinerators will be decommissioned; thereafter RWQCP sludge will be hauled to nearby facilities for final treatment and disposal. Although Class A biosolids and energy via onsite anaerobic digestion with pretreatment via thermal hydrolysis was the preferred long-term biosolids treatment solution at the time the Biosolids Facilities Plan was completed, later evaluation in a preliminary design reported a final cost estimate of $75 million for the complete system, significantly higher than the originally estimated $57 City of Palo Alto Page 3 million. During and especially since the time of the original long-term biosolids evaluation, City staff and partner agency officials have monitored, with interest, emerging technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis, which may be more compatible with RWQCP’s footprint constraints. Staff will continue to work with neighboring plants and regional technology providers on emerging technologies and cooperative treatment/disposal solutions to maximize the cost efficiency of biosolids disposal for environmental benefit. An update to the Biosolids Facilities Plan will be performed to re-evaluate the best long-term onsite treatment option. Food Scrap Collection and Processing Since July 1, 2015, curbside compostables, including food scraps from both residential and commercial customers collected in the green containers by GreenWaste of Palo Alto, the City’s contract solid waste hauler, have been processed at the Zero Waste Energy Development Facility (ZWED) in north San Jose. ZWED is a dry anaerobic digestion facility that creates renewable energy and compost from food scraps. In April 2016, the first phase of the Recycling and Composting Ordinance went into effect requiring approximately 650 customers to subscribe to compost service and sort their waste properly. Phase 1 customers include all food service establishments, all multi-family customers, and the largest waste generators in the City (customers with 8 or more cubic yards of weekly garbage service). Phase 2 of the ordinance was recently implemented (January 1, 2017) for mid-sized customers, and Phase 3 will begin implementation on January 1, 2018. In 2016, these two food scrap programs (residential and commercial) resulted in a reduction of over 5,000 tons of material sent to the Sunnyvale Material and Recovery Transfer (SMaRT) Station and ultimately landfilled – about 10% reduction in total landfilled tons. New Technologies Gasification is a thermal process that uses high temperatures and a minimal amount of oxygen to transform a solid carbon substance (like wood waste or biosolids) into a clean-burning gas that can be combusted in an engine or into biochar that can be used as a soil amendment. While gasification is an old, proven technology, few commercial-scale facilities have been built, especially to treat biosolids which contain more water, needing a greater supply of dewatering City of Palo Alto Page 4 energy than other organic feedstocks. Wood waste collected from City crews and City contractors, about 1,000 tons annually, could be a candidate for a small scale gasification system. Staff is working with GreenWaste on developing a pilot gasification system at ZWED to determine the feasibility and cost effectiveness of this process. Biosolids, a material with a tremendous amount of energy potential, have long been considered a potential fuel in gasification systems. Currently, the regional wastewater treatment plant in Redwood City (Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW)) is in partnership with BioForceTech Corporation of Redwood City to develop a low-energy use, biosolids dryer and gasifier. The dryer is currently in operation and the gasifier is in construction. Dewatered wastewater solids from RWQCP have been sent to SVCW for testing, results were promising, and the BioForceTech technology is a potential candidate for onsite treatment of RWQCP sludge. The output of biochar from the facility is slated to be sold as a soil amendment. RWQCP also participates in the 19-member Bay Area Biosolids to Energy (BAB2E) Coalition. BAB2E works to build state and federal legislative and financial support for new biosolids processing technologies, funds biosolids research initiatives, and helps facilitate public-private partnerships between wastewater treatment plants and technology providers. The coalition is currently involved in six different projects, including the SVCW-BioForceTech project. Staff will continue to follow the development of these technologies and report accordingly. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7829) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: PAFD Performance Report FY17 Q2 Title: Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for the Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2017 From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council review the Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2017. Background and Discussion In Fiscal Year 2015 the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) identified performance reporting as a key initiative, and began reporting on key performance measures quarterly. The report provides overall calls for service information, as well as more detailed information on the key service areas, including Emergency Medical Services, Fire Suppression, Rescue and Hazardous Materials Response, and Fire Prevention. The report also provides information on mutual and automatic aid with our regional public safety partners and internal workforce planning efforts. Performance measures include the following: Calls for Service: This data provides information on the final outcome of all emergency response calls. The data is tracked in the Fire Department’s Record Management System, and uses standardized call type codes, which are defined by the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS). The report includes overall call volume by primary category, and a detailed listing of call type in the service type sections. Response Times: This aspect measures the time it takes from an emergency call or request for response being created in the dispatch center to the arrival of resources to the scene of the emergency. This information is tracked in the City of Palo Alto Page 2 Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System, and the performance goals, or service levels, are set by Council in accordance with county and national standards. Ambulance Transports: The report provides the number of ambulatory transports to hospitals or other medical care facilities, and the proportion of Emergency Medical Calls that included transports. This information is tracked in the Fire Department’s Emergency Medical Record Management System. Fire Containment: This measures the proportion of building and structure fires that are contained to the area or room of origin within Palo Alto and Stanford Campus. Mutual and Automatic Aid: This includes the number and proportion of all incidents in which the PAFD provided aid to neighboring communities, as well as the aid received from neighboring Fire Departments. This information is tracked in the CAD System. Permits: This provides the count of facility, electric vehicle, and solar permits issued by the Fire Prevention Bureau. This information is currently tracked in the Development Center’s Records Management System. Inspections: A count of the total number of Hazardous Materials and State Mandated inspections is provided. In addition, an estimated number of inspections to be completed for the year is also provided to assess overall workload performance to date. Fire and Life Safety Plans Reviewed: This provides a total count of all plans reviewed, as well as the proportion of plans that were reviewed within the time guidelines. Vacancies and Off-Line Employees: This section provides the total number of budgeted full-time equivalent line personnel, current vacancies, and employees that are off line from workers compensation or light duty. This information is obtained from the Fire Department’s Staffing and Scheduling System (TeleStaff), as well as the City’s Personnel Management System. Succession Planning Metrics: This provides the number and proportion of line personnel that are eligible to retire, or will be eligible within the next five years. This information is tracked in the City’s Personnel Management System. This report also provides the total number of hours line personnel have spent in an acting capacity. Personnel serving in an acting capacity are a key component of the Department’s overall succession planning efforts. Acting capacity allows junior officers to learn the responsibilities of higher ranks with guidance from senior officers. This information is tracked in TeleStaff. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Training hours: The total number of training hours completed by all line personnel is provided, as well as the average number of hours per each line personnel on staff. This information is tracked in the Fire Department’s Record Management System. Local, State and Federal mandates require fire personnel to train a minimum of 20 hours per month. Attachments: ATTACHMENT A: Coverletter ATTACHMENT B: FY17 Q2 Peformance Report ATTACHMENT C: Thank You Letters ATTACHMENT D: EMS Customer Survey 1 | P a g e Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report Fiscal Year 2017, Second Quarter Calls for Service The Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) responded to a total of 2,292 calls for service in the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2017. This includes responses within Palo Alto, Stanford, and neighboring cities to provide Automatic and Mutual Aid. Approximately eighty-one (81%) of calls are generated from Palo Alto, fourteen percent (14%) from Stanford, and the remainder from neighboring cities or requests for regional fire deployment. The majority of calls were for Rescue and Emergency Medical Services, making up sixty percent (60%) of the responses. Table 1 below shows the main categories of the calls to which PAFD responded. Calls are classified based on the actual event occurred, rather than the initial call request. Table 1. Calls for Service Type FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2 Emergency Medical Service 1352 1380 Good Intent 400 346 False Alarm & False Call 269 326 Service Call 115 135 Rescue & Hazardous Material 58 74 Fire 37 29 Other 3 2 Grand Total 2234 2292 Good Intent and False Alarm calls make up the second largest types of responses. Most calls for service that may be a true threat of fire, gas or other emergency hazard are actually found to be something else after Firefighters investigate the situation. These calls are coded as Good Intent calls. As well, many fire alarm activations are from causes other than fire or emergency hazard. These situations are categorized as False Alarm calls. Emergency Medical Services Emergency Medical Service (EMS) is the primary service that the Palo Alto Fire Department provides to Palo Alto and Stanford. While this shift toward EMS is being seen across the region, the Palo Alto Fire Department is the only Fire Department in the County that provides ambulance and transport services. This is especially valuable to our community. Indeed, the 2016 National Citizen Survey rated the EMS and Ambulance Service as the highest city-provided service, with a positive rating (excellent or good) of 97%. The most recent Report from the Council on Aging Silicon Valley from 2012 indicates that Palo Alto has the highest percentage of the oldest seniors (75 and over) in the County. This population relies most on our services, with a service utilization rate more than six times greater than the rest of the population. 2 | P a g e Of the 1,380 Emergency Medical Service calls the PAFD responded to in the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2017, the overwhelming majority were for medical, trauma and cardiac calls that did not involve a vehicle accident. Table 2. EMS Performance Measures Calls for Service FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2 NFIRS Code Description 321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 1255 1276 322 Vehicle accident with injuries 72 73 324 Motor vehicle accident with no injuries 14 19 323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident 11 9 381 Rescue or EMS standby 0 3 Total 1352 1380 Transports Number of Transports 977 962 Percent of EMS Calls resulting in transport 72.3% 69.7% Response Times Percent of first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 8 minutes 91.5% 92.9% Percent of paramedic responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 12 minutes 98.3% 98.9% Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls 04:47 04:48 EMS transports continue to occur on more than two-thirds of all EMS responses, this quarter seventy percent (70%) resulted in an ambulance transport to a local hospital or care facility. This is the primary source of revenue generated from emergency medical services, and revenue received in this quarter is on track with budget projections. Response Time Goal Met: At least 90% of first responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 8 minutes. This quarter the PAFD first responder arrived on scene to EMS calls within 8 minutes ninety-three percent (93%) of the time. Response Time Goal Met: At least 99% of paramedic responder arriving on scene to EMS calls within 12 minutes. This quarter the PAFD paramedic responder arrived on scene to EMS calls within 12 minutes ninety-nine percent (99%) of the time. 3 | P a g e Fire Suppression Very few of the potential fire calls coming into dispatch turn out to be a real fire once PAFD investigates the scene and cause of the concerning elements. This quarter PAFD responded to 29 calls where fire was present, with 27 in Palo Alto or Stanford. There were five building fires that the Department responded to, of which four were contained to the area of origin. These fires happened periodically throughout the quarter and vary in degree. The first incident occurred on the 400 block of Guinda Street during the second week of October. Engine 61 responded to the call, with the occupant reporting a smell of smoke. Upon inspection a malfunctioning light fixture was found to be the cause, and salvage covers were placed in the room of origin and the crew began to expose the structural members of the ceiling around the light fixture. Firefighters noted charring of wood in the ceiling and some smoldering insulation. During the overhaul process 2 rafters were partially removed. The ceiling was then shored up to ensure that it would not fall before it was repaired. The second incident occurred the next week on the 300 block of Tennessee Lane. Engine 65 arrived on scene with smoke showing from a single story single family residence. The fire was found to be burning above the stove top impinging on a structural beam above it. Fire crews made entry and extinguished the fire. Engine 65 and Medic 62 completed overhaul, reported no extension into the walls or ceiling and Truck 66 completed ventilation. In late November, on the 2100 block of East Bayshore Road, Engine 63 responded to a report of smoke detector activation in a kitchen area. Dispatch advised that several more detectors were activated. The incident was upgraded to a first alarm assignment after a passerby stated it looks like fire in building. Firefighters dressed in full PPE and made access through the door leading to a large kitchen/lounge area. There was no fire visible, only smoke with a single sprinkler head flowing near the area of a small refrigerator and microwave. A portable hot/cold water system appeared to be burned which extended to a wall counter with charring to the back wall and ceiling. Crews stopped water flow from the sprinkler head, cleared the second floor, with no occupants found. Additional units initiated ventilation, and set up an electric fan to remove the smoke. The Fire Department worked closely with the Utilities Department to safely shut down the utilities only in the immediate area so the rest of the business could continue operating. The sprinkler system was put back in service and the fire alarm was restored. On the 3100 block of Middlefield Road, during the first week of December Engine 65 arrived on scene and noted smoke showing from a medium sized two-story apartment with a sub-level parking garage. Crews verified that all occupants were out, and the resident stated she was cooking and had food on the stove while she was upstairs. She came downstairs to find smoke and an activated smoke detector before calling 911 and exiting the apartment. A fire was located on top of the stove, which was clearly visible from the kitchen window. Firefighters pulled a hose line to the front door and were able to extinguish the fire. Once Truck 66 and Engine 62 verified there was no extension and all smoke had been ventilated, Incident Command cleared them and Engine 65 remained on scene to assist displaced residents and wait for Red Cross to arrive. Building owner and residents were advised not to enter unit until a restoration company could remove debris and repair the damage. 4 | P a g e The fifth fire of the quarter was the largest occurring on the 2100 block of Louis Road. Battalion Chief 66 responded to a structure Fire was the first to arrive on scene to a structure fire call, and found a fully involved structure with the possibility of rescue. A 2nd alarm was requested. The homeowner was found two houses down from his home; he indicated that he was the only person in the house and an "All Clear" was given. Engine 63 made entry through the front door for fire attack and rescue. The crew encountered high heat with heavy fire and smoke conditions. The crew requested back up assistance to help with the hose line. During fire attack, an "All Clear" was given indicating no victims were trapped inside the home. The fire was knocked down within 30 minutes of arrival. Engine 63 remained onscene with Truck 66 to continue salvaging belongings and overhauling the fire. A fire investigator and a City building inspector responded. There was minor damage to one neighboring house. No firefighters or civilians were injured. Table 3. Fire Performance Measures Calls for Service FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2 NFIRS Code Description 113 Cooking fire, confined to container 8 8 131 Passenger vehicle fire 4 6 111 Building fire 6 5 100 Fire, other 8 3 154 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 0 2 150 Outside rubbish fire, other 3 1 170 Cultivated vegetation, crop fire, other 0 1 118 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 1 1 142 Brush, or brush and grass mixture fire 0 1 162 Outside equipment fire 1 1 114 Chimney or flue fire, confined to chimney or flue 1 0 116 Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined 1 0 130 Mobile property fire, other 1 0 132 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 1 0 140 Natural vegetation fire, other 1 0 143 Grass fire 1 0 Total 37 29 Response Times Percent of first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls within 8 minutes 95.0% 85.9% Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls 05:42 05:22 Fire Containment Percent of building and structure fires contained to the room or area of origin 50% 80% 5 | P a g e Response Time Goal Not Met: At least 90% of first responder arriving on scene to Fire calls within 8 minutes. This quarter the PAFD first responder arrived on scene to Fire calls within 8 minutes eighty-six percent (86%) of the time. This is consistent with the small improvement that was seen in the prior fiscal year, a few percentage points above historical performance. The Fire Department continues to explore ways to improve on this measure. Fire Containment Goal Not Met: At least 90% of building and structure fires contained to the room or area of origin. This quarter there were five building or structure fires within Palo Alto or Stanford, of which eighty percent (80%) were contained to the room or area of origin. 6 | P a g e Rescue and Hazardous Materials The Fire Department responded to a total of 74 rescue and hazardous material calls. The most common rescue call is for the removal of victims from a stalled elevator, which accounts for eighteen percent (18%) of these call types. Table 4. Rescue and Hazardous Materials Measures Calls for Service FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2 NFIRS Code Description 353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 12 13 444U Power line down - PA Utilities Related 2 8 400 Hazardous condition, other 7 8 331 Lock-in (if lock out , use 511 ) 5 6 440 Electrical wiring/equipment problem, other 3 6 412U Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) - PA Utilities Related 3 6 463 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 0 5 412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 8 4 411 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 3 4 442 Overheated motor 3 3 422 Chemical spill or leak 1 2 410 Flammable gas or liquid condition, other 0 2 365 Watercraft rescue 0 1 461 Building or structure weakened or collapsed 0 1 424U Carbon monoxide incident-PA Utilities Related 0 1 424 Carbon monoxide incident 0 1 420 Toxic condition, other 0 1 444 Power line down 2 1 451 Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected 2 1 445 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 2 0 471 Explosive, bomb removal 1 0 480 Attempted burning, illegal action, other 1 0 413 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 3 0 Total 58 74 Response Times Median response time for first responder arriving on scene to Rescue & Hazardous Materials calls 06:04 06:16 7 | P a g e Mutual and Automatic Aid The Fire Department has automatic aid agreements with five regional Fire Departments, including Mountain View, Menlo Park, Woodside, Los Altos, and Santa Clara County Fire. The PAFD primarily provides aid to Mountain View, which is due to the virtual consolidation effort with the cities of Mountain View and Los Altos, which was completed at in the first quarter of FY15. The Deputy Chief of Operations communicates regularly with the Mountain View Fire Department to review the agreement and ensure Palo Alto’s resources are not overly relied upon. In this quarter, the PAFD provided mutual or automatic aid to two jurisdictions on a total of 116 incidents. Five agencies provided mutual or automatic aid for calls within Palo Alto or Stanford on a total of 143 incidents. Table 5. Mutual and Automatic Aid Performance Measures Mutual and Auto Aid Provided FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2 Agency Mountain View Fire 92 92 Santa Clara County Fire 24 24 All Mutual and Auto Aid Provided 116 116 Mutual and Auto Aid Received Agency Mountain View Fire 73 116 Menlo Park Fire 20 16 Santa Clara County Fire 3 6 Woodside Fire 5 4 Moffett Fire 1 1 All Mutual and Auto Aid Received 102 143 8 | P a g e Fire Prevention The Fire Prevention Bureau ensures compliance with the Fire Code for the safety of occupants and protection of property. Fire Inspectors perform fire sprinkler and fire alarm plan checks, permitting, and field inspections with the goal of ensuring all construction complies with local and national codes. The number of plans to review remained consistent with the prior fiscal year. The Bureau has kept up with reviewing the majority of plans on time despite an overall increase in plans this year, with ninety- six percent (96%) of plans reviewed on time. Table 6. Prevention Bureau Performance Measures Permits FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2 Fire Permits Issued 151 105 Electric Vehicle Permits Issued 13 28 Solar Permits Issued 32 31 Inspections Hazardous Material Inspections Completed 98 82 Number of Hazardous Material Inspections for the year 207 440 Percent of Hazardous Material Facilities Inspections Complete 90.3% 41.6% State Mandated Inspections Completed 114 106 Number of State Mandated Inspections for the year 340 397 Percent of State Mandated Facilities Inspections Complete 58.5% 51.6% Fire and Life Safety Plan Review Plans Reviewed 399 401 Percent of Reviews Completed On-Time 100% 96.3% 9 | P a g e Workforce Planning The Department operates daily emergency response operations with a total of 96.00 FTE line personnel. This includes three battalions of crews that staff six stations in the City and Stanford 24 hours each day. Over the last quarter, the department has operated with 12.0 positions vacant and 7.0 employees off- line creating a total of 19.00 FTE positions that require backfilling. The permanent vacancies are solely within the Firefighter and Apparatus Operator Classifications. During this Fiscal Year the Department will conduct a promotional process for Apparatus Operator, which will shift all vacancies to the Firefighter rank. There has been an increase in the number of personnel currently eligible to retire. As of the end of the second quarter, twenty-seven percent (27%) of personnel are eligible to retire. The department is expecting a handful of retirements this year and next, and has begun the planning process for another entry level hiring process. Table 7. Vacancies and Off-Line Employees FY17 Q2 Classification Budgeted FTE Vacancies Off-Line Employees (Workers Comp/Light Duty) Personnel On Line Percent of Personnel On Line Battalion Chief 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 100% Fire Captain 22.00 0.00 2.00 20.00 91% Fire Apparatus Operator & Fire Fighters 70.00 12.00 5.00 53.00 76% TOTAL 96.00 12.00 7.00 77.00 80% Table 8. Succession Planning FY16 Q2 FY17 Q2 Number of Line Personnel Currently Eligible to Retire 18 24 Number of Line Personnel Eligible to Retire within Five Years 23 17 Percent of all Line Personnel Eligible to Retire over Five Years 43.2% 45.6% Number of Acting Battalion Chief Hours 372 382 Number of Acting Captain Hours 2696 1578 Number of Acting Apparatus Operator Hours 7054 6205 Training Hours of Training Completed 6091 5794 Average Hours per Line Personnel 73.39 75.25 From: Joseph Yang [mailto:yangjoseph@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 9:13 AM To: Fire; publicsafety@lists.stanford.edu Cc: Joe Yang Subject: Thank you ‐ turkey debacle Hello: Last Thursday, October 13, around 10 am, a whole crew of first responders ‐‐ Stanford PD officer Rick Rondeau (whom I had previously met at the Stanford community police academy), a Stanford CSO, and Palo Alto firemen and paramedics ‐‐ came to help me at the Stanford Dish. I'm writing to thank you all for helping me during my moment of need. It was very much appreciated. I had injured my back when I fell on a stone while kicking at a flock of wild turkeys that had chased my wife off the pavement, and were trying to bite her. It was so painful that I laid sprawled on the path, and couldn't move, for a long time. After about 45 minutes, I could finally get up, and was adamant that I only wanted a ride down to my car to go home. So I climbed into the Stanford PD vehicle. It was so painful I could barely sit, and I had to get out again. Throughout this process, there must have been 6 of you in all, very patiently and professionally waiting for me, while I figured out what I wanted to do. When I was again ready to go home, one of you firemen or paramedics (sorry, I don't remember your name), gently and tactfully suggested that I reconsider going to the ER. You said that, in your experience, that much pain for that long suggested more than just a simple bruise. I finally agreed, but wanted to go down to El Camino ER, instead of Stanford ER (too busy). The paramedics kindly said they would take me wherever I wanted. At the ER, they found I had fractured two ribs, plus 4 smaller bones on the spinal column itself. But no internal bleeding, no ruptured spleen, and no torn kidney. One more inch, and I might have broken my back, or injured the spinal cord and become paralyzed. All in all, it was my lucky day. To whomever encouraged me to go, please accept my warmest thanks. You had a great understanding of human nature, and used exactly the right type and amount of persuasion. Pushing harder would've made me dig in, and pushing less would have validated my desire to not go. On a lighter note, I hope you all got a kick out of the incident, and a funny story to share back at the station house. As I heal, I'm laughing about the absurdity of it all ‐‐ who would have thought urban hiking and turkeys could be dangerous? Most importantly, please eat as much turkey as you possibly can this Thanksgiving. I really want to get back at those bastards. Thanks again! All the best, Joe Yang Number of Your Patients in this ReportYour Score October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 EMS System Report Palo Alto, CA 1515 Center Street City of Palo Alto 1 (877) 583-3100 www.EMSSurveyTeam.com Client 9701 service@EMSSurveyTeam.com Lansing, Mi 48096 9793.64 Number of Patients in this Report 15,840 Number of Transport Services in All EMS DB 135 Page 1 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Executive Summary This report contains data from 97 City of Palo Alto patients who returned a questionnaire between 10/01/2016 and 12/31/2016. The overall mean score for the standard questions was 93.64; this is a difference of 1.13 points from the overall EMS database score of 92.51. The current score of 93.64 is a change of -0.51 points from last period's score of 94.15. This was the 31st highest overall score for all companies in the database. You are ranked 9th for comparably sized companies in the system. 80.88% of responses to standard questions had a rating of Very Good, the highest rating. 98.77% of all responses were positive. Page 2 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Demographics — This section provides demographic information about the patients who responded to the survey for the current and the previous periods. The information comes from the data you submitted. Compare this demographic data to your eligible population. Generally, the demographic profile will approximate your service population. Total This PeriodLast Period OtherFemaleMale OtherMaleTotalFemale Under 18 3 2 05 264 0 18 to 30 3 2 05 110 0 31 to 44 6 4 010 671 0 45 to 54 1 5 06 693 0 55 to 64 3 5 08 693 0 65 and older 31 40 071 346531 0 Total 47 58 0105 97 42 55 0 Gender Page 3 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Dispatch Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern dispatcher operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 92.64 92.45 0.19 Your Score Total DB VarianceVariance1000 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 92.00 92.40 -0.40 Your Score Total DB Variance -0.40 Variance1000 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 92.01 90.80 1.21 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Overall Section Score Total DB 0.34 100 91.88 Variance 0 Your Score 92.22 Page 4 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Ambulance Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern ambulance operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 92.90 91.84 1.06 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Cleanliness of the ambulance 96.43 94.29 2.14 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Comfort of the ride 93.68 87.62 6.06 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 94.19 93.64 0.55 Your Score Total DB VarianceVariance1000 Overall Section Score Total DB 2.41 100 91.87 0 Your Score 94.28 Page 5 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Medic Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern medic operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 95.17 94.37 0.80 Your Score Total DB VarianceVariance1000 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 95.83 94.23 1.60 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 95.45 93.91 1.54 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Skill of the medics 95.06 94.31 0.75 Your Score Total DB VarianceVariance1000 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 94.58 92.74 1.84 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable) 94.10 92.33 1.77 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 93.43 90.59 2.84 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Page 6 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Medic Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern medic operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. Medics' concern for your privacy 93.13 93.39 -0.26 Your Score Total DB Variance -0.26 Variance1000 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.89 94.23 0.66 Your Score Total DB VarianceVariance1000 Overall Section Score Total DB 1.34 100 93.34 0 Your Score 94.68 Page 7 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Billing Staff Assessment Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern office operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 89.05 88.41 0.64 Your Score Total DB VarianceVariance1000 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 86.28 88.38 Your Score Total DB Variance -2.10 Variance1000 Overall Section Score Total DB Variance 100 -0.72 88.40 0 Your Score 87.68 Page 8 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 01, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Overall Assessment Analysis This analysis details the section results that concern assessment of operations. The analysis contains the mean scores for each survey question. The first column shows the company score and the total database score, the second column is your variance from the database score. How well did our staff work together to care for you 94.89 93.59 1.30 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 94.29 93.56 0.73 Your Score Total DB VarianceVariance1000 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.57 93.22 2.35 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 86.05 87.36 Your Score Total DB Variance -1.31 Variance1000 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 94.58 93.34 1.24 Your Score Total DB Variance1000 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 92.00 92.75 -0.75 Your Score Total DB Variance -0.75 Variance1000 Overall Section Score Total DB 100 0.93 92.31 0 Your Score 93.24 Page 9 of 28 October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 City of Palo Alto Question Analysis This section lists a synopsis of the information about your individual questions and overall scores for this monthly reporting period. The first column shows the company score from the previous period, the second column shows the change, the third column shows your score for this period and the fourth column shows the total Database score. Dispatch Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 92.64-1.20 92.4593.84 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 92.00-2.64 92.4094.64 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 92.010.44 90.8091.57 Ambulance Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 92.90-3.46 91.8496.36 Cleanliness of the ambulance 96.431.02 94.2995.41 Comfort of the ride 93.680.82 87.6292.86 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 94.19-2.24 93.6496.43 Medic Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 95.17-1.74 94.3796.91 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 95.83-0.34 94.2396.17 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 95.450.65 93.9194.80 Skill of the medics 95.06-2.62 94.3197.68 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 94.580.01 92.7494.57 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable)94.102.41 92.3391.69 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 93.431.95 90.5991.48 Medics' concern for your privacy 93.13-0.05 93.3993.18 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.89-0.06 94.2394.95 Billing Staff Assessment Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 89.05-1.08 88.4190.13 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 86.28-4.16 88.3890.44 Page 10 of 28 October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 City of Palo Alto Question Analysis (Continued) Overall Assessment Analysis Last Period Change This Period Total DB How well did our staff work together to care for you 94.89-0.81 93.5995.70 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 94.29-0.49 93.5694.78 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.571.81 93.2293.76 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 86.050.98 87.3685.07 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation 94.58-0.58 93.3495.16 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 92.00-2.18 92.7594.18 Page 11 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Dec 2015 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 Mar 2016 Apr 2016 May 2016 Jun 2016 Jul 2016 Aug 2016 Sep 2016 Oct 2016 Nov 2016 Dec 2016 Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 95.83 94.57 97.00 97.22 100.00 95.03 93.75 94.64 94.44 91.24 98.15 90.13 83.33 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 95.65 94.32 96.00 97.22 100.00 93.95 93.18 94.64 94.91 93.75 98.15 88.89 83.33 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 91.13 93.59 87.50 97.22 95.83 93.08 93.15 94.64 93.48 82.21 96.30 88.95 100.00 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 94.77 94.74 92.31 98.91 94.44 97.28 94.33 98.53 95.38 97.62 98.48 89.42 91.67 Cleanliness of the ambulance 98.73 93.09 96.15 100.00 93.75 97.56 95.83 96.88 95.90 92.86 98.48 94.90 100.00 Comfort of the ride 95.76 90.63 92.31 96.51 93.75 94.51 93.41 95.31 93.03 90.48 95.45 92.65 91.67 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 98.25 95.31 96.00 99.40 96.88 95.24 94.17 96.88 97.13 94.05 95.45 93.14 100.00 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 98.28 97.81 93.75 98.84 97.22 96.43 96.35 98.53 96.37 97.22 98.57 92.65 100.00 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 98.28 96.05 94.79 99.43 97.22 96.43 96.65 98.53 95.24 97.22 97.86 94.23 100.00 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 97.81 96.05 95.83 100.00 97.22 97.02 96.51 95.59 95.90 90.33 97.79 93.63 100.00 Skill of the medics 98.68 95.98 96.74 98.84 97.22 96.95 95.60 97.06 97.62 98.53 97.14 93.37 100.00 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 98.04 96.00 95.45 98.13 94.44 96.15 93.75 98.33 94.17 92.65 97.79 92.02 100.00 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions 97.22 93.29 94.32 95.83 100.00 96.55 92.31 94.23 93.65 82.21 97.41 91.46 100.00 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 96.43 94.32 92.86 98.48 89.29 93.38 92.41 89.29 93.52 85.79 95.00 92.07 100.00 Medics' concern for your privacy 98.56 94.39 93.18 98.21 87.63 95.14 94.38 98.44 92.27 91.18 97.50 90.10 100.00 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 99.11 97.64 92.43 100.00 97.22 95.39 95.74 97.06 94.58 94.12 98.53 92.16 100.00 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing 92.39 89.58 92.50 86.00 100.00 87.50 86.48 96.43 90.22 84.38 94.64 85.04 100.00 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your 92.86 83.75 91.67 84.00 100.00 87.50 84.94 95.83 90.00 87.50 94.64 80.25 100.00 How well did our staff work together to care for you 98.61 95.10 96.88 97.62 97.22 96.53 94.29 94.12 95.76 97.06 99.29 91.33 100.00 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical 99.07 94.61 95.83 99.38 97.22 95.17 94.78 97.06 95.18 91.18 97.79 91.33 100.00 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 99.07 95.37 95.83 96.98 96.88 94.74 94.95 92.19 95.34 89.76 97.66 93.89 100.00 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees 90.98 86.84 88.80 89.00 100.00 91.91 85.55 85.94 86.54 78.64 89.32 81.93 100.00 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 99.54 95.28 94.79 98.84 97.22 96.05 96.13 95.31 95.49 93.75 99.24 91.15 100.00 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 97.50 94.27 95.83 98.75 100.00 95.30 96.07 93.75 95.26 90.69 96.88 88.40 91.67 Your Master Score 97.08 94.39 94.30 97.65 96.47 95.18 93.97 95.43 94.55 91.64 97.16 91.09 96.93 Your Total Responses 64 65 29 49 10 48 105 17 66 22 36 58 3 Monthly Breakdown Below are the monthly responses that have been received for your service. It details the individual score for each question as well as the overall company score for that month. Page 12 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Monthly tracking of Overall Survey Score Page 13 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Greatest Increase and Decrease in Scores by Question Increases Last Period This Period Change Total DB Score Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable) 91.69 2.40 92.3394.10 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 91.48 1.96 90.5993.43 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 93.76 1.81 93.2295.57 Cleanliness of the ambulance 95.41 1.02 94.2996.43 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 85.07 0.98 87.3686.05 Comfort of the ride 92.86 0.82 87.6293.68 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 94.80 0.65 93.9195.45 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 91.57 0.45 90.8092.01 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 94.57 0.01 92.7494.58 Decreases Last Period This Period Change Total DB Score Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 90.44 -4.17 88.3886.28 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 96.36 -3.46 91.8492.90 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 94.64 -2.64 92.4092.00 Skill of the medics 97.68 -2.62 94.3195.06 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 96.43 -2.24 93.6494.19 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 94.18 -2.18 92.7592.00 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 96.91 -1.74 94.3795.17 Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 93.84 -1.19 92.4592.64 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 90.13 -1.08 88.4189.05 How well did our staff work together to care for you 95.70 -0.81 93.5994.89 Page 14 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Greatest Scores Above Benchmarks by Question Highest Above Benchmark This Period Variance Total DB Score Cleanliness of the ambulance 94.292.1396.43 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 94.231.695.83 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 93.222.3595.57 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 93.911.5595.45 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 94.370.895.17 Skill of the medics 94.310.7595.06 How well did our staff work together to care for you 93.591.3194.89 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.230.6694.89 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 93.341.2394.58 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 92.741.8394.58 Page 15 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Highest and Lowest Scores Highest Scores Last Period This Period Change Total DB Score Cleanliness of the ambulance 96.4395.41 1.02 94.29 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 95.8396.17 -0.34 94.23 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.5793.76 1.81 93.22 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 95.4594.80 0.65 93.91 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 95.1796.91 -1.74 94.37 Lowest Scores Last Period This Period Change Total DB Score Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 86.0585.07 0.98 87.36 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 86.2890.44 -4.16 88.38 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 89.0590.13 -1.08 88.41 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 92.0094.18 -2.18 92.75 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 92.0094.64 -2.64 92.40 Page 16 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Key Drivers — This section shows the relative importance of each question to the respondents' overall satisfaction. The greater the coefficient number, the more important the issue is to your patients' overall satisfaction. The questions are arranged based on their weighted importance value. Question Your Score Correlation Coeffecient Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family .91442164695.45 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment .90545251295.57 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs .90452561486.28 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment .8954199594.58 Medics' concern for your privacy .8927420293.13 Skill of the medics .86814651295.06 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person .8663175894.89 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance .83892223595.17 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived .81064218992.01 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously .80346382195.83 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner .79624534192.90 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable).77722947994.10 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort .77491482493.43 How well did our staff work together to care for you .77115359694.89 Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service .7672412992.64 Comfort of the ride .76681958293.68 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service .76204623292.00 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility .74928073394.29 Cleanliness of the ambulance .74578071796.43 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged .65714511786.05 Skill of the person driving the ambulance .63769969294.19 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office .62562838189.05 Page 17 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Company Comparisons — The following chart gives a comparison of the mean score for each question as scored by comparable companies. Your company is highlighted. There is also a green-shaded highlight of the highest score for each question. This will show how you compare to similar companies. Your Company A B C D E F Comparison Companies Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 97.34 92.72 94.28 94.10 84.7690.3092.64 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 97.40 93.35 93.90 94.44 87.6087.3392.00 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 95.48 92.43 90.33 93.01 83.0186.8692.01 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 93.97 90.98 96.04 93.10 84.1789.0892.90 Cleanliness of the ambulance 98.18 94.51 96.38 95.06 88.0890.2396.43 Comfort of the ride 88.20 78.70 88.57 91.56 79.2582.4893.68 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 98.61 93.75 96.07 95.73 87.4288.5294.19 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 98.21 93.90 97.19 97.32 88.9991.4695.17 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 99.54 94.71 97.47 95.83 89.5590.4395.83 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 99.07 93.75 96.59 95.54 87.6990.0695.45 Skill of the medics 99.06 93.90 97.19 95.73 89.2790.4395.06 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 97.60 92.38 96.43 94.33 86.3389.7994.58 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if 97.02 92.42 97.08 96.37 84.9288.1394.10 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 93.89 90.67 95.73 93.66 83.1486.1193.43 Medics' concern for your privacy 96.81 94.62 96.04 95.19 86.9188.3193.13 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 99.06 94.64 98.24 96.25 88.3589.3894.89 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 92.39 83.06 93.18 91.89 82.3584.7289.05 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 91.30 82.29 93.75 91.89 82.2284.3386.28 How well did our staff work together to care for you 97.64 94.64 96.33 94.87 87.7990.0094.89 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 95.21 93.98 97.39 94.59 88.2789.8794.29 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 96.15 93.75 96.07 95.33 87.7089.9395.57 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 93.13 87.72 91.67 89.91 80.9081.0186.05 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 97.64 93.45 98.26 95.51 86.0288.9294.58 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 95.83 92.68 97.86 92.51 83.9586.4192.00 Overall score 93.64 88.25 96.44 92.14 95.70 94.50 85.97 National Rank 31 88 8 54 13 21 93 Comparable Size (Medium) Company Rank 9 2 27 Page 18 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Ca l i f o r n i a Yo u r Co m p a n y 91.92Total Score Benchmark Comparison 93.64 To t a l D B Si m i l a r S i z e d 92.51 91.57 Medics' concern for your privacy 91.8793.13 93.39 93.00 Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 93.1192.64 92.45 91.97 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 91.6394.58 92.74 92.46 Skill of the medics 93.7895.06 94.31 93.81 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 92.2395.45 93.91 93.51 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical 93.4394.29 93.56 92.57 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 91.7192.01 90.80 90.22 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 93.4995.17 94.37 94.07 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 90.4393.43 90.59 90.71 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your 90.3786.28 88.38 86.09 Comfort of the ride 88.4093.68 87.62 87.97 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions 90.9394.10 92.33 92.01 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing 90.3489.05 88.41 86.41 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 92.0492.90 91.84 91.21 How well did our staff work together to care for you 93.2894.89 93.59 93.21 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 93.0194.89 94.23 93.66 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees 86.1286.05 87.36 85.74 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 92.9994.19 93.64 93.08 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 92.4692.00 92.40 91.49 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 92.4194.58 93.34 92.72 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 91.3992.00 92.75 91.91 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 92.8595.83 94.23 93.85 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 92.8395.57 93.22 92.15 Cleanliness of the ambulance 95.0096.43 94.29 93.84 Number of Surveys for the period 97 Page 19 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Benchmark Trending Graphic - Below are the monthly scores for your service. It details the overall score for each month as well as your subscribed benchmarks for that month. Page 20 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Cumulative Comparisons This section lists a synopsis of the information about your individual questions and overall scores over the entire lifetime of the dataset. The first column shows the company score and the second column details the total database score. Your Score Total DB 91.7294.43Overall Facility Rating Dispatch 94.01 91.51 Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 92.2594.90 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 91.9894.40 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance 90.2992.74 Ambulance 95.16 91.3 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 91.6295.43 Cleanliness of the ambulance 93.8296.43 Comfort of the ride 87.0692.91 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 92.7195.86 Medic 95.55 92.74 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 93.7596.86 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 93.6696.66 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 93.3996.26 Skill of the medics 93.8196.61 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 91.8895.03 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if 91.6793.84 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 90.2293.64 Medics' concern for your privacy 92.6494.68 Page 21 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Cumulative Comparisons (Continued) Your Score Total DB 91.7294.43Overall Facility Rating Medic 95.55 92.74 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 93.6096.34 Billing Staff Assessment 88.62 88.13 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 88.1188.80 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 88.1588.44 Overall Assessment 94.41 91.79 How well did our staff work together to care for you 92.8395.97 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 93.0195.84 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 92.7595.65 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 86.7087.51 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical 92.9296.15 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 92.5495.36 Page 22 of 28 The Top Box Analysis displays the number of responses for the entire survey by question and rating. The Top Box itself shows the percentage of "Very Good" responses, the highest rating, for each question. Next to the company rating is the entire EMS DB rating for those same questions. Top Box Comparisons October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 City of Palo Alto EMS DB % Very Good Company % Very Good Very GoodGoodFairPoor Very Poor Overall Company Rating 9 14 63 271 75.81%80.88%1510 Dispatch 1 2 8 44 73.98%75.56%170 Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 1 0 2 15 60 76.92%75.53% Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 0 1 3 15 56 74.67%75.10% Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 0 1 3 14 54 75.00%71.32% Ambulance 0 2 8 57 74.21%80.58%278 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 0 1 5 12 70 79.55%74.54% Cleanliness of the ambulance 0 0 0 12 72 85.71%79.38% Comfort of the ride 0 1 0 19 67 77.01%64.73% Skill of the person driving the ambulance 0 0 3 14 69 80.23%78.18% Medic 1 5 23 95 79.32%83.49%627 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 0 0 3 11 74 84.09%81.84% Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 0 0 3 9 78 86.67%82.25% Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 0 0 3 10 75 85.23%81.20% Skill of the medics 0 1 1 12 72 83.72%81.52% Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your treatment 0 0 3 12 68 81.93%77.53% Page 23 of 28 Top Box Comparisons October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 City of Palo Alto (Continued) EMS DB % Very Good Company % Very Good Very GoodGoodFairPoor Very Poor Overall Company Rating 9 14 63 271 75.81%80.88%1510 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable)0 1 3 8 60 83.33%76.74% Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 1 1 2 9 63 82.89%72.45% Medics' concern for your privacy 0 1 2 15 62 77.50%78.18% Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 0 1 3 9 75 85.23%82.20% Billing Staff Assessment 2 2 4 18 62.76%67.90%55 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 1 0 2 10 28 68.29%62.37% Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 1 2 2 8 27 67.50%63.15% Overall Assessment 5 3 20 57 76.87%81.72%380 How well did our staff work together to care for you 1 0 2 9 71 85.54%78.98% Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 1 0 4 7 71 85.54%79.11% Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 0 0 1 12 66 83.54%78.30% Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 2 1 6 10 40 67.80%66.60% Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 0 2 2 8 71 85.54%79.27% Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 1 0 5 11 61 78.21%78.93% Page 24 of 28 October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 City of Palo Alto Standard Deviation by Question SD Variance Database Standard Deviation Company Standard Deviation Total DBYour Score Helpfulness of the person you called for ambulance service 92.64 92.45 15.994 15.424 -0.57 Concern shown by the person you called for ambulance service 92.00 92.40 15.362 15.18 -0.18 Extent to which you were told what to do until the ambulance arrived 92.01 90.80 15.493 17.034 1.54 Extent to which the ambulance arrived in a timely manner 92.90 91.84 15.516 16.281 0.76 Cleanliness of the ambulance 96.43 94.29 8.748 12.046 3.30 Comfort of the ride 93.68 87.62 12.696 19.961 7.27 Skill of the person driving the ambulance 94.19 93.64 12.456 13.501 1.05 Care shown by the medics who arrived with the ambulance 95.17 94.37 11.833 13.885 2.05 Degree to which the medics took your problem seriously 95.83 94.23 11.335 14.644 3.31 Degree to which the medics listened to you and/or your family 95.45 93.91 11.644 14.89 3.25 Skill of the medics 95.06 94.31 12.54 13.784 1.24 Extent to which the medics kept you informed about your 94.58 92.74 12.302 15.754 3.45 Extent to which medics included you in the treatment decisions (if applicable) 94.10 92.33 14.727 16.613 1.89 Degree to which the medics relieved your pain or discomfort 93.43 90.59 17.311 18.249 0.94 Medics' concern for your privacy 93.12 93.39 14.238 14.341 0.10 Extent to which medics cared for you as a person 94.89 94.23 13.672 14.65 0.98 Professionalism of the staff in our ambulance service billing office 89.05 88.41 19.837 17.485 -2.35 Willingness of the staff in our billing office to address your needs 86.28 88.38 24.247 18.141 -6.11 How well did our staff work together to care for you 94.89 93.59 14.832 14.231 -0.60 Extent to which our staff eased your entry into the medical facility 94.29 93.56 16.083 14.508 -1.57 Appropriateness of Emergency Medical Transportation treatment 95.57 93.22 10.342 15.088 4.75 Extent to which the services received were worth the fees charged 86.05 87.36 24.355 21.802 -2.55 Overall rating of the care provided by our Emergency Medical Transportation service 94.58 93.34 15.054 15.35 0.30 Likelihood of recommending this ambulance service to others 92.00 92.75 17.608 17.002 -0.61 Overall Survey Rating 93.64 92.51 14.93 15.83 0.9 Page 25 of 28 City of Palo Alto October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Responses vs Score Histogram — This graph shows the number of responses on the Y axis vs the average score on the X axis. Page 26 of 28 Facilities in Database October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 City of Palo Alto Adair null Adair EMS Kirksville, MO Air San Juan Island Friday Harbor, WA Alliance Mobile Health Troy, MI AMT Peoria, IL Ava Springfield, MO Bay State Springfield, MA Bay Village Bay Village, OH Beaumont Troy, MI Beaumont Medical Troy, MI Birmingham Fire Birmingham, MI Bloomfield Township Bloomfield Hills, MI Burnsville Fire Department Burnsville, MN Care Flight Operations,Reno, NV Carilion Clinic Roanoke, VA Cetronia Allentown, PA Christian County Springfield, MO City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA Columbus Connection Cols, OH Community Ambulance Macon, GA Community Care EMS Ashtabula, OH Community EMS MI Southfield, MI Community EMS OH Columbus, OH CoxHealth EMS Springfield, MO Cumberland Carlisle, PA Cy-Fair Houston, TX Cypress Creek Spring, TX Dade County Springfield, MO DMC Care Detroit, MI Edward Naperville, IL Emergent Health Partners Ann Arbor, MI Emergent Health Partners null EMSA Oklahoma City, OK EMS Float Springfield, MO Escalon Ambulance Service Escalon, CA Falck Rocky Mountain Inc Aurora, CO Ferndale Fire and Rescue Ferndale, MI F-M Ambulance Moorhead, MN Genesis Community Zanesville, OH Gold Cross Menasha, WI Greene County Springfield, MO Guilford EMS Greensboro, NC Harris County Emergency Houston, TX Health East St. Paul, MN Health Link Taylor, MI HEMSI Hunsville, AL Hennepin County EMS Minneapolis, MN Hillsboro Moorhead, MN Hot Springs Hot Springs, AR Hot Springs Village Hot Springs, AR Howard County Nashville, AR Humboldt Winnemucca, NV Iosco County EMS East Tawas, MI Lassen County Ambulance Susanville, CA LifeCare Ambulance Battle Creek, MI LifeCare Medical EMS Sterling, CO Life EMS Ambulance Grand Rapids, MI LifeNet EMS Texarkana, TX Loyola Medicine Transport Melrose Park, IL Madison Heights Fire Madison Heights, MI Malvern Malvern, AR McCormick Ambulance Torrance, CA MCHD Conroe, TX McKinney Fire Department McKinney, TX Medcare Ambulance Columbus, OH Medic 1 Ambulance Canton, MI Medic Ambulance Service Vallejo, CA Medic Ambulance Service Vallejo, CA Medic EMS Davenport, IA Medstar Clinton Twp., MI Medstar Mobile Healthcare Fort Worth, TX Medstar Mobile Healthcare null Mercy Flights Medford, OR Mercy Ohio Cincinnati, OH Metro West Hillsboro, OR Mobile Life Support New Windsor, NY Mobile Life Support New Windsor, NY Mobile Medical Response Saginaw, MI MONOC Neptune, NJ Nature Coast Lecanto, FL North Memorial Robbinsdale, MN Northwell Health Syosset, NY Oceana Hart, MI Patterson District Patterson, CA Pearland EMS Pearland, TX Portage County Stevens Point, WI Pro EMS Cambridge, MA ProMed Muskegon, MI Page 27 of 28 Prompt Ambulance Highland, IN PTS Loveland, OH Puckett Austell, GA Regional EMS Flint, MI REMSA Reno, NV REMSA Air Transport Reno, NV Ridgefield Fire Department Ridgefield, CT Riggs Ambulance Merced, CA Royal Oak Fire Department Royal Oak, MI San Juan Island Friday Harbor, WA San Marcos Hays County San Marcos, TX Scott & White Temple, TX Senior Care Bronx, NY Sioux Land Sioux City, IA SkyHeath Syossett, NY SMCAS Niles, MI Snohomish County Fire Snohomish, WA Southfield Soutthfield, MI St. Charles St. Peters, MO Stillwater Stillwater, OK Stone County Springfield, MO Suburban Palmer, PA Swartz Flint, MI Taney County Ambulance Branson, MO Texarkana Texarkana, TX Thief River Falls Moorhead, MN Tri-Hospital Port Huron, MI Umpqua Health Alliance null University Medical Center Lubbock, TX Van Buren EMS Paw Paw, MI Waterford Regional Fire Waterford, MI Webster County Spriingfield, MO West Bloomfield Fire West Bloomfield, MI WestSide Community Newman, CA York Regional EMS Yoe, PA Page 28 of 28