Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-11 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. April 11, 2017 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:05 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 5:05-6:30 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: Ferreira, et al. v. City of Palo Alto Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV289765 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: U.S. Post Office, 380 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 94301 Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto and United States Post Office Under Negotiation: Purchase and Lease: Price and Terms of Payment 2 April 11, 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. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:30-6:40 PM Oral Communications 6:40-6:55 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 6:55-7:00 PM 3.Approval of Action Minutes for the March 27, 2017 Council Meeting Consent Calendar 7:00-7:05 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4.Approve Updated City of Palo Alto Debt Policy 5.Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services Contract With Cal Engineering & Geology for a one Year Term With a Not-to- Exceed Amount of $139,213 for a Geotechnical Investigation and Assessment of the Existing Subgrade of the Mayfield Reservoir (WS-11004) 6.Approval of Urban Forestry On-call Services Contract Number S17165735 With Davey Resource Group for Review and Inspection of Planning and Development Applications in a Not-to-Exceed Amount of$200,000 Annually for a Three-year Term 7.Request for Authorization to Increase the Existing Contract for Legal Services With the Law Firm of Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai by an Additional $100,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $195,000 8.Adoption of an Updated Rail Committee Charter and the Guiding Principles 9.Selection of Applicants to Interview on April 26, 2017 for the Human Relations Commission, the Library Advisory Commission, the Public Art Commission, and the Utilities Advisory Commission Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:05-8:30 PM 10.Council Direction on Parking and Retail Program and Related Zoning Changes Needed for the new Downtown Parking Structure Located at Existing Surface Parking Lot D at 375 Hamilton Avenue MEMO 3 April 11, 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. 8:30-10:00 PM 11. Receive Results of a Downtown Parking Management Study and Provide Direction to Staff on Next Steps Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs 10:00-10:30 PM 12. Staff Recommendation to Approve Sending a Letter Supporting the State's Latest Regional Traffic Relief Plan Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 April 11, 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 Council and Standing Committee Meetings Sp. Rail Committee Meeting April 5, 2017 Sp. City Council Retreat April 7, 2017 Sp. City Council Retreat April 8, 2017 City Council Public Improvement Corporation Meeting April 11, 2017 Policy and Services Committee Meeting Cancellation April 11, 2017 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Status of the City's Banking Contracts National Public Safety Telecommunicators' Week April 9-15, 2017 Earthquake Preparedness Month 2016 Annual Housing Element Progress Report for the Period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 Public Letters to Council Set 1 City Council Meeting Cancelation April 10, 2017 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 11, 2017 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the March 27, 2017 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: 03-27-17 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOCX) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 9 Special Meeting March 27, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 4:34 P.M. Present: DuBois arrived at 5:35 P.M., Filseth arrived at 4:40 P.M., Fine, Holman arrived at 4:45 P.M., Kniss, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach Absent: Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Terman Apartments, 4230-70 Terman Drive, Palo Alto, CA Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami, Hillary Gitelman Negotiating Parties: Terman Associates/G&K Management Co. and City of Palo Alto Under Negotiation: Option to Purchase – Price, Affordability Restrictions and Terms of Payment. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 DuBois, Filseth, Holman absent Council went into Closed Session at 4:36 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 5:48 P.M. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 2. Approval of Action Minutes for the March 6, 2017 Council Meeting. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/27/17 MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to approve the Action Minutes for the March 6, 2017 Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar Council Members Filseth, Kou, and Tanaka registered no votes on Agenda Item Number 7- Adoption of a new Memoranda of Agreement With the Palo Alto Fire Chiefs' Association… MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-7. 3. Approval of the Human Services Emerging Needs Fund Policy Providing Oversight of Accepting, Reviewing and Approval of Applications to This Fund. 4. Approval of Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S16164688 to add $250,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $300,000 With Municipal Resources Group for Professional Human Resources Consulting Services. 5. Approval of a Contract With Artist Mary Lucking in the Total Not-to- Exceed Amount of $100,000 for the Design Development, Fabrication and Installation of Artwork Associated With the Highway 101 Bike and Pedestrian Bridge. 6. Approval of Five Separate Professional Services Agreements for General Electric and Gas Services Over a Three Year Term With all Subject to an Aggregate Not-to-Exceed Amount of $975,000, With: (1) Navigant Consulting; (2) Flynn Resource Consulting Inc.; (3) PA Consulting Group; (4) Optony Inc.; and (5) NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC. 7. Adoption of a new Memoranda of Agreement With the Palo Alto Fire Chiefs' Association and Resolution 9673 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend Salary Schedule for Managers and Professional Personnel.” MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 3-6 PASSED: 9-0 MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7 PASSED: 6-3 Filseth, Kou, Tanaka no DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/27/17 Action Items 10. PUBLIC HEARING: 900 N. California Avenue [15PLN-00155]: Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review Approval of Three new Single-Family Homes, one With a Second Unit. Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), Zoning District: R-1. Public Hearing opened at 6:12 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 6:55 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to: A. Adopt a Record of Land Use Action, thereby denying the appeal, upholding the Director’s approval of an Architectural Review application based on a modified design removing two of the three previously proposed basements; and B. Find the proposed project exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct Staff to schedule an Agenda Item for the Policy and Services Committee to review the City’s public noticing procedures.” (New Part C) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “include notice on construction site with appropriate City contact information for complaints.” (New Part D) MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to: A. Adopt a Record of Land Use Action, thereby denying the appeal, upholding the Director’s approval of an Architectural Review application based on a modified design removing two of the three previously proposed basements; and B. Find the proposed project exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/27/17 C. Direct Staff to schedule an Agenda Item for the Policy and Services Committee to review the City’s public noticing procedures; and D. Include notice on construction site with appropriate City contact information for complaints. MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 670 Los Trancos Road [16PLN-00266]: Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a new Single Family House and Guest House With a Total of Approximately 10,960 Square Feet of Floor Area. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt From California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: OS. Public Hearing opened at 7:34 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 8:18 P.M. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to adopt a Record of Land Use Action for a Site and Design application to allow the construction of a new two-story single family residence, detached guest house, and associated site improvements on the property at 670 Los Trancos Road. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “including the following change: A. Add to the Conditions of Approval, ‘plant screening trees at the start of construction.’” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to Part A of the Motion, “in addition to the required tree planting, the Applicant shall plant prior to the commencement of construction, fast growing vegetation and trees to further obscure the home during construction, subject to Urban Forestry review. These trees may be removed subject to the approval of the City's Arborist.” AMENDMENT: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to add to the Motion, “direct the Applicant to lower the accessory structure to below the ridgeline.” SECOND WITHDRAWN BY THE SECONDER DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/27/17 AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “direct the City Arborist to consider the appropriateness of Live Oak or other non-deciduous trees as mitigation screening trees.” (New Part B) MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to adopt a Record of Land Use Action for a Site and Design application to allow the construction of a new two-story single family residence, detached guest house, and associated site improvements on the property at 670 Los Trancos Road including the following changes: A. Add to the Conditions of Approval, “plant screening trees at the start of construction and, in addition to the required tree planting, the Applicant shall plant prior to the commencement of construction, fast growing vegetation and trees to further obscure the home during construction, subject to Urban Forestry review. These trees may be removed subject to the approval of the City's Arborist;” and B. Direct the City Arborist to consider the appropriateness of Live Oak or other non-deciduous trees as mitigation screening trees. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Council took a break from 9:19 P.M. to 9:32 P.M. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance 5408 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Update the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program as Recommended by the Finance Committee: (1) Repealing Municipal Code Section 16.47 (Non-residential Projects) and 18.14 (Residential Projects) (FIRST READING: December 12, 2016 PASSED: 5-3 Kniss, Scharff and Wolbach no) SECOND READING Continued From January 9, 2017;” and Ordinance 5409 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding a new Section 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing In-lieu Fees for Residential, Nonresidential, and Mixed Use Developments). The Proposed Ordinances are Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15378(b)(4), 15305 and 15601(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (FIRST READING: December 12, 2016 PASSED: 5-3 Kniss, Scharff and Wolbach no) SECOND READING Continued From January 9, 2017.” Public Hearing opened at 9:38 P.M. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/27/17 Public Hearing closed at 9:57 P.M. MOTION: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to adopt: A. An Ordinance amending the City’s Below Market Housing Program; and i. Add Section 16.65.080(B)(3), “notwithstanding Section 16.65.080 (A) (5), the City Council may accept fees in lieu of the alternatives in Paragraph 1 provided it makes a finding that special circumstances justify payment of fees over provision of ownership units, such as a finding that the fees generated would result in more affordable units than those required to be provided on site or that funds are needed to finance a pending affordable housing project;” and B. An Ordinance updating the housing impact and in-lieu fees including updating the housing impact and in-lieu fees as follows: i. Set the Office/R&D housing impact fee at $35 per square foot; and ii. Maintain the Hotel housing impact fee at $20.37 per square foot; and iii. Maintain the Retail/Restaurant/Other housing impact fee at $20.37 per square foot; and iv. Set the Market-rate single family detached in-lieu fee at $50 per square foot; and v. Set the Market-rate single family attached in-lieu fee at $35 per square foot; and vi. Set the Market-rate Condominium in-lieu fee at $20 per square foot; and vii. Set the Market-rate rental housing impact fee at $20 per square foot; and C. Direct Staff to return in one year with a status update. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to adopt on second reading: A. An Ordinance amending the City’s Below Market Housing Program; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/27/17 B. An Ordinance updating the housing impact and in-lieu fees. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes AMENDMENT: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to replace in Part B.iv. of the Motion, “$50” with “$90.” AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in Part B.iv. of the Motion, “$50” with “$75.” AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to replace in Part B.i. of the Motion, “$35” with “$50.” AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-5 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou yes AMENDMENT: Council Member Tanaka moved, seconded by Council Member XX to replace in Part B.iii. of the Motion, “$20.37” with “$15.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in Part B.v. of the Motion, “$35” with “$50” and replace in Part B.vi. of the Motion, “$20” with “$50.” MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Fine moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to adopt: A. An Ordinance amending the City’s Below Market Housing Program; and i. Add Section 16.65.080(B)(3), “notwithstanding Section 16.65.080 (A) (5), the City Council may accept fees in lieu of the alternatives in Paragraph 1 provided it makes a finding that special circumstances justify payment of fees over provision of ownership units, such as a finding that the fees generated would result in more affordable units than those required to be provided on site or that funds are needed to finance a pending affordable housing project;” and B. An Ordinance updating the housing impact and in-lieu fees including updating the housing impact and in-lieu fees as follows: i. Set the Office/R&D housing impact fee at $35 per square foot; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/27/17 ii. Maintain the Hotel housing impact feeat $20.37 per square foot; and iii. Maintain the Retail/Restaurant/Other housing impactfee at $20.37 per square foot; and iv. Set the Market-rate single family detached in-lieu fee at $75 per square foot; and v. Set the Market-rate single family attached in-lieu fee at $50 per square foot; and vi. Set the Market-rate Condominium in-lieu fee at $50 per square foot; and vii. Set the Market-rate rental housing impact fee at $20 per square foot; and C. Direct Staff to return in one year with a status update. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-4 DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kou no Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member DuBois requested the Council have an opportunity to discuss Council meeting start times during the upcoming Council Retreat. Council Member Kou supported including such a discussion during the Council Retreat. Mayor Scharff agreed that such a discussion will be helpful. He pointed out that Council has certain amount of work that needs to be completed. He shared that starting meetings earlier, allowing meetings to end later, or reducing the number of Consent Items pulled for Council discussion are options to complete this work. He reported that late night meetings can take a toll on Staff Members, which is something the Council should take into consideration. Council Member DuBois suggested Council consider meeting every Monday each month. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 9 of 9 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 3/27/17 Council Member Kou suggested the Council hold meetings when a quorum is available instead of cancelling a meeting. Council Member Holman supported this discussion take place at the Council Retreat. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:08 P.M. TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK APRIL 11, 2017 3 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3-Approval of Action Minutes for the March 27, 2017 Council Meeting. Staff recommends the City Council incorporate the following changes to the Draft Action Minutes for the March 27, 2017 Council meeting correcting two agenda title errors. Agenda Item 7 did not include nor require a Resolution. The correct agenda title is as follows: 7. Adoption of a new Memoranda of Agreement With the Palo Alto Fire Chiefs' Association and an Amendment to the Salary Schedule for Managers and Professional Personnel. The two Below Market Rate Ordinances necessitate an additional first reading incorporating Council's direction. This first reading incorporating these changes is scheduled for April 17, 2017. Due to a clerical error, Ordinance numbers were included in the Draft Action Minutes for this item. New Ordinance numbers will be assigned following the second reading of these Ordinances. The correct agenda title is as follows: 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of two Ordinances to Update the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program as Recommended by the Finance Committee: (1) Repealing Municipal Code Section 16.47 (Non-residential Projects) and 18.14 (Residential Projects); and Adding a new Section 16.65 (Citywide Affordable Housing In-lieu Fees for Residential, Nonresidential, and Mixed Use Developments). The Proposed Ordinances are Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15378(b)(4), 15305 and 15601(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines {FIRST READING: December 12, 2016 PASSED: 5-3 Kniss, Scharff and Wolbach no) SECOND READING <~n=ed~7 Beth Minor City Clerk 1of1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7892) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Proposed Debt Policy Title: Approve Updated City of Palo Alto Debt Policy From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached Proposed Debt Policy. Background In August 2015, the City’s Finance Committee (CMR 5860) and in June 2016, as part of the annual budget adoption, the City Council adopted a comprehensive City of Palo Alto Debt Policy. Debt guidelines had previously been adopted by Council in a report (CMR 210:97) that addressed infrastructure needs. Although staff had been following these guidelines, a more comprehensive and detailed document that is similar to the City’s Investment Policy was considered to be more beneficial for the City. The new Debt Policy followed best practices by utilizing a template from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). Staff consulted other jurisdictions’ debt policies as well in the effort to update previous guidelines and practices. The Debt Policy discussed several important areas that were not addressed in the guidelines. These include, for example: expanding the current policy to all City Funds; providing guidelines for refinancing existing debt; detailing the responsibilities of City staff engaged in issuing debt; delineating debt instruments or vehicles (e.g. General Obligation Bonds or Certificates of Participation) the City can utilize; and describing situations in which tax exempt and taxable debt can be used. The depth and breadth of the policy is intended to guide staff. Historically, the City has been conservative in issuing debt, both in quantity and type. Whenever possible, a pay-as-you-go approach had been applied to capital projects. For capital intensive projects requiring financing, the City traditionally used fixed rate debt. This has provided certainty as to annual obligations and smooth debt levels over time. Examples include the 2010 and 2013 General Obligation bonds issued to construct and/or renovate the libraries and community center and the 2009 Utility Revenue (Build America) bonds for emergency water capital projects. City of Palo Alto Page 2 As with all guidelines and policies, exceptions are expected to arise in the future. For example, even though the guideline for enterprise/utility funds specifies that annual debt service cannot exceed 15 percent of the operating budget for the individual fund (10 percent for the General Fund), it was expected to be inevitable that given the scale of the future replacement and renovation of the Water Quality Control Plant that annual debt service will exceed the 15 percent threshold in that fund. In this case, the purpose of the threshold is not to forestall a necessary project, but to ensure public review and staff explanation for the reasons for a departure from policy, and how rates will be adjusted to meet annual debt service. Discussion Recently, the state legislature adopted Senate Bill 1029 (Hertzberg), amending Government Code section 8855 to place additional reporting obligations on issuers of public debt, effective January 1, 2017. The amendments require an issuer to certify that they have adopted a debt policy concerning the use of debt and that the proposed debt issuance is consistent with that policy. The statute requires an issuer’s Debt Policy to include: 1. The purposes for which the debt proceeds may be used. 2. The types of debt that may be issued. 3. The relationship of the debt to, and integration with, the issuer’s capital improvement program or budget, if applicable. 4. Policy goals related to the issuer’s planning goals and objectives. 5. The internal control procedures that the issuer has implemented, or will implement, to ensure that the proceeds of the proposed debt issuance will be directed to the intended use. Though the City’s existing Debt Policy and practice substantially complies with the new requirements, minor updates are needed, including: 1. Further defining “debt” to mean “all forms of debt incurred by the City and lease obligations incurred by the City for financing purposes” (page 1 of proposed Debt Policy (PDP)) 2. Stating City’s intent to comply with Government Code Section 8855(i) (page 1 of PDP) 3. Explicitly stating the City’s current practice of engaging in “long-term financial planning, maintaining appropriate reserves levels and employing prudent practices in governance, management and budget administration. The City intends to issue debt for the purposes stated in this Debt Policy and to implement policy decisions incorporated in the City's annual operations budget.” (page 4 of PDP) 4. Addition of (Section XIII, # D) “Training” for City staff involved in debt issuance (page 13 of PDP) 5. Addition of (Section XIII, # E) “Public Statements Regarding Financial Information” which codifying the current practice that statements made or information released about the City’s finances are complete, true, and accurate in all material respects. (page 13 of PDP) City of Palo Alto Page 3 6. Addition of (Section XIII, # H), “Internal Control Procedures re. Use of Debt Proceeds”, codifying the current practice that adequate safeguards are in place to insure debt proceeds are used for their intended purpose and records are kept to document this. (page 14 of PDP) In additional, there are new requirements for the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC) that impact municipal bond issuers. The existing law requires CDIAC to collect, maintain, and provide comprehensive information on all state and all local debt authorization and issuance and to serve as a statistical clearinghouse for all state and local debt issuance. The new additional requirements which staff will fully comply with, for CDIAC, are: 1. To track and report on all state and local outstanding debt until fully repaid or redeemed so the City will need to report any debt early payoff and/or refinancing. 2. Requires report of proposed (new) debt which includes a certification by the issuer that it has adopted a local Debt Policy which include specific provisions concerning the use of debt and that the contemplated debt issuance is consistent with that policy. 3. Requires municipal issuers to submit an annual report for any issue of debt for which it has submitted a report of final sale on or after January 21, 2017. The report needs to include such things as information on debt issued and outstanding and the use of proceeds from debt during the reporting period. In conclusion, staff recommends that the Council approve the attached updated City of Palo Alto Debt Policy (Attachment A). Resource Impact There is no resource impact associated with this report. Policy Implications This recommendation is in line with debt guidelines outlined in the Annual General Fund Operating Budget and comports with the more detailed policy document or best practices provided by the Government Finance Officers Association and California law. Environmental Review The actions requested in this report do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  Attachment A: Proposed Debt Policy - Redlined Not Yet Adopted  CITY OF PALO ALTO DEBT POLICY      I. Background/General Statement  One of the keys to sound financial management is the development of a debt policy.  Development of a  debt policy is a recommended practice by the Government Finance Officers Association. Bond rating  agencies recognize the importance of debt guidelines as a sign of prudent financial management.  A  debt policy establishes the parameters for issuing debt and managing the debt portfolio. It provides  guidance from the Council to City staff regarding purposes for which debt may be issued, types and  amounts of permissible debt, and the method of sale that may be used.      The City of Palo Alto (City) maintains conservative financial policies to assure strong financial health both  in the short‐ and long‐term. The City is an infrequent issuer of debt with debt primarily used as a tool to  finance large capital investments such as property acquisitions, new building construction, and  rehabilitating or replacing major assets.  Maintaining the City’s strong bond rating is an important  objective of the City’s financial policies. To this end, the City is constantly working to improve its  financial policies, budgets, forecasts, and financial health. For purposes of this debt policy, “debt” means  all forms of debt incurred by the City and lease obligations incurred by the City for financing purposes.    II. Scope of Policy  This policy sets forth the criteria for the City’s issuance, repayment, and management of debt. The  primary objective of the debt policy is to establish criteria that will protect the City’s financial integrity  while providing a funding mechanism to meet the City’s capital needs. The underlying approach of the  City is to borrow only for capital improvements that cannot be funded on a pay‐as‐you‐go basis. The City  will not rely on any form of debt to finance current operations unless there is a cash flow shortage  requiring short‐term instruments such as Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS).  All debt issued  will be in compliance with this policy along with all other City, State, and Federal laws, rules, and  regulations.    This debt policy shall apply to all City of Palo Alto funds although exceptions may be requested from  Council in the future. This Debt Policy is intended to comply with Government Code Section 8855(i),  effective on January 1, 2017.    III. Purpose of Debt Financing Long‐Term Capital Improvements; Integration with Capital  Improvement Plan  The City borrows money primarily to fund long‐term capital improvement projects and to refinance  existing debt.  Another potential use is for financing the purchase of major and multiple pieces of  equipment.     With the exception of potential use of short‐term TRANS, debt issued to fund operating deficits is not  permitted. TRANS are used to address short‐term cash flow issues and are intended to be repaid within  the fiscal year of issuance.  Debt will be used to finance eligible projects only if it is the most cost‐ effective and practical means available to the City. In addition, consideration on using debt will be  analyzed when interest rates are low.  While the “pay‐as‐you‐go” method of using current revenues to  pay for capital projects is often considered the preferred means of financing (to avoid interest and  issuance costs), it may not be entirely practical or equitable.     Not Yet Adopted  The “pay‐as‐you‐go” funding option requires revenues to accumulate to pay for capital projects. The City  would be able to undertake capital projects under this method only if sufficient cash accumulates.  Prudent use of debt financing rather than “pay‐as‐you‐go” funding of capital projects can facilitate:   better allocation of resources over time, increased financial flexibility, and payment equity across  generations for the use of long‐term assets. The three primary borrowing purposes are summarized  below:     A. Long‐Term Capital Improvements  The City maintains a 5‐year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and an annual CIP Budget for  consideration and adoption by the City Council as part of the City’s budget process. The  Administrative Services Department’s Treasury Division is responsible for coordinating and  analyzing potential debt financing for CIP projects.  Factors included in the analysis are:  amount  and type of debt, duration of bonds, interest rates, annual debt service cost, current outstanding  debt levels, debt limitation calculations and compliance, impact on future debt burdens, credit  requirements, and existing or needed revenue sources to meet annual debt service obligations.   Prior to issuance of debt, the City will prepare revenue projections, such as the biennial budget or  financial forecasts (e.g. financial plans for utilities or the General Fund Long Range Financial  Forecast) to ensure that there is adequate capacity to make principal and interest payments.  A  new or enhanced revenue source may need consideration and approval to support additional debt  levels.    Since the aggregate cost of desired capital projects generally exceeds available funds, the capital  planning process prioritizes projects and identifies the funding needs. The City will initially rely on  internally‐generated funds and/or grants and contributions from other governmental agencies to  finance its capital needs. Debt will be issued for a capital project only when the magnitude of costs  justifies a debt financing; the project meets a critical need; if a secure revenue source is identified  to repay the debt; and when it is an appropriate means to achieve a fair allocation of costs  between current and future beneficiaries. All debt issuances must be approved by the City  Council.    The Treasury Division of the Administrative Services Department, working with the Office of  Management and Budget, City departments, and within the context of the Capital Improvement  Plan and the City’s financial forecasts, oversees and coordinates the analysis, timing, processing,  and marketing of the City’s bonds.  Close coordination of capital and debt planning among  appropriate departments will ensure that the maximum benefit from existing funding is achieved.   Debt financing will be considered after a debt capacity or affordability analysis is conducted.     B. Essential Vehicle and Equipment Needs   In addition to capital projects, the City can finance essential equipment and vehicles. These assets  range from public safety vehicles to utility equipment. The underlying asset must have a minimum  useful life of three years. Short‐term financings, including loans and capital lease purchase  agreements, are executed to meet such needs. It has been the City’s practice to fund these  purchases with existing resources; however, debt financing flexibility for future needs remains an  option.    C.    Re‐financings/Refunding of Existing Debt   The Chief Financial Officer or Director of Administrative Services, supported by Treasury Division,  will periodically evaluate its existing debt and execute re‐financings when economically beneficial.  Not Yet Adopted  A refinancing may include the issuance of bonds to refund existing bonds or the issuance of bonds  in order to refund other obligations.  A net present value analysis, both in dollar and percentage  terms, will be conducted to determine whether a re‐financing is optimal.  See “ XV. Refunding  Debt” below for City policies on refunding parameters.  As a “rule of thumb,” a minimum 3  percent net present value savings will be used as a basis to begin re‐financing efforts.  As with new  debt, all re‐financings must be approved by Council.      IV. Responsibilities of City Personnel  Authority to issue and manage debt is derived from Palo Alto Municipal Code 2.08.150, section 13.    This section gives the Director of Administrative Services (Chief Financial Officer or CFO) authority to  perform the duties of debt management. This section also authorizes the CFO to appoint a subordinate  employee from the Department to assist in the performance of the duties of City Treasurer. The CFO has  appointed an Assistant Director and a Manager of Treasury, Debt & InvestmentSenior Management  Analyst to oversee debt issuance and subsequent responsibilities such as:  making interest and principal  payments via a Trustee; managing debt service reserves and project funds; and following bond  indenture requirements and all other Federal and State regulations.  The CFO is responsible for assuring  that the activities related to the issuance and payment of bonds or other obligations do not materially  impact the City’s bond rating which currently stands at a Triple A level (the highest possible rating).    V. Guidelines for Use of Debt and Other Financing    A.  Debt may be judiciously used when some or all of the following conditions exist:   1. Estimated future revenue is sufficient to ensure the payment of annual debt service.  2. Other financing options have been explored and are not viable for the timely or economic  acquisition or completion of a capital project.  3. A capital project is mandated by federal or state authorities with no other viable funding  option available.  4. The capital project or asset lends itself to debt financing rather than pay‐as‐you‐go funding  based on the expected useful life of the project.   5. Debt will not be used to fund ongoing operating expenses of the City except for situations in  which cash flow problems arise and the City may need to issue short‐term Tax or Revenue  Anticipation Notes.  6. Annual debt service shall not exceed 10 percent of annual operating expenses for the General  Fund unless an exception is approved by Council. For all other City funds annual debt service  shall not exceed 15 percent of annual operating expenses unless an exception is approved by  Council.    B.  Minimize borrowing costs by:   1. Maximizing the use of existing resources for capital projects and equipment needs.  2. Issuing tax‐exempt debt except in instances where IRS regulations require taxable bonds.   3. Striving to obtain the highest credit ratings possible.   4. Maintaining a competitive bid process on bond sales except for situations in which negotiated  or private placement sales meet City objectives. In negotiated or private placement sales, City  staff will work with its Municipal Financial Advisor (aka Financial Advisor) to review proposed  interest rates and proposed fees.   5. Ensuring that the type of debt and debt structure developed ensure advantageous marketing  of each issue.     C. Linking debt to appropriate revenue sources and project users:  Not Yet Adopted  1. When possible, tie project financing directly to users of a specific facility or use.  Examples  include renovation of the Golf Course where user fees can offset debt service or replacing gas  mains where gas rates can be increased to cover debt expense.   2. Using debt in the Enterprise Funds so as to avoid significant spikes in user rates by smoothing  out costs over time.     D.  Debt Policy Goals Related to Planning Goals and Objectives.    1. The City is committed to long‐term financial planning, maintaining appropriate reserves levels  and employing prudent practices in governance, management and budget administration. The  City intends to issue debt for the purposes stated in this Debt Policy and to implement policy  decisions incorporated in the City's annual operations budget.    VI. Types of Financing Instruments  As outlined by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC), there are numerous  options or debt instruments to fund projects. These range from General Obligation Bonds to Mello‐Roos  Districts, to State Revolving Funds to Certificates of Participation.  The list below represents the most  typically used debt vehicles and the general guidelines for their use.     A. General Obligation Bonds (G.O.)   G.O. bonds provide investors with the most secure credit and the City with the lowest cost of  funds.  Through a super majority vote, residents agree to place a lien/tax on all properties to pay  annual debt service. A lien on property, especially with land values in the City of Palo Alto, along  with a City pledge to use its unlimited authority to levy property taxes for debt service provides  significant assurance to investors and bondholders.   Proceeds from G.O. bonds are strictly limited  for acquisition of land, capital projects and the purchase of fixed equipment. These bonds cannot  be used for operating expenses or moveable equipment.  The sum of all G.O. debt outstanding is  governed by a statutory legal debt limit that is disclosed in the City’s annual Comprehensive  Annual Financial Report and the City’s budget documents.    B.  Certificates of Participation (COPs) and Other Lease Financings  COPs are a form of lease obligation in which the City enters into an agreement to pay a fixed  amount annually to a third party, usually a private leasing company or trust structure.  These  leases are issued for land acquisition and capital improvements.  In addition, the purchase of  moveable equipment is permitted.  It is typical for the asset being acquired or improved to act as  the leased asset for the financingas the credit for the financing, but the City’s General Fund is  ultimately liable for all annual debt service limits.  COPs can be tied, for example, to revenue  streams such as Golf Course fees or rents from a newly constructed facility.   The City has  established a leasing structure with the Public Improvement Corporation (PIC) that allows the  issuance of COPS. The City may consider other lease financing structures, including lease revenue  bonds and privately placed lease financings.    C.  Revenue Bonds  Revenue bonds may be issued to fund capital improvements related to enterprise functions (e.g.  water, sewer, electric) or for special projects supported by discrete revenue sources. They are  designed to be self‐supporting through user fees or other special earmarked receipts or taxes and  do not rely on the general taxing powers of the City. Principal and interest is paid from the net  revenuesnet the revenues of enterprise operations. Unlike General Obligation bonds, revenue  Not Yet Adopted  bonds are not subject to the City’s statutory debt limitation.  Electric and gas bonds, for example,  do not require voter approval while other enterprise funds such as the Storm Drain Fund may be  subject to Proposition 218 requirements in raising revenue levels sufficient to pay debt.  Net  revenues generated by the applicable Enterprise Funds must be sufficient to maintain required  debt service coverage levels specified in bond indentures.       D. Special District Bonds.    These bonds are typically used for a specific purpose such as garage construction, landscape and  lighting improvements, or utility work.   They are subject to voter or property owner approval  where special taxes or assessments are levied on properties to pay debt service for constructed  facilities or services.  With the passage of Proposition 218 by voters, specific steps and  requirements must be followed to implement such districts.  The City’s downtown parking  assessment district is one such example.     E. State Revolving Fund (SRF) and Federal Loans   The SRF provides a low interest loan program for construction of water and wastewater  infrastructure projects. The City’s Regional Water Quality Control Plant, for example, has an  outstanding SRF loan.  Both the State and rating agencies require the City to disclose all incurred  debt as they determine whether the City is able to meet required debt service coverage ratios (the  basic concept of coverage is that after covering all operating expenses, the fund issuing debt has  sufficient revenue (at a specified level) to cover annual debt service.      In addition to the SRF, the City may participate in advantageous Federal loans as they become  available.   For example, the City has issued Clean Renewable Energy Bonds for a photovoltaic  project and Build America Bonds to construct water system improvements.  Such bonds typically  offer incentives for investors and a low cost of funds for the City.    VII. Debt Limits  A standard guideline, and one that has been inserted annually in the City’s General Fund budget  document, is that debt service payments should not exceed 10 percent of the annual expenditure  budget.  Moreover, California Government Code, Section 43605 sets the general obligation bond debt  limit at 15% of the assessed value of all real and personal property of the City. Because this Code section  was enacted when assessed value was 25% of market value, the limit is calculated now at one‐fourth of  that amount or 3.75 percent. For details on current General Fund debt service levels as a percent of  budget and for where the City stands on the State’s legal debt margin, see the Comprehensive Annual  Financial Report’s (CAFR) Statistical section for the Computation of Legal Bonded Debt Margin  calculation.  Similar, but abbreviated information also is provided in the Operating Budget’s Debt Service  Funds Overview section.    Enterprise or other fund debt is not subject to legal debt margin described above.  For Enterprise and all  other funds, debt service payments should not exceed 15 percent of the annual expenditure budget.      Any exceptions to the above guidelines will be presented to Council for approval.    VIII. Term and Structure of Debt   A. Term of Debt  The duration of a debt issue is typically tied to the economic or useful life of an asset.  This is  consistent with standard practice and further serves the concept of allocating debt service costs to  Not Yet Adopted  current and future beneficiaries of the asset.  It is possible, though uncommon, for the term of  debt to exceed 30 years duration.   For long‐term assets such as a building or a parking garage, the  City has issued 30 year bonds.  Wherever possible and to save on interest costs, the City should  consider shorter‐term borrowings where appropriate.  Additional factors to include in the analysis  of the term of debt are:  current market conditions, institutional interest, and the durability and  consistency of revenue sources covering debt service payments.     B. Structure of Debt  1. Fixed and Variable Rate Debt   The City’s practice has been to issue fixed rate debt.  Such debt provides absolute certainty, at  the time of a bond sale, as to the level of principal and interest owed annually.  Moreover, it  allows the City to have even debt service payments over time.  This conservative practice has  served the City well over the past decades.      Specific conditions may arise where the City would consider the use of variable interest rate  bonds. Variable bonds have interest rates that reset on a periodic basis (e.g. daily, weekly,  monthly).  Conditions which would cause consideration of variable rate debt are:     a. An adverse fixed‐rate municipal market.  b. Uncertainty over the level of annual revenues to cover debt service.  c. The potential for rapid repayment of debt.  d. The need or desire to optimize the City’s asset/liability balance.    Variable interest rate debt, however, exposes the City to interest rate risk over the term of the  financing. While credit rating agencies are supportive of variable rate debt, the magnitude of  any unhedged variable rate debt could raise concerns.  Rating agencies suggest the aggregate  amount of such debt be capped at a level not exceeding 20‐25 percent of debt outstanding.     It is possible to issue a combination of both fixed and variable rate debt. The City could use  this tool, as well as others, such as front or back ending debt to manage its debt portfolio.   These structures should be used in a manner which best supports the City’s long‐term  financial condition. There are other types of debt that are a variation of fixed and variable  debt.  These can involve swaps of fixed for variable debt (or vice versa) depending on the  interest rate environment and the City’s general financial position.  These instruments can  become most complex and sensitive to shifts in the interest rate and economic environment.   They require careful analysis and monitoring.           2. Tax‐exempt versus Taxable Debt   The City’s standard practice is to issue tax‐exempt debt.  This debt reduces the City’s interest  expense and provides considerable savings over time.  There are, however, instances in which  the City may want or need to issue taxable debt.  For example, if the City builds a garage and  plans retail space within it, it may, depending on square footage used, have to issue both  exempt and taxable debt.  The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has specific guidelines on public  and private usage of facilities and when taxable debt must be issued.  Working with the City’s  Bond Counsel to understand and comply with IRS regulations is essential.    3. Prepayment Provisions   Not Yet Adopted  Redemption provisions and call features shall be evaluated in the context of each bond sale  to: enhance marketability of the bonds; ensure flexibility related to potential early  redemption; and to foster future refunding transactions.  The potential for additional costs  such as a call premium and potentially higher interest rates will be evaluated in the decision to  redeem bonds.  The following are different redemption provisions to be evaluated:     a. Optional redemption allows the City the ability to redeem bonds early.  b. Mandatory redemption includes provisions for redeeming bonds under specific and  pre‐determined conditions.   c. Extraordinary redemption provides ability to redeem bonds given fortuitous events.     IX. Attention to Credit‐Worthiness  A. Credit Ratings   The City seeks to maintain the highest possible credit rating on debt that can be achieved without  compromising its policy objectives or transparency.  Achieving the highest possible credit rating  translates into lower interest cost and annual debt service.  At a high level, rating agencies will  look for the ability to repay debt, prudent financial management, systematic capital planning,  interdepartmental cooperation and coordination, long‐term labor agreements, and long‐term  financial planning.  More specifically, agencies such as Standard and Poor’s focus on:    1. Fiscal soundness of the General and Enterprise Funds  2. Community demographics such as education and income levels  3. Property values and business concentration   4. Management capability   5. State and Federal regulations   6. The credits, revenue sources, and coverage ratios pledged to repay debt     7. Fund reserve levels and policies  8. City’s debt history and current debt structure   9. The capital improvement project being funded    10. Covenants and conditions in the governing legal documents  11. Cost adjustments to balance budgets during an economic downturn     The City recognizes that external legislative, economic, natural, or other events may, from time to  time, affect the creditworthiness of its debt.  Such events could lead to a downgrade or upgrade to  City ratings.  Naturally, when new debt is proposed, rating agencies will evaluate its potential  impact upon the City’s outstanding debt rating. The major source of risk rating agencies consider is  the stability and reliability of revenue sources to service the debt. Projects with volatile or risky  debt repayment revenue will receive a lower rating and that could potentially impact the ratings  on other City debt.      B. Rating Agency Relationships   The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is responsible for maintaining relationships with the rating  agencies (e.g. Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s) that assign ratings to debt issuances.  The CFO  performs this function in conjunction with the Assistant Director, Manager of Treasury, Debt, &  InvestmentSenior Financial Analyst, and outside consultants such as the City’s MunicipalFinancial  Advisor and Bond Counsel.  This effort shall include providing periodic updates on a Fund’s  financial conditions when requested and providing documents such as the Comprehensive Annual  Not Yet Adopted  Financial Report and Adopted Budget. Rating agencies may require payments from the City to  update their bond ratings.    C. Bond Ratings   The CFO and his staff are responsible for providing factual, well‐organized, and germane  presentations to the agencies rating proposed bonds.  These presentations will involve  coordination among the City Manager’s and City Attorney’s Offices, Administrative Services, and  the department responsible for the debt issuance such as the Public Works, Utilities or Community  Services departments.  In addition, the City’s MunicipalFinancial Advisor and Bond Counsel will  attend these presentations.    D. Credit Enhancement  Credit enhancement may be used to establish or improve a credit rating on a City debt obligation.  Types of credit enhancement include bond insurance, surety policies, or a Letter of Credit. The  CFO and staff will consider the use of credit enhancement if it reduces the overall cost of the  proposed financing, or if in the opinion of the CFO, the use of such credit enhancement furthers  the City’s overall financial objectives.     Bond insurance is an unconditional pledge by an insurance company to make principal and  interest payments on the City’s debt in the event insufficient funds are available to meet a debt  service obligation.  Bond insurance, when available, may be purchased from an insurance  company and is a potential means of enhancing the debt’s rating.  The cost of the insurance is to  be weighed against the potential interest costs savings generated by the assurance.  A Letter of  Credit may be obtained from a major bank, for a fee, to enhance the credit rating. This letter is an  unconditional pledge of the bank’s credit to make principal and interest payments on the City’s  debt in the event insufficient funds are available to meet a debt service obligation.  Again, the cost  of the credit Letter is to be weighed against savings from the Letter.    E. Debt Service Reserve Fund   For debt other than GO bond indebtednessWith the exception of G.O. bond indebtedness, the City  may size the debt issuance such that a debt service reserve fund is established at the time of  issuance. The debt service reserve funds will be held by and are available to the Trustee to make  principal and interest payments to bondholders in the event that pledged revenues are  insufficient to do so. The maximum size of the reserve fund is generally governed by tax law,  which permits the lesser of: 1) 10 percent of par; 2) 125 percent of average annual debt service;  and 3) 100 percent of maximum annual debt service. Debt reserve funds for the City are typically  equal to one year’s maximum debt service. On a case‐by‐case basis and assuming there is no  economic or credit disadvantage, the City may issue bonds with a debt service reserve fund that is  sized at a lower level.  The City may purchase a debt service reserve fund insurance policy for the  reserve fund in appropriate circumstances.    X. Method of Sale   The CFO/Director of Administrative Services will select the method of sale that best fits the type of  bonds being sold, the prevailing market conditions, and the desire to structure bond maturities to  enhance the overall performance of the entire debt portfolio. Three general methods exist for the sale  of municipal bonds:     A. Competitive Sale   Not Yet Adopted  Bonds are marketed to a wide audience of investment banking (underwriting) firms. Their bids  are submitted at a specified time (generally the day of the bond sale).  The underwriter then is  selected based on the best bid (lowest interest rate) for the securities. Pursuant to this policy  and within the parameters approved by the City Council, the CFO or his/her designee (e.g.  Assistant Directors of Administrative Services Department(ASD)) is hereby authorized to sign the  bid form on behalf of the City fixing the interest rates on bonds sold on a competitive basis    B. Negotiated Sale   The City selects the underwriter or group of underwriters of its securities in advance of the bond  sale. This method of sale is warranted for complex or unique bonds that require education and  marketing in the investment community.  Underwriters will perform this service on the City’s  behalf given ties to large institutional investors and large brokerage houses.  Moreover, it is only  through negotiatedcompetitive sales that City staff can arrange the sale of its bonds to  residents.  When feasible and effective, staff will give local residents and investors domiciled in  the City first priority to purchase bonds.      The City’s financing team ASD staff and the MunicipalFinancial Advisor) works with a selected  underwriter to bring a bond issue to market. In advance of the sale, the City will determine a  selected underwriter’s compensation, their liability, and the designation rules and priority of  orders under which the sale will be conducted.  The MunicipalFinancial Advisor is responsible for  advising staff on whether the fees and interest rates terms offered by the underwriter are  consistent with prevailing market conditions.  The City adheres to a strict policy of separating its  MunicipalFinancial Advisor function from the underwriter function.  Pursuant to this policy and  conditions described herein, the City Council authorizes the CFO or his/her designee (e.g.  Assistant Directors of ASD) to negotiate the terms of sale and to sign bond purchase agreements  (that fix interest rates on bonds sold) in a negotiated sale.      C. Private placement  This method involves the City selling its bonds to a bank or limited number of sophisticated  investors.  Bonds are not sold to the general, investor community.  City staff will perform due  diligence in comparing interest costs and fees in a private placement to those using a  competitive or negotiated sale.   There are potential benefits in securing a private placement  such as:    a. Lower fees or costs compared to selling bonds on the open market e.g. no fees for a  Disclosure Counsel or rating agencies.    b. The time frame for selling City is shorter and subject to less uncertainty in the event  market rates move upward and against the City by the time a competitive bid  process is held.  c. The lack of a reserve requirement through a private placement could reduce the  amount of principal outstanding and lead to lower annual debt service costs.    XI. Initial Disclosure Requirements   The Administrative Services Department, together with the City Attorney’s Office and an outside  Disclosure Counsel, shall coordinate all the necessary documents for disclosing the City’s financial  condition.  The City’s practice is to use separate law firms for the Disclosure and Bond Counsel functions.    Not Yet Adopted  Each publicly offered debt issuance will meet the disclosure requirements of the Securities and  Exchange Commission (SEC) and other government agencies before and after the bond sale takes place.  The disclosure documents, specifically the Preliminary and Final Official Statements, will provide the  potential investor with full and accurate information necessary to make prudent investment decisions.  Information for City backed transactions generally includes:  a City government description; a  description or scope of project being financed; annual financial data and statements; disclosure of  liabilities; the tax or rate base; current debt burden; the history of tax collections and bond repayments;  future borrowing plans; the source of funds for the proposed debt repayments; and specific bond data  and bond holder risk factors.     XII. Post Issuance Administration  A. Investment of Bond Proceeds   The proceeds of the bond sales will be invested until used for the intended project in order to  maximize utilization of the public funds. The investments will be made to obtain the highest level  of safety and will be guided by the City’s Investment Policy and/or bond indenture guidelines.  City  staff will provide investment guidance to a Trustee or management firm holding bond proceeds  whether for project or debt service reserve funds.    B. Arbitrage Compliance   ASD shall establish and maintain a system of record keeping and reporting to meet the arbitrage  rebate compliance requirements as required by the Federal tax code. This effort shall include  tracking investment earnings on bond proceeds, calculating rebate payments in compliance with  tax law, and remitting any rebate earnings to the federal government in a timely manner.  These  activities preserve the tax‐exempt status of the City’s outstanding debt issuances. Additionally,  financial reporting and other tax certification requirements embodied in bond covenants shall be  monitored to ensure the City is in compliance with its bond covenants.       C. Ongoing Disclosure    ASD shall be responsible for providing annual disclosure information to established national  information repositories and for maintaining compliance with disclosure requirements by state and  national regulatory bodies. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure, stipulated by the  SEC Rule 15c2‐12, shall occur by the date designated in the bond ordinance. Disclosures shall include  the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) at a minimum and any other information  required by the bond indenture or regulatory body.      The CFO shall be responsible for providing ongoing disclosure information to the Municipal  Securities Rulemaking Board’s (MSRB’s) Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) system.  This is  the central depository designated by the SEC for ongoing disclosures by municipal issuers.  The CFO  is responsible for maintaining compliance with disclosure standards promulgated by state and  national regulatory bodies, including the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), the  National Federation of Municipal Analysts, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and  Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The City may also employ the services of firms  that improve the availability of or supplement the City’s EMMA filings. [These updates reflect  changes by the SEC to Rule 15c2‐12, effective July 1, 2009.] The City will provide full and complete  financial disclosure to rating agencies, institutional and individual investors, other levels of  government, and the general public to share clear, comprehensible, and accurate financial  information using the appropriate channels/policies/procedures.    Not Yet Adopted  In order to facilitate the City’s receipt of financing proposals associated with existing or  contemplated debt, the City will have in place ans Independent Registered Municipal Advisor  (IRMA).  The IRMA will provide advice to the City on proposals from broker‐dealers or banks and will  be required to be registered as a Municipal Advisor with the SEC and the MSRB.  To attract financing  proposals and assuage underwriter concerns about federal requirements, the City has posted on its  website that an IRMA is under contract with the City.    D. Compliance with Other Bond Covenants   In addition to financial disclosure and arbitrage compliance, once bonds are issued, the City is  responsible for verifying compliance with all activities, agreements, and requirements outlined in  the bond documents on an ongoing basis. This typically includes: ensuring an annual appropriation  to meet debt service payments; that relevant taxes, rates, and fees are levied and collected at a  level sufficient to meet indenture requirements and debt service payments; the timely payment of  debt service to a trustee or paying agent is completed; and compliance with insurance and other  requirements.     XIII. Professional Services   ASD shall be responsible for the solicitation and selection of financial professional services that are  necessary to issue and manage debt.      A. MunicipalFinancial Advisor   A MunicipalFinancial Advisor(s) will be used to assist in the issuance of the City’s debt. The  MunicipalFinancial Advisor, or IRMA, will provide the City with objective advice and analysis on  debt issuance. This includes, but is not limited to, monitoring market opportunities, structuring  and pricing debt, and advising on official statements of disclosure.     B. Underwriters    An Underwriter(s) will be used for all debt issued in a negotiated sale. The Underwriter is  responsible for purchasing negotiated debt and reselling it to investors.     C. Fiscal Agent     A Fiscal Agent or Trustee will be used to provide accurate and timely securities processing and  timely payment to bondholders.      D.  Training.   The CFO or his/her designee shall ensure that the members of the City staff involved in the initial  or continuing disclosure process and the City Council are properly trained to understand and  perform their responsibilities.      E.   Public Statements Regarding Financial Information   Whenever the City makes statements or releases information relating to its finances to the public  that are reasonably expected to reach investors and the trading markets, the City is obligated to  ensure that such statements and information are complete, true, and accurate in all material  respects.    The City Attorney’s Office shall be responsible for the appointment of Bond and Disclosure Counsels    Not Yet Adopted  F. Bond Counsel    All debt issued by the City will include a written opinion by Bond Counsel affirming that the City is  authorized to issue the proposed debt. The opinion shall include confirmation that the City has  met all City and State constitutional and statutory requirements necessary for issuance; a  determination of the proposed debt’s federal income tax status; and any other components  necessary for the proposed debt.  Bond Counsel shall provide a comprehensive and complete  collection of resolutionsdocument of resolutions, indentures, disclosure statements and all related  bond documents in binder and in electronic form.     G. Disclosure Counsel   This Counsel is responsible for drafting Preliminary and final Official Disclosure statements.  While  City staff provides Counsel with information required for these statements, it is Counsel’s  responsibility to know all regulatory and legal requirements necessary for full disclosure to  investors.    H. Internal Control Procedures re. Use of Debt Proceeds   Whenever it’s required, proceeds of debt will be held by a third‐party trustee and the City will  submit written requisitions for such proceeds.  In those cases where it is not required for the  proceeds of debt to be held by a third‐party trustee, the Director, Assistant Director of  Administrative Services or their designee shall retain records of all expenditures of proceeds.    XIV. Refunding Debt   Refunding of debt may be undertaken to:   Take advantage of lower interest rates and achieve debt service cost savings   Restructure debt to either shorten or lengthen its duration or eliminate a debt service reserve   Refund outstanding indebtedness when existing bond covenants or other financial structures  impinge on prudent and sound financial management or are too complex    Generally, the City will consider a refunding only when there is a net economic benefit.  This is when  there is an aggregate net present value savings expressed as a percentage and dollar value of the par  amount of the refunded bonds.   A net present value savings of at least 3 percent is a standard guideline  for initiating a refunding; however, a higher savings level may be considered.  A net present value  savings of 4 percent is a reasonable guideline for an advance refunding. The savings guideline for an  advanced refunding may be waived by the Chief Financial Officer upon determining that such a  restructuring is in the City’s overall best financial interest. Exceptions shall be made only upon the  approval of the Chief Financial Officer.     Not Yet Adopted  Types of Refunding include:  A. Current Refunding   A current refunding is one in which the refunding bonds are issued less than 90 days before the  date upon which the refunded bonds will be redeemed.     B. Advance Refunding    An advance refunding is one in which the refunding bonds are issued 90 days or moremore than  90 days prior to the date upon which the refunded bonds will be redeemed. An advance refunding  is used to refinance outstanding debt before the date the outstanding debt becomes due or  callable.  Proceeds of the advance refunding bonds are placed into an escrow account with a  fiduciary and used to pay interest and principal on the refunded bonds and then used to redeem  the refunded bonds at their maturity or call date. Internal Revenue Code §149(d)(3) provides that  governmental bonds issued after 1985 may only be advanced refunded once over the life of a  bond issuance.     XV. Arbitrage Rebate Monitoring and Reporting   The City will, unless otherwise justified, use bond proceeds within the established time frame pursuant  to the bond ordinance, contract or other documents to avoid arbitrage. The general rule is that the City  must on the date of issuance of any tax‐exempt debt have a reasonable expectation of spending at least  85% of the debt proceeds within three years.The general rule is that the City must spend all bond  proceeds for a project within three (3) years of project initiation.   Arbitrage is the interest earned on the  investment of the bond proceeds above the yield of the debt.above the interest paid on the debt. If  arbitrage occurs, the City will pay the amount of the arbitrage to the Federal Government as required by  Internal Revenue Service Regulation 1.148‐11. The City will maintain a system of recordkeeping and  reporting to meet the arbitrage rebate compliance requirement of the IRS regulation. For each bond  issue not used within the established time frame, the recordkeeping shall include tracking investment  earnings on bond proceeds, calculating rebate payments, and remitting any rebate earnings to the  federal government in a timely manner in order to preserve the tax‐exempt status of the outstanding  debt.       Adopted by City Council June 2016            City of Palo Alto (ID # 7601) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Geotechnical Investigations at Mayfield Reservoir Title: Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services Contract With Cal Engineering & Geology for a One Year Term with a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $139,213 for a Geotechnical Investigation and Assessment of the Existing Subgrade of the Mayfield Reservoir (WS-11004) From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached professional services agreement with Cal Engineering & Geology (Attachment A) for a one (1) year term with a total not-to-exceed amount of $139,213 for professional engineering services to conduct a Geotechnical Investigation and Assessment of the Existing Subgrade of the Mayfield Reservoir. The total not-to-exceed amount of $139,213 includes $126,557 for Basic Services and $12,656 (10% of the professional agreement cost) for Additional Services that may arise, which the City would request pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. Background The City of Palo Alto maintains a water system consisting of five receiving stations from the SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy aqueduct system, seven reservoirs, five booster pumping stations, eight wells and approximately 234 miles of water transmission and distribution mains. The Mayfield Reservoir, the City’s largest reservoir, is a four million gallon underground concrete reservoir that was originally constructed in the late 1920’s. The reservoir consists of a series of reinforced concrete slabs that line the bottom of the basin and sloped embankments. A perimeter beam supports a cripple wall that acts as perimeter venting and provides vertical support for the timber roof. The roof joists are supported by a reinforced concrete girder system, which is supported by reinforced concrete and stainless steel columns. As part of the City’s recent Seismic Upgrade and Emergency Water Supply and Storage Projects, the reservoir was drained in 2012 for approximately two years to allow extensive seismic rehabilitation work to be performed, and construction of a new pump station. While the reservoir was empty, a number of cracks developed in the concrete slabs. After construction City of Palo Alto Page 2 was completed and the reservoir was refilled, the cracks which had formed in the concrete caused the reservoir to leak. At the time, it had been determined that the cracking had not been caused by construction activities, but were due to the age of the concrete and the expansion and contraction of the structure during the extended period of time the reservoir was empty. In order to minimize the risk of further damage to the reservoir and adjacent properties, the City contracted DN Tanks to perform a crack assessment within the reservoir. Once the assessment was complete, the contractor sealed cracks in the concrete slabs, and filled voids that had developed under the concrete slabs. The reservoir was filled and all leaks appeared to be sealed. However, during a recent inspection of the reservoir, it was found that a large number of additional cracks had formed on the concrete slabs, indicating potential problems with the structure and subgrade support. Discussion Consultant’s Scope of Services A Request for Proposals (RFP #166434) was issued on October 19, 2016 seeking consultant services for the Geotechnical Investigation and Assessment of the Existing Subgrade of the Mayfield Reservoir Project. The scope of work includes the following tasks:  Project management and administration.  Data collection, review and project planning.  Subsurface explorations (ground penetrating radar, acoustical testing, core drilling of the existing concrete floor slab, and boring of the existing reservoir subgrade).  Laboratory testing of materials collected during subsurface explorations.  Structural and geotechnical assessment using data from the review of documents, condition survey, subsurface explorations, and laboratory testing. The deliverables will include:  Structural and geotechnical assessment report containing results of the subsurface explorations and laboratory testing, a discussion of the Consultant’s conclusions, and recommendations for repair alternatives, including budget and schedule for each alternative. Attachment A, the Agreement, contains a complete description of the scope of services. Due to the specialized nature of this work, services of an expert consultant are required. Solicitation Process Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Title Geotechnical Investigation and Assessment of the Existing Subgrade of the Mayfield Reservoir Proposal Number 166434 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Proposed Length of Project 25 weeks Number of RFPs Emailed 12 Total Days to Respond to Proposal 22 Pre-Proposal Teleconference October 25, 2016 Number of Company Attendees at Pre-proposal Meeting 5 Number of Proposals Received: 4 Company Name Location (City, State) Amount* Cal Engineering & Geology Walnut Creek, CA $126,557 *Based on scope of work. See Cost of Services below. Proposal costs ranged from $50,459 to $126,620. Cost of Services An evaluation committee reviewed the proposals, proposer qualifications and responses to the criteria identified in the RFP. After meeting with both proposing consultants, staff determined that the Cal Engineering & Geology team has the expertise and experience necessary to perform the work. The following criteria were used during the evaluation process to identify the most qualified firms:  Proposer’s experience and qualifications of key staff to be assigned to the project.  Cost to the City.  Quality and completeness of Proposal, and ability to meet terms and conditions of the Agreement.  Proposal’s clarity.  Quality, performance and effectiveness of the work plan, and demonstrated ability in project thoroughness.  Proposer understands the project scope and schedule. Additional services that are not included within the scope of services in the contract, but that are determined by the City to be necessary for its proper completion, will be paid on a time and material basis up to a maximum amount of $12,656, using the consultant’s Charge Rates schedule shown in Exhibit C-1 to the Agreement. The consultant shall not commence with additional services before the City approves of them in advance and in writing. The City will require the consultant to submit a written proposal detailing the proposed maximum compensation for any additional services. The total not to exceed budget amount proposed for this project is $139,213, comprising $126,557 for the base consultant services and $12,656 for additional services, as needed. The consultant’s final proposal cost was based on certain modifications to the scope of services provided in the City’s original proposal. The RFP process allowed the City to negotiate the price of the work, and the scope of work, upon selection of the successful firm. Resource Impact City of Palo Alto Page 4 The funds for this project are available in CIP WS-11004, Water Supply System Improvements. Current staffing levels and the level of expertise needed to see this project through to completion prevent City staff from being able to perform this work. Policy Implications The approval of this Enterprise Fund professional services contract is consistent with existing City policies. This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan (Staff Report 1880), especially Key Strategy No. 1, “Ensure a high level of system reliability in a cost effective and timely manner.” Environmental Review Approval of the attached contract is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15306 (Informaion Collection) of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments:  Attachment A: Mayfield Study Contract 20170227 C17166434 (Final) CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C17166434 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 11th day of April, 2017, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY, INC., a California corporation, located at 1870 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to assess the existing subgrade of the Mayfield Reservoir (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide the assessment in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” 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. TERM. 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”, or no later than April 11, 2018, whichever is shorter, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. 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 forth in Exhibit “B”, 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 ATTACHMENT A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 2 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. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Seven Dollars ($126,557.00). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Thirteen Dollars ($139,213). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C”, entitled “COMPENSATION” and Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C- 1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 3 SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections of such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: Beyaz & Patel, Inc. NorCal Geophysical Consultants, Inc. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 4 SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Dan Peluso, 6455 Almaden Expressway, Suite 100, San Jose, CA 95120; Telephone: 408-440-4542, as the Project Supervisor to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Jennifer Cioffi, Utilities Department, Engineering Division, 1007 Elwell Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 566-4525. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorney’s fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 5 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 6 SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 7 SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: (a) All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT 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. (b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT 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. (c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 8 additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONSULTANT 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, CONSULTANT 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, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION 25.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS 26.1 CONSULTANT is not required to pay prevailing wages in performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7 if the contract is not a public works contract, if the 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. SECTION 27. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 27.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 27.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 27.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 9 27.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 27.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 27.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 27.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 27.8 In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal, the exhibits shall control. 27.9 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 27.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 27.11 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 27.12 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 1 CONTRACT No. C17166434 SIGNATURE PAGE 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 or designee APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee CAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY, INC. Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 By: Name: Title: Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Dan Peluso Associate CEO, Sr. Principal Phillip Gregory Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 2 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES The Scope of Services shall be carried out within seven (7) tasks (“Basic Services”), detailed below. BASIC SERVICES Task 1: Project Management and Administration CONSULTANT shall provide full-service project management and administration of the Agreement within the following sub-tasks. Subtask 1.1 – Project Management and Invoicing Consultant’s project management services will include overall management and control of the work, including staffing, scheduling and coordination of subconsultants and subcontractors, and managing invoicing, including subconsultant invoicing and payment. A progress report will accompany each invoice. Subtask 1.2 – Work Plan and Project Schedule Consultant will prepare a work plan and overall project schedule to lay out the tasks and milestones for the investigation, analyses, and evaluations. This task will provide coordination of Consultant’s staff as well as our subconsultants, Bayez & Patel and Norcal Geophysical, and the drilling subcontractor. The work plan will provide details of the field, laboratory, and office tasks, and will also include an exploration plan showing proposed boring locations and depths. Subtask 1.3 – Project Meetings Consultant anticipates that a certain number of meetings will be necessary and efficient in assuring a shared understanding of project status and action items, keeping the project on schedule, and on budget. The currently planned meetings will include:  Project Kick-Off Meeting Both Consultant and its GPR subconsultant, Norcal Geophysical, will attend this meeting.  Monthly Meetings/Conference Calls These meetings would be held with City staff at their offices or via teleconference to review project progress, schedule, and budget. Consultant will prepare a meeting agenda in advance of each meeting and coordinate with City staff for the meeting time and attendees. Consultant would track action items, and maintain action item list and meeting minutes. Consultant and City anticipate starting the project in May 2017 with a Kick-off meeting followed by 5 monthly meetings through October 2017, the currently anticipated project completion. Task 2: Data Collection, Review, and Planning Subtask 2.1 – Desktop Review of Existing Information Consultant to review existing file information provided by the City. This review will be DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 3 conducted by geotechnical engineers and structural engineers on our team. Reviews would also include existing published geologic maps and reports, and unpublished materials from our files. Consultant will also research and analyze historical aerial photography of the site vicinity. Subtask 2.2 – Site Reconnaissance Consultant will perform initial reconnaissance of the reservoir and surrounding area to make observations of the site, mark borings locations, check for underground utilities, and coordinate with facility staff for future site visits. Task 3: Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey/Geophysical Methods Because of the likelihood that the GPR survey may help with the placement of borings for the geotechnical subsurface exploration and will likely help to inform the structural assessment, the GPR survey will be conducted prior to those tasks. Subtask 3.1 – GPR Survey Inside Reservoir Consultant will obtain access inside the reservoir after it has been emptied to perform a GPR survey of the subgrade underlying the concrete reservoir liner. Consultant will perform a GPR survey along the sloping sides of the reservoir and over the bottom. A 3-D survey will be performed along the sloping sides where the cracking has occurred. The profiles will be parallel spaced 1 to 2 feet apart. A 400 Megahertz antenna will be used to provide the necessary subsurface resolution and a depth of investigation of about 4 to 5 feet, depending upon the specific subsurface materials properties. A 2-person crew will be provided, headed by a CA Professional Geophysicist and two GPR units to expedite the data acquisition time. Subtask 3.2 – Post-Processing of the GPR Data Following the data acquisition, the computer program RADAN will be used to process the GPR data to create a 3-D image of the subgrade underlying the reservoir liner. This program allows the data to be presented in an aerial view of the sloping sides and shows the subsurface reflection characteristics at different depth “slices.” The depth slices will be analyzed for localized or defined zones that may represent possible voids, weak zones, variations in the subsurface materials, and other subsurface features that may require further investigation during the geotechnical investigation. Since no cracking was observed within the bottom of the reservoir, we will obtain a series of 2-D profiles spaced about 5 feet apart. These profiles will be reviewed for localized reflection variations that may be correlated between adjacent profiles. The localized variations may also be further investigated during the geotechnical investigation. Subtask 3.3 – GPR Data Report Upon completion of the data acquisition, a letter report will be prepared describing the methods, procedures, results, and interpretation along with recommendations regarding locations where further geotechnical investigations should be considered. Appropriate maps and data samples will be included to further document the findings. It should be noted that, due to the nature of GPR data, the complete data set cannot be included with the report as proprietary software must be used to review the data. The GPR Survey results will provide Consultant with additional information that may be used to DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 4 focus Consultant’s efforts with additional subsurface exploration in the embankment around the reservoir perimeter. Task 4: Subsurface Exploration Subtask 4.1 – Field Reconnaissance Following the GPR survey, an additional field reconnaissance is planned to confirm the presence of voids that are detected by the GPR survey. This will be performed by tapping on the concrete liner with a hammer to detect acoustic changes. Subtask 4.2 – Subsurface Investigation Building on the existing available subsurface information by Kleinfelder, Consultant currently plans to drill additional borings around the reservoir perimeter to further characterize the soil conditions. Consultant will use the field information gathered to generate geologic cross-sections extending through the reservoir. Preparation of geologic sections is important, as the previous geotechnical reports do not provide interpretation of the subsurface conditions around and below the reservoir. Using track-mounted equipment, Consultant’s drilling subcontractor will drill small-diameter geotechnical borings at locations along the embankment surrounding the reservoir. This includes three to five borings, up to approximately 15 – 25 feet in depth, in order to provide geotechnical data for assessment of the reservoir. This depth range was chosen because the previous borings by Kleinfelder encountered bedrock within the upper 10 feet of the borings. Consultant has assumed and will confirm that obtaining permits and grouting and grout observation of all borings will not be required by the Santa Clara Valley Water District since the borings will be less than 45 feet deep. Based on Consultant’s familiarity with rock types in the general site vicinity, preliminary review of boring logs, and project needs, we propose to use hollow-stem auger drilling equipment on our subcontractor’s tracked vehicle. Depending on conditions encountered, drive samples would be taken at intervals or continuously, and blow count data obtained for engineering analysis. Samples would be logged in the field by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, carefully labeled and sealed, and transported to our laboratory for additional examination, refinement of drill hole logs, and for selection of the laboratory test suite. Access to boring locations would be accomplished by unloading the drill rig in the parking lot on the north side of the reservoir and track-walking it along the path on the east side of the reservoir to a gate near the southeast corner of the reservoir. Subtask 4.3 – Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing will be complete in Consultant’s own soils laboratory or Consultant’s subcontractor’s laboratory (depending on suite of tests needed), to determine engineering properties of the earth materials encountered. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 5 Task 5: Structural Assessment Consultant’s assessment of the reservoir will include assessment by Consultant Team’s subconsultant, Beyaz & Patel. Their analysis will include the following:  Review of the available plans and reports for the reservoir,  A condition survey inside the reservoir after it is drained,  An evaluation of the data from the review, condition survey, geotechnical findings and GPR survey,  Develop repair concepts and cost estimates,  Prepare a condition assessment report. Task 6: Geotechnical Assessment Report Consultant will prepare a Geotechnical Assessment Report that will include the following: Subtask 6.1 – Synthesis of Findings Consultant will synthesize and consolidate the findings and deliverables of Tasks 2 – 5 for incorporation into the report for the project. Subtask 6.2 – Discussion of Conclusions Consultant will include a detailed discussion of our conclusions for the geotechnical, geophysical, and structural aspects of the project. Subtask 6.3 – Provide Repair Alternatives For this task, Consultant will discuss repair alternatives considered and identify the recommended alternative, and lay out the rationale for its selection. Subtask 6.4 – Develop Implementation Schedule A schedule for implementation/construction of the recommended alternative will be prepared with input from the City. Considerations will likely include seasonal constraints associated with weather. In consultation with City staff, Consultant will work to build into the schedule reasonable allowances for any actions requiring City Council approval/action, if required. Task 7: Ancillary Services The purpose of this task is to provide the CITY with flexibility for requesting ancillary services for unforeseen issues that may arise in the field.  In-person meeting attendance by Beyaz & Patel, Consultant team’s structural engineering expert.  Destructive Testing: Consultant’s Team will perform 1-day of destructive testing within the reservoir. The testing will include 6 to 8 concrete cores through the reservoir liner, observation of the soil conditions below the liner and any voids that may be visible. Upon completion of the coring and observations, the core holes will be backfilled with high-strength concrete and troweled smooth and flush with the surrounding liner. We understand City staff will be responsible for disinfection following Consultant’s field operations. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 6  Additional GPR Mobilization: If desired, the GPR field survey may be split up into two data collection operations. This will allow for 1-day of data collection followed by data processing, with the aim of evaluating the quality of data collected before spending 2 more days of data collection. A decision can then be made as to whether Consultant should proceed with the complete GPR survey. The additional cost for this option is one additional field survey mobilization.  Multi-Channel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW): To provide additional characterization of the soil embankments surrounding the reservoir, and supporting the reservoir, we recommend the City consider optional testing to be performed along the reservoir embankment where conditions and access allow. The geophysical method that we recommend is referred to as multi-channel analysis of surface waves (MASW). This method provides a means for profiling variations of shear wave velocities both with depth and laterally. Shear wave velocities are an indication of the stiffness or strength of the materials. MASW profiles should be considered along the central portion of the four reservoir embankments to characterize the shear wave velocities. If there are localized zones of low velocities, they may be indicative of weaker material that deforms and allows the reservoir concrete liner to crack. The survey coverage would be 4 profiles each about 100 feet long along the central portions of the embankments surrounding the reservoir. The field survey would be performed by a 2-person crew and the recorded data will be computer processed to generate 2-D color coded shear wave velocity profiles. If this optional survey is authorized, the results would be included in the GPR report. Although Ancillary Services differ from Additional Services, the City and Consultant will nevertheless follow the requesting procedures and other requirements for Additional Services when requesting Ancillary Services. As with Additional Services, City will not be required to pay for Ancillary Services unless the requirements for requesting such services are met. Assumptions In connection with the above listed Basic Services and any Additional Services requested by City, Consultant has made the following assumptions in developing its scope of work, cost, and schedule:  Permission to perform the field investigation work described herein will be granted by the City;  City staff will grant permission to perform the proposed field work at the site and provide access to the reservoir through the locked gates.  Subsurface exploration and site surveys will be accomplished during the hours of 7:00AM and 6:00PM on non-holiday weekdays.  City staff will be responsible for underground utility clearance of the boring locations.  The soil cuttings from the borings are assumed to not be contaminated. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 7  Design team will provide electronic copies of as-built plans, reports, topographic maps, etc., to facilitate Consultant’s analysis and provide a basis for graphics to be included in our geotechnical assessment report. If a topographic map is not available, Consultant assumes publically available LiDAR will be acceptable for purposes of our analysis and presenting our results.  City staff will be responsible for disinfection following Consultant’s field operations. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional Services, which are unforeseen but nevertheless may be required, are distinct from the Basic Services set forth above and the cost of such Additional Services, if requested by City in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 4 and Exhibit “C” shall not exceed Twelve Thousand, Six Hundred and Fifty Six dollars ($12,656). Additional unforeseen services may include, but are not limited to the following: additional meetings, additional field investigations and testing, and any other miscellaneous tasks related to but not otherwise covered by Basic Services (Tasks 1-7). DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 8 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Days/Weeks From NTP 1. Project Management and Administration 21 weeks 2. Data Collection, Review and Planning 2 weeks 3. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey and Geophysical Methods 3 weeks 4. Subsurface Exploration 6 weeks 5. Structural Assessment 6 weeks 6. Geotechnical Assessment 8 weeks 7. Ancillary Services TBD DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 9 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. 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 (Project Management and Administration) $9,924.00 Task 2 (Data Collection, Review and Planning) $1,912.00 Task 3 (GPR and Geophysical Methods) $54,641.00 Task 4 (Subsurface Exploration) $5,780.00 Task 5 (Structural Assessment) $10,018.00 Task 6 (Geotechnical Assessment Report) $14,541.00 Task 7 (Ancillary Service) $29,741.00 SUB-TOTAL BASIC SERVICES $126,557.00 Reimbursable Expenses $0.00 Additional Services $12,656.00 TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $139,213.00 Basic Services, Reimbursable Expenses and Additional Services 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: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 10 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 $100 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 11 EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES The rates below are “all-up” rates, and include direct salary cost, overhead, general and administrative costs not separately accounted for, and profit. They shall remain in effect through December 31, 2017. Ongoing work continuing beyond December 31, 2017 will be invoiced at the applicable New Year’s rate. Personnel Rate Principal Engineer/Geologist $225 per hour Associate Engineer/Geologist $200 per hour Senior Engineer/Geologist $184 per hour Project Engineer/Geologist $147 per hour Staff Engineer/Geologist $131 per hour Technician (Straight rate prevailing wage) $118 per hour Project Assistant $ 84 per hour Administration/Clerical $ 79 per hour Special Inspector (Straight rate prevailing wage) $121 per hour Deposition/Court Testimony (minimum 4 hours) $370 per hour Laboratory Tests Fee Concrete Compressive Strength Testing $ 35 per test Moisture Content (ASTM D 2216) $ 21 per test Moisture & Density (ASTM D 4318) $ 28 per test Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) $185 per test Compaction Curve, 4" mold (ASTM D 1557) $235 per test Compaction Curve, 6" mold (ASTM D 1557) $290 per test Wash over #200 Sieve (ASTM D 1140) $ 65 per test Sieve Analysis with #200 Wash (ASTM D 422) $135 per test Sieve & Hydrometer (ASTM D 422) $210 per test Reimbursables Rate Nuclear Gage $ 50 per day Inclinometer $175 per day Vane Shear Device $100 per day DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 12 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRE D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 13 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. VENDORS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THEIR EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND ANY OTHER RELATED NOTICES WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AT THE FOLLOWING URL: HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569 OR HTTP://WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG/GOV/DEPTS/ASD/PLANET_BIDS_HOW_TO.ASP DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FD89A74-4BD8-4C8D-BAF1-5DF4AB5D7A51 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7641) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Urban Forestry Review of Planning and Development Applications Contract for Services Title: Approval of Urban Forestry On-Call Services Contract With Davey Resource Group for Review and Inspection of Planning and Development Applications in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $200,000 Annually for a Three Year Term From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a contract with Davey Resource Group to provide on-call contract services for urban forestry review of planning and development activities including individual review for entitlement applications, building permits, inspection for tree protection fencing,and landscape permit review and inspection in an amount not to exceed $200,000 annually over a three year term. Background Council adopted the Urban Forest Master Plan with specific direction for more comprehensive review and oversight of development activities to minimize impacts to the urban forest. To this end, the Municipal Fee Schedule includes fees for planning entitlement applications for individual review of new single-family homes (IR Review –Trees), building permits (Public Works Plan Check), tree protection fencing inspections (Tree Inspection for Private Development), and three new landscape review and inspection fees as of March 2017. Due to the normal ebb and flow of development,work load uncertainty presents a situation where flexible contract staffing may be ideal, with professional and experienced staff maintaining a prominent role in priority projects and decisions while auditing contractor performance of routine operations. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Urban Forestry review for entitlement of Individual Review applications ensures project plans for new single-family, two-story homes comply with City policies, municipal code requirements, design guidelines and standard details and conditions. Applications are reviewed for completeness as well as quality, the objective being to reduce the negative impacts of construction on trees while also meeting urban forestry goals. In Fiscal Year 2017 the IR Review –Trees fee was implemented to recover the cost of Urban Forestry staff time spent reviewing entitlements. An average review takes approximately 4 hours, including site visits to verify field conditions, providing comments to Project Planners and entering comments and related data into permit tracking software. In one year, the City has received as many as 100 sets of plans for review. Urban Forestry review of building permits ensures conditions of approval during entitlement are appropriately transferred, noted or added to the site plans for the building permit and compliance with tree protection guidelines for those projects without entitlement. The review process includes helping applicants understand requirements and urban forestry policies;coordinating with City staff to ensure understanding and inclusion of urban forestry requirements and resolve conflicts between trees and infrastructure; processing tree permits;data entry;and reviewing and revising administrative processes as needed, averaging approximately 20 hours of staff time per week.From March 2015 through June 2016, contract services were utilized for urban forestry building permit review and offset by billing applicants for the costs of the services provided by the vendor. Since June 2016, the contract has not been renewed and Urban Forestry review has been on hold. Tree protection fencing is required with most building permits to ensure proper fencing is installed and maintained throughout the project. The Tree Protection for Private Development municipal fee recovers the cost of site visits to inspect for City and local codes, regulations, ordinances and policies and procedures compliance; advising applicants of inspection results and corrections if needed; data entry;and reporting non-compliance or code violations. Staff has completed an average of 500 inspections per year. Landscape review and inspection procedures were recently enhanced to align with the updated California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance City of Palo Alto Page 3 (MWELO). A municipal fee was created (effective March 2017) for landscape review and inspection. Contract services for review and inspection will ensure compliance with MWELO and Palo Alto municipal code and policies. Discussion Council adopted the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) in May 2015, tasking the Urban Forestry Section with implementing 97 new programs over a ten-year period, 52 of which are to be implemented in the first three years. The additional workload reduces staff’s ability to conduct timely urban forestry reviews of entitlement and building applications and inspect tree protection fencing. At the same time development activity has increased annually. Having utilized contractors to provide development services, staff recognizes the opportunity to contract routine services that span the development process from entitlement review to final inspection, without sacrificing quality, the ability to respond to cyclical demands or a high level of customer service. On October 6, 2016, staff issued an RFP to seek consultants that provide on-call services for urban forestry review of development projects. Included in the scope of work were detailed specifications for each of the four services, individual review for entitlement applications, building permits, inspection for tree protection fencing, and landscape permit review, along with minimum qualifications and performance metrics for each. The evaluation panel recommended one of the two consultants who submitted bids. The selection was based on the strength of proposal, experience with the work required, familiarity with Palo Alto and understanding of its municipal code and ordinances, ability to provide quality control checks, qualified staff, customer service, and total cost to the City. Staff issued a Notice of Award on November 30, 2016. The negotiated contract is included as an attachment to this report, and the total recommended capacity for this contract over three years is $600,000. These combined projects will require dedicated full-time review and inspection services. In addition, the recommended contract capacity will allow the department to adjust staffing as necessary to complete programmatic initiatives of the UFMP City of Palo Alto Page 4 and maintain an Insurance Services Office (ISO) level 1 rating (the highest), which requires a level of staffing sufficient to provide high quality and timely work. Resource Impact Contract funding is available in the Public Works and Development Services departments’budgets and offset by billing applicants for the costs of the services provided by the vendor. Policy Implications Approval of this contract will allow Public Works, Urban Forestry to continue meeting service delivery goals established as part of the Comprehensive Plan, Urban Forest Master Plan and California Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Environmental Review Approval of this contract is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and therefore no environmental review is required. Attachments: ·S17165735 Davey Tree Expert Company Contract Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. S17165735 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, A DIVISION OF THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 7th day of February, 2017, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, A DIVISION OF THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, located at 1500 North Mantua Street, Kent, Ohio, 44240, ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to contract for certain urban forest services related to development review, including Building Permit Review, Individual Review for Entitlement, Tree Protection Fencing Inspection, and Landscape Review and Permit Inspection (“Project”), and desires to engage a consultant to provide services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” 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. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through December 31, 2019 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Attachment A Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 2 SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. 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 forth in Exhibit “B”, 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. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) per each one year period, for a total contract not-to-exceed amount of Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. 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. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C- 1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 3 required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 4 of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Anne Fenker to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Courtney Schumm, Public Works Department, Municipal Service Center Division, 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 496-6946. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 5 contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 6 CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 7 To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. 21.4. In performance of this agreement, the CONSULTANT and/or its employees, while working on behalf of the City, shall not solicit private tree consulting or assessment work associated with development projects within the city limits of Palo Alto for the duration of this Contract, nor shall CONSULTANT recommend Any Commercial tree service provider. Should CONSULTANT, through the course of routine business operations, be retained to provide other services within the city limits, CONSULTANT will disclose the relationship, location and project description to the CITY Project Manager. Violation of this provision may be cause for termination of this Contract. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 8 (a) All printed materials provided by CONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by 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. (b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT 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. (c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONSULTANT 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, CONSULTANT 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, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION 25.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS 26.1 This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. CONSULTANT 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 the 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 9 SECTION 27. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 27.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 27.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 27.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 27.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 27.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 27.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 27.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 27.8 In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal, the exhibits shall control. 27.9 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 27.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 27.11 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 10 27.12 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement CONTRACT No. S17165735 SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP, A DIVISION OF THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Vice President, Utility Operations Jack McCabe Treasurer Chris Bast Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 11 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES All consulting services require providing recommendations based on arboricultural best management practices, the City’s Tree Technical Manual (TTM), the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and City policies and procedures. SERVICES Building Permit Review Technician, Individual Review for Entitlement Consultant, Tree Protection Fencing Inspector, and Landscape Review and Permit Inspector. Section A. Individual Review for Entitlement Services Consultant The objective of Individual Review is to reduce the negative impacts of construction on trees. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for providing individual plan review assistance as requested by the CITY on an as-needed basis with the knowledge, skills and abilities to perform any combination of the following functions: 1. Ensuring that an Application Plan Set submittal is adequate (complete) or if more information is required (incomplete), with a focus on commonly needed corrections including: a. Ensuring the T-1 sheet Tree Disclosure Statement is complete and signed; b. Determining if the construction activity will impact the tree protection zone (TPZ), and require a tree protection report; c. Verifying protection fencing and other measures are consistent with industry standard and the Tree Technical Manual (TTM); d. Verifying that the inventory and map are accurate; e. Confirming or amending the proposed treatments; f. Evaluating potential trees that should be “designated” for screening or significance; g. Determining if adequate protection is provided for nearby property trees; especially those with protected status; h. Determining how construction and landscaping activities (i.e., driveways, basements, and construction staging areas) will impact trees; i. Identifying the differences between surveyed existing conditions and proposed site design; 2. Visiting the site to verify field conditions match the site plan 3. Commenting to the City Planner(s) a. Thoroughly listing missing site details and Project Arborist omissions or mistakes; b. Ensuring the amended site plan and updated tree protection report match the submission; c. Issuing updated Conditions of Approval; 4. Entering comments and related data into the Accela permit tracking system Section A.1 Performance Metrics for Individual Review for Entitlement Services: • Responding to information requests in a timely manner (usually same day or next day call/email back) DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 12 • Reviewing an average of 9 plans per month with comments entered within 3 weeks of the application date Section A.2 Minimum Qualifications/Certifications for Individual Review for Entitlement Services • Five (5) years of current experience performing consulting arborist services in the state of California • Current certification as an ISA Certified Arborist and/or ASCA Consulting Arborist • Minimum one year of experience performing development review in Palo Alto Section B. Tree Protection Fencing Inspection Services The objective of tree protection fencing inspection is to ensure that proper tree protection fencing is in place for regulated trees throughout the duration of development project. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for providing fencing inspection services as requested by the CITY on an as- needed basis with the knowledge, skills and abilities to perform any or all of the following services: 1. Perform all requested field inspections and re-inspections for Tree Protection Fencing to determine compliance with the adopted Tree Technical Manual (TTM), codes, applicable laws, regulations, local ordinances, and CITY policies and procedures; 2. Communicate with the applicant if the inspection passed or failed. If failed, communicate why and corrections needed within a specific timeframe. If passed, communicate CITY’s maintenance requirements and notification process for temporary removal or adjustment of protection measures; 3. Coordinate all inspection and re-inspection requests; 4. Enter all records into the Accela permit tracking system. Maintain all records for all assigned projects as determined necessary by the CITY; 5. Recommend to City staff issuance of citations for non-compliance/municipal code violations if needed; Section B.1 Performance Metrics for Tree Protection Fencing Inspection Services • Available to perform on average 10-11 inspections per week Monday through Thursday. Perform inspections and record results within 5 days of assignment. • Respond to information requests in a timely manner (usually same day or next day call/email back). Section B.2 Minimum Qualifications/Certifications for Individual Review for Tree Protection Fencing Inspection Services • Current certification as an ISA Certified Arborist and/or ASCA Consulting Arborist Section C. Building Permit Review Technician Services The objective of the building permit review technician is to ensure tree protection measures on building applications comply with City policies and procedures. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for providing building permit technical services as requested by the CITY on an as- needed basis with the knowledge, skills and abilities to perform any or all of the following services: 1. Review building permits and provide plan check comments to applicants to ensure compliance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Tree Technical Manual, arboricultural DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 13 best management practices, policies and procedures. Verify that conditions of approval during entitlement have been appropriately transferred, noted or added to the site plans for the building permit. Communicate with applicants to confirm or clarify requirements; 2. Process Regulated Tree Permits for removal and replacement of regulated trees requiring fee collection and/or associated with site development review; 3. Communicate information to the public (residents, realtors, architects, CONSULTANTs, arborists, etc.) about urban forestry operations, policies, and plan check through daily customer service at the public information counter (Development Center); 4. Coordinate with city staff to ensure understanding and inclusion of urban forestry requirements in development review activities. Collaborate with representatives from departments at the Development Center to resolve conflicts between trees and infrastructure; 5. Enter all administrative documentation into the Accela permit tracking system. Maintain all records for all assigned projects as determined necessary by the CITY; 6. Review and revise administrative processes as needed under direction of the Planning Arborist or Urban Forester; Section C.1. Performance Metrics for Building Permit Technician Services: • Available for the Development Center public counter a minimum of 3 hours per day Monday through Thursday, while performing duties associated with building permit review • Respond to information requests in a timely manner (usually same day or next day call/email back) • Provide an average of 23 building permit plan checks per month • Intake and process an average of 7 Regulated Tree Permits per month Section C.2 Minimum Qualifications/Certifications for Individual Review for Building Permit Technician • Five (5) years of current experience performing consulting arborist services in the state of California • Current certification as an ISA Certified Arborist and/or ASCA Consulting Arborist • Minimum one year of experience performing development review in Palo Alto Section D. Landscape Review and Permit Inspector The objective of the landscape permit inspector is to ensure landscape design, installation, maintenance and management are water efficient, and comply with City policies and procedures. The scope of work may include, but is not limited to the following: 1. Review all landscape plan permit applications for compliance with the applicable Palo Alto ordinances; 2. Assist applicants, when necessary or requested, in completing the application through phone, email or personal contact in the office by providing information, clarifying the requirements and offering suggestions; 3. Perform reviews and assist customers in the offices of Development Services; 4. Conduct site inspection to confirm the applicant installed landscaping in accordance with their approved landscape plan. Document site inspection observations with notes and photographs to confirm the required corrections and omissions are contained in DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 14 the application information. 5. Review all revised and resubmitted landscape permit applications. Based on the results of the second review and/or inspection, generate comments or recommendations indicating approval, conditional approval, or rejection and other information required to obtain a landscape plan permit. Continue to conduct plan reviews of resubmitted information until the application is approved, withdrawn, or the scope of work no longer requires a landscape plan permit. 6. Conduct site inspections upon project completion to ensure projects are constructed in substantial conformance with the approved landscape plans. 7. Provide written inspection results to the Palo Alto staff, contractors and property owner. 8. Coordinate re-inspection, if necessary, of the site landscaping with the contractors until approved. Section D.1. Performance Metrics for Landscape Review and Permit Inspection Services: • Responding to information requests in a timely manner (usually same day or next day call/email back). • Reviewing an average of 12 plans per month with comments entered within 3 weeks of the application date. Section D.2 Minimum Qualifications/Certifications for Landscape Review and Permit Inspection Services • Current certification as a Landscape Architect licensed in the state of California • Five (5) years of current experience performing landscape design in the state of California DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 15 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. Milestones Completion No. of Days/Weeks From NTP 1. Individual Review for Entitlement Services TBD 2. Tree Protection Fencing Inspection TBD 3. Building Permit Review TBD 4 Landscape Review TBD CONTRACTOR will possess sufficient resources to provide the services and response times consistent with the performance requirements specified in Exhibit A, Scope of Services. DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 16 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services, additional services, and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed the amount(s) stated in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services and Additional Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 17 EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES Service Item Type Rate Individual Review for Entitlement Each (Per Application) $241.00 Tree Protection Fencing Inspection Each (Per Fence Inspection) $91.00 Building Permit Review Hourly $60.25 Landscape Review and Inspection Each (Per Application) $241.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 18 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRE D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=25569. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 19 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. VENDORS ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THEIR EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND ANY OTHER RELATED NOTICES WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AT THE FOLLOWING URL: HTTPS://WWW.PLANETBIDS.COM/PORTAL/PORTAL.CFM?COMPANYID=25569 OR HTTP://WWW.CITYOFPALOALTO.ORG/GOV/DEPTS/ASD/PLANET_BIDS_HOW_TO.ASP DocuSign Envelope ID: 832A527B-715C-455A-9EA8-68AB9CDF7534 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 832A527B715C455A9EA868AB9CDF7534 Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: S17165735 Davey Tree Expert Company Contract PW.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 19 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Supplemental Document Pages: 0 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole Certificate Pages: 2 AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Payments: 0 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Record Tracking Status: Original 1/30/2017 10:12:11 AM Holder: Christopher Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Jack McCabe jack.mccabe@davey.com Vice President, Utility Operations Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 10.102.101.12 Sent: 1/31/2017 9:47:30 AM Viewed: 1/31/2017 10:00:15 AM Signed: 1/31/2017 10:09:02 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Chris Bast chris.bast@davey.com Treasurer Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 10.102.101.12 Sent: 1/30/2017 10:23:49 AM Resent: 1/31/2017 10:09:03 AM Viewed: 1/31/2017 5:30:55 AM Signed: 1/31/2017 11:28:42 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Walter Passmore Walter.Passmore@CityofPaloAlto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 1/31/2017 11:28:44 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Dorothy Dale Dorothy.Dale@CityofPaloAlto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 1/31/2017 11:28:44 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 1/31/2017 11:28:44 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 1/31/2017 11:28:44 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 1/31/2017 11:28:44 AM Completed Security Checked 1/31/2017 11:28:44 AM Payment Events Status Timestamps CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY April 11, 2017 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Contract for Legal Services With the Law Firm of Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai by an Additional $100,000 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $195,000 The City Attorney's Office requests authorization to amend the existing contract with the law firm of Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai, Attorneys at Law (Renne Sloan) to increase the contract amount by an additional $100,000. This amendment will bring the not to exceed amount of the contract to $195,000. The City retained Renne Sloan in October 2014 to represent the City in appellate proceedings in the case of Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) decision in the matter of IAFF, Local 1319 AFL-CIO v. City of Palo Alto, Sixth Appellate District, H041407. An additional $100,000 is needed to fund briefing and argument in the Court of Appeal and for a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court. Funding for this contract amendment does not require additional budgetary authority as it can be accommodated within the Office of the City Attorney’s FY 2017 budget. Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney Page 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7931) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Rail Committee Charter Title: Adoption of an Updated Rail Committee Charter and Guiding Principles From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation The Rail Committee recommends that the City Council review and adopt an updated Rail Committee charter and guiding principles (Attachment A) to guide the Committee’s work in 2017 and 2018. Executive Summary The City Council’s Rail Committee was originally established to monitor the California High Speed Rail project and provide related policy recommendations to the full City Council. A set of “guiding principles” served as the committee’s charter and were most recently revised in 2013 (Attachment B). The Rail Committee was re-established in 2015 with the goal of advancing the City’s objectives regarding grade separations. The Committee briefly discussed their goals for 2017 at a meeting on March 1, 2017, and committee members expressed an interest in developing a revised charter that does not pre-judge the outcome of a Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) public engagement and decision making process. On March 22, 2017, the Committee unanimously adopted the draft in Attachment A with the expectation that it would be forwarded to the full City Council for adoption on their Consent agenda. Background Notwithstanding the recent deferral of a federal funding decision, with the approval of Caltrain modernization, developing a preferred approach and design for grade separations in Palo Alto will be important whether or not High Speed Rail proceeds. This is because Caltrain electrification will enable increased train service, increasing the number of times gates come down to halt traffic each hour, thereby continuing at-grade rail safety concerns and increasing traffic congestion on local streets that cross and parallel the train corridor. City of Palo Alto Page 2 In addition, passage of Santa Clara County Measure B in November 2016 means there will be funding available for some pre-construction (environmental review and engineering) and construction expenses associated with grade separations. To obtain some of this funding, Palo Alto will need to identify a project or projects that it wishes to pursue. Finally, Palo Alto has long advocated for a “context sensitive solution” process for High Speed Rail, and has contracted with a consultant team to undertake a similar context sensitive alternatives analysis for Palo Alto grade separations this year. The consultant team, led by the firm Mott McDonald has also been contracted to support the work of the Rail Committee and conduct a circulation study, as previously directed by the City Council. The proposed update to the Committee charter in Attachment A would reflect anticipated work of the Committee in 2017 and 2018, including:  Undertaking a context-sensitive alternatives analysis to engage the Palo Alto community in an evaluation of potential grade separation alternatives without pre-judging any one solution;  Advocating for funding for Palo Alto grade separations;  Monitoring activities of the California High Speed Rail Authority and Caltrain;  Monitoring other relevant activities in the rail corridor, including Dumbarton rail; and  Recommending specific comments/actions to the full Council. Policy Implications The proposed charter is a concise statement of the City’s policy positions and objectives related to the Caltrain rail corridor. Environmental Review The requested action is not a “project” requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  Attachment A: Recommended Rail Committee Charter.pdf  Attachment B: 2013 Rail Committee Charter DRAFT Rail Committee Charter [Not Yet Adopted] Page 1 March 22, 2017 Preamble The City of Palo Alto supports transportation and urban design solutions for the Caltrain corridor that are compatible with community values and that complement the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Caltrain corridor has long been a physical constraint to east-west movement in Palo Alto, and the current grade crossings create traffic congestion and pose safety and noise challenges that will get worse as the frequency of train service increases. As a result, the City actively participates in planning for the rail corridor, and supports changes that improve and do not exacerbate impacts to the Palo Alto community. Purpose of the Committee The City Council’s Rail Committee was re-established in 2015 to analyze and advance grade separated crossings for all modes of travel (bicycles, motor vehicles, transit, and pedestrians). While the Committee in the past has focused on High Speed Rail, Caltrain grade separations and electrification will be the essential focus of the Committee for 2017-2018. Guiding Principles 1. Palo Alto seeks to improve east-west connectivity, traffic circulation, pedestrian and bicycle movements, safety, and the noise environment along the Caltrain corridor. 2. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the improved commuter rail service that will come as a result of modernization (including electrification). 3. Palo Alto will continue to work with Caltrain to ensure that all potential impacts of modernization are addressed and adopted mitigation measures are implemented. 4. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all system improvements in the Caltrain corridor. 5. Palo Alto has long had concerns about the potential impacts of High Speed Rail and believes that the project should be terminated. If the project proceeds, CHSRA should provide funding for affected cities to analyze potential impacts. 6. Palo Alto believes that CAHSRA should fund grade separations and should not commence service until they are complete. DRAFT Rail Committee Charter [Not Yet Adopted] Page 2 March 22, 2017 7. Palo Alto will advocate strenuously for its fair share of County Measure B funding for grade separations and actively seek additional funding from Caltrain, CAHSRA, Santa Clara County, and other external funding sources. 8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for High Speed Rail and grade separations and will structure a CSS process to engage the community in selection of a preferred grade separation alternative for the corridor. 9. Palo Alto seeks modernization of freight operations in the corridor and will seek flexibility from the UPRR to pursue desired improvements in the Caltrain corridor. 10. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and Caltrain issues of mutual concern, including grade separations. PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE GUIDING PRINCIPLES Background (not shown in redline format, as Background section was completely revised) In November 2008 California voters approved Proposition 1A, a $9.95 billion bond measure, for High Speed Rail (HSR) service from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The San Jose to San Francisco segment of the selected route will take HSR rail service through Palo Alto. This segment is now proposed to be a “blended system”, primarily relying on existing Caltrain right-of-way and track. Caltrain is proposing to modernize this segment, including electrification of the trains, partially utilizing HSR funds. However, the costs and environmental impacts of this “blended system” continue to evolve, and have not yet been fully defined, studied or mitigated. The most recent HSR business plan sets the initial cost of the overall HSR system at approximately $68 billion. While this cost reflects a reduction compared to recent cost estimates, it still significantly exceeds the $33 billion cost estimate advertised in Proposition 1A. In this revised business plan, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) also continues to use the debatable and highly optimistic ridership forecast models, and does not address numerous inconsistencies that had been noted by experts in previous business plans. This analysis, therefore, creates an unreliable framework for accurate fiscal and environmental review of the HSR system. Moving forward, the initial construction segment (ICS) for HSR will be in the Central Valley. In July 2012, legislation was enacted that allocated approximately $8 billion of state and federal money for construction of the ICS, and for investments in Northern and Southern California commuter rail systems in anticipation of the future operation of HSR trains on these tracks as part of a Blended System. However, at least $55 billion of unidentified funding remains necessary for completion of the Los Angeles to San Francisco system. Therefore, important funding and environmental issues remain undecided, and must be critically examined prior to final decisions being made. An ongoing, detailed analysis is even more critical for the complex, blended San Jose to San Francisco segment. Guiding Principles The City Council adopts the following Principles to guide its decision making framework and the actions of the Committee: The City of Palo Alto believes that the HSR project should be terminated for the following reasons: 1. The current project fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters under Prop. 1A in 2008. The voters approved the measure based on grossly underestimated construction costs, overstated ridership numbers and underestimated fares. The voters also required that HSR could operate without a subsidy and that funding sources would be identified and environmental review would be complete prior to construction of an Initial Operating Segment. 2. Given that the revised HSR Business and Funding Plans do not meet the projected ridership, fare, job creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that the voters were not given the accurate information during the 2008 election necessary to make an informed decision on a HSR project for the State of California. The City realizes, however, that there is momentum at the Federal and State level to make HSR a reality, despite the conflicts with Prop 1A. There are many evolving aspects of HSR, however, that have not yet been studied or decided. Therefore, if the State should move forward with the HSR project, the following Guiding Principles shall apply to the City’s positions on HSR: 1. The City supports a non-elevated alignment of HSR/Caltrain in Palo Alto. 2. The City’s preferred vertical alignment of fixed rail in Palo Alto is below grade. 3. When examining the potential impacts of vertical rail alignments equal attention shall be given to all Palo Alto neighborhoods. Adopted mitigation measures should be proportionate to the impacts identified in the studies. 4. The City believes that the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central Valley to San Francisco portion of HSR is fatally flawed and that the CHSRA should reopen and reconsider its decision to use the Pacheco Pass route. 5. The City supports the findings of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, State Auditor, and the HSR Peer Review Committee regarding the viability and accuracy of the CHSRA’s Business Plan on such matters as the ridership projections, the identification of sufficient and reliable funding sources, project management, and operation of HSR. 6. The City favors legislation which would enable implementation of the HSR Peer Review Committee authorized by AB 3034. 7. Palo Alto supports transit and urban design solutions that will be compatible with our economic development strategies, transportation goals, and rail corridor vision. HSR/Caltrain needs to complement the goals and strategies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for HSR and Caltrain that is funded and implemented by the CHSRA. 9. The CHSRA should provide sufficient funding to affected cities to allow them to hire experts to study reports requiring feedback and sufficient outreach to the community to capture their concerns and suggestions. 10. Proposed changes to the Caltrain corridor by either the CHSRA or PCJPB should provide both realistic renderings of the various alternatives and simulations that would help provide an understanding of the system’s sound and vibration impacts. 11. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the commuter rail service at the present or improved levels of service. 12. Palo Alto supports the modernization of Caltrain. However, whether the City supports electrification cannot be determined until all potential impacts are identified, studied and suitable mitigation measures are implemented. 13. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all system improvements in the Caltrain corridor. 14. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and Caltrain issues of mutual concern through agencies such as the Peninsula Cities Consortium. 15. Palo Alto expects all current rail crossings to remain open to automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians. In the event that the modernization of Caltrain and/or HSR increases train service from current 2012 levels, Palo Alto will consider grade separation solutions for the Alma, Churchill, East Meadow, and East Charleston crossings. These improvements must be funded by Caltrain, HSR and/or other external funding sources. 16. A detailed and transparent environmental analysis of all proposed improvements must be completed. Therefore, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shall not be modified in any way that (1) exempts the HSR or Caltrain Modernization projects, either in whole or in part; or (2) reduces the obligation of the HSR or Caltrain Modernization project sponsors to conduct a full environmental review process that allows for a detailed analysis of all potential impacts and mitigation measures at a level that is not less than the level currently required by law. 17. The overall environmental review should be comprised of two separate Environmental Impact Reports. The first EIR should be for the Caltrain Modernization Project. The second EIR should address any subsequent improvements proposed or necessary for HSR operation in the corridor. 18. Palo Alto strongly supports revisions to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) governance structure that more accurately reflect the distribution of Caltrain ridership. Additionally, such revisions should be made at or prior to a ballot measure seeking a dedicated funding source for Caltrain operations, should one occur. 19. The Guiding Principles of the Committee incorporates by reference Council adopted written comments to the CHSRA, PCJPB, and other relevant agencies. In case of any conflict in policies the most recent language prevails. Last updated: June 24, 2013 Previously updated: December 19, 2011 October 12, 2011 May 17, 2010 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 11, 2017 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Selection of Applicants to Interview on April 26, 2017 for the Human Relations Commission, the Library Advisory Commission, the Public Art Commission, and the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation Direct Staff to schedule interviews with all applicants for: A. Scheduled vacancies; and B. Any unscheduled vacancies that arise during this recruitment on these Commissions. Discussion Staff is requesting the City Council select the candidates to be interviewed for: Two terms (Alhassani and Savage), on the Human Relations Commission,ending on May 31, 2020; Three terms (Hagan, Loy, and vacant) on the Library Advisory Commission,ending on May 31, 2020; Four terms (Migdal, Olmsted Silverstein, Ross, and Taylor) on the Public ArtCommission, ending on May 31, 2020; and Two terms (Cook and Forssell) on the Utilities Advisory Commission, ending onMay 31, 2020. Interviews are scheduled for Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 6:00 P.M. Copies of all applications are attached. Some applications may be redacted at the request of the applicant. A full set of non-redacted applications will be emailed to Council Members directly. Background During the last several recruitments, Council as elected to interview all Applicants for respective Boards and Commissions. Applicants Human Relations Commission (Two Terms) 1.Alhassani, Mehdi2.Brahmbhatt, Deepali3.Eisenberg, Rebecca4.Lee, Steven5.Podulka, Kristen AGENDA ITEM # 9 Page 2 Library Advisory Commission (Three Terms) 1. Hagan, Doug 2. Murphy, Amy 3. Wilson, Brigham Public Art Commission (Four Terms) 1. Erickson, Britta 2. Fenney, Linda 3. Kiernan, Bette 4. Maxwell, Diane 5. Migdal, Jim 6. Pettit, Donna 7. Ross, Amanda 8. Sharf, Mary Ann 9. Shen, Hisnya 10. Smith, Jeny 11. Taylor, Nia Utilities Advisory Commission (Two Terms) 1. Ezran, Claude 2. Forssell, Lisa 3. Segal, Lauren 4. Smolar, Curtis 5. Weber, Jay Please note that the City uses DocuSign electronic signatures as a method for individuals to submit applications for Boards and Commissions. Formatting irregularities present in the attached applications are likely the result the DocuSign process. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: HRC - Alhassani, Mehdi (PDF)  Attachment B: HRC - Brahmbhatt, Deepali (PDF)  Attachment C: HRC - Eisenberg, Rebecca (PDF)  Attachment D: HRC - Lee, Steven (PDF)  Attachment E: HRC - Podulka, Kristen (PDF)  Attachment F: LAC - Hagan, Doug(PDF)  Attachment G: LAC - Murphy, Amy (PDF)  Attachment H: LAC - Wilson, Brigham (PDF) Page 3  Attachment I: PAC - Erickson, Britta (PDF)  Attachment J: PAC - Fenney, Linda (PDF)  Attachment K: PAC - Kiernan, Bette (PDF)  Attachment L: PAC - Maxwell, Diane (PDF)  Attachment M: PAC - Migdal, Jim (PDF)  Attachment N: PAC - Pettit, Donna (PDF)  Attachment O: PAC - Ross, Amanda (PDF)  Attachment P: PAC - Sharf, Mary Ann (PDF)  Attachment Q: PAC - Shen, Hisnya (PDF)  Attachment R: PAC - Smith, Jeny (PDF)  Attachment S: PAC - Taylor, Nia (PDF)  Attachment T: UAC - Ezran, Claude (PDF)  Attachment U: UAC - Forssell, Lisa (PDF)  Attachment V: UAC - Segal, Lauren (PDF)  Attachment W: UAC - Smolar, Curtis (PDF)  Attachment X: UAC - Weber, Jay (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 4 Human Relations Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The HRC regularly meets the second Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3)be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 91E492E0-06BC-4A09-8E1D-54C2E53E3A89                                     Human Relations Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 91E492E0-06BC-4A09-8E1D-54C2E53E3A89                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Human Relations Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 91E492E0-06BC-4A09-8E1D-54C2E53E3A89                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Human Relations Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment Muni Code 9.72 Mandatory Response Program Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 91E492E0-06BC-4A09-8E1D-54C2E53E3A89                                                                                                        Not ready to submit 1.Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Human Relations Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, Ch DocuSign Envelope ID: 91E492E0-06BC-4A09-8E1D-54C2E53E3A89      Human Relations Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The HRC regularly meets the second Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3)be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E87A178-A03F-4326-BF8A-B3EBA535E1D2                                                                   Human Relations Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E87A178-A03F-4326-BF8A-B3EBA535E1D2                                                                  Human Relations Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E87A178-A03F-4326-BF8A-B3EBA535E1D2                                                                  Human Relations Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment Muni Code 9.72 Mandatory Response Program Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E87A178-A03F-4326-BF8A-B3EBA535E1D2             Human Relations Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, Ch DocuSign Envelope ID: 0E87A178-A03F-4326-BF8A-B3EBA535E1D2   Human Relations Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The HRC regularly meets the second Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AAE0794-70DE-40EC-B965-152DA6A66F95                                                                                   Human Relations Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AAE0794-70DE-40EC-B965-152DA6A66F95                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Human Relations Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AAE0794-70DE-40EC-B965-152DA6A66F95                                                                                                                                                                                        Human Relations Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment Muni Code 9.72 Mandatory Response Program Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AAE0794-70DE-40EC-B965-152DA6A66F95                                               Human Relations Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, Ch DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AAE0794-70DE-40EC-B965-152DA6A66F95  Rebecca L. Eisenberg, Esq. 2345 Waverley St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 235-8078 rebecca@privateclientlegal.com OVERVIEW: Effective attorney and general counsel for organizations & individuals. Detail-oriented, empathetic, efficient. Problem-solver. EDUCATION: Harvard Law School, J.D., June 1993 Editor, Harvard Law Review. Harvard Law Record, journalist and columnist. contributor and editor. ABA, President of Harvard Law Chapter. Graduated Cum Laude. Stanford University, B.A. Psychology/Decision Sciences, June 1990 Phi Beta Kappa elected junior year. Departmental distinction. Boothe Prize for Excellence in Writing. Cap & Gown Honor Society; Phi Psi Honor Society. President, Stanford Undergraduate Psychology Association (SUPA). Peer Tutor, Calculus, Stanford Center for Teaching & Learning. Orientation Coordinator, Transfer Students, Stanford Office of Residential Education, 1989. Program Advisor, Ujamaa and Naranja, Stanford Office of Residential Education, 1987-1988. Peer Counselor, the Bridge, 1987-1990. Teaching Assistant, Prof. Philip Zimbardo, Psychology 1, 1987-1990. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Private Client Legal Advisors, San Francisco, CA Principal & Founder, 1/2013 - Present Operate boutique legal services firm, providing following services: Serve as outside GC for nonprofit organizations, technology companies, angel funds, entrepreneurs and executives. Locate, hire and manage specialized outside counsel; serve as intermediary between client and firms. Assist a variety of clients with matters involving regulatory compliance, employment matters, compensation, Fair Pay Act compliance, HR policies, financings and corporate transactions, as well as commercial agreements, licensing, employment disputes, litigation management, dispute resolution, public relations, and other business and legal affairs on behalf of founders, executives, non-profits, companies and start-ups. Analyze, negotiate and advise firms, companies and individuals on their real estate and finance-related documents warrants, convertible notes, stock purchase agreements, articles of incorporation and related corporate documents; provide actionable advice for stakeholders regarding different options and potential outcomes based on quantitative analysis of liquidity flowing through cap tables, interest accruing over time, types of collateral, and otherwise. Handle governance issues on behalf of a variety of organizations, including Board Meetings, public filings, and regulatory and legal compliance; ensure compliance with privacy laws and disclosure mandates. Provide legal consulting on Human Resources issues, including compensation, compliance and risk reduction. Vouch Financial Inc., San Francisco, CA General Counsel, Head of Human Resources & Corporate Secretary 5/14 to 3/15 first GC & Head of HR (4th employee), handled all legal & HR matters, including: Built and established legal department and legal function, including budget and hiring plan. Served as Board Secretary, drafted board resolutions, shareholder consents and board meeting minutes. Ensured compliance with all governance regulatory compliance including privacy and disclosure requirements. Secured new company office space, negotiated real estate transactions, handled office improvements and renovations in cost-effective and efficient, yet highly successful manner. Handled 2 rounds of venture capital financing, as well as venture debt line; advised on all financial transactions. Established compliant HR system & structure, with a focus on risk reduction, recruiting & retention; established all legal and HR form agreements, company manuals and policies; trained employees on compliance. Created compensation programs with focus on compliance, recruiting and retention. DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AAE0794-70DE-40EC-B965-152DA6A66F95 Ensured regulatory and legal compliance with lending regulations (state and federal). Drafted company outward- and inward-facing policies, including privacy policies, user agreements, loan agreements, guarantor agreements, terms of use, license agreements, electronic communications agreements, credit consents and other legal agreements for website users, borrowers and guarantors. Negotiated all contracts with strategic business partners, investors, lenders, customers, and vendors. reddit Inc., San Francisco, CA General Counsel, Head of Finance and Head of Human Resources, 1/12 to 1/13 andled all legal, finance and HR matters for reddit, including: Negotiated and executed successful spin-off of reddit Inc. from Advance/Conde Nast. Served as Board Secretary; drafted & distributed resolutions, consents and board minutes. Legal, Human Resources and Finance departments. ensured regulatory and legal compliance, trained employees, drafted all employee agreements and policies. Handled, managed and trained staff members to respond to all Subpoenas, DMCA requests, infringement letters and other inbound legal communications. Established compensation systems and ensured compliance and consistency. Create . handled investment round and all corporate legal matters. Negotiated all commercial agreements; drafted all standard contracts; handled all other legal matters. Trulia, Inc., San Francisco, CA General Counsel, 3/10 to 12/11 andled all legal issues for this fast-paced Internet start-up in the real estate industry, including: Handled M & A transactions, including acquisition of start-up Movity. Handled financial transactions, including closing high-figure loan financing. Handled, drafted, negotiated all other corporate and commercial transactions, including business development, sales, licensing, co-marketing and other commercial contracts, as well as real estate leases and transactions. Handled human resources issues, including handbooks, terminations, separation agreements and stock issues. Managed IP portfolio, including patents and trademarks. Managed litigation, including several patent infringement lawsuits; obtained very favorable settlement. Handled legal issues in product development, including terms of use, privacy policies and issuing associated with User Generated Content. Served on Senior Management Team, contribute to corporate strategy. Pure Digital Technologies, Inc., San Francisco, CA General Counsel, 9/08-9/09 Handled all legal issues for this consumer electronics technology company that provides the popular line of Flip Video handheld digital video camcorders. Handled successful Exit: Merger of Pure Digital with Cisco Systems, Inc in $615 million transaction. Led $630 Million merger with Cisco, in addition to all other corporate transactions. Successfully settled multi-million dollar (claimed) patent suit, managed all other litigation and threatened litigation. Handled all commercial transactions, licensing, sales and business development deal support (technology, software, content, co-marketing), including with Facebook, Product (RED), YouTube, MySpace, AOL and other industry leaders. Led HR legal organization, provided advice, contracts, separations, consulting, conflict management. Handled intellectual property portfolio: patents, trademarks, copyrights. Leader on executive management team, provided strategic decision making, interfaced with Board of Directors. Managed and hired resources, handled legal budget of approximately $4 million. AdBrite, Inc., San Francisco, CA Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary of the Board, 3/07-9/08 andled all legal matters for this Internet startup in the online advertising space. Handled corporate governance/securities: minutes, resolutions Negotiated/drafted all commercial transactions: licensing, sales, real estate Handled Intellectual Property: Managed IP portfolio, all patents, copyrights, trademarks, DMCA. Successfully avoided litigation/managed risk: disposed of issues before they lead to lawsuits; create policies. Provided executive management, leadership. PayPal, Inc., an eBay Company, San Jose, CA DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AAE0794-70DE-40EC-B965-152DA6A66F95 Senior Counsel,Senior Director, Assistant Secretary 7/01-3/07 Joined company as second attorney, and assisted with IPO, Secondary Offering and Public Company Merger. Corporate development: assisted with IPO, secondary offering and public company merger with eBay Inc. Commercial Transactions: Handled all commercial transactions for the company. Sales: Supported sales team for $1.5 billion revenue company; create standardized documents and train salesforce. Intellectual property: Advised executives on intellectual property matters & compliance, handle IP licenses and strategy. International: supported business clients in Asia, Europe and Canada. Product Development: Analyzed all product specifications; drafted licenses and terms. User Agreement and Privacy Policy: drafting and maintenance, enforcement. Marketing and Content: Reviewed all marketing and other content; advised company on issues and risks. Management: Build and managed commercial legal team comprised of ten attorneys and staff. Risk management, litigation management, departmental processes. Ecast, Inc. (Internet-based music and games company), San Francisco, CA Vice President of Legal and New Market Development, 9/99-6/01 Helped raise more than $18 M for the company, worked with investors. Managed strategic and business development as well as most legal and corporate development. Successfully closed deals including: digital music licensing with all 5 major labels, film/gaming licenses, wireless distribution deals , $7 million dollar software license/equity investment agreement with UK company. As the first licensed attorney to join the executive team of this fast-paced start-up, also served as lead on risk management, compliance and marketing review, as well as delivered competitive analysis and business strategy. Cole Valley Group Consulting, San Francisco, CA Consultant: Internet business strategy, M&A advising & marketing, 10/95-10/99 Provided strategic, technical marketing and business development services for numerous clients including Pixar, Quokka, Yoga Journal, Adjacency, Inc. (now Sapient), StarMine, Cyborganic Media, MediaCast, Sound Exchange Records, Electric Minds, Verbum and ChemisTree, among other start-ups and new media companies. Wrote over 10 business plans for start-ups, which as a group raised over $30M in venture financing; consulted start- ups and established companies on mergers & acquisitions and other exit strategies; advised on intellectual property strategies. Consulted on intellectual property and strategic legal matters, including contributing to Rembrandts in the Closet, book on IP business strategies written by SmartPatents CEO (now Aurigin). CBS MarketWatch, San Francisco, CA -4/01 ews site; contributed over 100 columns. Columns covered both technology strategic issues as well as high tech legal issues, including a high profile series on Awarded WELL journalism award for column which revealed privacy strategy behind WebMD/Healtheon merger. The San Francisco Examiner Internet business columnist, 6/97-10/99 Wrote Net Skink, a bi-s Business Section. Cyborganic Media Director, Product Management and Corporate Development, 11/95-10/97 Very early member of start-up team on this too-early MYSPACE-like company (community and content aggregator) Web product, GeekCereal.com. Hired, trained, managed and edited group of 12 individuals creating, updating and managing Web site GeekCereal.com. Contributed to Cyborganic business plan, helped raise angel funding. U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Houston, TX Judicial Law Clerk, Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King, 8/95-11/95. DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AAE0794-70DE-40EC-B965-152DA6A66F95 U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, Washington, DC Judicial Law Clerk, Honorable Gladys Kessler, 8/94-7/95. U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles, CA Judicial Law Clerk, Honorable A. Andrew Hauk, 8/93-8/94. Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, CA Summer Associate, business law and litigation, 1992. Ross & Hardies, Chicago, IL Summer Associate, business law and litigation, 1991. BAR: Active Member of the California Bar and the Federal Bar, Central District of California, sworn in 1993. BOARD MEMBERSHIPS: Board of Directors, Legal Momentum (formerly known as the National Organization for Women Legal Defense Fund national board), 2009-2012. Board of Directors, Craigslist Foundation, Treasurer, Founding member, 1999-2007. Board of Advisors, Kiva.org (Microfinance Nonprofit), 2006-2009. Board of Advisors, The Webby Awards, and Member, International Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2003-present. Board of Advisors, Skinny Scoop www.theskinnyscoop.com -present. PUBLICATIONS: Regulatory Affairs: Rebecca Eisenberg, Proposed Rule Amendments to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156 Under the Securities Act, https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-13/s70613-460.pdf Rebecca Eisenberg, Nordlinger v. Hahn: the , Harvard Law Review, 1992 (available upon request). Academic Writing: Rebecca Eisenberg, Beyond Bray: Obtaining Federal Jurisdiction to Stop Anti-Abortion Violence, 6 Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 155 (1994). http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=yjlf Note, Pornography, Equality, and a Discrimination-Free Workplace: A Comparative Perspective, 106 Harvard Law Review 1075 (1993). http://www.omino.com/~dom/clips/porno.html Book Note, An Unladylike Response to Legal Conceptions of Women (reviewing Faludi, Backlash), 105 Harvard Law Review 2104 (1992). http://www.omino.com/~dom/clips/faludi.html Popular Media Writing: Weekly column, Net Skink, San Francisco Chronicle 1996-1999. Weekly column, Nouveau Geek, CBS MarketWatch, 1997-2000. Regular contributor, Wired, Red Herring, Upside, Fast Company, Time Daily, Entertainment Weekly, Ms. Magazine. List of published clips available by request and online: http://www.omino.com/~dom/clips/ EDUCATION / VOLUNTEER ROLES: Special Gifts / Fundraising / Development Committee, Stanford Homecoming Reunion 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015. Harvard Law School Celebration 55 Committee; Harvard Law School Celebration 60 Committee. Reunion and Fundraising Coordinator, Whitefish Bay High School, Whitefish Bay, WI. Development Committee, Brandeis Hillel Day School, San Francisco, CA Room Parent, Brandeis Hillel Day School, San Francisco, CA Parent Volunteer, Walter Hays Elementary School, Palo Alto, CA Parent Volunteer, Jordan Middle School, Palo Alto, CA DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AAE0794-70DE-40EC-B965-152DA6A66F95 AWARDS & SPEAKING ROLES: Award Winner, Top 25 Women on the Web, 1999 (Judge, Top 25 Women on the Web 2000, 2001). Award Winner, WELL Writing Award, Journalism and Overall Grand Prize, 2000. s Hardball with Chris Matthews, and PBS Computer Chronicles and Internet Café. Expert on consumer protection online; featured in full-length chapter interview in the 2000 book, Web Rules: How the Internet is Changing the Way Consumers Make Choices by Tom Murphy. Harvard Law School, 2013; Panelist, 2008, led by United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan. DocuSign Envelope ID: 9AAE0794-70DE-40EC-B965-152DA6A66F95 Human Relations Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Note: The HRC regularly meets the second Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3)be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: FA4B9427-1063-4561-9EF1-2C5D84AF110A              Human Relations Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: FA4B9427-1063-4561-9EF1-2C5D84AF110A               Human Relations Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: FA4B9427-1063-4561-9EF1-2C5D84AF110A       Human Relations Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment Muni Code 9.72 Mandatory Response Program Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: FA4B9427-1063-4561-9EF1-2C5D84AF110A                                   Human Relations Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your document(s). DocuSign Envelope ID: FA4B9427-1063-4561-9EF1-2C5D84AF110A            Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: City of Davis, CA Human Relations Commission As a member of the Davis Human Relations Commission, my primary focus was to organize educational and cultural events and open forums that discourages or prevents discrimination and prejudice and which promotes diversity, equality, justice, understanding and mutual Jr. Day event, Cesar Chavez event and awarding the Thong Hy Huynh Awards, which was an award established in the memory of Thong Hy Huynh, a Davis High school student who was killed in the 1980s as a result of a hate crime. As the youngest commissioner, I added the Young Humanitarian category to the award scheme to recognize and encourage acts of courage, and diversity among the young people of Davis. We also discussed and had open forums and public events on unconscious bias, the achievement gap, sexual and gender equality, etc. As a college-aged commissioner, I also worked to help promote positive relationships between the student body and the larger community. Durham, NC Human Relations Commission As a member of the Durham Human Relations Commission, my primary focus was to help improve human relations among the people of Durham through public forums, workshops, and other activities. We also received complaints alleging housing discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, familial status, or handicap. During my time on the commission, I personally recommended, initiated, and led efforts which included: a listening forum at a local mosque near the 10th anniversary of September 11th commission and city council resolutions commemorating the anniversaries of September 11th and which reaffirmed our commitment to tolerance, understanding and pluralism in all of its forms commission and city council resolutions commemorating the life and sacrifices of Fred Korematsu and the historical parallels to current events a city-wide travel boycott to Arizona over its SB 1070 immigration law a resolution calling upon the US Census bureau to track additional ethnic subgroups a resolution in support of the mosque near Ground Zero a resolution in support of gender neutral bathrooms and their advocacy groups, and which called upon the City Manager to convert single stalled bathrooms on city properties to gender neutral bathrooms a resolution in support of a proposed HUD rule expanding equal housing access to people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity Davis, CA Social Services Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: FA4B9427-1063-4561-9EF1-2C5D84AF110A As a member of the Davis Social Services Commission, I was responsible for helping to set ating federal CDBG (Approximately $700k per year) and HOME (Approximately $500k per year) funds to community based organizations and non-profits. I also advised the city council on matters relating to health, affordable housing, homelessness, hunger, transit, child care, elder adult services, accessibility and low-income needs. I personally push for more accessible and low-income units in local housing development projects. My service on this commission gave me exposure to and an appreciate for the needs of segments of the community which often get overlooked but which most desperately requires our attention and efforts. Santa Clara County Housing & Community Development Advisory Committee As a member of the Santa Clara Housing & Community Development Advisory Committee, I worked with elected and appointed representatives of six cities and the county to recommend development program. I also made recommendations on the allocation of federal CDBG (Approximately $3m per year) and HOME (Approximately $700K per year) funds among various community based organizations and non-profits. City of Davis-UC Davis Student Liaison Commission As Chair of the City of Davis-UC Davis Student Liaison Commission, I worked to address issues of mutual concern to the student body and the community at large. As a student representative, I advocated for student issues and concerns and ensured they were taken seriously and balanced accordingly with the needs and concerns of the community at large. As a member of the commission, I helped pass a city ordinance providing all renters with the right to post political signs in their windows or on their lawns regardless of the political viewpoints of their landlords. One Community, a set of principles that acknowledges the campus and the cities shared history and a commitment to mutual respect, cooperation and consultation/involvement in the future both between people in the community as well as at an institutional level. I also helped plan the annual Davis Neighbors Night Out, an event designed to get students and their Davis neighbors out and about for block parties and potlucks in order to mitigate issues before they arise and to build a greater sense of community, responsibility and understanding between the student and long-term residential populations. City and County of Durham Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee As a member of the Durham Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, I helped advice both the City and County of Durham on how it could improve and expand its bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and to set priorities for future construction or rehabilitation efforts. San Jose Youth Advisory Council DocuSign Envelope ID: FA4B9427-1063-4561-9EF1-2C5D84AF110A As a member of the San Jose Youth Advisory Council, I advised the city on all issues of concern center and partnered with the local Senior Center to paint a joint mural. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? My experience serving on two human relations commissions is directly compatible with the Palo Alto Human Relations Commissions. On both commissions, my job was to help build bridges between people, to help build mutual respect, understanding and tolerance through educational events, open forums, and public policy. While the mission of both commissions were similar in many respects, both offered me different perspectives which will prove valuable to the Palo Alto City Council. One the one-hand, Davis is very similar to Palo Alto. An affluent college-town. One the other, Durham is a much larger, less affluent, more culturally diverse community, where the stark differences in the ethnic and socio-economic status between Duke and Durham, as well as its long history created issues not necessarily found in other towns. On many of my other commissions, I had an opportunity of representing and advocating for specific segments with a community, and ensuring their needs were known and being fulfilled by the larger community. At the end of the day, the Human Rel build a community that is aware, knowledgably, understanding, empathetic, supportive, tolerant, inclusive, and welcoming of people of all different backgrounds, whether its socio- economic, religious, ethnic, ability, etc. It is a task that is so fundamental to so many other issues facing our region, nation and world, but often one that takes a back seat to more pressing or concrete areas of concern. I strongly believe that if we want to improve our community, region, nation, and world, we need to start at this fundamental level, and improve how we relate, view and treat each other on a personal basis. It is only when we do so that we can tackle a whole host of other issues, together. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. Immigrant Expe commissions like these seek to address, whether its subtle unconscious biases, outright racist views or acts, or systemic discrimination is due to a lack of knowledge. I believe people are fundamentally good people. The human spirit is an amazing one, our ability to reach out to others and touch them is a hallmark of the American spirit. But as we become more and more dispersed, it becomes more difficult for people to be exposed to the spectrum of backgrounds, DocuSign Envelope ID: FA4B9427-1063-4561-9EF1-2C5D84AF110A experiences and viewpoints that make up this great country of ours. As a result of our often self-imposed isolation, we lack the experience or exposure required for genuine empathy, understanding and tolerance. This is why I believe speaker series such as this one are so stories of people who are different from them and in so doing, helping us all become more understanding, empathetic, supportive and tolerant. When I interview college seniors from Palo Alto or from West San Jose where I grew up, one of the things I hear the most is about how they want to get outside of the protected bubble they live in and really get exposed to new ideas and to people who are different from them. It represents a hunger and desire to reach nk we as community need to do more of to satisfy earlier on and on a more regular basis, and not just for students for people of all ages and backgrounds. So I think events and initiatives similar to this which expose the community to different people and their stories is a soft and constructive way of changing minds one person at a time. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Community Member Level As mentioned above, I think there is a lot we can do to help change the hearts and minds of those in our community, so that they are exposed to and educated about the various issues that the Commission is involved with, but also just exposed to people from different backgrounds. I would love for one prong of our efforts to always be focused on helping to reach out to members on a personal basis and helping give them the opportunities to expand or strengthen their understanding of the issues and of other people in a positive and non- threatening way. In order to make larger change, we need to start with these sort of initiatives. Government Level There is also a lot we can do at the city and inter-governmental level to effect change. As an advisory body to the city council, I think it is our responsibility to be both proactive and reactive. To respond to situations which arise in our community which demand either a public statement from our city, or which require changes to policy. I also think its important that the Commission be proactive about initiating and leading the charge to make the changes are all city policies and procedures to ensure that we are not unconsciously or systematically reinforcing certain biases or perpetuating discrimination or inequality in any form, whether its subtle or overt, whether its specifically intended or just a byproduct of a bygone age. I also think its critical that we cooperate with other government entities at both the school district, county and regional level to tackle some of these issues. I think we should always be looking to see what other governments are doing and to adopt best practices for ourselves. And we DocuSign Envelope ID: FA4B9427-1063-4561-9EF1-2C5D84AF110A tried elsewhere. We should never be afraid to be the first or the pioneer in effecting the change we want to see, and then modeling it and encouraging similar changes in others. Private Sector A lot has been said about the lack of diversity in Silicon Valley and indeed in most industries. Since Palo Alto is at the heart of Silicon Valley, we have a unique opportunity to work with, encourage in a positive way, and collaborate with industry to apply its progressive and innovating thinking to how we tackle the issues of diversity and discrimination in the workplace. We owe it to our fellow citizens and to future generations to help improve human relations in the workplace, because that is where most folks spend most of their day. We need to be proactive and find ways to improve the candidate pipeline, so working with the local school district and Stanford, so that industry can hire a diverse work pool, but also doing what we can to encourage them to make even more of an effort to find talented and diverse employees. DocuSign Envelope ID: FA4B9427-1063-4561-9EF1-2C5D84AF110A Human Relations Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The HRC regularly meets the second Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 3B3A3844-BA32-4368-9C0B-5E8CBF2B2E3C                                                                      Human Relations Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 3B3A3844-BA32-4368-9C0B-5E8CBF2B2E3C       Human Relations Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 3B3A3844-BA32-4368-9C0B-5E8CBF2B2E3C                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Human Relations Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment Muni Code 9.72 Mandatory Response Program Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 3B3A3844-BA32-4368-9C0B-5E8CBF2B2E3C      Human Relations Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, Ch DocuSign Envelope ID: 3B3A3844-BA32-4368-9C0B-5E8CBF2B2E3C  Kristen E. Podulka kristen_podulka@yahoo.com Profile As a communications expert, I possess a unique mix of global brand and retail advertising experience, on both the client-side and agency-side of advertising. For over 20 years, I have delivered marketing solutions across an array of industries, both big and small including nonprofit, automotive, retail, financial services, and consumer apps. Experience FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INVESTMENTS, San Mateo, CA 2015 - current Global Advertising Consultant Global advertising manager for monthly digital brand campaigns Campaign manager for top tier U.S. and Global markets, coordinating media buys, creative development and ad production Copywriter for native, search, display, print, and TV ads promoting corporate capabilities and fund products Producer on College Savings TV and photo shoot, creating 2 TV spots, 9 print ads, and 10 digital and social media ads YMCA OF SILICON VALLEY, Palo Alto, CA 2014-2015 Marketing Manager Worked directly with executive team to plan and implement $50,000 marketing budget for the Palo Alto YMCA branch Used storytelling to showcase and create engaging newsletters and e-mail campaigns, sent to 9,000 members Created fundraising brochures, fact sheets and in-lobby displays supporting the Annual Giving Campaign, raising $175,000 Responsible for all aspects of Y branding, including; facility visuals, marketing materials, promotions, and educating branch staff to speak in a unified voice Independent Marketing Consultant, Palo Alto, CA 2012-2014 Worked directly with CEOs and Board of Directors at Curbside start-up app, Theranos, and Preferrals start-up app Orchestrated and facilitated focus groups, small events, meet-ups, and one-on-one interviews Developed a unique and highly successful recruitment and incentive plan to solicit beta testers for new apps Managed social media strategy and executions, including website, Pinterest, Yelp! and Facebook THE & MENLO PARK (PAMP), Menlo Park, CA 2011-2014 Membership Manager Interacted daily with Executive Director and Board of Directors to develop membership promotions and retention plans Supervised 30+ volunteers on-site at large-scale events, providing leadership, best practices, and FAQ sheets Acted as first line of communication for 3,500+ members, providing prompt and professional customer service daily FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INVESTMENTS, San Mateo, CA 2005 - 2007 Advertising Manager Worked directly with executive team on product and brand ad campaigns, from creative concept through final production Owned external agency relationships; overseeing contracts, budgets, timelines, and creative process Managed Marketing Associate in routing TV, print, and online ads to ensure content accuracy and legal compliance TARGET CORPORATION, Hayward, CA 2000 - 2004 Manager, Marketing Planning - Mervyn's Division Directly managed team of ten Associates in strategic development of retail print ads and in-store collateral campaigns Presented sponsorship opportunities to retail executives at Fashion Week in NYC, raising incremental $250,000 Demonstrated capacity to build collaborative relationships with diverse stakeholders, at all levels of the organization Marketing Specialist - Mervyn's Division Collaborated with executive staff to develop weekly messaging cadence, based on sales and trends Prepared and presented w apparel marketing plans at events, buying trips, and vendor meetings http://www.linkedin.com/in/kpodulka 650-561-2185 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3B3A3844-BA32-4368-9C0B-5E8CBF2B2E3C MCCANN-ERICKSON, Atlanta, GA 1999 - 2000 Sr. Account Executive - General Motors Developed regional brand plans, promotions and media initiatives for General Motors Southeast region Directly supervised Traffic Coordinator in the execution of regional broadcast, outdoor, and print ads Account Executive - General Motors Presented monthly regional retail ad campaigns and media plans to executive management teams Forged seamless integration and open lines of communication between Atlanta field office and Detroit headquarters MCCANN-ERICKSON, Troy, MI 1997 - 1999 Assistant Account Executive - General Motors Secured project cost estimates, legal approval, and ensured ad copy accuracy for Buick advertising elements Wrote creative briefs and client contact reports for agency executives and clients Conducted quarterly competitive analysis and presented to agency executives and clients Traffic Coordinator - General Motors Integrated all agency creative and production resources on strict deadlines, and maintained weekly status reports Education MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, East Lansing, MI 1997 B.A. in Advertising, graduating with Honors from the College of Communications Arts & Sciences Awarded College of Communications Arts & Sciences Student-of-the-Year by faculty, Retail Ad Manager at The State News (largest independent run student newspaper in U.S.), awarded AdCraft Club of Detroit annual scholarship, elected president of the Advertising Association, Communications Chair for Alpha Chi Omega, awarded national first place in the Newspaper Association of America PSA copywriting contest, interned at The Creative Group ad agency, worked 2 jobs and paid 80% of tuition myself Published writer on TIME.com http://time.com/4033896/how-to-parent-like-a-dane/ -2009) Luxembourg, in Luxembourg, (2009-2011), while living abroad Founder / Content Manager / Food Photographer of whatskpcooking.com ent, securing 6 sponsors and 50+ guests Active member of American Marketing Association, to Unified School District PTA, Greenmeadow Community Association, Palo Alto Little League, American Youth Soccer Organization & Stanford Soccer Club Selected to attend the Target Corporation Leadership Masters, a 3 day conference for high potential employees Nominated by COO of McCann Erickson for The Adcraft Club of Detroit annual Award of Excellence Recipient of McCann-Erickson Truth Well Told Award for outstanding job performance DocuSign Envelope ID: 3B3A3844-BA32-4368-9C0B-5E8CBF2B2E3C Library Advisory Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The LAC regularly meets the fourth Thursday of the every other month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3)be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do or your spouse you own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 988577D7-7F19-44D2-8E34-30A0AD754B5B                     Library Advisory Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Library Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 988577D7-7F19-44D2-8E34-30A0AD754B5B                                                                                                                                  Library Advisory Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Library Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 988577D7-7F19-44D2-8E34-30A0AD754B5B                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Library Advisory Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Library Advisory Commission Members work with the document listed below. Are there any areas of this plan which you feel are more relevant/valued by the community? Why? As a potential Commissioner, is there any area which should be examined for inclusion in the future? Library Strategic Plan 2015-2017 DocuSign Envelope ID: 988577D7-7F19-44D2-8E34-30A0AD754B5B                                                                                 Library Advisory Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, official on the Internet without first obtaining the written This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ I give Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: 988577D7-7F19-44D2-8E34-30A0AD754B5B             Library Advisory Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The LAC regularly meets the fourth Thursday of the every other month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do or your spouse you own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F17C6BE-2F7D-43B2-B6C1-239079709171                              Library Advisory Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Library Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F17C6BE-2F7D-43B2-B6C1-239079709171                                                                                                                                                                   Library Advisory Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Library Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F17C6BE-2F7D-43B2-B6C1-239079709171                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Library Advisory Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Library Advisory Commission Members work with the document listed below. Are there any areas of this plan which you feel are more relevant/valued by the community? Why? As a potential Commissioner, is there any area which should be examined for inclusion in the future? Library Strategic Plan 2015-2017 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F17C6BE-2F7D-43B2-B6C1-239079709171                                                                                                                      Library Advisory Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, official on the Internet without first obtaining the written This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ I give Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F17C6BE-2F7D-43B2-B6C1-239079709171                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F17C6BE-2F7D-43B2-B6C1-239079709171                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F17C6BE-2F7D-43B2-B6C1-239079709171 Library Advisory Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The LAC regularly meets the fourth Thursday of the every other month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do or your spouse you own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: A87DCD0E-87F0-406F-B120-3E7884FEE13D                         Library Advisory Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Library Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: A87DCD0E-87F0-406F-B120-3E7884FEE13D                                                                                                                              Library Advisory Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Library Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: A87DCD0E-87F0-406F-B120-3E7884FEE13D                                                                                                                                                                     Library Advisory Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Library Advisory Commission Members work with the document listed below. Are there any areas of this plan which you feel are more relevant/valued by the community? Why? As a potential Commissioner, is there any area which should be examined for inclusion in the future? Library Strategic Plan 2015-2017 DocuSign Envelope ID: A87DCD0E-87F0-406F-B120-3E7884FEE13D                                                                   Library Advisory Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, official on the Internet without first obtaining the written This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ I give Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: A87DCD0E-87F0-406F-B120-3E7884FEE13D  Public Art Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3)be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1                                                                      Public Art Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1                                                                                                                                                                                   Public Art Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1                                                                                                                           Public Art Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1   Public Art Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1          2 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Jan 2013 Artistic Director, Ink Studio, Beijing Sep - Dec 2012 Lecturer, Stanford University. Teaching an upper level seminar on Contemporary Chinese Ink Painting. 2011-ongoing Creator/Producer Feb 2010 Contributing Curator, Shanghai: Art of the City, Asian Art Museum, San Francisco, 12 February 5 September 2010. Jan - Jun 2008 Curator, Ruins to Renewal: Works by RongRong & inri, SF Camerawork, San Francisco, 5 June 23 August 2008. Feb - Dec 2007 Guest Editor, Yishu - Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art, vol. 6, no. 4 (Winter/December 2007). Mar - Sep 2007 Co-curator, Reboot: The Third Chengdu Biennale, Chengdu Contemporary Art Museum, Chengdu, China, 14 September 12 October, 2007. Nov 2005 - Artistic Director, Timezone 8 Editions, Beijing. Fall 2005 - 2006 Advisor, Kwee Collection of contemporary Chinese art, on long-term loan to Cantor Arts Center, Stanford. Jun 2006 Curator, Michael Cherney, 798 Photography Gallery, Beijing April-May 2006 Contributing curator, DIAF 2006 (Dashanzi international Art Festival), Beijing. Apr 2005 Artist, Trading Place: Contemporary Art Museum, curated by Chienhui Kao, Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei. Mar 2005 Curator, Yin Xiuzhen: Fashion Terrorism, Art Gallery, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Feb 2005 Curator, Layered Landscapes: New Works by Yan Lei and Yang Jiechang, Art Gallery, Stanford University. 2004 - Jan 2005 Conference organizer, Displacements: Transcultural Encounters in Contemporary Chinese Art, Stanford University, held 28 Jan 2005. 2004 - May 2005 Director, On the Edge Visiting Artists Program, a Center for East Asian Studies Distinguished Practitioners from Asia Program, with the Cantor Arts Center, Stanford University. July 2003 - 2005 Curator, On the Edge: Contemporary Chinese Artists Encounter the West, Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center for Visual Arts, Stanford University; Davis Museum and Cultural Center, Wellesley College; Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianapolis. Apr - Jun 2004 Lecturer, Stanford University. Taught an upper level colloquium where students prepared didactic materials for a museum exhibition, On the Edge: Contemporary Chinese Artists Encounter the West. 2003 - Jan 2004 Conference consultant/co-organizer, An International Discourse on New Chinese Video and Photography, San Diego Museum of Art, San Diego, held 31 Jan 2004. Jan - Mar 2004 Lecturer, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara. Taught an introductory Asian Art History course. Jan - Mar 2003 Lecturer, Stanford University. Taught an upper level colloquium on Contemporary Chinese Art. DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1 5 Mountains New Painting from China (London: Louise Blouin Foundation, 2010), pp. 23- 29. Changing Places, Changing Meanings: 60th issue of Art China, 1/2010, pp. 23-27. The Rent Collection Courtyard Art in Turmoil: The Chinese Cultural Revolution 1966-76 (Vancouver and Toronto: UBC Press, 2010), pp. 121-135, 229-231. Zheng Chongbin: Emergent (exh. cat.) (Singapore: Valentine Willie Fine Art, 2010), n.p. . (Variation of Dany Chan, Shanghai: Art of the City (exh. cat.) (San Francisco: Asian Art Museum, 2010), pp. 207-245. 2009 ArtAsiaPacific, iss. 65 (Sept/Oct 2009), pp. 116-123. (Discussing the ink paintings of Zheng Chongbin)(National Arts), no. 8, 2009 (July/August, 2009) pp. 44-51. (Trans. of Periodical Exhibitions in China: Diversity of Motivation and Format Yishu: Journal of Contemporary Art, vol. 8, no. 1 (January/February 2009), pp. 41-46. Contemporary Art + Philanthropy; Private Foundations: Asia-Pacific Focus (Sydney: Power Publications, 2009), pp. 70-79. 2008 Changing Landscapes: Contemporary Chinese Fiber Art Changing Landscapes: Contemporary Chinese Fiber Art (exh. cat.) (San Jose: San Jose Museum of Quilts & Textiles, 2009), pp. 12-13. (Periodical exhibitions in China: diversity of motivation and format), Artco, no. 192 (September 2008), pp. 166-171. Camerawork, vol. 35, no. 2 (Fall/Winter 2008), pp. 16-21. From Pit #5: Zhang Wanxin (exh. cat.) (Hong Kong: Art Beatus, 2008), n.p. Prodigal Daughter Prodigal Daughter (exh. cat.) (Beijing: F2 Gallery, 2008), pp. 4-13. Tianbing Li: Me and My Brother (exh. cat.) (New York: L&M Arts, 2008), pp. 1-5. Qin Feng (exh. cat.) (Beijing: Beijing Museum of Contemporary Art, 2008), n.p. (Expanded version of 2006 essay of the same title.) Chinese Library The Vanishing: Re-presenting the Chinese in the American West (Ketchum, Idaho: Sun Valley Center for the Arts, 2008), pp. 30-35. DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1 7 Gymnastics -Marc Decrop and Erickson, Yu Hong (Hong Kong: MAP Book Publishers, 2006), pp. 13-28. Urban Fictions Toronto, May 2006. http://www.photobasedart.ca/html/publications/essays/ESY0604.html Recent Paintings by Qin Feng (exh. cat.) (New York: Goedhuis Contemporary, 2006), pp. 2-3. 2005 Here? Or There Here? Or There? (Beijing: Timezone 8, 2005), pp. 110-114. Biographical entries on nine artists (Ai Weiwei, Fang Lijun, Feng Mengbo, Lin Tianmiao, Liu Xiaodong, Song Dong, Yang Fudong, Yin Xiuzhen, Zhang Peili), Grove Art Online, Oxford University Press, September 2005, http://www.groveart.com/ Yishu - Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art, vol. 4, no. 2 (June/Summer 2005), p. 75. On the Edge Yishu - Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art, vol. 4, no. 2 (June/Summer 2005), pp. 85-95. Trading Place: Contemporary Art Museum (exh. cat.) (Taipei: Museum of Contemporary Art, 2005), pp. 74-85. (Ch, Eng) Recent Paintings by Zhang Hongtu (exh. cat.) (New York: Goedhuis Contemporary, 2005), pp. 2-3. 2004 On the Edge: Contemporary Chinese Artists Encounter the West. (Exh. cat.) Stanford/Hong Kong: Iris & B. Gerald Cantor Center for Visual Arts at Stanford University and Timezone 8, 2004. Divine Light: Ink Paintings by Zhang Yu (exh. cat.) (New York: Goedhuis Contemporary, 2004), pp. 2-3. ART AsiaPacific, no. 39 (Winter 2004), pp. 88-89. ART AsiaPacific, no. 39 (Winter 2004), p. 89. -ART AsiaPacific, no. 39 (Winter 2004), pp. 89-90. Yishu - Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art, vol. 4, no. 2 (June/Summer 2004), pp. 22-43. -1705) from the Bequest of Wang Fangyu and Sum Wai : Freer Gallery of Art; After the Madness: The Orientations, v. 34, no10 (Dec 2003) p. 56. 2003 Artlink Australia 23, no. 4 (Nov 2003), pp. 26 31. Il Cortile per la Riscossione della Mezzadria Socialista della Rivoluzione Culturale Cinese / The Rent Collection Courtyard: The Stories of a Model Socialist Realist Sculpture of the Chinese Cul DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1 11 The Elvehjem Museum of Art Artscene, vol. 7, no. 5 (Nov/Dec, 1991), p. 1. PUBLIC LECTURES: Michael Sullivan in Dialogue with Britta Erickson CCCArts, San Francisco, 23 March 2013. plit Reinterpretation and Reconstruction in Contemporary Chinese Art, UC San Diego, 13 February 2013. Discussant, Ai Weiwei Films, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, San Francisco, 22 June, 2012. Center for the Arts, San Francisco, 9 November 2011. (Paper presented by Eleanor Hyun.) Clear and Remote Views of Mountains and Streams: A Century of Chinese Art History and Civilization (1911-2010) Chengdu, 30 September 2011. (Periodical exhibitions in China: diversity of motivation and format), Sichuan University, 27 September 2011. Vocabulary of Tobacco, Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, 10 September 2011. The Future of Contemporary Ink Painting Hong Kong Arts Centre, Hong Kong, 23 May 2011. China Experimental Art Institutional Education Symposium, Central Academy of Fine Arts (CAFA), Beijing, 29 April, 2011. The Need f Contemporary Ink Painting and Art Historical Perspectives International Conference, Peking University, 21-22 September 2010. y / Calligraphy, China National Academy of Fine Arts, Hangzhou, 20 June 2010. Valentine Willie Fine Art, Singapore, 10 April 2010. Stanford University, Stanford, 24 March 2010. Francisco Art Institute, San Francisco, 30 September, 2009. Beijing International Conference on Art Theory and Criticism 2009, China Contemporary Art Foundation, Beijing, 27 May, 2009. & Textiles, 5 April 2009. orks of Zhi Lin, ARTiculations: International Symposium, Princeton University, 7 March 2009. Rent Collection Courtyard Lewisburg, 16 October 2008. The Rent Collection Courtyard, from China's Cultural Revolution to the Present: Evil History & Archaeology Department, Columbia University, New York, 13 October 2008. DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1 13 Participant, Art Contemporain Chinois, Espace Pierre Cardin, Paris, 4 Oct 2002. China: Arte Contemporânea Museu de Arte Brasileira, Fundção Armando Alvares Penteado, São Paulo, Brazil, 20 Aug 2002. and ReconstructionRetrospective of Chinese Ink Painting and Its Development in the New Millennium, New York, 10-12 May 2002. Contemporary Chinese Arts in the International Arena, British Museum, London, 18-20 Apr 2002. Rent Collection Courtyard: A Model Socialist Realist Sculpture of the Cultural Revolution . . . Cultural Production and the Cultural Revolution, Morris and Helen Belkin Art Gallery, Vancouver, 22-23 Mar 2002. Cultural Production and the Cultural Revolution, Morris and Helen Belkin Art Gallery, Vancouver, 22-23 Mar 2002. Album after Poems by Yao Xie International Symposium on Shanghai School Painting, Shanghai Fine Arts Publishing House, Shanghai, 17 Dec 2001. Discussant, Redefining Cultural Identity in the Era of Hi-Tech Globalism Performance and Body Art in East Asia in the Age of Globalisation, Haus der Kulturen der Welt, Berlin, 10 Mar 2001. Roehrick Lectures in the Arts, Hamilton College, New York, 24 Feb 2001. Series of three lectures on aspects of the reception of Chinese contemporary art in the West, Sichuan Academy of Fine Arts, Chongqing, P.R. China, 10-11 Nov 2000, Keynote Speaker, Haishang/Shanghai: The Spirit of Shanghai, (international symposium held in conjunction with the Shanghai Biennial,) Shanghai Art Museum, Shanghai, 8 Nov 2000. Regionalism and Networks: Research on Chinese Art History of the Past Millennium, Taiwan National University, Taipei, 5 Jul 2000. -CultuInside/Out: New Chinese Art Symposium, National Gallery of Australia, Canberra, 3 Jun 2000. Art and Cultural Politics: China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, international conference co-sponsored by the Institute for Global Chinese Affairs and the Department of Art History and Archaeology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, 18 Dec, 1999. Transience lecture held in conjunction with the Transience exhibition of contemporary Chinese art, University of Oregon Museum of Art, Eugene, Oregon, 11 Aug 1999. panel featuring the artists, Ho Siu-kee, Wu Mali, Xu Bing, and Gu Wenda), symposium held in conjunction with the Inside/Out: New Chinese Art exhibition, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco, 27 Feb 1999. conjunction with Inside/Out: New Chinese Art, Asian Art Museum, San Francisco, 26 Feb 1999. Ink Art DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1 14 in Contemporary Culture: International Symposium for the Second Shanghai Biennale, Shanghai, 20-22 Oct 1998. Jiangnan: Modern and Contemporary Art from South of the Yangzi River, International Symposium, Vancouver, 24-26 Apr 1998. Studies Spring Lecture Series, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 2 Apr 1998. Ghosts Pounding the Wall A Celebration of the Print: Southern Graphics Council Conference, Athens, Ohio, 25 Mar 1998. C Post-1989 exhibition, San Jose Museum of Art, San Jose, California, 4 Oct 1997. conjunction with the -1989 exhibition, San Jose Museum of Art, San Jose, California, 27 Sep 1997. Mar 1997. A Case Study of Transference Communications with/in Asia: Twentieth Anniversary Conference of the Asian Studies Assoc. of Australia; La Trobe University, Melbourne, 11 Jul 1996. Picture of the Thatched Hall of Fan Lake Young Scholars' Art History Colloquium, deYoung Museum, San Francisco, 21 Nov 1992. Picture of the Thatched Hall of Fan Lake Symposium, Transcending Turmoil: Painting at the Close of China's Empire 1796-1911, Phoenix Art Museum, Phoenix, Arizona, 26 Sep 1992. SERVICE: Apr 2012 Member, Nominations Committee, CAFAM · Future Exhibition, Central Academy of Fine Arts, Beijing Nov 2011 Juror, First Asian Contemporary Arts Consortium (ACAC) Writing Fellowship, San Francisco 2011 Member, Board, Asian Contemporary Art Committee, San Francisco Spring 2010 Juror, Yishu Awards for Critical Writing on Contemporary Chinese Art 26 Mar 2010 New America Now radio program, KALW Radio, San Francisco and NPR 2007 2008 Member, Curatorial Council, SF Camerawork, San Francisco. 2007 2008 Member, 2008 Program Advisory Committee, ZeroOne San Jose, San Jose. 2006 Member, Advisory Board, Three Shadows Photography Art Centre, Beijing 2005 Member, Editorial Advisory Committee, MAP Book Publishers, Hong Kong. 15 Feb 2006 Guest speaker, The Afternoon Magazine 28 Mar 2005 Guest speaker, Forum with Michael Krasny KQED Radio, San Francisco 2003 Member, Board of Advisors, Ink Society, Hong Kong 2003 Editor at Large, ART Asia Pacific, New York DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1 15 2002 2007 Member, Academic Advisory Board, Asia Art Archive, Hong Kong 2002 Member, Editorial Board, YISHU, A Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art, published by Art & Collection Ltd., Taiwan 2000 2002 Academic consultant, Firefly Films (Australia) television documentary series, Metamorphose: Avant Garde Chinese Artists in the Era of Globalization 2000 2001 Advisor, Floating Rock project, Göteborg, Sweden (project by Zhan Wang) 1999 2001 Member, Board of Advisors, Chinese-Art.Com, Beijing 10 Nov 2000 Participant, formal discussion of the Rent Collection Courtyard potential lawsuit, Art Gallery of the Sichuan Academy of Fine Arts, Chongqing, P.R. China 5 Jun 2000 Participant, workshop on curating contemporary Chinese art, Australian National University, Canberra 9 May 2000 Speaker, China Brown Bag Lunch Series, Center for East Asian Studies, Stanford University, Stanford 10 Jun 1999 Interviewee, Associated Press story on the prominence of Chinese artists in the 48th Venice Biennale Oct 1997 Interviewee, News Hour with Jim Lehrer story on contemporary Chinese art, Public Television Apr Oct 1997 New Art in China, Post 1989 exhibition, San Jose Museum of Art, San Jose 1996 1997 Member, Chinese Garden Development Committee, School of Creative Arts, San Francisco State University, San Francisco Winter 1985 Program in East Asian Studies, Stanford University, Stanford DocuSign Envelope ID: 21912763-8935-4A28-A31B-0A927B6239F1 Public Art Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3)be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: EEEEE5F9-2F7C-4134-B42E-1E3773425F11                                                      Public Art Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: EEEEE5F9-2F7C-4134-B42E-1E3773425F11                                                                         Public Art Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: EEEEE5F9-2F7C-4134-B42E-1E3773425F11                                                                                                                                                           Public Art Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: EEEEE5F9-2F7C-4134-B42E-1E3773425F11        Public Art Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, DocuSign Envelope ID: EEEEE5F9-2F7C-4134-B42E-1E3773425F11        Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and ofspecific interest to you, and why? Page 2 Public Art Commission                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       DocuSign Envelope ID: F9215CD4-31E1-465B-AB1A-78C4A15FE70D 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archive :LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Page 3 Public Art Commission                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   DocuSign Envelope ID: F9215CD4-31E1-465B-AB1A-78C4A15FE70D Public Art Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: AA3919BC-05E8-402F-A80D-1E60D0E4CB1B                                                                Public Art Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: AA3919BC-05E8-402F-A80D-1E60D0E4CB1B                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Public Art Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: AA3919BC-05E8-402F-A80D-1E60D0E4CB1B                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Public Art Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: AA3919BC-05E8-402F-A80D-1E60D0E4CB1B                                          Public Art Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your upload your document(s). DocuSign Envelope ID: AA3919BC-05E8-402F-A80D-1E60D0E4CB1B  Public Art Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3)be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 52F79800-CEDE-44B1-A338-1117DD0C633C                                                                   Public Art Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 52F79800-CEDE-44B1-A338-1117DD0C633C                                                                                                                                                                           Public Art Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 52F79800-CEDE-44B1-A338-1117DD0C633C                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Public Art Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 52F79800-CEDE-44B1-A338-1117DD0C633C                Public Art Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your upload your document(s). DocuSign Envelope ID: 52F79800-CEDE-44B1-A338-1117DD0C633C                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Public Art Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 5C24A886-1FF6-4E23-8B3C-655847104C71                      Public Art Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 5C24A886-1FF6-4E23-8B3C-655847104C71                                                             Public Art Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 5C24A886-1FF6-4E23-8B3C-655847104C71                                                      Public Art Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 5C24A886-1FF6-4E23-8B3C-655847104C71                 Public Art Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, DocuSign Envelope ID: 5C24A886-1FF6-4E23-8B3C-655847104C71  Public Art Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B32E86C-E2A3-4585-8BA9-08FBF0416427                                                             Public Art Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B32E86C-E2A3-4585-8BA9-08FBF0416427                                                                                                                                                                               Public Art Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B32E86C-E2A3-4585-8BA9-08FBF0416427                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Public Art Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B32E86C-E2A3-4585-8BA9-08FBF0416427            Public Art Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your upload your document(s). DocuSign Envelope ID: 2B32E86C-E2A3-4585-8BA9-08FBF0416427  Public Art Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The PAC regularly meets the third Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: C94317FF-4F05-4B7E-B805-45906415B009                                              Public Art Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: C94317FF-4F05-4B7E-B805-45906415B009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Public Art Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: C94317FF-4F05-4B7E-B805-45906415B009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Public Art Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: C94317FF-4F05-4B7E-B805-45906415B009                          Public Art Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your upload your document(s). DocuSign Envelope ID: C94317FF-4F05-4B7E-B805-45906415B009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Application Deadline: Ap•·i! 4, 2017 at 4:30 pr Personal Information -Note: The UAC regularly meets the first Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. Name: Claude Ezran Address:770 Seale Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 9403 Cell Phone: (650) 249-5706 @Home 1QOffice Phone: (650) 324-2040 E-mail: claude@ezran.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?0Yes0No D a D Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City oj..palo ~. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?UYes ~No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?(!)YesQNo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yes@No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto?QYes(!) No How did you learn about the vacancy on the Utilitiies Advisory Commission? Dcommunity Group 0 Email from City Clerk D Palo Alto Weekly Ooaily Post Deity Website DFlyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: • Dir e c tor of Marketing f or o o rja Fuel cel ls, a clean e ne r gy compa ny (201 5 -2016) . • Member o f the Board of Directors of Cabl e Co-op (1992-1998 ) Subscri bers-own ed cable TV company serving Palo Alto households . Very simil a r t o a pu b l icly owned u tility. • MBA, Harvard Business School . • MSEE, Ecol e Superieure d'Electricite (France) St udi e d e lec tricity generation and distr ibution in great detai l . Page 1 Claude Ezran II Utility Advisory Commission     Employment Present or Last Employer: oorja Fuel cells Occupation: Director of Marketing a a Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: • Human Relations Commission, including vice-chair and chair: 2008-2014 • Founder, Palo Alto World Music Day: 2009-Present • Member of the Board o f Directors, Palo Alto Recreation Foundation {PARF) : 2010-Present • Member of Steering Committee for Measure .A (school parcel tax) 2005 • Treasurer of the PTA Council : 2004-2007 • Member of the Board o f Directors, Cabl e Co-op: 1992-1998 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Three examples regarding my life-long keen interest in energy and utility issues : Director of Marketing for Oorja Fuel Cells (2015 -2016) . Oorja is a clean energy company that manufactu r e s power systems b as ed on direct methanol fuel cells. These systems significantly reduce operating costs and greenhouse gas emis sions in a wide variety of applications such as wirel ess telecommunications and materials handling. Member of the Board of Directors of Cable Co-op {1992-1998) Cable Co-op was a cable TV company serving 28,000 households around Palo Alto. It was owned by its subscribers. In many ways its mission and its functioning were very similar to what you can observe in a publicly owned utility. MSEE, Ecole Superieure d'Elec t ricite (France). School was partially funded by EDF (Electricjte de France), a stat e-owned utility which is among the largest utilities i n the world. Studied electricity generation and distribution in great detail. Visited many different types of power generation plants. Claude Ezran Page 2 0 Utility Advisory Commission     2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: LINK. One of the issues that I find particularly interesting is the recommendation that the Council approve the update to the Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Goals (2018 to 2027). I am a strong believer in having a relentless quest for always higher energy efficiency. It is such an obvious triple win: for the customers who pay less (and do good) , for the City that has less to worry about regarding securing adequate power supplies, and for the environment. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? • Continue the focus on clean energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the total equation of services provided by the City, and improving sustainability. We can all be proud of Palo Alto's leadership in that area, but we cannot rest on our laurels; we need to continue our efforts. • Continue to improve recycling rates, but also focus also on reducing waste in the first place. I am particularly thinking about food waste, especially from restaurants. We might need to reinforce our awareness campaign and provide some incentives to restaurants and cafeterias. Address the long term negative effect that progress toward our Zero-Waste objectives will have on refuse collection fees, maybe through a new financial reserve to be established and also improved efficiencies in the collection system. • Secure long-term green electric, gas, and water supplies at highly competitive rates in order to better moderate t he rise in utility rates. • Good implementation of the plan associated with the Storm Water Management Fee Ballot Measure (assuming the measure passes) . • Energy conservation programs, green building codes, etc. •Monitor the City's progress toward building a new plant to process sewage s l udge, treat organic waste, including food scraps and possibly yard trimmings. Evaluate anaerobic-digestion and other technologies . Claude Ezran Page 3 D Utility Advisory Commission     4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK I did not have prior experience with these specific documents, but I read them and wil l definitely spend mor e t i me on them if selected. I do, however, closely follow the news about the City utilities, mostly through the Weekly . Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: i!L. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21 . I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR .Q_ I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: QHome 1Qottice Phone: E-mail: lj-2 (/DocuSigned by: Signature: ----~------)-+'-.7,~P:.... ____ L _ _,,~-~-li'"''9941~~11.,1i'..s~~>Q<Q91141M·~;.,, .. ~----Date: April 4, 2 0 17 Claude Ezran Page4 D Utility Advisory Commission ------------------- Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 0F1DF9EC-F9AE-4A43-AB2C-B6AE73EF4CA8                                                                                                                                                                                             2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archive :LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: 0F1DF9EC-F9AE-4A43-AB2C-B6AE73EF4CA8                                                                                                                                                                                                                Utilities Advisory Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The UAC regularly meets the first Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3)be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: D5132378-359F-4EEA-9325-1BEA1BCC522A                              Utilities Advisory Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: D5132378-359F-4EEA-9325-1BEA1BCC522A                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Utilities Advisory Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: D5132378-359F-4EEA-9325-1BEA1BCC522A                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Utilities Advisory Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan The Gas Utility Long-term Plan Urban Water Management Plan Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: D5132378-359F-4EEA-9325-1BEA1BCC522A  Utilities Advisory Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your upload your document(s). DocuSign Envelope ID: D5132378-359F-4EEA-9325-1BEA1BCC522A            Utilities Advisory Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The UAC regularly meets the first Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3)be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 582DA1B5-EC0A-442F-9DE6-E3BAC7E5F733                                                      Utilities Advisory Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 582DA1B5-EC0A-442F-9DE6-E3BAC7E5F733                                                          Utilities Advisory Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 582DA1B5-EC0A-442F-9DE6-E3BAC7E5F733                                           Utilities Advisory Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan The Gas Utility Long-term Plan Urban Water Management Plan Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 582DA1B5-EC0A-442F-9DE6-E3BAC7E5F733             Utilities Advisory Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your upload your document(s). DocuSign Envelope ID: 582DA1B5-EC0A-442F-9DE6-E3BAC7E5F733        Utilities Advisory Commission Application 1 of 5 Application Deadline: April 4, 2017 at 4:30 pm Personal Information Note: The UAC regularly meets the first Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m. Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you or your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you or your spouse own real property in Palo Alto? ___ Yes ___ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: EAE75B32-20A2-4A9D-BB5C-79E4D389D048                            Utilities Advisory Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: EAE75B32-20A2-4A9D-BB5C-79E4D389D048                                                                                                                                                                                   Utilities Advisory Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: EAE75B32-20A2-4A9D-BB5C-79E4D389D048                                                                                                                                                                                            Utilities Advisory Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan The Gas Utility Long-term Plan Urban Water Management Plan Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: EAE75B32-20A2-4A9D-BB5C-79E4D389D048          Utilities Advisory Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your upload your document(s). DocuSign Envelope ID: EAE75B32-20A2-4A9D-BB5C-79E4D389D048  City of Palo Alto (ID # 7942) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Direction on Downtown Parking Garage Size Title: Council Direction on Parking and Retail Program and Related Zoning Changes Needed for the new Downtown Parking Structure Located at Existing Surface Parking Lot D at 375 Hamilton Avenue From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Direct staff to proceed with full preliminary design and environmental review on a new 291 space parking garage concept with five levels of above ground parking and a 3,800 square foot retail space (Downtown Parking Garage Option B). 2. Direct staff to proceed with revisions to the Public Facility (PF) zoning ordinance to specifically accommodate public parking garages. Executive Summary Construction of a new Downtown Parking Structure is one of the Council’s Infrastructure Plan priorities for Palo Alto. The staff recommendation of a garage with five levels of above ground parking and a retail component combines the priorities of adding additional parking in downtown and providing an attractive retail frontage along Waverley Street. The existing Public Facility (PF) zoning of the garage site does not fit typical commercial area parking structure concepts (e.g. setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). Modification of the PF Zoning Ordinance specifically for parking structures is recommended. An alternative would be to require rezoning the public parking City of Palo Alto Page 2 garage sites to Planned Community (PC) zone. (NOTE: By discussing possible approaches to this zoning issue, tonight’s discussion is intended to meet the requirement for “pre-screening” contained in Municipal Code Section 18.79.) Background Over the last several years, the Palo Alto City Council has directed staff to approach parking and traffic congestion in Palo Alto from three different directions: by implementing programs to reduce reliance on the private automobile (i.e. transportation demand reduction), by adding supplemental parking supply where appropriate, and by better managing existing parking resources. In 2014 Council authorized staff to proceed with several parking strategies aimed at improving parking supply for the University Avenue (Downtown) and California Avenue Business Districts (Staff report ID #4374). Council identified parking facilities in Downtown and the California Avenue area as being among the City’s priority projects and incorporated $13.0 million for a downtown garage and $9.6 million for the a California Avenue garage into the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. Council approved the plan in June 2014 (Staff Report ID #4889) including the use of the estimated $4.0 million FY 2014 year-end balance in the Downtown In- Lieu Parking Fund. These funds are collected for construction of garages in downtown. In October 2014, Council directed staff to return with a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) and evaluation criteria for hiring a qualified professional design firm for design, environmental review and preparation of construction cost estimate of a publicly financed parking garage on parking Lot D, at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street (Staff Report ID #5173). A feasibility analysis indicated a new garage could be constructed on Lot D to provide an additional 214 spaces to the existing 86 spaces (300 spaces total). The initial project budget of $13.0 million was derived by multiplying the number of additional spaces by the downtown parking in-lieu fee in effect during FY 2014. As instructed, staff brought a draft RFP to Council in December 2015. However, the item was pulled from the consent calendar and not rescheduled (Staff Report ID #5818). In September 2016, staff prioritized the New Downtown Parking garage project again and released an RFP to solicit design proposals. City of Palo Alto Page 3 In June 2016, Council authorized a contract with Nova Partners, Inc. (Nova) to provide program management services for the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan projects (Staff Report ID #6809). In December 2016, Council authorized a contract with Watry Design, Inc. (Watry) to provide design and environmental review services for the Downtown Parking Garage Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project (PE-15007). The contract with Watry includes preparation of conceptual designs, environmental documents, schematic designs, design development packages, and construction documents for a new parking garage at existing surface parking Lot D (Staff Report ID #7418). One of the first steps in the environmental review process was to develop parking garage program options that would provide 300 spaces or more, including an option with a retail component, and to bring these options to Council for direction. Discussion Parking Garage Options: Space Counts and Costs Following the award of contract to Watry, several conceptual options were developed for the downtown garage. Conceptual designs are included as Attachments A, B and C. The following three primary options evolved from the effort. A. Base Option: 303 space garage with five above-ground levels for a net increase of 217 spaces. B. Retail Option: 291 space garage with five above-ground levels with a 3,800 square foot retail space for a net increase of 205 spaces. C. Basement Option: 351 space garage with one basement level and five above-ground levels, for a net increase of 265 spaces. Beyond comparing the existing number of spaces in Lot D to the number of spaces in the future new garage, there is another factor that must be considered in determining the number of new spaces. Option B includes approximately 3,800 square feet of retail space. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52.040 requires that retail spaces provide one parking space for each 240 square feet of gross floor area. The 3,800 square feet of retail space results in a need for 16 parking spaces. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Table 1 shows the calculations for the net parking added by each option. Table 1 Option A: Base Option B: Retail Option C: Basement Total Stalls in Garage 303 291 351 - Existing Surface 86 86 86 - Retail Demand 0 16 0 Net Added Parking Space 217 189 265 All of the options for the garage have some common features. They all have all a small pedestrian walkway along the south side of the building at 560 Waverley Street and a pedestrian walkway behind the back side of buildings at 526 - 560 Waverley Street. Each option has the same vehicle entrance along Hamilton Avenue. A second vehicle entrance along Waverley Street described in the feasibility study was removed due to the close proximity of the signalized intersection at Waverley Street and Hamilton Avenue. Additionally, all the options include the removal of the existing Automatic Pay Toilet (APT) on the corner of Waverley Street and Hamilton Avenue. The new parking structure does not include replacing the public restroom due to safety and maintenance concerns. Mechanical parking was considered for this garage. However, the cost to provide a small incremental parking increase is high and would require training for users. Mechanical parking would be on the ground floor, and was estimated to add only a net of 27 spaces. Parking demand typically peaks around lunchtime and dinner time and is short term. Mechanical parking does not accommodate this type of peak parking demand very well. Building height restrictions also limit the efficiency of most mechanical and robotic parking concepts. It is anticipated that all options would support the installation of Photovoltaic (PV) panels over the top deck of the parking structure. This PV could be used to power the garage and retail space or it could be installed, owned and operated via a public-private partnership with an agreement similar to the one executed with Komuna Palo Alto LLC for four existing City garages (Staff Report ID #6535). Funding the PV panels is not included in the project cost estimates. Public Works and Utilities staff are discussing options for funding this component of the project. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Table 2 provides the project cost estimates for the three options. The estimates include soft and hard construction costs, but do not include staff salaries and benefits. Table 2 ($ in millions) Option A: Base Option B: Retail* Option C: Basement Total stalls in garage 303 291 351 Construction Cost $12.0 $12.7 $15.0 Escalation $1.3 $1.4 $1.6 10% Contingency $1.2 $1.3 $1.5 Soft and Other Costs $3.9 $3.9 $4.4 Total Project Cost $18.4 $19.3 $22.5 Cost per Stall $0.061 $0.066 $0.064 *The retail building in Option B could be expected to generate annual net operating income of approximately $160,000 if rented at market rates. Public Facility (PF) Zoning Ordinance Revision None of the Downtown Parking Garage options can comply with the PF zoning requirements for lot coverage, floor area ratio (FAR), and setbacks that are intended to apply to occupied buildings rather than parking structures. The zoning constraints are described in the zoning analysis (Attachment D). The PV canopy would have a height of about 60 feet. In order to proceed with the downtown parking garage project, the Lot D parcel will require rezoning, either using a Planned Community (PC) zoning or by modifying the text of the PF zoning ordinance to permit the proposed facility. The existing parking garage at 475 Cambridge Avenue (built in 1994) and the two newest Downtown garages (built in 2003) are zoned PC. The existing Comprehensive Plan includes Program L-78 “Encourage the use of PC zoning for parking structures in the Downtown and California Avenue areas.” However, there has been concern expressed by community members and by Council about PC zoning in recent years. PC zoning was placed on a “time-out” in 2014, and may be replaced or significantly revised in the future. Therefore, staff recommends pursuing a modification to the PF zoning ordinance to fit typical commercial area parking garages instead. The PF zoning ordinance modifications would consist of at least the following new provisions: City of Palo Alto Page 6  Zero setbacks for public parking structures along site property boundaries.  Height limits for public parking structures that reflect adjacent commercial properties allowances unless single-family residential is within 150 feet of the property.  Elimination of FAR restrictions for public parking structures.  Elimination of lot coverage restrictions for public parking structures. Upon Council direction to pursue PF zoning ordinance modifications, staff would prepare the code revisions and initially review the changes with the Planning and Transportation Commission before returning to City Council for approval. Similar recommendations were made to Council for the California Avenue Parking Garage on April 3, 2017 (Staff Report #7738). Project Costs and 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan The 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan established the budget for the Downtown Parking Garage at $13 million. The Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fund balance as of June 30, 2016 is sufficient to provide a total contribution of approximately $4.8 million to the project, an increase of $0.8 million from the $4.0 million included in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. The feasibility analysis for Lot D indicated that a new garage could be constructed to provide 214 spaces in addition to the 86 spaces that exist on the current surface lot (total of 300 spaces). The initial project budget of $13.0 million was derived by multiplying the number of additional spaces by the downtown parking in-lieu fee in effect during FY 2014. Construction costs have escalated significantly since 2013 and project costs for most of the Infrastructure Plan projects are increasing as a result. As described in Table 2 above, the project cost estimate for the Downtown Parking Garage options described in this report range from $18.4 to $22.5 million. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to proceed with Option B (291-space garage with a retail component, and five above-ground levels). Option B will add a significant amount of new parking supply to the Downtown area, while also providing a retail component that is consistent with Council’s support for ground floor retail and will activate the Waverley frontage of the garage. Overall, current estimates for the Infrastructure Plan projects exceed the funding City of Palo Alto Page 7 provided in the FY 2017-2021 capital budget and five-year plan by approximately $10-15 million. Staff is working to refine the individual project cost estimates, evaluating options to reduce project costs, and coordinating with our program management consultants (Nova Partners) to control costs through the design and construction process. Additionally, staff is evaluating options for providing additional funding. More detailed information on the Infrastructure Plan project costs will be provided as part of the upcoming FY 2018 budget process. Timeline Following Council direction on the parking garage size and program, Watry will continue developing the design and preparing the environmental review. Staff anticipates that Council will have the opportunity to review and certify the final EIR in February 2018. Completion of the Parking Garage is targeted for Winter 2020. Resource Impact Total funding in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan was established at $13.0 million for this project (PE-15007), excluding staff salaries and benefits. Updated construction cost estimates and corresponding total project budgets will continue to be developed during the preliminary design phase. Policy Implications The staff recommendation does not represent a change in existing policies. A new Downtown Parking Garage is one of the priority projects established by the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. In addition, the following policy statements in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan support the construction of a new parking garage: Goal T-8: Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long range needs. Policy T-47: Protect resident areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. Environmental Review Once directed by Council to move forward with the proposed parking program, Watry will complete an initial study and file a Notice of Preparation (NOP). It is City of Palo Alto Page 8 anticipated that the initial study will conclude that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required for the project. An EIR scoping meeting would then be scheduled for the Planning and Transportation Commission for May. Attachments:  Attachment A: Base Option  Attachment B: Retail Option  Attachment C: Basement Option  Attachment D: Zoning Analysis RAMP UP RAMP DN UP RAMP UP RAMP DN 20 0 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 18 8 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 10 0 ' - 0 " 2'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 82'-0" LOT 85 TAI PAN RESTAURANT LOT 84 CONGDON & CROME (OFFICE SUPPLIES) THE PROLIFIC OVEN BAKERY LOT 83 PALO ALTO SPORTS SHOP & TOY WORLD INC. LOT 102 AT&T EXCEL AVIATION 2'-0"201'-0"2'-0" 205'-0" CVS PHARMACY 1,436 SF BIKE STATIONELECTRICAL ROOM 88 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " TRASH ENCLOSURE LOT 84 STALL HAMILTON AVE WA V E R L E Y S T R E E T PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PE D E S T R I A N A C C E S S PROVISIONAL GATE PROVISIONAL GATE THREE STALLS LOST IF GATE ARMS PROVIDED PROVISIONAL PAYMENT KIOSK PROVISIONAL PAYMENT KIOSK STANDARD CLEAN AIR/CARPOOL/EV EV ACCESSIBLE VAN ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE EV VAN ACCESSIBLE EV FUTURE EV CLIENT NAME:PROJECT NAME:DATE ISSUED: © WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2015 PROJECT NUMBER:SHEET NAME: CITY OF PALO ALTOCITY OF PALO ALTO LOT D16-138 BASE OPTION 1/16" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN WITH GROUND LEVEL SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 05 PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 2 (3 AND 4 SIM) PARKING STALLS LEGEND BASE OPTION - 11'-6" HEIGHT ALL LEVELS RAMP UP RAMP DN RAMP UP RAMP DN 20 0 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 18 8 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " HAMILTON AVE WA V E R L E Y S T R E E T 2' - 0 " 10 0 ' - 0 " 2'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 82'-0" LOT 85 TAI PAN RESTAURANT LOT 84 CONGDON & CROME (OFFICE SUPPLIES) THE PROLIFIC OVEN BAKERY LOT 83 PALO ALTO SPORTS SHOP & TOY WORLD INC. LOT 102 AT&T EXCEL AVIATION 2'-0"201'-0"2'-0" 205'-0" CVS PHARMACY 542 SF BIKE STATION 88 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " TRASH ENCLOSURE LOT 84 STALL PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PE D E S T R I A N A C C E S S ELEC ROOM PROVISIONAL GATE PROVISIONAL GATE THREE STALLS LOST IF GATE ARMS PROVIDED PROVISIONAL PAYMENT KIOSK PROVISIONAL PAYMENT KIOSK 3,836 SF RETAIL STANDARD CLEAN AIR/CARPOOL/EV EV ACCESSIBLE VAN ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE EV VAN ACCESSIBLE EV FUTURE EV CLIENT NAME:PROJECT NAME:DATE ISSUED: © WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2015 PROJECT NUMBER:SHEET NAME: CITY OF PALO ALTOCITY OF PALO ALTO LOT D16-138 RETAIL OPTION 1/16" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN WITH GROUND LEVEL SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 05 PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 2 PLAN (3 AND 4 SIM) PARKING STALLS LEGEND RETAIL OPTION - 11'-6" HEIGHT ALL LEVELS RAMP UP RAMP DN RAMP DN UP RAMP UP 20 0 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 18 8 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 10 0 ' - 0 " 2'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 82'-0" LOT 85 TAI PAN RESTAURANT LOT 84 CONGDON & CROME (OFFICE SUPPLIES) THE PROLIFIC OVEN BAKERY LOT 83 PALO ALTO SPORTS SHOP & TOY WORLD INC. LOT 102 AT&T EXCEL AVIATION 2'-0"201'-0"2'-0" 205'-0" CVS PHARMACY INTAKE SHAFT 1,022 SF BIKE STATION EXHAUST SHAFT 88 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " TRASH ENCLOSURE LOT 84 STALL HAMILTON AVE WA V E R L E Y S T R E E T PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PE D E S T R I A N A C C E S S EXHAUST SHAFT PROVISIONAL GATE PROVISIONAL GATE TWO STALLS LOST IF GATE ARMS PROVIDED PROVISIONAL PAYMENT KIOSK PROVISIONAL PAYMENT KIOSK EXHAUST SHAFT INTAKE SHAFT EXHAUST SHAFT INTAKE SHAFT EXHAUST SHAFT STORAGE ROOMELECTRICAL ROOM EXHAUST SHAFT STANDARD CLEAN AIR/CARPOOL/EV EV ACCESSIBLE VAN ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE EV VAN ACCESSIBLE EV FUTURE EV CLIENT NAME:PROJECT NAME:DATE ISSUED: © WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2015 PROJECT NUMBER:SHEET NAME: CITY OF PALO ALTOCITY OF PALO ALTO LOT D16-138 BASEMENT OPTION 1/16" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN WITH GROUND LEVEL SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 05 PLAN (2, 3 AND 4 SIM) 1/16" = 1'-0" BASEMENT LEVEL PARKING STALLS LEGEND BASEMENT OPTION - 11'-6" HEIGHT ALL LEVELS ABOVE GROUND PARCEL INFORMATION ADDRESS 375 UNIVERSITY AVENUE ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 120-15-086 NET LOT SIZE 28,993 SQ FT ZONE DISTRICT PF - PUBLIC FACILITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT CC - REGIONAL / COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FLOOD ZONE X HISTORIC STATUS NONE EASEMENTS TO BE DETERMINED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED LAND USE:ALL FACILITIES OWNED, OR LEASED, AND OPERATED OR USED BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO.... OR LEASED BY ANY SUCH AGENCY TO ANOTHER PARTY. PER 18.28.050, TABLE 2: THE MINIMUM FRONT, SIDE, AND REAR YARDS IN THE PF PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE RESPECTIVE FRONT, SIDE, AND REAR YARDS REQUIRED IN THE MOST RESTRICTIVE ABUTTING DISTRICT; PROVIDED, THAT NO YARD ADJOINING A STREET SHALL BE LESS THAN 20 FEET AND THAT NO INTERIOR YARD SHALL BE LESS THAN 10 FEET. ZONE DISTRICT PF PC MINIMUM SETBACKS: FRONT YARD SETBACK 20 FEET NONE 7'-0" SPECIAL SETBACK ON HAMILTON AVE. REAR YARD SETBACK 10 FEET NONE SIDE YARD SETBACK 10 FEET NONE MAXIMUM HEIGHT:50'-0" (*)50'-0" (*) SITE IS NOT WITHIN 150' OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE:NO REQUIREMENT (*)NO REQUIREMENT (*) 30% BASE STANDARD, BUT SITE IS ADJACENT CD-C DISTRICT WITH NO SITE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT. MAXIMUM F.A.R.:1.0 : 1 (*)NO REQUIREMENT (*) MATCHES F.A.R.OF ADJACENT CD-C DISTRICT DAYLIGHT PLANE:NONE (*)NONE (*) SITE DOES NOT ABUT A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. RECYCLING STORAGE:ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT... SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE PER PAMC 18.28.060(a)AND ACCESSIBLE INTERIOR AREAS OR EXTERIOR ENCLOSURES FOR THE STORAGE OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS IN APPROPRIATE CONTAINERS. EMPLOYEE SHOWER FACILITIES: PARKING STRUCTURE NOT DESIGNED FOR EMPLOYEE PER PAMC 18.28.060(b)OCCUPANCY, THEREFORE NO SHOWERS REQUIRED. PER PAMC 18.28.090(a): IN THE PF DISTRICT, NO REQUIRED PARKING SPACE SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE FIRST 10 FEET ADJOINING THE STREET PROPERTY LINE OF ANY REQUIRED YARD. VICINITY MAP LEGEND ADDRESS NUMBER ZONE DISTRICT PROPERTY LINE SETBACK AREA COMMERCIAL USE RESIDENTIAL USE PROPERTY LISTED ON HISTORIC INVENTORY STREET TREE TRAFFIC LIGHT WITH CROSSWALK DRIVE AISLE CURB CUT 7' - 0 " S P E C I A L RAMPUP 1,169 SF BIKESTATION RESTROOMELECTRICALROOM TRASHENCLOSURE LOT 84 STALL PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PE D E S T R I A N A C C E S S 541-549 CDC(GF)(P)All Saints Episcopal Church Prolific Oven Palo Alto Sport Shop 50 .0 ' 50 .0 ' 10 0 .0 ' 204.8' 20 0 .0 ' 68.8' 51 .7 ' 15 0 .0 ' 123.0' 50 .0 ' 50 .0 ' 529 380 PF Post Office HISTORIC CATEGORY 1 & NATIONAL REGISTER 533 35 2 - 3 6 4 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) CV S 510 CDC(GF)(P) 526 555 CDC(P) 37 6 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) 38 0 - 3 8 2 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) 38 4 - 3 9 6 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) HI S T O R I C C A T . 3 550-552 CDC(GF)(P) 558-560 CDC(GF)(P) 375 HAMILTON PF 643 PF HAMILTON AVENUE GI L M A N S T R E E T WA V E R L E Y S T R E E T LANE 21 345 PF 555-595 CDC(GF)(P) 535-539 CDC(GF)(P) BR Y A N T S T R E E T 42 7 - 4 5 3 636 CDC(P) 628 CDC(P) 635 CDC(P) 45 5 400 CDC(P) 42 1 640-646 CDC(P) 459 CDC(P) 433-439 CDC(P) 425 CDC(P) 43 6 - 4 5 2 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) HI S T O R I C C A T . 2 45 6 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) HI S T O R I C C A T . 1 VA R S I T Y T H E A T E R 42 8 - 4 3 2 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) 46 0 - 4 7 6 HI S T O R I C C A T . 2 UNIVERSITY AVENUE 50 .0 ' 45 5 47 0 530 PF 345 CDC(P) 650-654 CDC(P)661 HISTORIC CAT. 2 635 CDC(P) 300 CDC(P) Chase Bank HISTORIC CAT. 2 CAT. 2 HISTORIC CAT. 3 HISTORIC CAT. 2 642 PF 34 0 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) Ap p l e I n c . 37 0 - 3 7 4 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) AT&T Tai Pan PC-4195 31 8 - 3 2 4 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) 32 6 - 3 3 8 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) 40 0 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) UN I O N B A N K 30 0 - 3 1 4 CD C ( G F ) ( P ) Wa l g r e e n s 162'-0" 20'-0" (PF) 10 ' - 0 " ( P F ) 20 ' - 0 " ( P F ) 10'-0" (PF) SETBACK 10 ' - 0 " ( P F ) 21 2 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " W A L K SE T B A C K SE T B A C K SETBACK SE T B A C K SE T B A C K ZONING ANALYSIS 1VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"2 HAYES GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC. 2657 SPRING STREET REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 P: 650.365.0600 F: 650.365.0670 www.thehayesgroup.com DRAWING CONTENT DRAWING NUMBER All drawings and written materials contained herein constitute the original & unpublished work of the Architect and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the Architect. © Hayes Group Architects, Inc. DRAWN BY: SCALE: JOB NUMBER: STAMP ISSUANCE: SHEET REVISIONS 1648.00 CITY OF PALO ALTO LOT D 375 HAMILTON AVE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 - - A0.1 ZONING ANALYSIS, VICINITY MAP As Noted TM PROJECT ADDRESS: 03.03.2017 PLANNING REVIEW Da t e : 3/ 2 / 1 7 Fi l e n a m e : 16 4 8 . 0 0 Z o n i n g A n a l y s i s 1 7 . 0 3 . 0 2 . v w x 0 20 FT 50 FT 100 FT 150 FT ### CDC(GF)(P) PALO ALTO ZONING DISTRICT MAP City of Palo Alto (ID # 7155) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Accept Downtown Parking Management Study and Provide Direction Title: Receive Results of a Downtown Parking Management Study and Provide Direction to Staff on Next Steps From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Receive the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study in Attachments A and B and an overview presentation by the City’s consultant, Dixon Resources; and 2. Direct staff to conduct public outreach and work with the Planning and Transportation Commission to refine recommendations related to the introduction of paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto, and return with a phasing and implementation plan for the Council’s consideration in the fall of 2017. Executive Summary Over the last several years, the Palo Alto City Council has directed staff to approach parking and traffic congestion in Palo Alto from three different directions: by implementing programs to reduce reliance on the private automobile (i.e. transportation demand reduction), by adding supplemental parking supply where appropriate, and by better managing existing parking resources. To examine management of parking in the Downtown commercial core, the City engaged an experienced parking consultant to complete the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study. This study examined all of the City’s current, planned and potential parking management strategies, including paid parking, within Downtown Palo Alto. The resulting Existing Conditions Analysis is included as Attachment A. The Recommendations are included as Attachment B. Staff recognizes these are complex subjects of great interest to the Council and the community, and that the recommendations included – if ultimately adopted – would result in noticeable changes for residents, employees, and visitors to downtown, as well as changes to the City’s City of Palo Alto Page 2 internal processes and organization. For this reason, the City’s parking consultant, Dixon Resources, will present an overview of the two documents, and staff is requesting direction on key next steps rather than final decisions at this time. Staff believes paid parking holds great promise as a more up to date approach to parking management for a vibrant commercial district than the current “color zone” time restriction system, and would provide a potential funding source for transportation demand management solutions to address the root cause of parking problems and traffic congestion, a large part of which stems from employee commute trips to downtown by single-occupant vehicle (SOV). Should the City Council direct staff to proceed with community outreach and development of an implementation plan, staff will also evaluate organizational responsibilities within the City structure and begin consultation with existing parking enforcement and operations staff to develop a plan for the effective integration of new and modified parking-related functions. Background The Parking Management Study complements many other Council-directed initiatives related to Downtown parking and traffic issues. Table 1 provides a summary of the initiatives that are planned and underway. Table 1: Downtown Parking Strategies Initiative Status Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program This program regulates neighborhood parking in the residential streets around the Downtown core. The program began with a Phase 1 pilot in September 2015 and will become permanent in April 2017. Parking Wayfinding Signs New static parking wayfinding signage for the Downtown will be installed starting in January 2018 as part of a larger utility project. Some of the signs will be designed to accommodate future automated parking guidance system information boards (see below). Automated Parking Guidance Systems (APGS) This project will provide real-time data on parking availability to drivers looking for parking downtown. The program is currently in the design phase and funding for implementation will come from parking revenues. Parking Supply Enhancements The City operates a valet assist service for permit-holders in three downtown garages. This enables the stacking of permitted vehicles, increasing the number of permits than can be issued for each garage. In addition, the City is beginning design of a new parking structure at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street (Lot D). Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) The City helped to establish an independent non-profit TMA in 2015 and 2016 and the PATMA has been using pilot programs to test strategies for shifting commute trips from single-occupant vehicles to other modes. With significant additional funding (potentially from parking revenues), the PATMA’s programs can be scaled up to achieve the Council’s stated goal of a 30% reduction in single-occupant vehicle commute trips to downtown. Palo Alto Free Shuttle Study The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive study of the Palo Alto Free Shuttle system, and will be presenting the initial recommendations to Council in April 2017. Consolidated Parking Permit The City is working on an RFP to secure a new parking permit sales system that City of Palo Alto Page 3 Initiative Status Sales System could offer on-line permit sales as an option for people seeking garage and lot permits and consolidate permit sales for the garages and the RPP programs. See recommendations of the Parking Management Study for more information. Parking Access and Revenue Controls (PARCS) Originally moving in tandem with the automated parking guidance systems initiative above, the PARCS project will address technologies needed to implement outcomes of the Downtown Parking Management Study as they apply to the City’s garages. Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, March 2017 Currently, parking in Downtown Palo Alto is free for visitors for two hours in the neighborhoods and surface lots, and for three hours in the garage facilities. Most of the Downtown Commercial core is encompassed by a “color zone” time restriction system, where a parker is able to park for a maximum of two hours in each individual zone. However, hourly employees have been identified moving their vehicles from one color zone to another zone every two hours rather than pay for a parking permit in the garages. Charging for parking in the garages rather than on- street spaces incentivizes employees to park on the street rather than the garages. The City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study included data collection regarding existing conditions and was envisioned as a way to ensure that the overall parking environment functions as a system to support short-term parking for customers, long term parking for employees and resident parking in neighborhoods. The City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study project scope of work included the following components: 1. Identification of City goals related to parking management in downtown Palo Alto 2. Inventory and analysis of existing on- and off-street parking demand, including mapping, user feedback, and usage trends for the streets in and around the Downtown core. 3. Evaluation of existing parking policies and regulations, including time restrictions, pricing, and relevant zoning restrictions. 4. Conducting user surveys and stakeholder interviews to assess parking issues and usage. 5. Evaluation of how to best use the City’s existing parking supply and recommend comprehensive paid parking strategies in Downtown Palo Alto. 6. Development of draft findings and recommendations for review by the City Council, followed by preparation of a final report. Work on the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study began in early 2016 and involved data collection in May, September, and October of 2016. The consultants and staff met with a group of key stakeholders for input and advice as the project proceeded, with five meetings over the course of nine months. In person “intercept” surveys with people in downtown were also conducted. The data collection process and stakeholder/survey input are described further in the attached reports. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Discussion At a high level, results of the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study assessment of existing conditions show something that many regular visitors to Downtown have known for some time: parking is a problem! As the consultant will explain at this evening’s meeting, the data shows that parking occupancy rates are extremely high, parking turnover is not in keeping with other, similar commercial districts, and the “color zone” system, which was instituted to force turnover, has probably exceeded its useful life. (See the report in Attachment A for a full review of existing conditions.) With this as background, the City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study provides analysis and recommendations aimed at (1) strengthening downtown as a vibrant commercial district where the available parking supply is better managed, such that (2) customers can have improved access to retail and services, (3) employees are better able to long-term parking in area garages and lots if they need it, and (4) pricing better reflects the true cost of parking, encouraging employees and other long-term parkers to use alternatives to the single-occupant vehicles wherever possible. A lengthy list of recommendations is included in Attachment B to address these four objectives and the problems identified. The recommendations include replacement of the “color zone” time restriction system with paid parking on street using a combination of parking meters, pay stations, and mobile pay options. As the consultant will explain at the April 11 Council meeting, the policy decisions that would ultimately have to be made to implement the recommendations would include the threshold question regarding whether the City Council wants to remove the “color zone” time restriction system and replace it with paid parking, as well as the following:  Desired parking pricing including the hours/days for enforcement  Implementation of a consolidated permitting and customer service software system  Types of revenue collection equipment (e.g. meters, pay station) and mobile pay options  Needed enforcement changes, including potential use of license plate recognition technology and citation pricing and processing changes  Financing method and implementation schedule  Related changes to parking garage and lot permit types, costs, and hours for enforcement  Related changes to RPP district employee permit costs These decisions would affect the experience of residents, employers and their employees, and visitors to downtown, and would also mean potential changes within the City organization. At a minimum, internal changes would include automation of the permitting process (i.e. the addition of on line permit sales) for downtown parking garages, the potential use of new technologies for enforcement, and the procurement and oversight of additional contracts for service such as installation and maintenance of parking meters and pay stations. The consultant has also recommended consolidating parking functions within a single division City of Palo Alto Page 5 or department. (Currently parking functions are split between Planning & Community Environment, Police, Revenue Collections in the Administrative Services Department, and Public Works.) Recognizing that meeting the new and modified responsibilities required for paid parking will require organizational changes, further work is needed to identify the optimal structure as well as identify and address any impacts to City employees. According to Dixon Resources, paid parking would generate net revenues (over and above costs) within a couple of years. It is important to note that these projections do not factor in any operating costs currently necessary to oversee the parking initiatives. Once the necessary operating costs are factored into the analysis, any net excess revenues could be used to support the nascent Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA). The PATMA has been implementing pilot programs testing incentives that could encourage commuters to leave their cars at home when they come to Palo Alto. A long term, stable funding stream could allow the PATMA to scale the successful pilot programs to reach more people. Policy Implications: Regulating parking is consistent with the City’s three-pronged approach to reduce traffic and parking demand and to manage parking within the Downtown core. Transitioning to paid parking downtown would also be consistent with the City’s sustainability goals and encourage customer turn-over for retailers. It could also improve the City’s own customer service and generate revenues to fund the PATMA (in lieu of a business tax or other funding source). In addition, the project would address the following existing Comprehensive Plan policies, goals and programs:  Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels  Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental and social cost issues in local transportation decisions  Goal T-8: Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities  Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs  Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto Resource Impact Implementing the staff recommendation would involve the use of current staff resources in FY 2018 for community engagement and development of a phasing and implementation plan. The resulting implementation plan would lay out a comprehensive strategy associated with parking initiatives in the Downtown core. City of Palo Alto Page 6 While the anticipated reorganization and scaling of parking activities necessary to implement and maintain a paid parking program will require up-front investments, including possible additional staffing, contractual services, and infrastructure, preliminary Staff forecasts show that net revenues will exceed expenses within a few years, and have the potential to generate a long term funding stream for the Palo Alto TMA. Further analysis of required expenditures during the first few years, along with cash flow financing of the required investments and anticipated changes in operating expenses will need to be determined as the program is developed. The City Manager anticipates conversations with the Finance Committee and the City Council on these subjects as these issues are explored further. Timeline If the City Council accepts staff’s recommendations, the summer and fall of 2017 would be used to gather community input, work with the Planning and Transportation Commission on a phasing and implementation plan, and work with an organizational (“change management”) consultant to assess some of the possible implications for internal City departments and staff. The results of these efforts would be brought back to the City Council for input and policy decisions in late 2017. If a decision is made to proceed with paid parking at that time, it could be operational by the end of 2018. Environmental Review The requested action is not a “project” requiring review under the California Envrionmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  Attachment A: 2017-03- 18_Study_DowntownParkingManagement_ExistingConditionsCOUNCILDRAFT  Attachment B: 2017-03- 18_Study_DowntownParkingManagement_RecommendationsCOUNCILDRAFT City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study: Existing Conditions Analysis 3639 Midway Drive, Suite B345 San Diego, CA 92110-5254 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 2 Table of Contents I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 5 A. Study Overview ................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Project Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6 3. Prior Studies .................................................................................................................................. 7 a) Downtown Parking Occupancy Data ......................................................................................... 8 b) Downtown Parking Garage Study ............................................................................................. 8 4. Study Limitations and Considerations .......................................................................................... 8 B. Demand Management ...................................................................................................................... 9 1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) .............................................................................. 9 2. Parking Supply ............................................................................................................................... 9 3. Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) .......................................................................................... 9 C. Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 10 II. Phase 1: Existing Conditions Analysis ................................................................................................. 12 A. Color Zone History .......................................................................................................................... 12 B. Color Zone Parking .......................................................................................................................... 13 C. Parking Inventory: City of Palo Alto Public Parking......................................................................... 13 1. Types of Parking Available .......................................................................................................... 13 2. Total Parking Supply by Zone ...................................................................................................... 14 3. Hourly On-Street Parking ............................................................................................................ 16 4. Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking ......................................................................................... 19 D. Current Parking Policies & Regulations ........................................................................................... 20 1. Permits ........................................................................................................................................ 20 a) Employee and Employer Parking Permits - Downtown Color Zones ...................................... 20 b) Employer and Employee Parking Permits – Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program 20 c) Daily Parking Permits .............................................................................................................. 22 2. Residential Parking Program ....................................................................................................... 23 3. Valet Parking ............................................................................................................................... 23 E. City of Palo Alto: Enforcement of Color Zones ............................................................................... 23 F. Serco: RPP Zone Enforcement ........................................................................................................ 24 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 3 G. SP Plus ............................................................................................................................................. 24 III. Occupancy Summary ...................................................................................................................... 26 A. Thursday On-Street ......................................................................................................................... 26 1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 26 2. Blue Zone .................................................................................................................................... 29 3. Lime Zone .................................................................................................................................... 32 4. Coral Zone ................................................................................................................................... 34 5. Purple Zone ................................................................................................................................. 36 B. Thursday Off-Street......................................................................................................................... 39 1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 39 2. Hourly .......................................................................................................................................... 41 3. Permit .......................................................................................................................................... 43 C. Saturday On-Street ......................................................................................................................... 44 1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 44 2. Blue Zone .................................................................................................................................... 47 3. Lime Zone .................................................................................................................................... 49 4. Coral Zone ................................................................................................................................... 51 5. Purple Zone ................................................................................................................................. 53 D. Saturday Off-Street ......................................................................................................................... 56 1. Overall ......................................................................................................................................... 56 2. Hourly .......................................................................................................................................... 57 3. Permit .......................................................................................................................................... 60 E. Heat Maps ....................................................................................................................................... 60 F. Vehicle Overstay ............................................................................................................................. 64 G. Changing Colored Zones ................................................................................................................. 66 H. Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales ................................................................................................. 68 IV. Downtown Parking Intercept Survey & Stakeholder Involvement ................................................. 70 A. Parking Intercept Surveys ............................................................................................................... 70 Appendix A – Stakeholder Meeting Notes .................................................................................................. 72 A. Stakeholder Meetings ..................................................................................................................... 72 1. Stakeholder Meeting #1 .............................................................................................................. 72 2. Stakeholder Meeting #2 .............................................................................................................. 73 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 4 3. Stakeholder Meeting #3 .............................................................................................................. 74 4. Stakeholder Meeting #4 .............................................................................................................. 75 Appendix B - Survey .................................................................................................................................... 78 Appendix C -Comparable Cities Analysis ..................................................................................................... 90 5. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 90 6. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 90 a) Paid Parking and Technology .................................................................................................. 90 b) Parking Permits ....................................................................................................................... 91 7. Cities ............................................................................................................................................ 92 a) Alameda, CA ............................................................................................................................ 92 b) Berkeley, CA ............................................................................................................................ 93 c) Monterey, CA .......................................................................................................................... 94 d) Mountain View, CA ................................................................................................................. 96 e) Pasadena, CA ........................................................................................................................... 98 f) Redwood City, CA .................................................................................................................... 99 g) San Jose, CA ........................................................................................................................... 100 h) San Mateo, CA ....................................................................................................................... 100 i) Santa Monica, CA .................................................................................................................. 102 j) San Rafael, CA ....................................................................................................................... 104 k) Sausalito, CA .......................................................................................................................... 105 l) Walnut Creek, CA .................................................................................................................. 106 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 5 I. Introduction A. Study Overview The City of Palo Alto retained Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) through a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) process to complete the City’s Downtown Parking Management Study. The professional services included a comprehensive evaluation and plan for parking in Downtown Palo Alto, including the development of an effective pricing and management strategy to maximize the utility of existing parking and to better serve visitors, residents and employees. The Study incorporated two phases: Phase 1: Existing Parking Conditions Analysis Phase 2: Paid Parking Recommendations The Study elements include the following major efforts: • Detailed inventory of parking supply • Review of existing parking conditions • Comprehensive parking utilization data collection over a three-month period in May, September and October 2016 • Analysis of existing parking demands • Distribution of parking intercept surveys • Series of meetings and collaboration efforts with key stakeholders • Evaluation of current parking policies and regulations • Analysis of current parking management • Proposed parking management strategies for Downtown parking Based on the above study elements, a series of parking issues were identified and several parking improvement approaches were developed to address the existing and future parking demand of Downtown Palo Alto. 1. Objectives For the two phases, the City outlined three (3) key objectives for the completion and success of the Study. These objectives were identified in the project kick-off meeting with the City and correlate with the goals stated in the City’s RFP. The objectives are listed below: 1. To identify existing parking utilization and parking patterns including occupancy and turnover. 2. To recommend parking management strategies that maximize the supply and utilization of Downtown parking spaces, including but not limited to zone and time restrictions. 3. To develop recommendations for a parking management strategy that may include paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto for on- and off-street parking spaces. It is not the intent of the Study to advocate for paid parking in Downtown Palo Alto or to determine the exact number of spaces needed to handle peak demand periods. It is however to develop a series of viable strategies to better equip the City in its effort to manage parking demand throughout Downtown Palo C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 6 Alto, recognizing that managing short and long-term parking effectively is good for businesses, residents, and can help to shift long-term parkers to other modes of travel over time. 2. Project Methodology The project methodology for this study was divided into several components. Initially, all relevant data from the City was reviewed and summarized including current parking operations, permit figures (residential and employee), citations and enforcement, the SP Plus valet program, current plans for a city wayfinding and branding campaign, vendor contracts and overall City objectives for the short and long- term. This information provided the baseline for the study’s existing conditions, data collection and recommendations. The Study’s core team consisted of the City’s Transportation Division staff and DIXON. This group was focused on managing the day-to-day aspects of the project and was responsible for meeting on a bi- weekly basis and coordinating the efforts of the stakeholder involvement. Other parties that were actively involved included staff from the Police, Department of Administrative Services, and Finance Departments, key stakeholders including local developers, small business owners, residents and the newly formed Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA). A total of five (5) stakeholder meetings were held with an invited group during the Study. The Study’s first meeting served as a project kick-off meeting to introduce the proposed Study including data collection plans, meetings, project objectives and goals. The kick-off meeting also provided stakeholders the opportunity to outline their concerns and issues related to parking in Palo Alto. The remaining three stakeholder meetings consisted of a review of data collection and initial findings, stakeholder feedback and input and an outline of proposed recommendations based on the results of the Study. In-person and online parking intercept surveys were conducted to gather additional information and input. The in-person surveys were conducted during each of the three data collection periods while the online survey portion was posted on the City’s parking webpage. Survey respondents included area employees, residents, local businesses, Palo Alto visitors and stakeholders. The surveys provided further insight into individuals’ experiences and perceptions of parking in Palo Alto. Over 350 surveys were collected between the online and in-person surveys. The project methodology revolved heavily around the Study’s data collection. As mentioned previously, a comprehensive parking utilization data collection effort was required over a three-month period. Initially the data collection was to be over three consecutive months (i.e., May, June and July). However, based upon the potential impacts of the summer months, the data collection schedule was adjusted with the first collection occurring in May and the second and third collections in September and October. The Study’s area of focus was Palo Alto’s downtown commercial core and the immediate side streets. All immediate public on-street and off-street parking (public surface lots and garages) was included in the Study’s data collection and analysis. It’s important to note that the immediate impacts of the commercial core on the surrounding neighborhoods was taken into consideration. Though this Study acknowledges that the findings and recommendations are to be considered in correlation with the RPP program in surrounding the residential areas, the primary objective was the commercial core. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 7 Each data collection effort took place over a two-day period, one weekday, Thursday, and one weekend day, Saturday. The days were divided into four collection time periods to capture parking occupancy and turnover throughout the day. Data was collected between 9:00am and 8:00pm during the first data collection effort in May and split into four periods as mentioned before, 9:00am (Morning), 12:00pm (Afternoon), 3:00pm (Mid-afternoon) and 6:00pm (Evening). The periods lasted an estimated ninety- minutes each. It was observed during May that the evening occupancy period was set too early, possibly missing a later peak in occupancy that results from the downtown nightlife and dining. To account for this, the September and October evening data collection periods were adjusted to begin one-hour later at 7:00pm and conclude between 8:30pm and 9:00pm. A brief table outlines the data collection below. Start/End Time Data Collection Month May September October Morning 9:00am - ~11:00am 9:00am - ~11:00am 9:00am - ~11:00am Afternoon 12:00pm - ~2:00pm 12:00pm - ~2:00pm 12:00pm - ~2:00pm Mid-afternoon 3:00pm - ~5:00pm 3:00pm - ~5:00pm 3:00pm - ~5:00pm Evening 6:00pm - ~8:00pm 7:00pm - ~9:00pm 7:00pm - ~9:00pm Table 1: Data collection periods As mentioned previously, September and October’s data collections were altered slightly from May’s collection. During the May data collection, the team utilized temporary capture of license plate data for all on and off-street hourly parking spaces to calculate both occupancy and turnover, both Thursday and Saturday. Occupancy is the percentage of parking spaces that are full on a street or in a facility, which is calculated by dividing the number of vehicles counted over the total number of spaces. Turnover requires license plate captures for tracking individual cars to determine length of stay and movement between spaces. During May, no data was collected for off-street permit spaces, neither in surface lots nor garages. After reviewing the initial data from May and discussing the data collection methodology with the City, the fall data collection efforts were expanded to include off-street permit spaces. Unlike the data collection of hourly spaces, which captured turnover, only occupancy counts were completed for the permit spaces. In addition, provided the City does not enforce on weekends, on and off-street time limits were no longer considered. Thus, capturing turnover on the weekends was unnecessary for this Study given that one may remain parked in a space for any amount of time. As a result, only car counts for occupancy data were captured on Saturdays for on-street and off-street, for both hourly and permit spaces. This data collection approach applied to both September and October. Following each data collection effort, the data was analyzed and shared internally with City staff and presented at subsequent stakeholder meetings. This method provided the City and stakeholder members the opportunity to monitor the project’s status as it moved forward, and observe any trends or changes experienced in occupancy data for Downtown. 3. Prior Studies In speaking with the City, it was acknowledged that paid parking in the form of on-street meters did exist in Palo Alto. In 1947, City officials installed parking meters in Downtown however, in the mid-1970s the C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 8 same meters were removed in an effort to make the shopping district around Downtown more competitive with Stanford Shopping Center. An inquiry into the City’s previous parking studies and evaluations was conducted to better contextualize the history of parking in Palo Alto. Internally in 1986, the City conducted a study that examined parking, traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown area. The results of the study altered Downtown zoning restrictions, making the land use and zoning regulations more restrictive. Based on a review of the study’s material, the information is not pertinent to the current study. Beyond the City’s internal study, no further information related to past parking studies completed by any outside firms was received. a) Downtown Parking Occupancy Data Since 2011, the City has collected Downtown parking occupancy data annually during each spring and fall to measure parking trends. Data collection has occurred for on-street spaces since 2011 while off-street occupancy collection was measured from March 2014 through October 2014. The City’s occupancy results are accessible through the City’s website. b) Downtown Parking Garage Study In 2012 the City awarded Sandis Engineers a contract for a Garage Feasibility and Attendant Parking Study. The City identified five existing surface lot sites for the construction of new parking structures throughout Downtown, including: 1) Lot D on the corner of Hamilton Avenue & Waverly Street, 2) Lots E/G on Gilman Street between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue, 3) Lot O on High Street between Lytton Avenue and University Avenue, 4) Lot P on High Street between University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, and 5) Urban Lane between Palo Alto Medical Foundation and University Avenue Circle Mall. In addition to the five locations identified, the project included the study of the City’s existing garage infrastructure for the implementation of attendant parking (staffed attendant booths) to increase parking supply. As of January 2017, City Council has directed staff to move forward with the design for a new parking structure on Lot D at the corner of Hamilton Ave & Waverly Street, currently a public surface parking lot for hourly parkers. Phase 1 services which include an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as well as preliminary and schematic designs is set to take place in early 2017. In tandem with the City’s solicitation for a comprehensive parking study, the City also engaged the parking technology consultant, Walker Parking, on projects to improve parking signage and branding utilizing Hunt Design, as well as address the need for automatic parking guidance systems (APGS) equipment and PARCs (Parking Access and Revenue Controls). The initial project completion date for this project is Summer 2018. 4. Study Limitations and Considerations • Because the current make up of parking operations within the City is spread across multiple departments, parking related material and documentation is also organized as such. Locating information attaining to a certain parking operation (e.g., permit revenue) may require contacting multiple departments and/or staff to retrieve accurate information about the subject. • The disparity between weekday and weekend rules for off-street permitted spaces needed to be taken into consideration in this study. During weekdays (Monday – Friday) the City’s designated C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 9 ‘Permit Parking Only’ spaces are specific to permit holders from 8:00am – 5:00pm. After 5:00pm on weekdays and on weekends, permit parking is available to the public. As a result, the data collection methodology for the second and third data collection efforts was adjusted for the Study. During the May data collection effort, data was only collected for hourly time limit spaces and not for permitted spaces. However, for the second and third data collection rounds the study included the permitted spaces in the form of occupancy counts. This enabled the study to account for all occupancy and provide the study with more accurate data related to the number of motorists parking Downtown during the weekend and evenings. • For the purposes of the study it is important to note that there were numerous on-street construction projects occurring throughout the downtown during the first data collection opportunity. The construction sites were found primarily along the 200 and 300 blocks of Lytton Ave on the north study area boundary; on the 400 block of Cowper Street; and along the 500 block of High Street. Furthermore, private lots and garages were not considered in the study, which could become a resource for the City in terms of evening or shared parking in the future. B. Demand Management Over the past two years the City has been engaged in reducing parking and traffic demand throughout the downtown core and the surrounding neighborhoods. The effort has been channeled through three different approaches, which include: 1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The TDM approach has included the formation of a Transportation Management Association, maintenance of a free shuttle program, and the City’s further involvement with rideshare and public transportation applications. The objective of the free shuttle program is to provide accessibility in hopes of better supporting the surrounding communities and reducing parking demand downtown. One of the Transportation Management Association’s objectives is to manage and market alternative modes of transit in the Downtown areas to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, as well as collect data on modes of travel. 2. Parking Supply The City has also been working to address the existing issues related to parking supply for both on-street and off-street parking throughout downtown Palo Alto. The City has identified three possible methods for addressing this issue including garage technology, valet-assistance and satellite parking. The City’s plan regarding garage technology is to explore ways to upgrade the capabilities of its existing garages with revenue access controls and parking guidance systems. As part of the valet-assist pilot program, the City entered a contract with SP+ to provide valet operations in Lot R (Alma/High garage) to maximize the parking capacity of the garage. The program has since expanded to Lot S/L (Bryan/Lytton garage) and Lot WC (Webster/Cowper garage). 3. Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) The City is now more than a year into implementation of the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program. The RPP program is intended to preserve parking in the residential neighborhoods for residents, C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 10 who have witnessed a significant increase in non-residential parking. The program is designed to provide residents preferential on-street parking by implementing restrictions on non-residents. The RPP district allows for two-hour parking only for those without permits and is enforced Monday through Friday, 8:00am – 5:00pm. Palo Alto’s program affords residents priority on-street parking within the modified district boundaries through the sale of permits. In addition, the RPP program makes a select number of permits available to Downtown and SOFA-area (small district located south of Forest Ave and north of Addison Ave between Alma St and Ramona St) commuter employees to help balance the parking demand from retail and commercial uses in each district while the City continues its efforts to create additional parking supply and shift commuters to alternate modes. C. Study Area The study area is bounded by Lytton Ave to the north, Webster Ave to the east, Forest Ave to the south, and Alma Street to the west. These boundary streets surround Palo Alto’s Downtown business district. The retail, restaurant and other commercial land uses are found primarily along University Ave and Hamilton Ave but are also spread among a number of the cross streets between Alma and Waverly. The eastern-most segment of the study area is comprised of a mixture of commercial business and residential land uses. With the implementation and initial success of the City’s Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program, the Study did not expand into residential areas that border the immediate downtown to the north, east and south. The study area is divided into four zones which are referred to by colors: Blue Zone, Lime Zone, Coral Zone, and Purple Zone. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 11 Figure 1: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking map C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 12 II. Phase 1: Existing Conditions Analysis A. Color Zone History In 1997, after a two-year trial period the City Council approved the implementation of the Restrictive Parking Zone program. This program established four color zones within the Downtown Business District and prohibited re-parking within the same zone during the same business day. The program was established to address repeat parkers, the practice of employees who park in on-street spaces and move their vehicle from one parking space to another nearby when their allotted time is expired, consistently taking up the most convenient parking in one area. Additional reasons for the program were to combat long-term parking issues and to increase the number of available parking spaces for visitors traveling to the downtown area. When the color zones were initially implemented, the Coral Zone only extended to the north side of Forest Avenue. However, the Library located on the south side of Forest Avenue was not covered by the zone. Due to consistent abuse of the Library parking lot, in 2011 a request to extend the zone to include the lot as well as the adjacent on-street parking spaces along Bryant Street in front of the Library was submitted. This resolution was passed in July of 2011, and now extends the Coral Zone to include the Library lot and adjacent on-street parking. As part of the City’s effort to educate the community and visitors, City staff in collaboration with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce formed the Parking Committee in 1994. An initial objective of the Committee was producing an intuitive parking brochure that clearly illustrated the locations and color zones of available parking in downtown. The brochure was also mailed to all the downtown merchants. In addition, preceding the official color zone effective date, the City replaced all parking rule signs downtown with signs that indicated the parking zone and associated rules. The Parking Committee also held special events and training sessions that educated the community, employers and employees about the new parking rules. Over the course of the first month of the program, the City’s parking enforcement officers issued warnings rather than citations in a customer-friendly effort to educate the public about the new restrictions. In addition to a warning notice, officers included a copy of the parking brochure. In comparison with the number of citations issued in the same area the previous year, the color zone implementation resulted in 2,889 fewer citations in 1995. The City confirmed a compliance rate of 97.3 percent within the first nine months of the post warning-period. The initial evaluation of the program and its success was dependent on multiple factors including spillover into the surrounding neighborhoods, availability of parking spaces, availability and demand for parking permits, as well as the general feedback from merchants, visitors and the community. Overall, the program was deemed a success amongst most businesses and restaurant employers, citing that they felt it had increased the number of available parking spaces. However, in 2004, the City witnessed an increase in complaints of repeat parkers in the same zone multiple times per day. As a response, the City implemented a series of 30-minute short-term parking spaces identified with green curb paint. This would allow visitors to utilize these short-term spaces for C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 13 quick errands but also allow visitors to park in a 2-hour space in the same color zone later without receiving a citation. In addition to this, the City also agreed to grant a one-time dismissal per person in the event a complaint or appeal was received. B. Color Zone Parking As mentioned, the downtown business district of Palo Alto is divided into four color-coded parking zones: Blue Zone, Lime Zone, Coral Zone, and Purple Zone. There are two- and three-hour time limits for on- street and off-street parking within the zones. Once a motorist has parked in a zone and the time limit has expired, the motorist must move their vehicle out of that zone. A motorist’s vehicle is not allowed to park in the same color zone more than once within the same enforcement day. Outside of the downtown color zones within the city’s RPP zones, vehicles can park for a maximum of two-hours. However, the thirty- minute green parking zones, yellow commercial loading zones, white passenger loading zones and blue disabled designated spaces are exempt from the color zone re-parking requirement. Lastly, colored zone time limits and RPP areas are enforced between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm on weekdays, while no parking restrictions are enforced on regular City holidays or on weekends. C. Parking Inventory: City of Palo Alto Public Parking 1. Types of Parking Available Downtown Palo Alto provides multiple parking choices including: Types of Parking Available Time Limit Time-Limit Non-Metered On-Street Parking 2-hours Time-Limit Non-Metered Off-Street (Surface Lot) Parking 2-hours Time-Limit Non-Metered Off-Street (Garage) Parking 3-hours Employee Permit Parking Off-Street (Surface Lot / Garage) Daily Daily Permit Parking Off-Street (Surface Lot / Garage) Daily Private Off-Street Parking n/a Table 2: Types of parking in Downtown Palo Alto A field audit was completed to identify the number and types of parking spaces available in Downtown for both on-street and off-street City operated parking spaces (hourly time limit and permitted). The assessment determined that there are an estimated 1,237 on-street parking spaces, 1,372 off-street hourly public parking spaces, 1,811 off-street permit parking spaces (surface lot and garage), for an estimated total of 4,389 spaces within the downtown study area. The total number of spaces included specialized spaces such as disabled spaces, motorcycle spaces, electric vehicle charging spaces, and loading zones. Figure 2 shows the parking space percentage breakdown by space type while Figure 3 shows the total parking supply on and off-street. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 14 2. Total Parking Supply by Zone Color Zone On-Street Off-Street – Garage Off-Street Surface Lot Total Blue Zone 420 589 143 1152 Lime Zone 241 688 274 1203 Coral Zone 273 755 166 1194 Purple Zone 303 345 192 840 Table 3: Total parking supply on-street, off-street garage / surface lot) by color zone Table 4 demonstrates the total number of parking spaces for each color zone within the study area. The Blue Zone, because of the prevalent number of residential streets in the zone, has a greater number of on-street parking spaces compared to the other three zones. The Purple Zone consists of the least amount of overall parking when compared to the other zones. It should be noted that the 800 High Garage resides outside the immediate study area, south of Forest Ave on High St., however is still considered part of the Purple Zone. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 15 More than one-third (41%) of the parking supply in downtown Palo Alto is comprised of permit parking, either in the surface lots or in the garages. The remaining 59% is a combination of on and off-street hourly parking. An estimated 72% of parking Downtown is off-street parking, whether it be garage hourly and permit parking or surface lot hourly and permit parking. 831 1546 541 265 1237 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Garage - Hourly Garage - Permit Surface Lot- Hourly Surface Lot - Permit On-street - Hourly Total Parking Supply On and Off-Street Figure 3: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking total parking supply on and off-street. Figure 2: City of Palo Alto Downtown parking space percentage breakdown by space type 28% 31% 41% Percentage of Spaces in Study Area On-Street - Hourly Off-Street - Hourly Off-Street - Permit C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 16 3. Hourly On-Street Parking Tables 1 through 4 list the inventory of on-street parking spaces by street, block face number and type of parking. This is two-hour time limit parking and consists of all on-street spaces within the four-color zones. As seen in Table 1 and Table 2, on-street parking comprises 28% of the public parking available in Downtown Palo Alto. Blue Zone Street/Block Space Count Loading Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Cowper St. 400 23 2 25 500 23 23 600 30 30 Webster St. 400 15 500 23 1 24 600 26 26 Kipling St. 400 25 25 Tasso St. 400 14 14 Lytton Ave. 400 24 24 500 6 6 University Ave. 400 35 2 6 43 500 35 2 8 45 Hamilton Ave. 400 38 38 500 35 35 Forest Ave. 400 26 26 500 21 21 Table 4: Downtown on-street parking inventory, Blue Zone C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 17 Lime Zone Street/Block Space Count Loading Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Waverley St. 400 30 30 500 31 1 32 600 23 23 Florence St. 400 13 2 15 Gilman St. 600 11 11 Lytton Ave. 300 32 32 University Ave. 300 37 7 44 Hamilton Ave. 300 25 25 Forest Ave. 300 29 29 Coral Zone Street/Block Space Count Loading Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Bryant St. 400 14 2 16 500 34 2 1 37 600 22 1 23 Ramona St. 400 28 2 30 500 27 4 31 600 21 1 22 Lytton St. 200 24 24 University Ave. 200 34 2 5 41 Hamilton Ave. 200 24 2 26 Forest Ave. 200 23 23 Table 5: Downtown on-street inventory, Lime Zone Table 6: Downtown on-street inventory, Coral Zone C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 18 Purple Zone Street/Block Space Count Loading Zone Motorcycle TOTAL Emerson St. 400 31 1 32 500 28 1 29 600 28 28 High St. 400 19 2 21 500 21 2 23 600 27 Alma St. 400 0 0 500 11 11 600 15 1 16 Lytton Ave. 100 25 1 26 University Ave. 100 22 2 3 24 Hamilton Av. 100 30 2 32 Forest Ave. 100 34 34 Table 7: Downtown on-street inventory, Purple Zone C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 19 4. Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking Hourly and Permit Off-Street Parking Surface Lot/Garage Space Counts Permit Hourly Total Garages Garage B (Private garage with city hourly use) 0 63 63 Garage CC (Civic Center) 509 183 692 Garage CW (Cowper Webster) 388 201 589 Garage Q (Private garage with city permit use) 134 0 134 Garage R (Alma/High) 134 77 211 Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 381 307 688 Surface Lots Lot A 0 68 68 Lot C 27 25 52 Lot D 0 86 86 Lot E 34 0 34 Lot F 0 46 46 Lot G 53 0 53 Lot H 0 91 91 Lot K 43 12 55 Lot N 0 46 46 Lot O 0 78 78 Lot P 0 51 51 Lot T 24 28 52 Lot X 31 0 31 Total Spaces 1811 1372 3183 There are a total of four off-street locations, one surface lot and three garages that are permit only lots. There are also eight locations that are hourly parking only, one garage and seven surface lots. It should be noted that Garage B is a private garage that supplies city parking on an hourly basis. The remaining lots and garages are a mixture of hourly and permit parking – these permit locations allow both daily and employee permits. Table 8: Downtown off-street parking, hourly and permit spaces C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 20 D. Current Parking Policies & Regulations 1. Permits a) Employee and Employer Parking Permits - Downtown Color Zones Palo Alto offers permit parking for employers and employees of businesses located in the Downtown Color Zones. The Color Zones are bounded by Alma Street to the west, Webster Street to the east, Forest Avenue to the South, and Lytton Avenue to the north. Permits may be purchased for all ten parking garages and surface lots: Garage CC (Civic Center) Lot E (Gilman / Bryant) Garage R (High / Alma South) Lot G (Gilman / Waverly) Garage Q (Private garage with city permit use) Lot K (Lytton / Waverly) Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) Lot F (Lytton / Kipling Lot) Garage CW (Cowper Webster) Lot X (Sheraton) (reduced rate) Table 9: Eligible lots and garages with valid permit As of October 2016, the Wait List figures for permits at Downtown permit lot locations were as follows: Garage CC (Civic Center) 105 Lot E (Gilman / Bryant) 17 Garage R (High / Alma South) 50 Lot G (Gilman / Waverly) Garage Q (Private garage with city permit use) 27 Lot K (Lytton / Waverly) 14 Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 59 Lot F (Lytton / Kipling Lot) 14 Garage CW (Cowper Webster) 60 Lot X (Sheraton) (reduced rate) 8 Table 10: Permit Wait List as of October 2016 Employee and employer Downtown off-street parking permits may be purchased for $466.00 per year, $146.50 per quarter, or for $17.50 per day. b) Employer and Employee Parking Permits – Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Additional on-street parking permits are available for downtown employees and employers through the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program within select RPP zones. Through the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program, employers and employees are required to obtain a permit to park on-street for over two hours between 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. Employees may select a permit in any zone that is available. Employees are not limited to selecting the zone nearest to their workplace. However, one must park in their selected zone. The permit is not valid in any other zone. The RPP Program, as it pertains to residents, is discussed in more detail in the Residential Parking Program section of this report. Phase 2 of the RPP program, which went into effect on April 1, 2016, required the purchase of Phase 2 permits by Phase 1 permit holders. Employers and employees who had Phase 1 permits were able to use their online account to purchase Phase 2 permits as of April 1, 2016. Any new employers must create an account and provide proof of business and their business registration number. Employees purchasing a permit for the first time need to upload a photocopy of a photo ID and provide proof of their employment location. Permits are sold online only on the City’s parking website, which is managed by SP+. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 21 Employees can purchase a Phase 2 parking permit decal for $466.00 per year that is assigned to one vehicle only. Employees will purchase zone specific permits to park in certain parking zones. Employees may select a permit in any zone that is available. Employees are not limited to selecting the zone nearest to their workplace. There are ten different zones designated for on-street employee and employer parking permits. Each permit is eligible for one zone, and employees or employers may select any available zone. The zone boundaries are outlined below in Figure 5. Employees may park in the zone for which their permit is valid. If a Zone 2 permit is purchased, the employee is limited to parking within the bounds of Zone 2. Employers have the option to purchase a transferable hangtag for $466.00 per year which can be shared between shift workers and only applies to RPP Business Permits. Per Chapter 4.60 of the Palo Alto Municipal code, all fixed-location business within the City of Palo Alto must be registered with the Business Registry by March 31 each year. Registration requires a flat fee of $51.00. However, as of January 2016, Chapter 4.60 was amended to exclude small businesses and non-profits without a full-time owner, as well as religious organizations, from the Palo Alto Business Registry requirements. If an employee has an annual income equal to or less than $50,000.00 or with a pre-tax hourly wage equal to or less than twice the minimum wage, they qualify for a reduced-price permit of $100.00 per year. These permits are valid within one of the ten designated RPP on-street zones mentioned earlier. RPP employee permits are valid only on-street and are not recognized in the City’s garages or off-street surface parking lots. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 22 c) Daily Parking Permits One-day permits may be purchased for visitors who wish to park Downtown for more than the allotted color zone time limits. Daily parking permits are valid in all off-street parking garages and surface lots in all spaces. There are no daily visitor permits available for on-street parking spaces. To purchase a daily permit, visitors may go to the first floor of the Bryant Street and Cowper/Webster parking garages and make payment at the Digital Luke II pay station. It should be noted that for the extent of the study (through October 2016), the pay stations at both parking garages have been inoperable. The pay stations both have notices informing individuals to visit the Palo Alto City Hall to purchase a daily permit. Figure 4: Downtown RPP Employee Parking Zones Program C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 23 2. Residential Parking Program Palo Alto recently implemented a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program. The purpose of the program is limit the number of long-term parkers in the neighborhoods close to downtown during business hours. The RPP program requires residents within the RPP District (see Figure 4) to have a permit to park for over two hours on-street. The permit is required between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. Parameters of the program are currently being reevaluated for possible adjustments at the end of Phase 2 on March 31, 2017. The RPP program has been introduced in two phases. During Phase 1 the City sold roughly 1,600 annual permits to employees and businesses in addition to resident’s permits (total number of resident permits not provided). Phase 2 of the RPP program expanded the boundaries to include additional streets who petitioned to be included in the program, and to include optional eligibility areas for streets that may wish to opt in in the future. As of December 22, 2016, a total of 4,854 Resident Annual permits and 825 Resident One-day Scratcher permits had been sold while a total of 1,335 Employee Annual permits were sold. A combined 164 One- and Five-day Employee Scratcher permits were sold through the same date in December. The Phase 2 zone by zone map outlined above in Figure 4. Downtown residents must apply online to receive their permit. No more than four permits in the form of stickers (one free) and two transferable hangtag permits may be granted per residential unit. The first permit is free, but each additional permit costs $50.00. Residents may have up to 50 daily visitors permits per year, at a cost of $5.00 each. Residents creating new accounts are required to show proof of residency. 3. Valet Parking The City of Palo Alto also offers valet parking to improve off-street parking utilization and efficiency. SP+ is contracted by the City to manage the valet parking operations. The Lot R valet program is staffed by two valet attendant staffers, stationed at the third floor of the garage beginning at 9:00am on weekdays. Valet services are provided to motorists with valid permits issued by the City in the form of a sticker on the rear-bumper of the vehicle. Permits are controlled by the City and are restricted to specific locations. When the permit spaces in the garage are close to full, the attendants direct permit parkers to park in the drive aisles of the garage in a manner that still allows vehicles to enter and exit. The motorists provide their key to the attendant, and the attendant may move the vehicle during the day to accommodate other vehicles. The motorist receives their key back from the attendant when they return to the garage. Valet parking is located on the third floor and begins at 9:00am until 7:00pm on weekdays. E. City of Palo Alto: Enforcement of Color Zones To enforce the color zones, several enforcement officers are required to manually enter each license plate into a handheld citation device. Initially parking enforcement was housed within the Police Department and consisted of seven Parking Enforcement Officers, a Parking Enforcement Lead, and a supervising Police Sergeant. Around 2006 the City altered the classification of the officers to Community Service Officers (CSOs). Seven full-time officers and one non-sworn full-time management position now compose the parking enforcement division of the Police Department, which is funded by the General Fund. The Police Department has been approved to hire an additional CSO in early 2017, making a total of eight full- time officers. Typically, one officer is assigned to each color zone and on any given day officers may C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 24 manually enter between 750 to 1000 license plates. It should be noted that these figures are consistent with DIXON’s data collection occupancy figures for each zone during the data collection periods. F. Serco: RPP Zone Enforcement The City of Palo Alto retained Serco in February of 2014 to provide enforcement services for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program. Serco was responsible for enforcing Phase 1 (6 months), and is currently enforcing Phase 2 (12-months) of the RPP Program. During Phase 1, Serco’s enforcement officers issued approximately 1,768 citations in the RPP zones. Of these 1,768 citations, 506 citations were processed through first-level appeals, handled by the City Clerks office. In 2016, through roughly nine-months of Phase 2, beginning in March, Serco’s enforcement officers had issued approximately 4,153 citations in the RPP zones. Of the Phase 2 citations, 524 went through first-level reviews. As part of measuring program performance, Serco provides patrol routes and frequency schedules. The City must approve any changes to schedules, routes, or operations. Parking Enforcement Officers are also required to submit daily reports with any issues such as missing signs, accidents, or safety hazards. G. SP Plus In April 2015, the Palo Alto City Council approved a three-year contract with SP+ to host a new parking website with an online permit sales portal for the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District. As part of the contract, T2 Systems was retained as a subcontractor for online permit sales and fulfillment. SP Plus was responsible for the building the payment portal and training City staff how to use the back-end interface. In addition, SP Plus has been contracted to provide ongoing services in the form of a valet-assist program for specific facilities Downtown. SP Plus utilizes T2’s FLEX system as the online parking permit management system, which was required to track online permit sales for the RPP District. The FLEX system is functional for both residents and employees to register, validate, pay, and renew permits. Permits are available on an annual, quarterly, monthly, weekly, or daily basis. Users can create personalized accounts to manage their permits, and corporate accounts allow businesses to pay for employee permits. Through a link provided on the City of Palo Alto Parking website, residents, employers and employees can create a user account. As part of this process, users need to provide proof of residence or work addresses within the Downtown RPP program area. Depending on whether one is a resident or employee. Residents may upload a photo ID with address or a utility bill or lease. Employers must upload documentation of employer registration with the Palo Alto Business Registry while employees must upload a recent pay stub verifying employment address (and income verification if applying for a reduced-price permit). Applicants may also log back in to confirm whether their account has been approved for a permit. Permits are mailed by SP Plus within 48 hours of purchase, and temporary permits can be printed out through the system immediately. SP Plus is also responsible for replacement permits and for providing telephone customer service support for the City between the hours of 5:00am and 5:00pm, Mondays through Fridays, as well as after-hour and weekend support for emergencies. The types of permits currently sold through the system are as follows: C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 25 • Resident Permits (currently there is not a waitlist for residents to attain a RPP permit) • Resident Annual Guest Permits • Resident Daily Visitor Permits • RPP – Employer / Employee Permits • RPP - Low-Income Employee Permits The FLEX system also can link accounts in the case that a driver has multiple addresses or vehicles. A complete audit trail of all accounts, transactions, and refunds is managed through the system, and the contract requires that the system reports on all permit sales to the City. SP Plus is responsible for hosting the website for the duration of the project. All revenue is collected by the City and is not accessible to SP Plus. The valet-assist program is currently operated at Garage R (High/Alma South), Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) and Garage WC (Webster/Cowper). Valet services are provided to motorists with valid permits issued by the City in the form of a sticker on the rear-bumper of the vehicle. Permits are controlled by the City and restricted to specific locations. SP Plus operates Monday through Friday from 9:00am to 7:00pm. Each lot is staffed by two SP Plus employees. The operator has explained that the attendants will continue to park vehicles (including double-parking or stacking of vehicles) in each lot until they reach a point that no further cars will fit. Per SP Plus however this situation has not yet occurred and on average, attendants park between 5 and 20 cars per day, depending on the lot. Lot R (Alma/High) consistently parks a greater number of vehicles than Lot SL. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 26 III. Occupancy Summary The Study’s three-month data collection effort results yielded significant occupancy figures for the Downtown study area. The combined average occupancy in the four-Color Zones for May, September and October is displayed below (Figure 5). The figure is split up by color zone, day of data collection, Thursday or Saturday, and the type of parking, hourly or permit. On Thursday, Color Zones experienced average hourly occupancy between approximately 70% to 80% while average permit occupancy varied from 55% to 75%. On Saturdays, a larger range was observed for average hourly occupancy with figures ranging from 61% to 91%. Permit occupancy figures on Saturday were far lower, ranging from 7% to 26% across the Color Zones. A. Thursday On-Street 1. Overall Over a three-month data collection period in May, September and October of 2016, the average on-street occupancy rates on Thursdays throughout the study area were consistent. As shown below in Figure 5, the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods were generally the highest occupancy times, with occupancy rates reaching over the industry standard of 80% maximum. It should be noted, once Figure 5: Combined On- and Off-Street Occupancy Averages (May, September and October) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 27 occupancy reaches 85% and above, vehicle turnover appears to be minimal and available spaces decrease. As a result, vehicles searching for spaces and circling street blocks increases causing further congestion. Though block faces with an occupancy under 80% are considered optimal, the Study has highlighted these as points of concern. Below, Figure 6 examines the Thursday on-street occupancy based on the four color zones for the month of May. The Blue Zone hovered around 60-62% occupancy throughout the day, which was significantly lower than the other three color zones. The Lime and Coral Zones were identical in occupancy throughout the day, and the occupancy rates gradually increased until the evening where they peaked at 98%. While the Lime and Coral Zones were at or above 80% occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon and Evening, the Blue and Purple Zones on the periphery still had adequate levels of occupancy. 62% 71%73% 87% 56% 84% 71% 84% 74% 83% 75% 93% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Study Area Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month May September October Figure 6: Study Area Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 28 Like May’s figures, the lowest occupancy rates observed in all four colored zones in September on Thursday were during the Morning data collection period (Figure 7). Peak occupancy levels were observed during the Afternoon and Evening, where many the zones were above the 80% threshold. 66% 81%77% 68% 55% 89% 68% 86% 55% 89% 68% 86% 49% 78%71% 94% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening September Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 8: September Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison 60%62%60%62% 70%74% 80% 98% 70%74% 80% 98% 48% 75%71% 91% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening May Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 7: May On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 29 October’s on-street occupancy for Thursday, displayed above, had the highest occupancy rates during each time of day in the Lime and Coral Zones. In the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon and Evening data collection periods, these two-color zones were above the occupancy threshold and therefore considered to be full. During the Evening, all four-color zones were above the 80% occupancy threshold. The following occupancy tables show the observed percent occupancy broken down by block face during each data collection period. The cells highlighted in red are those that are at or above 80% occupancy, indicating that they are at capacity by parking industry standards—these are the areas of primary concern. It is important to note that the few cells with missing occupancy percentages is due to a gap in data collection, and therefore these were not calculated as part of the overall zone occupancy averages. Additionally, blocks with an occupancy percentage over 100% were due to double-parking, most often from construction vehicles or delivery trucks. 2. Blue Zone Table 1 shows the on-street occupancy by block face within the Blue Zone on Thursday, May 19, 2016. At the bottom, the average zone occupancy for each time period is calculated. During this round of data collection, none of the averages were above 80% occupancy, indicating that there was a sufficient parking available in the Blue Zone that Thursday throughout the day. 77%83% 71% 81%79% 87%83% 100% 79% 87%83% 100% 62% 75% 62% 90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening October Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 9: October Thursday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 30 Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 40% 56% 40% 400 FOREST 26 31% 77% 73% 400 HAMILTON 38 47% 76% 42% 68% 400 KIPLING 25 88% 24% 80% 44% 400 LYTTON 24 50% 63% 4% 25% 400 TASSO 14 79% 71% 50% 50% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 59% 43% 78% 89% 400 WEBSTER 15 73% 47% 53% 80% 500 COWPER 23 48% 57% 39% 87% 500 FOREST 21 33% 33% 67% 500 HAMILTON 35 66% 69% 54% 54% 500 LYTTON 6 67% 83% 100% 50% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 97% 70% 38% 84% 500 WEBSTER 24 88% 88% 71% 79% 600 COWPER 30 23% 57% 60% 13% 600 WEBSTER 26 65% 77% 88% 104% Average: 60% 62% 60% 62% Table 11: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) During the data collection round on Thursday in September, the average Blue Zone occupancy during the Afternoon was slightly above the occupancy threshold at 81%. The 500 block of University Avenue was consistently considered at capacity throughout all four data collection times. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 68% 76% 56% 76% 400 FOREST 26 38% 81% 96% 31% 400 HAMILTON 38 68% 68% 53% 82% 400 KIPLING 25 96% 84% 96% 100% 400 LYTTON 24 21% 33% 104% 42% 400 TASSO 14 114% 86% 79% 79% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 89% 89% 46% 95% 400 WEBSTER 15 100% 107% 80% 67% 500 COWPER 23 61% 65% 91% 500 FOREST 21 38% 81% 86% 38% 500 HAMILTON 35 37% 69% 63% 63% 500 LYTTON 6 100% 33% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 84% 89% 111% 111% 500 WEBSTER 24 71% 96% 67% 92% 600 COWPER 30 40% 57% 67% 43% 600 WEBSTER 26 65% 108% 81% 54% Average: 66% 81% 77% 68% Table 1: 2Blue Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 31 Table 12 displays the occupancy figures observed during the Thursday data collection round in October. Like the other two months, the highest average occupancy rate occurred during the Afternoon. The Evening collection period also averaged at above 80% occupancy in October. There is a dip in occupancy observed before the Evening during the Mid-Afternoon, which is consistent with what was observed in the other two months as well. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 56% 68% 76% 76% 400 FOREST 26 85% 92% 85% 96% 400 HAMILTON 38 68% 76% 45% 95% 400 KIPLING 25 92% 92% 96% 100% 400 LYTTON 24 58% 83% 67% 79% 400 TASSO 14 79% 107% 43% 79% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 92% 89% 92% 84% 400 WEBSTER 15 100% 107% 107% 100% 500 COWPER 23 74% 87% 39% 104% 500 FOREST 21 62% 76% 86% 52% 500 HAMILTON 35 71% 71% 57% 46% 500 LYTTON 6 83% 100% 83% 67% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 68% 81% 62% 97% 500 WEBSTER 24 92% 92% 83% 88% 600 COWPER 30 57% 43% 50% 67% 600 WEBSTER 26 92% 65% 69% 62% Average: 77% 83% 71% 81% Table 13: Blue Zone, on-street occupancy, October (Thursday) Below in Figure 9, the average on-street occupancy within the Blue Zone is compared by month. During the Morning, Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods, the month of October had the highest average occupancy rates in the Blue Zone. The occupancy rates in May were consistently lower than the other two months throughout the day. In all three months, the highest occupancy rates were observed during the Afternoon. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 32 3. Lime Zone The Lime Zone is more centrally located in Downtown Palo Alto compared with the Blue Zone, which could explain why more of the occupancy averages are above the 80% threshold. During the May data collection round on Thursday, the Lime Zone averaged above the threshold during the Afternoon and Evening periods. All blocks except the 300 block of Forest were at capacity during those times. Conversely, only one or two blocks were highlighted as above the threshold during the Morning and Mid-Afternoon collection periods in May. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 38% 52% 41% 52% 300 HAMILTON 25 48% 88% 76% 88% 300 LYTTON 32 44% 94% 72% 106% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 95% 89% 100% 100% 400 FLORENCE 15 67% 87% 73% 93% 400 WAVERLEY 30 77% 100% 73% 107% 500 WAVERLEY 32 91% 84% 78% 97% 600 GILMAN 11 64% 91% 73% 82% 600 WAVERLEY 23 48% 96% 43% 83% Average: 63% 87% 70% 90% Table 14: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) 60%62%60%62%66% 81%77% 68% 77% 83% 71% 81% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month on Thursday May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016) Figure 10: Average Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month on Thursday C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 33 During the Thursday data collection in the month of September, the highest occupancy averages were also during the Afternoon and Evening. The average Morning occupancy rate was only at 52% occupancy, which was the lowest out of the four time periods. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 79% 52% 100% 100% 300 HAMILTON 25 92% 68% 88% 300 LYTTON 32 19% 88% 38% 91% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 76% 97% 78% 108% 400 FLORENCE 15 27% 87% 73% 67% 400 WAVERLEY 30 50% 97% 90% 103% 500 WAVERLEY 32 53% 72% 78% 66% 600 GILMAN 11 73% 64% 73% 600 WAVERLEY 23 61% 91% 52% 91% Average: 52% 83% 71% 87% Table 15: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) Just as in May and September, the October on-street occupancy on Thursday was highest during the Afternoon and Evening. The October data collection round had the highest average Morning occupancy rates in the Lime Zone out of the three months. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 79% 86% 76% 93% 300 HAMILTON 25 64% 72% 80% 92% 300 LYTTON 32 44% 72% 31% 109% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 86% 92% 89% 95% 400 FLORENCE 15 67% 73% 60% 60% 400 WAVERLEY 30 97% 107% 77% 110% 500 WAVERLEY 32 69% 88% 78% 94% 600 GILMAN 11 36% 73% 55% 82% 600 WAVERLEY 23 87% 87% 74% 83% Average: 70% 83% 69% 91% Table 16: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 34 On Average the Lime Zone had the highest occupancy during each month during the Evening data collection period, and the lowest occupancy during the Morning. At least two of the occupancy levels reach over the 80% threshold in the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods. 4. Coral Zone During the May data collection, the Coral Zone was just 2% away from full capacity during the Evening on average, with multiple of the blocks at or above 100% occupancy. The Mid-Afternoon also experienced high occupancy rates at an average of 80% occupancy. During the Morning data collection period, only three blocks were above the threshold, one of them being the 200 block of University Avenue, which was full throughout the day. 70%74% 80% 98% 55% 89% 68% 86% 79% 87%83% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Thursday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016) Figure 11: Average Thursday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 35 Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 87% 78% 96% 87% 200 HAMILTON 26 85% 58% 81% 92% 200 LYTTON 24 58% 75% 100% 113% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 89% 97% 100% 114% 400 BRYANT 16 75% 69% 75% 88% 400 RAMONA 30 27% 67% 53% 93% 500 BRYANT 36 75% 81% 83% 100% 500 RAMONA 31 74% 90% 87% 113% 600 BRYANT 22 77% 100% 82% 95% 600 RAMONA 22 55% 23% 45% 82% Average: 70% 74% 80% 98% Table 17: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) In September, the two highest occupancy times in the Coral Zone were the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods. Unlike in May, there was a significant dip in occupancy rates during the Mid-Afternoon before picking up again in the Evening. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 30% 61% 52% 48% 200 HAMILTON 26 58% 92% 42% 85% 200 LYTTON 24 21% 108% 75% 108% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 47% 86% 81% 89% 400 BRYANT 16 88% 94% 75% 94% 400 RAMONA 30 43% 100% 73% 100% 500 BRYANT 36 72% 81% 78% 92% 500 RAMONA 31 84% 97% 90% 94% 600 BRYANT 22 77% 95% 55% 68% 600 RAMONA 22 27% 77% 59% 86% Average: 55% 89% 68% 86% Table 18: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) The October data collection round in the Coral Zone revealed in the highest average occupancy rates out of the three months. The Evening data collection period even had an overall average of 100% occupancy, with five of the blocks observed as over 100% occupancy. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 36 Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 83% 78% 70% 96% 200 HAMILTON 26 81% 69% 85% 104% 200 LYTTON 24 67% 108% 67% 117% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 72% 100% 100% 94% 400 BRYANT 16 100% 100% 88% 106% 400 RAMONA 30 57% 70% 67% 93% 500 BRYANT 36 83% 83% 83% 103% 500 RAMONA 31 84% 100% 100% 100% 600 BRYANT 22 100% 95% 109% 82% 600 RAMONA 22 64% 73% 64% 105% Average: 79% 88% 83% 100% Table 19: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, October (Thursday) When looking at the three months’ data side by side in Figure 7, the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods had the highest average occupancy rates. Like the other color zones, the Morning data collection period had the lowest occupancy rates. 5. Purple Zone With a more peripheral location in Downtown, the Purple Zone experienced lower average occupancy rates throughout the day in comparison with the other color zones. During the May data collection round, 70%74% 80% 98% 55% 89% 68% 86% 79% 87%83% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Thursday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016) Figure 12: Average Thursday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 37 the highest average occupancy rate was in the Evening, with 91% occupancy. The only streets full throughout the day were the Emerson and High Streets. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/19/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 21% 100% 103% 103% 100 HAMILTON 32 63% 72% 78% 88% 100 LYTTON 26 15% 38% 50% 104% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 42% 63% 54% 63% 400 EMERSON 32 28% 59% 69% 69% 400 HIGH 21 29% 90% 67% 110% 500 ALMA 11 0% 55% 55% 73% 500 EMERSON 29 90% 93% 93% 103% 500 HIGH 23 30% 65% 43% 96% 600 ALMA 16 81% 88% 69% 94% 600 EMERSON 28 93% 89% 93% 96% 600 HIGH 27 81% 85% 81% 100% Average: 48% 75% 71% 91% Table 20: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Thursday) During the Evening data collection round in September, all the blocks were above the 80% occupancy threshold. However, there were sufficient levels of available parking on many blocks during the other three data collection periods earlier in the day. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 47% 44% 47% 53% 100 HAMILTON 32 66% 56% 59% 84% 100 LYTTON 26 35% 88% 77% 104% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 46% 79% 83% 96% 400 EMERSON 32 41% 91% 81% 88% 400 HIGH 21 33% 57% 62% 105% 500 ALMA 11 36% 55% 36% 100% 500 EMERSON 29 100% 93% 90% 100% 500 HIGH 23 52% 113% 78% 109% 600 ALMA 16 38% 81% 94% 600 EMERSON 28 46% 100% 96% 104% 600 HIGH 27 52% 78% 74% 96% Average: 49% 78% 71% 94% Table 21: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, September (Thursday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 38 Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/6/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 88% 88% 76% 94% 100 HAMILTON 32 50% 72% 44% 84% 100 LYTTON 26 69% 73% 50% 92% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 54% 58% 67% 67% 400 EMERSON 32 44% 91% 69% 81% 400 HIGH 21 33% 52% 62% 90% 500 ALMA 11 64% 100% 36% 91% 500 EMERSON 29 86% 83% 97% 103% 500 HIGH 23 35% 17% 17% 104% 600 ALMA 16 56% 81% 75% 81% 600 EMERSON 28 89% 104% 93% 111% 600 HIGH 27 70% 78% 63% 78% Average: 62% 75% 62% 90% Table 22: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, October (Thursday) The occupancy averages were consistent throughout the three months in the Purple Zone, with the occupancy rates peaking during the Evening data collection periods. 48% 75%71% 91% 49% 78% 71% 94% 62% 75% 62% 90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Thursday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/19/2016)September (9/8/2016)October (10/6/2016) Figure 13: Average Thursday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 39 B. Thursday Off-Street 1. Overall During May, September, and October, occupancy rates were recorded for the hourly spaces in the off- street locations listed in the following tables. After a review of the May data collection round, it was decided to collect occupancy rates for the off-street permit spaces during the September and October data collection rounds for a more comprehensive understanding of parking occupancy in Downtown Palo Alto. The combined average occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garages and surface lots including hourly and permit spaces for Thursday’s data collection are displayed in Figure 13 below. Average permit occupancy for the facility is identified by the letter ‘P’ while average hourly occupancy is identified by the letter ‘H.’ The differentiation in color is based on the average occupancy percentage. Locations displayed in green observed an average occupancy percentage of below 70% over the three- month data collection period. Locations colored yellow had an average occupancy between 70% and 80% while the locations in red had occupancy averages of 80% and above. Figure 14: Combined average Thursday occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garage and surface lot locations C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 40 Figure 14 below shows the average Thursday off-street occupancy for the hourly spaces collected in each of the three months. The occupancy averages were consistent between the three months, with the highest occupancy rates occurring during the Afternoon and Evening collection times. Additionally, the Mid-Afternoon was above the 80% occupancy threshold in September only. Next in Figure 15, the average Thursday off-street occupancy is compared for the permitted spaces in September and October. Unlike the high occupancy rates in the off-street hourly spaces, the permitted spaces were only observed over the 80% occupancy threshold during the Afternoon in September. The other dates and times were all averaging at below 80%. 54% 94% 74% 92% 46% 91% 83% 91% 52% 85% 73% 92% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month May September October Figure 15: Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 41 2. Hourly During the May data collection round, on Thursday the off-street hourly spaces in almost every garage and surface lot were essentially full during the Afternoon and Evening. The hourly spaces in Garage R, Lot C, and Lot N were above 80% occupancy throughout the day. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 5/19/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Mornin g Afternoo n Mid- Afternoon Evenin g Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 60% 89% 74% 90% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 40% 101% 73% 91% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 81% 99% 86% 103% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 26% 99% 65% 84% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 38% 95% 73% 65% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 38% 96% 90% 100% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 84% 96% 88% 96% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 37% 87% 65% 97% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 39% 96% 67% 100% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 53% 91% 42% 99% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 67% 100% 42% 75% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 91% 96% 93% 96% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 50% 96% 91% 100% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 45% 88% 90% 98% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 57% 89% 68% 93% Average: 54% 94% 74% 92% Table 23: Off-street hourly occupancy, May (Thursday) 68% 87% 67% 55%55% 75% 61% 52% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month September October Figure 16: Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Thursday by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 42 In September, the average occupancy rates were above the threshold in the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening. There is significantly more red-highlighted location during this month in comparison to the May data. Once again, the hourly spaces in Garage R and Lot N were full throughout the day. Lots D and K were underutilized until the Evening data collection period. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 9/8/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid- Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 60% 90% 82% 84% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 47% 94% 79% 94% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 84% 100% 92% 94% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 25% 95% 67% 94% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 41% 98% 70% 61% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 31% 88% 90% 94% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 60% 104% 112% 100% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 42% 73% 77% 93% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 9% 96% 104% 93% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 44% 95% 93% 95% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 58% 75% 17% 83% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 96% 93% 102% 104% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 37% 90% 90% 94% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 33% 94% 90% 94% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 25% 86% 86% 89% Average: 46% 91% 83% 91% Table 24: Off-street hourly occupancy, September (Thursday) During the October round of data collection on a Thursday, the Afternoon and Evening times were the busiest like in May. Garage WC was the only off-street location in October were the hourly spaces were below the 80% occupancy threshold throughout the day. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 43 Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 10/6/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid- Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 61% 84% 97% 102% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 49% 88% 36% 98% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 88% 92% 90% 101% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 32% 84% 55% 89% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 36% 78% 63% 28% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 34% 85% 75% 90% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 76% 92% 84% 108% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 44% 87% 67% 102% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 13% 96% 39% 89% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 37% 87% 63% 87% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 92% 58% 83% 75% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 98% 98% 109% 109% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 32% 90% 77% 108% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 47% 75% 88% 102% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 39% 89% 75% 89% Average: 52% 85% 73% 92% Table 25: Off-street hourly occupancy, October (Thursday) 3. Permit During the Thursday September data collection round, the off-street permitted spaces were on average below the occupancy threshold during the day except for in the Afternoon. Garage R was significantly above the threshold starting in the Morning up until the Mid-Afternoon. Lot C and Lot T were the only off- street locations were the permitted spaces were above the threshold during the Evening. Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 9/8/2016 Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid- Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 71% 95% 78% 69% Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 70% 70% 62% 48% Garage R (High/Alma) 128 121% 127% 96% 62% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 79% 92% 82% 36% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 55% 85% 83% 14% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 74% 85% 19% 93% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 43% 83% 80% 71% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 51% 64% 38% 53% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 86% 94% 60% 57% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 40% 96% 88% 92% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 61% 65% 48% 13% Average: 68% 87% 67% 55% Table 26: Off-street permit occupancy, May (Thursday) In October, there were no times during the day on Thursday that averaged above the 80% occupancy threshold. The permitted spaces in Garage R had the highest occupancy rate out of the off-street locations during the Afternoon. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 44 Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 10/6/2016 Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 47% 65% 49% 67% Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 55% 73% 56% 24% Garage R (High/Alma) 128 88% 93% 77% 74% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 52% 81% 70% 54% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 44% 77% 74% 13% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 85% 85% 37% 93% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 43% 80% 80% 43% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 60% 72% 45% 36% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 51% 80% 60% 57% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 28% 68% 76% 96% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 45% 55% 45% 19% Average: 55% 75% 61% 52% Table 27: Off-street permit occupancy, October (Thursday) C. Saturday On-Street 1. Overall Saturday occupancy data was also collected during May, September and October. During the three months, the on-street occupancy averages on Saturday were the highest during the Afternoon and Evening. The Mid-Afternoon data collection period also had average on-street occupancy rates above the 80% threshold in both May and October. Similarly, to the Thursday data collection, the Saturday on-street occupancy rates were low in the Morning. 61% 80%81%80% 58% 83% 74% 85% 61% 86%84% 96% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Overall Average On-Street Saturday Occupancy by Time of Day by Month May September October Figure 17: Overall Average On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 45 When comparing the four-color zones during the month of May, the Lime and Coral Zones often had the highest occupancy rates throughout the day. The only exception to this was in the Mid-Afternoon where the Purple Zone had the highest average occupancy. On the Saturday in September the Purple Zone had the highest occupancy rate in both the Mid-afternoon and Evening. The Evening occupancy rate for the Purple Zone was at exactly 100%. Additionally, the Lime and Coral Zones were above the occupancy threshold during the Afternoon and Evening. 46% 64%69%69%69% 88%84% 96% 69% 88%84% 96% 60% 79% 88% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening May Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 18: May Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 46 During October, the Lime and Coral Zones were above the threshold during the Afternoon until through the Evening, where they were above 100% occupancy. There were no zones with adequate parking availability during the Evening data collection period, and the Blue Zone was the only zone below the threshold in the Afternoon and Mid-Afternoon. 53% 74%72%68%64% 89% 68% 86% 64% 89% 68% 86% 53% 81% 87% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening September Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 19: September Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison 46% 74%78%82% 67% 91%86% 67% 91%86% 64% 88%87%94% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening October Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison Blue Lime Coral Purple Figure 20: October Saturday On-Street Occupancy by Time of Day Color Zone Comparison C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 47 2. Blue Zone Taking a closer look at the Blue Zone Saturday on-street parking occupancy in May reveals that the 500 block of Lytton was the only block that was above the occupancy threshold consistently throughout the day. This was also the only street that ever reached 100% occupancy at any point during the day. None of the time periods averaged at above 80% occupancy, indicating that there were adequate on-street occupancy levels in the Blue Zone on Saturday in May. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 20% 40% 400 FOREST 26 58% 54% 81% 81% 400 HAMILTON 38 42% 42% 82% 400 KIPLING 25 36% 76% 68% 400 LYTTON 24 17% 88% 46% 67% 400 TASSO 14 57% 57% 64% 57% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 81% 54% 89% 78% 400 WEBSTER 15 67% 87% 80% 40% 500 COWPER 23 26% 57% 78% 500 FOREST 21 57% 48% 76% 86% 500 HAMILTON 35 17% 54% 40% 500 LYTTON 6 83% 100% 83% 83% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 38% 41% 73% 81% 500 WEBSTER 24 63% 75% 79% 75% 600 COWPER 30 23% 70% 77% 600 WEBSTER 26 50% 38% 62% 69% Average: 46% 64% 69% 69% Table 28: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday) On Saturday in September the average occupancy levels in the Blue Zone were higher overall than observed during the May data collection. However, there were still none of the overall averages exceeding the 80% occupancy threshold. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 48 Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 76% 76% 84% 84% 400 FOREST 26 35% 35% 35% 42% 400 HAMILTON 38 39% 82% 92% 61% 400 KIPLING 25 84% 100% 100% 96% 400 LYTTON 24 29% 92% 92% 79% 400 TASSO 14 71% 107% 79% 43% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 97% 97% 97% 97% 400 WEBSTER 15 93% 100% 100% 87% 500 COWPER 23 61% 96% 100% 500 FOREST 21 24% 33% 38% 24% 500 HAMILTON 35 20% 49% 40% 46% 500 LYTTON 6 83% 50% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 38% 81% 97% 108% 500 WEBSTER 24 42% 63% 54% 75% 600 COWPER 30 27% 50% 67% 37% 600 WEBSTER 26 58% 42% 38% 62% Average: 53% 74% 72% 68% Table 29: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday) The October data has the highest amount of red highlighted cells in comparison with May and September. The Evening data collection round on Saturday in October was the only instance that the average on- street occupancy reached above the threshold out of the three months and four data collection time periods. Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 400 COWPER 25 44% 68% 80% 88% 400 FOREST 26 12% 88% 88% 81% 400 HAMILTON 38 26% 97% 84% 61% 400 KIPLING 25 76% 104% 96% 104% 400 LYTTON 24 25% 79% 83% 83% 400 TASSO 14 71% 86% 71% 86% 400 UNIVERSITY 37 81% 103% 95% 97% 400 WEBSTER 15 100% 93% 87% 93% 500 COWPER 23 57% 87% 96% 96% 500 FOREST 21 57% 71% 76% 62% 500 HAMILTON 35 17% 46% 49% 80% 500 LYTTON 6 17% 33% 67% 50% 500 UNIVERSITY 37 16% 84% 89% 103% 500 WEBSTER 24 67% 75% 83% 96% 600 COWPER 30 17% 30% 67% 53% 600 WEBSTER 26 54% 42% 38% 85% Average: 46% 74% 78% 82% Table 30: Blue Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 49 The three months are combined below in Figure 20. This chart reveals that there was in general an increase in the on-street occupancy averages from May through October on Saturday. The highest overall occupancy average was during the Evening in October, while the lowest was in the Morning in October and May. 3. Lime Zone On-Street occupancy in the Lime Zone on Saturday in May was extremely high throughout the day. All four data collection periods averaged at or above the 80% occupancy threshold. This is in contrast with the Blue Zone occupancies on the same day, which were significantly low. This is likely due to the convenience of the Lime Zone on-street parking spaces to Downtown shops and restaurants. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 83% 93% 83% 72% 300 HAMILTON 25 104% 96% 88% 104% 300 LYTTON 32 53% 97% 69% 106% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 59% 95% 97% 100% 400 FLORENCE 15 80% 93% 80% 100% 400 WAVERLEY 30 103% 103% 107% 100% 500 WAVERLEY 32 94% 103% 103% 103% 600 GILMAN 11 64% 45% 55% 100% 600 WAVERLEY 23 83% 83% 87% 65% Average: 80% 90% 85% 95% Table 31: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday) 46% 64%69%69% 53% 74%72%68% 46% 74%78%82% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Saturday Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016) Figure 21: Average Saturday Blue Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 50 The Morning data collection time was the only time in September on Saturday that was below the occupancy threshold, however it was just 1% away. Like in May, the occupancy rates were high in the Lime Zone throughout the day. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 59% 59% 45% 55% 300 HAMILTON 25 88% 92% 88% 80% 300 LYTTON 32 56% 103% 100% 103% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 95% 95% 97% 97% 400 FLORENCE 15 73% 73% 80% 100% 400 WAVERLEY 30 103% 110% 90% 107% 500 WAVERLEY 32 72% 91% 91% 100% 600 GILMAN 11 73% 91% 600 WAVERLEY 23 83% 83% 74% 61% Average: 79% 88% 82% 88% Table 32: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday) The October round of data collection was like the September round in that the morning was at an average of 79% occupancy. The other three times averaged above the threshold. Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 300 FOREST 29 100% 100% 90% 103% 300 HAMILTON 25 80% 132% 88% 100% 300 LYTTON 32 47% 97% 56% 94% 300 UNIVERSITY 37 86% 95% 92% 97% 400 FLORENCE 15 40% 33% 60% 87% 400 WAVERLEY 30 113% 103% 110% 110% 500 WAVERLEY 32 72% 91% 88% 103% 600 GILMAN 11 73% 91% 600 WAVERLEY 23 91% 91% 78% 87% Average: 79% 93% 82% 97% Table 33: Lime Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday) As shown in Figure 21, the average on-street occupancy rates on Saturday in the three months were well above the 80% occupancy threshold in many instances. The Morning was the only time in the three months that had average occupancies below the threshold except for in the Mid-Afternoon in September. The Afternoon and Evening data collections times were the busiest for all three months. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 51 4. Coral Zone The Coral Zone had consistently high occupancy rates throughout Saturday in May with the lowest average occupancy at 69% in the Morning. 200 Forest, 500 Ramona, and 500 Bryant were each over the occupancy threshold throughout the day. The 600 block of Bryant was the only street that did not reach the threshold at any point during that day. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 83% 87% 83% 91% 200 HAMILTON 26 81% 81% 77% 88% 200 LYTTON 24 33% 58% 83% 113% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 56% 103% 92% 100% 400 BRYANT 16 69% 100% 69% 100% 400 RAMONA 30 40% 97% 97% 100% 500 BRYANT 36 100% 100% 97% 108% 500 RAMONA 31 87% 100% 100% 106% 600 BRYANT 22 73% 73% 68% 73% 600 RAMONA 22 73% 77% 73% 82% Average: 69% 88% 84% 96% Table 34: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday) In September, the on-street occupancy on Saturday was highest during the Afternoon and Evening time periods. Unlike in May, there was a dip in occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon, where there were only 69% 88%84% 96% 64% 89% 68% 86% 67% 91%86% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Saturday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016) Figure 22: Average Saturday Lime Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 52 two blocks observed over 80% occupancy. There were no streets in September that did not reach the occupancy threshold at some point during the day on Saturday. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 61% 83% 52% 48% 200 HAMILTON 26 77% 100% 42% 85% 200 LYTTON 24 25% 63% 75% 108% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 67% 97% 81% 89% 400 BRYANT 16 63% 81% 75% 94% 400 RAMONA 30 40% 90% 73% 100% 500 BRYANT 36 67% 89% 78% 92% 500 RAMONA 31 90% 103% 90% 94% 600 BRYANT 22 95% 95% 55% 68% 600 RAMONA 22 55% 86% 59% 86% Average: 64% 89% 68% 86% Table 35: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, September (Saturday) In October, the on-street occupancy on a Saturday was averaging at over 100% during the Evening, and above the threshold during the Afternoon and Mid-Afternoon. Almost every block in the Coral Zone during these times were full. Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 200 FOREST 23 65% 61% 91% 100% 200 HAMILTON 26 62% 96% 88% 119% 200 LYTTON 24 29% 88% 67% 125% 200 UNIVERSITY 36 92% 100% 100% 100% 400 BRYANT 16 50% 81% 81% 100% 400 RAMONA 30 37% 93% 73% 87% 500 BRYANT 36 89% 97% 83% 106% 500 RAMONA 31 94% 100% 97% 103% 600 BRYANT 22 91% 109% 100% 105% 600 RAMONA 22 59% 82% 77% 100% Average: 67% 91% 86% 104% Table 36: Coral Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday When comparing the Coral Zone averages side by side for each month, it shows that the Afternoon and Evening times were the busiest consistently. One anomaly was that the September Mid-Afternoon occupancy was over 15% lower than the other two months. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 53 5. Purple Zone When data was collected on a Saturday in May in the Purple Zone, the time of day with the highest average occupancy was the Mid-Afternoon. Typically for the other color zones the busiest times were during the Afternoon and Evening instead. 100 Forest, 500 Emerson, and 600 High were the three blocks in the Purple Zone that were consistently over the 80% occupancy threshold for the entire day. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 5/21/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 91% 91% 97% 91% 100 HAMILTON 32 72% 75% 81% 72% 100 LYTTON 26 50% 73% 81% 50% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 58% 83% 83% 58% 400 EMERSON 32 9% 69% 84% 9% 400 HIGH 21 67% 62% 76% 67% 500 ALMA 11 9% 45% 64% 9% 500 EMERSON 29 93% 100% 103% 93% 500 HIGH 23 13% 61% 96% 13% 600 ALMA 16 69% 88% 94% 69% 600 EMERSON 28 93% 100% 93% 93% 600 HIGH 27 96% 100% 100% 96% Average: 60% 79% 88% 60% 69% 88%84% 96% 64% 89% 68% 86% 67% 91% 86% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Saturday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016) Figure 23: Average Saturday Coral Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 54 Table 37: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday Unlike in May, the September data shows that the Afternoon and Evening were above the occupancy threshold on average in addition to the Mid-Afternoon. The Evening period had an average overall occupancy of 100% for the Purple Zone on a Saturday. The rise in Evening occupancy from May is likely due to the shift in data collection time to 7:00pm from 6:00pm for the Evening round. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 9/10/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 88% 94% 94% 100% 100 HAMILTON 32 66% 81% 94% 94% 100 LYTTON 26 38% 62% 73% 92% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 42% 67% 75% 79% 400 EMERSON 32 13% 78% 91% 97% 400 HIGH 21 33% 38% 67% 110% 500 ALMA 11 0% 82% 82% 118% 500 EMERSON 29 86% 107% 100% 97% 500 HIGH 23 35% 78% 96% 109% 600 ALMA 16 44% 81% 106% 600 EMERSON 28 93% 104% 100% 107% 600 HIGH 27 100% 96% 89% 89% Average: 53% 81% 87% 100% Table 38: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, May (Saturday In October, the on-street spaces in the Purple Zone on Saturday were on average above the occupancy threshold during the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening. These averages are similar to those observed in September. Once again, the Morning data collection period did not exceed the 80% threshold on average. Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy 10/8/2016 Street Space Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening 100 FOREST 34 76% 100% 100% 97% 100 HAMILTON 32 72% 84% 75% 91% 100 LYTTON 26 38% 73% 77% 58% 100 UNIVERSITY 24 63% 75% 88% 83% 400 EMERSON 32 34% 91% 88% 88% 400 HIGH 21 67% 76% 76% 105% 500 ALMA 11 36% 100% 82% 109% 500 EMERSON 29 97% 90% 90% 103% 500 HIGH 23 35% 78% 83% 91% 600 ALMA 16 63% 88% 88% 100% 600 EMERSON 28 96% 104% 107% 100% 600 HIGH 27 93% 96% 96% 100% Average: 64% 88% 87% 94% Table 39: Purple Zone on-street occupancy, October (Saturday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 55 The main variance that can be seen when viewing the data side by side is that in May the Evening average occupancy was significantly lower than the occupancy in September and October. All three months were within 1% of each other regarding the average occupancy during the Mid-Afternoon period. Additionally, the Evening period was the busiest time for both the September and October data collection rounds on Saturdays. 60% 79% 88% 60% 53% 81% 87% 100% 64% 88%87% 94% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Average Saturday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month May (5/21/2016)September (9/10/2016)October (10/8/2016) Figure 24: Average Saturday Purple Zone On-Street Occupancy by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 56 D. Saturday Off-Street 1. Overall The combined average occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garages and surface lots including hourly and permit spaces for Saturday’s data collection are displayed in Figure 24 below. Average permit occupancy for the facility is identified by the letter ‘P’ while average hourly occupancy is identified by the letter ‘H.’ The differentiation in color is based on the average occupancy percentage. Locations displayed in green observed an average occupancy percentage of below 70% over the three- month data collection period. Locations colored yellow had an average occupancy between 70% and 80% while the locations in red had occupancy averages of 80% and above. Figure 25 compares the average off-street hourly occupancy between the three months for Saturday. The hourly spaces were consistently full during the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection times, with the Evening being the most. The Morning occupancy averaged hovered around 50% on the three Saturdays. Figure 25: Combined average Saturday occupancy (May, September and October) for off-street garage and surface lot locations C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 57 The average off-street permit occupancy was significantly lower than the hourly spaces on Saturday in both months it was collected. The highest average occupancy observed was just 46%, which was during the Evening in September. Because there are high occupancy rates in the hourly spaces while there are low rates in the permitted spaces, this could indicate that many drivers do not realize that a permit is not required to park in the permit spaces on the weekend. 2. Hourly The off-street hourly spaces stayed at a consistent occupancy level between the Afternoon and Mid- Afternoon data collection times in May. In almost every location that was above the threshold during the 43% 78%79%85% 52% 86%84% 94% 53% 90%85%90% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month May September October Figure 26: Study Area Average Off-Street Hourly Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month 21% 31%30% 46% 13% 32%27% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month September October Figure 27: Study Area Average Off-Street Permit Occupancy by Time of Day on Saturday by Month C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 58 Afternoon, it was also during the Mid-Afternoon and Evening. Lot H and Lot N were the two locations were the hourly spaces were full throughout the day. Only Garage WC and Lot A did not have an occupancy at or above 80% at any point during the day. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 5/21/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 87% 79% 90% 92% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 24% 69% 54% 82% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 23% 90% 83% 97% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 19% 65% 70% 87% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 12% 53% 52% 49% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 9% 63% 79% 72% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 64% 100% 100% 104% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 47% 86% 91% 81% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 26% 91% 85% 91% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 96% 89% 88% 84% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 8% 58% 42% 75% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 93% 87% 89% 91% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 41% 83% 86% 85% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 55% 86% 94% 100% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 39% 75% 79% 82% Average: 43% 78% 79% 85% Table 40: Off-street hourly occupancy, May (Saturday) In September, the hourly off-street spaces were on average above the occupancy threshold during the Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening data collection periods on Saturday. The only off-street location in September that did not reach 80% occupancy was Garage WC. Every other location was above the threshold during the Evening. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 59 Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 9/10/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid- Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 40% 92% 85% 97% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 19% 57% 55% 92% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 31% 95% 99% 103% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 43% 76% 77% 92% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 24% 54% 61% 58% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 10% 88% 85% 96% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 80% 100% 100% 96% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 92% 95% 98% 103% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 85% 96% 72% 87% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 95% 98% 97% 97% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 42% 67% 58% 92% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 41% 98% 100% 100% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 49% 85% 90% 100% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 49% 96% 90% 104% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 86% 93% 93% 89% Average: 52% 86% 84% 94% Table 41: Off-street hourly occupancy, September (Saturday) Like in September, the October off-street hourly occupancy averages were above the threshold in the Afternoon through the Evening. Additionally, Garage WC did not reach the threshold at any point during the day again. Both the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods averaged at 90% occupancy. Off-Street (Hourly) Occupancy 10/8/2016 Location Hourly Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid- Afternoon Evening Garage B (Ramona/University) 62 65% 98% 90% 95% Garage CC (Civic Center) 187 35% 90% 65% 96% Garage R (High/Alma) 77 62% 99% 100% 61% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 307 28% 69% 76% 107% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 201 27% 42% 59% 57% Lot A (Emerson/Lytton) 68 22% 78% 84% 78% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 25 76% 100% 96% 92% Lot D (Hamilton/Waverley) 86 74% 98% 92% 94% Lot F (Florence/Lytton) 46 41% 100% 100% 100% Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton) 91 86% 95% 96% 91% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 12 17% 100% 33% 83% Lot N (Emerson/Ramona) 46 100% 98% 100% 104% Lot O (Emerson/High) 78 50% 96% 91% 95% Lot P (High/Hamilton) 51 73% 100% 94% 96% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 28 46% 93% 96% 96% Average: 53% 90% 85% 90% Table 42: Off-street hourly occupancy, October (Saturday) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 60 3. Permit On the other hand, the permit spaces in off-street locations had significantly lower average occupancies on the Saturday in September. The only location where permit spaces filled up throughout the day was Lot T, and Lot C also filled up during the Afternoon and Evening. Many locations did not reach 80% occupancy at any point. Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 9/10/2016 Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 9% 16% 13% 45% Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 18% 13% 15% 20% Garage R (High/Alma) 128 4% 3% 20% 88% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 4% 14% 11% 26% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 2% 3% 3% 4% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 37% 89% 70% 100% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) * 35 20% 46% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 23% 15% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 23% 31% 49% 63% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 92% 104% 92% 92% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 3% 6% 13% 13% Average: 21% 31% 30% 46% Table 43: Off-street permit occupancy, September (Saturday) *Note: No available parking in Lot E or Lot G on Saturday Morning/Afternoon because of Farmer’s Market Consistent with September, the October off-street permit occupancy rates remained very low throughout the day. Once again, the only locations that experienced high occupancy rates throughout the day were Lots C and T. Off-Street (Permit) Occupancy 10/8/2016 Location Permit Inventory Morning Afternoon Mid-Afternoon Evening Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 14% 17% 18% 44% Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 12% 15% 20% 16% Garage R (High/Alma) 128 5% 27% 16% 49% Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 6% 10% 15% 15% Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 3% 5% 4% 4% Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 41% 85% 78% 93% Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 6% 34% Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 13% 36% Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 17% 17% 23% 34% Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 12% 96% 84% 96% Lot X (Sheraton) 31 6% 19% 16% 35% Average: 13% 32% 27% 42% Table 44: Off-street permit occupancy, October (Saturday) E. Heat Maps The following heat maps show the overall occupancy averages for each block based on occupancy data collected in May, September, and October combined. The average daily occupancy for each block is made C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 61 up of the Morning, Afternoon, Mid-Afternoon, and Evening occupancies from May, September, and October. The blocks that are highlighted in red are those that had an overall daily occupancy average of 80% or higher. The yellow blocks are those that had an overall average daily occupancy between 70% and 79%. These are the areas that have not yet reached the occupancy threshold, but are areas of concern. Finally, the green blocks are those that had an overall average daily occupancy below 70%, meaning that they had sufficient levels of parking supply throughout the day on average. Maps 1 and 4 show the overall daily occupancy average for each block face and the hourly off-street spaces between the three months on Thursday and Saturday. Because the Afternoon and Evening data collection periods tended to have the highest average occupancies, Maps 2, 3, 5, and 6 show the Afternoon and Evening occupancy averages from the three months for Thursday and Saturday. The purpose of these maps is to show the typical occupancy distributions as well as peak occupancy distributions. Figure 28: Thursday Three Month Daily Average C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 62 Figure 29: Thursday Afternoon Three Month Average Figure 30: Thursday Evening Three Month Average C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 63 Figure 31: Saturday Three Month Average Figure 32: Saturday Afternoon Three Month Average C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 64 Figure 33: Saturday Evening Three Month Average The heat maps show that the blocks with the highest occupancy rates are in general clustered around the center, with some high occupancy areas in the bottom left and top right corners. The Evening occupancy maps in general show that many high occupancy blocks are towards the left, with some green highlighted pockets in the right-side corners of the map. F. Vehicle Overstay The following charts show the observed vehicle frequency for each zone. This is the percentage of cars that are observed within the same zone during different data collection periods—cars that are only observed once in a zone are following the color zone rules, while those that are observed multiple times are not following the required time limits. The purpose of this data is to get a rough understanding of how many drivers are obeying the color zone rules. On May 19, 2016, the majority of cars are following the color zone rules. 83 to 86% of cars were only observed once in their respective zone. The Blue and Lime Zones only had 11% of cars observed in two data collection periods, and the Coral and Purple Zones had 14% observed twice. Only 1% of cars in each colored zone were observed during all four data collection times. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 65 The frequencies observed in September were very like those in May, with the cars only observed once hovering between 83 and 87%. This round 0% of cars were observed four times in the Lime and Purple Zones. Finally, in October the data remained consistent with the observed frequencies in May and September. The Coral Zone in October had the highest overall rate of cars observed once, at 88%, which means that a significant number of drivers are following the color zone rules. 85% 11% 3%1% 86% 11% 2%1% 84% 14% 3%1% 83% 14% 3%1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 5/19/2016 Figure 34: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 5/19/2016 83% 12%4%1% 87% 11% 2%0% 85% 13% 2%1% 87% 11% 1%0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 9/8/2016 Figure 35: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 9/8/2016 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 66 Due to the fact, there is an estimated total of 2,638 hourly spaces Downtown, depending on the hourly occupancy rates, having a rate of around 15% of cars breaking the rules could mean that approximately 100-300 cars are breaking the color zone rules per day. G. Changing Colored Zones The next series of charts displays the percentage of vehicles that were observed changing color zones throughout the day. The purpose of this data is to understand how many cars are being moved from zone to zone to stay Downtown longer than the individual color zone allotment. In May, almost 92% of cars were only observed in one zone and just 7.2% were observed in two. 0% of cars were parked the entire day Downtown by utilizing each zone. 86% 9%3%1% 87% 11% 2%0% 88% 9%2%0% 87% 11% 2%0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Once TwiceThree Four Blue Zone Lime Zone Coral Zone Purple Zone Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 10/6/2016 Figure 36: Observed Vehicle Frequency by Zone 10/6/2016 91.8% 7.2%0.9%0.0% Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 5/19/2016 Parked in one zone only Parked in two zones Parked in three zones Parked in four zones Figure 37: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 5/19/2016 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 67 Almost the exact same frequencies were observed in September, indicating that there is a consistent base of around 8% of drivers who move their cars around. All the other cars were parked in one zone only that day. Finally, in October there were slightly more cars observed in one zone than in the other two months, however the data remains generally consistent. Only around 6% of drivers in this case were observed in multiple colored zones. 91.9% 7.4%0.7%0.0% Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 9/8/2016 Parked in one zone only Parked in two zones Parked in three zones Parked in four zones Figure 38: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 9/8/2016 93.5% 5.9%0.5%0.0% Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 10/6/2016 Parked in one zone only Parked in two zones Parked in three zones Parked in four zones Figure 39: Percentage of Vehicles Changing Zones 10/6/2016 C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 68 When considering that there are approximately 2,638 hourly spaces Downtown, the 6 to 8% of vehicles changing color zones could be a significant number of cars. Depending on the hourly occupancy rates, it is estimated that between 80-200 cars are moving between the zones to stay parked downtown for longer than 2-3 hours without a permit. H. Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales Thursday Average Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales Permit Location Permit Spaces Avg. Sept. Occu Avg. Oct. Occu Avg. Overall Occu Average Spaces Taken Active Permits Permit Cap Usage Rate Current Wait List Average % of permit holders parked Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 78% 57% 68% 336 862 875 39% 104 Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 63% 52% 58% 76 242 245 31% 52 Garage R (High/Alma) 128 101% 83% 92% 118 311 345 38% 82 Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 72% 64% 68% 261 723 750 36% 46 Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 59% 52% 56% 206 764 850 27% 96 Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 68% 75% 72% 19 no data no data no data no data Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 69% 61% 65% 23 138 140 37% 12 Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 51% 53% 52% 28 Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 74% 62% 68% 24 105 110 40% 23 Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 79% 67% 73% 18 Lot X (Sheraton) 31 47% 41% 44% 14 61 65 22% 12 Table 46, displayed above, outlines the average permit occupancy during the September and October data collections compared to the total permit sales for each garage or surface lot. Based on information provided by the City including active permits for each facility and permit caps for each facility combined with the occupancy data collected, the Study determines that on average, between 25% and 40% of permit holders are actively using their permits. Table 46: Thursday Average Permit Occupancy (September & October) vs. Total Permit Sales C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 69 Thursday Peak Permit Occupancy vs. Permit Sales Permit Location Permit Spaces Peak Sept. Occu Peak Oct. Occu Avg. Peak Occu Average Spaces Taken During Peak Occupancy Active Permits Permit Cap Usage Rate Current Wait List Average % of permit holders parked during peak occupancy Garage CC (Civic Center) 498 95% 67% 81% 403 862 875 47% 104 Garage Q (High/Alma) 132 70% 73% 72% 94 242 245 39% 52 Garage R (High/Alma) 128 127% 93% 110% 141 311 345 45% 82 Garage S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 383 92% 81% 87% 331 723 750 46% 46 Garage WC (Webster/Cowper) 371 85% 77% 81% 301 764 850 39% 96 Lot C (Ramona/Lytton) 27 93% 93% 93% 25 no data no data no data no data Lot E (Gilman/Bryant) 35 83% 80% 82% 29 138 140 47% 12 Lot G (Gilman/Waverley) 53 64% 72% 68% 36 Lot K (Lytton/Waverley) 35 94% 80% 87% 30 105 110 51% 23 Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) 25 96% 96% 96% 24 Lot X (Sheraton) 31 65% 55% 60% 19 61 65 30% 12 Whereas Table 46 outlines the overall average permit occupancy observed in September and October, Table 47 above summarizes the average peak permit occupancy during the same time periods. The purpose of presenting the peak occupancy is to observe the highest quantity of active permits parked at one time and how that figure compares to the current number of active permits. From the data above, one can infer that at peak occupancy periods, the average percentage of permit holders parking is between 30% and 50%. In locations, such as Lot T (Lytton/Kipling) and Lot C (Ramona/Lytton), the peak occupancy captured for those lots is near capacity, with only one or two available spaces vacant. Table 47: Thursday Peak Permit Occupancy (September & October) vs. Total Permit Sales C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 70 IV. Downtown Parking Intercept Survey & Stakeholder Involvement Intercept surveys and a series of key stakeholder meetings were conducted to obtain direct input from the City, residents, visitors, business owners, property owners, and other key members in Palo Alto. In- person surveys and paper surveys were distributed throughout Downtown Palo Alto during each of DIXON’s three data collection efforts as well as distributed online via a webpage link on the City’s website for the month of November. The study’s five stakeholder meetings were held in April, July, October, November of 2016 and January of 2017. The involvement from these groups aimed to acquire opinions related to parking in Palo Alto and potential solutions. A. Parking Intercept Surveys To further expand the study’s data collection, the City and DIXON worked together to compose an intercept survey that gathered information about the parking and transportation habits of visitors, employees, employers, and members of the community. The Study’s intercept surveys coincided with the study’s data collection, occurring on the Friday’s during DIXON’s data collection visits to Palo Alto. Intercept surveys were collected in May, September and October. The Efforts to capture residents in the outlying study area were met with difficulty. Locating residents on-street during typical work hours when residents are often not home may have attributed to this issue. Over the course of the three data collections, over 300 survey responses were gathered. In addition, as part of an effort to expand the survey population and variety of responses, an online survey was developed that was aimed at gathering responses from individuals who may reside in Palo Alto or have recently visited the Downtown. The online weblink created for the survey was then posted to the City’s newly developed Downtown Parking Management Study webpage as well as distributed to the study’s key stakeholder group. The online survey was posted throughout the month of November and received nearly 100 responses in addition to the 300 in-person surveys. Several important themes were gathered from the surveys having to do with individual’s feelings and perspectives towards parking in Downtown Palo Alto. Many of the common themes to evolve from the suggestions or thought to improve parking downtown included: • Additional parking needed (more garages and off-street parking) • Increased employee parking and provide easier parking for employees • Extend parking time limits in the garages • Find a solution for the current permit wait-list (e.g., monthly permits; more permits for individuals and reduce the number permits provided to “companies”; expand the permit zone perimeter) • Do not implement paid parking • Improved public transportation • 80 % of respondents indicated that they had driven a vehicle Downtown that day • More than half of the respondents indicated that they had parking in color zone while a combined 25% of responded that they had parking in residential or another area. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 71 • Approximately 30% of those surveyed specified that they parked on-street versus 51% who answered they had parked off-street. • 60% of respondents indicated they were in Palo Alto that day for work or something work related • A combined 58% of respondents were able to find parking in 5 minutes or less • More than 50% of respondents felt they parked as close as they had anticipated to their destination • Nearly 60% of considered it easy to find a space to park • Over 60% parked for free while 11% paid to park and 7% had parking either validated or subsidized. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 72 Appendix A – Stakeholder Meeting Notes A. Stakeholder Meetings Stakeholder meetings were held in April, July, October, November of 2016 and January 2017. All stakeholder meetings were organized by DIXON and City staff and lead by DIXON. These meetings included key city staff from parking, transportation, development and finance. In addition, community stakeholders attended, including business owners, developers, downtown organizations. Meetings also received contributions from Palo Alto residents and the public. Each meeting was designed to discuss different elements of the project. Attendees were invited to share their feedback, comments and suggestions toward the short and long-term parking strategies in Palo Alto. Complete meeting minutes from each stakeholder meeting can be found in Appendix 1. 1. Stakeholder Meeting #1 The Study’s initial stakeholder meeting took place on April 26th, 2016 and was intended to be a project kick-off for those not directly involved in the study. This meeting allowed for the introductions of DIXON, the City of Palo Alto staff, as well as the stakeholder and community members. DIXON reviewed the project’s scope of work and key objectives that the Study would work to address both short and long-term parking management strategies for Palo Alto. Stakeholders were asked to provide brief comments and thoughts regarding the existing conditions in Palo Alto. Participants were asked to suggest their best-case solution for addressing those conditions. Stakeholders clearly indicated that providing adequate parking supply in the form of space inventory is vital to being able to comfortably find parking Downtown. Added comments by stakeholders highlight an issue facing Palo Alto today as the overflow of parking demand into the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown and felt it important for the City to mitigate this issue and ensure that customers and visitors can find parking close to their destinations. This includes the consideration of constructing additional parking upon further data collection and analysis. Key stakeholders have been working with the City in identifying viable locations for the potential of building an additional parking structure in the Downtown. There have been several locations identified including existing public surface lots. Today, many stakeholders feel that people often tend to avoid Downtown at peak times because of the lack of convenient parking. The Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Program was developed to help mitigate the issue of parking overflow in the residential neighborhoods, however stakeholder’s feel that the City did not consider the supply of permits in the development of the program. This has resulted in overselling, long waitlists, and low turnover. These issues contribute to the ineffectiveness of the program. The City has recently decided to issue 200 fewer permits per year moving forward to help reduce this issue and are considering raising the permit cost. Similarly, City staff also agree that increasing permit costs and creating designated parking spaces may be important for the employee permit system. Paid on-street parking and wayfinding signage were aspects considered by the stakeholders to mitigate parking space turnover concerns Downtown. They discussed how allowing visitors and customers to stay longer should come at a premium, and that the majority of long-term parking should be pushed to off- street locations. Part of ensuring the effectiveness of this system is adequate enforcement. Additionally, C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 73 patrons must be able to be directed to available parking Downtown using wayfinding. Many stakeholders feel that the current signage is difficult to read and may be causing increased congestion. The City staff expressed significant concern during the meeting that the color zone system used for parking in Downtown Palo Alto is outdated and inefficient. This same feeling was also echoed by stakeholders. This system may be a source of further congestion due to cars shifting to a new zone to find new parking every two to three-hours. During the meeting the City also discussed the administrative side of parking management and their various political goals. Some of the ideas considered were implementing a comprehensive parking management system, a City smartphone application for permits, and relying more on alternative modes of transportation. The City wants to focus on incentive programs rather than penalties to promote public transit use, biking, and walking. In order to get a better understanding of parking uses and attitudes in Palo Alto, DIXON discussed developing a parking survey to hand out throughout the City. Some issues that the City requested to be covered in the survey were drivers’ thoughts on free parking versus paid parking, how often people visit Downtown, and how long customers or employees park for at a time. 2. Stakeholder Meeting #2 The second stakeholder meeting, held on July 6, 2016, was an opportunity to review the May data collection including initial observations, results of initial data analysis and intercept surveys responses. Stakeholders were solicited for initial feedback and discussion of the findings. The ensuing discussion among stakeholders, the City and DIXON provided valuable points for the second and third data collection efforts. To conclude the meeting, DIXON and the City provided the stakeholders with a summer assignment, to consider the downtown area and bring to the third stakeholder meeting, any options for shared or alternative parking that may be applicable to the future parking availability in Palo Alto. Furthermore, the group was challenged to consider other cities and parking programs they considered to be representative examples for what Palo Alto should strive for. The goal of the third meeting being to plot these potential locations on aerial maps of Palo Alto to bring further visibility to downtown’s parking availability. Despite the current functionality of the color zone system, stakeholders were concerned about the future of the system. They continued to advocate for a change in parking management, especially with the permit systems. One issue that came up related to this was the lack of data in permit areas, especially after-hours when the permit regulations do not currently apply. It was suggested that data collection in September and October be expanded to include permit occupancy. Many stakeholders agreed that there is currently a lack of employee parking, and that the colored zones pose a problem for employees trying to park longer-term. Stakeholders were quite surprised at the figure of 80-200 vehicles moving between zones throughout the day, many of them likely to be employees of downtown businesses who have not purchased a permit. Some methods to combat this issue were discussed alternative transportation programs including carpool incentives and transit passes. Due to the forced high turnover rate for employee parking, some stakeholders want to push employee parking to the C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 74 upper levels of parking garages. This parking would also potentially be free of charge. Stakeholders also expressed that permit programs in Palo Alto could benefit from a more progressive rate scale. As for on-street parking, introducing paid parking with meters is an option being considered. However, one concern that the stakeholders shared is that residents will be dissuaded from traveling Downtown once paid parking is introduced. This feeling stems from the City’s history of fairness when it comes to parking throughout the community. Parking to this point has always been free and not something that many in the community feel they should have to pay for. One concession mentioned by stakeholders to minimize backlash may be to introduce paid parking with the first hour free. Stakeholders’ critiques were considered when developing plans for the next stages of data collection. Additionally, their main concerns were considered to develop relevant and suitable solutions for the City. 3. Stakeholder Meeting #3 The study’s third stakeholder meeting on October 5, 2016, reviewed the September data collection results. Much like the previous two meetings, the results and analyses were presented followed by comments and feedback from the City and stakeholders. The second data collection’s results and the occupancy trends associated were highly consistent with the first data collection in back in May. As part of the October’s stakeholder meeting DIXON organized an interactive activity that included participation from stakeholders and City staff. The interactive session was a two-part activity that dealt with issues related to parking in Palo Alto. First, DIXON created posters (Figure 39) that outlined issues that had been identified through the previous two meetings including paid parking, additional facilities, permits, automation of parking garages, time restrictions, and the colored zones. Stakeholders and staff were asked to approach each issue as though they were assigned to making a change or improvement towards the issue and then identify with a colored (green, yellow, red) sticker, the level of priority that the issue has in relation to the other parking issues in Palo Alto. The second part of the activity utilized large maps of Downtown Palo Alto and participants were asked to identify with stickers (Figure 40), locations or areas on the map that would be ideal for additional parking supply and alternative parking locations. The activity provided stakeholders an opportunity to be actively involved in the study and provide an added level of participation beyond general commentary. The activity was useful in opening further discussion and justifications for changes that the stakeholders considered necessary for Palo Alto. Outcomes of the first part of the activity, changes or improvements to current Palo Alto parking issues, included addressing the current employee permit costs, finding methods to improve the RPP program, eliminating the colored zone, and introducing paid parking. Through the second activity, the group identified several potential parking structure and Figure 40: Stakeholder Parking Issue Comment Board Figure 41: Stakeholder Plotting Map C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 75 locations that may be feasible in adding additional parking supply, including Lot D, which is currently an hourly public parking lot on the corner of Hamilton and Waverly. Several stakeholders identified Lot D as being a viable location and mentioned the City’s expressed interest in the lot as well. Other possible locations included Garage Q (High/Alma North), Lot O (Emerson /High), Lot K (Lytton/Waverly), and Lot H (Cowper/Hamilton). DIXON has taken into consideration many of the comments and locations identified by participants in the proposed recommendations for Palo Alto. The fourth meeting concluded with a brief synopsis of what would be presented in Stakeholder Meeting #4 in which the full summary of data collection and outline of proposed recommendations would be discussed. 4. Stakeholder Meeting #4 November 17, 2016 marked the study’s fourth stakeholder meeting, following DIXON’s final data collection effort in early October. The fourth meeting focused on the summary and overall analysis of the study’s overall data collection efforts and introduced the preliminary recommendations that DIXON proposed for the City of Palo Alto. The recommendations were composed based upon the DIXON’s data collection, observations, assessment of Palo Alto’s parking operations, and the previous three stakeholder meetings. Based on the early recommendations made by DIXON, the reaction from City staff and stakeholders was generally positive. Several of DIXON’s early recommendations had been discussed at length in the previous stakeholder meetings as overall issues of concern for Palo Alto. These issues included removing the color program completely, paid parking in Downtown, the need for additional parking supply in the future, and the restructuring of the City’s current permit program. The City and stakeholders were also in agreement that the current employee permit program should be improved and reacted positively towards the recommendation of allowing low-wage employees to purchase monthly permits rather than bi- annually or annually. Furthermore, there was a level of support for tiered pricing structures for hourly parking on-street as well as payment tiers between potential on-street meters and off-street rates. In general, stakeholders were amenable to the prospect of time of day or demand-based pricing in the future, proceeding a period in which the City has adequately introduced paid parking Downtown. The recommendations spurred constructive discussion among the City, stakeholders and DIXON, and the group conversed over certain issues that may result from the implementation of the recommendations. For example, one recommendation was to extend paid parking hours into the early evening. It was concluded though that because of the current structure of the Downtown RPP program, extended parking hours in Downtown may push vehicles into the RPP zones and result in frustration from residents. The group agreed that this recommendation is one that will be needed but that may be better fit as a more long-term solution. In addition, drawing on the topic of pricing mentioned in the previous paragraph, the group noted that the pricing introduced with potential paid parking would have to be implemented in a way that permit-holders and other customers are enticed to park in garages and not to deter customers with rates or an increased permit cost. A method to increase parking in garages and not deter based on rates or increased costs was received clearly by DIXON and taken into consideration in the recommendations. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 76 In summary, the fourth stakeholder meeting was able to reinforce that Palo Alto has parking issues related to on- and off-street parking in Downtown based on the data collection results from May, September and October. Based on the current state of Palo Alto’s parking, DIXON put forth several recommendations including the introduction of paid parking. Overwhelmingly, the City and stakeholders agreed that paid parking is necessary and that the other recommendations outlined are worth considering. A bulletized list outlines the initial recommendations introduced by DIXON at the stakeholder meeting are outlined below. Permits • Recommend that the City increase its annual employee permit prices o Set employee permit price as part of tiered pricing strategy that correlates with on-street and off-street hourly parking rates o Provide employees (incl. low-wage) the opportunity to pay for permits an on annual, bi- annual and monthly basis • Recommend the City eliminate its daily permit option and replace with daily hourly maximum as part of paid parking implementation o Automation of off-street garage facilities • Continue to support current TMA efforts to provide alternative modes of transportation and reduce SOV figures Paid Parking • Remove Color Zones o Implement tiered zones related to pricing • Recommend the City implement paid parking throughout Downtown o Single-space/multi-space/mobile payments • Implement a Time of Day pricing strategy to begin o Paid parking and enforcement on Saturdays Wayfinding • Implement City’s design plans for wayfinding campaign which includes signage and branding • Implement parking guidance system with transmission of real-time facility occupancy information • Consider creation of paid parking signs to inform motorists where potential value and premium parking is located New Facilities and Alternative Strategies • Recommend the City pursue its considerations to construct parking structure on Lot D at Hamilton Ave and Waverly St. • Encourage shared-parking opportunities with local business and establishments • Trial Uber/Lyft discount programs Enforcement • The City recently upgraded enforcement handhelds to Android-based devices. DIXON supports this decision by the City as many municipalities are switching to smartphone devices for enforcement. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 77 • Recommend the City implement enforcement on the weekends, including Sunday (even if enforcement is light) • Suggest the City review its citation fee rates and consider higher penalties associated with parking Administrative • With implementation of paid parking, suggest the City create a parking specific department to provide oversight on paid parking, permits (employee and residential), enforcement, revenue collection, and meter maintenance C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 78 Appendix B - Survey A complete list of multiple choice survey questions and results from May, September, and October is listed below: MAY SURVEYS Did you drive here today? Yes 80% No 20% What color zone did you park in? Blue Zone 11% Coral Zone 28% Lime Zone 13% Purple Zone 17% Residential 8% Other 23% Did you park on-street or off-street? On-Street 37% Off-Street 63% What is the primary purpose of your visit? Shopping 10% Dining 8% Entertainment 1% Work or work related 74% I live here 1% Pick-up passengers 2% Pick-up/deliver goods/packages 0% Personal care appointment 3% Visiting family/friends 0% Other 0% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 79 How long did it take to find a space? <1 minute 35% 1-5 minutes 30% 5-10 minutes 22% >10 minutes 13% How did you pay for parking today? Parking was free 77% I paid the cost to park 13% Parking was subsidized/validated 9% Do you consider the space you parked in close enough to your destination? Yes 66% No, I parked farther than anticipated 19% I parked farther than anticipated, but I don't mind walking 15% How easy was it to find a parking space today (1 - Very easy, 5 - Very hard) Very easy 41% 2 18% Neutral 23% 4 9% Very hard 8% How willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would be able to more quickly find a spot closer to your destination? (1=Very Willing; 5=Very Unwilling) Very willing 9% 2 21% Neutral 16% 4 21% Very unwilling 33% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 80 What if the parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the area? Very willing 23% 2 21% Neutral 13% 4 17% Very unwilling 26% How many people were in your car including yourself? 1 70% 2 25% 3 4% 4 0% 5+ 2% In which range does your age fall? 16-24 27% 25-34 38% 35-44 16% 45-54 11% 55-64 7% 65+ 0% What is your gender? Male 40% Female 60% In what range does your household income fall? $15,000 - $24,999 20% $25,000 - $49,999 27% $50,000 - $74,999 15% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 81 $75,000 - $99,999 13% $100,000 - $149,000 16% $150,000 - $200,000 5% $200,000 + 4% Which category most closely matches your profession? Arts and Entertainment 2% Construction/Maintenance 2% Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 2% Healthcare 5% Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 38% Production/Manufacturing 2% Professional Services (Legal, Financial, etc.) 14% Retail 21% Other 7% IT 5% Student 2% SEPTEMBER SURVEYS Did you drive here today? Yes 74% No 26% If you did not drive, how did you get Downtown today? Bus 12% Caltrain 31% Carpool 15% Ride-Share 3% Bike 15% Walk 24% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 82 Where did you park your car? On-Street 38% Off-Street - Garage 54% Off-Street - Surface Lot 8% What are the primary purposes of your visit today? Shopping 3% Dining 6% Entertainment 3% Work or work related 85% I live here 1% Pick-up passengers 0% Pick-up/deliver goods/packages 0% Personal care appointment 1% Visiting family/friends 0% Other 0% How long did it take to find a space? <1 minute 31% 1-5 minutes 35% 5-10 minutes 14% >10 minutes 20% How did you pay for parking today? Parking was free 83% I paid the cost to park 10% Parking was subsidized/validated - Employer 2% Parking was subsidized/validated - Client 5% Parking was subsidized/validated - Merchant 0% Do you consider the space your vehicle is parked in close enough to your destination? C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 83 Yes 51% No, I parked farther than anticipated 32% I parked farther than anticipated, but I don't mind walking 17% How easy was it to find a parking space today? (1 - Very easy, 5 - Very hard) 1 - Very Easy 22% 2 12% 3 - Neutral 24% 4 22% 5 - Very Hard 20% How willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would be able to more quickly find a spot closer to your destination? (1=Very Willing; 5=Very Unwilling) Very willing 3% 2 8% Neutral 26% 4 13% Very unwilling 51% What if the parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the area? Very willing 8% 2 13% Neutral 45% 4 10% Very unwilling 25% Would you be willing to pay for an annual downtown parking sticker? Yes 31% No 69% How often do you visit Downtown? Everyday 67% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 84 A couple times a week 30% Once a week 0% Once every couple weeks 2% Once a month 0% Less than once a month 0% What is the most important factor in determining where you park? Location 36% Ease of finding a space 26% Price 14% Safety/security 14% Other 10% Have you heard of or do you know about the Employee Parking (permit) Program? Yes 48% No 52% Do you think there is enough parking in Downtown Palo Alto? Yes 16% No 84% If you drove, how many people were in your car? 1 90% 2 10% 3 0% 4 0% 5 0% 6 0% In which range does your age fall? 16-24 37% 25-34 49% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 85 35-44 5% 45-54 5% 55-64 2% 65+ 2% What is your gender? Male 31% Female 69% In what range does your household income fall? $15,000 - $24,999 38% $25,000 - $49,999 24% $50,000 - $74,999 11% $75,000 - $99,999 8% $100,000 - $149,000 16% $150,000 - $200,000 3% $200,000 + 0% Which category most closely matches your profession? Arts and Entertainment 2% Construction/Maintenance 2% Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 0% Healthcare 0% Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 63% Production/Manufacturing 0% Professional Services (Legal, Financial, etc.) 2% Retail 29% Other 0% IT 0% Student 0% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 86 OCTOBER SURVEYS Based upon your most recent visit to Downtown, did you drive a car? Yes 66% No 34% Where did you park your car? On-street 44% Off-street - Garage 27% Off-street - Surface Lot 19% Off-street - Private lot/space 10% If you did not drive, what form of transportation did you use to get Downtown? Bus 0% Caltrain 10% Carpool 7% Ride-share 8% Bike 20% Walk 55% Do you consider the space you parked your vehicle close enough to your destination or farther than you anticipated? Close enough 62% Farther than anticipated 26% I parked farther than I anticipated but I don't mind walking 12% How long did it take you to find a parking space? < 1 minute 36% 1-5 minutes 33% 5-10 minutes 15% >10 minutes 15% Did you pay for parking? C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 87 Parking was free 91% I paid the cost to park 9% Parking was subsidized/validated 0% How many people were in your car including yourself? 1 51% 2 33% 3 11% 4 6% 5+ 0% What were the primary purposes of your visit Downtown? (select all that apply) Shopping 28% Dining 51% Entertainment 7% Work related meeting/event 16% I work here 14% Pick-up passengers 0% Pick-up/Deliver goods 4% Personal care appointments 11% Visiting family/friends 10% Other 14% Have you heard of or do you know about the Employee Parking Program? (Permit) Yes 70% No 10% Yes but the price of the permit is too expensive 20% Would you be willing to pay for an annual downtown parking sticker? Yes 23% No 53% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 88 Yes but the price has to be reasonable 24% What is the most important factor in determining where you park? (Select all that apply) Location 32% Ease of finding a space 45% Price 8% Safety/Security 14% Other 1% Do you think there is enough parking in Downtown Palo Alto? Yes 38% No 62% How often do you visit Downtown? Everyday 34% A couple of times per week 35% Once a week 11% Once every couple of weeks 10% Once a month 5% Less than once a month 5% When driving Downtown, how willing would you be to pay for parking if it meant you would be more likely to find a spot close to your destination? (1=very willing; 5=very unwilling) Very willing 23% 2 23% Neutral 12% 4 19% Very unwilling 21% I already paid for parking 1% What if that parking revenue was used to directly fund transportation improvements in the area? (1=very willing; 5=very unwilling) C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 89 Very willing 9% 2 29% Neutral 24% 4 18% Very unwilling 20% What is your gender? Male 38% Female 58% Prefer not to answer 4% In what range does your household income fall? $15,000 - $24,999 0% $25,000 - $49,999 5% $50,000 - $74,999 5% $75,000 - $99,999 10% $100,000 - $149,000 10% $150,000 - $200,000 30% $200,000 + 40% What category most closely matches your profession? Arts and Entertainment 3% Construction/Maintenance 0% Education, Social Service, Nonprofit 13% Healthcare 6% Personal Services (Food service, personal care, other services) 1% Profession Services (legal, financial, etc.) 36% Retail 0% Other 41% C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 90 Appendix C -Comparable Cities Analysis 5. Introduction Assessing the parking strategies utilized in various comparable cities to Palo Alto is important in developing an effective parking program for the City. Similar cities can offer insight into whether strategies will be feasible and successful in Palo Alto. The City provided a list of thirteen comparable cities options, which were then narrowed down to eight, based on the available data and responses from the cities. Each city was solicited for information about their paid parking, technology, and permit programs. The eight California cities selected for analysis were Alameda, Berkeley, Monterey, Mountain View, Pasadena, San Mateo, Santa Monica, and Sausalito. While these cities are not analogous to Palo Alto in every way, their parking programs are considered in this study on a comparative basis because they offer insight into potential parking solutions that may be applied to the City. 6. Overview a) Paid Parking and Technology While Palo Alto does not currently charge for on- or off-street hourly parking (off-street daily permits are sold), valuable lessons can be learned from comparable cities about the potential benefits or drawbacks of paid parking. Understanding the impact of paid parking can help the City of Palo Alto make informed decisions about managing its parking program moving forward. Like Palo Alto, the City of Mountain View currently offers free on- and off-street parking, regulated by time limits, for downtown visitors. However, the Mountain View City Council recently agreed to explore the possibility of paid parking to combat their high occupancy rates. Paid parking can generate a significant amount of revenue for a city, and it can also be a tactic to regulate parking supply by promoting or dissuading parking in certain locations. Alameda and San Mateo for example each offer on-street parking for $1.00 per hour in their downtown cores, and a lower rate of $0.50 per hour for fringe locations. This method helps make parking in the downtown core a premium. Out of the eight cities, Berkeley has the most expensive on-street parking with a rate at $3.25 per hour. However, the City of Berkeley offers a lower rate in its off-street parking facilities, which can be a method of promoting longer-term parking in the garages to free up the more convenient parking on-street for customers and visitors. In addition to the range of parking rates, the selected cities use a variety of single-space and multi-space meter technologies. Should the City of Palo Alto considers implementing paid parking in the future, looking at the use of different technologies in nearby cities can help city planners determine what could best fit the City’s needs. The below table shows a comparison of on- and off-street parking rates, as well as the types of single- and multi-space meters used in the eight comparable cities. A more detailed explanation of parking rates and technology is outlined in the individual city sections. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 91 City Parking Rates Meters On-Street Off-Street Single-Space Multi-Space Palo Alto Free (2-hr.) Free (3-hr.) None None Alameda $0.50-$1.00/hr. $0.75/hr. Yes Yes Berkeley $3.25/hr. $2.00/hr. $20.00 Daily Max. Yes Yes Monterey $1.50/hr. $0.50-$1.00/hr. Yes Yes Mountain View Free Free None None Pasadena $1.00-$1.25/hr. $0.75-$2.00/hr. Yes Yes San Mateo $0.50-$1.00/hr. $1.00/hr. Yes Yes Santa Monica $1.00-$2.00/hr. First 90 Minutes Free $1.25: First Hour $3.70/hr. $17.50 Daily Max. Yes Yes Sausalito $1.00/hr. $3.00/hr. $25.00 Daily Max. Yes Yes Table 48: Parking Rates and Technology Comparison b) Parking Permits Comparing Palo Alto’s employee and residential permit programs to those in various comparable cities can highlight potential program deficiencies or successes to be considered if the City makes changes to its programs. This report summarizes price structures, permit regulations, and program features amongst the cities to learn about the various forms a permit program can take on. Throughout the Downtown Color Zones, an employee can park daily in any of the off-street parking lots and garages. Employees who do not purchase a permit are required to move their vehicles per posted time limits throughout the day. Unfortunately, the popularity of this program has resulted in a long waitlist for the downtown garages, which can make it hard for employees to find sufficient parking downtown. Considering a higher permit rate may potentially be beneficial to Palo Alto’s employee permit program because a higher rate could dissuade more employees from driving downtown, and instead more people may rely on alternative modes of transportation like public transit or biking. It is important to note that a raise in in downtown employee permits would also result in raising the employee permits in the RPP district as well. The City of Berkeley has an employee permit rate priced at $1,800.00 annually as well as the City of Sausalito, which offers a SmartCard at $4.00 per day, amounting to approximately $1,044.00 annually. The City of Santa Monica charges even more than Berkeley and Sausalito, with an annual rate of over $2,000.00. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 92 The table below shows a comparison between the annual cost for both employee and residential permits in the different comparable cities. A more detailed description of the city permit programs is covered in the individual city sections below. City Downtown Employee Permit Palo Alto $466.00 Alameda $360.00-$720.00 Berkeley $1,800 (public permit) Monterey $258.00 Mountain View $326.00 Pasadena N/A San Mateo $360.00-$960.00 (residents or employees) Santa Monica $2,112 (public permit) Sausalito $1,044.00 Table 49: Annual Permit Cost Comparison* *Note: monthly and bi-annual permit costs were converted to into annual costs for comparison. 7. Cities a) Alameda, CA The City of Alameda is located across the bay from San Francisco, and is known for its vibrant business district as well as its unique retail shops and restaurants downtown. The city is approximately 23 square miles, with a population of 78,360 per the 2010 Census. In Alameda, the City manages parking, including street parking, three surface lots, and one parking structure: • Lot A • Lot B • West End Lot • Civic Center Parking Structure Both on-street and off-street parking is metered in Alameda. There is a total of 640 on-street and 523 off- street metered spaces. The City uses single-space IPS meters as well as Cale and T2 multi-space pay stations. On average, there are 750 transactions per day with the single-space meters compared to an average of 200 per day with the multi-space pay stations. Currently there is no pay-by-phone option in Alameda. On-street parking costs between $0.50 and $1.00 per hour, and the off-street parking in Alameda costs $0.75 per hour. The City is not currently considering raising their parking rates. C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 93 There is an employee parking permit program offered for the top floor of the Civic Center Parking Structure that can be obtained from the Human Resources Department. These permit spaces are enforced between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm on Monday – Thursday. Alameda is currently in the process of implementing a residential preferential permit parking program for the first time. Through this program, short-term guest permits will be valid for one day and longer-term guest permits will be valid for one to four weeks. These permit zones will be effective between 4:00am and 6:00pm. b) Berkeley, CA Berkeley is located near San Francisco in Alameda County, California. Its urban downtown has a mix of different art, culture, and food for residents and visitors to enjoy. Per the 2010 census, there are approximately 120,972 residents in the City, and Berkeley is made up of 17.7 square miles. The Transportation Division along with their parking operator, LAZ Parking, manages on- and off-street parking. Specifically, LAZ manages daily operations at the City’s garages and the Berkeley Way Lot. Berkeley is easily accessible by alternative modes of transportation such as the BART and the bus, which helps relieve some parking demands. The City has both paid on- and off-street parking. There is a total of approximately 4,000 on-street parking spaces downtown, many of which are metered. On-street meters apply between the hours of 9:00am and 6:00pm on weekdays, Saturdays, and even some holidays. Berkeley has introduced Rate Zones downtown where prices differ depending on location and demand. Rate Zones are identified using color-coded signs and display either Premium or Value with a corresponding rate and time limit. Premium spaces enforce a two-hour maximum parking time while Value spaces allow for eight-hour maximum parking time. Downtown on-street parking rates range from $2.00 per hour in Value zones to $3.25 per hour in Premium zones. There are two metered parking lots owned by the City, the Berkeley Way Lot and the Elmwood District Lot. These lots are metered Monday through Saturday, starting at 7:00am and ending between 6:00pm and 10:00pm. There are a total of 510 off-street spaces. Off-street parking costs $2.00 per hour with a $20.00 daily maximum. The IPS single-space meters and multi-space pay stations account for a combined total of 19,950 transactions on average per day. The City does not currently offer a mobile payment options. Berkeley currently does not have an employee permit parking program, however there are monthly permits available for purchase for $150.00 per month to be used in the garages and lots. These permit locations are enforced between the hours of 7:00am and 6:00pm. The Residential Preferential Parking program in Berkeley costs $55.00 per year per car. Additionally, residents may purchase up to twenty- one-day visitor permits per year at a price of $2.75 each. Up to three fourteen-day visitor permits can be Image 1: Alameda Civic Center Parking Structure C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 94 purchased per year for $28.50 each. The zones eligible for a residential permit have been determined by the City’s Traffic Engineer’s Office. c) Monterey, CA The City of Monterey is known for its coastal charm, and Monterey’s thriving old town has numerous shops, restaurants, and a farmers’ market that attract residents and visitors downtown. Per the 2010 Census, there are approximately 27,810 residents in the 11.8 square mile city. Parking in Monterey can get quite busy especially during the summer months, as many tourists are attracted to the City. Both on- and off-street parking in managed by the City. Public parking in in the City of Monterey is managed by the Parking Division, which is a standalone division under the Community Services Department. None of the parking related tasks in Monterey are outsourced. The Parking Division is an enterprise fund, in which the Division is responsible for its own expenses. This allows the City to exhibit to the public the total service costs as well as how revenues and fees are factored into the budget. Monterey’s Parking Division runs all aspects of parking including meter maintenance, collections, enforcement and administration. They pay their Parks Division to provide landscaping for their facilities, and they pay the Streets Division for street pavement and sign maintenance. The Parking Division also pays $550,000.00 annually into the General Fund for City services from Human Resources, the City Attorney, the Finance Department, etc. In the Parking Division, there are twenty-five full-time and twenty-eight part-time employees. Figure 42: City of Berkeley Residential Permit Map C i t y o f P a l o A l t o D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t S t u d y | 95 Street parking in downtown Monterey has time limits ranging from 20 minutes to two-hours, and many of the off-street spaces are limited to two-hours as well. There are an estimated 3000 on-street spaces, 510 of which are metered. Out of the 3,940 off-street spaces, 2,258 of those are metered. The majority of meters in Monterey are IPS single-space meters, but there are a small amount of POM meters scattered throughout City. As for pay stations, the City uses both Ventek and MacKay. The City does not currently provide a mobile payment functions. The rate for on-street parking is $1.50 per hour, and off-street parking costs between $0.50 and $1.50 per hour. Monterey was able to provide average transactions per day data for the winter and summer. The average number of transactions per day in January and July for both on- and off-street meters and pay stations are as follows: January: • 1,184 single-space meter transactions per day • 975 multi-space pay station transactions per day July: • 2,156 single-space meter transactions per day • 2,173 multi-space pay station transactions per day Monthly permit parking is offered for the Downtown West Garage, Downtown East Garage, and the Cannery Row Garage. The access card cost varies by garage and has an additional $5.00 deposit, however there is a discount for quarterly and annual permits. There are also monthly surface lot permits available for Lots B, 4, 6, 14, 18, 21, the Depot Lot, and the Waterfront Lot. These require a paper permit that is displayed on the dash. These permits have a $10.00 deposit, and generally cost $42.50 per month with some variation depending on the lot. See Figure 38 for a schedule of permit fees. Figure 43: City of Monterey Permit Rates There are employee parking permit and residential parking permit programs in Monterey. The employee permits are offered on either a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis to be used between the hours of 9:00am and 8:00pm. These permits are available on a quarterly or monthly basis, and cost $21.50 per month or $57.00 per quarter. The New Monterey Employee permit is outlined for the New Monterey Business District and one must supply a pay stub, business card, or sign letter from employer on business letterhead to qualify. The residential permit program requires that a majority (50% + 1) of the households on that block(s) sign a petition requesting the program. At which time, the designated block(s) must be approved by the Parking Division through parking studies that determine if the blocks have at least 70% average occupancy. This program also allows two guest permits per residence, free, and it is the responsibility of the resident to see that the guest permit is returned to him/her for re-use. The City Monterey’s Parking department is handled completely by the City. The department is structured as an enterprise find. The department pays approximately $850,000 for services with other departments (e.g., Finance, City Attorney, Public Work). The Parking Fund pays one-hundred percent of all its expenses to include loans and capital projects. Monterey does not outsource any operations to private third-party vendors. Parking pays for services from other City Departments. For example, Parking pays the Parks Division for landscape services, building maintenance for janitorial services and minor repairs. Furthermore, the Streets Division is paid by Parking to perform maintenance of on-street pavement around metered spaces as well as sign services. d) Mountain View, CA The City of Mountain View is in Santa Clara County near Palo Alto and within the Silicon Valley. Mountain View is known for its many major technology companies as well as its downtown core around the Castro and Mercy Streets. The City is made up of around 12.3 square miles, and has a population of approximately 80,435 people. The City of Mountain View Community Development Department manages parking within the downtown commercial area, while the Public Works Department is responsible for parking outside of the downtown core. The Police Department provides citywide enforcement and citation management, and citations are processed through a third party. Currently, Mountain View does not have any members dedicated to parking full-time. Instead, the responsibility is shared across the three departments with four staff members involved in some aspects of parking. Mountain View currently does not have paid on- or off-street parking downtown. Instead, there are various time limit restrictions depending on the location. Where time limits are enforced, parking is restricted to two-hours, with some 1-hour, 3-hour, and 5-hours. Additionally, there is no overnight parking allowed in the parking garages between the hours of 2:00am and 6:00am. While parking is currently free, the City currently faces extremely high occupancy rates downtown, making it difficult for drivers to find parking during the peak lunch and evening hours. The Mountain View City Council recently agreed to begin exploring the possibility of paid parking to potentially free up more parking spaces. Mountain View offers downtown parking permits that may be purchased by downtown residents, employers, or employees for long-term parking. Drivers can purchase these permits on a monthly or annual basis, or as a booklet of 25 one-day permits. The annual purchase price is $240.00, and the monthly and booklet prices are $40.00 each. The purpose of the booklets is for business owners to purchase and distribute to their customers. Those with downtown permits may park for up to 72-hours in select parking garages and lots. As for a residential permit program, the City does offer parking permits for those who reside within the parking permit program boundaries which has been created in response to game-day parking issues spurned from the Levi’s football stadium. The structure of this permit program is unique because it is modeled around the San Francisco 49ers schedule. Two permits per household are provided for free for those residents within the program boundaries pictured below. The permits are only valid on game days because of the influx of traffic to the area on those days. Permit holders are permitted to park without restriction between 5:00pm and 10:00pm on weekday game days, and between 8:00am and 10:00pm on weekend game days. e) Pasadena, CA Downtown Pasadena, known as Old Town Pasadena, is a business district with many restaurants, shops, and events as well as a Sunday farmers’ market. There are approximately 142,250 people residing in the City per the 2010 census report. The City of Pasadena is made up of just over 23 square miles and it is located ten miles northeast of Los Angeles. The Parking Services Division in the City of Pasadena falls under the Department of Transportation. This Division is responsible for aspects of the City’s parking program including enforcement and permit and citation processing. The meter mechanics are part of the Department of Transportation, and some facility maintenance is handled by the Public Works Department. Additionally, some garage and surface lot management is contracted out. Garage operations including customer service calls, custodial and maintenance is contracted out. Pasadena also relies partly on a private security company that can issue citations on behalf of the City, on City ticket stock, as part of their enforcement. There are a total of twenty-one City employees that deal with parking, and there are fifteen contracted parking enforcement officers. While most on-street spaces in Pasadena do not have daily time limits, there are 2,267 metered spaces downtown. These meters are enforced every day of the week downtown, and either six or seven day per Figure 44: Mountain View Residential Permit Program Boundaries week by the Civic Center, Playhouse, and South Lake areas of the City. There is no street parking allowed overnight between 2:00am and 6:00am. The City uses Duncan single-space meters throughout downtown. On-street parking in Pasadena costs between $1.00 and $1.25 per hour depending on the location. As for off-street parking, the City has a total number of 6,469 spaces, 904 of which are mall paid. There are eleven different off-street parking locations throughout downtown that are convenient to restaurants and shopping. Pasadena uses the Cale multi-space pay stations for off-street parking. There are on average 24 transactions per day on average at the pay stations, and the City does not offer a mobile payment option. Off-street parking costs between $0.75 and $2.00. While there is no employee permit program in Pasadena, there is an annual residential permit option for on-street parking. Residents can register for an annual overnight on-street parking permit or an annual daytime on-street permit. To qualify, residents must own more vehicles than they have space to park off- street at their residence. Residents can only have a maximum of two permits at a time. These permits have an application fee of $43.00 each, and they require a photocopy of the vehicle registration for every vehicle they own. Annual permits currently expire on December 31 of each year and are prorated quarterly. The fee for an overnight parking permit or a daytime parking permit is outlined below. January 1, 2016 – March 31, 2016 $71.32 each April 1, 2016 – June 30, 2016 $53.49 each July 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016 $35.66 each October 1, 2016 – December 31, 2016 $17.83 each Table 50: City of Pasadena fee schedule for overnight and daytime parking permits One of the main issues that Pasadena has run into with their residential permit parking program is the lack of regulations with guest permits. Currently, the program does not have a restricted number of guest permits allowed per year. Additionally, the City does all the permit fulfillment, which can be very time consuming. Because of this, they are considering having a 3rd-party company handle this program in the future. f) Redwood City, CA Redwood City, utilizes one engineer in the Engineering and Transportation Services Division that is responsible for overseeing the entire parking program. The Engineering and Transportation Services Division falls under the Community Development Department. Many of the parking tasks are split between multiple departments. The Revenue Services Department handles cash collections and credit card processing, the Public Works Department is responsible for maintenance, signs and curbs, and the Police Department handles enforcement. Additionally, the City Manager Communications Division is responsible for any parking advertising and outreach, and the Information Technology (IT) Department provides meter and garage technology support services. Parking garage staffing and management is outsourced to ABM. Coordination between the departments’ parking goals can be very difficult with the tasks split among so many departments, which is why the oversight from the engineer is critical. In addition to the engineer, there are three employees that deal with parking in the Public Works Department, two in Community Development, three in Revenue Services, open in IT, and three in the Police Department. A total of twelve staff in Redwood City total who deal with some aspect of parking. g) San Jose, CA The Parking Division in San Jose is within the Department of Transportation and manages most parking- related tasks. SP+ is the City’s parking operator and provides garage security. Additionally, all citation processing is done by Turbo Data. Within the Parking Division there is a Transportation and Parking Operations Division manager and three Parking Managers. There is an Off-Street Parking Manager, an On- Street Parking Manager, and a Program Manager. The Parking and Transportation Control Officers fall under the management of the On-Street Manager. There are a total of sixty-seven full-time and eight part- time Parking Division employees in the City of San Jose. h) San Mateo, CA San Mateo is located between San Francisco and Palo Alto, known for its award- winning restaurants, startup companies, and unique arts. The City is dense and walkable, with easy access to public transit. San Mateo is almost 16 square miles and has a population of 103,356 people. The City, along with their parking operator, SP+, manage the 3,000 parking spaces (on and off-street) downtown including the City’s permit application system, like Palo Alto. Public Parking in the City of San Mateo is managed by the Public Works Department through the City Manager’s Office. The City Manager’s Office commissioned a Downtown Parking Management Plan through CDM Smith in 2013, which recommended the creation of a dedicated Parking Manager position. They recently hired their first Parking Manger to oversee the program. Public Works handles all customer service and permit distribution in-house at City Hall. Enforcement is also completely managed by the City through the Police Department. The City retains SP+ as an on-call consultant, primarily for parking operations, meter maintenance and collections, as well as some technical consulting. Data collection is also outsourced, like it is done in Palo Alto. In addition to the Parking Manager, there is one full-time Parking Administrative Technician, a varying number of Parking Enforcement Officers, two Traffic Sergeants who work on some parking programs, a Community Service Officer who oversees the enforcement officers, and a Technician at the counter who works partially on permit distribution. There are 1,200 on-street metered spaces in downtown San Mateo, which each cost $1.00 per hour in the Central Area (highlighted by Orange Area in Figure 40 below). Time limits vary depending on, on-street or off-street parking. For example, parking in the Central Garage enforces a 3-hour time limit on the street level while all other levels are no time limit. The Perimeter Area parking (highlighted by Green Area in Figure 40 below) is $0.50 per hour with varying time limits similar to the Central Area. Street level off- street garage parking and surface lots enforce a 3-hour time limit while there is no time limit for the other garage levels. On-street spaces have varying time limits. There areas highlighted on the below map in orange are considered the core, and the green are those areas that are considered the perimeter. There are some POM, IPS, and MacKay single-space meters throughout the downtown. Parking is enforced between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday through Saturday. Parking is free after 6:00pm Monday through Saturday. The striped areas on the above map indicate the off-street garage parking locations downtown. The street level of the central garage (in orange) is $1.00 per hour with a three-hour time limit. The other floors cost $0.50 per hour and do not have a time limit. This system helps increase turnover on the most convenient floor and keeps the all-day parkers on the upper floors. The street level of the other garages as well as the surface lots cost $0.50 per hour, also with a three-hour time limit. The other levels are the same price but without a time limit. The City uses Amano and MacKay multi-space pay stations. Figure 45: San Mateo Parking Zone Map San Mateo offers a mobile payment option through PayByPhone. This is available at two of the off-street parking lots currently, but the City will likely expand this program to all the off-street lot locations in the upcoming months. PaybyPhone provides customers with an alternative way to pay for downtown parking and if a customer is nearing the expiration of their parking time, one can add additional time, up to the time limit for that space. Mobile payment is a convenient payment option for a City like San Mateo. There are on average around 500 transactions per month through PayByPhone at each lot, equating to an average of 8-10 transactions per day. The City has a monthly permit that is available for residents or for employees. Permit sales are processed online through the San Mateo Parking website. Each permit is linked to an individual license plate number and is a physical hangtag that is printed by permit holder. Permits are purchased for specific zones. The different zones have varied costs. The downtown core costs $80.00 per month, while the perimeter is $50.00 and outside of downtown is $30.00 per month. This tiered rate structure makes parking in the core of downtown a premium, and encourages drivers to park further away to save money and free up the more valuable spaces. There is also a residential parking permit program in San Mateo which is currently free. Parking permits are issued as stickers and are affixed to the resident’s vehicle. Residential permits are valid for two calendar years. These permits are available for neighborhoods that are impacted by heavy traffic from nearby businesses for example. There is no fee for these permits, but residents must fill out an application. The number of permits that may be issued to a single or multi-family residence is unlimited. Each household is also eligible for a transferable visitor hangtag. i) Santa Monica, CA Santa Monica is located on the coast in western Los Angeles County. It is home to many boutique shops, high-end restaurants, and landmark attractions. The City is a tourist destination, and is home to an estimated 93,220 people per the 2010 census. The City is comprised of around just 8.4 square miles. On-street parking is managed by the City, while their parking operation, SP Plus manages the off- street parking facilities. There are approximately 5,000 on-street metered spaces in Santa Monica. The City uses IPS single-space meters, and the rate is between $1.00 and $2.00 per hour. These meters accept credit card and coin, but there is no mobile payment option at this time. Most meters, such as those along Ocean Avenue, 4th Street, and 2nd Street have a 3-hour time limit, which is enforced between 8:00am and 2:00am every day. The downtown meters along 5th Street and near the Civic Center also have a 3-hour time limit, but these are enforced between 8:00am and 9:00pm. The downtown parking structures in Santa Monica offer the first 90-minutes of parking free. The next hour is $1.25, with each additional 30-minutes costing $1.85. There is a daily maximum of $17.50. There are a total of twelve parking structures and four lots that make up parking for the downtown, Third Street Promenade and the Civic Center. There are multiple types of monthly permits that the public can choose to purchase for the off-street parking structures. A regular monthly permit to be used anytime is $176.00. There are also two options to either park on weekdays from 6:00am to 7:00pm or on weeknights from 4:00pm to 6:00am. These time-limited permits cost $132.00 for the day and $82.50 for the night option. The employee permit parking program in Santa Monica allows employees to park with keycard access to an assigned parking structure with the purchase of their monthly permit. There are also exempt street- parking permit available. These are only valid during the employment period, and applications are reviewed by the City to ensure eligibility. There are also five options for monthly permits available for employees that permit access into different parking structures: Option1 Lots 1N, 3N-9N, 2S-5S $27.00 per month Option 2 Civic Center $160.00 per month Option 3 Civic Center between 3:30pm-6:00am $75.00 per month Option 4 Main Library $82.50 per month Option 5 Downtown structures 1-9 $176.00 per month Table 51: City of Santa Monica permit schedule for Downtown, Third Street Promenade and Civic Center parking Employee parking permits are issued only to employees of businesses and must provide proof of employment, current California registration reflecting employees name and address, as well as proof of California residency (driver’s license or ID card). The residential Preferential Parking Permit program limits certain on-street zones to residents to make it easier for residents to find parking in impacted areas. Residents’ permits are only valid within a two-block radius of their address, and only residents that live on an approved block may purchase a visitor permit. Applicants must show proof of residency, and pay a fee of $25.00 to apply. One permit per vehicle is allowed, and up to two visitor permits are allowed per year. A maximum of 25 one-day permits can be issued per year for events. The red zones on the below map currently have residential preferential parking permit programs, and the blue streets are pre-approved for eligibility. One issue that Santa Monica is facing today is that, despite having a residential preferential permit program, many residents still have trouble finding adequate parking due to the two-block radius rule. This is also considered unfair in some situations where, because of the geography, residents don’t always have a full two block radius to choose from. Additionally, the program allows residents to self-generate daily temporary permits for free. This system is vulnerable to abuse, and not easily regulated by the police department. The City is considering a way to make the system more regulated and less susceptible to abuse. j) San Rafael, CA The parking program in the City of San Rafael is managed by the Parking Services Division, which reports to the City Manager’s Office. The only aspects of the parking program that are outsourced are equipment Figure 46: City of Santa Monica Preferential Parking Map repair for garage maintenance and citation processing and noticing. There is a total of sixteen staff members that deal with parking, including 6 parking enforcement officers. k) Sausalito, CA The City of Sausalito is made up of just 2.3 square miles in the San Francisco Bay Area, and it has a population of approximately 7,156 people. It is known for its quaint and picturesque downtown area, made up of around three blocks of shops and cafes. On- and off-street parking is managed by the City’s Parking Authority. Sausalito has 174 on-street metered spaces with single space IPS parking meters. There are approximately 150 transactions per day at these single space meters. The on-street parking meters in Sausalito operate between the hours of 9:00am and 6:00pm daily. Additionally, there is often a three-hour time limit restriction for the meters. The meters also allow drivers to prepay for time during the day if they park before 9:00am. With this system, the payment would apply beginning at 9:00am. All parking meters have a rate of $1.00 per hour in the City. The City has 520 off-street metered spaces, which use the T2 Digital pay stations. The multi-space pay stations have on average 900 total transactions per day. Sausalito also offers mobile payment through Parkmobile for the off-street metered locations. Mobile payments account for approximately an additional 60 transactions per day. There are five city public parking lots in Sausalito. These lots require payment between 7:00am and 10:00pm, with some variation depending on the lot. Lots 1 and 2 each cost $1.00 per 20 minutes, with a daily maximum of $25.00. Parking Lot 3 costs $1.00 per 30 minutes, but with the same daily maximum. Additionally, Lot 4 costs $1.00 per hour with a $5.00 daily max. Three hours of free parking are provided at Lot 5. Overnight parking is allowed in Lots 1-4, but Lot 5 requires an overnight Area L permit. For employees, there are a few options for longer term parking downtown. Sausalito offers a Commuter Parking SmartCard, which allows employees to park in Lot 3 or 4 for a reduced flat rate of just $4.00 per day. These permits are preloaded with a balance to cover parking. Around 56 SmartCards are used per day downtown. Employees can also choose to use the Parkmobile mobile payment option to park in the off-street locations for $4.35 per day. Around 43 vehicles utilize this option for daily parking. Finally, there is a premium D Permit which costs $260.00 per quarter and allows unlimited parking in Lots 3 and 4. This permit is currently used by around 21 vehicles per quarter. The off-street long term parking permits are valid between 8:00am and 10:00pm. There is also a residential permit-parking program in Sausalito for various neighborhoods labeled with Area B, C, D, and H signage. Each area costs $35.00 per vehicle per year for a permit, except for Area D, which costs $190.00 per vehicle per quarter. Around 500 of these residential permits are purchased per year. These permits are not valid at parking meters, and they do not allow drivers to park for more than 72 hours in the same space. Two guest permits may be requested per address for no extra charge. Additionally, residents can apply for a Resident Parking Passcard for a $10.00 application fee. The Passcard allows residents to park in Lots 1-4 for up to three hours free per day between 7:00am and 6:00pm. This time can be used incrementally if desired. Any additional time used gets billed to the cardholder. It also allows permits free overnight parking in those locations between 6:00pm and 7:00am. This program is managed by the Sausalito Parking Authority and its enforcement officers. Officers can recognize valid resident Passcards via their handheld enforcement devices at which time the spaces will display as green, meaning paid. l) Walnut Creek, CA Parking management in the City of Walnut Creek falls under the City Manager’s Office. The Parking Manager is responsible for overseeing on- and off-street parking policy, the parking enterprise fund, parking garage operations, private parking ordinances, etc., the Public Works Department handles on- street meter maintenance and facility maintenance, and Transportation Engineering handles the residential parking permits. The Police Department is responsible for parking enforcement. Parking garage day-to-day operations is outsourced to LAZ Parking. City of Palo Alto Downtown Parking Management Study: Draft Recommendations 3639 Midway Drive, Suite B345 San Diego, CA 92110-5254 Table of Contents I. Paid Parking ........................................................................................................................................... 4 A. Occupancy and Turnover ................................................................................................................. 4 B. Parking Meters and Pay Stations ..................................................................................................... 5 1. Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Single-Space Meters .................................................................................................................... 6 3. Multi-Space Pay Stations ............................................................................................................. 8 C. Mobile Payment ............................................................................................................................. 10 D. Comprehensive Parking Management System .............................................................................. 11 E. Active Monitoring .......................................................................................................................... 12 1. Occupancy Rates........................................................................................................................ 12 2. Sensors....................................................................................................................................... 13 F. Sales Tax ......................................................................................................................................... 14 G. On and Off-Street Rates and Time Limits ...................................................................................... 15 1. On-Street Rates and Time Limits ............................................................................................... 15 2. Off-Street Rates ......................................................................................................................... 21 H. Off Street Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 24 I. Special Events ................................................................................................................................ 25 J. Distribution Model ......................................................................................................................... 26 K. Community Outreach..................................................................................................................... 27 II. Permits ................................................................................................................................................ 28 III. Parking Guidance and Wayfinding ................................................................................................. 31 A. Wayfinding ..................................................................................................................................... 31 B. Automated Parking Guidance Systems .......................................................................................... 32 C. Current Wayfinding ........................................................................................................................ 33 D. Parking Guidance Systems ............................................................................................................. 34 E. Digital Wayfinding .......................................................................................................................... 36 IV. Enforcement .................................................................................................................................. 38 V. Centralization of Palo Alto Parking Related Operations ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined. A. Proposed Organizational Structure................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. B. Outsourcing of Parking Operations .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. VI. Alternative Strategies .................................................................................................................... 47 A. Secure Existing Parking Supply ...................................................................................................... 47 B. Downtown Employee Mobility Program ....................................................................................... 48 I. Paid Parking A. Occupancy and Turnover Recommendation: • Implement a dynamic paid parking program in Downtown and replace the existing color zone system. Parking occupancy rates have reached a point in Downtown Palo Alto that visitors cannot easily find convenient parking, forcing drivers to circle slowly around the streets and parking facilities looking for a space. This creates further congestion and can also deter customers from visiting the downtown. As an industry standard, cities aim for a parking space vacancy rate of 10-15% (assuming ten spaces per block face), which translates to one to two spaces on an average block face. It’s important to note that this 10- 15% ratio is relative to the number of spaces per block. However, the afternoon and evening data collection periods revealed that many of the on- and off-street parking locations were over 80% occupied. The recommendation of paid parking is being introduced to support the City’s occupancy and sustainability goals. Reducing congestion with a paid parking solution will ultimately save drivers time and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, there is an unrealized value of parking in Palo Alto—Paid parking has the potential to help fund the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) in their efforts to encourage alternative modes of transportation and reduce single- occupant vehicle trips. While the time limits set by the color zone rules facilitate parking space turnover, the color zones are no longer effective in helping Palo Alto reach an efficient occupancy rate. Data analysis revealed that many drivers are in fact following the color zones rules, with only a small number of drivers overstaying their allotted time. Additionally, most downtown time limit parking was only observed in one color zone during the day, meaning that much of parking downtown lasted just two to three hours. There was a small segment of drivers (6- 8%) that were observed jumping between multiple zones to extend their stay downtown. While the number may not seem significant, there are still a few hundred vehicles hopping between color zones throughout the day causing further congestion and impacting parking availability. The color zones do create turnover, but because the same rule blankets the entire downtown, the zones are ineffective at encouraging drivers to steer away from high occupancy areas. Drivers likely circle the block looking for a convenient space, without an incentive to park a few blocks away where the occupancy may be lower. This creates an issue with congestion and does not help free up spaces in the highest occupancy areas downtown. Provided there are various ways to adjust parking rates, paid parking can be an effective tool to help alleviate high occupancy rates, making the parking experience downtown more efficient and convenient for drivers. Some business owners have expressed their concern that paid parking may discourage people from visiting downtown because there are other nearby shopping destinations with free parking. While this may be true for some consumers, there is a segment of the population that may be more likely to go downtown and pay for parking if it means that parking is easier and quicker to find. It is important to recognize that parking is a limited and expensive resource, especially in a vibrant downtown like Palo Alto, and paid parking can help maximize this resource through strategic rate structures and technology enhancements. B. Parking Meters and Pay Stations Recommendations: • Implement an on-street and off-street (surface lots only) paid parking solution. • Evaluate parking technology equipment to address community needs and system capabilities. • Distribute a parking technology solicitation by, including performance measures and maintenance requirements. • Select parking technology vendor(s) by 6-8 months prior to projected implementation. 1. Overview The City should evaluate the variety of single-space meter and pay station options available and consider piloting equipment to determine the needs of Palo Alto and the community’s preferences for the features offered by the parking technology providers. This assessment should serve as the baseline for a citywide solicitation that should be issued, and the vendor should be selected by six to eight months prior to when the City intends on having paid parking implemented and live. Per the City’s CIP, this project is likely to begin in late 2017 and proceed through 2018. There are varied opinions in the parking industry on when to choose single-space meters or multi-space meters (pay stations) but ultimately the choice is dependent on the unique needs and desires of the community that they will serve. Below is a list of considerations to have when comparing the two types of meters: • Ease of use: Single-space meters are generally simpler and easier to use. • Signage: Single-space meters do not require as much signage because drivers see the meter when they park and know that they are required to pay. Pay stations require signage with arrows directing drivers to the pay station. • Fees: There are typically higher credit card transaction fees with single-space meters to afford the technology required in every meter. • Aesthetics: Pay stations reduce the amount of street furniture. • Collections: Single-space meters have smaller coin vaults, meaning that they must be collected more frequently. • Revenue: Drivers can park at single-space meters with time left on it from a previous parker and save money, while pay stations typically do not allow for this. This means that pay stations can potentially increase revenue by around 10%. Meter reset sensors can be installed with single- space meters that may increase revenue, but that is an added cost and it decreases hardware battery life. It is important to note that sensors are typically associated with single-space meters. Though multi-space pay stations can be integrated with sensors, the process becomes more complex. Whereas with single-space meters the ratio of meter to sensor is 1:1, the multi-space to sensor ratio range may be much greater depending on the number of spaces a multi-space pay station is configured to accept payment from. • Enforcement: Paying by space or by license plate at pay stations can be more efficient and less labor intensive to enforce because each meter does not need to be inspected. In terms of payment security for the City and customers, most vendors today are annual certified from a third-party Qualified Security Assessor (QSAs), recognized by the PCI Security Council for Level 1 Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) and Payment Application Data Security Standard (PA-DSS). When considering a potential vendor however, the City should verify and ensure these certifications are current. When soliciting meter vendors, it is important to include performance measures and maintenance requirements in the solicitation specifications. By binding financial penalties to hardware and software support services and requirements, it will ensure that the City receives assistance in a timely manner. This is critical because any downtime in the system is potential lost revenue for the City. 2. Single-Space Meters The convenience and ease of use of single-space meters is what makes them effective for dense commercial areas. Along main streets such as University Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, it is recommended that the City install single-space meters. Thus, visitors will be able to quickly and easily pay the meter nearest their vehicle and proceed in the direction they are going. Also, given these commercial areas attract many visitors, single-space meters will avoid lines forming at pay stations during peak hours. Smart-meters, or single-space meters that accept credit card payments, will provide the City with a back- office dashboard and real-time access to parking information and data related to its meters. This can allow Palo Alto to monitor the meters and be notified of any maintenance issues. These meters must meet the Payment Card Industry (PCI) security standards for credit card transactions. Additionally, all payment information can be tracked and audited to ensure proper revenue reconciliation during collections. Most single-space meter vendors offer back-office management systems that allow staff to edit the display screen, manage rate structures, and run a variety of reports. Smart single-space meters are estimated in Variations of single-space meters price near $750 per meter (including pole and housing), with an additional $9 per meter per month approximately for data management in addition to transaction fees. Below is a map of proposed single-space meters. Given on the location of single-space meters in the core of the Downtown and based on DIXON’s recommendation of three-tiered pricing zones, Tier 1 will be comprised of majority single-space meters. Figure 1: Recommended On-Street Single-Space Meter Coverage 3. Multi-Space Pay Stations Multi-space meters or pay stations normally serve as the payment terminal for roughly 6-7 on-street parking spaces or more when installed in off-street locations or angled parking. Like the smart single- space meters, the pay stations offer back-office and real time access for meter information. Pay stations can be configured to accept multiple forms of payment such as credit card, coin, and bills. Pay stations, depending on their features, may cost between $6,000 and $10,000 per unit with monthly data management fees between $45 and $75 per unit per month. There are three main operational configurations pay stations: pay and display, pay by space, and pay by plate • Pay and Display: The driver parks, purchases parking session time at the pay station, and then returns to their vehicle to display the receipt on their dashboard. • Pay by Space: The driver parks in a numbered space, and then pays at the pay station using the parking space number. The driver does not have to return to their vehicle because their payment is electronically tied to their space number. • Pay by Plate: The driver enters their license plate number at the pay station to record their payment. This method does not require drivers to return to their car as well. Outlined below is table highlighting important efficiencies and limitations with each of the three payment configurations on pay stations. Pay and Display Pay by Space Pay by Plate Display permit Spaces numbered Marking optional Unable to assign rates to spaces Ability to assign rates to spaces Can assign rates to zones/area Increased potential for revenue leakage via pass-back Less opportunity for revenue leakage No opportunity for revenue leakage Visual inspection enforcement Enforcement using wireless handheld units Mobile-LPR enforcement Least integrated with mobile payment solutions Easily integrates with mobile payment solutions Easily integrates with mobile payment solutions Least user-friendly (return to vehicle) User-friendly User-friendly Table 1: Efficiencies and limitations associated with pay station payment configurations Many municipalities tend to favor pay by space and pay by plate over pay and display because they do not require drivers to return to their car with a receipt after purchasing time. These methods are not only more convenient and efficient for patrons, but they are also easier to enforce because they don’t require enforcement officers to look at each individual dashboard for proof of payment. Multi-space pay stations One advantage for the driver of pay by space is that the driver is not expected to remember and enter in their license plate number at the pay station. However, pay by plate payment is increasing in popularity with the advancements in mobile LPR technology, the preferred enforcement method when utilizing pay by plate technology. The negative connotation around pay by plate and customers not knowing or remembering their license plate number is subsiding. Additionally, as an added convenience, subject to City policy, pay by space and pay by plate systems allow the driver to pay for and add additional parking time onto their existing parking session from any pay station or from their cellphone if the time limit has not been reached. To make the parking experience in Palo Alto as simple for visitors as possible, it is recommended that the City implement pay stations with the pay by space configuration. These pay stations should be located on- street in the peripheral areas of the downtown to avoid the infrastructure cost of installing single-space meters for every parking space. Ideally there should be a pay station located on both ends of each block face so drivers can park, walk in the direction of their destination, pay for parking as they pass the pay station, and proceed on. It is recommended that the City install them facing parallel to the streets because lines may form at the pay stations. This will prevent any lines from blocking the walkways. Regarding the off-street surface lots, it is recommended that the City place at a minimum, one pay station in each surface lot that provide any hourly-parking. Much like on-street spaces, off-street surface lots configured with multi-space pay stations will be intended for motorists with relatively short-stay periods in hopes of re- directing long-term parkers to the garage facilities. It is imperative with the implementation of paid hourly parking that the pay stations are in working order. Also, with pay stations it is important to ensure that there is adequate signage to direct patrons to the meters. Given Palo Alto does not get snowfall, space numbers may be painted on the pavement or on the curb instead of using pole mounted signage. The map below shows the recommended on-street blocks (highlighted in yellow) for the installation of pay stations. Additionally, it is recommended that the City utilize pay stations in all surface lots and, like single-space meter placement in Tier 1, pay stations should be the primary technology utilized off-street in Tier Zone 2 and 3. Currently, off-street hourly surface lots are treated much like on-street spaces in terms of time limits. For consistency and to minimize costs, the installation of pay stations in surface lots in lieu of gate access should be sufficient. Furthermore, many motorists are accustomed to paying for parking at a pay station in surface lots and a similar configuration in Palo Alto would not be confusing. If the City determines that an access control or LPR-based garage solution is not viable, pay stations should be installed within the garage locations to manage garage payments for hourly parking. Additionally, it is suggested that when the City reaches the procurement and vendor selection phase of paid parking technology it utilize the opportunity to run a pilot and trial period of multiple meters and pay stations throughout the Downtown. Doing so will provide staff, community and visitors to test the proposed equipment options and assist the City in determining the ideal paid parking technology solution for Palo Alto. The City of Sausalito successfully implemented a similar pilot in spring 2015 with upwards of 7 different pay station and meter vendors. The trial lasted roughly 60-days and invited the community test the numerous technologies and provide feedback to City staff. The City subsequently chose a combination of both single-space and multi-space pay stations for its Downtown. C. Mobile Payment Recommendation: • Integrate a mobile payment application with any paid parking technology solution. It will be important to consider the mobile payment providers currently integrated at Stanford University and in other surrounding cities. Doing so provides with an ease of use based on consistency and familiarity. Ultimately however, the City should choose the provider that best fits the needs of Palo Alto. Figure 2: Recommended On-Street Multi-Space Pay Station Coverage Many cities choose to implement mobile payment or pay by web as an option to improve customer service by giving drivers more payment options. Patrons can create an account through a phone app or website to pay for parking, which also allows a driver to pay for their parking time without accessing the parking hardware. Depending upon city policy, drivers can be provided the option to extend their time remotely. Mobile payment services require drivers to enter in their license plate number (or space number), which serves as the payment identifier for enforcement officers. In the case of a pay and display configuration as the hardware form of payment, a mobile payment remains simple. The driver would open their mobile application and make a payment in the same method as a pay by plate or pay by space configuration. The mobile payment application would request the driver input their license plate number as well. Provided the mobile payment system may be integrated with enforcement handhelds, the enforcement officer would run a query through the mobile application to verify payment has been made for any vehicle without a receipt displayed. Mobile payment technology can to be utilized with both single-space meter and multi-space pay stations, regardless of payment configuration on the meter. Typically, the mobile payment vendor offers a turnkey solution for implementing their system, which includes signage and promotions without an additional cost to the municipality. Some vendors also offer a while label service, which allows cities to utilize their own branding for the service. This allows cities to promote mobile payment through a city-owned website. Utilization of mobile payment falls between 3% and 10% in most cities, and users pay a small transaction fee, usually between $0.10 and $0.35. Mobile payment can be integrated with both single-space and pay stations. While the current utilization figures may seem low, with the continued widespread use of smart phone technology, it is recommended that Palo Alto implement a mobile payment system with all parking meter technology solutions. D. Comprehensive Parking Management System Recommendations: • With the potential implementation of paid parking and re-structuring of the City’s current permit program including employee permits, it is recommended that the City solicit a comprehensive parking management system. This management system shall allow for integration with other management and payment platforms such as Clipper 2.0 • The comprehensive system should enable the City to monitor its permit program, allowing customers to create user accounts, apply and renew current parking permits. • The comprehensive system should allow the City to monitor issued citations and provide customers the opportunity to pay citations online, in real-time. Mobile payment display • As part of the comprehensive management system, the City should ensure that the selected system allows for intuitive reporting features for both revenue and performance measures. Along with a centralized parking department, the City also should anticipate implementing a unified citation and permit management system (CPMS). The CPMS would offer act as an integrated solution allowing users to establish an online account with the City and manage all permit requests. This would include all employee parking permits and residential parking permits. Customers would have the opportunity to submit any required documentation via a web portal and the City or the designated vendor could efficiently verify the application and permit fulfillment process. The CPMS would also provide online renewal capabilities and perform customer payment processes. In addition, utilizing the CPMS would automate the City’s current permit waitlist process providing the ability to manage and adjust capacity thresholds utilizing CPMS management tools. Most importantly, all permit data, including financial reconciliation details, would be immediately available via the CPMS in real-time. The system can also be integrated to transmit data to the designated City administrative management systems. With a proposed permit management solution, the City should also plan to implement an integrated citation management system, a necessary and efficient tool as the City considers the installation of paid parking technology. A turnkey CPMS solution will provide updated handheld technology hardware for the enforcement officers which if needed, can be incorporated to integrate with a potential LPR system. In addition, the CPMS will be integrated with the paid parking infrastructure to provide the parking enforcement officers with real-time paid parking status as well as valid permit status. The CPMS will allow an enforcement officer to be more effective and efficient will working their downtown beats. Like permits, the CPMS will provide the City will real-time access to parking citation data, delinquent collection details and financial analysis tools. The City should not only consider implementing the CPMS, they should also consider a turnkey CPMS solution that includes a private contractor to provide the customer support service and delinquent collection processes necessary to proactively manage a citation and permit management solution. The CPMS will be an important tool for the City to effectively and efficiently manage their parking program. E. Active Monitoring Recommendations: • Conduct bi-annual downtown occupancy studies to determine parking rates and time limits adjustments, as needed. • Consider integrating parking space sensors with the meters for real-time occupancy, enforcement data and the ability for meter time resets. • Monitor quarterly sales tax revenue to assess the overall impact of paid parking. 1. Occupancy Rates Active monitoring can help ensure program efficiency by keeping the parking rate structure up to date with current occupancy statistics. It is recommended that the City evaluate on- and off-street parking occupancy on a Thursday and a Saturday on a bi-annual basis to understand how parking rates and time limits are impacting occupancy rates. Ideally, occupancy rates by block face should be collected during the morning (9:00am), afternoon (12:00pm), mid-afternoon (3:00pm), and evening (7:00pm). Based on the City’s findings, appropriate adjustments can be made. Areas downtown with an average occupancy rate over 80% should be priced the highest with the lowest time limits because the industry standard is that 80% occupancy and above is considered full. Below is list of potential adjustments to make from bi-annual evaluation results based on average daily occupancy rates: • Clusters of blocks that increased from below 80% occupancy during the previous evaluation to at or above 80% occupancy should have the price increased by $0.25 per hour or have the time limit lowered by 30 minutes. • Clusters of blocks that decreased from at or above 80% occupancy during the previous evaluation to below 80% occupancy should have the price lowered by $0.25 per hour or the time limit extended by 30 minutes. • The off-street lots and garages that have the highest average occupancies during the most recent evaluation should cost more per hour than the locations with lower average occupancies. • Off-street parking should cost less and/or have longer time limits than on-street parking. For the bi-annual evaluations, there are two main methods for monitoring occupancy. The first option is that the City can choose to have data collectors manually count cars, and the second method is to install meter sensors. Manually counting will likely provide the most accurate information because it does not rely on the efficacy of sensor technology. This method also costs significantly less because it does not require any additional hardware, software, installations, or upkeep. However, with manually counting it is harder to provide a “snapshot” of the data—instead data is collected within certain time periods. With sensors, data can be collected in real-time 24 hours per day, seven-days per week. 2. Sensors Meters can be integrated with parking space sensor technology to monitor the spaces 24 hours per day. This data can be integrated with parking guidance systems, websites, and mobile apps to provide real- time information to visitors. There are currently several application providers that can post parking data at no charge. Sensors are typically embedded in the pavement in the center of each parking space and, most recently, vendors have introduced pole mounted sensors. Sensor batteries often last around three years. Parking space sensors can cost approximately $250 per unit from leading parking technology vendors including installation in addition to ongoing monthly monitoring fees that vary from $6 to $10 per installed space. There have been several new sensor-based technology companies who have recently introduced themselves into the marketplace at significantly lower costs however, many of these technologies are not as proven across the industry. Example of an in-ground parking sensor Using meter sensors to monitor occupancy rates can be an efficient way for the City to access real-time data. However, it is important to realize that sensors may not always be completely accurate. Some cities choose to tie in performance standards when soliciting vendors to ensure that the data they are paying for is usable. The City is currently managing a sensor pilot program with VIMOC Technologies. VIMOC has installed including series of surface-level sensors throughout several on-street parking spaces throughout Downtown. Many of VIMOC’s on-street sensors are installed in the downtown core where occupancy figures from DIXON’s data collected were highest. The City may be able to utilize this infrastructure to monitor ongoing occupancy rates. Some of the parking meter vendors offer an integrated sensor that provides the opportunity to reset the meter. A meter reset occurs when a vehicle pulls out of the space it was parked in, the sensor determines there is no longer an object parked there and then automatically resets the meter to zero time. It is estimated that this can increase revenue by up to 10%. The City of Santa Monica has implemented the meter reset technology and increased their annual parking revenue by nearly $1 million as a result. Sensors also assist with parking enforcement by identifying violators who don’t pay to park within a set amount of time. Without a sensor, the meter will report that the time is expired, but there is no way of knowing if a car is still parked in the space without an enforcement officer checking. The sensor can also work with the meter to prevent people from going back and feeding the meters for more time in locations with time limits. The sensor can report that the vehicle has parked for more than the allotted time, even if the meter has been paid. Sensors also provide the opportunity to provide a designated grace period in a parking space. The City can opt to provide a courtesy period to allow a driver to park prior to requiring payment at the meter. Sensor solutions can become an expensive resource. It is important to also consider advancements in technologies beyond the parking industry. As the smart cities movement and the technologies associated continue to gain momentum, there may be an opportunity to multi-purpose new street light and smart city technology and integrate with parking as well. Thus, eliminating the need for standalone sensors. To determine the best sensor solution for the Palo Alto, staff will need to define the overall objective associated with any sensor installation. Whether a sensor system will be used to monitor occupancy for forecasting purposes, to distribute real-time on street availability or to provide a meter reset capability, these features will determine not only the overall investment required by the City but will also mandate the type of equipment needed for a sensor installation in the City. F. Sales Tax As the City of Palo Alto considers the implementation of paid parking through smart-parking technology, the primary goal of the paid parking program should be to improve the availability of parking for residents, employees, visitors and the surrounding community through increased turnover. It is recommended that the City monitor monthly sales tax revenues overtime to see the impact of paid parking. This was a similar approach taken by the City and County of San Francisco and its creation of SFpark. Much like Palo Alto, SFpark’s goal was to deliver transportation, social, and environmental benefits as well as to improve parking availability and customer access to commercial districts. SFpark not only achieved these goals but also increased the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) parking revenue by nearly $ million per year. Through the installation of smart-parking meters and the management of time limits in pilot areas, SFpark management increased its net annual revenue from meters by approximately $3.3 million from FY2011 to FY2013. Furthermore, SFpark also significantly improved the utilization of the city’s garages, helping them to return them to their original purpose: making it easier to find parking for short-term parkers and increasing the economic vitality of the city rather than just places for commuters to park. As part of San Francisco’s effort, all publicly available parking facilities pay a 0.25% parking tax. This has been a process instituted by the City Assessor to help evaluate changes in parking demand in private parking garages or lots. To prevent identification of individual facilities the city has aggregated parking tax receipts. San Francisco has been successful in its parking tax implementation thus far in public facilities. Annual parking tax collected in pilot areas increased by $6.5 million, or 43%, during the same period, compared to a 3% increase in the rest of the city, however it is unclear what portion of that is attributable to SFpark. For the City and County of San Francisco, the upgrade of paid parking in the form of smart credit card- enabled meters has aided the city and indirectly increased the economic viability. Parking has become more readily available for short-term parkers who are visiting the city’s commercial districts. In addition, rather than having spaces occupied by commuters that park all day, parking space availability has increased short-term turnover. Given Palo Alto’s vibrant Downtown business district, paid on-street parking should allow short-term parkers to visit Downtown and find increased availability with an increase in parking space turnover and providing more efficient infrastructure to enforce parking policies. G. On and Off-Street Rates and Time Limits Recommendations: • Implement a tiered zone parking rate with time limits for on-street parking. • Implement a tiered zone parking rate without time limits for off-street parking. Currently the City of Palo Alto offers both on- and off-street time limited parking for free with the color zone parking system. On-street two-hour and off-street three-hour time limits are enforced between 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. There is no parking enforcement on weekends or holidays. With parking meters is will be simple for the City to make changes to the parking program. Parking meter backend software will allow the City of Palo Alto to customize and modify meter display screens and rate structures. This provides the City with the flexibility to change meter rates overtime based on occupancy rates and evaluations, without being locked in to a certain system. 1. On-Street Rates and Time Limits Varied parking rates can be an effective tool for encouraging higher utilization of historically low- occupancy areas. The goal is to free up parking in the highest occupancy areas to reach between a maximum of 80% and 85% occupancy. Doing so, this will make parking a more convenient experience for downtown visitors, and may also reduce congestion from drivers circling for a parking space. Additionally, having lower rates in off-street locations can encourage longer-term parkers to park off-street, thus freeing up the convenient parking spaces outside of store fronts for people making quick trips downtown. There are two main types of rate structures that may be considered by the City. The first is a tiered rate model, and the second is a pay-to-stay model. For the tiered rate model, hourly parking rates would vary by location based on convenience and historical occupancy rates. For example, lower prices on the periphery of downtown can encourage drivers to park further away and walk a few blocks to their destination. On the other hand, the higher demand spaces would be priced at a premium. This model can be coupled with time limits to ensure adequate turnover. In contrast, a pay-to-stay model is based on the amount of time spent parking. Therefore, drivers may pay a lower hourly rate to begin with, but as their length of stay increases, the hourly rate gradually increases as well. The purpose of this model is to deter patrons from parking long-term on-street, but it still gives them the option to if they are willing to pay premium pricing for convenience. While this method may work for some cities, it is not recommended for on-street parking in the City of Palo Alto because of the particularly high occupancy rates downtown. The implementation of a pay-to-stay model may be difficult on-street because, without time limits, it is not expected that there will be enough turnover downtown. Due to the affluence of the surrounding communities, there may be a significant portion of drivers who are willing to pay to park in a convenient space for the entire day downtown with this premium pricing model. This could potentially exacerbate the parking occupancy rates for the most convenient spaces downtown instead of relieve them. Based on the occupancy data collected in Palo Alto, it is recommended that the City implement a tiered rate structure with time limits. Demand for parking varies across the downtown, so by implementing a zonal rate structure, on-street and surface lot spaces will be more accurately priced based on their demand. This will in turn help to distribute demand more evenly throughout the downtown. The following map outlines the proposed locations for three recommended tiers: Tier 1 is applied to part of Hamilton Avenue, University Avenue, and side streets. Tier 2 is applied to two separate areas of downtown—between Hamilton Avenue to Forest Avenue as well as Parts of Webster Street, Cowper Street, and Tasso Street. Finally, Tier 3 is applied to the outer corners of the downtown along with all of Lytton Avenue. The placement of these zones is based on the Thursday and Saturday daily average occupancy rates for each block face over the course of the three data collection months. The next two maps show the tiered zones overlaid onto the heat map data to show how the zones relate to the average occupancy rates. Tier 1 was meant to encompass the highest occupancy areas, Tier 2 captures the mid-range occupancy rates, and Tier 3 is for the lower occupancy areas for both Thursday and Saturday. Figure 3: Recommended Tiered Rate Zones Figure 4: Thursday Daily Average Occupancy When determining appropriate hourly rates, it is important to consider nearby comparable cities to understand the current market rate for parking. Of the comparable cities with paid parking, the lowest downtown rates were $0.50-$1.00 per hour in Alameda, San Mateo, and Sausalito. On the other side of the spectrum, Santa Monica has on-street rates reaching $2.00 per hour and Berkeley has the highest rates at $3.25 per hour. Because areas of downtown Palo Alto experience extremely high occupancy rates, it is recommended that the Tier 1 zone should be priced on the higher end of the rate spectrum to effectively mitigate congestion. Tiers 2 and 3 should be priced mid-spectrum to be on par with the rates in the comparable cities in the area. The City will need to ensure that they have an enforceable policy in place that prevents vehicles from parking on the space block for more than the designated time limit. Additionally, the proposed time limits were applied to the tier zones to ensure sufficient turnover rates and encourage longer-term on- street parking towards the periphery. The recommended rate structure and time limits for the three tiers is outlined in the table below: Figure 5: Saturday Daily Average Occupancy Tier Hourly Rate Max Time Limit 1 $2.50 2 hour 2 $1.50 2 hour 3 $1.50 3 hour The City also sells a separate permit that allows for the purchase of a closed/rented on-street space (permanent valet space or in the event of construction, the ability to pay for the use of a single parking space). The current price of this permit is $79 per week. With the potential implementation of paid parking and increase in employee permit costs, the City will need to ensure that the price of a closed/rented weekly permit correlates to on-street paid parking rates. This is particularly important when considering paid on-street parking as a single parking space is reliant on the consistent turnover of vehicles paying to park. If this space is no longer available to the public, the City is in loss of parking inventory and any associated revenue. The Study examined similar per space permits in surrounding cities and determined that Palo Alto’s current cost of $79 per week. The City also sells a separate permit that allows for the purchase of a closed/rented on-street space (permanent valet space or in the event of construction, the ability to pay for the use of a single parking space). The current price of this permit is $79 per week. With the potential implementation of paid parking and increase in employee permit costs, the City will need to ensure that the price of a closed/rented weekly permit correlates to on-street paid parking rates. This is particularly important when considering paid on-street parking as a single parking space is reliant on the consistent turnover of vehicles paying to park. If this space is no longer available to the public, the City will lose the parking inventory and any associated revenue. The Study examined similar per space permits in surrounding cities and determined that Palo Alto’s current cost of $79 per week differs when compared to other cities. Some cities have a rate structures, dependent on size of space or type of space, metered or non-metered, while others have administrative fees associated with the permit. For example, the City of Berkeley charges $79 per week or $15.80 per day per space plus the $15 per temporary No Parking sign. The City of San Francisco charges a tiered rate structure that escalates in cost as approximate footage increases and the quantity of temporary No Parking signs increases. Permit costs start at $239 week and range up to roughly $800 per week. Metered locations incur a fee of $10 per space per day as well. The City of Santa Monica permit fees are similar to San Francisco in terms of rate increases. The city charges $79 per day for a meter space and $76 per non-metered space for a standard 20-foot parking space but the cost increases as the size of the space increases. If one was to purchase a permit for a 100-foot, the cost is roughly $154 for a metered space and approximately $100 for a non-metered space. The City of San Jose’s permit structure is a bit different. The city uses a Tow Away Permit to authorize the closure of a metered space for temporary work. The cost is $30 per permit, $0.53 for each tow-away sign Table 2: On-street Tiered Rates and Time Limits placed at each meter, and either $8 (for a smart meter) or $4 (coin meter) per day. An example would be the closure of three meters for two days, totaling roughly $56. For the City of Palo Alto, it is encouraged that the City review the current price of its closed/rented on- street permit cost. Based on surrounding municipalities, Palo Alto’s current price per permit is lower in comparison. It is apparent that other cities may charge a similar base cost for a permit but utilize other factors effected by the permit to increase the total cost, such as parking space footage lost or the need for temporary signage to be installed by City. It is recommended that the total cost for a weekly space permit (in a metered space), including any administrative fees associated, be equal to or greater than the potential total revenue per metered space during paid parking hours. Therefore, if a space is $1 per hour and paid parking is enforced for ten hours, then the cost to rent that space is at least $10 per day prior to any per space footage fees or administrative costs that may be associated with temporarily deactivating that parking space. For a non-metered space, it is suggested the City maintain the current cost of $79 however the City should ensure that any additional costs related to the space closures are recovered. 2. Off-Street Rates It is recommended that the City of Palo Alto implement the tiered rate model without time limits for off- street hourly parking. Essentially, the off-street locations that generally have lower occupancy rates should be more affordable than the higher demand locations. This can encourage drivers to park in garages that are otherwise underutilized, thus freeing up space in the higher demand locations. No matter what on- and off-street time limits are chosen, it is imperative that the City offers longer time limits in the off-street locations in comparison to on-street parking. Therefore, we are recommending that the City eliminate time limits in the garages and surface lots. The purpose of this is to encourage short term on street parking with higher turnover rates and long term affordable pricing for off street locations. After implementation, with further evaluation and the bi-annual occupancy studies, the City can assess the need for time limits, however, it will be more efficient to control access to the garages and promote turnover and vehicle transition through the use automation and the proposed hourly rate model rather than manually monitor vehicle activity with parking enforcement officers. The next two heat maps show the average daily occupancy of off-street hourly spaces for the Thursday and Saturday data collection periods. There are a variety of paid off-street parking rates offered by the comparable cities ranging from $0.50 per hour in Monterey to $3.70 per hour in Santa Monica. While Berkeley has the highest on-street rates ($3.25/hr.), the Berkeley off-street rate is $2.00 per hour. Berkeley, Monterey, Santa Monica, and Sausalito all offer off-street parking at a reduced rate compared to on-street parking. Figure 7: Saturday Daily Average: Off-street Hourly Spaces Based on the initial on-street tiered map, the off-street locations are located in the following tiers: Location Tier B (Ramona/University) 1 C (Ramona/Lytton) 1 D (Hamilton/Waverley) 1 F (Florence/Lytton) 1 H (Cowper/Hamilton) 1 S/L (Bryant/Lytton) 1 T (Lytton/Kipling) 1 CC (Civic Center) 2 N (Emerson/Ramona) 2 WC (Webster/Cowper) 2 A (Emerson/Lytton) 3 K (Lytton/Waverley) 3 O (Emerson/High) 3 P (High/Hamilton) 3 R (High/Alma) 3 It is recommended that free parking should be eliminated from the garages and an hourly rate should be implemented. Based upon the tier zone, the City can establish a lower hourly rate for the initial 1 to 4 hours, however, the rate should be escalated once the vehicle exceeds the initial time limit. This short- term rate band should be established with a higher daily maximum to encourage alternative transportation opportunities. The current cost for an All-Day Permit is $17.50 and this rate is not consistent with the surrounding markets and the current demand for parking in Palo Alto. There should be a twenty-four-hour maximum with a daily start time for the new day. The new off-street rate also needs to be affordable compared to parking on street but also slightly higher in price when compared to an employee parking permit (expanded on in Section 2). The cost of parking off-street for an employee or someone frequenting downtown daily for an extended period should be more expensive than the cost of an employee permit or an alternative mode of transportation such as public transit. Therefore, the following off-street rates would be consistent with other similar downtown markets and coincide with the proposed on-street rates: Tier Hourly Rate Fee Escalation Daily Maximum Escalation Time to Daily Max 1 $1.25/hr. (First 3 hrs.) $2.00/each 15 min (after 3 hrs.) $24.00 5.5 hrs. Table 3: Off-Street Tiers 2 $1.00/hr. (First 4 hrs.) $2.00/each 15 min (after 4 hrs.) $24.00 6.5 hrs. 3 $1.00/hr. (First 4 hrs.) $2.00/each 15 min (after 4 hrs.) $24.00 6.5 hrs. The escalation timeframe to achieve the daily maximum rate can vary by tier zone, however, this proposed rate structure is meant to encourage vehicle turnover and discourage long term non-permit parking. H. Off Street Infrastructure Recommendations: • Install access control systems (gate arms) at all city-owned parking garages. (Note: Off-street surface lots will utilize multi-space pay stations) • Eliminate off-street time limits and implement an off-street hourly rate that encourages vehicle turnover after a designated time (3 or 4 hours), depending upon the facility location. To more efficiently manage off-street parking, it is recommended that the City install revenue control equipment at the garage locations. There are several equipment options that can be considered by the City and a traditional gate system would be the simplest solution to implement. It’s important to highlight that a traditional gate system supported by pay-on- foot technology for hourly parking costs on average $30,000 per lane not including any civil work that might be required. A gated system could allow for automated access for permitted vehicle and provide many efficiencies to manage the proposed hourly pay rates, minimize backups and traffic flow and, most importantly, eliminate the need for parking enforcement officers to check each vehicle for proper permits and daily passes. Some of the stakeholders expressed a concern about gating the garages and suggested an automated system that would be managed by license plate recognition (LPR) technology. This advanced solution costs approximately $17,500 per lane and allows for free flow access to the garage locations. The system requires at least two fixed mounted cameras per dedicated lane. Speed inhibitors are typically installed to slow vehicle access to ensure plate capture. One of the cameras utilizes infrared technology to illuminate the license plate characters thus ensuring they can be read in any type of weather condition. The second camera physically reads the license plate characters and the software validates the information to the permit management database and business rule requirements for that specific garage entrance. Like the traditional gated system, pay-on-foot technology is used for non-permitted vehicles and drivers must input their license plate in order to pay for their parking time. The LPR solution provides a fully integration parking management system that would incorporate the garage permit database and Table 4: Proposed Off-street Rates Parking access revenue control system citations would be mailed to vehicles that exit the facility without paying for their parking time and fees would be collected along with any associated penalties designated by the City (like parking citation collections). This solution is fully automated, however, like parking citation collections, it is not full proof, but it is an option that the City should consider. Regardless of the type of access control technology implemented, the efficiencies and automation will reduce the burden of enforcement and promote a more customer friendly, pro-active garage management approach to parking. Combining the implementation of the proposed overhead sensors along with paid parking and access control technology will promote a clear understanding of the Palo Alto parking regulation and payment requirements. This should have a substantial impact on revenue to fund ongoing facility maintenance needs along with funding the overall objectives of the TMA. In addition, the access control technology and proposed overhead sensors will have the ability to integrate into the City’s comprehensive parking management system and allow the City to oversee permit status and real-time occupancy data. This type of integration is important in the continual monitoring of payments transaction data and occupancy history enabling the City to make informed, data-driven decisions as it relates to pricing and availability. I. Special Events Recommendations: • Establish a special event parking rate model and the criteria requirements for utilization. • Coordinate and promote alternative transportation solutions for special events that impact downtown • Consider applying special event rates to all paid parking locations (on and off-street). A tiered rate model can be easily modified using the meters for special events that impact downtown parking. Special event rates may help motivate drivers to park farther away or seek alternative modes of transportation. A special event flat-rate can be integrated and implemented for both on- and off-street parking utilizing the recommended parking technology. Any flat rate should be commensurate with the value of the existing rates for on- and off-street parking locations. Promoting alternative transportation options should be encouraged throughout all levels of special event planning and promotions. For example, there are several cross promotions occurring with services such as Lyft and Uber that both promote a City event and their services to encourage other transportation sources and reduce parking demand. Uber has created UberEVENTS, which allows those planning an event to enter the event through Uber’s website and request guest passes. Uber then sends those passes to the event planner for distribution. Each pass has a code attached which is entered into Uber app, for a discounted ride. Municipalities across the country are coordinating directly with these resources to encourage alternative transportation. The City of Coral Gables, Fla. has partnered with Uber as well, to help citizens bypass traffic through designated drop-off and pick-up zones and provide promotional codes for rides. Coral Gables is also utilizing Uber’s promotional codes for city events. Special event planning should incorporate an accessible location for the drop-off and pick-up of passengers and a designated location for bus parking. To apply a special event rate, the City will need to establish criteria for when the rate would apply, the cost amount and the advanced notification requirements. Based upon these criteria, the City will have the option to increase special event pricing for any downtown special events, depending upon need. The proposed garage technology and on-street parking infrastructure can also support customizable event rates. Approved special event pricing would override all other rate models, including the proposed evening rate model for Thursday, Friday and Saturday. It is important to keep in mind that special event rates will require increased hours of enforcement for any additional times and any policies relating to evening or special event parking regulations will have likely have an impact on the residential parking zones. J. Distribution Model Recommendations: • Upon implementation of a paid parking solution, establish a revenue distribution model that allocates monies to finance parking technology equipment and software, to support the existing operation and for parking structure maintenance and potential future parking developments. Based upon the suggested on and off-street rate models, the City should establish a distribution model for the anticipated increase in revenue. It is recommended that revenues are initially allocated to the capital costs of the paid parking technology (hardware), as well as both planned CIP projects, wayfinding and APGS/PARCS systems. In addition, a portion of parking revenues should be allocated to the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) to support mode shift and single-occupancy vehicle trip reductions, to a City-operated shuttle program, and to supporting the existing parking operation as whole. This model could potentially absolve the current parking assessment district program that business owners pay into. A Financial Modeling Workbook has been developed for Palo Alto (included in Section 3) to help the City with projections and financial modeling of the various parking and permit rate structures. The Workbook also includes estimated hardware costs to implement an on street paid parking solution, including permit rate adjustments, single-space meters, multi-space pay stations and PARCS infrastructure. There are a variety of cost proposals offered to municipalities to acquire parking infrastructure and technology. Vendors offer turnkey and a la carte options. Many cities consider a municipal lease program to acquire parking infrastructure and technology as a method to expedite the process of installing new parking equipment. Municipal lease programs often do not require a down payment, and they are not subject to future balloon payments. These advantages can make leasing a more consistent and affordable option for many cities, and by the end of the lease the municipality can negotiate the option to buy the infrastructure. Alternatively, bond issue referendums can be a costly and lengthy process, and there is no guarantee that the public will support it. Bonds are not commonly used to acquire parking infrastructure. K. Community Outreach Recommendation: • Launch a proactive education campaign to promote changes to the downtown parking program. The City of Palo Alto should launch a proactive education campaign to educate the public about the new zones, rates, time limits, hours of operation, and technologies. The education campaign should focus on the unrealized value of parking and the effort to provide continues funding for the TMA, as well as the environmental benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing congestion and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. The City may engage the efforts of the TMA to coordinate community workshops and visits to local businesses to assist in education the community about changes related to parking and transportation. Recently, the City of Boise, ID undertook a similar parking education campaign last year, creating a parking brand for the city, termed PARKBOI. PARKBOI is Boise’s integrated parking system that aims to deliver more convenient was to help one find and pay for public parking in Downtown Boise. This includes better use of on-street, short-term parking in core locations Downtown, long-term parking information in garages and surface lots, and flexible payment choices and information related to parking rates around Downtown. In addition, PARKBOI provides information about special event pricing, the ability for one to pay a parking citation, and locate alternative modes of transportation offered through the City. The campaign is customer-friendly and intuitive, educating those traveling to the downtown about how and where to park. II. Permits Recommendations: • Promote alternative modes of transportation by increasing the cost of the downtown employee parking permit to be consistent with the cost of the subsidized transit pass. • Ensure that annual parking permit costs are less expensive than on- and off-street hourly parking and equal to or less than RPP employee permits • Consider permit pricing in comparable cities when determining permit rates. • Offer a reduced-price permit for low-income employees, similar to the RPP program and offer more payment options, including monthly and quarterly purchase. Permit revenues are derived from long -term parking subscriptions, most often purchased by drivers that frequent the area for work or other daily commitments. Based on a review of the City’s current employee permit cost and to assist in the City’s effort to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips to Downtown, it is suggested that the City both increase the annual price of downtown parking permit and reduce the overall number of permits sold, at the same time that more options (e.g., monthly and quarterly permits) are available When determining the actual permit rate increase value, the City should consider the following factors: • Current Subsidized Transit Passes: Currently, employers can subsidize the total cost of a transit pass for their employees through the GoPass and EcoPass programs, part of Caltrain and VTA. To encourage employees, who are a large population of those traveling to Palo Alto each day, to choose public transit, the price of an annual employee permit must be correspond more evenly to the cost of a transit pass. It is recommended that the City implement an incremental increase the Downtown annual garage and lot permits as well as the full-price RPP employee permit, to $800 annually. The $800 figure parallels to the current price of an annual transit pass. • Annual Permit Cost vs. On & Off-Street Hourly Parking: The City must ensure that the price of a downtown parking permit is more affordable than commuting to the City and paying daily to park either on-street or off, for the duration of the work day. As such, the permit price must be less expensive than parking eight or nine hours per day, at the posted rate per hour, for an estimated 20 days per month. Based on the paid parking recommendations, on-street parking would cost between $1.50 and $2.50 per hour and off-street would have a daily maximum rate of $24-25 per day. The annual permit cost should calculate to a price below either of those combined totals (on & off-street), on an overall basis. Furthermore, just as it is recommended that the downtown employee parking permits are increased, the City should correlate changes to the RPP employee permit as well, to ensure that there is not an immediate increase in demand throughout the RPP. The City will need to make sure that motorists do not operate under the assumption that cheaper permit parking is available in the RPP. Coordinate in concurrent increase in permits in both the RPP and downtown areas will be important and will help avoid confusion. • Comparable Cities Analysis: As part of this study, the comparable cities analysis included the cost of an annual downtown parking permit. Results of the analysis showcased that the cost of Palo Alto’s annual employee permit is far below neighboring cities within the region. In several cases, the City’s current cost is less than half of other cities of similar size and structure. For example, the City of Berkeley’s annual public permit is $1,800; the City of San Mateo’s annual employee permit can cost up to $960 per year; and the City of Sausalito’s employee permit is priced at $1,044 annually. It is important to remember that parking is often recognized as a commodity. Much like other commodities, the price of parking is derived from the function of the market. Therefore, the pricing of parking is related closely to the supply and demand of available spaces. In many cities parking on-street is not in significant demand. Parking in Palo Alto, on- and off-street is starkly the opposite however. Demand for parking is constant in both arenas. Thus, to manage parking in Palo Alto, including the cost of an employee permit, the price must not only consider the demand for parking but surrounding pricing among other cities. Currently, the cost for an annual employee parking permit in Palo Alto is enticing to many of those who commute Downtown, even for those who travel short distances, provided the $466 annual cost equates to roughly $39 per month, less than $2 a work day. The demand for employee permits far outweighs the supply and therefore steps need to be taken to regulate the permit market in Palo Alto and adjust the cost of permits to be equitable to other permit prices in the region. • Reduced-Price Permit: Currently, many downtown employees are circumventing the purchase of an annual permit by continuously moving their vehicles around Downtown each day to avoid the time-limits. In the RPP area, the City offers a reduced-price permit that is based on annual income. Employees qualify if their salary is exactly or less than $50,000; or make a pre-tax hourly wage exactly or less than twice the governing city or state minimum wage. However, even a reduced permit price of $100 annually can be overwhelming to a worker living paycheck to paycheck. Furthermore, low-income workers, often in service industry positions, may find it difficult to afford the purchase price for the annual permit when there may be uncertainty in the security of their job and, therefore, a permit is not worth the $100 cost. It is suggested that the City offer the ability for employees to purchase reduced-price permits on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis for garages and lots as well as RPP. This will provide the employee greater opportunities to purchase a permit at an affordable rate and the approach may increase the likelihood that an employee will elect to purchase a reduced-price permit rather than jockey their car around Downtown each day, in spaces ideally meant for short-term parkers. A less expensive month option is more likely to be bearable than one lump sum of $100. However, it is recommended that they total annual cost of a reduced-price permit be increased incrementally as the full-price permits are increase. The increase in price should not be raised above $200 per year and is recommended that they month-to-month permit option remain in effect as permit price increases. Ideally, promoting alternative modes of transportation and encouraging TMA objectives is the goal, however, an affordable permit option must be available to those in need and providing a monthly purchase opportunity rather than an annual commitment would make the program more viable and practical. The implementation of a comprehensive permit management system will provide the City with better oversight on issued permits and make the issuance of quarterly and/or monthly permits more manageable. III. Parking Guidance and Wayfinding Recommendations: • As part of the City’s approved capital wayfinding project for 2017, ensure that a public parking brand is incorporated into wayfinding signage with an easily identifiable logo and color palette. Signage should be easy to understand and direct patrons where to park and how to pay. • Display real-time off-street occupancy data on digital signage at the main entrances to downtown to allow drivers the ability to determine their parking destination. • Real-time parking availability information should be accessible by a parking website and/or a smartphone application. The growth of a city’s downtown and central business district is partially reliant on the ability of attracting outside visitors. Whether they are first time visitors to a city or from nearby communities, it is important to ensure they can properly navigate and locate parking when visiting downtown for shopping, dining, or business. An important aspect of enabling drivers to park and arrive at their destination is the way that they are informed about parking. The clear communication of facility locations, space availability, time restrictions and parking rates can help ensure that a city is offering an efficient and understandable parking system. Without properly educating visitors about parking, it can create the perception that a downtown is challenging to navigate and an unfavorable place to visit. With a proposed tiered rate structure, whether initially or in the near future, it will be especially important to upgrade the City’s wayfinding to effectively communicate regulations, pricing, and availability. A. Wayfinding In 2015 the City retained Hunt Design for a downtown parking wayfinding study and design in tandem with an Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) project by Walker Parking Consultants. Hunt Design reviewed existing parking signage and developed a new parking brand and plan for the City. The collaboration between Hunt Design and Walker Parking Consultants helped produce a consistent and integrated approach to wayfinding. Hunt Design created mockup designs for the Architectural Review Board (ARB), stakeholders, and City staff for feedback, and ultimately the ARB unanimously decided to proceed with the blue color scheme detailed below for the best visibility. Designs included direction signs, lot and garage ID banners, pylons and regulatory signage. The blue wayfinding signage designs are pictured in the mockup drawings below. As part of the wayfinding study, Hunt Design also assessed the naming structure of the downtown parking facilities and lots. They recommended an alphanumeric naming system with the lots named numerically from east to west and the garages alphabetically from east to west. Hunt Design also recommended the installation locations for each type of signage throughout the downtown to best guide visitors to available parking In December 2016, City Council approved the capital improvement project for wayfinding and is funded to move forward in 2017 and projected completion in 2018. B. Automated Parking Guidance Systems In conjunction with the wayfinding study, Walker Parking Consultants assessed potential Automated Parking Guidance Systems (APGS) for Downtown Palo Alto to provide real-time parking availability and occupancy numbers for the off-street facilities. Three types of APGS were considered: ▪ Faculty Count APGS: provides the total count of vehicles in a facility or an ‘Open/Full’ status using sensors at the entrances and exits. ▪ Level and Zone Count APGS: displays the count by garage level using additional sensors. ▪ Single Space Detection APGS: tracks the occupancy of each space using mounted sensors and LED lights. After evaluating the various options, Walker Parking Consultants recommended the Single Space Detection APGS to Palo Alto for Garages CC, CW, R, and S. While this system has the highest overall cost, it provides the most flexibility and accuracy. Various colors of mounted LED lights can indicate space types such as available, occupied, handicapped, permit, public, valet, etc. The colors can be changed manually or automatically when necessary to ensure that the parking facilities are being utilized to their maximum potential. The management system can be locally or cloud-hosted, and signage would be connected to the City’s downtown fiber network. Figure 8: Hunt Design Wayfinding Signage Real-time and highly accurate (up to 99%) occupancy data will be available from this system to display on parking guidance wayfinding signage throughout downtown. The occupancy data can also be displayed on the City’s websites and phone applications. As the City moves forward with the recently approved and funded project, the City should ensure that the APGS indicates the number of available spaces at the entrance of the facilities, and the overall solution should be coupled with digital wayfinding signage throughout Downtown. Additionally, the APGS space availability data should be integrated with the City’s website and/or a parking application. C. Current Wayfinding The following outlines the Study’s observations as it relates to the current wayfinding downtown. DIXON’s observations are directly related to the City’s initiative with Hunt Design and Walker. The current wayfinding includes signage at the entrances of lots and garages, banners in the parking lots, and green direction signage at intersections. Additionally, the on-street signage conveys the color zone parking rules. Currently there is no consistent City parking/mobility branding used throughout Downtown. The signage at the garage/lot entrances indicates whether there are time limit spaces, permit spaces, or both, however, there is not a significant signage distinction to identify a public versus private parking garage/lots. Images 1 thru 3: Palo Alto wayfinding signage for off-street surface lot locations. Images 4 – 5: Palo Alto signage for off-street public garages; often difficult to determine public vs. private parking or both Another issue identified was the lack of clarity regarding the daily permit parking information. The signage in the garages did not adequately direct patrons to the kiosks and it did not clearly indicate whether daily permit holders should park in the public parking or the designated permit parking spaces. Currently the City does not utilize occupancy sensors or parking guidance systems. There are no digital counters or displays indicating whether a facility is full. During high occupancy periods, this can worsen congestion due to people entering facilities and circling for a space when the facility may already be near capacity or completely full. The following sections describe the various automated technology options that may be used to improve program efficiency and the overall parking experience. D. Parking Guidance Systems Vehicle counting systems coupled with automated wayfinding systems are helping to revolutionize how the masses park today. These systems, along with their integration to everyday phone and mapping applications, have provided motorists with the ability to plan their parking before leaving their home. The ability to do so can enable motorists to make more informed decisions about how to get to their destination, evaluate alternative modes of transit, and, if they choose to drive, reduce traffic congestion by letting drivers know where they will park. Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) signs can promote parking availability and mitigate congestion around and within parking facilities. To improve the Palo Alto parking experience, the City must have an accurate tool to count vehicle entries to provide accurate parking availability that can be integrated with an APGS sign and available parking applications. The dynamic signage allows the City to redirect patrons toward alternative, underutilized parking locations. The APGS/wayfinding signage should indicate parking lot status (open/closed), space availability (Full/Available or the number of spaces available), event parking details (as applicable), alternative parking areas, and targeted messaging. This methodology would allow many patrons to prepare their direction of travel upon approach thereby possibly reducing the traffic flow impact, discouraging backups, and addressing maximum capacity concerns. DIXON often refers to the concept of “First mile, last mile,” the security of one knowing before leaving their origin, where he or she will be parking at their destination and when reaching the “last mile,” the ability to rely on wayfinding to guide him or her to their arrival location. Another benefit to the wayfinding signage and the real-time parking information is parking availability and the ability to be linked to a variety of publicly available, free parking applications. This information can be monitored both remotely and on site by parking operations personnel to anticipate traffic flow impacts and capacity levels, especially for special event management. If the City adjusts pricing or Images 6: S/L Bryant/Lytton garage entrance. The facility is not conducive for how to pay to park implements demand-based rates, this information can be promoted using these online tools and equipment. DIXON recommends that this information be distributed for public access via an application programming interface (API) in addition to transmitting the data to additional APGS signs placed at the primary entrances to the downtown, especially at major arterial roads. This recommendation is consistent with the City’s current CIPs for an APGS system and downtown wayfinding campaign. If the City prefers to develop a basic integrated independent mobile application (provided by the APGS system provider). The overall cost of the mobile application development does vary depending on the type of information to be displayed, any specific branding / graphics requirements, and additional features such as find my car, directions, 511 traffic information, parking reservations, or 3rd party integrations. While the City may potentially invest in an interactive City-developed website or application, for which the cost can be significant based upon your overall web design, there are several existing, free parking availability/guidance applications, like ParkMe and Parkopedia, that leverage available public parking information using their interactive parking application. A useful example of clear directional wayfinding that has been successfully implemented is in the City of San Jose, displayed in Image 7. Though the City put less emphasis on branding or a specific theme, it has unmistakably highlighted parking, the direction in which this parking is located, and the available parking spaces at each location. In addition, positioning of the signage is equally as important. Motorists entering the downtown district off the major interstate highway are met with this sign immediately, providing motorists a knowledge of where available parking opportunities are located before entering the downtown district. A critical component of any technology installation, especially an APGS solution, is maintenance and upkeep. If an APGS is installed, it is recommended that a responsible party (i.e., subcontractor) be designated and held accountable for the system upkeep. If this support is to be a subcontracted service, performance standards should be defined and incorporated into the vendor service agreement with performance penalties for system support failures. Wayfinding is an integral part of any parking operation. Patrons need to be informed of facility locations, space availability, time restrictions, and parking rates. Navigation from place to place within a parking facility is often overlooked and undervalued. Knowing where one is in a facility, where there are available spaces and knowing how to navigate to those spaces is one of the most fundamental aspects of a successful parking program. The addition of wayfinding signage may significantly improve the ability of a patron to enter, leave and return to a facility. Image 7: San Jose on-street district wayfinding signage E. Digital Wayfinding Parking should be easy. As many trips begin and end with parking, providing patrons with the direction and information on best parking options is imperative in any successful parking program. Providing accurate information on parking destination and availability can significantly impact a patron’s experience when visiting an event or Downtown area. Static wayfinding offers an opportunity to lead patrons in the direction of available parking while also being aesthetically pleasing to the Downtown area. However, digital wayfinding has truly taken parking guidance to a new level with the ability to display real-time parking space occupancy data while directing patrons to available spots in the City’s parking garage. The City has already approved the installation of overhead space indicators (sensors) for the garage facilities. The space indicators will provide color notification to identify real-time parking space availability (Image 8). The City has an opportunity to manage the business rules for parking spaces throughout the day however, this will require on site oversight to maximize the opportunity to adjust parking space regulations, i.e. increasing/decreasing the number of Permit Only spaces based upon demand will provide a convenience that was not easily managed previously. Space indicators provide in-depth data with the ability to show parking occupancy by level and by row within each level. The solution that will be implemented by the City will allow for a true comprehensive guidance system throughout the entire facility (Image 9 right). This type of system will not only mitigate congestion at the entrance of the garage but also throughout each level and row. The City should consider including a digital wayfinding option with the space indicator implementation that provides patrons a breakdown, by level, of parking availability (Image 10 left). The occupancy count accuracy of this solution is typically about 95% based on the speed of vehicles entering and exiting and the space between each vehicle. This solution is best suited for garages that allow travel up and down on the outside of the actual parking spaces as opposed to having to drive through every spot on every level to travel up and down. The simplest and most cost-efficient method to provide real-time occupancy is to show one aggregate count for available spaces throughout the entire garage (Image 11 top of next page). Once the real-time occupancy data is collected, transmitting it to digital wayfinding signage located throughout the garage, the surrounding City Image 8: Overhead space indicators Image 9: Wayfinding signage - Space Counts Image 10: Level-by-level space count and/or a website/application is relatively simple. Most vendors that provide the counting hardware described above will be able to provide both additional digital signage and an API that will allow the data to be used in websites and applications. In addition to basic signage that comes with the pricing breakdowns above, supplementary signage can typically be purchased. The pricing on this signage depends on the sign and the application for it, hence the significant price range. For signage placed in areas outside the garage, there are potential costs associated with transmitting information to the digital display signs. In most cases, wireless transmissions are possible for a small monthly data fee or signs can be hardwired direct and the costs will vary significantly depending on the distance of the fiber line to the sign. It is important to note that DIXON’s paid parking section recommends the City implement PARCS systems (gated access) in the Downtown garage facilities. PARCS systems will help to improve counts at each facility and accurately distribute this information to the public. Image 11: Wayfinding signage – Digital Counts IV. Enforcement Recommendations: • Implement vehicle mounted license plate recognition (LPR) units to improve efficiency. • Expand parking enforcement staffing coverage to include evening and weekend coverage (if feasible). • Evaluate existing enforcement handhelds to ensure real-time integration capabilities with selected parking meters and mobile payment vendor. Whether the City proceeds with a paid parking solution or considers installing a parking access control system at the garage entrances, these are decisions that will impact the enforcement of the downtown parking policies. The color zones are currently monitored by Police Department Community Service Officers (CSOs) utilizing enforcement handhelds to manually track each vehicle license plates throughout their assigned color zone. Typically, a CSO can input between 750 to 1,000 license plate per shift. This is a time-consuming effort that requires a substantial time commitment to enforce the daily time limit requirements of the existing color zone policies. In addition to the color zone time limits, the CSOS also monitor permit compliance in the surface lots and parking garages. If the City elects to maintain the current color zone time limit policies, vehicle mounted license plate recognition (LPR) technology should be implemented to more efficiently maximize personnel resources and to ensure consistent enforcement of the time limit and permit management policies. In addition, if there are no changes to the existing color zone policies, with the implementation of at least two (2) LPR vehicle mounted units, the CSOs will no longer be required to manually track license plates and the City should consider redeploying the CSO schedule and extending enforcement coverage to include weekday evening hours and weekend coverage to ensure compliance with general parking policies, including red curb and double-parking violations. With the implementation of at least two (2) LPR units, there should be an opportunity to redeploy rather than expand staff. This will require ongoing assessment to ensure adequate and consistent coverage of the downtown parking policies. LPR increases efficiency in several ways, including the automation of vehicle location and time occupied monitoring to enforce the color zone time limits that are currently being tracked manually. Furthermore, LPR technology provides an ability to validate parking permit status when permits are attached to license plates. Again, if the City elects not to make any changes to the current color zone policies or to the management of the off-street locations, the vehicle mounted LPR units can efficiently patrol the garage and surface lot locations to verify that the permit registered license plate is valid. Rather than physically verifying permit status using the enforcement handheld, the CSOs will be enabled to swiftly monitor the permit parking areas. The LPR technology would be integrated with the City’s parking permit management system and real-time updates can be received to ensure the most accurate and up-to-date database. The LPR system also provides the opportunity for CSOs to more efficiently manage the City’s scofflaw records and vehicles with five (5) or more unpaid delinquent parking citations. LPR cameras can be mounted to a CSO vehicle or attached to a stationary structure such as a toll booth or entry gate (described in more detail in the Garage Recommendations Section). In recent years, however, LPR has grown into the parking industry to help cities with their enforcement, permit management and scofflaw mitigation. Many cities have successfully supplemented their enforcement resources with the implementation of LPR technology. As an enforcement device, LPR cameras are attached to enforcement vehicles that patrol both streets and off street parking locations and can be used to manage parking violations, occupancy limits, scofflaw capture and paid parking payment status. LPR vendors provide specialized technology for parking enforcement purposes and have developed the software to integrate with the variety of citation, permit management and technology hardware vendors which will provide the City with a comprehensive program customized specifically for Palo Alto. The LPR solution includes visual evidence of an infraction when it occurs and further when a citation is issued. This is invaluable for adjudication purposes. For time limit management, many of the LPR vendors offer a digital chalking feature that uses software technology to track the location of a vehicle, how long the vehicle was parked at a specific location or within a designated zone/area and simultaneously compares that to the time limit posted in that area. Digital chalking has helped several cities provide a more accountable and consistent approach to time limit management without having to invest in additional labor and provides an additional level of visual evidence that tends to reduce adjudication efforts. As automated license plate recognition (ALPR) systems become more prevalent across the country and in the State of California, Agencies must take the proper steps in accordance with federal and state laws. Existing law currently authorizes law enforcement agencies and departments to use LPR for the purpose of locating vehicles or persons reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission of a public offense. Senate Bill 34, Section 1978.90.51, effective January 1, 2016 imposes specific requirements on an “ALPR operator” as defined to protect ALPR information and implementing a usage privacy policy with respect to that information, as specified. Among several requirements and propositions incorporated in Senate Bill 34, a specific requirement is found in Section 1798.90.51/1798.90.53, and states that an APLR end-user shall do the following: (b) (1) Implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the access, use, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. The usage and privacy policy shall be available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR end-user has an Internet Web site, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on that Internet Web site. Therefore, DIXON recommends the City of Palo Alto and with its potential implementation of LPR in the future, refer to the City’s use of ALPR on the City’s web site. DIXON recommends that Palo Alto provide a statement informing the public of the usage and privacy policy surrounding its use of the system. Image 12: Example of mobile-LPR parking enforcement Per Senate Bill 34, the City’s posting of information to the public on the City’s web site must be completed as follows: (B) Conspicuous posting, for a minimum of 30 days, of the notice on the agency’s Internet Web site page, if the agency maintains one. For purposes of this subparagraph, conspicuous posting on the agency’s Internet Web site means providing a link to the notice on the home page or first significant page after entering the Internet Web site that is in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the link. The approximate cost to support the installation of LPR equipment on an existing vehicle is approximately $50,000-$60,000 including the training and infrastructure needed. This will include the installation of the cameras on the outside of the vehicle, the processing unit in the trunk along with the in-vehicle PC and navigator set up in the front seat. It is recommended that the City of Palo Alto implement a vehicle mounted LPR solution regardless of the other recommendations considered. The technology will directly benefit the downtown area and provide the CSOs with a resource tool to become more efficient and consistent in the management of downtown parking policies. If the City proceeds with a paid parking solution, the existing enforcement handhelds need to be evaluated to ensure the integration capabilities with the implementation of the various parking technologies. If the City opts to install parking meter technology, the decision to proceed with a Pay-by-Plate or Pay-by-Space approach will be relevant to the enforcement handheld equipment (See Paid Parking Recommendations Section for more detail). A real-time interface with the parking technology provider and the CSO enforcement handheld will ensure that the CSO receive the most current vehicle payment status. The same integration requirement will be necessary for a mobile payment vendor, especially if the City elected to proceed with a Pay & Display solution. Real-time integration requirements must be clearly defined in any vendor solicitation for citation, permit or paid parking technology support to provide the CSO with the accurate status of a parking space in Palo Alto. Integration requirements and the cost of any software development should be the burden of the parking technology vendors. Data integration must be addressed during the solicitation and contracting stage with each vendor and the City should have a standard application programming interface (API) requirement that is included with any parking solicitation. Integration with the enforcement handheld is imperative to maximize the efficiency of the CSOs and minimize the burden of equipment that they are required to carry. Regardless of the downtown parking policy decisions and outcomes, the combination of vehicle mounted LPR technology and integrated enforcement handhelds will provide the CSO staff the tools necessary to Image 13: Example smartphone handheld enforcement device effectively manage and monitor the downtown parking policies without changes to the existing staffing resources. V. Centralization of Palo Alto Parking Related Operations Recommendations: • The City should create a Parking Department/Division to provide full-time management of the parking operation including oversight of any outsourced services and vendor technology agreements. Through work with different with different municipalities and agencies, DIXON has found that parking operations can become a convoluted task. Often overlooked, many fail to realize the number of duties and responsibilities that are associated with parking, even if only loosely. These responsibilities are further increased when an agency has paid parking operations. Often, a municipality’s departments that have some form of a parking related role include transit, finance, police department, public works, planning, and even community and economic development. Thus, there are several hands involved and the clarity of those roles and responsibilities from one department to the next may become blurred or lost. It was difficult to obtain documents and information from staff related to the current Palo Alto parking operation. Through those requests and coordination with City staff, it has become apparent that there is a lack of internal structure within the City when it comes to parking. Currently there are multiple departments handling support services related to parking. Outlined below are the current parking tasks and the department responsible within the City. Parking Task Department Responsible Citation Hearings Police Construction (Garage/Lots) Public Works Daily Permit Sales (Pay Stations) Planning & Community Development Daily Permit Sales (City Hall) Administrative Services Employee/Employer Permits (Garages/Lots) Administrative Services Enforcement – RPP Planning & Community Environment/Downtown Parking Assessment District/Administrative Services Enforcement – (Garages, Lots, Color Zones) Police Maintenance (Garages/Lots) Public Works Planning Planning & Community Development Residential Parking Permit Program (RPP) Planning & Community Development Revenues Administrative Services Revenues – Employee/Employer Permits (Downtown) Finance Valet Permitting (Garage/Lots) Police Valet Program (Garage/Lots) Planning & Community Environment (via sub- contractor SP Plus) Website Planning & Community Environment (SP+) Based on current internal organization of tasks related to parking there are too many departments involved without a reliable source of collaboration to ensure all roles and responsibilities are being fulfilled to the best ability. Many of the recommendations set forth in this report will require significant coordination by multiple city resources. Therefore, the City should create an internal parking department that will act as the direct point of contact for all parking related issues. Many cities have a parking department that provides turnkey support for much of the support services outlines in the table above. In other cities, one primary contact may serve as the oversight of the various departments handling parking related responsibilities and management of parking related issues. The City should move the parking operation responsibilities under the umbrella of a centralized parking department. These operations include enforcement and management of both Downtown Palo Alto as well as the RPP district; the downtown parking assessment permits for employees; and RPP permits for both residents and employees. In addition, with the potential of paid parking, the parking department would manage all aspects of the parking technology required to support the operation, including, but not limited to, parking hardware management, maintenance, as well as revenue collection and reconciliation. The proposed department should be considered an extension of the City’s Parking and Transportation Committee to assist in the facilitation of coordinated policy-making and implementation across the entire parking and transportation system. The following is the proposed organizational structure based on the current and potential services: *Solid blue – line indicates direct and central report structure A. Proposed Figure 9 on the previous page outlines a proposed organizational structure for the City’s centralization of parking roles and responsibilities as part of the newly created Central Parking Department. The outline of the structure incorporates current departments and their responsibilities as well as created tasks that may result from the implementation of paid parking technology and other parking technology infrastructure. As it is proposed, the Parking Department would be headed by a Parking Manager. The Parking Manager would oversee four Supervisors in parking related roles including On-Street, Off-Street, Enforcement and Permit Management services. Current departments that are tasked with parking related roles today such as Public Works, Police and Administrative Services would continue to operate indirectly with the Parking Department via the Parking Manager or a Supervisor. In the case of Police and Administrative Services a line of communication would be established with both the Parking Manager and an operations related Supervisor. A. Outsourcing of Parking Operations Based on DIXON’s review of the City’s current parking related operations and feedback through working with City staff, outsourcing of parking operations is a viable alternative in the event a centralized parking department is unable to be organized. The outsourcing of parking operations is a support service that has been implemented by several agencies throughout California. It is important to know that regardless of the degree the parking operation is contracted to a private vendor, the municipality always maintains oversight. As previously mentioned, with the recommendation implementation of paid parking, the added services that will required will further the current parking responsibilities of the City. These added services include ongoing upkeep and preventative maintenance of parking equipment, weekly parking meter collections, and the revenue reconciliation process. Many cities, like Palo Alto, contract private parking operators to support their parking operations. Palo Alto is already engaging two of these vendors in the support of permit management software, garage valet services and RPP supplement enforcement services. Parking facility operations is commonly outsourced by municipalities; however, many cities have also allocated parking maintenance services and revenue reconciliation to private operators. For example, Newport Beach selected a private vendor to not only collect meter revenue, but also contracts the vendor to provide maintenance support, including preventative maintenance services. San Francisco and Los Angeles contract operators to support their parking meter revenue operations. Accounting for these added daily operations and responsibilities is import for Palo Alto to understand as it makes these changes. There are many examples of cities with successful parking programs that have either chose to manage parking internally or have had success outsourcing parking operations. The City of Sausalito has had success with a hybrid approach, outsourcing revenue collection and maintenance while handling permits and other daily administrative operations internally. However, for Palo Alto, the current state of parking operations needs to be altered. Today, parking functions spread across several departments. Thus, implementing parking related changes or improvements is less effective. The common operations that are typically outsourced by municipalities include collections and Level 1 Maintenance of parking meters and pay stations, revenue reconciliation, and enforcement. Each of these operations are fulfilled by the City’s current third-party vendors as well as additional vendors. VI. Alternative Strategies Recommendations: • Identify remote parking supply and solicit shared parking agreements to reduce the parking demand in the Downtown core. • Implement a Downtown Employee Mobility Program to encourage mode shift and reduce SOV trips in synch with the TMA’s objectives. While the various parking program recommendations throughout this report will help improve program efficiency and overall parking experience, ultimately the City should take a sustainable approach to managing Downtown parking and mobility. As the City evolves, Palo Alto will continue to face increase pressure to utilize space more efficiently, especially as available development space becomes even more valuable than today. The City’s parking resources should be managed to preserve the walkability of Downtown, and alternative modes of transportation should be encouraged to reduce single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A. Secure Existing Parking Supply Securing the existing parking supply can help reduce parking demand in the Downtown core, especially during peak periods of the day. The City should utilize any additional remote parking supply during the short-term. More remote parking coupled with the addition of paid parking Downtown can be an opportunity to provide a cheaper alternative for those willing to park further outside of the core. This may assist in reducing Downtown congestion and alleviate some parking demand. There are three main areas the City may look to for existing parking supply opportunities: city-owned parking locations outside of the downtown core, lots such as high-school parking lots, and private parking facilities and lots for shared-parking agreements. Underutilized lots throughout Palo Alto can be opportunities for acquiring additional existing parking supply for Downtown employees or visitors. This tactic is useful for providing remote parking locations to improve public transit and bike access to Downtown without having to invest in expanding parking supply. Shared parking agreements with property owners are required when securing privately owned parking locations for public use. Private parking lots, which are only used during certain hours of the day, can be a parking opportunity for the downtown area. Shared parking negotiations are often the most successful with cost/revenue sharing, insurance, enforcement and/or infrastructure improvement agreements. It is important to consider the following when developing shared parking agreements: • Term length: providing return on investment • Facility Use: user base and flexibility; number of available spaces Educating the community on alternative transit needs to continue to be a priority for Palo Alto • Operations & Maintenance: extending associated services • Enforcement: citations, gate arms; booting/towing B. Downtown Employee Mobility Program In line with the TMA’s objectives, the City should expand the goal of reducing the number of SOV trips as part of a downtown mobility plan, by improving travel options to Downtown. It is suggested that the initial mobility program be targeted towards employees, and the, if deemed successful, the program can be expanded to the public. While it is not realistic to assume every Downtown employee can use alternative modes of transportation, the City may benefit considerably from even a target reduction of just 5-10% of employees parking their vehicles. An employee mobility program would not only improve parking availability, but it may provide employees improved travel options and cost savings opportunities. There are various tactics that the City can use to incentivize employees to not drive Downtown: • Online Portal: A web-based or smartphone-based portal could be a “one-stop-shop” for employees to access travel information, register for programs, receive financial incentives, log trip data, take surveys and more. • Financial Incentives: The City may want to explore opportunities for direct financial incentives for employees that don’t drive to work such as a nominal payment of $0.50-$1.00 per day or coupon rewards. • Park and Ride Shuttle: If the City secures additional remote parking, the City may want to revisit the issue of expanded shuttle programs from those locations to Downtown especially during peak service periods. • Car Sharing: Offering subsidized trips or memberships to car sharing services for employees can help make going to work without a personal car more realistic and reduce parking demands. Currently Palo Alto offers Zipcar services at multiple locations in Downtown Palo Alto. Expanding the program and increasing locations may assist in decreasing the amount of SOV trips to Palo Alto each day. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7946) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of RM3 letter to State elected officials Title: Staff Recommendation to Approve Sending a Letter Supporting the State's Latest Regional Traffic Relief Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation 1. Staff recommends that Council discuss and approve the Mayor’s signature on the attached letter (Attachment A) to the state legislative Bay Area Caucus supporting the most recent iteration of the Regional Measure supporting a Regional Traffic Relief Plan. 2. Staff recommends that Council approve future letters to elected officials, as needed and after City Manager approval, concerning this Reginal Measure. Executive Summary From time to time, Bay Area Regional Measures (RM) are passed by the legislature to fund transportation-related projects affecting the Bay Area. The last RM was passed in 2004 by seven Bay Area Counties and funded projects addressing traffic bottlenecks, new mass transit options, and highway improvements. Funding came from a $1 toll increase on all Bay Area bridges except the Golden Gate bridge. Now, Bay Area legislators are discussing the next version of a Regional Measure, RM3. This third Measure would also fund traffic-related projects in the Bay Area and would also receive funding from a bridge toll increase. The specifics of the funded projects are the topic of current discussions in Sacramento; a bill will develop as a result of these discussions. In order to ensure projects important to Palo Alto are included in the forthcoming bill, staff recommends Council approve (1) a letter to Bay Area legislators informing them of our transportation- related priorities, and (2) follow-up letters as needed to support this RM as it proceeds through the legislative process. Background In 1998, voters in the Bay Area approved RM1, which raised bridge tolls and funded only bridge corridor improvements. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) City of Palo Alto Page 2 was responsible for overseeing the program. MTC administers the revenue from the Bay Area’s seven state-owned bridges, and can raise bridge tolls for bridge seismic and repair work only. In order to use bridge tolls for any other purposes, state legislative authority and voter approval are necessary. In 2004, Bay Area voters approved RM2, which raised six bridge tolls by $1 to fund bridge corridor improvements in the South and North Bay and transit options and traffic relief in San Francisco and Oakland. Since the last RM over 13 years ago, the population in the Bay Area has increased and traffic has followed. Mass transit assets require improving and roads require maintenance. Therefore, Bay Area legislators are currently discussing bringing forth a bill allowing voters to decide on another toll increase to fund transportation projects. If a bill is developed and passed, a ballot measure will appear in 2018. If approved by Bay Area residents, the toll increase and projects would begin in 2019. Discussion Prior to a ballot measure or a bill, this effort requires deciding which projects should be included in the overall RM3 “package;” that is, which projects should be funded. Currently, Bay Area legislators are meeting to decide on these projects. Our state representative in Sacramento has met with our elected officials to speak about Palo Alto’s transportation priorities including: Caltrain electrification and grade separations, funding solutions from the SamTrans Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study, adding express lanes on Highway 101 in San Mateo County, and the restoration of eliminated VTA bus services due to the Next Network Initiative. Speaking with our elected officials about our priorities is one advocacy method. Another is to submit in writing letters outlining the need for funding and our priority projects. Such letters would reach a wide audience simultaneously, ensure each office has a similar understanding of our priority projects, and does not depend on the memory of each legislative office when discussing projects. Consequently, staff recommends Council approve (1) the sending of Attachment A to the legislative Bay Area Caucus as they deliberate on RM 3 projects, and (2) authorize the sending of additional letters of support, as needed, to other elected officials, with City Manager approval. Timeline, Resource Impact, Policy Implications, Environmental Review (If Applicable) Presently, an RM3 bill is in the discussion phase; there is no bill in front of the legislature. This provides Palo Alto an excellent opportunity: to present our projects to the entire Bay Area Caucus as they decide on the langauge to appear in a bill. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Therefore, the timing of today’s action is important. Such action aligns with the Council-approved General Legislative Priority of protecting and increasing funding for specific programs and services. This action has no policy or financial implications, and does not require an environmental review. Attachments:  Attachment A: RM 3 Support letter to the Bay Area Caucus April 12, 2017 The Honorable Jerry Hill The Honorable Marc Berman California State Senate California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 5035 State Capitol, Room 6011 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Support from the City of Palo Alto for Regional Measure 3/Bay Area Toll increase Dear Senator Hill and Assembly Member Berman: On behalf of the City of Palo Alto, I want to express our support for Regional Measure 3 also known as the Bay Area Toll increase. It is no secret that the roads, traffic, and congestion in the Bay Area is near the worst in California. Per MTC the “congested delay,” defined as time spent in traffic moving at speeds of 35 miles per hour or less, surged 22 percent in 2015 from 2.7 minutes in 2014 to an average of 3.2 minutes per commuter each weekday. This marks the Bay Area’s highest recorded level of congested delay on a per-commuter basis and a nearly 70 percent increase over the 1.9-minutes-per-commuter-per-day figure registered in 2010. There are many factors that impact traffic and transportation, such as:  Population: The Bay Area’s population rose to 7.6 million by the end of 2015  Employment: Bay Area employment hit an all-time high of 3.7 million in 2015  Housing: Permitting of new units continues to run well below 1970s and 1980s levels, despite a much larger 2015 population and a deepening affordability crisis  Miles Traveled in Congestion: 94 percent of the Bay Area’s total freeway mileage was traveled in free-flow or moderate-flow conditions last year, down a percentage point from 2014  Travel Time Reliability: Despite rising congestion, travel times during peak periods have seen minimal changes in day-to-day reliability since 2010  Transit Asset Condition: Nearly 30 percent of the region’s buses, railcars, tracks and other transit assets are past their useful life Palo Alto uses our general fund to help address our transportation needs; we also have a county sales tax measure to help offset transportation issues. But these funding streams are just not enough. That is why we support RM3. Our specific, RM3 funding priorities include: 1. Grade Separation for Caltrain tracks that run through Palo Alto impacting four specific intersections and causing traffic congestion and delays throughout our City; 2. The electrification of Caltrain; 3. Funding solutions from the SamTrans Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study; 4. Adding express lanes on Highway 101 in San Mateo County; and 5. The restoration of VTA bus service cuts due to the Next Network Initiative Overall, we feel that a universal RM3 package should include:  Clipper 2.0 to integrate with fares  Funding for Paratransit;  Support for transit passes for low income residents; and  Funding for ATP though some flexibility with the disadvantage communities’ definition It is for these reasons that the City of Palo Alto supports Regional Measure 3 and offers our help in passing this measure. We thank each of you for your hard work and leadership on this issue. Sincerely, H. Gregory Scharff Mayor City of Palo Alto CC: The Bay Area Caucus City of Palo Alto (ID # 7858) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: City Banking Contracts Title: Status of the City's Banking Contracts From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation This in an informational report and no Council action is necessary. Background Staff has received recent inquiries related to the City’s banking relationships, apparently in response to recent negative news about Wells Fargo. Due to the number of inquiries staff wanted to provide the same information to the City Council and broader community through the City Council report process. Discussion In 2014, through a competitive solicitation process, the City selected four banks to provide banking and related services at competitive prices (City Council Staff Report ID # 4905). These contracts are for six years as follows: 1) US Bank – This is the City’s main banking contract for all banking needs except for the services listed below. Examples include payroll and accounts payable processing, depositary and account reconciliation services and credit acceptance via Elavon (a wholly owned subsidiary of US Bank). 2) Union Bank – for custodial services related to the City’s investment portfolio. 3) JP Morgan Chase – for purchase cards used by City employees to make City approved purchases. 4) Wells Fargo – for processing utility bill (check) payments (aka “lockbox” services). Wells Fargo has been providing this service prior to 2014, meeting all the service requirements and having the lowest cost. By dollar amount approximately 43 percent City of Palo Alto Page 2 and by number of payments approximately 28% of utility customer payments are processed through this service. The remainder of the Utility payments are processed by US Bank via City initiated deductions from the customers checking/savings account, credit card (in person, on-line, via phone), through third party electronic bill payment service providers, and cash. In addition to these, the City uses eight broker/dealers, including Wells Fargo, to invest the City’s cash. Currently, via administrative action, Wells Fargo has been suspended as a broker/dealer related to the publicized opening of fraudulent accounts. Previously, staff looking into banking services provided by local banks, credit unions and found that they do not offer the breadth of services required by the City. If this changes in the future the City will reevaluate using credit unions. Prior to 2020, staff may conduct a new solicitation process for banking services or extend some or all of the existing contracts. Before then, staff may evaluate options for lockbox services from providers other than Wells Fargo, however, such a transition would require staff effort, not currently planned, to ensure a process that doesn’t compromise utility payments being processed properly. In the meantime, customers wishing to minimize transactions with Wells Fargo can enroll in automated bank draft service for utility payments. Staff is aware that the banks listed above may have invested in projects such as pipelines and drilling, which may be unpopular. Given the scope of banking services required by the City, staff believes it must continue its banking relationships in the near term to ensure the efficient and effective operation of City business including utility billing. In the long-term, if more attractive alternatives become available those alternatives will be evaluated based on services offered and cost. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7922) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: National Public Safety Telecommunicators' Week Title: National Public Safety Telecommunicators' Week April 9-15, 2017 From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Attachments:  Attachment A: National Public Safety Telecommunicators' Week April 9-15, 2017 Proclamation National Public Safety Telecommunicator’s Week April 9-15, 2017 WHEREAS, emergencies can occur at any time, requiring police, fire or emergency medical services; and WHEREAS, when an emergency occurs, the prompt response of law enforcement, firefighters and paramedics is critical to the protection of life and preservation of property; and WHEREAS, the safety of our police officers and firefighters is dependent upon the quality and accuracy of information obtained from citizens who telephone the City of Palo Alto Communications Center; and WHEREAS, public safety dispatchers are the first and most critical contact our citizens have with emergency services; and WHEREAS, public safety dispatchers are the single vital link for our law enforcement and fire personnel by monitoring their activities by radio, providing them information and ensuring their safety; and WHEREAS, public safety dispatchers of the City of Palo Alto Communications Center have contributed substantially to the apprehension of criminals, suppression of fires and treatment of patients; and WHEREAS, each dispatcher has exhibited compassion, understanding and professionalism during the performance of their job in the past year. NOW, THEREFORE, I, H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim and call upon all citizens of Palo Alto to observe the week of April 9-15, 2017 as "National Public Safety Telecommunicator's Week" and join in honoring the men and women whose diligence and professionalism keep our city and citizens safe. Presented: April 11, 2017 ______________________________ H. Gregory Scharff Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 7924) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Earthquake Preparedness Month Title: Earthquake Preparedness Month From: City Manager Lead Department: Office of Emergency Services Attachments:  Attachment A: Proclamation Declaring April 2017 Earthquake Preparedness Month Proclamation Earthquake Preparedness Month April 2017 WHEREAS, the State of California has proclaimed April to be Earthquake Preparedness Month; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto recognizes the importance of preparing for earthquakes and the possible consequences of a major seismic event; and WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto has developed an Emergency Services Volunteer (ESV) program that is comprised of Amateur Radio (Ham) Operators, Block Preparedness Coordinators (which includes Neighborhood Watch), and other specialties such as our Community Emergency Response Team (CERT); and WHEREAS, earthquakes can overwhelm the City and other government agencies, thus each individual, business, and other organization must bear responsibility by taking steps for preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery; and WHEREAS, the City's Office of Emergency Services has helpful information regarding earthquake preparedness posted on the city’s website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/preparedness. NOW, THEREFORE, I, H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby declare the month of April 2017 Earthquake Preparedness Month in the City of Palo Alto and call upon all citizens and entities of the Palo Alto community to join together to improve our resilience before the next Big One. Presented: April 11, 2017 ______________________________ H. Gregory Scharff Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 7949) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 4/11/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2016 Annual Housing Element Progress Report Title: 2016 Annual Housing Element Progress Report for the Period of January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is an informational report and no Council action is requested. Background & Discussion The City’s Housing Element for the period of 2015 to 2023 was adopted by the City Council on November 10, 2014 and certified by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City annually prepares a report on the status of the housing element and progress on its implementation using forms and definitions adopted by HCD. The attached 2016 Annual Housing Element Progress Report (Attachment A) was submitted to HCD and the Office of Planning and Research by the April 1st deadline. In the last three Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycles (including the current housing element cycle), the City has permitted over 3,000 units, of which approximately 750 (or 25%) were affordable at below market rates.  1998-2006 cycle: 1,713 units, of which 341 were affordable  2007-2014 cycle: 1,062 units, of which 290 were affordable  2014-2022 cycle (through 2016): 310 units, of which 121 are affordable The Housing Element contains a number of adopted programs that the City will need to implement during the Housing Element period. The table below has a summary of the status of those programs that have a timeframe of completion within four years of Housing Element adoption or December 2018. The Housing Element itself can be found at the link provided here: City of Palo Alto Page 2 http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015- 2023_AdoptedHousingElement.pdf Table 1. Status of Near Term Housing Element Programs (December 2014 to December 2018) Status Housing Element Programs Number Completed H2.1.8; H2.1.9; H2.2.4; H3.5.2; H3.5.3; H5.1.7 and H2.2.6 7 Underway H2.1.7; H1.1.2; H2.2.1; H2.2.2; H3.1.1; H3.4.4; H2.1.10; H2.1.11; H2.1.12; H2.2.7 and H2.2.8. 11 Not Completed H3.1.14; H1.1.3; H2.1.1; H2.1.3; H2.1.4; H3.1.12; H3.3.4; H4.2.1; H4.2.2; H3.1.7; H3.3.7 and H3.6.1. 12 Total 30 Source: Planning & Community Environment, March 28, 2017 Attachments: Attachment A: 2016 Annual Housing Element Progress Report (PDF) MEMORANDUM To: Department of Housing and Community Development From: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Senior Planner Cc: Governor’s Office of Planning and Research City of Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Date: March 27, 2017 Re: 2016 Annual Housing Element Progress Report Attached is the City of Palo Alto’s 2016 Annual Housing Element Progress Report. The City is continuing to work on updates to other elements of its General Plan, the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. If conforming amendments to the Housing Element are necessary as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process, the City will consult with HCD. Please contact me at (650) 329-2561 or by e-mail : eloiza.murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org should you have any questions. Department of Housing and Community Development ANNUAL HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT City or County Name: City of Palo Alto Mailing Address: 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Contact Person: Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Title: Senior Planner Phone: 650-329-2561 FAX: 650-329-2154 E-mail: eloiza.murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org Reporting Period by Calendar Year: from 1/1/16 to 12/31/16 These forms and tables, (see sample – next page) must be submitted to HCD and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on or before April 1, of each year for the prior calendar year; submit separate reports directly to both HCD and OPR (Government Code Section 65400) at the addresses listed below: Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy Development P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 -and- Governor’s Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Attachment 1 page 1 of 7 - 2 Low- Income 11 Moderate- Income 2 (11) Total Extremely Low-Income Units* 430 Forest Ave (10) Total by income Table A/A3 ► ► 565 Stanford Ave 430 Forest Ave 18 * Note: These fields are voluntary (9) Total of Moderate and Above Moderate from Table A3 ► ► ► ► ► ► 3 183 30 3 15 22 Above Moderate- Income Total Units per Project Deed Restricted UnitsEst. # Infill Units* See Instructions See Instructions 8 Housing without Financial Assistance or Deed Restrictions ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202 ) Jurisdiction City of Palo Alto Table A Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction Very Low-, Low-, and Mixed-Income Multifamily Projects Housing with Financial Assistance and/or Deed Restrictions 6 7 2-4 O Assistance Programs for Each Development Tenure R=Renter O=Owner Affordability by Household Incomes Very Low- Income 5a Reporting Period Date: 01/01/16 1 2 Housing Development Information Project Identifier (may be APN No., project name or address) Unit Category 5 Date: 12/31/16 2-4 O 11115+R 3 4 2 2 Note below the number of units determined to be affordable without financial or deed restrictions and attach an explanation how the jurisdiction determined the units were affordable. Refer to instructions. Attachment 1 page 2 of 7 - ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202 ) Jurisdiction City of Palo Alto Reporting Period Date: 01/01/16 Date: 12/31/16 Table A2 Annual Building Activity Report Summary - Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired pursuant to GC Section 65583.1(c)(1) (3) Acquisition of Units Please note: Units may only be credited to the table below when a jurisdiction has included a program it its housing element to rehabilitate, preserve or acquire units to accommodate a portion of its RHNA whichmeet the specific criteria as outlined in GC Section 65583.1(c)(1) Low- Income TOTAL UNITS Activity Type (4) The Description should adequately document how each unit complies with subsection (c )(7) of Government Code Section 65583.1 6. Total Extremely Low- Income* Very Low- Income 0 1. Single Family 0(1) Rehabilitation Activity 0 Annual building Activity Report Summary for Above Moderate-Income Units (not including those units reported on Table A) * Note: This field is voluntary (5) Total Units by Income (2) Preservation of Units At-Risk Affordability by Household Incomes 0 0 0 0 Table A3 4. Second Unit2. 2 - 4 Units 3. 5+ Units 5. Mobile Homes 7. Number of infill units* Attachment 1 page 3 of 7 - ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202 ) Jurisdiction City of Palo Alto Reporting Period Date: 01/01/16 Date: 12/31/16 (3 2nd du's/Cottages, + 96 SFR BPermits Issued - 96 SFR BPermits Demo = +7 Rebuilds for CYear 2015) 3 No. of Units Permitted for Above Moderate 3 0 0 * Note: This field is voluntary 0 3No. of Units Permitted for Moderate 0 Attachment 1 page 4 of 7 - ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202 ) Jurisdiction City of Palo Alto Reporting Period Date: 01/01/16 Date: 12/31/16 2019 Non-deed restricted* 691 58 2021 2022 Year 6 8 20 2018 Permitted Units Issued by Affordability Year 4 2015 2016Enter Calendar Year starting with the first year of the RHNA allocation period. See Example. Note: units serving extremly low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals. 246 1,988 15 Remaining Need for RHNA Period ► ► ► ► ► Total Units ► ► ► Income Level RHNA Allocation by Income Level Non-deed restrictedLow Deed Restricted 6 Year 3 Above Moderate 278 3 Total RHNA by COG. Enter allocation number: 432 Year 8 2017 Year 5 Year 7 Year 1 23 Table B Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress Very Low Deed Restricted Non-deed restricted Moderate Deed Restricted 14587 3 46 18 160 43 310 189 14 264 1,678 398 64 Year 9 648 368 Total Remaining RHNA by Income Level Total Units to Date (all years)Year 2 2014 Attachment 1 page 5 of 7 - ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation (CCR Title 25 §6202 ) Jurisdiction City of Palo Alto Reporting Period Date: 01/01/16 Date: 12/31/16 All programs reported in Table C are taken from the Housing Goals, Policies and Programs section of the City's 2015-2023 Housing Element, adopted on November 10, 2014 and certified on January 20, 2015 General Comments: Completed Programs Objective Timeframe in H.E.Status of Program Implementation SEE ATTACHED. Program Implementation Status Housing Programs Progress Report - Government Code Section 65583. Summary of Near Term Housing Element Programs February 28, 2017 Page 1 Housing Element 2015-2023 Near Term Implementation Programs -- Time Frame Implement within 2 years of adoption (by Dec. 2016) H2.1.7 PROGRAM Explore developing a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to encourage higher-density housing in appropriate locations. Eight-Year Objective: Create opportunities for higher-density housing. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Consider program within two years of Housing Element adoption Status: Not yet completed (Underway). H2.1.8 PROGRAM Promote redevelopment of underutilized sites by providing information about potential housing sites on the City’s website, including the Housing Sites identified to meet the RHNA and information about financial resources available through City housing programs. Eight-Year Objective: Provide information to developers about potential housing sites. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Post information on website upon adoption of Housing Element Status: Completed. H2.1.9 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the consolidation of smaller lots identified as Housing Inventory Sites and developed with 100% affordable housing projects. Incentives may include development review streamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units, or graduated density when consolidated lots are over one- half acre. Adopt amendments as appropriate. Provide information regarding zoning incentives to developers. Eight-Year Objective: Amend the Zoning Code to provide development incentives to meet the RHNA. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Adopt amendments within two years of Housing Element adoption Status: Scheduled to be completed March 2017. Summary of Near Term Housing Element Programs February 28, 2017 Page 2 H2.2.4 PROGRAM As detailed in the Resources chapter of the Housing Element, the City of Palo Alto has committed to providing financial assistance towards the conversion of 23 multi-family units to very low-income (30-50% AMI) units for a period of 55 years, and is seeking to apply credits towards the City’s RHNA (refer to Appendix C - Adequate Sites Program Alternative Checklist). The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) approached the City for assistance in converting a portion of the 60 units at the Colorado Park Apartments, to be reserved for very low-income households. The committed assistance will ensure affordability of the units for at least 55 years, as required by law. Eight-Year Objective: By the end of the second year of the housing element planning period, the City will enter into a legally enforceable agreement for $200,000 in committed assistance to purchase affordability covenants on 23 units at the Colorado Park Apartments. The City will report to HCD on the status of purchasing affordability covenants no later than July 1, 2018, and to the extent an agreement is not in place, will amend the Housing Element as necessary to identify additional sites. Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Ongoing Status: Completed. H3.1.14 PROGRAM Encourage and support the regional establishment of a coordinated effort to provide shared housing arrangement facilitation, similar to the HIP Housing Home Sharing Program in San Mateo County. Advocate among regional and nonprofit groups to establish the necessary framework. Eight-Year Objective: Meet with regional groups and work to establish a Santa Clara Home Sharing Program Funding Source: City Housing funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Within two years of Housing Element adoption Status: Not yet completed. H3.5.2 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to clarify distancing requirements for emergency shelters, stating that “no more than one emergency shelter shall be permitted within a radius of 300 feet.” Eight-Year Objective: Amend the Zoning Code to clarify distancing requirements for emergency shelters. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Adopt amendments within one year of Housing Element adoption Status: Completed. Summary of Near Term Housing Element Programs February 28, 2017 Page 3 H3.5.3 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to revise definitions of transitional and supportive housing to remove reference to multiple-family uses, and instead state that “transitional and supportive housing shall be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.” Eight-Year Objective: Amend the Zoning Code to revise transitional and supportive housing definitions. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Adopt amendments within one year Status: Scheduled to be completed March 2017. H5.1.7 PROGRAM In accordance with Government Code Section 65589.7, immediately following City Council adoption, the City will deliver to all public agencies or private entities that provide water or sewer services to properties within Palo Alto a copy of the 2015-2023 Housing Element. Eight-Year Objective: Immediately following adoption, deliver the 2015-2023 Palo Alto Housing Element to all providers of sewer and water services within the City. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Within one month of adoption of the Housing Element Status: Completed. Implement within 3 years of adoption (by Dec. 2017) H1.1.2 PROGRAM Consider modifying development standards for second units, where consistent with maintaining the character of existing neighborhoods. The modifications should encourage the production of second units affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income households. Eight-Year Objective: Consider modifying the Zoning Code to provide for additional second units. Funding Source: General Fund Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Conduct a study within three years of adoption of Housing Element to assess the potential for additional second units with modifications to the development standards. Status: Scheduled to be completed June 2017. H1.1.3 PROGRAM Provide incentives to developers such as reduced fees and flexible development standards to encourage the preservation of existing rental cottages and duplexes currently located in the R-1 and R-2 residential areas. Summary of Near Term Housing Element Programs February 28, 2017 Page 4 Five-Year Objective: Preserve 10 rental cottages and duplexes. Funding Source: City Housing Fund Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment Time Frame: Explore incentives within three years of Housing Element adoption Status: Not yet completed. H2.1.1 PROGRAM To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the Zoning Code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial areas within one-half a mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element Sites within one-quarter mile of fixed rail stations. Eight-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for a diverse range of housing types near fixed rail stations. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Consider Zoning Code amendments within three years of Housing Element adoption Status: Not yet completed. H2.1.3 PROGRAM Amend the zoning code to specify the minimum density of eight dwelling units per acre in all RM-15 districts. Consider amending the zoning code to specify minimum density for other multifamily zoning districts, consistent with the multi-family land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Eight-Year Objective: To provide opportunities for up to10 additional dwelling units on properties zoned RM-15 Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Within three years of Housing Element adoption Status: Not yet Completed. H2.1.4 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards. Eight-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for 75 smaller, more affordable housing units. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Within three years of Housing Element adoption Status: Not yet completed. H2.2.1 PROGRAM Implement an incentive program within three years of Housing Element Summary of Near Term Housing Element Programs February 28, 2017 Page 5 adoption for small properties identified as a Housing Element Site to encourage housing production on those sites. The incentive eliminates Site and Design Review if the project meets the following criteria: • The project has 9 residential units or fewer • A residential density of 20 dwelling units per acre or higher • Maximum unit size of 900 square feet Eight-Year Objective: Streamline processing for identified Housing Element Sites. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Adopt program within three years of Housing Element adoption Status: Site and Design Review threshold has been increased to 9 units. H2.2.2 PROGRAM Work with Stanford University to identify sites suitable for housing that may be located in the Stanford Research Park and compatible with surrounding uses. Eight-Year Objective: Identify sites suitable for housing to accommodate additional housing units. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Identify sites within three years of Housing Element adoption Status: Not yet Completed (Underway) H2.2.6 PROGRAM On parcels zoned for mixed use, consider allowing exclusively residential use on extremely small parcels through the transfer of zoning requirements between adjacent parcels to create horizontal mixed use arrangements. If determined to be appropriate, adopt an ordinance to implement this program. Eight-Year Objective: Consider transfer of zoning requirements to create horizontal mixed use. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Within three years of Housing Element adoption Status: Scheduled to be completed March 2017 as part of Program 2.1.9. H3.1.1 PROGRAM Amend the City’s BMR ordinance to lower the BMR requirement threshold from projects of five or more units to three or more units, and to modify the BMR rental section to be consistent with case law related to inclusionary rental housing. Summary of Near Term Housing Element Programs February 28, 2017 Page 6 Eight-Year Objective: Provide opportunities for four additional BMR units. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Amend BMR Ordinance within three years of Housing Element adoption. Status: Scheduled to be completed by June 2017. H3.1.12 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to provide additional incentives to developers who provide extremely low-income (ELI), very low-income, and low-income housing units, above and beyond what is required by the Below Market Rate program, such as reduced parking requirements for smaller units, reduced landscaping requirements, and reduced fees. Eight-Year Objective: Provide incentives for development of housing for Extremely Low Income households. Funding Source: City Housing funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Within three years of Housing Element adoption Status: Not yet completed. H3.3.4 PROGRAM Support the development and preservation of group homes and supported living facilities for persons with special housing needs by assisting local agencies and nonprofit organizations in the construction or rehabilitation of new facilities for this population. Eight-Year Objective: Regularly review existing development regulations, and amend the Zoning Code accordingly to reduce regulatory obstacles to this type of housing. Funding Source: City & CDBG Funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Amend Zoning Code within three years of Housing Element adoption. Status: Not yet completed. H3.4.4 PROGRAM The City will work with affordable housing developers to pursue opportunities to acquire, rehabilitate, and convert existing multi-family developments to long-term affordable housing units to contribute to the City’s fair share of the region’s housing needs. Eight-Year Objective: Identify potential sites for acquisition and conversion and provide this information to developers. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning and Community Environment Time Frame: Within three years of Housing Element adoption Status: Ongoing. Summary of Near Term Housing Element Programs February 28, 2017 Page 7 H4.2.1 PROGRAM Ensure that the Zoning Code facilitates the construction of housing that provides services for special needs households and provides flexible development standards for special service housing that will allow such housing to be built with access to transit and community services while preserving the character of the neighborhoods in which they are proposed to be located. Eight-Year Objective: Evaluate the Zoning Code and develop flexible development standards for special service housing. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Evaluate the Zoning Code within three years of adoption of the Housing Element. Status: Not yet completed. H4.2.2 PROGRAM Work with the San Andreas Regional Center to implement an outreach program that informs families in Palo Alto about housing and services available for persons with developmental disabilities. The program could include the development of an informational brochure, including information on services on the City’s website, and providing housing-related training for individuals/families through workshops. Eight-year objective: Provide information regarding housing to families of persons with developmental disabilities. Funding Source: General Fund Responsibility: Planning and Community Environment Time frame: Develop outreach program within three years of adoption of the Housing Element. Status: Not yet completed. Implement within 4 years of adoption (by Dec. 2018) H3.1.7 PROGRAM Ensure that the Zoning Code permits innovative housing types such as co- housing and provides flexible development standards that will allow such housing to be built, provided the character of the neighborhoods in which such housing is proposed to be located is maintained. Eight-Year Objective: Review the Zoning Code and determine appropriate amendments to allow innovative housing types with flexible development standards. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Consider changes to the Zoning Code within four years of Housing Element adoption. Status: Not yet completed. H3.3.7 PROGRAM Prepare a local parking demand database to determine parking standards Summary of Near Term Housing Element Programs February 28, 2017 Page 8 for different housing uses (i.e. market rate multifamily, multifamily affordable, senior affordable, emergency shelters etc.) with proximity to services as a consideration. Adopt revisions to standards as appropriate. Eight-Year Objective: Determine parking standards for different residential uses. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Within four years of Housing Element adoption Status: Not yet completed. (The City Council has requested we prioritize this program due to changes in the State Density Bonus Law related to parking.) H3.6.1 PROGRAM Conduct a nexus study to evaluate the creation of workforce housing for City and school district employees. Eight-Year Objective: Create the opportunity for up to five units of workforce housing. Funding Source: City of Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Conduct a study within four years of adoption of the Housing Element. Status: Not yet completed. Implement with Comprehensive Plan H2.1.10 PROGRAM As a part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. “pearls on a string”) consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas. Eight-Year Objective: Explore the identification of pedestrian nodes. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Ongoing in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update Status: Not yet completed (Underway). H2.1.11 PROGRAM Consider implementing the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Overlay for the University Avenue downtown district to promote higher density multifamily housing development in that area. Eight-Year Objective: Consider PTOD for University Avenue. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Within four years of Housing Element adoption, in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update Summary of Near Term Housing Element Programs February 28, 2017 Page 9 Status: Not yet completed (Underway). H2.1.12 PROGRAM Evaluate developing specific or precise plans for the downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real areas to implement in the updated Comprehensive Plan. Adopt plans for these areas, as appropriate. Eight-Year Objective: Evaluate developing plans for downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Ongoing in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update Status: Not yet completed. (Proposed for inclusion as an implementation program in the Comprehensive Plan Update) H2.2.7 PROGRAM Explore requiring minimum residential densities to encourage more housing instead of office space when mixed-use sites develop, and adopt standards as appropriate. Eight-Year Objective: Explore requiring minimum densities in mixed use districts. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Ongoing in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update Status: Not yet completed (Underway). H2.2.8 PROGRAM Assess the potential of removing maximum residential densities (i.e. dwelling units per acre) in mixed use zoning districts to encourage the creation of smaller housing units within the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and adopt standards as appropriate. Eight-Year Objective: Assess removal of maximum densities in mixed use zoning districts. Funding Source: City funds Responsible Agency: Planning & Community Environment Time Frame: Ongoing in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update Status: Not yet completed (Underway).