Menlo Park City Council
October 11, 2022

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Date: 10/11/2022
Time: 6:00 p.m.

Locations: Zoom.us/join – ID# 831 3316 9409 and
City Council Chambers
701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025
NOVEL CORONAVIRUS, COVID-19, EMERGENCY ADVISORY NOTICE
Consistent with Government Code section 54953(e), and in light of the declared state of emergency, and maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can listen to the meeting and participate using the following methods.

How to participate in the meeting
 Access the live meeting, in-person, at the City Council Chambers  Submit a written comment online up to 1-hour before the meeting start time:
[email protected]
Please include the agenda item number you are commenting on.  Access the meeting real-time online at:

Zoom.us/join – Meeting ID 831 3316 9409
 Access the meeting real-time via telephone at:
(669) 900-6833
Meeting ID 831 3316 9409
Press *9 to raise hand to speak
 Watch meeting:
 Cable television subscriber in Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton, and Palo Alto:

Channel 26
 City Council Chambers
Note: City Council closed sessions are not broadcast online or on television and public participation is limited to the beginning of closed session.

Subject to Change: Given the current public health emergency and the rapidly evolving federal, state, county and local orders, the format of this meeting may be altered or the meeting may be canceled. You may check on the status of the meeting by visiting the City’s website www.menlopark.org. The instructions for logging on to the webinar and/or the access code is subject to change. If you have difficulty accessing the webinar, please check the latest online edition of the posted agenda for updated information (menlopark.org/agenda).

According to City Council policy, all meetings of the City Council are to end by midnight unless there is a super majority vote taken by 11:00 p.m. to extend the meeting and identify the items to be considered after 11:00 p.m.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
October 11, 2022

Regular Session
A. Call To Order
B. Roll Call
C. Agenda Review
D. Public Comment
Under “Public Comment,” the public may address the City Council on any subject not listed on the agenda. Each speaker may address the City Council once under public comment for a limit of three minutes. Please clearly state your name and address or political jurisdiction in which you live. The City Council cannot act on items not listed on the agenda and, therefore, the City Council cannot respond to non-agenda issues brought up under public comment other than to provide general information.

E. Presentations and Proclamations
E1. Proclamation: Latino Heritage Month (Attachment)
F. Consent Calendar
F1. Accept the City Council meeting minutes for September 13 and 20, 2022 (Attachment) F2. Receive and file the annual inflation protection adjustment of $0.45 per hour for an approved local minimum wage effective January 1, 2023 of $16.20 per hour (Staff Report #22-189-CC) F3. Adopt a resolution to continue conducting the City’s Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and to authorize the use of hybrid meetings (Staff Report #22-196-CC)
F4. Authorize the Mayor to submit a letter in support of efforts to mitigate community impacts associated with Stanford University’s development (Staff Report #22-194-CC) G. Regular Business
G1. Provide input on a request for proposals for an aquatics operator at Burgess Pool and the future Menlo Park Community Campus aquatics center (Staff Report #22-191-CC) (Presentation) G2. Award vehicle purchase contracts to Deere & Company, National Auto Fleet Group, Toro Company, Vermeer Manufacturing Company, and Volvo Construction Equipment and Services for the purchase and modification of police vehicles and motorcycles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty equipment for the fiscal year 2022-23 vehicle purchase (Staff Report #22-193-CC) (Presentation) H. Informational Items
H1. City Council agenda topics: October 18 – November 1, 2022 (Staff Report #22-195-CC) H2. Drought update for Menlo Park Municipal Water (Staff Report #22-190-CC)

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
October 11, 2022

H3. Menlo Park local hazard mitigation plan annex to the San Mateo County multijurisdictional local hazard mitigation plan update (Staff Report #22-192-CC) I. City Manager's Report
J. City Councilmember Reports
K. Adjournment
At every regular meeting of the City Council, in addition to the public comment period where the public shall have the right to address the City Council on any matters of public interest not listed on the agenda, members of the public have the right to directly address the Council on any item listed on the agenda at a time designated by the chair, either before or during the City Council’s consideration of the item.

At every special meeting of the City Council, members of the public have the right to directly address the City Council on any item listed on the agenda at a time designated by the chair, either before or during consideration of the item.

For appeal hearings, appellant and applicant shall each have 10 minutes for presentations.

If you challenge any of the items listed on this agenda in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Menlo Park at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Any writing that is distributed to a majority of the City Council by any person in connection with an agenda item is a public record (subject to any exemption under the Public Records Act) and is available by request by emailing the city clerk at [email protected]. Persons with disabilities, who require auxiliary aids or services in attending or participating in City Council meetings, may call the City Clerk’s Office at 650-330-6620.

Agendas are posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website at menlopark.org/agenda and can receive email notification of agenda and staff report postings by subscribing to the “Notify Me” service at menlopark.org/notifyme.

Agendas and staff reports may also be obtained by contacting City Clerk at 650-330-6620. (Posted: 10/6/2022) AGENDA ITEM E-1 Page E-1.1

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES – DRAFT
Date: 9/13/2022
Time: 6:00 p.m.

Location: Zoom
Regular Session
A. Call To Order
Mayor Nash called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.

B. Roll Call

Present: Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor, Wolosin

Absent: None
Staff: City Manager Justin Murphy, City Attorney Nira F. Doherty, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk Judi A. Herren
C. Agenda Review
None.

D. Public Comment
None.

E. Presentations and Proclamations
E1. Proclamation: Supporting the reopening of the Mack E. Mickelson therapeutic pool (Attachment) • Sandy Napel spoke in support of the proclamation and reopening of the pool.

Mayor Nash read the proclamation (Attachment).

Warm Water Wellness representative Jane Stahl accepted the proclamation.

E2. Proclamation: Recognizing September 2022 as Suicide Prevention Month (Attachment) • John Butler spoke in support of the proclamation and commented on mental health.

Mayor Nash read the proclamation (Attachment).

Program Manager of Clinical Services at StarVista’s Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention Center Brook Pollard accepted the proclamation.

AGENDA ITEM F-1 Page F-1.1

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – DRAFT
September 13, 2022

F. Study Session
F1. Menlo Park Community Campus project updates including recreation and community programs survey results (Staff Report #22-172-CC)
Library and Community Services Director Sean Reinhart and Interim Assistant Community Services Director Rondell Howard made the presentation (Attachment). • Jacqui Cebrian spoke in support of the project and efforts.

The City Council received clarification on survey results from Belle Haven residents and other survey data received that's not related to the Menlo Park Community Campus (MPCC) (e.g., aquatics and pickleball).

The City Council discussed including project-based learning.

G. Consent Calendar
G1. Accept the City Council meeting minutes for July 26 and August 23, 2022 (Attachment) G2. Adopt a resolution to continue conducting the City’s Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and to authorize the use of hybrid meetings (Staff Report #22-171-CC)
G3. Authorize the city manager to sign the public improvement agreement for the Menlo Portal project located at 115 Independence Drive and 104 and 110 Constitution Drive (Staff Report #22-168-CC) ACTION: Motion and second (Taylor/ Wolosin), to approve the consent calendar, passed unanimously.

H. Public Hearing
H1. Adopt a resolution to abandon a public utility easement at 248 Oakhurst Place (Staff Report #22-173-CC)
Associate Engineer Edress Rangeen made the presentation (Attachment).

Mayor Nash opened the public hearing.

Mayor Nash closed the public hearing.

ACTION: Motion and second (Combs/ Nash), to adopt a resolution ordering the vacation and abandonment of a 10-foot-wide public utility easement running through a portion of the existing structure at 248 Oakhurst Place, passed unanimously.

I. Regular Business
I1. Provide direction on preferred Middle Avenue conceptual design and adopt a resolution to install no parking zones on Middle Avenue, install an all-way stop at Middle Avenue and San Mateo Drive, and authorize a temporary closure of Blake Street at Middle Avenue (Staff Report #22-174-CC) Page F-1.2

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – DRAFT
September 13, 2022

Assistant Public Works Director Hugh Louch made the presentation (Attachment). • Bill Kirsch spoke in support of parking removal on both sides of the street, raised crosswalks, and pilot programs.
• Adina Levin spoke in support of the safest possible bikeway option for Middle Avenue, improving safety at the El Camino Real intersection, and pilot programs. • Laurie Holyoake spoke in opposition of the four-way stop and in support of a flashing beacon at San Mateo Drive and Middle Avenue.
• Maia Wolfe spoke in opposition of the parking removal and in support of bike lanes. • David Alfano spoke in support of bike lanes with the buffer, the removal of parking on one side of the street, the Blake Street bollard, and a four-way stop sign at San Mateo Drive and Middle Avenue.
• Sandy Napel spoke in support of the Blake Street closure, additional stop signs at San Mateo Drive, engaging Middle Avenue residents for removal of parking, and spoke in opposition of a roundabout.
• Julia Piper spoke in support of closing Blake Street. • Ted Callahan spoke in opposition to the removal of street parking and in support of the Blake Street closure.
• Ashley Callahan spoke in support of retaining parking in select areas of Middle Avenue where it is most needed, closing Blake Street, and requested bike safety classes at schools and the evaluation of other streets.
• David Yoshida spoke in opposition of the removal of parking. • Jonathan Coe spoke in support of dedicated bike lanes, pilot programs, and time of day parking restrictions in coordination with school bell schedules, and in opposition of parking removal on both sides.
• Jacqui Cebrian spoke in support of a 25-mph speed limit and the removal of parking on both sides.
• Sally Cole spoke support for ease of use and navigation and parking removal on both sides. • Katie Behroozi spoke in support of a four-way stop at San Mateo Drive and pilot programs, including the roundabout.
• Brandon Visser spoke in support of the removal of parking and all proposed traffic measures. • Scott Soltys spoke in support of the Blake Street closure, sidewalk installation, and speed abatement and in opposition of parking removal on both sides of the street. • Matthew Raskaff spoke in support of parking removal and all proposed safety measures.

The City Council took a recess at 8:03 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 8:13 p.m.

The City Council received clarification on parking removal on one full side of the street and partial removal on the other side of the street, public outreach to residents on Middle Avenue, and Complete Streets Commission action.

The City Council discussed upcoming projects impacts to all modes of traffic, pilot programs for the proposed measures, parking removal options, the proposed safety measures, speeds on Middle Avenue, collection of data during pilot programs, residential garbage cans impeding bicycles, loading zone opposed to parking, more engagement with Middle Avenue residents following a Page F-1.3

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – DRAFT
September 13, 2022

parking removal pilot, and flooding concerns.

Vice Mayor made a presentation (Attachment).

The City Council directed staff to draft and return a resolution to reduce the speeds on Middle Avenue and other similar streets to 25-mph and to pursue:
• Traffic calming at regular intervals
• Pilot parking removal on both sides, including data collection and public outreach, with parking in front of Nealon Park converted to parallel parking
• Buffered bikeways on both sides as part of the pilot
• All-way stop at Middle Avenue and San Mateo Drive
• Pilot for mini-roundabout at University Drive
• Closure of Shell gas station driveway
• Add sidewalk on south side to five-year capital improvement plan I2. Waive the first reading and introduce an ordinance repealing and replacing Menlo Park Municipal Code Section 2.04.190 relating to filling City Council vacancies and adopt a resolution establishing the process for appointment of candidates to City Council seats to fill vacancies (Staff Report #22-170-CC)
City Attorney Nira Doherty made the presentation.

The City Council discussed adding “shall not be interviewed by the City Council and shall not be eligible for appointment” related to the questionnaire and selection process.

The City Council directed updating election by motion process.

ACTION: Motion and second (Nash/ Combs), to introduce by title only and waive further reading of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Menlo Park repealing and replacing Section 2.04.190, “Filling of Vacancies on the City Council,” of Chapter 2.04 within title 2 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code, passed unanimously.

I3. Adopt a resolution to approve amendments to the salary schedule as of September 25, 2022 (Staff Report #22-169-CC)
Interim Administrative Services Director Mary Morris-Mayorga made the presentation.

ACTION: Motion and second (Wolosin/ Nash), to adopt a resolution to approve amendments to the salary schedule as of September 25, 2022, unanimously.

J. Informational Items
J1. City Council agenda topics: September – October 18, 2022 (Staff Report #22-175-CC) K. City Manager's Report
City Manager Justin Murphy reported out on job openings in Menlo Park and the next City Council meeting on September 20.

Page F-1.4

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – DRAFT
September 13, 2022

L. City Councilmember Reports
None.

M. Adjournment
Mayor Nash adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m.

Judi A. Herren, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk
Page F-1.5

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES – DRAFT
Date: 9/20/2022
Time: 6:00 p.m.

Location: Zoom
Regular Session
A. Call To Order
Mayor Nash called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.

B. Roll Call

Present: Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor, Wolosin

Absent: None
Staff: City Manager Justin Murphy, City Attorney Nira F. Doherty, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk Judi A. Herren
C. Agenda Review
The City Council pulled items G6., G8., and G9.

D. Public Comment
None.

E. Presentations and Proclamations
E1. Certificate of Recognition: Olivia Hom, Menlo Park Sister Cities Young Artists and Authors Showcase winner (Attachment)
Mayor Nash read the certificate of recognition (Attachment).

Olivia Hom accepted the certificate of recognition.

F. Study Session
F1. Direction for city hosted events and observances including events based on holidays of religious origin (Staff Report #22-188-CC)
Library and Community Services Director Sean Reinhart and Library and Community Services Supervisor Natalya Jones made the presentation (Attachment).

The City Council received clarification on Rotary Club hosted events, Flood Park events, and staff constraints for events.

The City Council discussed short, mid, and long term events, combining celebrations, long term efforts for community input for future events, future community survey on events, request for proposals for future holiday tree lighting, City playing a supportive role for religious events, Page F-1.6

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – DRAFT
September 20, 2022

Halloween parade and Halloween event in Burgess Park, Menlo Park reinstating and prioritizing community events, breakfast with Santa event, utilizing the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) for community engagement and new events, activity shuttles, engaging the community when planning events and a budget for community outreach.

The City Council directed the City host more events, not combining events for multiple religions, less traditional celebrations, returning all events held pre-pandemic (e.g., breakfast with Santa and the 2022 Halloween parade downtown and festival at Burgess Park), leveraging existing and new partnerships, and Menlo Park’s Mission Statement being the root of community events.

The City Council spoke in support of current planned events, adding more events, returning an item for community outreach budget, and the City retaining a leading roll and allowing other organizations and agencies to have a support role.

G. Consent Calendar
G1. Adopt a resolution to continue conducting the City’s Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and to authorize the use of hybrid meetings (Staff Report #22-177-CC)
G2. Adopt a resolution updating the City’s conflict of interest code (Staff Report #22-176-CC) G3. Authorize the city manager to enter into an agreement with the City of Redwood City for annual maintenance of Atherton Channel (Staff Report #22-178-CC) G4. Award a construction contract to Blue Flame Crew West, LLC for the Bedwell Bayfront Park landfill leachate and gas collection systems improvement project (Staff Report #22-179-CC) G5. Waive the second reading and adopt an ordinance repealing and replacing Menlo Park Municipal Code Section 2.04.190 relating to filling City Council vacancies (Staff Report #22-180-CC) The City Council received clarification that the outgoing City Councilmember will have a vote for the appointment to the vacancy.

G6. Adopt a resolution establishing the process for appointment of candidates to City Council seats to fill vacancies (Staff Report #22-181-CC)
The City Council requested modifications to the questionnaire.

G7. Adopt a resolution amending City Council Policy CC-22-004 Commissions/Committees Policies and Procedures, Roles and Responsibilities (Staff Report #22-182-CC) G8. Authorize the city manager to enter into a contract with ICF Jones and Stokes Inc. to prepare an environmental impact report for the proposed master plan project at 333 Ravenswood Avenue (Parkline) for the amount of $688,817 and future augments as may be necessary to complete the environmental review for the proposed project (Staff Report #22-183-CC) The City Council received clarification on the input to the scoping and deadlines of the environmental impact report (EIR).

Page F-1.7

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – DRAFT
September 20, 2022

The City Council took a recess at 7:30 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 7:34 p.m.

The City Council directed the return of the scope of the EIR before finalizing.

G9. Approve the Parks and Recreation Commission’s 2022-23 work plan (Staff Report #22-184-CC) The City Council directed the adding community events to the PRC work plan.

ACTION: Motion and second (Taylor/ Wolosin), to approved the consent calendar with modifications to G6 G8 and G9, passed unanimously.

H. Regular Business
H1. Adopt resolutions authorizing staff to submit applications to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measure A & W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program (Staff Report #22-185-CC) Assistant Public Works Director Hugh Louch introduced the item. • Carolyn Ordonez requested clarification on one-way couplet at Sonoma Avenue and Ringwood Avenue, traffic calming on Ringwood Avenue, Flood Park pickup/drop off, number of accidents, and conflicting speed limit signs on Bay Road.
• Katie Behroozi spoke in support of Van Buren Road and Ringwood Avenue safety measures.

The City Council received clarification on stop sign options for Ringwood and Van Buren Road.

The City Council discussed grant funding for projects.

ACTION: Motion and second (Combs/ Taylor), to adopt resolutions authorizing staff to submit applications to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measure A & W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program to support the Ringwood crossing connections project and the Middle Avenue complete streets project, passed unanimously.

I. Informational Items
I1. City Council agenda topics: October 2022 (Staff Report #22-186-CC) I2. Police department quarterly update – Q4 May 2022 – July 2022 (Staff Report #22-187-CC) J. City Manager's Report
City Manager Justin Murphy reported out on upcoming City Council meetings October 11, 18, and

20. K. City Councilmember Reports
City Councilmember Mueller reported out on the Menlo Park Fire Station 6 open house on October 8 and having a future open City Council discussion on the Flood School site and Measure V.

Page F-1.8

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – DRAFT
September 20, 2022

L. Adjournment
Mayor Nash adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m.

Judi A. Herren, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk
Page F-1.9
City Manager's Office

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-189-CC
Consent Calendar: Receive and file the annual inflation protection adjustment of $0.45 per hour for an approved local
minimum wage effective January 1, 2023 of $16.20
per hour
Recommendation
Receive and file the automatic annual inflation protection adjustment to the approved local minimum wage effective January 1, 2023. City Council retains the option of suspending the automatic increase by directing City staff to returns with applicable action required by Menlo Park Municipal Code (Attachment A.) The January 1, 2023 approved local minimum wage in Menlo Park will increase by $0.45 per hour, from $15.75 to $16.20 per hour. The local minimum wage ordinance contains no mandate to increase wages for employees with hourly wages at or higher than the approved local minimum wage.

Policy Issues
Menlo Park Municipal Code (MPMC) Section 5.76.030, paragraphs (b) and (c), provide an automatic annual inflation protection adjustment to the approved local minimum wage and an allowance for City Council to suspend the adjustment. The MPMC stipulates that the annual inflation adjustment is calculated using the August to August increase in consumer price index for the San Francisco Area (CPI-W, CWURS49BSA0) as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Background
On September 24, 2019 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1058, codified as Municipal Code Chapter

5.76, establishing a local minimum wage of $15.00 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the city of Menlo Park. The approved local minimum wage increased to $15.25 January 1, 2021 and to $15.75 with the January 1, 2022 inflation protection adjustment.

Analysis
City Council’s findings and determinations when adopting the local minimum wage ordinance included the following:
• The Bay Area in general and Menlo Park in particular are becoming increasingly expensive places to live and work.
• Payment of a minimum wage advances the interests of the City as a whole, by creating jobs that keep workers and their families out of poverty.
• A minimum wage will enable a worker to meet basic needs and avoid economic hardship. • The local minimum wage ordinance (Ordinance No. 1058) is intended to improve the quality of services provided in the City to the public by reducing high turnover, absenteeism and instability in the workplace.

AGENDA ITEM F-2 Page F-2.1
Staff Report #: 22-189-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Effective January 1, 2023, the approved local minimum wage will automatically increase by the maximum allowed inflation adjustment of 3 percent or $0.45 per hour, after rounding to the nearest multiple of five cents. The increase results in approximately $78 per month or $936 annually for a full-time worker currently paid at the currently approved minimum wage of $15.75 per hour.

The local minimum wage ordinance does not mandate wage increases for employees making at or more than the approved local minimum wage. For example, an employee whose hourly wage is $16.20 or more December 31, will see no mandated increase in their hourly wage January 1, 2023. An employee whose hourly wage is less than $16.20 December 31, will receive an increase to $16.20 per hour effective January 1, 2023.

City Council may direct City staff to return with a resolution to suspend the January 1 adjustment for up to one year upon adoption of the following finding: “local or other economic conditions justify temporarily suspending the inflation adjustment.”
Impact on City Resources
Annual notification to businesses is included in the City’s fiscal year 2022-23 budget. City employed individuals are paid in accordance with the City Council adopted salary schedule but not less than the approved local minimum wage. Currently four temporary city employees earn less than $16.20 per hour.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Municipal Code Chapter 5.76 – Local Minimum Wage
Report prepared by:

Judi A. Herren, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk Page F-2.2
Chapter 5.76

LOCAL MINIMUM WAGE
Sections:

5.76.010 Purpose.

5.76.020 Definitions.

5.76.030 Minimum wage.

5.76.040 Exemptions.

5.76.050 Waiver through collective bargaining.

5.76.060 Notice, posting and payroll records.

5.76.070 Retaliation prohibited.

5.76.080 Implementation.

5.76.090 Enforcement.

5.76.100 Relationship to other requirements.

5.76.010 Purpose.

This ordinance codified in this chapter shall be known as the "Minimum Wage Ordinance." (Ord. 1058 § 2 (part), 2019).

5.76.020 Denitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings set forth in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
(a) "City" shall mean city of Menlo Park or any agency designated by the city of Menlo Park to perform various investigative, enforcement and informal resolution functions pursuant to this chapter. (b) "Employee" shall mean any person who:
(1) In a calendar week performs at least two (2) hours of work for an employer as defined below; and
ATTACHMENT A Page F-2.3
(2) Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the California minimum wage law, as provided under Section 1197 of the California Labor Code and wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. (c) "Employer" shall mean any person, including corporate officers or executives, as defined in Section 18 of the California Labor Code, who directly or indirectly through any other person, including through the services of a temporary employment agency, staffing agency, or similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any employee and who is either subject to the city’s business license requirements, conducts business in Menlo Park or maintains a business facility in the city.
(d) "Minimum wage" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.76.030. (Ord. 1058 § 2 (part), 2019).

5.76.030 Minimum wage.
(a) Employers shall pay employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in this section for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the city of Menlo Park. (b) Effective January 1, 2020, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of fifteen dollars ($15.00). To prevent inflation from eroding its value, beginning on January 1, 2021, and each first day of January thereafter, the minimum wage shall increase by an amount corresponding to the increase, if any, in the cost of living, not to exceed three percent (3%). The prior year’s increase in the cost of living shall be measured by the percentage increase, if any, as of August of the immediately preceding year of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for San Francisco – Oakland – Hayward, or its successor index, as published by the U.S. Department of Labor or its successor agency, with the amount of the minimum wage increase rounded to the nearest multiple of five cents ($0.05). If there is no net increase in the cost of living, the minimum wage shall remain unchanged for that year. The adjusted minimum wage shall be announced by the first day of October of each year, or as soon as practicable thereafter if the Consumer Price Index for August has not yet been published, and shall become effective as the new minimum wage on the first day of January of each year.
(c) The city council may, by resolution and upon a majority vote of the city council, temporarily suspend the inflation adjustment in the upcoming calendar year for a period of no more than one (1) calendar year. At the end of the suspension period, the minimum wage shall be automatically adjusted by the change in Consumer Price Index in accordance with subsection (b) of this section and without further notice or action by the city council.

In a resolution granting a temporary suspension of the annual inflation adjustment, the city council shall make the following finding: local or other economic conditions justify temporarily suspending the inflation adjustment.

Page F-2.4
Nothing herein shall prohibit the city council from adopting consecutive temporary suspension periods, as provided herein.
(d) A violation for unlawfully failing to pay the minimum wage shall be deemed to continue from the date immediately following the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date immediately preceding the date the wages are paid in full. (Ord. 1058 § 2 (part), 2019).

5.76.040 Exemptions.
(a) State, federal and county agencies, including school districts, shall not be required to pay minimum wage when the work performed is related to their governmental function. However, for work that is not related to their governmental function, including, but not limited to: booster or gift shops, non-K-12 cafeterias, on-site concessions and similar operations, minimum wage shall be required to be paid.

Minimum wage shall also be required to be paid by lessees or renters of facilities or space from an exempt organization.
(b) Any organization claiming "auxiliary organization" status under California Education Code Section 89901 or Section 72670(c) shall not be required to pay minimum wage. The organization, upon request of the city, shall provide documentary proof of its auxiliary organization status. (c) Any learner who has no previous or related experience in the occupation for which they are hired as identified in California Labor Code Section 1192. This exemption shall only apply to the first one hundred sixty (160) hours of employment as specified in California Labor Code Section 1192. (Ord. 1058 § 2 (part), 2019).

5.76.050 Waiver through collective bargaining.

To the extent required by federal law, all or any portion of the applicable requirements of this chapter may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement; provided, that such waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous terms. (Ord. 1058 § 2 (part), 2019).

5.76.060 Notice, posting and payroll records.
(a) By the first day of December of each year, the city shall publish and make available to employers a bulletin announcing the adjusted minimum wage rate for the upcoming year, which shall take effect on the first day of January of each year. In conjunction with this bulletin, the city shall, by the first day of December of each year, publish and make available to employers a notice suitable for posting by employers in the workplace informing employees of the current minimum wage rate and of their rights under this chapter. Such notice shall be in English and other languages as provided in any regulations promulgated under Section 5.76.080(a).

Page F-2.5
(b) Every employer shall post in a conspicuous place at any workplace or job site where any employee works the notice published each year by the city informing employees of the current minimum wage rate and of their rights under this chapter. Every employer shall post such notices in any language spoken by at least five percent (5%) of the employees at the workplace or job site. Every employer shall also provide each employee at the time of hire with the employer’s name, address and telephone number in writing.
(c) Employers shall retain payroll records pertaining to employees for a period of four (4) years, and shall allow the city access to such records, with appropriate notice and at a mutually agreeable time, to monitor compliance with the requirements of this chapter. Where an employer does not maintain or retain adequate records documenting wages paid or does not allow the city reasonable access to such records, the employee’s account of how much he or she was paid shall be presumed to be accurate, absent clear and convincing evidence otherwise. (Ord. 1058 § 2 (part), 2019).

5.76.070 Retaliation prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for an employer or any other party to discriminate in any manner or take adverse action against any person in retaliation for exercising rights protected under this chapter. Rights protected under this chapter include, but are not limited to: the right to file a complaint or inform any person about any party’s alleged noncompliance with this chapter; and the right to inform any person of his or her potential rights under this chapter and to assist him or her in asserting such rights. Protections of this chapter shall apply to any person who mistakenly, but in good faith, alleges noncompliance with this chapter.
(b) Taking adverse action against a person within ninety (90) days of the person’s exercise of rights protected under this chapter shall raise a rebuttable presumption of having done so in retaliation for the exercise of such rights. (Ord. 1058 § 2 (part), 2019).

5.76.080 Implementation.
(a) Guidelines. The city manager or designee shall be authorized to coordinate implementation and enforcement of this chapter and may promulgate appropriate guidelines or rules for such purposes. Any guidelines or rules promulgated by the city shall have the force and effect of law and may be relied on by employers, employees and other parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this chapter. Any guidelines or rules may establish procedures for ensuring fair, efficient and cost effective implementation of this chapter, including supplementary procedures for helping to inform employees of their rights under this chapter, for monitoring employer compliance with this chapter and for providing administrative hearings to determine whether an employer or other person has violated the requirements of this chapter.
(b) Reporting Violations. An employee or any other person may report to the city in writing any suspected violation of this chapter. The city shall encourage reporting pursuant to this subsection by Page F-2.6
keeping confidential, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable laws, the name and other identifying information of the employee or person reporting the violation; provided, however, that with the authorization of such person, the city may disclose his or her name and identifying information as necessary to enforce this chapter or other employee protection laws. In order to further encourage reporting by employees, if the city notifies an employer that the city is investigating a complaint, the city shall require the employer to post or otherwise notify its employees that the city is conducting an investigation, using a form provided by the city.
(c) Investigation. The city or its designated agent shall be responsible for investigating any possible violations of this chapter by an employer or other person. The city or its designated agent shall have the authority to inspect workplaces, interview persons and request the city attorney to subpoena books, papers, records or other items relevant to the enforcement of this chapter. (d) Informal Resolution. The city shall make every effort to resolve complaints informally, in a timely manner. (Ord. 1058 § 2 (part), 2019).

5.76.090 Enforcement.
(a) Where prompt compliance is not forthcoming, the city shall take any appropriate enforcement action to secure compliance. In addition to all other civil remedies, the city may enforce this chapter pursuant to Title 1. To secure compliance, the city may use the following enforcement measures:
(1) The city may issue an administrative citation with a daily fine for each day or portion thereof and for each employee or person as to whom the violation occurred or continued. (2) The city may issue an administrative compliance order. (3) The city may initiate a civil action for injunctive relief and damages and civil penalties in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Any person aggrieved by a violation of this chapter, any entity a member of which is aggrieved by a violation of this chapter or any other person or entity acting on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against the employer or other person violating this chapter and, upon prevailing, shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and shall be entitled to such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation, the payment of any back wages unlawfully withheld, the payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to each employee or person whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day that the violation occurred or continued, reinstatement in employment and/or injunctive relief; provided, however, that any person or entity enforcing this chapter on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law shall, upon prevailing, be entitled only to equitable, injunctive or restitutionary relief to employees, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Page F-2.7
(c) This section shall not be construed to limit an employee’s right to bring legal action for a violation of any other laws concerning wages, hours or other standards or rights, nor shall exhaustion of remedies under this chapter be a prerequisite to the assertion of any right. (d) Except where prohibited by state or federal law, city agencies or departments may revoke or suspend any registration certificates, permits or licenses held or requested by the employer until such time as the violation is remedied.
(e) Relief. The remedies for violation of this chapter include, but are not limited to:
(1) Reinstatement, and the payment of back wages unlawfully withheld, and the payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to each employee or person whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of this code or state law. (2) Interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the California Civil Code, which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date the wages are paid in full. (3) Reimbursement of the city’s administrative costs of enforcement and reasonable attorney’s fees.
(f) Posted Notice. If a repeated violation of this chapter has been finally determined, the city may require the employer to post public notice of the employer’s failure to comply in a form determined by the city. (Ord. 1058 § 2 (part), 2019).

5.76.100 Relationship to other requirements.

This chapter provides for payment of a local minimum wage and shall not be construed to preempt or otherwise limit or affect the applicability of any other law, regulation, requirement, policy or standard that provides for payment of higher or supplemental wages or benefits, or that extends other protections. (Ord. 1058 § 2 (part), 2019).

Page F-2.8
City Manager's Office
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 10/10/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-196-CC
Consent Calendar: Adopt a resolution to continue conducting the City’s Council and advisory body meetings
remotely due to health and safety concerns for the
public and to authorize the use of hybrid meetings
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) to continue conducting the City’s Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and to authorize the use of hybrid meetings.

Policy Issues
Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed into law September 16, 2021 allowing cities to continue holding virtual meetings during any emergency proclaimed by the governor. AB 361 sunsets January 1, 2024. The City Council would need to declare every 30 days that the City’s legislative bodies must continue to meet remotely or in a hybrid format whereby City Councilmembers, appointed officials, staff and the public may participate in person or remotely, in order to ensure the health and safety of the public.

Background
The California Legislature approved AB 361, which was signed by the governor September 16, 2021 for signature. The bill allows local legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely through January 1, 2024. A local agency will be allowed to continue to meet remotely when:
• The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency • State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing • Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees
The City meets the requirements to continue holding meetings remotely in order to ensure the health and safety of the public:
• The City is still under a local state of emergency
• County Health urges that all individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks A hybrid meeting allows members of City Council and advisory bodies, staff, and members of the public to participate in meetings either virtually and in-person.

In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all advisory body meetings were canceled until June 2020.

Since that time, all advisory body meetings have been conducted virtually, whereas the City Council initiated hybrid meetings in November 2021. On August 23, the City Council requested that staff begin the AGENDA ITEM F-3 Page F-3.1
Staff Report #: 22-196-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org process of bringing advisory body meetings to a hybrid platform. Staff has connected with advisory body members to ensure that current meeting start times and days will work for in-person and hybrid meetings and gauge in-person participation. Staff has also identified technological and logistical needs to conduct advisory body meetings on a hybrid platform. Table 1 shows the tentative hybrid schedule:

Table 1: Advisory body tentative hybrid meeting schedule Body Location Date Time
Complete Streets Commission City Council Chambers Wednesday, November 9, 2022 6:30 p.m.

Environmental Quality
Commission
Downtown Conference Room
(City Hall) Wednesday, November 16, 2022 6 p.m.

Finance and Audit Committee Downtown Conference Room
(City Hall) Wednesday, October 19, 2022 5:30 p.m.

Housing Commission Cypress Room
(Arrillaga Family Recreation Center) Wednesday, November 2, 2022 6:30 p.m.

Library Commission Senior Annex (Menlo Park Library) Monday, January 16, 2023 6:30 p.m.

Parks and Recreation
Commission
Cypress Room
(Arrillaga Family Recreation Center) Wednesday, January 25, 2023 6:30 p.m.

Planning Commission City Council Chambers Monday, November 7, 2022 7 p.m.

Analysis
The City is still under a local state of emergency and the emergency findings required under AB 361 are still in effect. San Mateo County is still in the Low COVID-19 Community Level category and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that people may choose to mask at any time and people with symptoms, a positive test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 should wear a mask. The resolution authorizes the use of hybrid meetings, whereby City Councilmembers, participants, and staff may choose to attend either remotely or in person due to health and safety concerns and needs.

TheCity Council finds that reducing the number of persons present in City Council chambers may continue to reduce imminent health risks associated with large groups and/or members of varying households gathering indoors.

Impact on City Resources
Additional technologies will need to be purchased and implemented in the Main Library (Senior Annex), Cypress Room (Arrillaga Recreation Center), and the Downtown Conference Room (City Hall) in order to hold hybrid meetings. There will also be the need to train staff and advisory body members on the new technology.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it is an organizational structure change that will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Page F-3.2
Staff Report #: 22-196-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Resolution
Report prepared by:

Judi A. Herren, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk Page F-3.3
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK AND

ON BEHALF OF COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES CREATED BY THE CITY

COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54952(b) AUTHORIZING TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH AB 361 (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e)) TO CONTINUE TO

ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SAFELY PARTICIPATE IN LOCAL

GOVERNMENT MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to ensuring public access to observe and participate in local government meetings; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City Council and other legislative bodies created pursuant to Government Code Section 54952(b) are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, so that any member of the public may participate in local government meetings; and WHEREAS, the AB 361, codified at Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in local government meetings, without compliance with the requirements of 54953(b)(3), during a Governor-proclaimed state of emergency and if the local legislative body determines, by majority vote, that as a result of the emergency, meeting solely in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency due to the outbreak of respiratory illness due to a novel coronavirus (now known as COVID-19) and that State of Emergency is still in effect in the State of California; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020 the City Council proclaimed the existence of a local state of emergency within the City, pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, COVID-19 continues to threaten the health and lives of City residents; and WHEREAS, the SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron Variants are highly transmissible in indoor settings; and
WHEREAS, the Omicron subvariants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is overtaking other variants in San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, according to data from the County’s Health Administrator and County website, the County is averaging approximately 10 new cases per 100,000 of COVID-19 per day; and WHEREAS, although the City has returned to in-person meetings, due to the prevalence of BA strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus overtaking other variants in San Mateo County, the City Council finds that reducing the number of persons present in City Council chambers is necessary to reduce imminent health risks associated with large groups and/or members of varying households gathering indoors; and
WHEREAS, the State of California and the City of Menlo Park continue to follow safety measures in response to COVID-19 as ordered or recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), California Department of Public Health (DPH), and/or County of Page F-3.4 ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. XXXX

San Mateo, as applicable, including facial coverings when required; and based upon that guidance, in-person attendance indoors at public meetings continues to present a health risk for certain segments of the population, necessitating the need to reduce the number of in-person meeting attendees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, acting as a legislative body pursuant to Government Code section 54952(a) and for the benefit of the commissions, committees and other bodies that were created by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b) (collectively referred to as “Legislative Bodies”), finds that the current conditions meet the circumstances set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to continue to use teleconferencing to hold open and public meetings if the Legislative Bodies comply with the requirements set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure the public can safely participate in and observe local government meetings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Menlo Park that the City Council does hereby:

1. Find that current conditions authorize teleconference public meetings of Legislative Bodies.

Based on the California Governor’s continued declaration of a State of Emergency and current conditions, the City Council finds that meeting in person, without the option for certain populations and persons to participate remotely, would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. The City Council does therefore find that Legislative Bodies and members of Legislative Bodies of the City may elect to use teleconferencing to hold public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure members of the public have continued access to safely observe and participate in local government meetings.

2. Authorize Legislative Bodies to conduct teleconference meetings. The Legislative Bodies are hereby authorized to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

3. Authorize Legislative Bodies to conduct hybrid meetings. The Legislative Bodies are hereby further authorized to conduct meetings in a “hybrid” format, where both members of the Body may elect to be present in person, utilizing appropriate distancing and masking practices, or participate by teleconferencing technology. Such meetings of the Legislative Bodies that occur using teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who wish to address Legislative Bodies and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing.
//
//
//
//
//
//
Page F-3.5
Resolution No. XXXX

I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the eleventh day of October, 2022, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this __ day of October, 2022.

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Page F-3.6
City Manager's Office
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-194-CC
Consent Calendar: Authorize the Mayor to submit a letter in support of efforts to mitigate community impacts associated
with Stanford University’s development
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to submit a letter (Attachment A) to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support of efforts to mitigate community impacts associated with Stanford University’s development.

Policy Issues
The City has been involved in the public process for the 2019 general use permit (GUP) and while Stanford may have withdrawn its application for a new GUP, the City remains very concerned about the impact of some of their development, both today and in the future.

Background
Stanford University is a private university located on the San Francisco Peninsula. Stanford owns approximately 8,180 acres of land spanning across six governmental jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include: unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and the towns of Portola Valley and Woodside. In 2000, the Santa Clara County board of supervisors adopted the Stanford University Community Plan and the 2000 general use permit for development primarily related to the core academic campus. In November 2016, Stanford submitted an application to Santa Clara County to update its current 2000 general use permit.

Background information summarizing the initial steps in the City’s review of the GUP application is included in the November 13, 2018 City Council staff report (Attachment B.) At the October 15, 2019 City Council meeting, the City Council authorized the submittal of a letter to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors on the Stanford University 2018 general use permit application (Attachment C.) Analysis
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors had a study session September 27 and another is scheduled for October 18. Cognizant of recent letters from the Town of Atherton, City of Los Altos, City of Palo Alto, City of Redwood City, City of Mountain View, and the County of San Mateo, the City Council has an opportunity to direct, and if necessary discuss, the submittal of a letter to Santa Clara County (Attachment D.) More information about the Stanford Community Plan Update is available on the project page (Attachment E.) AGENDA ITEM F-4 Page F-4.1
Staff Report #: 22-194-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Impact on City Resources
There is no impact to City resources.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Draft letter to Santa Clara County board of supervisors B. City Council staff report, dated November 13, 2018
C. City Council staff report, dated October 15, 2019
D. Letters
E. Hyperlink – Stanford Community Plan Update hyperlink: stanfordcommunityplanupdate.org/ Report prepared by:

Judi A. Herren, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk Page F-4.2
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council
October 11, 2022
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Empty
RE: Stanford Community Plan Update
Empty
Dear Supervisors,
I am writing on behalf on the entire Menlo Park City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Our jurisdiction was very involved in the public process for the 2019 General Use Permit (GUP).

While Stanford University may have withdrawn its application for a new GUP, we remain very concerned about the impact of their development on our community both today and in the future.

It’s important that the Community Plan be rigorously updated after more than 20 years on the shelf. This needs to be done prior to there being a new use permit under review.

We think the staff recommendations are consistent with where the 2019 process left off and support the staff recommendations.

We have specific concerns about accommodating requests to water down the policies in the Community Plan by doing things like:
• removing the trip-based standards from the circulation chapter, including peak period and reverse commute trips
• allowing for use of an in lieu fee for affordable housing units when we know those fees never stretch far enough to actually result in the number of units we need, • allowing for housing built under the current GUP to be credited to a future GUP, and
• allowing for credit for housing that occurs off campus Our concerns are born out of our experience from being a neighbor.

Thank you for hearing our concerns and please support the staff recommendations.

Page F-4.3 ATTACHMENT A

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org 2 Sincerely,
Betsy Nash
Mayor
Page F-4.4
Public Works

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 11/13/2018
Staff Report Number: 18-210-CC
Informational Item: Update on the Stanford University 2018 general use permit project
Recommendation
This is an informational item and does not require City Council action.

Policy Issues
The City’s interest in monitoring the Stanford general use permit (GUP) is consistent with prior actions taken by the City Council on proposed projects located in neighboring jurisdictions that could induce environmental impact to the City of Menlo Park. Specifically, the City Council’s 2018 work plan identifies this project.

This action is also consistent with policies and programs (e.g., LU-1.5, CIRC-1.B, CIRC-2.15) stated in the 2016 City general plan land use and circulation elements. These policies and programs seek to ensure Menlo Park goals and objectives are met for development within its sphere of influence and to collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions to develop, fund, and implement local and regional transportation planning/engineering efforts.

Background
Stanford University is a private university located on the San Francisco Peninsula. Stanford owns approximately 8,180 acres of land spanning across six governmental jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include: unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and the towns of Portola Valley and Woodside.

In 2000, the Santa Clara County board of supervisors adopted the Stanford University Community Plan and the 2000 general use permit. Both documents helped guided Stanford’s current growth and development within the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County. The unincorporated area is generally bounded by Sand Hill Road and Quarry Road to the north, El Camino Real to the east, Stanford Avenue and Page Mill Road to the south, and Arastradero Road and Alpine Road to the west.

The unincorporated Santa Clara County area is divided into two concentrated areas. Stanford’s core campus area, which includes academic and housing facilities, is located north of Junipero Serra Boulevard, representing Stanford’s Academic Growth Boundary. The other area covers vast undeveloped lands south of Junipero Serra Boulevard.

According to the draft environmental impact report (DEIR) project description, Stanford has AGENDA ITEM I-2
Page F-4.5 ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report #: 18-210-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org developed approximately 9.6 million square feet of net new academic and academic support land uses, 11,293 student housing beds, and 937 faculty/staff housing units on the campus as of fall 2015. Under the 2000 general use permit, as amended currently, Stanford was allowed construction of 2.035 million square feet; 4,468 housing units/beds and ancillary uses.

In November 2016, Stanford submitted an application to Santa Clara County to update its current 2000 general use permit. The proposed 2018 general use permit includes 2.275 million square feet of net new academic support land uses, 2,600 student beds, and 550 faculty/staff housing units beyond the current 2000 general use permit allowances. Santa Clara County is the Lead Agency. Ultimately, Stanford seeks the following approvals from the County:
• Certification of the 2018 general use permit environmental impact report (EIR) • Adoption of a new 2018 general use permit
• Approval of amendments to the Stanford community plan • Approval of amendments to the County zoning map
On January 3, 2017, Santa Clara County issued a notice of preparation of the project’s EIR. The Notice describes the project background, proposed project scope, and a range of environmental topic areas to be evaluated, including project alternatives. On February 28, 2017, Stanford presented an update to the City Council. The City submitted a comment letter on the Notice, as approved March 6, 2017, by the City Council.

On October 6, 2017, Santa Clara County released the DEIR for the project with a 60-day public review period ending December 4, 2017. On November 29, 2017, the City Council approved submitting a comment letter. However, on November 30, 2017, the County authorized a 60-day extension of the public review period to February 2, 2018. The City Council authorized submittal of a revised letter January 23, 2018 (Attachment A.)
On June 12, 2018, Santa Clara County released a revised alternatives chapter of the DEIR for recirculation with a 45-day public review period ending July 26, 2018. The DEIR represented a program-level evaluation of the proposed project. A program-level EIR provides the initial framework for review of discrete, future projects. It establishes a maximum development allowance for Stanford University and provides a framework for where anticipated development would occur (by districts.) The recirculated alternatives chapter outlines two potential alternatives that would increase the amount of housing to support the proposed University expansion, as summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Summary
Alternative DEIR project
description
Recirculated
Alternative A
Recirculated
Alternative B
Academic and support uses 2.275 million sf No change No change Housing units (beds/units) 3,150 units 5,699 units
(+2,549 units)1
4,425 units
(+1,275 units)2
1 Alternative A would accommodate all of the anticipated off-campus housing demand generated by the proposed 2018 GUP.
2 Alternative B would accommodate half of the anticipated off-campus housing demand generated by the proposed 2018 GUP.

Page F-4.6
Staff Report #: 18-210-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Since the City Council did not convene a meeting in July, staff worked with the City Council’s Stanford General Use Permit Subcommittee of Mayor Ohtaki and City Councilmember Keith to review and finalize a letter for submittal within the required response period. Staff prepared an Information Item for the August 6 City Council meeting with the comment letter as submitted (Attachment B.)
Analysis
Stanford has since modified the requested entitlements to include a development agreement, which provides greater flexibility to pursue negotiated community benefits. Santa Clara County established a two-member ad hoc negotiating committee comprised of Supervisors Chavez and Simitian. The following is a summary of the remaining steps in the GUP process and tentative timelines as proposed by Santa Clara County:
• November 29, 2018: community meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the Palo Alto City Council Chambers to receive feedback on the development agreement process (outreach efforts to continue through the end of February 2019)
• December 2018: Release of the final EIR (FEIR)
• March through April 2019: Planning Commission hearings on entire GUP package (development agreement, conditions of approval, FEIR)
• May through June 2019: Board of Supervisor hearings on entire GUP package (DA, conditions of approval, FEIR)
Staff intends to work with the City Council’s Stanford General Use Permit Subcommittee and return to the full City Council as needed. In addition, staff has begun discussions with other San Mateo County jurisdictions located within the 6-mile radius of Stanford’s core academic campus (Attachment C) to determine whether there are potential community benefits of mutual interest.

The primary focus would likely be related to topics of transportation, housing, school, and fiscal impacts and opportunities for open space preservation and flood protection.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Final February 1, 2018 comment letter on the DEIR
B. Final July 25, 2018, comment letter on recirculated alternatives chapter of the DEIR C. Mile of 6-mile radius from Stanford’s core academic campus Report prepared by:

Justin Murphy, Public Works Director
Page F-4.7
ATTACHMENT A Page F-4.8
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 2
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments Project Description Concerns and Questions

1. Stanford is seeking “flexibility with accountability.” The application and DEIR indicate that the total amount of academic square footage may take many forms, from classroom buildings to art galleries to energy facilities. Similarly, the anticipated housing units/beds will include a range of products from undergraduate dormitories to single-family homes for faculty. These different uses will have disparate impacts. Without specificity as to the amount, location and intensity of the various uses, there are no assurances that the impacts have been adequately assessed in the DEIR. Further, there is no mention in the DEIR that further study will be conducted to determine whether what does eventually get built is within the parameters of the DEIR or creates additional impacts that require additional mitigation. This seems critically important for a document that is anticipated to govern development for the next approximately 17 years in an area that is seeing rapid transition in local and regional conditions and circumstances. The City requests that clear accounting of the proposed uses and location of such uses be documented, and no changes to the provided allotments of developable area be allowed without a full assessment of any further environmental impacts. Further, as evidenced by the Center for Academic Medicine project application, any transfer of development request needs to include explicit consultation with and notice to the City of Menlo Park, particularly in the area of traffic concerns. The City has included recommended revisions to Condition of Approval G11 from the 2000 GUP, which are outlined below in comment 6.

2. The 2018 GUP should preserve the Academic Growth Boundary and the extra increment of foothill protections (i.e., the 4/5ths vote for development west of Junipero Serra Boulevard) in order to ensure ongoing open space and conservation efforts are recognized as a serious concern. The City requests the Academic Growth Boundary be preserved for at least the next 50 years.

3. The maximum build out of the Stanford campus should be identified, defined and evaluated in the 2018 GUP and DEIR. Such definition was required during the 2000 GUP development, as a condition of approval, but has not yet be identified or imposed here. This is important to provide the community and neighboring jurisdictions a clear picture of when growth limits would be reached; further, the current process provides no assurances to the maximum extent of growth and development on the campus.

4. Stanford will be increasing the population of students, faculty, staff and other workers from 41,217 in 2018 to 50,827 by 2035. However, it is not clear that these numbers reflect the full picture and include families of students and faculty, deliveries, consultants, contractors and various visitors who travel to and from Stanford. The assumptions should be clearly outlined in the DEIR.

5. The 2018 GUP and DEIR should evaluate changes in the Project Description, or as mitigation Page F-4.9

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 3
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

measures to:
a. Prohibit an increase in net new parking spaces
b. Provide a direct roadway connection from Campus Drive West to I-280 between Page Mill Road and Alpine Road without a connection at Junipero Serra Boulevard. Also force traffic to use Page Mill Road over Alpine Road since there are limited residences along Page Mill frontage
c. Add locations for traffic monitoring at gateways to Stanford Land beyond the cordon locations that are specific to unincorporated Santa Clara County to account for development in the Quarry, Lathrop and San Juan districts (see comment 7.k.ii. below) d. Require trip credits to have some spatial or geographic relevance based on Gateways and cordon limits around the Stanford campus

6. In the 2000 GUP conditions of approval, condition G11 required project-specific traffic studies for certain projects. Subsequent to adoption of the 2000 GUP and conditions, the County prepared Scoping of Project-Specific Transportation Studies under Stanford GUP Condition of Approval G11 (dated January 16, 2002). These documents do not directly address the need for a projectspecific traffic study for relocation of planned development levels across Campus district boundaries, and the City requests this document be modified, if to be carried over for use subsequent to the 2018 GUP. Further, the City requests that a project-specific traffic study be completed for all projects that generate over 50 peak hour trips to ensure transparency and consistency across future proposals. The City has documented suggested revisions, as included in Attachment A. Further, the City requests that the Board of Supervisors must consider any request to relocate development to a different district, and approval be required to reach a 4/5 vote in favor, including the Supervisor from the District.

Transportation

7. The transportation analysis shows several deficiencies with respect to1:
a. Existing congested conditions are not reflected in the intersection analysis.

The existing conditions analysis does not reflect congested conditions on the Bayfront Expressway, Willow Road, University Avenue, El Camino Real, and Sand Hill Road corridors as of the time the existing counts were taken in 2016. The reported results at the following locations do not reflect field observed conditions:
i. Bayfront Expressway/University Avenue
ii. Bayfront Expressway/Willow Road
iii. Willow Road intersections

1 All page number references within this comment point to the Transportation Impact Analysis, Part 2 in Appendix TIA of the Draft EIR. Similar comments apply to the same content shown in the Draft EIR.

Page F-4.10
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 4
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments iv. Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue-Alpine Road
The existing congested conditions on the corridors and intersections listed above are not taken into account by isolated intersection analysis. As summarized in the City of Menlo Park’s General Plan (ConnectMenlo) Draft Environmental Impact Report published in 2016, isolated intersection analysis does not account for the queue spillback between intersections on the approaches to the Dumbarton Bridge, including those on Bayfront Expressway, Willow Road, and University Avenue. The TRAFFIX 8.0 software that was used for the analysis is not sufficient to reflect the existing or future (2018 or 2035) congestion levels. The TIA (Section 4.8, page 94-95) describes the observed queues and congested conditions on El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road, but does not use this information to validate the calculated existing levels of service (Figure 4-2 on page 54 and Table 4-1 on pages 55-60) on the corridors. Field observed conditions are not described on Willow Road and the Dumbarton Bridge approaches. These level of service calculations need to be updated in order to present an accurate existing scenario to assess impacts of the 2018 GUP. Otherwise, potential impacts are underestimated. The Draft EIR should be updated and recirculated with corrected information that mitigates all additional impacts. b. Existing congested conditions are not reflected in the freeway and ramp analysis.

Similarly, the freeway ramp analysis at the US 101/Willow Road interchange and the I280/Sand Hill Road interchange do not reflect existing congested conditions, and therefore the volume-to-capacity analysis conducted does not take into account the unserved peak period demand and queue spillback. Analysis based on these existing results therefore underestimates potential impacts of the 2018 GUP. The analysis must be updated and the Draft EIR recirculated with the corrected information, including appropriate mitigation for all additional impacts.
c. The No Net New Commute Trips mitigation program does not fully mitigate transportation impacts and must be modified.

The 2018 GUP application materials and Draft EIR describe Stanford’s continued participation in the No Net New Commute Trips mitigation program. The program limits peak hour, peak direction vehicular trips associated with Stanford University. However, this program is fundamentally flawed and does not fully mitigate transportation impacts for several reasons:
i. Congested conditions in the region are no longer limited to a single morning and evening peak hour. The monitoring program should be expanded to capture the hours of congestion across the peak periods, at a minimum from 7:00 – 9:00am and 4:00 – 7:00pm, since the program encourages peak spreading to shoulder and off-peak hours.

Daily trip limits should also be considered to reduce potential air quality and greenhouse Page F-4.11

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 5
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

gas impacts.
ii. While traffic flows still see some directionality, reverse peak direction patterns are increasing and even reverse direction trips in the peak hours can contribute to congestion.

The proposed 2018 GUP is estimated to add 428 AM and 600 PM peak hour trips in the reverse commute direction. This represents a significant proportion of the proposed growth in traffic, representing 36% of morning and 44% of evening peak hour traffic. The proposed analysis does not isolate the potential impacts of these trips, and they are not mitigated by the No Net New Commute Trips mitigation program, which only limits the peak direction trips. Therefore all reverse peak trips are added to the roadway network, with undetermined impacts, and are not currently mitigated.

The City requests that an analysis of the reverse direction trips be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures be identified. The mitigation program should could be expanded to limit any new impacts from reverse commute trips by including them in the No Net New Trips program, and no growth in such trips should be allowed over existing conditions. This analysis should be prepared and the DEIR recirculated with this significant new information.
iii. Monitoring of the program is infrequent and does not assure neighboring jurisdictions that the program achieves its goals on a typical basis. Monitoring occurs twice per year, and while conducted in typical traffic conditions, this limited frequency allows the potential for ongoing violations. The City requests the County modify the monitoring program to provide consistent, daily monitoring. Such monitoring and enforcement is conducted by the City for the Facebook Campus site in Menlo Park, and provides assurances that the trip limits are met on a daily basis throughout the year. This increased frequency is enabled more readily, since under the current proposal, Stanford and the County propose to use automated technology to conduct the counts in the future. The City requests that no new development be allowed beyond the 2000 GUP until such automated equipment and increased monitoring is in place.
iv. The use of “cordon credits” and a campus-wide monitoring methodology allow Stanford to offset peak hour, peak direction vehicle trips occurring anywhere in the cordon area at the expense of other potentially affected roadways. In particular, the Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real (north of Stanford) corridors have not seen investment in infrastructure or program support to reduce vehicle traffic levels approaching the University from these directions, and traffic congestion has increased since the 2001 GUP analysis. In addition, the 2014 Annual Traffic Monitoring Report claimed 402 trip credits for bus trips across the cordon points and the number of transit passengers served outside the cordon area in Page F-4.12
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 6
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments the evening peak hour, but no data is provided about how the individual cordon locations have increased or decreased over time. The City’s own traffic counts on Sand Hill Road (near the City of Menlo Park and Palo Alto border) show an increase in average daily traffic volumes from 30,550 vehicles to 33,900 vehicles per day between 1998 and 2017.

The DEIR also does not disclose Marguerite transit ridership by route and stop to demonstrate which corridors are achieving trip credits per the allowance of “cordon credits”. The City requests the historic raw cordon count data and Marguerite ridership data be included in a revised and recirculated DEIR. The City requests that the cordon trip limits be established by sub-area or district to ensure that the levels of traffic in any one corridor are not adversely affected at the expense of others. v. Chapter 8 of the TIA details the tiered mitigation program steps if Stanford does not achieve the No Net New Commute Trips goal. However, as described in Section 8.1.1.3 through 8.1.1.5, Stanford would fund infrastructure changes and programs to reduce vehicle trips in the vicinity of the campus if the No Net New Commute Trip goal is not successful. This shifts the burden of mitigation to neighboring cities, when the mitigation is necessitated by Stanford’s non-compliance with the mitigation measure. Stanford should instead assume responsibility, in collaboration with neighboring agencies to design and construct physical infrastructure and provide resources to help implement necessary programs to reduce trips as identified in these sections. The City requests that a contribution towards the Middle Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing, Dumbarton Rail Corridor, and Sand Hill Road-Santa Cruz Avenue-Alameda de las Pulgas-Alpine Road corridor improvements be prioritized for mitigation. The City also requests that penalties be assessed if the trip reduction goals are not met.
vi. Section 8.1.1.5 of Chapter 8 of the TIA further outlines the payment methodology to determine Stanford’s fair share of the intersection improvements on a per trip basis. This section outlines that the proposed payments would be on an annual basis, and since the 2018 GUP is projected to carry development through 2035 (17 years), the total contribution towards all intersection improvements would be divided by 17. This proposed methodology does not mitigate Stanford’s contribution towards impacts in the City, and other neighboring agencies, as sufficient funds would not accrue to cover the construction cost of the necessary mitigation – which since a Project level impact (see comment 7.g. below) – is necessary to reduce the Project’s impact to a less-thansignificant level. The proposed methods also do not account for escalation in construction costs over the life of the proposed 2018 GUP.
d. All relevant near term projects should be included in the analysis. According to Table 2 in Appendix CON, the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion and Stanford Redwood City campus are not currently included as near-term projects, and should be included in the DEIR’s evaluation. Notably, the traffic analysis should be revised to include these projects, as traffic from the Shopping Center directly overlaps with the traffic accessing the University Page F-4.13

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 7
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

from El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road; and traffic from the Stanford Redwood City campus will occur on Marsh Road, Bay Road, Bayfront Expressway, Middlefield Road and El Camino Real, among other streets in the area, which are also studied in the 2018 GUP DEIR. Not including the Stanford Shopping Center and Redwood City campus underestimates the near-term and cumulative traffic impacts. Further the DEIR should explicitly describe the anticipated interaction between the Stanford University campus and the Stanford Redwood City campus. The City requested this information in its NOP letter (comments 5, 6, and 8), but it was not provided in the DEIR. e. At the time the Stanford Hospital Expansion was considered by the City of Palo Alto, the City of Menlo Park challenged the traffic projections as underestimating the likely impacts of the project due to a significant allowance for TDM reductions. The City requests that the County independently evaluate the traffic projections used for the Hospital Expansion in the Background conditions of the DEIR transportation analysis and TIA. f. The traffic projections shown on El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road appear to be underestimated. The DEIR and TIA should be revised to correct the underestimation, impacts reevaluated, and recirculated with this substantial new information. For example:
i. Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue (study intersection 7 in the TIA): certain traffic movements are shown to have less traffic under Background as compared to Cumulative conditions: the westbound left-turn (decreases by approximately 50 vehicles) and the northbound right-turn (experiences no change from Existing conditions, even with anticipated build out of the Stanford Hospital, 2000 GUP, and other projects in the area). Similarly in the cumulative conditions the westbound leftturn, southbound right-turn, eastbound left- and right-turns, and northbound left- and right-turns experience decreases of up to 200 vehicles per hour. ii. El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue (study intersection 41 in the TIA): Background conditions does not appear to adequately account for the buildout of projects in the area as listed. In particular, the growth shown between Existing and Background conditions at certain movements in the 2018 GUP DEIR and TIA is less than that shown for the Middle Plaza at 500 El Camino Real project alone. For example, the westbound left-turn in the 2018 GUP DEIR shows growth of 9 vehicles in the AM peak hour, while the Middle Plaza EIR shows 70 vehicles. Similar concerns exist for the northbound through and right-turn movements, eastbound right-turn and southbound through movement.
g. Project level impacts identified under Background Conditions should be fully mitigated.

The DEIR and TIA identify mitigation measures for Background plus Project conditions as fair-share payment towards potential physical improvements. CEQA, in sections PRC Page F-4.14

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 8
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

20112(a) & 14 CCR 15126.4, requires that project-level impacts be mitigated. The Project should be responsible for construction of mitigation measures that result from Project-level impacts.
h. Comments on specific mitigation measures
i. I-280 Northbound Ramp/Sand Hill Road. A fair share contribution is not adequate, per comment 7.g above. Bike lane is not protected, as stated on page 172. ii. El Camino Real intersections. A fair share contribution is not adequate, per comment 7.g above, and proposed improvements conflict with recent City direction and Middle Plaza at 500 ECR DEIR recommendations.
i. Bicycle and pedestrian impact evaluation and proposed mitigation While the effort to assess mitigation measures impacts on multi-modal travel, in addition to identifying vehicular improvements to mitigate traffic impacts, is appreciated, this assessment does not address bicycle and pedestrian demand and facility needs as a result of this Project. Key access routes to the Campus were recently evaluated as part of the Bicycle Access Plan, and gaps in the existing networks should be evaluated and mitigated appropriately. Similar efforts for the pedestrian network should also be completed. The City requested such an analysis in its NOP letter, an analysis of a 5-mile commute shed around the proposed General Use Permit development area. As noted in the permit application, Stanford owns land throughout the mid-Peninsula, including proposed development sites in Menlo Park and an approved project site in Redwood City. The City requested that the DEIR assess walking, bicycling, and traffic conditions across Stanford properties located across these multiple jurisdictions. This comment on the NOP was not addressed and the DEIR should be revised to include such an analysis and recirculated.

Further, Section 8.4.2 on page 218 discloses that the Project does not conflict with a planned facility or local agency policy. The City’s El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan, and follow up work through the El Camino Real Corridor Study, identify potential bicycle lanes on El Camino Real. The proposed mitigation conflicts with these plans. This is not addressed in the DEIR and the analysis should be revised and DEIR recirculated with identification of appropriate mitigation.

In addition, without provisions for bicycling and walking, Safe Routes to Schools within the City of Menlo Park are anticipated to be impacted by increased traffic as a result of the 2018 GUP. The City requests financial assistance for crossing guards. j. Neighborhood street impacts are not fully addressed
Neighborhood street impacts (Section 8.3 on page 199) in the Willows and Belle Haven Page F-4.15

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 9
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

neighborhoods in Menlo Park are not addressed. The Crescent Park neighborhood in Palo Alto was evaluated, and cut-through traffic from that area also directly impacts the Willows, across the Pope-Chaucer bridge over San Francisquito Creek. Additional traffic added to Bayfront Expressway, Willow Road and University Avenue will also lead to additional cutthrough in the Belle Haven neighborhood as commuters seek out alternative routes. Both of these should be addressed. The City of Menlo Park has adopted standards and thresholds of significance that should be used to evaluate increases in daily roadway traffic volumes on local streets in lieu of the TIRE Indices Analyses prepared following the City of Palo Alto standards. Based on Table 8-5 on page 217, cut-through volumes on Lytton Avenue and Hamilton Avenue near Pope-Chaucer are between 76 and 145 daily trips. These increases in traffic through the Willows would be considered significant following City of Menlo Park impact standards, and need to be evaluated and mitigated accordingly in a recirculated DEIR.
k. The DEIR does not address the NOP comments the City provided as listed below. i. Stanford is requesting continuation of a program to provide trip credit for off-campus transportation infrastructure improvements within the Cordon Credit Area, which includes properties owned by Stanford outside of Santa Clara County, including 500 El Camino Real and 2131 Sand Hill Road. The City requests that any required measures to reduce or mitigate impacts from the Middle Plaza at 500 El Camino Real project recently approved or 2131 Sand Hill Road project currently under review are not eligible for credits under the General Use Permit program, since this would result in double-counting the benefits of such measures.

ii. The Draft EIR did not address how vehicle trips from the proposed development areas outside the traffic cordon area, including Quarry, Lathrop, and San Juan in particular, will be addressed by the No Net New Commute Trips condition. The City requested the County modify the cordon area to incorporate these zones with additional proposed development.

Housing

8. The proposed $20 per square foot (plus CPI adjustment inflator) affordable housing impact fee is not adequate to mitigate the increased demand for affordable housing by the proposed 2018 GUP. The rate of housing construction costs has generally outpaced the CPI, so the fee as proposed does not keep pace with rising costs and will not allow construction of the identified housing unit demand within Menlo Park.

9. In addition, when Stanford University purchases or develops property for the provision of faculty and staff housing in adjacent jurisdictions, including both the City of Menlo Park and local school districts, the City and school districts lose property tax revenues from the property in perpetuity, Page F-4.16

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 10
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

since Stanford does not pay property taxes on lands used to support the University. This creates a two-fold negative impact to the City and other affected agencies, since the City loses revenues and has to continue to provide the municipal services necessitated by the residential properties.

It also further increases the cost of housing in the region, as the market-rate housing supply is decreased by such actions. Requiring Stanford to provide all housing on campus will avoid this impact. Further, the City requests that any growth in academic or support facilities be offset with commensurate growth in housing units on campus.

10. As availability of affordable housing continues to be a regional concern, the City requests that the County maximize additional benefits for housing supply for faculty, staff, and students, as well as for workers that may not be employed directly by Stanford, but work within the General Use Permit area. Specifically, the City requests that the full housing burden generated by the 2018 GUP be absorbed on the Stanford Campus, within the 2018 GUP development area.

Further, the City requests the County retain the 6-mile radius for use of affordable housing fees, since the impacts are most concentrated locally near the Stanford University campus. Further, the City requests that funding from housing fees be dedicated to impacted cities, commensurate with the level of anticipated impacts (e.g., proportional to the number of units needed to house Stanford employees). The provision of such fees is one of the few strategies that can be used to help offset the housing impacts identified as a result of the 2018 GUP and should be maintained.

11. The DEIR acknowledges that Stanford’s growth pursuant to the 2018 GUP will require housing in adjacent jurisdictions such as Menlo Park. The DEIR anticipates 153 new housing units in Menlo Park. Since the growth with the 2018 General Use Permit is anticipated to be at the same rate as the 2000 General Use Permit, the anticipated units in Menlo Park may be under estimated because 215 units associated with the 2000 General Use Permit have been approved for construction in Menlo Park at the Middle Plaza at 500 El Camino Real site.

Air Quality and Noise

12. Given the comments regarding peak spreading, the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis should be reevaluated to determine the continued accuracy of the conclusions relative to reductions in pollutants, especially since a full 1/3 of emissions are anticipated from transportation sources.

13. Stanford is proposing to construct up to 40,000 net new square feet of child care centers and other services on campus. However, in the chapter regarding air quality (see Figure 5.2-1), the DEIR does not consider on-site sensitive receptors like the new proposed day care centers and should be revised to reflect this change.

14. Noise impacts on the Sand Hill Road corridor should be mitigated near residential uses.

Page F-4.17

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 11
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

Hydrology/Water Quality

15. Stanford should be required to coordinate and cooperate, including funding, with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to provide meaningful large-scale upstream detention facilities to attenuate and manage flows in San Francisquito Creek.

16. The DEIR did not adequately respond to the City request that Stanford continue to work with the City of Menlo Park and other jurisdictions to develop a specific proposal for the detention of floodwaters on Stanford land that will result in a significant and measurable reduction in floodwaters reaching the floodplain areas within Menlo Park and neighboring jurisdictions. The City requests that existing and proposed runoff calculations from the project area for both the 10- year and 100-year storm event be provided for the City to review and that the impact be evaluated in a revised and recirculated DEIR. In addition, the City requests that any plans that show existing and proposed impervious improvements and potential alteration of drainage patterns be provided. Combined with the improvements downstream within San Francisquito Creek, the detention on Stanford land shall result in containment of flows from the 10-year and 100-year storm events within the detention site(s) and within the Creek to the extent feasible.

The detention plan shall be designed and implemented by Stanford within a specific time line that is relative to the proposed development.

17. In addition, the City requests that the proposed General Use Permit include measures that either mitigate for increase flows and/or create no net increase in storm water runoff to the neighboring downstream communities that are located within the San Francisquito Creek Watershed Area.

Other Issues

18. The DEIR dismisses the impact of new students, faculty and staff on neighboring library facilities positing that Stanford is an academic university with libraries and visiting a local library is not necessary. However, there are many reasons to visit a library--a college student’s reason may be different from a faculty member who has a toddler and wishes to participate in story time at the library. If Stanford does not provide such services at its libraries, it is likely that there will be more visits to libraries in surrounding jurisdictions and potential impacts. The same is true of the impacts on parks and other community based recreation programs.

19. In anticipation of the Final EIR review period, the City requests that a minimum of 30 days be granted for public review.

Page F-4.18
Page F-4.19
Page F-4.20
Page F-4.21
Page F-4.22
Page F-4.23
Page F-4.24
Page F-4.25
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council
July 25, 2018
Mr. David Rader
County of Santa Clara
Department of Planning and Development
County Government Center
70 West Hedding St.

San Jose, CA 95110
Empty
RE: Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit (File #: 7165-16P-16GP-16Z16EIR) Comments on the Recirculated Alternatives Chapter of Draft EIR Empty
Dear Mr. Rader,
The City of Menlo Park appreciates the steps that the County of Santa Clara is taking to evaluate and disclose the impacts associated with Stanford providing the housing necessary to accommodate the proposed expansion of the Stanford University campus.

Attached please find the City of Menlo Park’s comments on the Recirculated Alternatives Chapter of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit (GUP) project. The attached letter includes new and modified comments that highlight several significant deficiencies in the Draft EIR and includes a copy of the comment letter submitted by the City of Menlo Park on the Draft EIR on February 1, 2018. This response has not been approved by the City Council due to their not having a City Council meeting during the extended comment period, but was approved by the Council appointed subcommittee of Mayor Ohtaki and Councilmember Keith.

The identified deficiencies must be addressed in a recirculated Draft EIR that contains sufficient mitigation measures to mitigate project impacts, including the impacts of providing the necessary housing. The County should not consider approval of the 2018 GUP until such additional information is provided to decision makers.

Please contact Community Development Director, Mark Muenzer at 650-330-6600 with questions.

ATTACHMENT B Page F-4.26

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 2
Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit, Comments on the Recirculated Alternatives Chapter of the Draft EIR

Sincerely,
Peter Ohtaki
Mayor
Enclosures:

1. New and Modified Comments on Recirculated Alternatives Chapter of Draft EIR

2. City of Menlo Park’s letter commenting on the Draft EIR dated February 1, 2018 Page F-4.27

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 3
Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit, Comments on the Recirculated Alternatives Chapter of the Draft EIR

Project Description Concerns and Questions

1. In response to community feedback requesting that Stanford provide the housing necessary to support its own growth, the Recirculated Alternatives Chapter of the Draft EIR analyzes two new housing alternatives. Although these alternatives have the potential to positively address the need for housing created by the 2018 GUP, the revised analysis reflects a fundamental flaw in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. By providing more housing for the students and workers that will fill the additional campus space proposed in the 2018 GUP, some of the impacts reported in the Recirculated Alternatives Chapter of the Draft EIR appear worse than those reported for the proposed project. Approving the proposed project without the additional needed housing would appear to reduce the environmental impacts of the 2018 GUP.

However, housing for the additional students and workers will be required regardless of whether it is on Stanford lands or in another location. If the housing is built elsewhere to meet the need created by the additional Stanford students and workers, the impacts of building that housing will be deferred to other analyses and jurisdictions. This shifts the burden of housing students and workers, and constructing the transportation infrastructure to accommodate the increased travel to other agencies without supporting resources to meet these needs.

2. In the Revised Alternatives Chapter, consistent with the Draft EIR, Stanford is seeking “flexibility with accountability.” The housing alternatives study an anticipated number of beds/units that will include a range of products from a single undergraduate bed to a single-family home for a faculty member with a full household. These different uses will have disparate impacts. For example, what is the cost of educating all kindergarten through twelfth grade students attending local schools of the new residents? Without specificity as to the amount, size, and intensity of the various housing products, there are no assurances that the impacts have been adequately assessed in the Draft EIR.

3. In addition to the previous comments from the City of Menlo Park, the 2018 GUP and Draft EIR should evaluate changes in the Project Description, or as mitigation measures to:
a. Provide a direct tunnel connection from Campus Drive West to I-280 between Page Mill Road and Alpine Road without a connection at Junipero Serra Boulevard. Also force traffic to use Page Mill Road instead of Alpine Road since there are limited residences along Page Mill frontage to be impacted.
b. Provide satellite parking lots with connections to the campus to reduce traffic on Sand Hill Road, Alpine Road and Page Mill Road. These satellite lots could be connected to the campus with Marguerite, long-distance commuter shuttles already in service along these routes, or by other non-motorized transportation options such as a gondola. c. The City requests that a contribution towards the Middle Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing, Dumbarton Rail Corridor, and Sand Hill Road-Santa Cruz Avenue-Alameda de las Pulgas-Alpine Road corridor improvements be prioritized for mitigation.

Page F-4.28
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 4
Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit, Comments on the Recirculated Alternatives Chapter of the Draft EIR
Transportation

4. The requested changes to the existing conditions listed in Paragraph 7 of the previously submitted comment letter were not addressed in the Recirculated Alternatives Chapter of the Draft EIR and need to be incorporated.

5. The No Net New Commute Trips mitigation program does not fully mitigate transportation impacts and must be modified.

The 2018 GUP application materials and Draft EIR describe Stanford’s continued participation in the No Net New Commute Trips mitigation program. The program limits peak hour, peak direction vehicular trips associated with Stanford University. An unintended consequence of the No Net New Commute Trips program is that students and workers live further from campus, putting the burden on those jurisdictions, but allows Stanford to control the number and timing of commute trips. Further, in the context of the proposed alternatives, this program is fundamentally flawed as the alternatives generate mostly trips in the reverse peak commute direction, and the No Net New Commute Trips program does not mitigate these impacts.

Comment 7.c.ii in the City’s prior comment letter raised this concern, which is exacerbated with the consideration of both housing alternatives.

The City continues to request an analysis of the reverse direction trips be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures be identified. The mitigation program should could be expanded to limit any new impacts from reverse commute trips by including them in the No Net New Trips program, and no growth in such trips should be allowed over existing conditions. This is especially important since the proposed housing alternatives in the recirculated chapter consider additional on-campus housing, and reverse commute trips from the spouses and/or families of the Stanford affiliates would not be captured by the No Net New Trips program as proposed.

6. The traffic operations disclosed in tables 7A.15-4, 7A.15-11, 7B.15-4, and 7B.15-11 do not show significant changes in average delay and level of service with either Alternatives A or B at the intersections within the City of Menlo Park’s jurisdiction. The City raised several questions about the analysis results in the prior comment letter on the Draft EIR, which still need to be resolved.

However, the results of the alternatives analysis appear to be inconsistent with the public statements made by Stanford University that the alternatives will exacerbate traffic delays and concentrate local impacts in the mid-peninsula.

Housing

7. Although the alternatives in the Recirculated Alternatives Chapter purport to require the provision of additional housing on-campus, the description of both Alternatives A and B indicate that “Stanford could elect to, subject to approval by the County, offset the incremental off-campus Page F-4.29

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 5
Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit, Comments on the Recirculated Alternatives Chapter of the Draft EIR

housing demand by providing off-campus housing” and “it is assumed that any portion of affordable off-campus housing provided by Stanford would be located within a six-mile radius of the campus” (pages 2-54 and 2-259). Therefore, with these alternatives Stanford would not actually be required to provide more housing on-campus to meet the need created by the 2018 GUP. While Stanford’s provision of housing anywhere would reduce the impact of the regional housing demand and potentially improve affordability, the City of Menlo Park does not support the provision of additional housing for Stanford within the Menlo Park City limits except as described in comment 9 below, and encourages the County to require that the housing be provided on-campus.

8. Stanford should be required to pay an in-lieu fee that will fully mitigate for the affordable housing need generated by the Stanford 2018 GUP. The City supports the increase in the affordable housing fee for new non-residential development on Stanford’s campus to $68.50 per square foot.

9. When Stanford University purchases or develops property for the provision of students, faculty and staff housing in adjacent jurisdictions, the City of Menlo Park and other special districts (emergency and fire services and local school districts, etc.) lose property tax revenues from the property in perpetuity, since Stanford does not pay property taxes on lands used to support the University. Therefore, the City opposes any additional housing provided by Stanford in Menlo Park unless Stanford honors the market rate property tax rates annually for any housing secured within the City.

Hydrology/Water Quality

10. Stanford should be required to coordinate and cooperate, including funding, with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to provide meaningful large-scale upstream detention facilities to attenuate and manage flows in San Francisquito Creek.

11. In addition, the City requests that the 2018 GUP include measures that either mitigate for increase flows and/or create no net increase in storm water runoff to the neighboring downstream communities that are located within the San Francisquito Creek Watershed Area.

Page F-4.30
Page F-4.31

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 2
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

Project Description Concerns and Questions

1. Stanford is seeking “flexibility with accountability.” The application and DEIR indicate that the total amount of academic square footage may take many forms, from classroom buildings to art galleries to energy facilities. Similarly, the anticipated housing units/beds will include a range of products from undergraduate dormitories to single-family homes for faculty. These different uses will have disparate impacts. Without specificity as to the amount, location and intensity of the various uses, there are no assurances that the impacts have been adequately assessed in the DEIR. Further, there is no mention in the DEIR that further study will be conducted to determine whether what does eventually get built is within the parameters of the DEIR or creates additional impacts that require additional mitigation. This seems critically important for a document that is anticipated to govern development for the next approximately 17 years in an area that is seeing rapid transition in local and regional conditions and circumstances. The City requests that clear accounting of the proposed uses and location of such uses be documented, and no changes to the provided allotments of developable area be allowed without a full assessment of any further environmental impacts. Further, as evidenced by the Center for Academic Medicine project application, any transfer of development request needs to include explicit consultation with and notice to the City of Menlo Park, particularly in the area of traffic concerns. The City has included recommended revisions to Condition of Approval G11 from the 2000 GUP, which are outlined below in comment 6.

2. The 2018 GUP should preserve the Academic Growth Boundary and the extra increment of foothill protections (i.e., the 4/5ths vote for development west of Junipero Serra Boulevard) in order to ensure ongoing open space and conservation efforts are recognized as a serious concern. The City requests the Academic Growth Boundary be preserved for at least the next 50 years.

3. The maximum build out of the Stanford campus should be identified, defined and evaluated in the 2018 GUP and DEIR. Such definition was required during the 2000 GUP development, as a condition of approval, but has not yet be identified or imposed here. This is important to provide the community and neighboring jurisdictions a clear picture of when growth limits would be reached; further, the current process provides no assurances to the maximum extent of growth and development on the campus.

4. Stanford will be increasing the population of students, faculty, staff and other workers from 41,217 in 2018 to 50,827 by 2035. However, it is not clear that these numbers reflect the full picture and include families of students and faculty, deliveries, consultants, contractors and various visitors who travel to and from Stanford. The assumptions should be clearly outlined in the DEIR.

5. The 2018 GUP and DEIR should evaluate changes in the Project Description, or as mitigation Page F-4.32

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 3
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

measures to:
a. Prohibit an increase in net new parking spaces
b. Provide a direct roadway connection from Campus Drive West to I-280 between Page Mill Road and Alpine Road without a connection at Junipero Serra Boulevard. Also force traffic to use Page Mill Road over Alpine Road since there are limited residences along Page Mill frontage
c. Add locations for traffic monitoring at gateways to Stanford Land beyond the cordon locations that are specific to unincorporated Santa Clara County to account for development in the Quarry, Lathrop and San Juan districts (see comment 7.k.ii. below) d. Require trip credits to have some spatial or geographic relevance based on Gateways and cordon limits around the Stanford campus

6. In the 2000 GUP conditions of approval, condition G11 required project-specific traffic studies for certain projects. Subsequent to adoption of the 2000 GUP and conditions, the County prepared Scoping of Project-Specific Transportation Studies under Stanford GUP Condition of Approval G11 (dated January 16, 2002). These documents do not directly address the need for a projectspecific traffic study for relocation of planned development levels across Campus district boundaries, and the City requests this document be modified, if to be carried over for use subsequent to the 2018 GUP. Further, the City requests that a project-specific traffic study be completed for all projects that generate over 50 peak hour trips to ensure transparency and consistency across future proposals. The City has documented suggested revisions, as included in Attachment A. Further, the City requests that the Board of Supervisors must consider any request to relocate development to a different district, and approval be required to reach a 4/5 vote in favor, including the Supervisor from the District.

Transportation

7. The transportation analysis shows several deficiencies with respect to1:
a. Existing congested conditions are not reflected in the intersection analysis.

The existing conditions analysis does not reflect congested conditions on the Bayfront Expressway, Willow Road, University Avenue, El Camino Real, and Sand Hill Road corridors as of the time the existing counts were taken in 2016. The reported results at the following locations do not reflect field observed conditions:
i. Bayfront Expressway/University Avenue
ii. Bayfront Expressway/Willow Road
iii. Willow Road intersections

1 All page number references within this comment point to the Transportation Impact Analysis, Part 2 in Appendix TIA of the Draft EIR. Similar comments apply to the same content shown in the Draft EIR.

Page F-4.33

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 4
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

iv. Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue-Alpine Road
The existing congested conditions on the corridors and intersections listed above are not taken into account by isolated intersection analysis. As summarized in the City of Menlo Park’s General Plan (ConnectMenlo) Draft Environmental Impact Report published in 2016, isolated intersection analysis does not account for the queue spillback between intersections on the approaches to the Dumbarton Bridge, including those on Bayfront Expressway, Willow Road, and University Avenue. The TRAFFIX 8.0 software that was used for the analysis is not sufficient to reflect the existing or future (2018 or 2035) congestion levels. The TIA (Section 4.8, page 94-95) describes the observed queues and congested conditions on El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road, but does not use this information to validate the calculated existing levels of service (Figure 4-2 on page 54 and Table 4-1 on pages 55-60) on the corridors. Field observed conditions are not described on Willow Road and the Dumbarton Bridge approaches. These level of service calculations need to be updated in order to present an accurate existing scenario to assess impacts of the 2018 GUP. Otherwise, potential impacts are underestimated. The Draft EIR should be updated and recirculated with corrected information that mitigates all additional impacts. b. Existing congested conditions are not reflected in the freeway and ramp analysis.

Similarly, the freeway ramp analysis at the US 101/Willow Road interchange and the I280/Sand Hill Road interchange do not reflect existing congested conditions, and therefore the volume-to-capacity analysis conducted does not take into account the unserved peak period demand and queue spillback. Analysis based on these existing results therefore underestimates potential impacts of the 2018 GUP. The analysis must be updated and the Draft EIR recirculated with the corrected information, including appropriate mitigation for all additional impacts.
c. The No Net New Commute Trips mitigation program does not fully mitigate transportation impacts and must be modified.

The 2018 GUP application materials and Draft EIR describe Stanford’s continued participation in the No Net New Commute Trips mitigation program. The program limits peak hour, peak direction vehicular trips associated with Stanford University. However, this program is fundamentally flawed and does not fully mitigate transportation impacts for several reasons:
i. Congested conditions in the region are no longer limited to a single morning and evening peak hour. The monitoring program should be expanded to capture the hours of congestion across the peak periods, at a minimum from 7:00 – 9:00am and 4:00 – 7:00pm, since the program encourages peak spreading to shoulder and off-peak hours.

Daily trip limits should also be considered to reduce potential air quality and greenhouse Page F-4.34
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 5
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments gas impacts.
ii. While traffic flows still see some directionality, reverse peak direction patterns are increasing and even reverse direction trips in the peak hours can contribute to congestion.

The proposed 2018 GUP is estimated to add 428 AM and 600 PM peak hour trips in the reverse commute direction. This represents a significant proportion of the proposed growth in traffic, representing 36% of morning and 44% of evening peak hour traffic. The proposed analysis does not isolate the potential impacts of these trips, and they are not mitigated by the No Net New Commute Trips mitigation program, which only limits the peak direction trips. Therefore all reverse peak trips are added to the roadway network, with undetermined impacts, and are not currently mitigated.

The City requests that an analysis of the reverse direction trips be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures be identified. The mitigation program should could be expanded to limit any new impacts from reverse commute trips by including them in the No Net New Trips program, and no growth in such trips should be allowed over existing conditions. This analysis should be prepared and the DEIR recirculated with this significant new information.
iii. Monitoring of the program is infrequent and does not assure neighboring jurisdictions that the program achieves its goals on a typical basis. Monitoring occurs twice per year, and while conducted in typical traffic conditions, this limited frequency allows the potential for ongoing violations. The City requests the County modify the monitoring program to provide consistent, daily monitoring. Such monitoring and enforcement is conducted by the City for the Facebook Campus site in Menlo Park, and provides assurances that the trip limits are met on a daily basis throughout the year. This increased frequency is enabled more readily, since under the current proposal, Stanford and the County propose to use automated technology to conduct the counts in the future. The City requests that no new development be allowed beyond the 2000 GUP until such automated equipment and increased monitoring is in place.
iv. The use of “cordon credits” and a campus-wide monitoring methodology allow Stanford to offset peak hour, peak direction vehicle trips occurring anywhere in the cordon area at the expense of other potentially affected roadways. In particular, the Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real (north of Stanford) corridors have not seen investment in infrastructure or program support to reduce vehicle traffic levels approaching the University from these directions, and traffic congestion has increased since the 2001 GUP analysis. In addition, the 2014 Annual Traffic Monitoring Report claimed 402 trip credits for bus trips across the cordon points and the number of transit passengers served outside the cordon area in Page F-4.35

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 6
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

the evening peak hour, but no data is provided about how the individual cordon locations have increased or decreased over time. The City’s own traffic counts on Sand Hill Road (near the City of Menlo Park and Palo Alto border) show an increase in average daily traffic volumes from 30,550 vehicles to 33,900 vehicles per day between 1998 and 2017.

The DEIR also does not disclose Marguerite transit ridership by route and stop to demonstrate which corridors are achieving trip credits per the allowance of “cordon credits”. The City requests the historic raw cordon count data and Marguerite ridership data be included in a revised and recirculated DEIR. The City requests that the cordon trip limits be established by sub-area or district to ensure that the levels of traffic in any one corridor are not adversely affected at the expense of others. v. Chapter 8 of the TIA details the tiered mitigation program steps if Stanford does not achieve the No Net New Commute Trips goal. However, as described in Section 8.1.1.3 through 8.1.1.5, Stanford would fund infrastructure changes and programs to reduce vehicle trips in the vicinity of the campus if the No Net New Commute Trip goal is not successful. This shifts the burden of mitigation to neighboring cities, when the mitigation is necessitated by Stanford’s non-compliance with the mitigation measure. Stanford should instead assume responsibility, in collaboration with neighboring agencies to design and construct physical infrastructure and provide resources to help implement necessary programs to reduce trips as identified in these sections. The City requests that a contribution towards the Middle Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing, Dumbarton Rail Corridor, and Sand Hill Road-Santa Cruz Avenue-Alameda de las Pulgas-Alpine Road corridor improvements be prioritized for mitigation. The City also requests that penalties be assessed if the trip reduction goals are not met.
vi. Section 8.1.1.5 of Chapter 8 of the TIA further outlines the payment methodology to determine Stanford’s fair share of the intersection improvements on a per trip basis. This section outlines that the proposed payments would be on an annual basis, and since the 2018 GUP is projected to carry development through 2035 (17 years), the total contribution towards all intersection improvements would be divided by 17. This proposed methodology does not mitigate Stanford’s contribution towards impacts in the City, and other neighboring agencies, as sufficient funds would not accrue to cover the construction cost of the necessary mitigation – which since a Project level impact (see comment 7.g. below) – is necessary to reduce the Project’s impact to a less-thansignificant level. The proposed methods also do not account for escalation in construction costs over the life of the proposed 2018 GUP.
d. All relevant near term projects should be included in the analysis. According to Table 2 in Appendix CON, the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion and Stanford Redwood City campus are not currently included as near-term projects, and should be included in the DEIR’s evaluation. Notably, the traffic analysis should be revised to include these projects, as traffic from the Shopping Center directly overlaps with the traffic accessing the University Page F-4.36
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 7
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments from El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road; and traffic from the Stanford Redwood City campus will occur on Marsh Road, Bay Road, Bayfront Expressway, Middlefield Road and El Camino Real, among other streets in the area, which are also studied in the 2018 GUP DEIR. Not including the Stanford Shopping Center and Redwood City campus underestimates the near-term and cumulative traffic impacts. Further the DEIR should explicitly describe the anticipated interaction between the Stanford University campus and the Stanford Redwood City campus. The City requested this information in its NOP letter (comments 5, 6, and 8), but it was not provided in the DEIR. e. At the time the Stanford Hospital Expansion was considered by the City of Palo Alto, the City of Menlo Park challenged the traffic projections as underestimating the likely impacts of the project due to a significant allowance for TDM reductions. The City requests that the County independently evaluate the traffic projections used for the Hospital Expansion in the Background conditions of the DEIR transportation analysis and TIA. f. The traffic projections shown on El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road appear to be underestimated. The DEIR and TIA should be revised to correct the underestimation, impacts reevaluated, and recirculated with this substantial new information. For example:
i. Sand Hill Road/Santa Cruz Avenue (study intersection 7 in the TIA): certain traffic movements are shown to have less traffic under Background as compared to Cumulative conditions: the westbound left-turn (decreases by approximately 50 vehicles) and the northbound right-turn (experiences no change from Existing conditions, even with anticipated build out of the Stanford Hospital, 2000 GUP, and other projects in the area). Similarly in the cumulative conditions the westbound leftturn, southbound right-turn, eastbound left- and right-turns, and northbound left- and right-turns experience decreases of up to 200 vehicles per hour. ii. El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue (study intersection 41 in the TIA): Background conditions does not appear to adequately account for the buildout of projects in the area as listed. In particular, the growth shown between Existing and Background conditions at certain movements in the 2018 GUP DEIR and TIA is less than that shown for the Middle Plaza at 500 El Camino Real project alone. For example, the westbound left-turn in the 2018 GUP DEIR shows growth of 9 vehicles in the AM peak hour, while the Middle Plaza EIR shows 70 vehicles. Similar concerns exist for the northbound through and right-turn movements, eastbound right-turn and southbound through movement.
g. Project level impacts identified under Background Conditions should be fully mitigated.

The DEIR and TIA identify mitigation measures for Background plus Project conditions as fair-share payment towards potential physical improvements. CEQA, in sections PRC Page F-4.37

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 8
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

20112(a) & 14 CCR 15126.4, requires that project-level impacts be mitigated. The Project should be responsible for construction of mitigation measures that result from Project-level impacts.
h. Comments on specific mitigation measures
i. I-280 Northbound Ramp/Sand Hill Road. A fair share contribution is not adequate, per comment 7.g above. Bike lane is not protected, as stated on page 172. ii. El Camino Real intersections. A fair share contribution is not adequate, per comment 7.g above, and proposed improvements conflict with recent City direction and Middle Plaza at 500 ECR DEIR recommendations.
i. Bicycle and pedestrian impact evaluation and proposed mitigation While the effort to assess mitigation measures impacts on multi-modal travel, in addition to identifying vehicular improvements to mitigate traffic impacts, is appreciated, this assessment does not address bicycle and pedestrian demand and facility needs as a result of this Project. Key access routes to the Campus were recently evaluated as part of the Bicycle Access Plan, and gaps in the existing networks should be evaluated and mitigated appropriately. Similar efforts for the pedestrian network should also be completed. The City requested such an analysis in its NOP letter, an analysis of a 5-mile commute shed around the proposed General Use Permit development area. As noted in the permit application, Stanford owns land throughout the mid-Peninsula, including proposed development sites in Menlo Park and an approved project site in Redwood City. The City requested that the DEIR assess walking, bicycling, and traffic conditions across Stanford properties located across these multiple jurisdictions. This comment on the NOP was not addressed and the DEIR should be revised to include such an analysis and recirculated.

Further, Section 8.4.2 on page 218 discloses that the Project does not conflict with a planned facility or local agency policy. The City’s El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan, and follow up work through the El Camino Real Corridor Study, identify potential bicycle lanes on El Camino Real. The proposed mitigation conflicts with these plans. This is not addressed in the DEIR and the analysis should be revised and DEIR recirculated with identification of appropriate mitigation.

In addition, without provisions for bicycling and walking, Safe Routes to Schools within the City of Menlo Park are anticipated to be impacted by increased traffic as a result of the 2018 GUP. The City requests financial assistance for crossing guards. j. Neighborhood street impacts are not fully addressed
Neighborhood street impacts (Section 8.3 on page 199) in the Willows and Belle Haven Page F-4.38
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 9
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments neighborhoods in Menlo Park are not addressed. The Crescent Park neighborhood in Palo Alto was evaluated, and cut-through traffic from that area also directly impacts the Willows, across the Pope-Chaucer bridge over San Francisquito Creek. Additional traffic added to Bayfront Expressway, Willow Road and University Avenue will also lead to additional cutthrough in the Belle Haven neighborhood as commuters seek out alternative routes. Both of these should be addressed. The City of Menlo Park has adopted standards and thresholds of significance that should be used to evaluate increases in daily roadway traffic volumes on local streets in lieu of the TIRE Indices Analyses prepared following the City of Palo Alto standards. Based on Table 8-5 on page 217, cut-through volumes on Lytton Avenue and Hamilton Avenue near Pope-Chaucer are between 76 and 145 daily trips. These increases in traffic through the Willows would be considered significant following City of Menlo Park impact standards, and need to be evaluated and mitigated accordingly in a recirculated DEIR.
k. The DEIR does not address the NOP comments the City provided as listed below. i. Stanford is requesting continuation of a program to provide trip credit for off-campus transportation infrastructure improvements within the Cordon Credit Area, which includes properties owned by Stanford outside of Santa Clara County, including 500 El Camino Real and 2131 Sand Hill Road. The City requests that any required measures to reduce or mitigate impacts from the Middle Plaza at 500 El Camino Real project recently approved or 2131 Sand Hill Road project currently under review are not eligible for credits under the General Use Permit program, since this would result in double-counting the benefits of such measures.
ii. The Draft EIR did not address how vehicle trips from the proposed development areas outside the traffic cordon area, including Quarry, Lathrop, and San Juan in particular, will be addressed by the No Net New Commute Trips condition. The City requested the County modify the cordon area to incorporate these zones with additional proposed development.

Housing

8. The proposed $20 per square foot (plus CPI adjustment inflator) affordable housing impact fee is not adequate to mitigate the increased demand for affordable housing by the proposed 2018 GUP. The rate of housing construction costs has generally outpaced the CPI, so the fee as proposed does not keep pace with rising costs and will not allow construction of the identified housing unit demand within Menlo Park.

9. In addition, when Stanford University purchases or develops property for the provision of faculty and staff housing in adjacent jurisdictions, including both the City of Menlo Park and local school districts, the City and school districts lose property tax revenues from the property in perpetuity, Page F-4.39

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 10
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

since Stanford does not pay property taxes on lands used to support the University. This creates a two-fold negative impact to the City and other affected agencies, since the City loses revenues and has to continue to provide the municipal services necessitated by the residential properties.

It also further increases the cost of housing in the region, as the market-rate housing supply is decreased by such actions. Requiring Stanford to provide all housing on campus will avoid this impact. Further, the City requests that any growth in academic or support facilities be offset with commensurate growth in housing units on campus.

10. As availability of affordable housing continues to be a regional concern, the City requests that the County maximize additional benefits for housing supply for faculty, staff, and students, as well as for workers that may not be employed directly by Stanford, but work within the General Use Permit area. Specifically, the City requests that the full housing burden generated by the 2018 GUP be absorbed on the Stanford Campus, within the 2018 GUP development area.

Further, the City requests the County retain the 6-mile radius for use of affordable housing fees, since the impacts are most concentrated locally near the Stanford University campus. Further, the City requests that funding from housing fees be dedicated to impacted cities, commensurate with the level of anticipated impacts (e.g., proportional to the number of units needed to house Stanford employees). The provision of such fees is one of the few strategies that can be used to help offset the housing impacts identified as a result of the 2018 GUP and should be maintained.

11. The DEIR acknowledges that Stanford’s growth pursuant to the 2018 GUP will require housing in adjacent jurisdictions such as Menlo Park. The DEIR anticipates 153 new housing units in Menlo Park. Since the growth with the 2018 General Use Permit is anticipated to be at the same rate as the 2000 General Use Permit, the anticipated units in Menlo Park may be under estimated because 215 units associated with the 2000 General Use Permit have been approved for construction in Menlo Park at the Middle Plaza at 500 El Camino Real site.

Air Quality and Noise

12. Given the comments regarding peak spreading, the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis should be reevaluated to determine the continued accuracy of the conclusions relative to reductions in pollutants, especially since a full 1/3 of emissions are anticipated from transportation sources.

13. Stanford is proposing to construct up to 40,000 net new square feet of child care centers and other services on campus. However, in the chapter regarding air quality (see Figure 5.2-1), the DEIR does not consider on-site sensitive receptors like the new proposed day care centers and should be revised to reflect this change.

14. Noise impacts on the Sand Hill Road corridor should be mitigated near residential uses.

Page F-4.40

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City of Menlo Park 11
Stanford University “2018 General Use Permit”, Draft EIR Comments

Hydrology/Water Quality

15. Stanford should be required to coordinate and cooperate, including funding, with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to provide meaningful large-scale upstream detention facilities to attenuate and manage flows in San Francisquito Creek.

16. The DEIR did not adequately respond to the City request that Stanford continue to work with the City of Menlo Park and other jurisdictions to develop a specific proposal for the detention of floodwaters on Stanford land that will result in a significant and measurable reduction in floodwaters reaching the floodplain areas within Menlo Park and neighboring jurisdictions. The City requests that existing and proposed runoff calculations from the project area for both the 10- year and 100-year storm event be provided for the City to review and that the impact be evaluated in a revised and recirculated DEIR. In addition, the City requests that any plans that show existing and proposed impervious improvements and potential alteration of drainage patterns be provided. Combined with the improvements downstream within San Francisquito Creek, the detention on Stanford land shall result in containment of flows from the 10-year and 100-year storm events within the detention site(s) and within the Creek to the extent feasible.

The detention plan shall be designed and implemented by Stanford within a specific time line that is relative to the proposed development.

17. In addition, the City requests that the proposed General Use Permit include measures that either mitigate for increase flows and/or create no net increase in storm water runoff to the neighboring downstream communities that are located within the San Francisquito Creek Watershed Area.

Other Issues

18. The DEIR dismisses the impact of new students, faculty and staff on neighboring library facilities positing that Stanford is an academic university with libraries and visiting a local library is not necessary. However, there are many reasons to visit a library--a college student’s reason may be different from a faculty member who has a toddler and wishes to participate in story time at the library. If Stanford does not provide such services at its libraries, it is likely that there will be more visits to libraries in surrounding jurisdictions and potential impacts. The same is true of the impacts on parks and other community based recreation programs.

19. In anticipation of the Final EIR review period, the City requests that a minimum of 30 days be granted for public review.

Page F-4.41
Page F-4.42
Page F-4.43
Page F-4.44
Page F-4.45
Page F-4.46
Page F-4.47
Page F-4.48
6-Mile Buffer
Stanford Core Academic Campus
Menlo Park City Limits
County Boundaries
±
0 1 2 4
Miles
ATTACHMENT C Page F-4.49
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 10/15/2019
Staff Report Number: 19-211-CC
Regular Business: Authorize the City Council subcommittee on the 2018 Stanford University general use permit application to
submit a letter to the County of Santa Clara board of
supervisors
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the submittal of a letter to the Santa Clara County board of supervisors on the Stanford University 2018 general use permit application.

Policy Issues
The City’s interest in monitoring the Stanford University general use permit (GUP) is consistent with prior actions taken by the City Council on proposed projects located in neighboring jurisdictions that could induce environmental impact to the City of Menlo Park. Specifically, the City Council’s 2018 workplan identifies this project, which carried over to 2019.

This action is also consistent with policies and programs (e.g., LU-1.5, CIRC-1.B, CIRC-2.15) stated in the 2016 City general plan land use and circulation elements. These policies and programs seek to ensure Menlo Park goals and objectives are met for development within its sphere of influence and to collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions to develop, fund, and implement local and regional transportation planning/engineering efforts.

Background
Stanford University is a private university located on the San Francisco Peninsula. Stanford owns approximately 8,180 acres of land spanning across six governmental jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include: unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County and San Mateo County, the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and the towns of Portola Valley and Woodside. In 2000, the Santa Clara County board of supervisors adopted the Stanford University Community Plan and the 2000 general use permit for development primarily related to the core academic campus. In November 2016, Stanford submitted an application to Santa Clara County to update its current 2000 general use permit.

Background information summarizing the initial steps in the City’s review of the GUP application is included in the November 13, 2018 City Council staff report (Attachment A.) The remainder of this report focuses on the City’s review since December 2018.

Analysis
On December 11, 2018, the City Council selected Mayor Pro Tem Taylor and City Councilmember Nash to serve on the ad hoc subcommittee on the GUP. The subcommittee has tracked the project closely, in AGENDA ITEM H-3
Public Works
Page F-4.50 ATTACHMENT C
Staff Report #: 19-211-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org particularly by participating with other San Mateo County jurisdictions most impacted by the Stanford GUP, specifically the county of San Mateo, Redwood City, East Palo Alto, Woodside, Portola Valley and Atherton plus the City of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. The primary focus of the group has been on topics of transportation, housing, school, and fiscal impacts and opportunities for open space preservation and flood protection. This collaboration included the submittal of two letters to Santa Clara County in April and May 2019, included as attachment B.

On June 27, the Santa Clara Planning Commission recommended approval of the project to the board of supervisors. The following is a summary of the recent and remaining steps in the GUP process and tentative timelines as proposed by Santa Clara County:
 September 24: Study session
 October 8: Study session and first hearing in San Jose  October 22: Second hearing in Palo Alto, City Hall at 6 p.m.  November 5: Third hearing in San Jose at 1:30 p.m.
 November 19: Fourth hearing in San Jose in the afternoon (if needed) Each member of the subcommittee appeared at the October 8 meeting and submitted comments, included as Attachment C.

This City Council meeting October 15 provides an opportunity for the subcommittee to report out to the entire City Council, discuss the project and remaining steps, and consider the submittal of a letter to Santa Clara County (Attachment D.)
Impact on City Resources
The City has available resources and funds to review and respond to documents related to this project. No additional funds or resources are required at this time.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Hyperlink – City Council staff report, dated November 13, 2018 menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/18956/I2---GUP-UPDATE B. Letter from San Mateo County et. al., dated May 30
C. Individual comments by Mayor Pro Tem Taylor and by City Councilmember Nash, dated October 8, respectively
D. Draft letter to Santa Clara County board of supervisors Report prepared by:

Justin Murphy, Deputy City Manager
Page F-4.51
ATTACHMENT B Page F-4.52
Page F-4.53
Page F-4.54
Page F-4.55
Page F-4.56
Page F-4.57
Page F-4.58
Page F-4.59
Page F-4.60
Page F-4.61
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors meeting on October 8, 2019 Stanford GUP
My name is Cecilia Taylor and I am the Mayor Pro Tem of Menlo Park. I am the first elected representative from my community in multiple decades.

My community, the Belle Haven Neighborhood, is isolated from the rest of the City. We are bound by Highway 84/Willow Road, the Bayfront Expressway (the Connection to the Dumbarton Bridge), and the 101 Freeway. We are surrounded by weekday traffic, locked in the neighborhood in the mornings and locked out in the evening. The morning traffic period does not end until after 10:30am and the afternoon traffic begins again at 2:30pm.

I Believe Equitable Development is Necessary and Achievable. It requires an intentional and thoughtful focus on eliminating inequities and barriers. Good Governance in Land Use, Zoning, Policy, and Programs provides a healthy, safe, and inclusive guidelines moving forward. Good Governance also provides a voice and influence in the decisions that shape our neighborhoods and our Cities. Equitable Development can reverse patterns of segregation, Equitable Development can reverse disinvestment, Equitable Development can Prevent Displacement, and promote revitalization throughout our communities.

We, the City of Menlo Park, are united with San Mateo County along with the City of East Palo Alto, Redwood City, Atherton, Portola Valley and Woodside, Please require Stanford to fully mitigate the impacts of its development activities on all the neighboring communities in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.

Thank you for your time!
Cecilia Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem
City Council
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
ATTACHMENT C Page F-4.62
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors meeting on October 8, 2019 Public Comments – Stanford GUP
2019-1008 GUP BoS mtg remarks FINAL
Good afternoon. My name is Betsy Nash, and I serve on the Menlo Park City Council.

As I mentioned at the last Board meeting, Menlo Park, like other cities in the area, continues to struggle with inadequate housing availability and housing affordability, and traffic congestion that chokes our streets.

Stanford’s proposal to expand under the 2018 General Use Permit will further aggravate these already serious problems, and it is hard to overstate the adverse impacts.

One of the biggest impacts of Stanford expansion is that it creates new demand for housing for Stanford’s students, faculty, staff and other workers. Stanford wants other communities, such as Menlo Park, to house a significant number of these people. However:
• Cities do not have available land for this new housing. Stanford does. • When Stanford takes over an existing housing complex, either built or proposed, it takes away housing units that cities are already counting on to house workers for existing jobs and it does nothing to help the jobs/housing imbalance. This was the case you heard about in Los Altos and it has many detrimental impacts.

So please require Stanford to fully mitigate the impacts of its development activities on all the neighboring communities in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. Including building necessary housing on their own land.

Thank you.

Betsy Nash
Menlo Park City Council
[email protected]
Page F-4.63
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org City Council
October 10, 2019
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Empty
RE: Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit
Empty
Dear Supervisors,
I am writing on behalf on the entire Menlo Park City Council. Menlo Park is extremely concerned about the environmental and fiscal impacts that will be imposed on all jurisdictions in the vicinity of the development proposed in the Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit.

As you know, Menlo Park has been participating with other San Mateo County jurisdictions most impacted by the Stanford GUP, specifically the County of San Mateo, Redwood City, East Palo Alto, Woodside, Portola Valley and Atherton plus the City of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. We continue to be committed to working collaboratively with these other jurisdictions.

Stanford needs to be held accountable for offsetting its impacts on its own lands and not adversely affecting its neighbors. Prior to taking any final action on the project in November 2019, please require Stanford to fully mitigate the impacts of its development activities on all of the neighboring communities in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties.

Sincerely,
Ray Mueller
Mayor
ATTACHMENT D Page F-4.64
September 9, 2022
Honorable Joe Simitian
Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
70 West Hedding Street
East Wing, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110
SUBJECT: STANFORD GENERAL USE PERMIT (GUP) – COMMUNITY PLAN Dear Supervisor Simitian:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Stanford GUP process. The Town was very involved in the public process for the 2019 GUP and while Stanford may have withdrawn its application for a new GUP, the Town remains very concerned about the impact of some of their development, both today and in the future.

The Town believes that it is vital that the Stanford Community Plan be rigorously updated, particularly after being essentially dormant for more than 20 years. The Town generally supports the staff recommendations and believes that they are consistent with the 2019 discussions. We too have specific concerns with some of Stanford’s recommendations for changes to the Community Plan. These concerns relate to a dilution of policies that already exist in the Community Plan.
• We do not support removing the trip-based standards from the Circulation Chapter, including for peak period and reverse commute trips;
• We do not support allowing for use of an in-lieu fee for affordable housing units as such funds never go far enough to address the real need; and • We do not support allowing for housing built under the current GUP to be credited to a future GUP.

Thank you for hearing our concerns and please support the staff recommendations.

Sincerely,
Rick DeGolia, Mayor
cc: City Council
Town of Atherton
Office of the Mayor
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, California 94027
Phone: (650) 752-0500
Page F-4.65 ATTACHMENT D
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087
September 14, 2022
Subject: Agenda Item #7 – September 15, 2022, Stanford Community Plan Update Dear Members of the Santa Clara County’s Housing, Land Use, Environment, and Transportation Committee,
I am writing on behalf of the Los Altos City Council to provide comment on the above-referenced Agenda Item 4 regarding the Report on Growth and Development, Land Use, Open Space, Resource Conservation, and Health and Safety chapters to be included in the Stanford Community Plan Update (“Report”). Thank you for the opportunity to do so. Thanks also to staff for putting together such a comprehensive report.

Like many jurisdictions that are in close proximity to the subject Stanford property, the City of Los Altos was involved in the public process for the 2019 General Use Permit. While Stanford University (the “University”) may have withdrawn its application for a new General Use Permit (“GUP”), Los Altos remains very concerned about the impacts of the University’s development on our community both today and in the future. Therefore, we believe its important that the Community Plan be rigorously updated, after more than 20 years of being on the shelf. It needs to be done prior to there being a new use permit under review.

Accordingly, we believe the staff recommendations contained in the Report are consistent with where the 2019 process left off, and we support those recommendations. We also have specific concerns about certain requests that we believe would weaken the effectiveness of policies in the Community Plan, including:
• removing the trip-based standards from the circulation chapter, including peak period and reverse commute trips;
• allowing for use of an in-lieu fee for affordable housing units when those fees are insufficient to actually result in the number of units needed; and
• allowing for housing built under the current GUP to be credited to a future GUP.

These concerns are born out of our experience from being a close neighbor (it is not often recognized that our downtown is less than 6 miles from the university campus). Los Altos has been directly impacted by the University’s acquisition of housing in Los Altos and resultant increase in traffic congestion on our streets. As we all know, affordable housing is a regional issue, and increasing opportunities for biking, walking, and transit are key to safer streets and cleaner air.

Thank you for hearing our concerns, and please support the staff recommendations addressing those concerns.

Sincerely,
______________________
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
cc: Members, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Members, Los Altos City Council
DocuSign Envelope ID: 12198EAA-99B0-43F2-99A2-52930EEBA212 Page F-4.66
CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100 September 14, 2022
Jacqueline Onciano, Director
Department of Planning and Development
Santa Clara County Planning Office
70 W. Hedding Street
7th Floor, East Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
RE: Stanford Community Plan Update
Dear Ms. Onciano & Staff:

The City of Palo Alto thanks the County for the valuable work that has been put into the Draft Stanford Community Plan and we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the update. The City supports this effort as an important next step in planning for the future of the unincorporated Stanford University lands, and we appreciate the County’s public engagement efforts and opportunities for input on the issue. This is particularly important to the City given Stanford’s adjacency and impacts on Palo Alto.

In the context of the ‘1985 Land Use Policy Agreement’ between the County, Stanford, and Palo Alto, we offer the following comments and request additional opportunities for continued engagement to fully understand the implications of the SCP on Palo Alto. The issues of primary concern to the City, based on information available at this time, are briefly highlighted below:

A. Housing

1. House students/employees on Stanford-owned properties. We suggest that the University continue to strive to house all its students and employees on Stanford-owned properties. Given the very great challenges of meeting Palo Alto’s current RHNA mandate for over 6,000 housing units in the coming eight-year period, we are concerned by the SCP proposal to allow up to 30% of Stanford’s housing requirements on Stanford owned lands that are contiguous to the University. These sites would be primarily in Palo Alto on land (primarily the Stanford Research Park) that the city is seeking to be used for housing for those who work in the City. In addition, Stanford should be required to evaluate other properties within its academic growth boundary for housing.

2. Build housing before academic buildings. We encourage policy that builds housing first then allows academic development.

3. County’s Housing Opportunity Sites on Stanford Lands. The County’s Draft Housing Element identifies three housing opportunity sites with potential for between 1,680 and 2,160 dwelling Page F-4.67

units that represents between 53-69% of the total Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the County.
• This is substantial planned growth adjacent to the City limits, which is only second to the opportunity sites located adjacent to the City of San Jose. However, in contrast, the Stanford sites are concentrated in one area, creating the potential for a greater impact on Palo Alto.

B. Circulation

1. Parking Impacts: Stanford should be required to pay for mitigation of parking impacts which could include the initiation and operation of necessary Residential Parking Programs (RPP).

2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Changes: Palo Alto is greatly impacted if the Stanford TDM program fails. For Stanford’s TDM to work, it needs to invest in Palo Alto infrastructure and transit.
• The new Trip Reduction approach in lieu of fair-share intersection payments and the Trip Credit Methodology needs to be clarified and explained. • It is not appropriate that Stanford Research Park trips reduced are being used as trip credits for campus development.
• A better approach would be to target trip reduction activities to non-Stanford employees without access to TDM programs.

3. In lieu of fair share intersection payments: Expansion, integration, and transparency of the Marguerite system into the City of Palo Alto neighborhoods, in collaboration with the City, should be considered or required. Financial support of local transit in lieu of Marguerite expansion is aa preferred consideration. Moreover, it would be appropriate to provide funds additional bicycle/pedestrian and vehicular crossings of the Caltrain corridor.

C. 27 University Property and the Caltrain Station: Stanford owns these key parcels, which constitute the busiest Caltrain station. Stanford’s entities rely on Caltrain as the backbone of its TDM program.

Future planning of this site should be an important consideration in the SCP.

D. Stanford’s shift to Life Sciences: This shift introduces potentially hazardous materials, and its handling and storage of these materials affects the City’s interest in locating additional housing in and around the Stanford Research Park.

E. Impacts of Stanford Acquiring Land in Palo Alto: The City has concerns regarding Stanford acquiring land in Palo Alto and how this affects the City’s property tax revenue when used for ‘academic’ purposes as defined in the 1985 Agreement, including housing for faculty. Palo Alto is concerned with the prospect of Stanford owned housing within the City being exempt from property taxes despite additional impacts of those residents on our public schools and city services. Palo Alto seeks full disclosure by Stanford of University owned properties within the city limits, their status, and a calculation of tax revenue lost.

Page F-4.68

We would be happy to meet with you and Supervisor Simitian if such a meeting would help resolve any of these issues or concerns. If there are any questions regarding the specific SCP update comments attached, please contact our Planning Director Jonathan Lait at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Mayor Pat Burt
Cc Palo Alto City Council
City Manager Ed Shikada
City Attorney Molly Stump
Jonathan Lait/File
Page F-4.69
Mayor Giselle Hale 1017 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
Vice Mayor Diana Reddy Redwood City, California 94063
Telephone (650) 780-7220
Council Members www.redwoodcity.org
Alicia C. Aguirre
Lissette Espinoza-Garnica
Jeff Gee
Diane Howard
Elmer Martinez Saballos
September 14, 2022
County of Santa Clara Housing, Land Use, Environment, and Transportation Committee (HLUET) Supervisor Mike Wasserman, Chairperson
Supervisor S. Joseph Simitian, Vice Chairperson
Public Comment for September 15, 2022 Regular Meeting Regarding Agenda Item #7, Stanford Community Plan
Submitted via email: [email protected]
Dear Chair Wasserman and Vice Chair Simitian,
On behalf of the City of Redwood City, we would like to comment on Agenda Item 7, the Stanford Community Plan. The City of Redwood City participated in the public process regarding the 2019 General Use Permit and remains very interested in future development plans for Stanford University. We value the University’s presence in Redwood City, and its contributions to the region. We also support efforts to ensure that future development complements – and does not undermine - work being done in Redwood City and throughout the region to meet critical needs for housing and transportation.

Fundamentally, we support the County’s efforts to ensure that new development does not burden adjacent communities. Updating the Community Plan after 20 years is a critical step, and we support County staff recommendations.

Based on our experience in striving to meet community needs for housing and circulation, we support including the following policies in the Community Plan:
• Trip-based standards, including peak period and reverse commute trips • Requiring construction of affordable housing to ensure housing is developed in a timely manner, rather than allowing for use of an in-lieu fee for affordable housing units We do not agree that housing built under the current GUP should be credited to a future GUP, or that Stanford should receive credit for housing that occurs off campus.

Thank you for considering our concerns and for your service.

Sincerely,
Giselle Hale, Mayor
Cc: Redwood City City Council
Kristina Loquist, Chief of Staff, Supervisor Simitian
Page F-4.70

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
650-903-6306 | MountainView.gov
September 14, 2022
Jacqueline Onciano
Director of Planning and Development
County of Santa Clara
70 West Hedding Street, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110

STANFORD UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY PLAN
Dear Ms. Onciano:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the latest information on the Stanford Community Plan.

This letter includes the City of Mountain View’s support and comments related to potential housing and transportation project-related impacts. While we detail specifics below, we are in support of the Stanford Community Plan. Stanford should provide a number of dwelling units commensurate with, and timing concurrent with, any growth in students, post-docs, or employees and should adopt strategies to eliminate any net new vehicle trips to the campus.

Housing
The City of Mountain View supports the Stanford Community Plan’s strategies to increase the supply and affordability of housing and balance housing needs with neighborhood conservation.

In particular, the City of Mountain View supports the following strategies included in the Stanford Community Plan:
“• Strategy No. 1: Increase the Supply and Affordability of Housing — Sub-Strategy 1A: Plan for an Adequate and Balanced Housing Supply — Sub-Strategy 1B: Facilitate and Expedite Needed Residential Development — Sub-Strategy 1C: Augment Affordability Programs and Funding • Strategy No. 2: Balance Housing Needs with Neighborhood Conservation” The City of Mountain View also has the following recommendations:
• Jobs/Housing Linkage: The County should ensure the Stanford Community Plan’s housing development is constructed concurrent with its academic development. Approval of significant new academic development without such assurance could exacerbate housing shortages by adding population without augmenting housing supply. The City of Mountain Page F-4.71
Ms. Jacqueline Onciano
September 14, 2022

View has implemented this strategically through the East Whisman Precise Plan as noted later in this letter.
• Neighborhood Compatibility: The housing units required by Strategy No. 1 should not be scaled back; however, design and landscaping features to address neighborhood compatibility should be included.
• Affordable Housing Fees: We recommend setting the fees for both on- and off-campus development on the high end of the supportable range provided by the nexus study at the same time that the Stanford Community Plan is approved.

Transportation
The City of Mountain View is supportive of a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) focused approach in addition to the long-standing “no net new commute trips” performance standard. The City of Mountain View supports the following performance standards that will allow Stanford to continue to grow while not substantially adding more traffic and VMT:
“• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Consistency with the VMT standards per SB 743 encourages alternative modes of transportation, such as walking and biking, better access to daily destinations, reduction in commute times, less sprawl, and will improve air quality resulting from less auto emissions. • No net new commute trips. This performance standard is defined as no additional trips above a measured base level during the AM and PM peak-hour (1 hour) and has been in effect since 2001. The AM and PM peak-period (3 hours or more) standard is new with this plan update and is during the peak commute time in the campus commute direction. This standard ensures that there will be no additional automobile trips over an established baseline determined by the Stanford Traffic Monitoring Program, which includes extensive data collection efforts, including cordon counts, parking counts, parking ratios, cut through traffic percentages, and trip credits recorded on an annual basis since 2001.
• Reverse Trips. This performance standard controls the growth in reverse commute trips so as to not contribute substantially to local area congestion. This applies to the peak hour (1 hour) and the peak period (3 hours).”
The City of Mountain View is also supportive of the Stanford Community Plan strategies for circulation and the policies and implementation measures for each strategy.

Page F-4.72
Ms. Jacqueline Onciano
September 14, 2022

Strategies For Implementation
The City of Mountain View has substantial experience with the translation of land use policies into implementation through its recent Precise Plans as discussed below. We would be happy to provide further input from our experience with these issues. • The East Whisman Precise Plan provides specific implementation strategies to link additional job growth with housing growth (i.e., jobs-housing linkage). It includes a Bonus Floor Area Ratio program to ensure the new development provides benefits and a JobsHousing Linkage Plan to facilitate residential development. The East Whisman Precise Plan can be found at www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/ eastwhisman.asp.
• The North Bayshore Precise Plan provides specific implementation policies for aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM). It includes a peak-hour trip cap at each of the three main gateways, a maximum 45% single-occupancy vehicle mode share, parking maximums, and capital improvement projects that support alternative modes. The North Bayshore Precise Plan documents can be found at www.mountainview.gov/depts/ comdev/planning/activeprojects/northbayshore_/default.asp.

If you have any questions, please directstaff to contact Ela Kerachian at 650-903-6526 or by email at [email protected]. We look forward to continuing to work with the County on the project.

Sincerely,
Aarti Shrivastava
Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director
AS/EF/4/MGR/820-09-14-22L
cc: Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County
Sylvia Gallegos, Deputy County Executive, County of Santa Clara Kristina Loquist, Chief of Staff, Office of County Supervisor Joe Simitian Charu Ahluwalia, County Stanford Program Manager,
Department of Planning and Development
Geoff Bradley, Consulting Project Manager, Stanford Community Plan Update Dawn Cameron, Public Works Director, City of Mountain View Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager, City of Mountain View
Page F-4.73
Page F-4.74
Page F-4.75
Page F-4.76
1 September 23, 2022
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
70 W. Hedding St.

San Jose, CA
Via email
Re: 9/27/22 Agenda Item #8: Stanford Community Plan Update Dear President Wasserman and Supervisors,
This represents the comments of Green Foothills on the Stanford Community Plan Update. Green Foothills supports the proposed amendments to the Stanford Community Plan and urges the Board of Supervisors to adopt the staff recommendations.

Specifically, Green Foothills submits comments on the following aspects of the Stanford Community Plan:

Academic Growth Boundary
The Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) protects the open space of the Stanford foothills from sprawling development. First approved in 2000, it divides the developed area of the Stanford campus from the open hillsides west of a line that primarily follows Junipero Serra Boulevard. Currently, the AGB cannot be modified without a supermajority (4/5) vote of the Board of Supervisors. However, that supermajority vote requirement expires in 2025. The Stanford Community Plan Update would extend the supermajority vote requirement for 99 years.

Stanford objects to this 99-year extension, arguing that it would prevent some future unspecified “transformative” project from being approved. However, it’s important to note that the 99-year extension is merely for the supermajority vote requirement. The AGB itself is not locked in place irrevocably for the next 99 years. Any future 4/5 majority of the Board could approve development outside of the AGB at any time. One would expect that if a project was truly “transformative” and worthy of being made an exception to the rule, 4 out of 5 Supervisors would agree on that; if not, it’s arguable that the project is not very “transformative” after all.

We would like to suggest for consideration two minor wording changes to the AGB section of the Growth and Development chapter:

Page F-4.77
2 Policy SCP-GD 3 (page 17 of the clean copy and page 24 of the tracked-changes copy of the Growth and Development Chapter) reads as follows: “Allow modification of the location of the AGB within 99 years only upon a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors based upon the following factors . . .” At the August 31, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Vicki Moore suggested that this wording be changed to “Prohibit modification of the location of the AGB within 99 years unless upon a four-fifths votes of the Board of Supervisors based upon the follow factors . . .” We agree with Commissioner Moore’s reasoning that the suggested modification makes the intent of the requirement clearer, and would support this wording change.

Additionally, the last of the factors listed in Policy SCP-GD 3 is not in line with the other factors. The first four factors listed all establish findings that must be made prior to modification of the AGB (e.g. “Development of new academic facilities or housing cannot be feasibly accommodated within the boundaries of the existing AGB or on other property owned by Stanford in reasonable proximity to the Stanford campus”). The last factor, however, is not a finding but merely a criterion (“Implications of AGB expansion for resource conservation”) We suggest changing this wording to “AGB expansion will have no implications for resource conservation.”
Housing Chapter and Policies
Stanford has responded to the proposed changes to the Housing Chapter and its policies by requesting that the County allow greater flexibility in location of required housing. This request needs to be considered in light of the regional housing crisis and the County’s obligations under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The County is being required to fulfill a RHNA mandate of 3,125 units of housing – an increase of over 1,000% from the previous RHNA cycle. Unlike every city within Santa Clara County, the County’s jurisdiction is almost exclusively rural.

Not only do the rural areas lack the necessary water and sewer services and infrastructure for dense housing development, but allocating new housing growth in the rural areas would be the very definition of residential sprawl. This would result in increased greenhouse gas emissions and traffic, loss of farmland, and impacts to wildlife connectivity. Furthermore, this is an issue of equity. State law requires jurisdictions to equitably distribute new housing, especially affordable housing, among resource-rich communities such as the Stanford area, not locate it all in low-income areas – such as rural agricultural communities.

Locating new housing for Stanford staff and students on the Stanford campus would not only avoid the problems of sprawl and inequity, but would allow residents to be within walking distance of their jobs and classes. They would be living in an area with accessible public transit, bike- and pedestrian-friendly streets, and rich opportunities for jobs and schools. This is, in every way, the ideal way to plan our future communities.

Page F-4.78
3 Thus, Stanford’s desire for more “flexibility” in location of housing means, in this case, flexibility to increase greenhouse gas emissions, to accelerate loss of farmland, and to increase inequity.

Stanford needs to do its fair share for our community and our region. Please approve the proposed update to the Stanford Community Plan.

Sincerely,
Alice Kaufman
Legislative Advocacy Director, Green Foothills
Page F-4.79

VIA EMAIL DELIVERY
September 26, 2022
Supervisor Mike Wasserman, President
Supervisor Cindy Chavez
Supervisor Otto Lee
Supervisor Susan Ellenberg
Supervisor Joe Simitian
70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear President Wasserman and Members of the Board of Supervisors, For more than a year, Stanford University has worked productively with County Planning staff on the underlying studies and associated policies related to the Stanford Community Plan (SCP) updates – providing comprehensive feedback along the way. While there are many items in the SCP draft that we feel are more prescriptive than what would ordinarily be found in a general plan document, we have prioritized our feedback to focus on items of greatest concern related to housing, transportation, and municipal services that are critical for Stanford’s educational mission, as well as the university’s commitment to the community. Details are below.

1. Housing: Stanford agrees that net new academic development as part of a new General Use Permit (GUP) application should be balanced with the addition of new housing. Should it be desirable for Stanford to create new housing prior to a new GUP, for example to contribute to the large amount of housing assigned to Stanford lands in the County’s draft Housing Element, we believe it makes sense to allow Stanford to credit such housing towards future academic growth. This is exactly the kind of encouragement/barrier removal that the California Department of State Housing and Community Development department envisions to facilitate housing development. Policies acknowledging this credit could enable Stanford to accelerate housing contributions in such a situation.

2. Transportation: Stanford wants to continue to be a good neighbor and is willing to use trip-based metrics (e.g., reverse commute) alongside the Vehicle Miles Traveled standards and robust Transit Demand Management efforts. Fine-tuning the trip metric methodology and metric is, however, needed to ensure that new housing is not rendered infeasible through conditions that cannot be met. It is inevitable that new housing will generate some “reverse commute” household trips for things like errands, or a household member who works outside the university. Stanford should be encouraged, not penalized, for intensifying infill development near transit.

3. Municipal Services: Stanford has raised concerns regarding the underlying studies on Municipal Services, Childcare, and Graduate Student Housing. We first note that all three studies confirm that Stanford provides quality resources and services under each category, specifically that all the 26 Municipal Services studied at Stanford are equivalent, or exceed, those provided by cities – with no significant instances of unreimbursed costs. In the area of housing, Stanford is a regional standout, guaranteeing four years of housing for all undergraduates and housing 75 percent of all graduate Page F-4.80
students. Regarding childcare, the combination of grants and tuition-reduction programs on a needsbased sliding scale make Stanford’s high-quality programs more accessible.

Stanford embraces the recommendations in the Municipal Services Study that call for better communication and transparency on services we provide. However, some recommendations are unnecessarily burdensome, requiring detailed data to be provided for all municipal services. Our other concern is around recommendations attempting to prescribe how services are provided. For example, we believe that our childcare centers should be able to use the accreditation method of their choice – NAEYC rather than QRIS (which is not yet widely used in California).

Another area of concern are policies regarding how Stanford should engage with the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) on funding agreements. Stanford has worked collaboratively with Palo Alto to establish funding agreements for various municipal services and believes it is important for the parties to have flexibility in how they choose to address mutual interests and areas of concern. In the case of PAUSD, just as we did in the context of the 2018 GUP process, Stanford will work proactively with the district to address any potential impacts on local schools as a result of future academic growth.

Finally, as we continue to consider the draft SCP policies that could potentially constrain new academic facilities and associated housing, redevelopment becomes more important and strengthens the university’s commitment to sustainability. To that end, Stanford appreciates the opportunity to work collaboratively with County Staff to ensure that administrative policies don’t hinder our ability to redevelop our existing campus square footage.

We appreciate the Board’s thoughtful consideration of our comments and respectfully ask that you direct staff to work with Stanford to ensure proper flexibility with accountability throughout all of the policies. Please reach out to our team with any questions.

Sincerely,
Erin Efner
Associate Vice President
Land Use & Environmental Planning
cc:

Charu Ahluwalia Sylvia Gallegos Jacqueline Onciano
Geoff Bradley Wendy Ho Jeff Smith
Betty Duong Kristina Loquist Christine Stavem
Mayra Flores Leza Mikhail
Page F-4.81
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087
September 27, 2022
Subject: Report on Stanford University Community Plan Update Dear Board of Supervisors,
I am writing on behalf of the Los Altos City Council to provide comment on the above-referenced Agenda Item 4 regarding the Report on Growth and Development, Land Use, Open Space, Resource Conservation, and Health and Safety chapters to be included in the Stanford Community Plan Update (“Report”). Thank you for the opportunity to do so. Thanks also to staff for putting together such a comprehensive report.

Like many jurisdictions that are in close proximity to the subject Stanford property, the City of Los Altos was involved in the public process for the 2019 General Use Permit. While Stanford University (the “University”) may have withdrawn its application for a new General Use Permit (“GUP”), Los Altos remains very concerned about the impacts of the University’s development on our community both today and in the future. Therefore, we believe its important that the Community Plan be rigorously updated, after more than 20 years of being on the shelf. It needs to be done prior to there being a new use permit under review.

Accordingly, we believe the staff recommendations contained in the Report are consistent with where the 2019 process left off, and we support those recommendations. We also have specific concerns about certain requests that we believe would weaken the effectiveness of policies in the Community Plan, including:
• removing the trip-based standards from the circulation chapter, including peak period and reverse commute trips;
• allowing for use of an in-lieu fee for affordable housing units when those fees are insufficient to actually result in the number of units needed; and
• allowing for housing built under the current GUP to be credited to a future GUP.

These concerns are born out of our experience from being a close neighbor (it is not often recognized that our downtown is less than 6 miles from the university campus). Los Altos has been directly impacted by the University’s acquisition of housing in Los Altos and resultant increase in traffic congestion on our streets. As we all know, affordable housing is a regional issue, and increasing opportunities for biking, walking, and transit are key to safer streets and cleaner air.

Thank you for hearing our concerns, and please support the staff recommendations addressing those concerns.

Sincerely,
______________________
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
cc: Members, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Members, Los Altos City Council
Page F-4.82

VIA EMAIL DELIVERY
September 26, 2022
Supervisor Mike Wasserman, President
Supervisor Cindy Chavez
Supervisor Otto Lee
Supervisor Susan Ellenberg
Supervisor Joe Simitian
70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear President Wasserman and Members of the Board of Supervisors, For more than a year, Stanford University has worked productively with County Planning staff on the underlying studies and associated policies related to the Stanford Community Plan (SCP) updates – providing comprehensive feedback along the way. While there are many items in the SCP draft that we feel are more prescriptive than what would ordinarily be found in a general plan document, we have prioritized our feedback to focus on items of greatest concern related to housing, transportation, and municipal services that are critical for Stanford’s educational mission, as well as the university’s commitment to the community. Details are below.

1. Housing: Stanford agrees that net new academic development as part of a new General Use Permit (GUP) application should be balanced with the addition of new housing. Should it be desirable for Stanford to create new housing prior to a new GUP, for example to contribute to the large amount of housing assigned to Stanford lands in the County’s draft Housing Element, we believe it makes sense to allow Stanford to credit such housing towards future academic growth. This is exactly the kind of encouragement/barrier removal that the California Department of State Housing and Community Development department envisions to facilitate housing development. Policies acknowledging this credit could enable Stanford to accelerate housing contributions in such a situation.

2. Transportation: Stanford wants to continue to be a good neighbor and is willing to use trip-based metrics (e.g., reverse commute) alongside the Vehicle Miles Traveled standards and robust Transit Demand Management efforts. Fine-tuning the trip metric methodology and metric is, however, needed to ensure that new housing is not rendered infeasible through conditions that cannot be met. It is inevitable that new housing will generate some “reverse commute” household trips for things like errands, or a household member who works outside the university. Stanford should be encouraged, not penalized, for intensifying infill development near transit.

3. Municipal Services: Stanford has raised concerns regarding the underlying studies on Municipal Services, Childcare, and Graduate Student Housing. We first note that all three studies confirm that Stanford provides quality resources and services under each category, specifically that all the 26 Municipal Services studied at Stanford are equivalent, or exceed, those provided by cities – with no significant instances of unreimbursed costs. In the area of housing, Stanford is a regional standout, guaranteeing four years of housing for all undergraduates and housing 75 percent of all graduate Page F-4.83
students. Regarding childcare, the combination of grants and tuition-reduction programs on a needsbased sliding scale make Stanford’s high-quality programs more accessible.

Stanford embraces the recommendations in the Municipal Services Study that call for better communication and transparency on services we provide. However, some recommendations are unnecessarily burdensome, requiring detailed data to be provided for all municipal services. Our other concern is around recommendations attempting to prescribe how services are provided. For example, we believe that our childcare centers should be able to use the accreditation method of their choice – NAEYC rather than QRIS (which is not yet widely used in California).

Another area of concern are policies regarding how Stanford should engage with the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) on funding agreements. Stanford has worked collaboratively with Palo Alto to establish funding agreements for various municipal services and believes it is important for the parties to have flexibility in how they choose to address mutual interests and areas of concern. In the case of PAUSD, just as we did in the context of the 2018 GUP process, Stanford will work proactively with the district to address any potential impacts on local schools as a result of future academic growth.

Finally, as we continue to consider the draft SCP policies that could potentially constrain new academic facilities and associated housing, redevelopment becomes more important and strengthens the university’s commitment to sustainability. To that end, Stanford appreciates the opportunity to work collaboratively with County Staff to ensure that administrative policies don’t hinder our ability to redevelop our existing campus square footage.

We appreciate the Board’s thoughtful consideration of our comments and respectfully ask that you direct staff to work with Stanford to ensure proper flexibility with accountability throughout all of the policies. Please reach out to our team with any questions.

Sincerely,
Erin Efner
Associate Vice President
Land Use & Environmental Planning
cc:

Charu Ahluwalia Sylvia Gallegos Jacqueline Onciano
Geoff Bradley Wendy Ho Jeff Smith
Betty Duong Kristina Loquist Christine Stavem
Mayra Flores Leza Mikhail
Page F-4.84
Library and Community Services
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-191-CC
Regular Business: Provide input on a request for proposals for an aquatics operator at Burgess Pool and the future
Menlo Park Community Campus aquatics center
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council provide input on the draft request for proposals (RFP) for an aquatics operator (Provider) at Burgess Pool and the future Menlo Park Community Campus (MPPC) aquatics center (Attachment A.)
Policy Issues
City Council provides policy direction to the city manager regarding service provision to the community; provides authorization to the city manager to negotiate and execute professional services agreements with service providers; and sets prioritization for the use of City resources to serve the community.

Background
On February 8, 2022, City Council directed staff to prepare an RFP to be issued in Autumn 2022 – to which current operator Team Sheeper, Inc. would be invited and encouraged to respond – for an aquatics operator at Burgess Pool and the future MPCC aquatics center.

On August 23, 2002, City Council reviewed an aquatics program analysis and provided direction to staff regarding desired elements of the RFP.

Analysis
The draft RFP requests qualified pool operators to submit proposals for operating the Burgess Pool and the future MPCC aquatics center (Attachment A.)
Timeline
Staff recommends issuing the RFP per the following proposed timeline:
• October 11 – City Council review and provide input on the draft RFP • October 24 – RFP issued
• November 30 – Proposals due
• December to January – Staff review proposals
• January 2023 – City Council identify preferred Provider; authorize city manager to negotiate agreement • February 2023 – City Council authorize city manager to execute agreement.

Draft RFP key priorities
Per City Council’s feedback and direction, key priorities have been incorporated into the draft RFP. The AGENDA ITEM G-1 Page G-1.1
Staff Report #: 22-191-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org RFP is structured to offer some flexibility to RFP respondents to develop proposals that balance the City’s key priorities with respondents’ operational needs. Proposals from qualified aquatics operators that demonstrate a high degree of responsiveness to most or all of these priorities in addition to the basic capabilities and competencies that are required to operate quality aquatics programs will be deemed more competitive for selection:

1. Respondent proposes to operate the Burgess Pool and the future MPCC aquatics center for public access year-round, seven days per week, no fewer than 63 hours per week at each location as calculated by average applied over the course of a full calendar year—with exceptions for closures to observe major holidays or to complete necessary maintenance or repair work.

2. Respondent proposes to operate Burgess Pool and MPCC aquatics center with comparable or equivalent operating schedules and programs at both locations, with allowance for some variances to respond to hyperlocal needs and other unique considerations of each site and the neighborhoods in which they are located.

3. Respondent agrees to seek City approval for new aquatics user fees or modifications to existing aquatics user fees, with the mutual understanding by City and operator that: a) user fees are the primary source of revenue necessary for operator to deliver and sustain safe, quality aquatics operations for the community; and, b) user fees can and do present barriers to entry for some residents, especially residents who are most vulnerable, and barriers can persist even with the availability of scholarship or subsidy programs.

4. Respondent agrees to enter into a revenue sharing agreement with the City to offset a portion of the City’s facility maintenance costs at Burgess Pool and the MPCC aquatics center, preferably at a “medium” cost recovery rate to the City of 30 percent to 70 percent. The City’s total costs to maintain the Burgess Pool facility were approximately $645,000 in fiscal year 2021-2022.

5. Respondent proposes to dedicate operating hours and pool space to open swim/community swim for play and social time during times that are deemed convenient and accessible to Menlo Park resident children and families, as measured in part by community satisfaction surveys to be jointly administered by operator and the City.

6. Respondent proposes to offer aqua wellness and/or therapeutic classes in formats and at times that are deemed convenient and accessible to Menlo Park for seniors and others who benefit from such programs, as measured in part by community satisfaction surveys to be jointly administered by operator and the City.

7. Respondent recognizes the City’s desire to ensure that every Menlo Park resident child has meaningful access to effective water safety instruction at City aquatics centers regardless of their family’s ability to pay user fees. Respondent proposes to provide these services to individuals or families who cannot afford the market rate fees. Diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging A. Respondent proposes to provide meaningful employment opportunities in City aquatics facilities to qualified Menlo Park residents, especially residents who live in the immediate vicinity of City aquatics centers.

B. Respondent proposes to foster an organizational culture that is based on foundations of equity, inclusion, belonging and justice to create a safe and welcoming environment in City aquatics facilities for all Menlo Park residents regardless of background, income, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other lived experiences that contribute to a vibrant and accepting community.

C. Respondent proposes to reduce and/or remove barriers to entry for City residents who are most vulnerable, including children and families who reside in low-income households, seniors and people with disabilities.

Requirements and terms
Per City Council’s feedback and direction, various requirements and terms are incorporated into the draft RFP and/or will be included in the resulting operator agreement with the selected Provider. A partial list of Page G-1.2
Staff Report #: 22-191-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org requirements includes:

1. Provider will prepare and submit a detailed annual performance report to City staff no later than January 30 of each year, including but not limited to the following information:

A. Total program hours by program area
B. Participation statistics by program area including resident and non-resident percentages C. Community satisfaction survey results
D. User group feedback by program area
E. Pool schedule and allocation by program for previous year and projections to the upcoming year F. Fees by program area and a fee comparison to other public pools in the region G. Annual audits and reviews demonstrating standards of care are met H. Risk management documentation
I. Training certifications listed by staff member.

2. Provider will coordinate with City staff to present operator’s annual performance report to City Council no later than March 31 of each year.

3. Provider will submit to City staff quarterly financial statements no later than 45 days after the end of each fiscal quarter, and annual financial statements no later than 45 days after the close of the fiscal year. Financial statements submitted to the City shall be considered public records subject to applicable government transparency law.

4. Provider will consult with City staff before altering the operating hours, launching new aquatics programs, making significant changes to existing programs, or significantly altering any other substantive aspects of Provider’s operations and programs at City aquatics centers.

5. Provider will seek City approval before engaging the services of subcontractors or other parties not directly employed by Provider to deliver aquatics programs and/or services in City aquatics facilities.

6. Provider will assign sufficient qualified staffing to maintain safe and effective operations at City aquatics facilities. Provider’s staff will have the required qualifications and certifications for each position.

7. Provider will maintain appropriate and safe ratios of lifeguards to pool users at all times, consistent with industry best practices and applicable regulations.

8. Provider will maintain reasonable evidence and documentation of its hiring practices, background checks, certifications and training, including documentation of pre-service/employment orientation, onthe-job training, regular in-service training, and certification training for each employee. Provider will furnish these records to the City for inspection on request.

9. Provider will demonstrate adequate risk management planning and practices by conducting annual audits and reviews by qualified external experts in coordination and with oversight by City staff.

List of prospective respondents to RFP
The RFP will be made available through the City’s public bid portal for any member of the public to view.

Any and all qualified aquatics operators will be welcome and encouraged to submit a proposal. Additionally, City staff has identified known aquatics operators in the region that may possess the requisite qualifications and capabilities to effectively respond to the RFP. Staff is preparing to transmit the RFP directly to these operators and to any other potentially qualified operators that may come to staff’s attention.

Page G-1.3
Staff Report #: 22-191-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Table 1: List of known aquatics operators in the region Agency Location
Bay Club Panthers Redwood City
Otter Swim Club Belmont
Ladera Oaks Swim, Tennis and Fitness Club Portola Valley Matadero Creek Aquatic Club Palo Alto
Alto Swim Club Palo Alto
Highland Dolphins Aquatic Club San Mateo
Bulldog Swim Club San Mateo
Burlingame Aquatic Club San Mateo
Los Altos and Mountain View Aquatic Club Mountain View
Menlo Swim and Sport (Team Sheeper, Inc.) Menlo Park
La Petite Baleen Redwood City
SOLO Aquatics Menlo Park
Menlo-Atherton High School Atherton
King’s Swim Academy San Carlos
Flying Fish Swim School Mountain View
American Swim Academy Newark
Palo Alto Stanford Aquatics – PASA Palo Alto
SafeSplash Swim School Mountain View
Calphin Swim Academy Fremont
Betty Wright Aquatic Services Palo Alto
YMCA of Silicon Valley Redwood City, Palo Alto, East Palo Alto Impact on City Resources
There is no new direct impact to city resources associated with the requested review. The City is responsible for maintenance of the Burgess Pool facility including recurring expenditures for mechanical maintenance and repairs, custodial and landscaping services, utilities (water, sewer, electricity, gas, telephone and internet), and pool maintenance chemicals and supplies; and one-time expenditures for equipment replacements and minor facility renovations. Total expenses to the City related to maintenance of Burgess Pool were approximately $645,000 in fiscal year 2021-2022. City Council’s adopted fiscal year 2022-2023 operating budget has sufficient resources allocated toward these anticipated expenditures in the current fiscal year. The City also will be responsible for maintenance of the MPCC aquatics center when it is completed; the new center is tentatively scheduled to open in early 2024. Budgetary considerations related to maintaining that facility will be addressed during City Council’s fiscal year 2023-2024 budget deliberations in the spring of 2023. The aquatics operator draft RFP identifies revenue sharing as a key priority to help offset a portion of the City’s cost of maintaining its aquatics facilities at a preferred “medium” cost recovery rate to the City of 30 percent to 70 percent.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the Page G-1.4
Staff Report #: 22-191-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org environment.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Draft RFP – aquatics operator
Report prepared by:

Tricia Mullan, Library and Community Services Supervisor Sean Reinhart, Library and Community Services Director
Report reviewed by:

Nira Doherty, City Attorney
Justin Murphy, City Manager
Page G-1.5
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
City of Menlo Park
Request for Proposals
Aquatics Operator
Release Date: October 24, 2022
Due Date and Time: November 30, 2022 at 4:00 p.m.

Page G-1.6 ATTACHMENT A
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Notice is hereby given that proposals will be received
by the City of Menlo Park, CA

RELEASE DATE
October 24, 2022

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE & FACILITY TOUR
November 7, 2022
Arrillaga Family Recreation Center
and Burgess Pool
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025

RFP RESPONSE DEADLINE
November 30, 2022 4:00 p.m.

City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Attn:

Page G-1.7
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
3 I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Menlo Park (“City”) is seeking proposals from experienced and qualified aquatics program operators (“Respondents”) to operate and provide aquatic programming at the City’s two aquatics centers: the existing Burgess Pool located at 501 Laurel Avenue, and the future Menlo Park Community Campus (“MPCC”) aquatics center now under construction at 100 Terminal Avenue.

Premises
The selected aquatics program operator (“Provider”) will operate and deliver aquatics programming to the public at the City’s two aquatics facilities (collectively referred to herein as “Premises”):

1. Burgess Pool, located at 501 Laurel Ave. in Menlo Park and consisting of the lap pool, instructional pool, toddler activity pool, pool deck, offices, restrooms, locker rooms, showers, lawn area, pool mechanical room, lobby, and all associated areas as shown in Exhibit A.

2. MPCC aquatics center, to be located at 100 Terminal Ave. in Menlo Park and consisting of the lap pool, instructional pool, splash pad, pool deck, outdoor seating areas, offices, restrooms, locker rooms, showers, pool mechanical room, and all associated areas as shown in Exhibit B.

Roles and responsibilities
The Provider will be responsible for operating and delivering aquatics programs at the Premises, including all costs and expenses associated with such operations and programs. The City will be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the equipment and facilities at the Premises.

Community access, reservations, fee payments and scheduling Provider will be responsible for the operations and schedule of the Premises. Provider will provide reasonable public access and community use of the Premises which shall be reasonably determined by City and Provider. Provider will provide and maintain an online reservation and electronic fee payment system that is accessible to the general public, in addition to providing access to in-person reservations and fee payments at Premises. Provider will not reduce or change the public access and community use without prior approval of City.

Term
The Provider will assume responsibility for operations and programming at Burgess Pool on September 1, 2023; and at the MPCC aquatics center when its construction is completed and the new center opens to the public, tentatively scheduled in early 2024. The term of the service agreement is expected to be for an initial period of five (5) years commencing on September 1, 2023 and ending five (5) years from the commencement date. An optional five (5) year extension commencing on September 1, 2028 and ending August 31, 2033 may be granted, provided that all agreed upon standards and requirements have been met. The City will initiate an evaluation at least eighteen (18) months prior to the end date of the initial agreement to Page G-1.8
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
4 determine if an extension is mutually desired and if the requirements to approve an extension have been met.

Facility descriptions
Burgess Pool consists of an outdoor performance/lap pool, an outdoor instructional pool, a wading pool with mushroom splash feature, locker rooms, showers, central entry lobby, staff offices, concrete pool decks, storage, pool mechanical room, and lawn area (see Exhibit A for a detailed drawing). The Burgess Pool facility is located on the Menlo Park civic center campus, which includes city hall, police station, public library, recreation center, gymnasium, gymnastics center, early childhood education center, sports fields, tennis courts, skate park and picnic areas. In 2006, the Burgess Pool was extensively renovated using Measure T general obligation bonds approved by voters in 2001. The Burgess Pool lobby area is scheduled to undergo a significant renovation in 2023.

The MPCC aquatics center is currently under construction and scheduled to open in early 2024.

The new aquatics center will replace the Belle Haven Pool formerly located at 100 Terminal Ave., and which was demolished in 2021 to make way for the new aquatics center construction.

When completed, the new MPCC aquatics center will consist of an outdoor performance/lap pool, an outdoor instructional pool, a splash pad water play area, locker rooms, showers, staff offices, concrete pool decks, storage, pool mechanical room, family seating and shade features (see Exhibit B for a detailed drawing). The MPCC aquatics center will be a major component of the Menlo Park Community Campus project, all new construction which includes a gymnasium, fitness center, movement studio, public library, makerspace, school-age childcare, senior center, commercial-grade kitchen, community meeting rooms and event spaces. The MPCC project is adjacent to Kelly Park, which features a lighted artificial turf sports field, running track and parcourse, and tennis, pickleball and outdoor basketball courts.

II. KEY CITY PRIORITIES
The City has identified key priorities for aquatics operations and programing at Premises. This RFP is structured in a manner intended to provide some flexibility to RFP Respondents to develop proposals that balance the City’s key priorities with respondents’ operational needs.

Proposals from qualified aquatics operators that demonstrate a high degree of responsiveness to most or all of these priorities--in addition to the basic capabilities and competencies that are required to operate quality aquatics programs for the City of Menlo Park--will be deemed more competitive for selection:

1. Respondent proposes to operate the Burgess Pool and the future MPCC aquatics center for public access year-round, seven days per week, no fewer than 63 hours per week at each location as calculated by average applied over the course of a full calendar year— with exceptions for closures to observe major holidays or to complete necessary maintenance or repair work.

2. Respondent proposes to operate Burgess Pool and MPCC aquatics center with comparable or equivalent operating schedules and programs at both locations, with allowance for some variances to respond to hyperlocal needs and other unique considerations of each site and the neighborhoods in which they are located.

Page G-1.9
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
5 3. Respondent proposes to seek City approval for new aquatics user fees or modifications to existing aquatics user fees, with the mutual understanding by City and Provider that:
a) user fees are the primary source of revenue necessary for Provider to deliver and sustain safe, quality aquatics operations for the community; and, b) user fees can and do present barriers to entry for some residents, especially residents who are most vulnerable, and even with the availability of scholarship or subsidy programs.

4. Respondent proposes to enter into a revenue sharing agreement with the City to offset a portion of the City’s facility maintenance costs at Burgess Pool and the MPCC aquatics center, preferably at a “medium” cost recovery rate to the City of 30 percent to 70 percent. The City’s total costs to maintain the Burgess Pool facility were approximately $645,000 in fiscal year 2021-22.

5. Respondent proposes to dedicate operating hours and pool space to open swim/community swim for play and social time during times that are deemed convenient and accessible to Menlo Park resident children and families, as measured in part by community satisfaction surveys to be jointly administered by Provider and the City.

6. Respondent proposes to offer aqua wellness and/or therapeutic classes in formats and at times that are deemed convenient and accessible to Menlo Park for seniors and others who benefit from such programs, as measured in part by community satisfaction surveys to be jointly administered by Provider and the City.

7. Respondent recognizes the City’s desire to ensure that every Menlo Park resident child has meaningful access to effective water safety instruction at City aquatics centers regardless of their family’s ability to pay user fees. Respondent proposes to provide these services to individuals or families who cannot afford the market rate fees.

8. Diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging
a. Respondent proposes to provide meaningful employment opportunities in City aquatics facilities to qualified Menlo Park residents, especially residents who live in the immediate vicinity of Premises.
b. Respondent proposes to foster an organizational culture that is based on foundations of equity, inclusion, belonging and justice to create a safe and welcoming environment in City aquatics facilities for all Menlo Park residents regardless of background, income, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other lived experiences that contribute to a vibrant and accepting community.
c. Respondent proposes to reduce and/or remove barriers to entry for City residents who are most vulnerable, including children and families who reside in low-income households, seniors, and people with disabilities.

III. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, CAPABILITIES AND COMPETENCIES Proposals should demonstrate how the Respondent will meet each of the following minimum requirements, capabilities, and competencies:

1. Hours of operation
Respondent should propose to operate the Burgess Pool and the future MPCC aquatics center for public access year-round, seven days per week. Pool operations may occur between the hours of 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.
(Note: See Section II - Key City Priorities for additional guidance related to hours of operation.) Page G-1.10
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
6 2. Aquatic programming and schedule
Respondent should describe its qualifications and a proposed schedule to provide the following aquatic programming:
a. Open swimming / community swimming
b. Swim lessons / water safety instruction
c. Lap swimming
d. Masters swimming
e. Aqua wellness and/or therapeutic classes
f. Swim team
g. Community rentals
h. Any other programming Respondent proposes to offer
(Note: See Section II - Key City Priorities for additional guidance related to programming.)

3. Program Administration
Respondent should describe the systems it proposes for:
a. The public to register, pay, and receive adequate customer service in a convenient, accessible, and effective manner.
b. Sufficient administrative staff and supervision to support all hours of operation. c. Policies and procedures for handling registration, refunds, and complaints. d. Effective communication and marketing to inform the public of the programs and services. e. Maintaining a customer database and appropriate records retention, including detailed tracking of usage of Premises by Menlo Park residents and nonresidents. f. Delivering a high level of customer service and satisfaction.

4. User Fees
Respondent should describe:
a. Proposed user fees for public lap swimming, open/recreational swim, aqua wellness, therapeutic classes, and swim lessons/water safety instruction. Proposed user fees should be comparable to fees charged by other public aquatics facilities in the metro Bay Area region.
b. Proposed means and methods to prioritize and incentivize Menlo Park residents’ access and use of Premises, including but not limited to offering discounted user fees and priority registration to Menlo Park residents for aquatics programs at Premises. c. Proposed methods to measure and track the percentage of residents-to-nonresidents using Premises.
(Note: See Section II - Key City Priorities for additional guidance related to user fees and revenue sharing.)

5. Reporting and accountability
If selected as the Provider, Respondent will be required to prepare and provide an annual report to City staff including the following items. Respondent should provide an example or describe the systems and/or methods it proposes to accurately collect, compile, and report on the following performance areas:
a. Total program hours by program area
Page G-1.11
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
7 b. Participation statistics by program area including resident and non-resident percentages c. Customer satisfaction survey results
d. User group feedback by program area or rental
e. Pool schedule and allocation by program for previous year and projections to the upcoming year
f. Fees by program area and a fee comparison to other public pools in the region g. Annual audits and reviews demonstrating standards of care, outlined in Section 12, below, are met
h. Risk management documentation
i. Training certifications listed by staff member.

6. Qualified personnel
Respondent should describe how it proposes to provide adequate qualified personnel to maintain safe and effective aquatics operations at Premises during all hours of operation, including:
a. Employing personnel with the required qualifications and certifications appropriate for each position.
b. Assigning sufficient qualified staffing to maintain safe and effective operations at City aquatics facilities.
c. Maintaining appropriate and safe ratios of lifeguards to pool users at Premises during all hours of operation, consistent with industry best practices and applicable regulations. d. Maintaining reasonable evidence and documentation of its hiring practices, background checks, certifications, and training, including documentation of pre-service/employment orientation, on-the-job training, regular in-service training, and certification training for each employee.
e. Seeking City approval prior to engaging the services of subcontractors or other parties not directly employed by Respondent to deliver aquatics programs and/or services in City aquatics facilities.

7. Health & Safety
Respondent should demonstrate how it will maintain health and safety standards and associated training records in a reasonable and acceptable manner for the Premises, participants, and its employees in compliance to the City of Menlo Park standards and applicable regulatory agencies. These standards include but are not limited to:
a. Employee Injury and Illness Prevention Plan
b. Hazardous Materials Communications and Business Plan c. Bloodborne Pathogens and Biohazardous Exposure Control Plan d. Hazard Communication (labeling & MSDS management)
e. Hearing Conservation
f. Lifting and Fall Prevention/Protection (Equipment)
g. Electrical Safety Plan
h. Lockout, Tagout Equipment Specific Procedures
i. Emergency Action Planning/Drills
j. First Aid/CPR/AED
k. Staff Certifications
l. Heat Illness and Sun Protection
m. Confined Spaces/Entry Equipment
Page G-1.12
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
8 n. Chemical Storage/Spill Response/Cleanup
o. Fire Extinguisher
p. Personal Protective Equipment
q. Recreational Waterborne Illnesses (RWI’s)
r. Signage/Labeling
s. Keeping up to date with all changes, additions, or amendments to the laws, regulations and codes related to pool operations and aquatics programs.

8. Emergency Action Plan & Procedures
Respondent should demonstrate its qualifications to create and maintain emergency procedures and emergency action plans for the Premises. An Emergency Action Plan is required under Title 29 of Federal Regulations Sections 1910.38/.120/.156, and Title 8 California Code of Regulations, Sections 3220 and 3221. The Emergency Action Plan covers all employees and non-employees who may be exposed to hazards arising from emergency situations. It must contain information for all employees, including administration and line level employees, which shall use the plan in order to reduce the severity of emergency situations and minimize the risk to life and property.

9. Augmentations to Proposal
The above are the City’s minimum requirements for meeting or exceeding the level of aquatics programming and services at Premises. Respondent is encouraged to propose service enhancements, best practices and creative approaches that would result in the highest quality and most cost-effective program. These value-added suggestions will be considered when evaluating proposals.

IV. RISK MANAGEMENT

1. Risk Management
Respondent should describe its qualifications and ability to provide adequate risk management planning to minimize liability or negligence, including by conducting annual audits and reviews by qualified external experts.

2. Insurance
Respondent should demonstrate its ability to acquire and maintain Workers’ Compensation, Employer Liability, Commercial General Liability, and owned and non-owned and hired automobile liability insurance coverage relating to its use of the Premises. The insurance company/ies shall be subject to approval by the City. The selected Provider will be required to provide the City with 30 days’ notice if any changes, cancellation, or non-renewals, and to disclose any self-insured retentions or deductibles. The minimum amounts of coverage corresponding to these categories of insurance per insurable event shall be as follows:

Insurance Category Minimum Limits
Workers’ Compensation Statutory Minimum - include endorsement waiving the insurer’s right of subrogation against
the City, its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers.

Page G-1.13
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
9 Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease – include endorsement adding the City,
it officers, officials, employees and volunteers as
additional insured for both ongoing operations as
well as products and completed operations;
include endorsement to provide primary
insurance and waive any rights of contribution
from the City’s coverage.

Commercial General Liability $3,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and premises damages. Must
include all areas in Insurance Service Office
(ISO) Form No. CG 00 01 (including Products
and Completed Operations if food is served or
for repairs done by the tenant, Contractual
Liability, Broad form property damage,
Participants’ and spectators’ coverage, and
Personal and Advertising injury liability)
Automobile Liability $1,000,000
V. SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS
(NOTE: In addition to the basic capabilities and competencies that are required to operate quality aquatics programs for the City of Menlo Park, the City has identified key priorities for aquatics operations and programing. This RFP is structured in a manner intended to provide some flexibility to Respondents to develop proposals that balance the City’s key priorities with respondents’ operational needs. Proposals from qualified aquatics operators that demonstrate a high degree of responsiveness to most or all these priorities will be deemed more competitive for selection. See Section II - Key City Priorities for additional guidance.) Proposals should address the following items in the order and with the numbering listed below.

A. Cover Letter
Provide a cover letter describing your organization’s interest in this RFP, including the name, title, address, email and telephone number of the lead contact on this proposal and the signature of the person or persons authorized to represent the proposer.

B. Table of Contents
Please provide a table of contents.

C. Qualifications and Background

1. State your headquarters address and legal (corporate) status.

2. Describe your organization’s history/background, mission and the services you provide. Provide information on the location of other facilities or businesses, and a description of the services provided. Highlight any operations that are similar in size and nature to the programs covered through this RFP.

Page G-1.14
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
10 3. Explain your organization’s philosophy and goals, and how they align with the City’s goals and requirements as outlined in this RFP

4. Provide an organizational chart for your agency/company.

5. Describe your experience, affiliation, and memberships with any aquatics or related organizations (i.e., American Red Cross)

6. List the companies, cities, or other entities, if any, with which you currently have contractual or lease arrangements to provide aquatics services. Describe your approach and success in managing relationships with these client entities.

Provide information regarding all contracts or agreements that have been cancelled, terminated, or not renewed within the last five years including entity name, contact person name, title, address, email and telephone number.

7. Provide three customer references, including participant name, address, email and telephone number.

D. Programs, Services, and Schedule

1. State your proposed hours of operation at Burgess Pool and the MPCC aquatics center.

2. Provide sample daily programs and schedules for each pool during different seasons, including but not limited to:
a. Open swimming / community swimming
b. Swim lessons / water safety instruction
c. Lap swimming
d. Masters swimming
e. Aqua wellness and/or therapeutic classes
f. Swim team
g. Community rentals

3. Describe your service offerings for each age group and range of skills and abilities at the Aquatics Center.

4. Describe your approach to providing aquatic programs for participants with special needs and/or requiring ADA accommodation.

5. Describe your approach to handling community access and outside organization rental request, including how you propose to handle scheduling conflicts or multiple requests.

6. See Section II – Key City Priorities; and Section III – Minimum Requirements, Capabilities and Competencies for additional guidance.

E. Staffing and Management

1. Provide your proposed organizational structure for the site.

2. Provide the names, titles, experience, and qualifications of the staff that will be involved in aquatic center oversight at the leadership/managerial level.

3. Provide your proposed staffing ratios for various programs and pool safety.

4. Explain your approach to employee recruitment, screening, performance evaluation and retention. Describe any staffing problems you have had and how you have addressed them.

5. Describe your staff training program and/or provide a sample staff handbook(s).

6. Describe your systems of facility oversight and program management.

Page G-1.15
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
11 7. Identify any subcontractors that would be needed to perform the required services in the proposal and describe their role.

8. See Section II – Key City Priorities; and Section III – Minimum Requirements, Capabilities and Competencies for additional guidance.

F. Quality Assurance, Risk Management and Insurance

1. Describe your approach to risk management at the site. Describe procedures for assessment, planning, control, evaluation, responding to and correcting identified risks, protecting public and employee health and meeting standards consistent with city, county, state, and federal regulations.

2. Explain your agency’s ability to understand and meet the sufficient Standard of Care for operating a public pool.

3. Provide or describe how you would be implementing the required safety program and training documentation.

4. Summarize your emergency preparedness action plan.

5. Note and explain any litigation against your agency or its staff in the past ten years, including any pending litigation, related to the operation of Aquatics facilities or programs.

6. Refer to the City’s requirements for insurance coverage and confirm your ability to provide such coverage.

7. See Section IV – Risk Management for additional guidance.

G. Public Communication, Marketing, and Registration

1. Describe the systems you propose for:
a. The public to register, pay, and receive adequate customer service in a convenient, accessible, and effective manner.
b. Adequate administrative staff and assistance to support all hours of operation.
c. Policies and procedures for handling registration, refunds, and complaints.
d. Effective communication and marketing to inform the public of the programs and services.
e. Maintaining a customer database and appropriate records retention, including detailed tracking of usage of Premises by Menlo Park residents and nonresidents.
f. Delivering a high level of customer service and satisfaction.

2. Describe policies and procedures for registration, refunds, and customer complaints.

3. Explain your methods for assessing and maintaining customer satisfaction.

4. Give a brief overview of your crisis media management plan.

H. Fees

1. Describe:
a. Proposed user fees for public lap swimming, open/recreational swim, aqua wellness, therapeutic classes, and swim lessons/water safety instruction.

Proposed user fees should be comparable to fees charged by other public aquatics facilities in the metro Bay Area region.

Page G-1.16
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
12 b. Proposed means and methods to prioritize and incentivize Menlo Park residents’ access and use of Premises, including but not limited to offering discounted user fees and priority registration to Menlo Park residents for aquatics programs at Premises.
c. Proposed methods to measure and determine the percentage of residents-tononresidents using Premises.

2. State your approach to fee increases. Provide the average percentage fee increase you have implemented each year for the past five years.

3. Describe your ability to compare and maintain comparable fees of similar aquatic programs.

4. The City desires, but does not require, that the Provider provide services to individuals or families who cannot afford the market rate fees. Describe if and how your agency will be able to serve these individuals with financial need.

5. See Section II – Key City Priorities; and Section III – Minimum Requirements, Capabilities and Competencies for additional guidance.

I. Financial Information

1. Submit complete audited financial statements for the two previous years (if available), preferably prepared by a Certified Public Accountant. Include a balance sheet, income statement and complete Notes to the Financial Statements. In addition, include an unaudited statement for the current year as of June 30, 2022.

2. Provide a proposed annual budget for the revenues and expenses at Premises, including the categories below. Provide a budget narrative with all relevant assumptions, including the notes requested below.

Revenues
a. Fees (specified by program areas)
b. Other Revenue (vending, merchandizing, etc.)
c. Grants and fund raising
d. Private funding
e. Revenue sharing with City (if included in proposal)
Expenses
a. Salaries (Number of staff FTEs by position, staffing ratios and costs based on number of participants)
b. Direct Operating Costs, including
− Supplies and services
− Facility, grounds and equipment maintenance
− Custodial services
− Liability insurance
c. Any other operating costs
d. Any other costs
(Note: See Section II – Key City Priorities; and Section III – Minimum Requirements, Capabilities and Competencies for additional guidance.) Page G-1.17
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
13 K. Responsiveness to Key City Priorities
If not described elsewhere in your proposal, please describe how you propose to respond to the Key City Priorities outlined in Section II of this RFP.

L. Assistance from City
Specify what, if any, assistance from the City you would find helpful or necessary for the successful operation of the programs.

M. Additional Information
Provide other essential information that may assist in the evaluation of this proposal.

SUBMITTAL PROCEDURE
Submittal of Proposals
All proposals must be submitted according to the specifications in the section above. Failure to adhere to these specifications may be cause for rejection of the proposal. Proposals shall be submitted to:
[contact]
NOTE: Proposals must be delivered no later than 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 30, 2022.

All proposals received after that time will not be considered. The proposer shall submit its proposal electronically in PDF format. No paper proposals will be accepted.

RFP Timeline
RFP issued October 24, 2022
Pre-proposal conference and tour November 7, 2022
Deadline for questions, clarifications November 18, 2022 Deadline for receipt of proposals November 30, 2022
Potential interviews December 5-16, 2022
City Council award of contract January/February 2023 TBD Addenda/Clarifications
Should discrepancies or omissions be found in this RFP or should there be a need to clarify this RFP, questions or comments regarding this RFP must be put in writing and received by the City no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, November 18, 2022.

Correspondence shall be addressed to [contact]
Responses from the City will be communicated in writing to all recipients of this RFP. All addenda shall become part of this RFP. The City shall not be responsible for nor be bound by any oral instructions, interpretations or explanations issued by the City.

Modification
Once submitted, proposals cannot be altered without the prior written consent of the City.

Page G-1.18
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
14 Rights of the City of Menlo Park
This RFP does not commit the City to enter into a contract, nor does it obligate the City to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submission of proposals or in anticipation of a contract.

The City reserves the right to:

1. Make the selection based on its sole discretion

2. Reject any and all proposals

3. Issue subsequent Requests for Proposals

4. Remedy technical errors in the RFP process

5. Negotiate with any, all or none of the proposers

6. Waive informalities and irregularities in the proposals that the City considers to be nonsubstantive

7. Enter into an agreement with another proposer in the event the originally selected proposer defaults or fails to execute an agreement with the City.

Review and Selection Process
The City will establish a Review Committee to review proposals based on selection criteria (Exhibit), recommend providers to be interviewed, participate in the interviews and recommend finalists for consideration by the City. Staff will present the results of the process to the City Council, at which point City Council may or may not direct staff to pursue negotiations with a selected proposer.

Public Nature of Proposal Material
Submitted proposals may be considered public documents and the City will adhere to all laws and regulations regarding the dissemination of public documents as they relate to submitted proposals.

Disqualification
The City may reject and/or disqualify a proposal for any reason.

Questions
Please direct any questions regarding this RFP to [contact] Exhibits
A. Burgess Pool site map
B. MPCC aquatics center site map
C. Selection criteria
Page G-1.19
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
15 EXHIBIT A – BURGESS POOL SITE MAP
Page G-1.20
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
16 EXHIBIT B – MPCC AQUATICS CENTER SITE MAP
Page G-1.21
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
17 EXHIBIT C – SELECTION CRITERIA
Proposals will be rated on the following criteria based on a 4 point scale:
0 = No information provided
1 = Meets some but not all requirements or incomplete information provided 2 = Meets all minimum requirements, no direct experience 3 = Meets all minimum requirements, demonstrated direct experience 4 = Exceeds minimum requirements and demonstrated direct experience Responsiveness to required criteria Score
Qualifications and Background
Programs, Services, and Schedule
Staffing and Management
Quality Assurance, Risk Management, and Insurance
Public Communication, Marketing, and Registration
Fees
Financial Information
Subtotal
Responsiveness to key City priorities Score
Respondent proposes to operate the Burgess Pool and the future MPCC aquatics center for public access year-round, seven days per week, no fewer than 63 hours per week at each location as calculated by average applied over the course of a full calendar year—with exceptions for closures to observe major holidays or to complete necessary maintenance or repair work.

Respondent proposes to operate Burgess Pool and MPCC aquatics center with comparable or equivalent operating schedules and programs at both locations, with allowance for some variances to respond to hyperlocal needs and other unique considerations of each site and the neighborhoods in which they are located.

Respondent agrees to seek City approval for new aquatics user fees or modifications to existing aquatics user fees, with the mutual understanding by City and Provider that: a) user fees are the primary source of revenue necessary for Provider to deliver and sustain safe, quality aquatics operations for the community; and, b) user fees can and do present barriers to entry for some residents, especially residents who are most vulnerable, and even with the availability of scholarship or subsidy programs.

Page G-1.22
DRAFT – DO NOT RESPOND
18 Respondent proposes to enter into a revenue sharing agreement with the City to offset a portion of the City’s facility maintenance costs at Burgess Pool and the MPCC aquatics center, preferably at a “medium” cost recovery rate to the City of 30 percent to 70 percent. The City’s total costs to maintain the Burgess Pool facility were approximately $645,000 in fiscal year 2021-22.

Respondent proposes to dedicate operating hours and pool space to open swim/community swim for play and social time during times that are deemed convenient and accessible to Menlo Park resident children and families, as measured in part by community satisfaction surveys to be jointly administered by Operator and the City.

Respondent proposes to offer aqua wellness and/or therapeutic classes in formats and at times that are deemed convenient and accessible to Menlo Park for seniors and others who benefit from such programs, as measured in part by community satisfaction surveys to be jointly administered by Operator and the City.

Respondent recognizes the City’s desire to ensure that every Menlo Park resident child has meaningful access to effective water safety instruction at City aquatics centers regardless of their family’s ability to pay user fees. Respondent proposes to provide these services to individuals or families who cannot afford the market rate fees. .

Diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging
• Respondent proposes to provide meaningful employment opportunities in City aquatics facilities to qualified Menlo Park residents, especially residents who live in the immediate vicinity of Premises.
• Respondent proposes to foster an organizational culture that is based on foundations of equity, inclusion, belonging and justice to create a safe and welcoming environment in City aquatics facilities for all Menlo Park residents regardless of background, income, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other lived experiences that contribute to a vibrant and accepting community.
• Respondent proposes to reduce and/or remove barriers to entry for City residents who are most vulnerable, including children and families who reside in low-income households, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Subtotal
Subtotal – responsiveness to required criteria
Subtotal – responsiveness to key City priorities
Grand total
Page G-1.23

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR AN AQUATICS
OPERATORCity Council – October 11, 2022
G1-PRESENTATION
Background
• February 8, 2022. City Council directed staff to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) to be issued in Autumn 2022 – to which currentoperator Team Sheeper, Inc. would be invited and encouraged torespond – for an aquatics operator at Burgess Pool and the futureMPCC aquatics center. • August 23, 2002. City Council reviewed an aquatics program analysis, which included a citywide community survey, and provided direction tostaff regarding desired elements of the RFP 2 Proposed RFP timeline
• October
1 1 – City Council review and provide input on the draft RFP • October 24 – RFP issued• November 30 – Proposals due• December to January – Staff review proposals• January 2023 – City Council identify preferred Provider; authorize city manager to negotiate agreement
• February 2023 – City Council authorize city manager to execute agreement.
3 4
Key City priorities
• The RFP is structured to offer some flexibility to RFP respondents to develop proposals that balance the City’s key priorities with respondents’ operational needs. • Proposals from qualified aquatics operators that demonstrate a high degree of responsiveness to most or all of the key priorities in addition tothe basic capabilities and competencies that are required to operatequality aquatics programs will be deemed more competitive for selection. 5 Draft RFP – key City priorities*

1. Operate the Burgess Pool and the future MPCC aquatics center for public access year-round, 7 days per week, no fewer than 63 hours perweek at each location as calculated by average applied over the courseof a full calendar year—with exceptions for closures to observe majorholidays or to complete necessary maintenance or repair work.

2. Operate Burgess Pool and MPCC aquatics center with comparable or equivalent operating schedules and programs at both locations, withallowance for some variances to respond to hyperlocal needs and otherunique considerations of each site and the neighborhoods in which theyare located. 6 * Proposals from qualified aquatics operators that demonstrate a high degree of responsiveness to most or all of the key City priorities in addition to the basic capabilities and competencies that are required to operate quality aquatics programs will be deemed more competitive for selection.

Draft RFP – key City priorities*

3. Seek City approval for new aquatics user fees or modifications to existing aquatics user fees, with the mutual understanding by City and operator that:
a. User fees are the primary source of revenue necessary for operator to deliver and sustain safe, quality aquatics operations for the community b. User fees can and do present barriers to entry for some residents, especially residents who are most vulnerable, and barriers can persist even with the availability of scholarship or subsidy programs.
7 * Proposals from qualified aquatics operators that demonstrate a high degree of responsiveness to most or all of the key City priorities in addition to the basic capabilities and competencies that are required to operate quality aquatics programs will be deemed more competitive for selection.

Draft RFP – key City priorities*

4. Revenue sharing agreement with the City to offset a portion of the City’s facility maintenance costs at Burgess Pool and the MPCCaquatics cente r, preferably at a “medium” cost recovery rate to the City of 30
-70
%. The City’s total costs to maintain the Burgess Pool facility were approximately $645,000 in FY 2021-2022.

5. Dedicate operating hours and pool space to open swim/community swim for play and social time during times that are deemed convenientand accessible to Menlo Park resident children and families, asmeasured in part by community satisfaction surveys to be jointlyadministered by operator and the Cit y.
8 * Proposals from qualified aquatics operators that demonstrate a high degree of responsiveness to most or all of the key City priorities in addition to the basic capabilities and competencies that are required to operate quality aquatics programs will be deemed more competitive for selection.

Draft RFP – key City priorities*

6. Offer aqua wellness and/or therapeutic classes in formats and at times that are deemed convenient and accessible to Menlo Park for seniorsand others who benefit from such programs, as measured in part bycommunity satisfaction surveys to be jointly administered by operatorand the Cit y.

7. Provide meaningful access to effective water safety instruction at City aquatics centers for every Menlo Park resident child regardless of theirfamily’s ability to pay user fees. 9 * Proposals from qualified aquatics operators that demonstrate a high degree of responsiveness to most or all of the key City priorities in addition to the basic capabilities and competencies that are required to operate quality aquatics programs will be deemed more competitive for selection.

Draft RFP – key City priorities*
10 8. Diversit
y, equit
y, inclusion, belonging
a. Provide meaningful employment opportunities in City aquatics facilities to qualified Menlo Park residents, especially residents who live in the immediatevicinity of City aquatics centers. b. Foster an organizational culture that is based on foundations of equit y, inclusion,
belonging and justice to create a safe and welcoming environment in Cityaquatics facilities for all Menlo Park residents regardless of background, income,race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identit y, and other lived experiences that
contribute to a vibrant and accepting communit
y. c. Reduce and/or remove barriers to entry for City residents who are most vulnerable, including children and families who reside in low-income households,seniors and people with disabilities.

9. Proposals from qualified aquatics operators that demonstrate a high degree of responsiveness to most or all of the key City priorities in addition to the basic capabilities and competencies that are required to operate quality aquatics programs will be deemed more competitive for selection. 11 Proposed requirements and terms
Per City Council’s feedback and direction, various requirements and terms are incorporated into the draft RFP and/or will be included in the resulting operator agreement with the selected Provider. 12 Proposed requirements and terms*

1. Provider to prepare and submit a detailed annual performance report to City staff no later than January 30 of each yea
r, including:
• Total program hours by program area• Participation statistics including resident and non-resident percentages• Community satisfaction survey results and user group feedback by program area• Pool schedule and allocation including projections to the upcoming year• Fees by program area and a fee comparison to other public pools in the region• Annual audits and reviews demonstrating standards of care are met• Risk management documentation and training certifications by staff membe r. 2. Present report to City Council no later than March 31 of each yea r.
13 * Partial list. Requirements and terms are incorporated into the draft RFP and/or will be included in the resulting agreement with the selected Provider.

Proposed requirements and terms*

3. Provider submit to City staff quarterly financial statements no later than 45 days after the end of each fiscal quarte
r, and annual financial
statements no later than 45 days after the close of the fiscal yea r.

Financial statements submitted to the City shall be considered publicrecords subject to applicable government transparency la w.

4. Provider to consult with City staff before altering the operating hours, launching new aquatics programs, making significant changes toexisting programs, or significantly altering any other substantiveaspects of Provide r’s operations and programs at City aquatics centers.
14 * Partial list. Requirements and terms are incorporated into the draft RFP and/or will be included in the resulting agreement with the selected Provider.

Proposed requirements and terms*

5. Provider to seek City approval before engaging the services of subcontractors or other parties not directly employed by Provider todeliver aquatics programs and/or services in City aquatics facilities.

6. Provider to assign sufficient qualified staffing to maintain safe and effective operations at City aquatics facilities. Provide r’s staff will have
the required qualifications and certifications for each position.

7. Provider to maintain appropriate and safe ratios of lifeguards to pool users at all times, consistent with industry best practices and applicableregulations. 15 * Partial list. Requirements and terms are incorporated into the draft RFP and/or will be included in the resulting agreement with the selected Provider.

Proposed requirements and terms*

8. Provider to maintain reasonable evidence and documentation of its hiring practices, background checks, certifications and training,including documentation of pre-service/employment orientation, on-thejob training, regular in-service training, and certification training for eachemployee. Provider will furnish these records to the City for inspectionon request.

9. Provider to demonstrate adequate risk management planning and practices by conducting annual audits and reviews by qualified externalexperts in coordination and with oversight by City staff. 16 * Partial list. Requirements and terms are incorporated into the draft RFP and/or will be included in the resulting agreement with the selected Provider. 17 Public Works
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 10/11/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-192-CC
Regular Business: Award vehicle purchase contracts to Deere & Company, National Auto Fleet Group, Toro
Company, Vermeer Manufacturing Company, and
Volvo Construction Equipment and Services for the
purchase and modification of police vehicles and
motorcycles, light-duty trucks and heavy-duty
equipment for the fiscal year 2022-23 vehicle
purchase
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council award vehicle purchase contracts to Deere & Company, National Auto Fleet Group, Toro Company, Vermeer Manufacturing Company, and Volvo Construction Equipment and Services (Attachment A) for approximately $1.11 million, plus a contingency of $50,000 (held by the City), for the purchase and modification of five electric police vehicles, three lower emission police motorcycles, three electric light-duty public works trucks, one piece of electric equipment, and four pieces of renewable diesel powered equipment.

Policy Issues
City Council adopted Resolution No. 6493 to call for climate and sustainability action in Menlo Park in April 2019, Resolution No. 6534 to declare climate emergency to accelerate actions on the climate crisis in December 2019, and Resolution No. 6552 to approve the sustainable vehicle fleet policy to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in March 2020. The City Council also adopted the 2030 climate action plan (CAP) in July 2020 with CAP strategy goal No. 5 to eliminate the use of fossil fuels from municipal operations by 2030. CAP No.5 goal supersedes the fleet policy goals for overall fleet conversion as it requires a more aggressive transformation to reach carbon neutrality by 2030.

The proposed vehicle purchase contracts exceed the city manager’s purchasing authority and require City Council approval.

Background
Annually, the vehicle and equipment replacements are considered based on mileage, age, downtime for repairs, mandated emission regulations and an assessment of all vehicles and equipment. Replacements must strive to meet the CAP No. 5 goal to eliminate fossil fuels from city operations by 2030 (Attachment B) and use the Sustainable Fleet Policy (Attachment C) adopted by the City Council when making decisions about vehicle purchases.

The City has been actively replacing internal combustion engine vehicles with hybrids or electric vehicles.

Last year, the City embarked on a strategic electric vehicle transition in the Police Department by purchasing three Tesla Model Ys to pilot in the patrol fleet, deploying one Ford Mustang Mach-E in the AGENDA ITEM G-2 Page G-2.1
Staff Report #: 22-192-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org police administration fleet, and one Chevrolet Bolt soon to be deployed as a code enforcement vehicle. This is a major milestone on the path to a zero-emission police fleet for small-sized police departments, such as Menlo Park. The recommended vehicle and equipment replacements would continue the City’s commitment to leadership in reducing fleet emissions.

Analysis
The following section describes the police and public works departments vehicle and equipment purchase proposals in fiscal year 2022-23.

Police proposes to purchase:
• One electric Ford Mustang Mach-E pool vehicle;
• One electric Ford F-150 Lightning community service truck; • Three electric detective vehicles (two Ford Mustang Mach-E, and one Ford-150 Lightning); and • Three lower emission BMW 1250 RT-P gasoline powered motorcycles.

Public works proposes to purchase:
• Three electric Ford F-150 Lightning light-duty trucks; • One electric reel mower; and
• Four renewable diesel powered maintenance equipment.

Table 1 on the following page summarizes the fiscal year 2022-23 vehicle and equipment purchase with recommendations classified by department in accordance with the decarbonization plan and explains why certain vehicles and equipment are not all-electric.

Page G-2.2
Staff Report #: 22-192-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Table 1: Fiscal year 2022-23 vehicle/equipment purchases City
department Number of vehicle type
Current
vehicle
fuel type
Proposed
vehicle
fuel type
Meets
2030 CAP
No. 5 goal
(yes/no)?*
Meets
sustainable
fleet policy
(yes/no)?
Reason for
exemption
Police
3 detective sedans
(leased) Hybrid Electric Yes Yes n/a
1 pool sedan Gasoline Electric Yes Yes n/a
1 community service
truck Gasoline Electric Yes Yes n/a
3 traffic enforcement
motorcycles Electric Gasoline No Yes
Electric option
not viable for
traffic patrol
operations
Public
Works
3 light-duty trucks Gasoline Electric Yes Yes n/a
1 vibratory roller
equipment
Renewable
diesel
Renewable
diesel Yes Yes
Electric option
not yet
available
1 farm tractor equipment Renewable
diesel
Renewable
diesel Yes Yes
Electric option
not yet
available
1 reel mower equipment Renewable
diesel Electric Yes Yes n/a
1 stump grinder
equipment
Renewable
diesel
Renewable
diesel Yes Yes
Electric option
not yet
available
1 brush chipper
equipment
Renewable
diesel
Renewable
diesel Yes Yes
Electric option
not yet
available
* The CAP No. 5 goal is to eliminate 90 percent of fossil fuel use from City operations by 2030. Staff are working to determine whether electrification of large equipment will be necessary to meet this goal. In the interim, staff will continue to monitor and evaluate equipment offerings available and select electric options where viable to further reduce fleet emissions from large equipment.

Environmental Quality Commission feedback
On August 31, staff presented the proposed fleet purchase to the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) (Attachment D.) The EQC voted 6-0 (one commissioner absent) to recommend and advise the City Council to accept the proposed police department vehicle purchases and requested that staff consider the following feedback for the proposed public works equipment purchases:
• Timing purchases in relation to air quality requirements and end of life of combustion fired equipment; • Looking into further alternatives for public works combustion fired equipment to present to City Council, such as other cities that are deploying electric public works equipment alternatives successfully; and • Checking with agencies that are providing electric incentives to inform about available technologies (California Clean Off-Road Equipment (CORE) and Air Resources Board.) In response to the EQC’s feedback, staff further investigated options for the public works equipment purchase. In general, pieces of equipment are replaced due to age, state emission standards and maintenance/repair costs. The average age of the equipment planned for replacement listed in Table 1 is

18.5 years old. The state’s requirement is to annually improve the fleet average emission target to show that the City continues to improve on its equipment emissions. An old engine restricts one type of pollutants; Page G-2.3
Staff Report #: 22-192-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org whereas a newer engine restricts multiple types of pollutants.

Staff also reached out to multiple cities that deployed electric equipment, but found that they purchased handheld landscaping equipment, such as leaf blowers. One golf course used an electric reel mower, which staff researched and has included in this proposed purchase. Staff researched the eligible equipment available through California CORE, but they do not meet the City’s needs. Staff will continue to look into the Carl Moyer Program from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for funding opportunities for future purchases.

The following sections further detail the proposed vehicle and equipment purchases, and expand on the information requested by the EQC.

Police department purchases
The City began its commitment to sustainable fleet management more than a decade ago:
• 2008: Purchased one hybrid Ford Escape for code enforcement; • 2012: Purchased one hybrid Ford Fusion for police administration; • 2014/2016: Purchased two electric Zero motorcycles for the traffic enforcement officers (first in 2014 and second in 2016.) The motorcycle manufacturer was an early adopter in building all-electric motorcycles and configuring them into police motorcycles. Attachment E further explains why the electric motorcycles are no longer operable and are proposed to be replaced. • 2017: Purchased two electric GEM vehicles for parking enforcement; • 2018: Leased four hybrid Ford Fusions as detective vehicles; • 2020 – 2021: Purchased 18 hybrid Ford Utilities as patrol, K-9 sergeant and commander vehicles; • 2021: Purchased and outfitted three electric vehicles for a patrol pilot program and purchased an electric Ford Mustang Mach-E police administrative vehicle; and
• 2022: Purchased an electric Chevrolet Bolt code enforcement vehicle.

The willingness of the police department to engage in patrol alternatives with less impact on the environment is also seen in the use of bicycles by officers on duty. In August 2022, the department received two electric bicycles, making a total of 15 bicycles. The officers ride bicycles a couple of times a week, if not daily, as an alternative to driving patrol vehicles. The department is also currently engaged in a pilot program to evaluate the suitability of outfitted Tesla Y vehicles for patrol use. The City Council approved the purchase and outfitting of three Tesla Y vehicles with the vehicle replacement purchase in 2021. The vehicles are nearly ready for service and the pilot is set to launch in November 2022. Additional information regarding the Tesla Patrol pilot can be found in the Tesla Patrol update memorandum, an attachment to the August 31, 2022 EQC staff report (Attachment D.) Expanding patrol officer use of bicycles and department use of hybrid and electric vehicles where possible will continue to reduce the department’s GHG emissions.

The vehicles proposed in this fiscal year’s purchase are not driven by patrol officers; therefore, these vehicles do not need to be pursuit-rated (with the exception of the police motorcycles.) With more electric vehicle options readily available for the police department’s non-patrol needs, the department and the EQC commissioners recommended purchasing five electric vehicles and lower emission motorcycles. At the time of the EQC review, two lower emission motorcycles were recommended for purchase. However, since that time, the department recommends an additional lower emission BMW (three in total) so the traffic team could standardize on a single motorcycle. With three of the same motorcycles, staff could replace them with electric options at the same time when models are available in the future. The current motorcycle models (Harley-Davidson) would be sold, and the sale price would partially offset the purchase of the lower Page G-2.4
Staff Report #: 22-192-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org emission motorcycles.

If the purchase is approved, Figure 1 (Attachment F) shows the police department would have 14 electric vehicles and 18 hybrids. This result in more than 60 percent of the police fleet operating at significantly reduced or zero emissions, with officers consistently also opting to use bicycles as transportation when conditions allow.

Public works department purchases
The public works fleet has 15 pieces of heavy-duty equipment. The department continues to research electric options for equipment replacements and to reduce GHG emissions. Replacement of several lightduty trucks have been delayed to allow the market to develop electric options. In 2021, the first purchase of electric light-duty trucks was initiated; however, the City has not yet received the vehicles, which are currently on order and anticipated to be received in late 2022 or early 2023. The City began purchasing renewable diesel in April 2021. According to Neste, a producer of renewable diesel, their fuel could reduce GHG emissions by up to 90 percent. It is made from sustainable sources, such as animal fats, plant and cooking oils, and plant waste and can be intermixed with fossil diesel. Any vehicle or equipment using fossil diesel can now use renewable diesel. In addition, Public Works purchased a hybrid aerial truck in 2021.

In addition to proposing the purchase of three electric light-duty trucks, Public Works recommends replacing five pieces of equipment. The equipment is registered with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Diesel Off-road Online Reporting System (DOORS) program, CARB Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP), and the BAAQMD. The vibratory roller and farm tractor are registered in DOORS and the stump grinder and brush chipper are registered in PERP. Table 2 describes each equipment to be replaced.

Table 2: Equipment to be replaced
Equipment Age (years) Engine type State registration Replacement reason Vibratory roller 23 Tier 0 DOORS Age, emission standards and maintenance
Farm tractor 24 Tier 1 DOORS Age, emission standards and repair costs
Reel mower 20 Tier 1 n/a Age, emission standards, maintenance and repair costs
Stump grinder 10 Tier 4I PERP Age and wear and tear from heavy use Brush chipper 15 Tier 2 PERP Age, emission standards, and wear and tear from heavy use
State registration/air quality requirements
Every year, staff must demonstrate that the City’s fleet meets the fleet average target and must report to CARB through DOORS. According to the CARB regulation guide, the fleet average index is an indicator of a fleet’s overall emissions rate determined by the horsepower and model year of each engine in the fleet. If the fleet average index is equal to or less than the fleet average target for a given year, the fleet owner is not required to take further action to reduce emissions from their vehicles. Therefore, there is no phase out date for equipment registered in DOORS.

According to the DOORS registration requirements, the City has until the end of 2023 to update the existing inventory to meet the state’s requirements. Therefore, staff recommends the vibratory roller, farm tractor, and reel mower to be replaced in this purchase proposal to remain compliant with state requirements given the typical lead times between placing the order and the equipment being delivered. If the two pieces of Page G-2.5
Staff Report #: 22-192-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org DOORS equipment are not replaced this fiscal year, it is unlikely the City can maintain compliance in 2023.

Other pieces of equipment, such as the stump grinder and brush chipper, have portable engines and are registered under PERP. The State sets requirements for portable engines to reduce exposure to toxic diesel particulate matter and protect public health. The phase out date for the brush chipper is 2027; however, the phase out date is unknown for the stump grinder.

In response to the EQC’s feedback to time purchases in relation to air quality requirements and end of life of combustion fired equipment, staff investigated the penalty fees if the City does not replace the list of equipment outlined in Table 2. If the City violates CARB or BAAQMD regulations, the city would receive a Notice of Violation and may be subject to penalty fees. The fees are assessed on case-by-case basis and according to the BAAQMD website, “…each additional day of noncompliance is considered an additional violation.” Besides the monetary fines, the BAAQMD could refuse to renew the City’s existing permits to operate. This would include emergency generators, the methane flare station at Bedwell Bayfront Park landfill, and the fuel station at the Corporation Yard. Fines would either be assessed on equipment that do not have their permits renewed or when they are operated past their phase out dates.

Engine types
One of the considerations for equipment replacement is the engine type. There are six tiers of diesel engines: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4I or Interim, and 4F or Final. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Tier 4 standards in 2004 to reduce particulate matters and nitrogen oxide emissions by approximately 90 percent and CARB is working on potential amendments to create the Tier 5 standards. The implementation of the Tier 5 standards is expected to begin in 2028. As shown in Table 1, the current vibratory roller has a Tier 0 engine; whereas, if a new one is purchased, it would meet Tier 4 emission standards. In multiple U.S0 EPA guides on non-road compression-ignition engines, emission standards are not listed for Tier 0.

As years pass, the emission standards become more stringent to restrict the number of air pollutants released into the atmosphere. According to the U.S. EPA, the emission standards consist of six pollutants, including nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. The 1999 farm tractor has Tier 1 engine, which only restricts the number of nitrogen oxides emitted in the atmosphere. A newer tractor model with a Tier 3 engine restricts five pollutants to be released in the air.

Replacement reasons/Equipment purchase
The public works department proposes the following five pieces of large equipment to be replaced:
• Vibratory roller: This is a small asphalt compactor used to help pave and make repairs to roadways. Due to its age (23 years old) and Tier 0 engine standard, staff recommends replacing it.

An electric vibratory roller is currently being piloted in Sweden; however, there is no electric option readily available for purchase.

Leasing the equipment is not cost effective as the average estimated rental price for a year is $42,000 compared to an estimated purchase price of $34,000. Renting the equipment on-demand would require staff to schedule the work depending on equipment availability and roundtrip delivery fees (estimated $400) would be incurred for each rental. Therefore, staff recommends purchasing a renewable dieselpowered vibratory roller. • Farm tractor: Staff uses a farm tractor to renovate sports and activity fields. The equipment needs to lift a minimum of 2,000 pounds and include a rear mounted three-point hitch. The three-point hitch is used to operate attachments (for example, an aerator, seeder or a tiller.) The tractor also needs to be equipped Page G-2.6
Staff Report #: 22-192-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org with a front loading bucket in order to move and load rock, soil and debris.

Staff reached out to two manufacturers who make electric farm tractors; however, the available equipment is either too small or not readily available and does not meet the city’s needs. Properly outfitted agricultural tractors may be available in the next few years and current selections are not compatible to manage the sports fields. For instance, the tires on the agricultural tractors have deeper treads and would tear up the grass. Lastly, the two possible electric tractor selections are the Solectrac e-25 and the Monarch MK-V. The Solectrac model is considered a compact tractor; the Monarch model is not currently in production and does not have the option of a front loading bucket. Neither model would be considered safe to drive on the roads due to their slow speeds. Trailering the electric tractors and attachments would necessitate the purchase of larger trucks and trailers and would also require the operators to obtain commercial class “A” driver’s licenses.

Staff also researched electric front wheel loaders, but they are not equipped with the necessary threepoint hitch.

The current tractor is 24 years old with a Tier 1 engine and parts are difficult to locate. The two closest repair facilities are located in Salinas and Stockton and the recent repair cost was in excess of $5,000.

The estimated average rental price for a year is $54,000 and the estimated purchase price is $50,000.

As a result, staff recommends purchasing a renewable diesel-powered farm tractor, which is the cleanest fuel type currently available.
• Reel mower: Staff uses a reel mower to groom Bermuda grass, which grows on sports fields in the Burgess, Nealon and Jack Lyle Parks. Bermuda grass is a standard grass type grown on athletic fields and reel mowers have rotating blades that spin vertically, similar to a household push mower, which is suitable to cut Bermuda grass. The cut style is similar to cutting with scissors to make the edges smoother and more precise, which makes playing sports on the field safer. These considerations are why professional sport fields and golf courses manage Bermuda grass with reel mowers.

Reel mowers are a different design than a standard rotary lawn mower. Reel mowers are specifically designed for sports fields and Bermuda grass. Staff was able to locate an all-electric reel mower.

Toro, a landscaping equipment manufacturer, will begin their electric reel mower production and delivery next year in 2023. The estimated cost for an electric reel mower is $75,100 while a renewable diesel model is $49,400. The cutting width of the electric reel mower is narrower, which would slow down the cutting process.

The purchase of a new reel mower has been deferred multiple times in the past. The deferred purchases have impacted the City’s resources as fleet staff expend more resources to maintain and repair these older vehicles. The fleet staff is comprised of two full-time and one part-time employees to maintain over 200 vehicles and equipment. The current reel mower is 20 years old with existing electrical issues that neither the dealer or staff are able to repair. Staff researched three rental companies and they do not rent out reel mowers. Following the EQC’s direction, staff recommends purchasing an electric reel mower. • Stump grinder: Staff uses the stump grinder daily to grind up tree stumps after tree removals and it is a vital piece of equipment. It requires a high horsepower engine with a massive amount of torque to operate the heavy flywheel and cutting tips. The replacement is based on the amount of use and age.

Page G-2.7
Staff Report #: 22-192-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org The average estimated rental price for a year is $35,800 and the estimated purchase price is $87,600.

Staff researched electric options, but none are available in the foreseeable future. In summary, staff recommends this equipment be replaced with a similar renewable diesel-powered stump grinder. • Brush chipper: Staff uses a brush chipper to clear wood debris either from tree removals or fallen limbs, which then are turned into wood chips to be applied in public right-of-ways. Wood chips are a great alternative to reduce weed growth. A significant amount of power and torque is required to pulverize branches and trunks (up to 19 inches in diameter) into wood chips. Staff explored electric options, but none are currently available, and do not appear likely in the foreseeable future.

The average estimated rental price for a year is $54,600 and the estimated purchase price is $106,300.

In conclusion, staff recommends this equipment be replaced with a similar renewable diesel-powered brush chipper.

Following the EQC’s feedback, staff reached out to multiple cities to inquire about recent electric heavy equipment purchases. Their purchases are handheld electric landscaping equipment, not heavy-duty equipment. However, the Arroyo Seco Golf Course in South Pasadena uses an electric Jacobsen reel mower. Because Jacobsen does not have a local dealer for warranty work or repairs, staff recommends purchasing a Toro electric reel mower. Not only is the Toro dealership in Hayward, but their products are available to purchase through a cooperative purchasing contract from Sourcewell.

Table 3 summaries the proposed equipment purchase. By replacing the current equipment with the latest model years and Tier engine standards, the City is reducing GHG and complying with CARB and BAAQMD regulations. One replacement is an electric reel mower, which follows the EQC’s direction from August.

Four replacements are renewable diesel-powered equipment as they are the cleanest fuel type readily available. The recommended purchase proposal adheres to the Sustainable Fleet Policy.

Table 3: Proposed off-road equipment purchase
Equipment Fuel type
Meets
sustainable
fleet policy
Electric option
readily
available
Estimated
average rental
price (annual)
Estimated
purchase price
Vibratory roller Renewable
diesel Yes No $41,900 $34,100
Farm tractor Renewable
diesel Yes No $53,700 $53,500
Reel mower Electric Yes Yes Not available $75,100
Stump grinder Renewable
diesel Yes No $35,800 $89,000
Chipper Renewable
diesel Yes No $54,600 $107,500
Incentive programs
BAAQMD and CARB provide potential funding to replace an old vehicle or piece of equipment. Staff previously applied for the Carl Moyer Program from BAAQMD, but was ineligible due to the equipment’s low mileage or hours of use. The Year 23 Funding Cycle recently opened and staff will explore this funding opportunity. The program encourages replacing existing vehicles and equipment with the cleanest alternative available.

Page G-2.8
Staff Report #: 22-192-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org CARB presents a funding opportunity called California CORE. However, the eligible products to receive the incentives do not fit the City’s needs:
• Professional landscaping: The incentives offered to purchase the zero-emission professional landscaping equipment are mostly handheld equipment and lawn mowers; • Agriculture: CORE offers vouchers for Soletrac and Monarch electric tractors. The Soletrac tractor is a compact tractor and is too small; the Monarch tractors are not currently in production and do not come equipped with a front loading bucket; and
• Construction: Front loaders are not equipped with a three-point hitch, which is necessary to tow attachments for meet maintenance needs.

On August 16, President Biden signed the IRA. One of the main purposes of the IRA is to combat the climate crisis by providing tax credits for new electric vehicle purchases and reducing particle pollution from fossil fuels. A direct pay tax credit is available to tax-exempt entities, such as the City of Menlo Park, for up to 30 percent of the cost of qualified commercial clean vehicles placed in service before 2033 (starting August 16, 2022.) There is a limit of $7,500 for vehicles with a gross weight of less than 14,000 pounds, and $40,000 limit for vehicles at or above that weight. Staff will continue to investigate how the IRA could further help decarbonize city operations to meet CAP No. 5, but this purchase proposal could potentially qualify for $60,000.

Staff was not able to find local, state, or federal agency incentive programs that offer funding to replace large equipment and incentives to purchase zero-emission off-road equipment. However, staff will continue to monitor opportunities as programs evolve and offerings change.

City vehicle inventory
Figure 2 (Attachment F) compares the City’s current fleet vehicle type with the proposed purchase. The fleet would be changed by:
• Eliminating gasoline and renewable diesel vehicles by three; • Deceasing hybrid vehicles by four; and
• Increasing electric vehicles by eight.

In conclusion, staff recommends a total purchase of seven electric vehicles, three lower-emission gas motorcycles, one piece of electric equipment, and four pieces of renewable diesel equipment.

Impact on City Resources
Staff solicited proposals for the vehicles and equipment being purchased through cooperative purchasing contracts from Sourcewell. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 6704 to establish an award authority and bid requirements policy with the effective date of December 2021. The policy allows the City to enter into cooperative purchasing agreements, known as piggyback agreements in which the City would receive the same pricing and terms of contract entered by another entity. The Sourcewell purchasing contracts are 110719-JDC, 091521-NAF, 0311210-TTC, 031721-VRM and 032119-VCE.

The Vehicle Replacement Fund (VRF) currently has $1.5 million available in fiscal year 2022-23. Table 5 outlines the total cost of the proposed vehicle and equipment purchases as approximately $1.11 million plus a contingency of $50,000 (held by the City) funded by the VRF. Staff expects the equipment and outfitting costs to increase until the City takes possession and the availabilities to be limited due to the current market trend. Therefore, pricing cannot be held due to market instability and any price increases would be finalized before delivery. Prices for vehicles to be purchased under the National Auto Fleet Group contract should remain the same.

Page G-2.9
Staff Report #: 22-192-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Table 4: Vehicle and equipment costs
Vehicle
purchase
contract
City
department Description Type Quantity Total cost
National Auto
Fleet Group
(091521-NAF)
Police
Detective vehicle
Electric Ford F-150
Lightning and Mustang
Mach-E
3 $235,900
Pool vehicle Electric Ford Mustang
Mach-E 1 $80,300
Community
service truck
Electric Ford F-150
Lightning 1 $87,500
Traffic motorcycle Gas BMW 1250 RT-P 3 $121,000
Public Works Light-duty trucks Electric Ford F-150
Lightning 3 $226,000
Volvo
Construction
Equipment
(032119-VCE)
Public Works Vibratory roller Compact roller 1 $34,100
Deere &
Company
(110719-JCD)
Public Works Farm tractor Similar sized farm tractor 1 $53,500 The Toro
Company
(031121-TTC)
Public Works Reel mower Electric Toro alternative 1 $75,100 Vermeer
Manufacturing
Company
(031721-VRM)
Public Works
Stump grinder Vermeer grinder 1 $89,000
Brush chipper Vermeer chipper 1 $107,500
Contingency $50,000
Total $1,160,000
Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b) (3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Vehicle purchase contracts and quotes
B. Hyperlink – 2030 CAP: beta.menlopark.org/Government/Departments/City-ManagersOffice/Sustainability/Climate-Action-Plan C. Resolution No. 6552 – Sustainable Vehicle Fleet Policy Page G-2.10
Staff Report #: 22-192-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org D. Hyperlink – August 31 EQC staff report: beta.menlopark.org/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-andminutes/environmental-quality-commission/2022-meetings/agendas/20220831-environmental-qualitycommission-agenda-packet.pdf E. Police motorcycle replacement memorandum
F. Figures 1 and 2 – Vehicle inventory comparisons
Report prepared by:

Joanna Chen, Management Analyst II
Ori Paz, Management Analyst II
Donald Weber, Public Works Supervisor – Fleet
Report reviewed by:

Brian Henry, Assistant Public Works Director
Rebecca Lucky, Sustainability Manager
Nikki Nagaya, Public Works Director
Dave Norris, Chief of Police
Page G-2.11
110719-JDC
1 Rev. 4/2019
Solicitation Number: RFP#110719

CONTRACT
This Contract is between Sourcewell, 202 12th Street Northeast, P.O. Box 219, Staples, MN 56479 (Sourcewell) and Deere & Company, 2000 John Deere Run, Cary, NC 27513 (Vendor).

Sourcewell is a State of Minnesota local government agency and service cooperative created under the laws of the State of Minnesota (Minnesota Statutes Section 123A.21) that offers cooperative procurement solutions to its members. Participation is open to all levels of governmental entity, higher education, K-12 education, nonprofit, tribal government, and other public entities located in the United States and Canada.

Vendor desires to contract with Sourcewell to provide equipment, products, or services to Sourcewell and its Members (Members).

1. TERM OF CONTRACT
A. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Contract is effective upon the date of the final signature below.

B. EXPIRATION DATE AND EXTENSION. This Contract expires December 30, 2023, unless it is cancelled sooner pursuant to Article 24. This Contract may be extended up to one additional one-year period upon request of Sourcewell and with written agreement by Vendor.

C. SURVIVAL OF TERMS. Articles 11 through 16 survive the expiration or cancellation of this Contract.

2. EQUIPMENT, PRODUCTS, OR SERVICES
A. EQUIPMENT, PRODUCTS, OR SERVICES. Vendor will provide the Equipment, Products, or Services as stated in its Proposal submitted under the Solicitation Number listed above.

Vendor’s Equipment, Products, or Services Proposal (Proposal) is attached and incorporated into this Contract.

All Equipment and Products provided under this Contract must be new/current model. Vendor may offer close-out or refurbished Equipment or Products if they are clearly indicated in Vendor’s product and pricing list. Unless agreed to by the Member in advance, Equipment or Products must be delivered as operational to the Member’s site.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 ATTACHMENT A Page G-2.12
110719-JDC
2 Rev. 4/2019
This Contract offers an indefinite quantity of sales, and while substantial volume is anticipated, sales and sales volume are not guaranteed.

B. LAWS AND REGULATIONS. All Equipment, Products, or Services must comply fully with applicable federal laws and regulations, and with the laws of the state or province in which the Equipment, Products, or Services are sold.

C. WARRANTY. Vendor warrants that all Equipment, Products, and Services furnished are free from liens and encumbrances, and are free from defects in design, materials, and workmanship.

In addition, Vendor warrants the Equipment, Products, and Services are suitable for and will perform in accordance with the ordinary use for which they are intended. Vendor’s dealers and distributors must agree to assist the Member in reaching a resolution in any dispute over warranty terms with the manufacturer. Any manufacturer’s warranty that is effective past the expiration of the Vendor’s warranty will be passed on to the Member.

D. DEALERS AND DISTRIBUTORS. Upon Contract execution, Vendor will make available to Sourcewell a means to validate or authenticate Vendor’s authorized Distributors/Dealers relative to the Equipment, Products, and Services related to this Contract. This list may be updated from time-to-time and is incorporated into this Contract by reference. It is the Vendor’s responsibility to ensure Sourcewell receives the most current version of this list.

3. PRICING
All Equipment, Products, or Services under this Contract will be priced as stated in Vendor’s Proposal.

Regardless of the payment method chosen by the Member, the total cost associated with any purchase option of the Equipment, Products, or Services must always be disclosed in the pricing quote to the applicable Member at the time of purchase.

When providing pricing quotes to Members, all pricing quoted must reflect a Member’s total cost of acquisition. This means that the quoted cost is for delivered Equipment, Products, and Services that are operational for their intended purpose, and includes all costs to the Member’s requested delivery location.

A. SHIPPING AND SHIPPING COSTS. All delivered Equipment and Products must be properly packaged. Damaged Equipment and Products may be rejected. If the damage is not readily apparent at the time of delivery, Vendor must permit the Equipment and Products to be returned within a reasonable time at no cost to Sourcewell or its Members. Members reserve the right to inspect the Equipment and Products at a reasonable time after delivery where circumstances or conditions prevent effective inspection of the Equipment and Products at the time of delivery.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.13
110719-JDC
3 Rev. 4/2019
Vendor must arrange for and pay for the return shipment on Equipment and Products that arrive in a defective or inoperable condition.

Sourcewell may declare the Vendor in breach of this Contract if the Vendor intentionally delivers substandard or inferior Equipment or Products. In the event of the delivery of nonconforming Equipment and Products, the Member will notify the Vendor as soon as possible and the Vendor will replace nonconforming Equipment and Products with conforming Equipment and Products that are acceptable to the Member.

B. SALES TAX. Each Member is responsible for supplying the Vendor with valid tax-exemption certification(s). When ordering, Members must indicate if it is a tax-exempt entity.

C. HOT LIST PRICING. At any time during this Contract, Vendor may offer a specific selection of Equipment, Products, or Services at discounts greater than those listed in the Contract.

When Vendor determines it will offer Hot List Pricing, it must be submitted electronically to Sourcewell in a line-item format. Equipment, Products, or Services may be added or removed from the Hot List at any time through a Sourcewell Price and Product Change Form as defined in Article 4 below.

Hot List program and pricing may also be used to discount and liquidate close-out and discontinued Equipment and Products as long as those close-out and discontinued items are clearly identified as such. Current ordering process and administrative fees apply. Hot List Pricing must be published and made available to all Members.

4. PRODUCT AND PRICING CHANGE REQUESTS
Vendor may request Equipment, Product, or Service changes, additions, or deletions at any time. All requests must be made in writing by submitting a signed Sourcewell Price and Product Change Request Form to the assigned Sourcewell Contract Administrator. This form is available from the assigned Sourcewell Contract Administrator. At a minimum, the request must:
x Identify the applicable Sourcewell contract number
x Clearly specify the requested change
x Provide sufficient detail to justify the requested change x Individually list all Equipment, Products, or Services affected by the requested change, along with the requested change (e.g., addition, deletion, price change) x Include a complete restatement of pricing documentation in Microsoft Excel with the effective date of the modified pricing, or product addition or deletion. The new pricing restatement must include all Equipment, Products, and Services offered, even for those items where pricing remains unchanged.

A fully executed Sourcewell Price and Product Request Form will be become an amendment to this Contract and be incorporated by reference.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.14
110719-JDC
4 Rev. 4/2019

5. MEMBERSHIP, CONTRACT ACCESS, AND MEMBER REQUIREMENTS

A. MEMBERSHIP. Membership in Sourcewell is open to public and nonprofit entities across the United States and Canada; such as municipal, state/province, K-12 and higher education, tribal government, and other public entities.

The benefits of this Contract should be available to all Members that can legally access the Equipment, Products, or Services under this Contract. A Member’s authority to access this Contract is determined through its cooperative purchasing, interlocal, or joint powers laws. Any entity accessing benefits of this Contract will be considered a Service Member of Sourcewell during such time of access. Vendor understands that a Member’s use of this Contract is at the Member’s sole convenience and Members reserve the right to obtain like Equipment, Products, or Services from any other source.

Vendor is responsible for familiarizing its sales and service forces with Sourcewell membership requirements and documentation and will encourage potential members to join Sourcewell.

Sourcewell reserves the right to add and remove Members to its roster during the term of this Contract.

B. PUBLIC FACILITIES. Vendor’s employees may be required to perform work at governmentowned facilities, including schools. Vendor’s employees and agents must conduct themselves in a professional manner while on the premises, and in accordance with Member policies and procedures, and all applicable laws.

6. MEMBER ORDERING AND PURCHASE ORDERS
A. PURCHASE ORDERS AND PAYMENT. To access the contracted Equipment, Products, or Services under this Contract, Member must clearly indicate to Vendor that it intends to access this Contract; however, order flow and procedure will be developed jointly between Sourcewell and Vendor. Typically a Member will issue a purchase order directly to Vendor. Members may use their own forms for purchase orders, but it should clearly note the applicable Sourcewell contract number. Members will be solely responsible for payment and Sourcewell will have no liability for any unpaid invoice of any Member.

B. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Additional terms and conditions to a purchase order may be negotiated between a Member and Vendor, such as job or industry-specific requirements, legal requirements (such as affirmative action or immigration status requirements), or specific local policy requirements. Any negotiated additional terms and conditions must never be less favorable to the Member than what is contained in Vendor’s Proposal.

C. PERFORMANCE BOND. If requested by a Member, Vendor will provide a performance bond that meets the requirements set forth in the Member’s purchase order.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.15
110719-JDC
5 Rev. 4/2019
D. SPECIALIZED SERVICE REQUIREMENTS. In the event that the Member requires service or specialized performance requirements (such as e-commerce specifications, specialized delivery requirements, or other specifications and requirements) not addressed in this Contract, the Member and the Vendor may enter into a separate, standalone agreement, apart from this Contract. Sourcewell, including its agents and employees, will not be made a party to a claim for breach of such agreement.

E. TERMINATION OF PURCHASE ORDERS. Members may terminate a purchase order, in whole or in part, immediately upon notice to Vendor in the event of any of the following events:

1. The Member fails to receive funding or appropriation from its governing body at levels sufficient to pay for the goods to be purchased;

2. Federal or state laws or regulations prohibit the purchase or change the Member’s requirements; or

3. Vendor commits any material breach of this Contract or the additional terms agreed to between the Vendor and a Member.

F. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. The governing law and venue for any action related to a Member’s purchase order will be determined by the Member making the purchase.

7. CUSTOMER SERVICE
A. PRIMARY ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE. Vendor will assign an Account Representative to Sourcewell for this Contract and must provide prompt notice to Sourcewell if that person is changed. The Account Representative will be responsible for:

x Maintenance and management of this Contract;
x Timely response to all Sourcewell and Member inquiries; and x Business reviews to Sourcewell and Members, if applicable.

B. BUSINESS REVIEWS. Vendor must perform a minimum of one business review with Sourcewell per contract year. The business review will cover sales to members, pricing and contract terms, administrative fees, supply issues, customer issues, and any other necessary information.

8. REPORT ON CONTRACT SALES ACTIVITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEE PAYMENT A. CONTRACT SALES ACTIVITY REPORT. Each calendar quarter, Vendor must provide a contract sales activity report (Report) to the Sourcewell Contract Administrator assigned to this Contract. A Report must be provided regardless of the number or amount of sales during that quarter (i.e., if there are no sales, Vendor must submit a report indicating no sales were made).

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.16
110719-JDC
6 Rev. 4/2019
The Report must contain the following fields:
x Customer Name (e.g., City of Staples Highway Department); x Customer Physical Street Address;
x Customer City;
x Customer State;
x Customer Zip Code;
x Sourcewell Assigned Entity/Member Number;
x Item Purchased Description;
x Item Purchased Price;
x Sourcewell Administrative Fee Applied; and
x Date Purchase was invoiced/sale was recognized as revenue by Vendor.

B. ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. In consideration for the support and services provided by Sourcewell, the Vendor will pay an administrative fee to Sourcewell on all Equipment, Products, and Services provided to Members. The Vendor will submit a check payable to Sourcewell for the percentage of administrative fee stated in the Proposal multiplied by the total sales of all Equipment, Products, and Services purchased by Members under this Contract during each calendar quarter. Payments should note the Sourcewell-assigned contract number in the memo and must be mailed to the address above “Attn: Accounts Receivable.” Payments must be received no later than forty-five (45) calendar days after the end of each calendar quarter.

Vendor agrees to cooperate with Sourcewell in auditing transactions under this Contract to ensure that the administrative fee is paid on all items purchased under this Contract.

In the event the Vendor is delinquent in any undisputed administrative fees, Sourcewell reserves the right to cancel this Contract and reject any proposal submitted by the Vendor in any subsequent solicitation. In the event this Contract is cancelled by either party prior to the Contract’s expiration date, the administrative fee payment will be due no more than thirty (30) days from the cancellation date.

9. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
Sourcewell's Authorized Representative is its Chief Procurement Officer.

Vendor’s Authorized Representative is the person named in the Vendor’s Proposal. If Vendor’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this Contract, Vendor must promptly notify Sourcewell in writing.

10. ASSIGNMENT, AMENDMENTS, WAIVER, AND CONTRACT COMPLETE DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.17
110719-JDC
7 Rev. 4/2019
A. ASSIGNMENT. Neither the Vendor nor Sourcewell may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Contract without the prior consent of the parties and a fully executed assignment agreement. Such consent will not be unreasonably withheld.

B. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment to this Contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been fully executed by the parties.

C. WAIVER. If either party fails to enforce any provision of this Contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the right to enforce it.

D. CONTRACT COMPLETE. This Contract contains all negotiations and agreements between Sourcewell and Vendor. No other understanding regarding this Contract, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party.

E. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES. The relationship of the parties is one of independent contractors, each free to exercise judgment and discretion with regard to the conduct of their respective businesses. This Contract does not create a partnership, joint venture, masterservant, principal-agent, or any other relationship.

11. LIABILITY

Vendor must indemnify, save, and hold Sourcewell and its Members, including their agents and employees, harmless from any claims or causes of action, including attorneys’ fees, arising out of the performance of this Contract by the Vendor or its agents or employees; this indemnification includes injury or death to person(s) or property alleged to have been caused by some defect in the Equipment, Products, or Services under this Contract to the extent the Equipment, Product, or Service has been used according to its specifications.

12. AUDITS
Sourcewell reserves the right to review the books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Vendor relevant to this Contract for a minimum of six (6) years from the end of this Contract. This clause extends to Members as it relates to business conducted by that Member under this Contract.

13. GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES
Vendor and Sourcewell must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it applies to all data provided by or provided to Sourcewell under this Contract and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Vendor under this Contract.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.18
110719-JDC
8 Rev. 4/2019
If the Vendor receives a request to release the data referred to in this article, the Vendor must immediately notify Sourcewell and Sourcewell will assist with how the Vendor should respond to the request.

14. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
As applicable, Vendor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Sourcewell and its Members against any and all suits, claims, judgments, and costs instituted or recovered against Sourcewell or Members by any person on account of the use of any Equipment or Products by Sourcewell or its Members supplied by Vendor in violation of applicable patent or copyright laws.

15. PUBLICITY, MARKETING, AND ENDORSEMENT
A. PUBLICITY. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this Contract must not be released without prior written approval from the Authorized Representatives. Publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Vendor individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from this Contract.

B. MARKETING. Any direct advertising, marketing, or offers with Members must be approved by Sourcewell. Materials should be sent to the Sourcewell Contract Administrator assigned to this Contract.

C. ENDORSEMENT. The Vendor must not claim that Sourcewell endorses its Equipment, Products, or Services.

16. GOVERNING LAW, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
Minnesota law governs this Contract. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this Contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state court in Todd County or federal court in Fergus Falls, Minnesota.

17. FORCE MAJEURE
Neither party to this Contract will be held responsible for delay or default caused by acts of God or other conditions that are beyond that party’s reasonable control. A party defaulting under this provision must provide the other party prompt written notice of the default.

18. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Contract is found to be illegal, unenforceable, or void then both Sourcewell and Vendor will be relieved of all obligations arising under such provisions. If the DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.19
110719-JDC
9 Rev. 4/2019
remainder of this Contract is capable of performance, it will not be affected by such declaration or finding and must be fully performed.

19. PERFORMANCE, DEFAULT, AND REMEDIES
A. PERFORMANCE. During the term of this Contract, the parties will monitor performance and address unresolved contract issues as follows:

1. Notification. The parties must promptly notify each other of any known dispute and work in good faith to resolve such dispute within a reasonable period of time. If necessary, Sourcewell and the Vendor will jointly develop a short briefing document that describes the issue(s), relevant impact, and positions of both parties.

2. Escalation. If parties are unable to resolve the issue in a timely manner, as specified above, either Sourcewell or Vendor may escalate the resolution of the issue to a higher level of management. The Vendor will have thirty (30) calendar days to cure an outstanding issue.

3. Performance while Dispute is Pending. Notwithstanding the existence of a dispute, the Vendor must continue without delay to carry out all of its responsibilities under the Contract that are not affected by the dispute. If the Vendor fails to continue without delay to perform its responsibilities under the Contract, in the accomplishment of all undisputed work, any additional costs incurred by Sourcewell and/or its Members as a result of such failure to proceed will be borne by the Vendor.

B. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. Either of the following constitutes cause to declare this Contract, or any Member order under this Contract, in default:

1. Nonperformance of contractual requirements, or

2. A material breach of any term or condition of this Contract.

Written notice of default and a reasonable opportunity to cure must be issued by the party claiming default. Time allowed for cure will not diminish or eliminate any liability for liquidated or other damages. If the default remains after the opportunity for cure, the non-defaulting party may:
x Exercise any remedy provided by law or equity, or
x Terminate the Contract or any portion thereof, including any orders issued against the Contract.

20. INSURANCE

A. REQUIREMENTS. At its own expense, Vendor must maintain insurance policy(ies) in effect at all times during the performance of this Contract with insurance company(ies) licensed or authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota having an “AM BEST” rating of A- or better, with coverage and limits of insurance not less than the following:

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.20
110719-JDC
10 Rev. 4/2019

1. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability.

Workers’ Compensation: As required by any applicable law or regulation.

Employer's Liability Insurance: must be provided in amounts not less than listed below:

Minimum limits:
$500,000 each accident for bodily injury by accident
$500,000 policy limit for bodily injury by disease
$500,000 each employee for bodily injury by disease

2. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Vendor will maintain insurance covering its operations, with coverage on an occurrence basis, and must be subject to terms no less broad than the Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Commercial General Liability Form CG0001 (2001 or newer edition). At a minimum, coverage must include liability arising from premises, operations, bodily injury and property damage, independent contractors, products-completed operations including construction defect, contractual liability, blanket contractual liability, and personal injury and advertising injury. All required limits, terms and conditions of coverage must be maintained during the term of this Contract.

Minimum Limits:
$1,000,000 each occurrence Bodily Injury and Property Damage $1,000,000 Personal and Advertising Injury
$2,000,000 aggregate for Products-Completed operations
$2,000,000 general aggregate

3. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. During the term of this Contract, Vendor will maintain insurance covering all owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles in limits of liability not less than indicated below. The coverage must be subject to terms no less broad than ISO Business Auto Coverage Form CA 0001 (2010 edition or newer).

Minimum Limits:
$1,000,000 each accident, combined single limit

4. Umbrella Insurance. During the term of this Contract, Vendor will maintain umbrella coverage over Workers’ Compensation, Commercial General Liability, and Commercial Automobile.

Minimum Limits:
$2,000,000
Failure of Vendor to maintain the required insurance will constitute a material breach entitling Sourcewell to immediately terminate this Contract for default.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.21
110719-JDC
11 Rev. 4/2019
B. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE. Prior to commencing under this Contract, Vendor must furnish to Sourcewell a certificate of insurance, as evidence of the insurance required under this Contract. Prior to expiration of the policy(ies), renewal certificates must be mailed to Sourcewell, 202 12th Street Northeast, P.O. Box 219, Staples, MN 56479 or sent to the Sourcewell Contract Administrator assigned to this Contract.

Failure to request certificates of insurance by Sourcewell, or failure of Vendor to provide certificates of insurance, in no way limits or relieves Vendor of its duties and responsibilities in this Contract.

C. ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT AND PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY INSURANCE CLAUSE. Vendor agrees to name Sourcewell and its Members, including their officers, agents, and employees, as an additional insured under the Vendor’s commercial general liability insurance policy with respect to liability arising out of activities, “operations,” or “work” performed by or on behalf of Vendor, and products and completed operations of Vendor. The policy provision(s) or endorsement(s) must further provide that coverage is primary and not excess over or contributory with any other valid, applicable, and collectible insurance or self-insurance in force for the additional insureds.

D. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION. Vendor waives and must require (by endorsement or otherwise) all its insurers to waive subrogation rights against Sourcewell and other additional insureds for losses paid under the insurance policies required by this Contract or other insurance applicable to the Vendor or its subcontractors. The waiver must apply to all deductibles and/or self-insured retentions applicable to the required or any other insurance maintained by the Vendor or its subcontractors. Where permitted by law, Vendor must require similar written express waivers of subrogation and insurance clauses from each of its subcontractors.

E. UMBRELLA/EXCESS LIABILITY. The limits required by this Contract can be met by either providing a primary policy or in combination with umbrella/excess liability policy(ies).

F. SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS. Any self-insured retention in excess of $10,000 is subject to Sourcewell’s approval.

21. COMPLIANCE
A. LAWS AND REGULATIONS. All Equipment, Products, or Services provided under this Contract must comply fully with applicable federal laws and regulations, and with the laws in the states and provinces in which the Equipment, Products, or Services are sold.

B. LICENSES. Vendor must maintain a valid status on all required federal, state, and local licenses, bonds, and permits required for the operation of the business that the Vendor conducts with Sourcewell and Members.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.22
110719-JDC
12 Rev. 4/2019

22. BANKRUPTCY, DEBARMENT, OR SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION
Vendor certifies and warrants that it is not in bankruptcy or that it has previously disclosed in writing certain information to Sourcewell related to bankruptcy actions. If at any time during this Contract Vendor declares bankruptcy, Vendor must immediately notify Sourcewell in writing.

Vendor certifies and warrants that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from programs operated by the State of Minnesota, the United States federal government, or any Member.

Vendor certifies and warrants that neither it nor its principals have been convicted of a criminal offense related to the subject matter of this Contract. Vendor further warrants that it will provide immediate written notice to Sourcewell if this certification changes at any time.

23. PROVISIONS FOR NON-UNITED STATES FEDERAL ENTITY PROCUREMENTS UNDER

UNITED STATES FEDERAL AWARDS OR OTHER AWARDS
Members that use United States federal grant or FEMA funds to purchase goods or services from this Contract may be subject to additional requirements including the procurement standards of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 C.F.R. § 200. Members may also require additional requirements based on specific funding specifications. Within this Article, all references to “federal” should be interpreted to mean the United States federal government. The following list only applies when a Member accesses Vendor’s Equipment, Products, or Services with United States federal funds.

A. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY. Except as otherwise provided under 41 C.F.R. § 60, all contracts that meet the definition of “federally assisted construction contract” in 41 C.F.R. § 60-

1.3 must include the equal opportunity clause provided under 41 C.F.R. §60-1.4(b), in accordance with Executive Order 11246, “Equal Employment Opportunity” (30 FR 12319, 12935, 3 C.F.R. §, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339), as amended by Executive Order 11375, “Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity,” and implementing regulations at 41 C.F.R. § 60, “Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor.” The equal opportunity clause is incorporated herein by reference.

B. DAVIS-BACON ACT, AS AMENDED (40 U.S.C. § 3141-3148). When required by federal program legislation, all prime construction contracts in excess of $2,000 awarded by nonfederal entities must include a provision for compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. § 3141-3144, and 3146-3148) as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 C.F.R. § 5, “Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction”). In accordance with the statute, contractors must be required to pay wages to laborers and mechanics at a rate not less than the prevailing wages specified in a wage determination made by the Secretary of Labor. In addition, contractors must be required to pay DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.23
110719-JDC
13 Rev. 4/2019
wages not less than once a week. The non-federal entity must place a copy of the current prevailing wage determination issued by the Department of Labor in each solicitation. The decision to award a contract or subcontract must be conditioned upon the acceptance of the wage determination. The non-federal entity must report all suspected or reported violations to the federal awarding agency. The contracts must also include a provision for compliance with the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act (40 U.S.C. § 3145), as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 C.F.R. § 3, “Contractors and Subcontractors on Public Building or Public Work Financed in Whole or in Part by Loans or Grants from the United States”). The Act provides that each contractor or subrecipient must be prohibited from inducing, by any means, any person employed in the construction, completion, or repair of public work, to give up any part of the compensation to which he or she is otherwise entitled. The non-federal entity must report all suspected or reported violations to the federal awarding agency. Vendor must be in compliance with all applicable Davis-Bacon Act provisions.

C. CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT (40 U.S.C. § 3701-3708). Where applicable, all contracts awarded by the non-federal entity in excess of $100,000 that involve the employment of mechanics or laborers must include a provision for compliance with 40 U.S.C. § 3702 and 3704, as supplemented by Department of Labor regulations (29 C.F.R. § 5).

Under 40 U.S.C. § 3702 of the Act, each contractor must be required to compute the wages of every mechanic and laborer on the basis of a standard work week of 40 hours. Work in excess of the standard work week is permissible provided that the worker is compensated at a rate of not less than one and a half times the basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in the work week. The requirements of 40 U.S.C. § 3704 are applicable to construction work and provide that no laborer or mechanic must be required to work in surroundings or under working conditions which are unsanitary, hazardous or dangerous. These requirements do not apply to the purchases of supplies or materials or articles ordinarily available on the open market, or contracts for transportation or transmission of intelligence. This provision is hereby incorporated by reference into this Contract. Vendor certifies that during the term of an award for all contracts by Sourcewell resulting from this procurement process, Vendor must comply with applicable requirements as referenced above.

D. RIGHTS TO INVENTIONS MADE UNDER A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT. If the federal award meets the definition of “funding agreement” under 37 C.F.R. § 401.2(a) and the recipient or subrecipient wishes to enter into a contract with a small business firm or nonprofit organization regarding the substitution of parties, assignment or performance of experimental, developmental, or research work under that “funding agreement,” the recipient or subrecipient must comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 401, “Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements,” and any implementing regulations issued by the awarding agency. Vendor certifies that during the term of an award for all contracts by Sourcewell resulting from this procurement process, Vendor must comply with applicable requirements as referenced above.

E. CLEAN AIR ACT (42 U.S.C. § 7401-7671Q.) AND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (33 U.S.C. § 1251-1387). Contracts and subgrants of amounts in excess of $150,000 require DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.24
110719-JDC
14 Rev. 4/2019
the non-federal award to agree to comply with all applicable standards, orders or regulations issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401- 7671q) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1251- 1387). Violations must be reported to the Federal awarding agency and the Regional Office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Vendor certifies that during the term of this Contract will comply with applicable requirements as referenced above.

F. DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION (EXECUTIVE ORDERS 12549 AND 12689). A contract award (see 2 C.F.R. § 180.220) must not be made to parties listed on the government wide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the OMB guidelines at 2 C.F.R. §180 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 C.F.R. § 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 C.F.R. § 1989 Comp., p. 235), “Debarment and Suspension.” SAM Exclusions contains the names of parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, as well as parties declared ineligible under statutory or regulatory authority other than Executive Order 12549. Vendor certifies that neither it nor its principals are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation by any federal department or agency.

G. BYRD ANTI-LOBBYING AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED (31 U.S.C. § 1352). Vendors must file any required certifications. Vendors must not have used federal appropriated funds to pay any person or organization for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with obtaining any federal contract, grant, or any other award covered by 31 U.S.C. § 1352. Vendors must disclose any lobbying with non-federal funds that takes place in connection with obtaining any federal award. Such disclosures are forwarded from tier to tier up to the non-federal award. Vendors must file all certifications and disclosures required by, and otherwise comply with, the Byrd Anti-Lobbying Amendment (31 U.S.C. § 1352).

H. RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS. To the extent applicable, Vendor must comply with the record retention requirements detailed in 2 C.F.R. § 200.333. The Vendor further certifies that it will retain all records as required by 2 C.F.R. § 200.333 for a period of three (3) years after grantees or subgrantees submit final expenditure reports or quarterly or annual financial reports, as applicable, and all other pending matters are closed.

I. ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT COMPLIANCE. To the extent applicable, Vendor must comply with the mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

J. BUY AMERICAN PROVISIONS COMPLIANCE. To the extent applicable, Vendor must comply with all applicable provisions of the Buy American Act. Purchases made in accordance with the Buy American Act must follow the applicable procurement rules calling for free and open competition.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.25
110719-JDC
15 Rev. 4/2019
K. ACCESS TO RECORDS (2 C.F.R. § 200.336). Vendor agrees that duly authorized representatives of a federal agency must have access to any books, documents, papers and records of Vendor that are directly pertinent to Vendor’s discharge of its obligations under this Contract for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions. The right also includes timely and reasonable access to Vendor’s personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion relating to such documents.

L. PROCUREMENT OF RECOVERED MATERIALS (2 C.F.R. § 200.322). A non-federal entity that is a state agency or agency of a political subdivision of a state and its contractors must comply with Section 6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The requirements of Section 6002 include procuring only items designated in guidelines of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 C.F.R. § 247 that contain the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable, consistent with maintaining a satisfactory level of competition, where the purchase price of the item exceeds $10,000 or the value of the quantity acquired during the preceding fiscal year exceeded $10,000; procuring solid waste management services in a manner that maximizes energy and resource recovery; and establishing an affirmative procurement program for procurement of recovered materials identified in the EPA guidelines.

24. CANCELLATION
Sourcewell or Vendor may cancel this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon sixty (60) days’ written notice to the other party. However, Sourcewell may cancel this Contract immediately upon discovery of a material defect in any certification made in Vendor’s Proposal.

Termination of this Contract does not relieve either party of financial, product, or service obligations incurred or accrued prior to termination.

Sourcewell Deere & Company
By: __________________________ By: __________________________ Jeremy Schwartz Andrew Roman
Title: Director of Operations &
Procurement/CPO
Title: Contract Administrator
Date: ________________________ Date: ________________________ Approved:

By: __________________________
Chad Coauette
Title: Executive Director/CEO
Date: ________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 






 















Page G-2.26
RFP 110719 - Ag Tractors with Related Attachments, Accessories, and Supplies
Vendor Details
Company Name: Deere & Company
2000 John Deere Run
Address:

Cary, NC 27513
Contact: Andrew Roman
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 800-358-5010 2285
Fax: 309-749-2313
HST#: 362382580
Submission Details
Created On: Wednesday October 02, 2019 13:10:29
Submitted On: Thursday November 07, 2019 10:26:36
Submitted By: Andrew Roman
Email: [email protected]
Transaction #: fc7b4092-1aab-463f-88f9-e8f4dbc9e793
Submitter's IP Address: 165.225.0.97
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.27
Specifications
Table 1: Proposer Identity & Authorized Representatives Line
Item Question Response *
1 Proposer Legal Name (and applicable
d/b/a, if any):

Deere & Company *
2 Proposer Address: 2000 John Deere Run Cary, NC
27513 *
3 Proposer website address: www.johndeere.com *
4 Proposer's Authorized Representative
(name, title, address, email address &
phone) (The representative must have
authority to sign the “Proposer’s
Assurance of Compliance” on behalf of
the Proposer):

Andrew Roman - Contract Administrator
2000 John Deere Run, Cary, NC 27513
[email protected]
800-358-5010 Ext. 2285 *
5 Proposer's primary contact for this
proposal (name, title, address, email
address & phone):

Andrew Roman - Contract Administrator
2000 John Deere Run, Cary, NC 27513
[email protected]
800-358-5010 Ext. 2285
*
6 Proposer's other contacts for this
proposal, if any (name, title, address,
email address & phone):

Michael Garrette - Government Business Manager 19695 Embers Avenue, Farmington, MN 55024 [email protected]
908-442-3455
Table 2: Company Information and Financial Strength
Line
Item Question Response *
7 Provide a brief history of your company, including
your company’s core values, business philosophy,
and industry longevity related to the requested
equipment, products or services.

Deere & Company, founded in 1837 (collectively called John Deere), began as a simple oneman blacksmith shop. Today it’s grown into corporation that does business around the world and employs over 74,000 people worldwide. The company is guided by the same core values established by its founder: integrity, quality, commitment and innovation. John Deere is the world's leading provider of advanced products and services for agriculture and forestry and a major provider of advanced products and services for construction and lawn & turf. John Deere also provides financial services worldwide and manufactures and markets engines used in heavy equipment. Deere & Company is a global company with offices and factories throughout the U.S. and overseas in countries such as China, India, Poland, Russia and Germany just to name a few. John Deere has been involved with the manufacturing of tractors since 1918. *
8 Provide a detailed description of the products and
services that you are offering in your proposal.

John Deere will offer its complete product offering for ag tractors, implements and related equipm include: 1. Small, Mid and Large frame ag
attachments 2. Material handling attachments (tractor loaders, flail mowers, scrapers, shredders, b

4. Combines

5. Cotton

6. Hay & Forage (balers, disk mowers, etc.) 7. Tillage (plows, harrows, etc.) 8. Planting & Seeding (planters, drills, air seeders) 9. Self propelled sprayers 10. Ag Management Solutions 11. Frontier implements and attachments
*
Our independent dealer network will provide aftermarket services upon request. 9 What are your company’s expectations in the
event of an award?
John Deere will be able to offer a wide array of products that fall within the scope of this RFP that will meet and exceed the needs of all Sourcewell members. * 10 Demonstrate your financial strength and stability
with meaningful data. This could include such items
as financial statements, SEC filings, credit and
bond ratings, letters of credit, and detailed
reference letters. Upload supporting documents (as
applicable) in the document upload section of your
response.

Our 2018 Annual Report has been uploaded as part of our proposal. *
11 What is your US market share for the solutions
that you are proposing?
John Deere considers its market share data to be proprietary information. * 12 What is your Canadian market share, if any? John Deere considers its market share data to be proprietary information. * 13 Has your business ever petitioned for bankruptcy
protection? If so, explain in detail.

No. *
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.28
14 How is your organization best described: is it a man your written authorization to act as a distributor/deale with your sales and service force and with your dea
John Deere is a manufacturer. a. John Deere has a nationwide dealer network. The dealer netw operated businesses. b. John Deere partners with independently owned John Deere dealers that being offered in the RFP.
*
15 If applicable, provide a detailed explanation
outlining the licenses and certifications that are
both required to be held, and actually held, by
your organization (including third parties and
subcontractors that you use) in pursuit of the
business contemplated by this RFP.

To the best of our knowledge, Deere & Company maintains all licenses and certifications necessary to conduct its business (e.g. its sale of agricultural equipment) in the United States. *
16 Provide all “Suspension or Disbarment” information
that has applied to your organization during the
past ten years.

Not applicable.
*
17 Within this RFP category there may be
subcategories of solutions. List subcategory titles
that best describe your products and services.

List of subcategory products and services John Deere will offer within this RFP include: 1.

Material handling attachments (tractor loaders, flail mowers, scrapers, shredders, backhoes) 2.

Rotary cutters

3. Combines

4. Cotton

5. Hay & Forage (balers, disk mowers, etc.) 6. Tillage (plows, harrows, etc.) 7. Planting & Seeding (planters, drills, air seeders) 8. Self propelled sprayers 9. Ag Management Solutions 10. Frontier implements and attachments
*
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.29
Table 3: Industry Recognition & Marketplace Success
Line
Item Question Response *
18 Describe any relevant industry awards or 2018
recognition that your company has received in Best Global Brand - Interbrand the past five years World's Most Ethical Companies - Ethisphere Institute (12th Year) Top 10 Innovative Company - American Innovation Index
Corporate Partner of the Year - National Society of Black Engineers 2017
World's Most Admired Companies - Fortune Magazine # 50
50 Best Places to Work in the US - Indeed.com
US Chamber of Commerce Foundation Citizens Award
Company of the Year - Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers *
2016
2016 Good Design Award - Good Design is one of the oldest, prestigious and most recognized program for design excellence worldwide.
2015
Gold Status Pillar of the Industry Award - Association of Equipment Manufacturers 2014
Deere & Company has been selected 16th on the 2014 Global Top Companies for Leaders list – a comprehensive study that recognizes best-in-class management practices, especially in the area of leadership development.
19 What percentage of your sales are to the
governmental sector in the past three
years
Due to proprietary information, we would prefer not to provide the sales volume history of government agencies. We can assure you that we are a partner who is fully aligned with governmental customer purchase requirements. With a dedicated governmental sales department that works solely with public agencies and our dealer network, we continue to increase our sales volume in this key segment.
*
20 What percentage of your sales are to the
education sector in the past three years
Due to proprietary information, we would prefer not to provide the sales volume history of education agencies. We can assure you that we are a partner who is fully aligned with educational customer purchase requirements. With a dedicated governmental sales department that works solely with public agencies and our dealer network, we continue to increase our sales volume in this key segment.
*
21 List any state or cooperative purchasing contracts
that you hold. What is the annual sales volume
for each of these contracts over the past three
years?
John Deere currently holds over 110 government contracts consisting of federal, state, county and cooperative contracts. The state, county and cooperative sales volumes are combined.

The sales volumes over the past three years are as follows:
2018 - $305.5M
2017 - $295.5M
2016 - $279.6M
*
22 List any GSA contracts that you hold. What is John Deere currently holds the following GSA Contracts:
the annual sales volume for each of these Ag Tractor Contract #GS-30F-0007T contracts over the past three years? UV Contract #GS-07F-9670S L&G Contract #GS-06F-0083S
*
The total sales volume for the GSA contracts over the past three years are as follows:
2019 = $21.0M
2018 - $15.3M
2017 - $17.1M
Table 4: References/Testimonials
Line Item 23. Supply reference information from three customers who are eligible for Sourcewell membership.

Entity Name * Contact Name * Phone Number *
Iowa Department of Transportation Jennifer Monserud 515-239-1607 * Mt. San Antonio College, Walnut CA Sandi Horn 909-274-5509 * Anne Arundel County, Maryland Dale Eutsler 410-222-7665 * State of Indiana - Sourcewell Participating
Addendum
Stephanie Nelson 317-234-0963
State of Arkansas - Sourcewell Participating
Addendum
John Leverett 501-683-2222
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.30
Table 5: Top Five Government or Education Customers
Line Item 24. Provide a list of your top five government, education, or non-profit customers (entity name is optional), including entity type, the state or province the entity is located in, scope of the project(s), size of transaction(s), and dollar volumes from the past three years.

Entity Name Entity Type * State /
Province * Scope of Work * Size of Transactions * Dollar Volume Past Three Years * Coop - Government Texas - TX Complete Price Page Contract for all Varies FY19 = $11.5M Buyboard John Deere product categories. FY18 = $10.4M
Grounds FY17 = $13.0M *
Maintenance
Contract
MI - Ag, Government Michigan - MI Complete Price Page Contract for all Varies FY19 = $8.1M Grounds and John Deere product categories. FY18 = $8.6M Roadside FY17 = $11.0M *
Equipment
Contract
OH - Ag Government Ohio - OH Complete Price Page Contract for all Varies FY19 = $12.8M Machinery,
Mowers &
John Deere product categories. FY18 = $20.7M
FY17 = $17.4M *
Tractors Contract
OK - Government Oklahoma - OK John Deere Ag Tractors and Related Varies FY19 = $11.5M Agriculture, Equipment FY18 = $10.3M
Trees & Brush
Maintenance
FY17 = $7.0M *
Equipment
Contract
PA - Ag and Government Pennsylvania - PA Complete Price Page Contract for all Varies FY19 = $9.2M Grounds John Deere product categories. FY18 = $9.8M
Keeping Power FY17 = $8.3M *
Equipment
Contract
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.31
Table 6: Ability to Sell and Deliver Service
Describe your company’s capability to meet the needs of Sourcewell Members across the US, and Canada if applicable.Your response should address in detail at least the following areas: locations of your network of sales and service providers, the number of workers (full-time equivalents) involved in each sector, whether these workers are your direct employees (or employees of a third party), and any overlap between the sales and service functions.

Line
Item Question Response *
25 Sales force. John Deere has dedicated governmental sales department, based out of Cary, NC, that focuses 100% of their time on the sales and processing of agricultural and turf equipment to governmental and other public agencies. We have a total of 6 Government Business Managers, one of which is dedicated strictly to federal sales. The 5 remaining Government Business Managers are ultimately responsible for state governmental sales in their respective geographies, dedicating 100% of their time to growing the John Deere governmental sales business. The government business managers develop relationships and understand the equipment needs of federal purchasing agents, state purchasing agents and state fleet administrators, i.e. Department of Transportation, Department of Natural Resources. The government business managers also work with John Deere dealers to provide training and a greater understanding of the selling process. The John Deere dealer is ultimately responsible for delivering and supporting the equipment. In relation to the potential Sourcewell Ag Tractors with Related Attachment Contract, the government business managers would promote the contract to state purchasing agents and state fleet administrators, who either do not have their own state purchasing contract or have product gaps in their contracts. *
26 Dealer network or other distribution methods. John Deere has a nationwide independent dealer network offering best-in-class parts, service, and support. We know the government customer and make everything easy, from the initial purchase to service and support. Our dealer network, with over 1,700 locations nationwide, would be responsible for delivering and servicing the equipment sold to end users using this contract. John Deere dealers offer a combination of after-hours service (varies by dealer) and online support (online parts ordering system), which gives end-users the service needed to avoid costly downtime. The John Deere parts ordering system is available for all dealers and gives them access to over 800,000 unique parts which are ready to ship overnight, if needed.

Most dealers also offer some form of mobile maintenance service, which provides on-site service. Dealer technicians are factory-trained on the service and support of the products offered in this RFP.
*
27 Service force. John Deere has a nationwide independent dealer network offering best-in-class parts, service, and support. We know the government customer and make everything easy, from the initial purchase to service and support. Our dealer network, with over 1,700 locations nationwide, would be responsible for delivering and servicing the equipment sold to end users using this contract. John Deere dealers offer a combination of after-hours service (varies by dealer) and online support (online parts ordering system), which gives end-users the service needed to avoid costly downtime. The John Deere parts ordering system is available for all dealers and gives them access to over 800,000 unique parts which are ready to ship overnight, if needed.

Most dealers also offer some form of mobile maintenance service, which provides on-site service. Dealer technicians are factory-trained on the service and support of the products offered in this RFP.
*
28 Describe in detail the process and procedure of
your customer service program, if applicable.

Include your response-time capabilities and
commitments, as well as any incentives that help
your providers meet your stated service goals or
promises.

The support of the equipment ultimately takes place through the John Deere dealer network.

While customer service inevitably varies within the dealer network, the consistent training that is offered by John Deere Company to dealer technicians and parts personnel helps provide each agency with a similar customer experience. Should there be a need for equipment service, it will be the Sourcewell member’s responsibility to contact the delivering dealer for service. The member can also work with other dealers if necessary, as warranty and service work can be performed by any authorized John Deere dealer. In the event of service issues that cannot be solved by the John Deere dealer, the dealer works with John Deere Company’s dealer technical assistance center for elevated support.
*
As far as the John Deere Government Sales Department, we have an entire department of approximately 30 people dedicated to government sales. This includes an Order Management Team, that within an average of 7 days of submission, audits and processes every PO to verify contract pricing and verify the items quoted are eligible for the contract. Contract Administrators in the department ensure contract compliance is maintained. 29 Identify any geographic areas of the United
States or Canada that you will NOT be fully
serving through the proposed contract.

John Deere will serve the entire United States, including Alaska and Hawaii and Canada. *
30 Identify any Sourcewell Member sectors (i.e.,
government, education, not-for-profit) that you will
NOT be fully serving through the proposed
contract. Explain in detail. For example, does
your company have only a regional presence, or
do other cooperative purchasing contracts limit
your ability to promote another contract?
John Deere will serve all Sourcewell Member sectors.
*
31 Define any specific contract requirements or
restrictions that would apply to our Members in
Hawaii and Alaska and in US Territories.

John Deere will only ship to Alaska and Hawaii. For deliveries to Alaska or Hawaii, factory freight to the delivering dealer will be paid by the Sourcewell member. The equipment will be FOB origin. Factory freight is known at the time of quoting and will be included on the quote to the Sourcewell member. For all other deliveries within the continental US, the equipment will be FOB destination (the Sourcewell member will NOT be charged factory freight to the delivering dealer).
*
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.32
Table 7: Marketing Plan
Line
Item Question Response *
32 Describe your marketing strategy for
promoting this contract opportunity.

Upload representative samples of your
marketing materials (if applicable) in the
document upload section of your
response.

John Deere currently uses several forms of marketing to target the governmental and public customer segment:

1. We have created a website where we prominently advertise the cooperative contracts we currently hold.

2. Each year, the company produces a purchasing guide for government equipment. This purchasing guide, available in both print and electronic Flash Drive format, is used by the John Deere dealer network to promote the products.

3. John Deere provides templates online for dealers to create their own mailings to promote products to governmental and public agencies.
*

4. John Deere also prints detailed marketing brochures for the products being offered in this RFP.

This literature is made available to dealers and includes features and benefits and equipment specifications.

A sample of marketing materials have been uploaded for review. The Marketing Literature Sample.pdf contains 2019 Government Calendar, 2019 Government Municipal Lease Literature, Government Sales Folder Packet and Government Sport Turf Banner. 33 Describe your use of technology and
digital data (e.g., social media, metadata
usage) to enhance marketing
effectiveness.

JohnDeere.com provides detailed product information for the products being offered in this RFP.

Customers are able to view information on product features, specifications, and accessories. Utilizing JohnDeere.com, Sourcewell members would be able to “build-their-own” product. Customers choose the product category and subsequent product options to configure their desired piece of equipment.

Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail List Price is shown. The website will not show the Sourcewell contract discount, but if the Sourcewell member knows the discount on the particular product category, they will be able to determine their purchase price. *
34 In your view, what is Sourcewell’s role in pro
Sourcewell- awarded contract into your sales
Sourcewell will play a key role in working with and supporting the John Deere Government Business Managers, by helping the Business Managers promote the Sourcewell contract and recognize key opportunities in states that show a willingness to adopt Sourcewell. Conference calls and/or webinars with the John Deere Government Business Managers will be a valuable tool. Because the Business Managers have a strong relationship with the John Deere dealers, the business managers will help the dealers understand the contract and market it in their particular areas. The business managers will help the John Deere dealers understand the steps necessary to sign up new Sourcewell members as well. Furthermore, in certain geographies, webinars could be used to help John Deere dealers understand the Sourcewell contract. These opportunities would typically be initiated by John Deere and considered on an individual basis depending on the needs of a particular region. *
35 Are your products or services available throu
e- procurement system and how governmen
We currently use E-procurement systems in North Carolina and Virginia (eVA) because we are contractually required to do so. The system does provide the state a constant record of sales activity, however, administratively, E-procurement is not a seamless process for us. When it comes to John Deere equipment, there are thousands of equipment configurations. Because Deere’s price pages are in pdf format, we cannot just simply upload the pricing into the E-procurement systems.

We have to manually construct base machines by model and enter them individually. Doing it this way means the agency is not getting the complete picture of what we have available. They’re only getting a “sample”. For this most part, agencies still feel most comfortable with working directly with the dealer to ensure they’re getting equipment that will best suit their needs. *
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.33
Table 8: Value-Added Attributes
Line
Item Question Response *
36 Describe any product, equipment,
maintenance, or operator training
programs that you offer to Sourcewell
Members. Include details, such as
whether training is standard or
optional, who provides training, and
any costs that apply.

The John Deere dealer is ultimately responsible for delivering and supporting the equipment. However, any Sourcewell member will be encouraged to call the John Deere governmental sales direct toll-free number (800-358-5010, option 2) for assistance with locating their nearest dealer. John Deere does offer distance-learning classes on the operation and adjustment of equipment for certain products. To date, this has primarily been for larger equipment, targeted at farm customers. Many John Deere dealers offer local training, which is at the discretion of the dealer. *
37 Describe any technological advances
that your proposed products or
services offer.

John Deere Power Tech Final Tier 4 engines 75 HP and above are built on a proven platform of emissions control technologies including:

1. Cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) 2.

Exhaust filters 3. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
*
ExactRate Planter Fertilizer System 1. Reduces fertilizer usage by up to 8%. 2. Improve fertilizer placement accuracy by up to 20% 38 Describe any “green” initiatives that
relate to your company or to your
products or services, and include a
list of the certifying agency for
each.

John Deere has created a Product Sustainability goal where we offer machines and technology solutions include: 1. Reduce environment impact, including CO2 emissions on 90% o

2. Increase the use of sustainable materials by growing remanufactured and rebuild sales by 30%.

3. Increasing recyclable, renewable and recycled content. *
39 Identify any third-party issued ecolabels, ratings or certifications that your company has received for the
equipment or products included in
your Proposal related to energy
efficiency or conservation, life-cycle
design (cradle-to-cradle), or other
green/sustainability factors.

Sustainability is foundational to the John Deere strategy. We are committed to reducing the environmental impact on 90% of new products to include carbon emission reductions and invest $4 Million dollars per day in research and development. Further we have received the following awards:

Best Global Brands - Interbrand
Top Ten Innovative Companies in U.S. - American Innovation Index World's Most Ethical Companies - Ethisphere Institute *
40 Describe any Women or Minority
Business Entity (WMBE), Small
Business Entity (SBE), or veteran
owned business certifications that your
company or hub partners have
obtained. Upload documentation of
certification (as applicable) in the
document upload section of your
response.

John Deere continues to proactively engage small and diverse businesses to support the economic growth of communities. A recent small business compliance review reaffirmed John Deere truly has an active Supplier Diverse program.
*
41 What unique attributes does your
company, your products, or your
services offer to Sourcewell Members?
What makes your proposed solutions
unique in your industry as it applies
to Sourcewell members?
John Deere’s founder was best known for his work with the first commercially successful plow. And so it is today that we are perhaps best known for our quality agricultural equipment. We also take the lead worldwide in construction and forestry equipment. We're a major force in grounds maintenance and commercial landscape equipment. Also, John Deere Financial is one of the largest equipment finance companies.
*
42 Identify your ability and willingness to
provide your products and services to
Sourcewell member agencies in
Canada.

John Deere will serve Sourcewell member agencies in Canada. The Canadian John Deere dealer network is able to service equipment throughout Canada. * DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.34
Table 9: Warranty
Describe in detail your manufacturer warranty program, including conditions and requirements to qualify, claims procedure, and overall structure. You may upload representative samples of your warranty materials (if applicable) in the document upload section of your response in addition to responding to the questions below.

Line
Item Question Response *
43 Do your warranties cover all products, parts, and labor? See paragraph A of the attached warranty statement. * 44 Do your warranties impose usage restrictions or other limitations that adversely affect coverage?
Per the attached warranty statement paragraph B, the warranty term (time period and usage limits) varies by product. *
45 Do your warranties cover the expense of technicians’ travel time and mileage to perform warranty repairs?
Per the attached warranty statement paragraph A, the purchaser will be responsible for any service call and/or transportation of equipment to and from the authorized dealer’s place of business (except where prohibited by law), for any premium charged for overtime labor requested by the purchaser and for any service and/or maintenance not directly related to any defect covered under these warranties. *
46 Are there any geographic regions of the United States (and Canada, if applicable) for which you cannot provide a certified technician to perform warranty repairs? How will Sourcewell Members in these regions be provided
service for warranty repair?
The John Deere dealer network is able to service equipment throughout the United States and Canada.
*
47 Will you cover warranty service for items made by other manufacturers that are part of your proposal, or are
these warranties issues typically passed on to the
original equipment manufacturer?
John Deere is only submitting equipment manufactured by John Deere. *
48 What are your proposed exchange and return programs
and policies?
John Deere exchanges and returns will not be permitted. * 49 Describe any service contract options for the items
included in your proposal.

John Deere is not including service contract options with our proposal. * Table 10: Payment Terms and Financing Options
Line
Item Question Response *
50 What are your payment terms (e.g., net 10, net 30)? John Deere's payment terms are Net 30. * 51 Do you provide leasing or financing options, especially those options that schools and governmental entities may need to use in order to make certain acquisitions?
John Deere offers financing and leasing options through John Deere Financial. The John Deere Municipal Lease Purchase Plan is a special low- rate financing plan that is designed to provide flexibility of leasing while building equity toward ownership of the John Deere equipment. Any state or local government body or their political subdivisions may be eligible for the John Deere Municipal Lease Purchase Plan, subject to approval and if the agencies rules and guidelines allow. John Deere Financial also offers other leasing and financing options for governmental, educational, and non- profit entities, subject to approval.
*
52 Briefly describe your proposed order process. Include enough detail to support your ability to report quarterly sales to Sourcewell as described in the Contract template. For example, indicate whether your dealer network is included in your response and whether each dealer (or some other entity) will process the Sourcewell Members’ purchase orders.

The order process will follow a Business-to-Government order process. Our dealer network will be quoting equipment, accepting purchase orders, delivering and servicing the equipment. The Sourcewell Member or John Deere dealer will submit a purchase order to John Deere Government Sales for processing, noting the Sourcewell contract number on the PO and the Member’s preferred delivering dealer. John Deere will invoice the member upon delivery of the product. The equipment will be delivered by the designated dealer.
*
53 Do you accept the P-card procurement and payment process? If so, is there any additional cost to Sourcewell Members for using this process?
No.
*
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.35
Table 11: Pricing and Delivery
Provide detailed pricing information in the questions that follow below. Keep in mind that reasonable price and product adjustments can be made during the term of an awarded Contract as desribed in the RFP, the template Contract, and the Sourcewell Price and Product Change Request Form.

Line
Item Question Response *
54 Describe your pricing model (e.g., line-item discounts or product- cat materials (if applicable) in the document upload section of your resp John Deere is offering product-category discounts. See uploaded Price Schedule and Price Pages.pdf.
*
55 Quantify the pricing discount represented by the pricing proposal in this response. For example, if the pricing in your response represents a percentage discount from MSRP or list, state the percentage or percentage range.

The percentage discount range is 14% to 24% off Current MSRP. *
56 Describe any quantity or volume discounts or rebate programs that you offer.

John Deere offers a Multiple Unit Discount (MUD) based on the following schedule:
3-4 units – 1%
5-6 units – 2%
7-8 units – 3%
9 units or more – 4% *
For sales of three or more like self-propelled equipment sold to one customer on the same purchase order qualifies for an additional discount.

Implements and attachments sold with and for self-propelled ride-on machines are also eligible for multi-unit discounts, but do not count towards the total number of ride-on units, which determines the multi-unit discount percentage. Frontier Equipment is excluded from the Multiple Unit Discount. 57 Propose a method of facilitating “sourced” products or related services, which may be referred to as “open market” items or “nonstandard options”. For example, you may supply such items “at cost” or “at cost plus a percentage,” or you may supply a quote for each such request.

John Deere can offer “Sourced Goods” to Sourcewell Members. What Sourcewell calls “Sourced Goods” John Deere calls non-contract items and allied items. We define non-contract as John Deere items that are not on contract (like parts and catalog items that say “See Parts” or “See Catalog” in our price pages). Allied equipment is defined as non-John Deere equipment (ex. Tiger mower). Non-contract and allied items would be sold as “open market” and the price of the item would be negotiated between the John Deere dealer and the Sourcewell Member. The non-contract/allied item would appear on the purchase order (PO) with the contract item but would be listed as “non-contract”. For example, a Sourcewell Member could purchase a John Deere Ag Tractor, a canopy (non-contract) and a Tiger mower (allied) by utilizing the Sourcewell contract. The price of the canopy and Tiger mower would be determined by the John Deere dealer and both would be listed on the PO as non-contract items. We successfully use this process on other contracts.
*
58 Identify any element of the total cost of acquisition that is NOT included in the pricing submitted with your response. This includes all additional charges associated with a purchase that are not directly identified as freight or shipping charges. For example, list costs for items like pre-delivery inspection, installation, set up, mandatory training, or initial inspection. Identify any parties that impose such costs and their relationship to the Proposer.

For deliveries to Alaska, Hawaii, factory freight to the delivering dealer will be paid by the Sourcewell member. Factory freight is known at the time of quoting and will be included on the quote to the Sourcewell member.

The dealer may charge $4.00 per loaded mile to deliver equipment from the dealership to the agency's location. The charge must appear on the quote or purchase order.
*
59 If freight, delivery, or shipping is an additional cost to the Sourcewell Member, describe in detail the complete freight, shipping, and delivery program.

For deliveries to Alaska, Hawaii, factory freight to the delivering dealer will be paid by the Sourcewell member. Factory freight is known at the time of quoting and will be included on the quote to the Sourcewell member. *
The dealer may charge $4.00 per loaded mile to deliver equipment from the dealership to the agency's location. The charge must appear on the quote or purchase order.
60 Specifically describe freight, shipping, and delivery terms or programs available for Alaska, Hawaii, Canada, or any offshore delivery.

For deliveries to Alaska, Hawaii, factory freight to the delivering dealer will be paid by the Sourcewell member. Factory freight is known at the time of quoting and will be included on the quote to the Sourcewell member. *
61 Describe any unique distribution and/or delivery methods or options offered in your proposal.

None. *
Table 12: Pricing Offered
Line
Item The Pricing Offered in this Proposal is: * Comments 62 b. the same as the Proposer typically offers to GPOs, cooperative procurement organizations, or state purchasing departments.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.36
Table 13: Audit and Administrative Fee
Line
Item Question Response *
63 Specifically describe any self-audit process or program that you plan to employ to verify compliance with your proposed Contract with Sourcewell.

This process includes ensuring that Sourcewell Members obtain the proper pricing, that the Vendor reports all sales under the Contract each quarter, and that the Vendor remits the proper administrative fee to Sourcewell.

The Sourcewell member will receive their equipment quote directly from the John Deere dealer. The dealer is able to create the quote by utilizing the contract information (discounts, contract guidelines, eligible equipment, etc.) that we have posted on our website as well as a quoting tool that we’ve made available to them. The member will submit their purchase order (PO), with contract number noted, to the dealer. John Deere will be listed as the vendor on the PO and the dealer, who created the quote, will be the delivering dealer.

The dealer will then upload the quote and the PO to Deere’s online order management system. Our Order Management Team will then retrieve the quote and the PO and audit them based on the contract guidelines. If an issue is discovered with PO and/or quote, the Order Management Team will then contact the dealer and work with the dealer and the member to get the issue resolved.
*
64 Identify a proposed administrative fee that you will pay to Sourcewell for facilitating, managing, and promoting the Sourcewell Contract in the event that you are awarded a Contract. This fee is typically calculated as a percentage of Vendor’s sales under the Contract or as a per-unit fee; it is not a line-item addition to the Member’s cost of goods. (See the RFP and template Contract for additional details.)
John Deere will pay a 1% administrative fee.
*
Table 14: Industry Specific Questions
Line
Item Question Response *
65 If you are awarded a contract, provide a few
examples of internal metrics that will be tracked
to measure whether you are having success
with the contract.

John Deere looks forward to annual business reviews with Sourcewell account managers.

During these reviews, we discuss plans and volume goals and normally include percentage sales increase. Our metrics & goals for 2020 and beyond includes this discussion. * 66 Describe any industry-specific quality
management system certifications obtained by
your organization.

Several John Deere manufacturing facilities operate a quality management system which compiles with the requirements of ISO 9001. *
67 Describe any preventative maintenance
programs that your organization offers for the
solutions you are proposing in this response.

John Deere is not providing preventive maintenance programs as part of its RFP response.

However, Sourcewell Members will be able to purchase these programs directly from dealers utilizing the “Sourced Equipment/Products and/or related Services” method outlined in Line Item 57 in Table 11: Pricing and Delivery.
*
Table 15: Exceptions to Terms, Conditions, or Specifications Form Only those Proposer Exceptions to Terms, Conditions, or Specifications that have been accepted by Sourcewell have been incorporated into the contract text.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.37
Documents
Ensure your submission document(s) conforms to the following:

1. Documents in PDF format are preferred. Documents in Word, Excel, or compatible formats may also be provided.

2. Documents should NOT have a security password, as Sourcewell may not be able to open the file. It is your sole responsibility to ensure that the uploaded document(s) are not either defective, corrupted or blank and that the documents can be opened and viewed by Sourcewell.

3. Sourcewell may reject any response where any document(s) cannot be opened and viewed by Sourcewell.

4. If you need to upload more than one (1) document for a single item, you should combine the documents into one zipped file. If the zipped file contains more than one (1) document, ensure each document is named, in relation to the submission format item responding to. For example, if responding to the Marketing Plan category save the document as “MarketingPlan.”
Financial Strength and Stability - 2018_John-Deere-Annual-Report.pdf - Monday November 04, 2019 12:17:59 Marketing Plan/Samples - Marketing Literature Samples.pdf - Monday November 04, 2019 15:58:35 WMBE/MBE/SBE or Related Certificates (optional)
Warranty Information - Warranty Stmt - Ag & Turf.pdf - Monday November 04, 2019 12:18:39 Pricing - Price Schedule and Price Pages.pdf - Tuesday November 05, 2019 14:17:01 Additional Document - Supplement Information.pdf - Wednesday November 06, 2019 10:47:12 DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.38
Proposers Assurance of Comp

PROPOSER ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE
PROPOSER’S AFFIDAVIT
The undersigned, authorized representative of the entity submitting the foregoing proposal (the “Proposer”), swears that the following statements are true to the best of his or her knowledge.

1. The Proposer is submitting its proposal under its true and correct name, the Proposer has been properly originated and legally exists in good standing in its state of residence, the Proposer possesses, or will possess before delivering any products and related services, all applicable licenses necessary for such delivery to Sourcewell member agencies. The undersigned affirms that he or she is authorized to act on behalf of, and to legally bind the Proposer to the terms in this Contract.

2. The Proposer, or any person representing the Proposer, has not directly or indirectly entered into any agreement or arrangement with any other vendor or supplier, any official or employee of Sourcewell, or any person, firm, or corporation under contract with Sourcewell, in an effort to influence the pricing, terms, or conditions relating to this RFP in any way that adversely affects the free and open competition for a Contract award under this RFP.

3. The contents of the Proposer's proposal have not been communicated by the Proposer or its employees or agents to any person not an employee or agent of the Proposer and will not be communicated to any such persons prior to the official opening of the proposals.

4. The Proposer has examined and understands the terms, conditions, scope, contract opportunity, specifications request, and other documents in this solicitation and affirms that any and all exceptions have been noted and included with the Proposer’s Proposal.

5. The Proposer will, if awarded a Contract, provide to Sourcewell Members the /products and services in accordance with the terms, conditions, and scope of this RFP, with the Proposer-offered specifications, and with the other documents in this solicitation.

6. The Proposer agrees to deliver products and services through valid contracts, purchase orders, or means that are acceptable to Sourcewell Members.

Unless otherwise agreed to, the Proposer must provide only new and first-quality products and related services to Sourcewell Members under an awarded Contract.

7. The Proposer will comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws, regulations, rules, and orders.

8. The Proposer understands that Sourcewell will reject RFP proposals that are marked “confidential” (or “nonpublic,” etc.), either substantially or in their entirety. Under Minnesota Statute §13.591, Subd. 4, all proposals are considered nonpublic data until the evaluation is complete and a Contract is awarded. At that point, proposals generally become public data. Minnesota Statute §13.37 permits only certain narrowly defined data to be considered a “trade secret,” and thus nonpublic data under Minnesota’s Data Practices Act.

The Proposer understands that it is the Proposer’s duty to protect information that it considers nonpublic, and it agrees to defend and indemnify Sourcewell for reasonable measures that Sourcewell takes to uphold such a data designation.

By checking this box I acknowledge that I am bound by the terms of the Proposer’s Affidavit, have the legal authority to submit this Proposal on behalf of the Proposer, and that this electronic acknowledgment has the same legal effect, validity, and enforceability as if I had hand signed the Proposal. This signature will not be denied such legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation. - Andrew Roman, Contract Administrator
The Proposer declares that there is an actual or potential Conflict of Interest relating to the preparation of its submission, and/or the Proposer foresees an actual or potential Conflict of Interest in performing the contractual obligations contemplated in the bid.

Yes No
The Bidder acknowledges and agrees that the addendum/addenda below form part of the Bid Document.

Check the box in the column "I have reviewed this addendum" below to acknowledge each of the addenda.

File Name
I have reviewed the
below addendum and
attachments (if
applicable)
Pages
RFP 110719 - Ag Tractors - Addendum_3 --
Fri November 1 2019 07:13 AM
RFP110719 - Ag Tractors -Addendum_2 --
Mon October 21 2019 11:45 AM
RFP110719 - Ag Tractors - Addendum_1 --
Mon September 23 2019 09:03 AM
DocuSign Envelope ID: A6F432FE-0761-48D2-9B2E-9058B9B4A629 Page G-2.39