Menlo Park City Council
August 29, 2023

,.

MENLO PARK
City Council

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Date: 8/29/2023
Time: 6:00 p.m.

Locations: Zoom.us/join – ID# 814 7839 7160 and
City Council Chambers
751 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025
Members of the public can listen to the meeting and participate using the following methods. If you have issues viewing the meeting, please email the city clerk at [email protected].

How to participate in the meeting
• Submit a written comment online up to one-hour before the meeting start time:
• [email protected]
• Access the meeting real-time online at:

Zoom.us/join – Meeting ID 814 7839 7160
• Access the meeting real-time via telephone at:
(669) 900-6833
Meeting ID 814 7839 7160
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
Subject to Change: The format of this meeting may be altered or the meeting may be cancelled. You may check on the status of the meeting by visiting the city website menlopark.gov. 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.gov/agendas)
Regular Session
A. Call To Order
B. Roll Call
C. Agenda Review
D. Public Comment
Under “Public Comment,” the public may address the Commission on any subject not listed on the agenda. Each speaker may address the Commission once under Public Comment for a limit of three minutes. The Commission cannot act on items not listed on the agenda and, therefore, the Commission cannot respond to non-agenda issues brought up under Public Comment other than to provide general information.

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

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
August 29, 2023

E. Presentations and Proclamations
E1. Presentation: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) update (Presentation) Not a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project.

F. Advisory Body Vacancies and Appointments
F1. Consider applicants and make an appointment to fill a vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission (Staff Report #23-187-CC)
Not a CEQA project.

G. Consent Calendar
G1. Approve the update to the preferred concept for the Middle Avenue Caltrain crossing design (Staff Report #23-188-CC)
Not a CEQA project.

G2. Authorize the city manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to complete the landscaping phase of the Willow Road and U.S.

Highway 101 project (Staff Report #23-189-CC)
Not a CEQA project.

G3. Authorize the city manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with West Coast Code Consultants (WC3) for improvement plan review services for the Willow Village project (Staff Report #23-190-CC)
Not a CEQA project.

G4. Authorize the Mayor to sign the City’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report:
“Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea of Prevarication?” (Staff Report #23-191-CC)
Not a CEQA project.

G5. Waive the second reading and adopt an ordinance for streetaries outdoor dining areas (Staff Report #23-192-CC)
Determine the adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to §§15301 (Class 1), 15304 (Class 4) and 15305 (Class 5).

H. Regular Business
H1. Adopt resolutions to approve streetary design standards and streetary fees (Staff Report #23-193-CC)
Determine the adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to §§15301 (Class 1), 15304 (Class 4) and 15305 (Class 5).

H2. Consider and adopt a resolution to close the eastbound travel lane of Santa Cruz Avenue from Curtis Street to Doyle Street to vehicles to allow for expanded outdoor dining opportunities, enhanced public space, and related bicycle infrastructure improvements City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
August 29, 2023

(Staff Report #23-194-CC) (Presentation)
Not a CEQA project.

I. Informational Items
I1. City Council agenda topics: September 2023 (Staff Report #23-195-CC) Not a CEQA project.

I2. Update on City Council procedures (Staff Report #23-196-CC) Not a CEQA project.

J. City Manager Report's
K. City Councilmember Reports
K1. Confirm voting delegate for the League of California Cities annual conference (Attachment) L. Closed Session
L1. Closed session conference with labor negotiators pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 regarding labor negotiations with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 829 (AFSCME)
Agency designated representatives: City Manager Justin I.C. Murphy, Administrative Services Director Brittany Mello, Assistant City Manager Stephen Stolte, City Attorney Nira Doherty, Special Counsel Charles Sakai
Not a CEQA project.

L2. Closed session conference with labor negotiators pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 regarding labor negotiations with unrepresented management Agency designated representatives: City Manager Justin I.C. Murphy, City Attorney Nira Doherty, Special Counsel Charles Sakai
Not a CEQA project.

L3. Conference with legal counsel – anticipated litigation (Paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Gov. Code § 54956.9) Significant exposure to litigation: One case
Not a CEQA project.

M. Adjournment
At every regular meeting of the commission, in addition to the public comment period where the public shall have the right to address the commission on any matters of public interest not listed on the agenda, members of the public have the right to directly address the commission on any item listed on the agenda at a time designated by the chair, either before or during the commission’s consideration of the item.

At every special meeting of the commission, members of the public have the right to directly address the commission 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.

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

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
August 29, 2023

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 before, the public hearing.

Any writing that is distributed to a majority of the commission 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 commission meetings, may call the City Clerk’s Office at 650-330-6620.

Agendas are posted in accordance with California Government Code §54954.2(a) or §54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the city website at menlopark.gov/agendas and can receive email notification of agendas by subscribing at menlopark.gov/subscribe. Agendas and staff reports may also be obtained by contacting the city clerk at 650-330-6620. (Posted: 8/24/2023) City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov District Introduction and
Update
Karen Holman, Board Member, Ward 5
Margaret MacNiven, Board Member, Ward 6
North Ridge Trail, Purisima Creek Redwoods (Eric Gouldsberry) August 29, 2023
E1-PRESENTATION
Midpen’s Mission(s)
Midpen’s mission: to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity, protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.

On the Coast, Midpen has an expanded mission to acquire and preserve agricultural land of regional significance, preserve rural character and encourage viable agricultural uses of land resources.

Midpen’s Lands
• Public agency, created in 1972 by a grassroots voter initiative • 763,000 constituents (2020)
• Elected board: seven directors
• Funded primarily through property tax
• 27 Preserves in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties • Preserved over 70,000 acres, 250+ miles of trails
• Preserves are free and open to the public
• Main office in Los Altos + field offices
• 200 employees, ~1000 volunteers
• $300 million voter-approved general obligation bond passed in 2014 to support public priorities
Some Midpen Facts
Windy Hill Open Space Preserve
Photo: Eric Morhenn
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
Photo: Jose Maldonado
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
Photo: Jose Maldonado
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
Photo: Galli Basson
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
Photo: Galli Basson
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve
Photo: Jose Maldonado
La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
Photo: Marcia Photo: Randy Weber Hakanson
Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve
Photo: Chris Toomey
Daniels Nature Center
Photo: Karl Gohl
Ohlone Grinding Stones
Photo: Chris Toomey
Thornewood Open Space Preserve
Photo: Marcia Hakanson
Project Updates
Cloverdale Ranch Acquisitions
CZU Lightning Complex Fire, 2020
Photo: Brad Pennington
Phase I
(2023)
Phase II
(2023)
Phase III
(2025-26)
• Phase I (2023)
– 1,800 acres
– Includes the Wilbur’s
Watch trail
• Phase II (2023)
– 3,300 acres
– POST retaining
farms
• Phase III (2025/26)
– 1,200 acres
– Contains Lake
Lucerne Mutual
Water Company
Cloverdale Ranch Open Space Preserve
Photo: Teddy Miller
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program
Implementation
CZU Lightning Complex Fire, 2020
Photo: Brad Pennington
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program
For more information visit
openspace.org/what-we-do/projects/wildland-fire-resiliency Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail
• Project Description
New parking area and trails connecting the Coastal Trail on Highway 1 to the Bay Area Ridge Trail on Highway 35.

T
o
Bay-to-the-Sea Trail
Mountain Lion – Human Interaction Study
• Project Description
Track mountain lion use of Santa Cruz
Mountain Preserves to inform wildlife
management and public use decisions that
are protective of wildlife and reduce
potential conflicts.
• Status
― Collared 23 mountain lions over the
past 3 years
― The Puma Project is utilizing spatial
data from the collars to analyze
factors influencing human/mountain
lion interactions
― Behavioral modification used
techniques on 5 lions to determine if
they can be encouraged to avoid
high use trails when humans are
present.

For more information visit
openspace.org/what-we-do/projects/mountain-lion-conservation-research Questions?
www.openspace.org
[email protected]
Sign up for eNews at:
www.openspace.org/enewsletter

,.

MENLO PARK
AGENDA ITEM F-1
City Manager's Office

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 8/29/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-187-CC
Advisory Body Vacancies: Consider applicants and make an appointment to fill a vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council consider applicants for an appointment to a vacant seat on Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC).

Policy Issues
City Council Policy CC-23-004 (Attachment A) establishes the policies, procedures, roles and responsibilities for the City’s appointed advisory bodies, including the manner in which members are selected.

Background
The PRC has an unexpected vacancy which should be filled before the annual recruitment in April 2024.

This recruitment involved a four-week period of advertisements and announcements from July 25 – Aug. 18.

The city clerk’s office will provide onboarding and orientation for the new members. This includes the oath of office, commissioner handbook, introduction of advisory body liaison staff, and Brown Act training.

The city clerk’s office regularly reviews all agendas and minutes, tracks attendance (Attachment B) and serves as the principal staff contact for all advisory body members. The City has designated staff to act as a subject matter expert and serves as a liaison between the advisory body and the City Council Analysis
Pursuant to City Council Policy CC-23-004, members must be residents of the City of Menlo Park and serve for the designated term at the time of appointment.

Residency for all applicants has been verified by the city clerk’s office. In addition, the City Council’s policy states the selection/appointment process by the City Council shall be conducted open to the public.

Note, all applications will be provided to the City Council under separate cover and are also available for public viewing at the city clerk’s office during regular business hours or by request (Attachment C). The city clerk will ask each City Councilmember for their nominations; the number of nominations is limited to the number of vacancies. The candidate that receives a majority of nominations will be appointed. If there is a tie, multiple rounds of voting will occur.

Attachment D lists all applicants including their residency District and Attachment E lists currently seated members and their residency District. These appointments can be made by the City Council at this meeting.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page F-1.1

Staff Report #: 23-187-CC
The City received the following applications, listed in alphabetical order by last name:

Parks and Recreation Commission – one vacancy:
• Kathleen O’Connell – District 4
• Shani Podell – District 2
• Kate Wessel – District 4
• Brian Westcott – District 5
Impact on City Resources
Staff support for advisory bodies and funds for recruitment advertising are provided in the annual budget.

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. City Council Policy CC-23-004
B. Hyperlink – March 28 City Council attendance Staff Report #23-080-CC:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2023- meetings/agendas/20230328-city-council-agenda-packet.pdf#page=96 C. Applications
D. Applications by District
E. Current advisory body members by District
Report prepared by:

Judi A. Herren, Assistant to the City Manager/ City Clerk City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page F-1.2

MENLO PARK
Page F-1.3

COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND

ATTACHMENT A

PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
City Council Policy #CC-23-004
Adopted June 27, 2023
Resolution No. 6840
Purpose
To define policies and procedures and roles and responsibilities for Menlo Park appointed commissions and committees.

Authority
Upon its original adoption, this policy replaced the document known as “Organization of Advisory Commissions of the City of Menlo Park.”
Background
The City of Menlo Park currently has seven active Commissions. The active advisory bodies are: Complete Streets Commission, Environmental Quality Commission, Finance and Audit Commission, Housing Commission, Library Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission. Those not specified in the City Code are established by City Council ordinance or resolution. Most of these advisory bodies are established in accordance with Resolution No. 2801 and its amendments. Within specific areas of responsibility, each advisory body has a primary role of advising the City Council on policy matters or reviewing specific issues and carrying out assignments as directed by the City Council or prescribed by law.

Six of the seven commissions listed above are advisory in nature. The Planning Commission is both advisory and regulatory and organized according to the City Code (Ch. 2.12) and State statute (Government Code §65100 et seq., §65300-65401).

The City has an adopted Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy (CC-21-0022), and a Travel, Meal, and Lodging Policy (CC-19-002), which are also applicable to all advisory bodies.

Policies and Procedures
Relationship to City Council, staff and media
• Upon referral by the City Council, the commission/committee shall study referred matters and return their recommendations and advise to the City Council. With each such referral, the City Council may authorize the City staff to provide certain designated services to aid in the study. • Upon its own initiative, the commission/committee shall identify and raise issues to the City Council’s attention and from time to time explore pertinent matters and make recommendations to the City Council. • At a request of a member of the public, the commission/committee may consider appeals from City actions or inactions in pertinent areas and, if deemed appropriate, report and make recommendations to the City Council. • Each commission/committee is required to develop an annual work plan which will be the foundation for the work performed by the advisory body in support of City Council annual work plan. The plan, once finalized by a majority of the commission/committee, will be formally presented to the City Council for direction and approval no later than September 30 of each year and then reported out on by a representative of the advisory body at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting at least annually, but recommended twice a year. The proposed work plan must align with the City Council’s adopted work plan. When modified, the work plan must be taken to the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission is exempt from this requirement as its functions are governed by the Menlo Park municipal code (Chapter 2.12) and State law (Government Code §65100 et seq, §65300-65401). • Commissions and committees shall not become involved in the administrative or operational matters of City departments. Members may not direct staff to initiate major programs, conduct large studies or establish department policy. City staff assigned to furnish staff services shall be available to provide general staff assistance, such as preparation of agenda/notice materials and minutes, general review of department programs and activities, and to perform limited studies, program reviews, and other services of a general staff nature.

Commissions/Committees may not establish department work programs or determine department program priorities. The responsibility for setting policy and allocating scarce City resources rests with the City’s duly elected representatives, the City Council.
• Additional or other staff support may be provided upon a formal request to the City Council. • The staff liaison shall act as the commission/committee’s lead representative to the media concerning matters before the commission/committee. Commission/Committee members should refer all media inquiries to their respective liaisons for response. Personal opinions and comments may be expressed so long as the commission/committee member clarifies that their statements do not represent the position of the City Council. • Commission/Committee members will have mandatory training every two years regarding the Brown Act and

2 COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-23-004
Adopted June 27, 2023
Resolution No. 6840
parliamentary procedures, anti-harassment training, ethics training, and other training required by the City Council or State Law. The commission/committee members may have the opportunity for additional training, such as training for chair and vice chair. Failure to comply with the mandatory training will be reported to the City Council and may result in replacement of the member by the City Council. • Requests from commission/committee member(s) determined by the staff liaison to take one hour or more of staff time to complete, must be directed by the City Council.

Role of City Council commission/committee liaison
City Councilmembers are assigned to serve in a liaison capacity with one or more city commission/committee. The purpose of the liaison assignment is to facilitate communication between the City Council and the advisory body.

The liaison also helps to increase the City Council's familiarity with the membership, programs and issues of the advisory body. In fulfilling their liaison assignment, City Councilmembers may elect to attend commission/committee meetings periodically to observe the activities of the advisory body or simply maintain communication with the commission/committee chair on a regular basis.

City Councilmembers should be sensitive to the fact that they are not participating members of the commission/committee, but are there rather to create a linkage between the City Council and commission/committee. In interacting with commissions/committee, City Councilmembers are to reflect the views of the City Council as a body. Being a commission/committee liaison bestows no special right with respect to commission/committee business.

Typically, assignments to commission/committee liaison positons are made at the beginning of a City Council term in December. The Mayor will ask City Councilmembers which liaison assignments they desire and will submit recommendations to the full City Council regarding the various committees, boards, and commissions which City Councilmembers will represent as a liaison. In the rare instance where more than one City Councilmember wishes to be the appointed liaison to a particular commission, a vote of the City Council will be taken to confirm appointments.

City Staff Liaison
The City has designated staff to act as a liaison between the commission/committee and the City Council. The City shall provide staff services to the commission/committee which will include:
• Developing a rapport with the Chair and commission/committee members • Providing a schedule of meetings to the city clerk’s office and commission/committee members, arranging meeting locations, maintaining the minutes and other public records of the meeting, and preparing and distributing appropriate information related to the meeting agenda. • Advising the commission/committee on directions and priorities of the City Council. • Informing the commission/committee of events, activities, policies, programs, etc. occurring within the scope of the commission/committee’s function.
• Ensuring the city clerk is informed of all vacancies, expired terms, changes in offices, or any other changes to the commission/committee.
• Providing information to the appropriate appointed official including reports, actions, and recommendations of the committee/commission and notifying them of noncompliance by the commission/committee or chair with City policies.
• Ensuring that agenda items approved by the commission/committee are brought forth in a timely manner taking into consideration staff capacity, City Council priorities, the commission/committee work plan, and other practical matters such as the expense to conduct research or prepare studies, provided appropriate public notification, and otherwise properly prepare the item for commission/committee consideration. • Take action minutes; upon agreement of the commission, this task may be performed by one of the members (staff is still responsible for the accuracy and formatting of the minutes) • Maintain a minute book with signed minutes
Recommendations, requests and reports
As needed, near the beginning of City Council meetings, there will be an item called “Advisory Body Reports.” At this time, commissions/committees may present recommendations or status reports and may request direction and support from the City Council. Such requests shall be communicated to the staff liaison in advance, including any written materials, so that they may be listed on the agenda and distributed with the agenda packet. The materials being Page F-1.4

3 COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-23-004
Adopted June 27, 2023
Resolution No. 6840
provided to the City Council must be approved by a majority of the commission/committee at a commission/committee meeting before submittal to the City Council. The City Council will receive such reports and recommendations and, after suitable study and discussion, respond or give direction.

City Council referrals
The city clerk shall transmit to the designated staff liaison all referrals and requests from the City Council for advice and recommendations. The commissions/committees shall expeditiously consider and act on all referrals and requests made by the City Council and shall submit reports and recommendations to the City Council on these assignments.

Public appearance of commission/committee members
When a commission/committee member appears in a non-official, non-representative capacity before the public, for example, at a City Council meeting, the member shall indicate that they are speaking only as an individual. This also applies when interacting with the media and on social media. If the commission/committee member appears as the representative of an applicant or a member of the public, the Political Reform Act may govern this appearance. In addition, in certain circumstances, due process considerations might apply to make a commission/committee member’s appearance inappropriate. Conversely, when a member who is present at a City Council meeting is asked to address the City Council on a matter, the member should represent the viewpoint of the particular commission/committee as a whole (not a personal opinion).

Disbanding of advisory body
Upon recommendation by the Chair or appropriate staff, any standing or special advisory body, established by the City Council and whose members were appointed by the City Council, may be declared disbanded due to lack of business, by majority vote of the City Council.

Meetings and officers

1. Agendas/notices/minutes
• All meetings shall be open and public and shall conduct business through published agendas, public notices and minutes and follow all of the Brown Act provisions governing public meetings. Special, canceled and adjourned meetings may be called when needed, subject to the Brown Act provisions. • Support staff for each commission/committee shall be responsible for properly noticing and posting all regular, special, canceled and adjourned meetings. Copies of all meeting agendas, notices and minutes shall be provided to the City Council, city manager, city attorney, city clerk and other appropriate staff, as requested. • Original agendas and minutes shall be filed and maintained by support staff in accordance with the City’s adopted records retention schedule.
• The official record of the commissions/committees will be preserved by preparation of action minutes.

2. Conduct and parliamentary procedures
• Unless otherwise specified by State law or City regulations, conduct of all meetings shall generally follow Robert’s Rules of Order.
• A majority of commission/committee members shall constitute a quorum and a quorum must be seated before official action is taken.
• The chair of each commission/committee shall preside at all meetings and the vice chair shall assume the duties of the chair when the chair is absent.
• The role of the commission/committee chair (according to Roberts Rules of Order): To open the session at the time at which the assembly is to meet, by taking the chair and calling the members to order; to announce the business before the assembly in the order in which it is to be acted upon; to recognize members entitled to the floor; to state and put to vote all questions which are regularly moved, or necessarily arise in the course of the proceedings, and to announce the result of the vote; to protect the assembly from annoyance from evidently frivolous or dilatory motions by refusing to recognize them; to assist in the expediting of business in every compatible with the rights of the members, as by allowing brief remarks when undebatable motions are pending, if they think it advisable; to restrain the members when engaged in debate, within the rules of order, to enforce on all occasions the observance of order and decorum among the members, deciding all questions of order (subject to an appeal to the assembly by any two members) unless when in doubt he prefers to submit the question for the decision of the assembly; to inform the assembly when necessary, or when referred to for the purpose, on a point of order to practice pertinent to pending business; to authenticate by their signature, when necessary, all the acts, orders, and proceedings of the assembly declaring it will and in all things obeying its commands.

Page F-1.5

4 COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-23-004
Adopted June 27, 2023
Resolution No. 6840

3. Lack of a quorum
• When a lack of a quorum exists at the start time of a meeting, those present will wait 15 minutes for additional members to arrive. If after 15 minutes a quorum is still not present, the meeting will be adjourned by the staff liaison due to lack of a quorum. Once the meeting is adjourned it cannot be reconvened. • The public is not allowed to address those commissioners present during the 15 minutes the commission/committee is waiting for additional members to arrive. • Staff can make announcements to the members during this time but must follow up with an email to all members of the body conveying the same information.
• All other items shall not be discussed with the members present as it is best to make the report when there is a quorum present.

4. Meeting locations and dates
• Meetings shall be held in designated City facilities, as noticed. • All commissions/committees with the exception of the Planning Commission, and Finance and Audit Commission shall conduct regular meetings once a month. Special meetings may also be scheduled as required by the commission/committee. The Planning Commission shall hold regular meetings twice a month and the Finance and Audit Commission shall hold quarterly meetings. • Monthly regular meetings shall have a fixed date and time established by the commission/committee. Changes to the established regular dates and times are subject to the approval of the City Council. An exception to this rule would include any changes necessitated to fill a temporary need in order for the commission/committee to conduct its meeting in a most efficient and effective way as long as proper and adequate notification is provided to the City Council and made available to the public.

The schedule of Commission meetings is as follows:
• Complete Streets Commission – Every second Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. • Environmental Quality Commission – Every third Wednesday at 6 p.m. • Finance and Audit Commission – Third Thursday of every quarter at 5:30 p.m., • Housing Commission – Every first Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. • Library Commission – Every third Monday at 6:30 p.m.
• Parks and Recreation Commission – Every fourth Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. • Planning Commission – Twice a month on a Monday at 7 p.m.

Each commission/committee may establish other operational policies subject to the approval of the City Council.

Any changes to the established policies and procedures shall be subject to the approval of the City Council.

5. Off-premises meeting participation
While technology allows commission/committee members to participate in meetings from a location other than the meeting location (referred to as “off-premises”), off-premises participation is discouraged given the logistics required to ensure compliance with the Brown Act and experience with technological failures disrupting the meeting. In the event that a commission/committee member believes that their participation is essential to a meeting, the following shall apply:
• Any commission/committee member intending to participate from an off-premise location shall inform the staff liaison at least two weeks in advance of the meeting.
• The off-premise location must be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting. • Agendas must be posted at the off-premise location.
• The off-premise location must be accessible to the public and be ADA compliant. • The commission/committee member participating at a duly noticed off-premises location does not count toward the quorum necessary to convene a meeting of the commission/committee. • For any one meeting, no more than one commission/committee member may participate from an off-premise location.
• All votes must be by roll call.

6. Selection of chair and vice chair
• The chair and vice chair shall be selected in May of each year by a majority of the members and shall serve for one year or until their successors are selected.
• Each commission/committee shall annually rotate its chair and vice chair.

Page F-1.6

5 COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-23-004
Adopted June 27, 2023
Resolution No. 6840
G. Memberships
Appointments/Oaths
• The City Council is the appointing body for all commissions/committees. All members serve at the pleasure of the City Council for designated terms.
• All appointments and reappointments shall be made at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting, and require an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the City Council present. • Before taking office, all members must complete an Oath of Allegiance required by Article XX, §3, of the Constitution of the State of California. All oaths are administered by the city clerk or their designee. • Appointments made during the middle of the term are for the unexpired portion of that term.

Application and selection process
• The application process begins when a vacancy occurs due to term expiration, resignation, removal or death of a member.
• The application period will normally run for a period of four weeks from the date the vacancy occurs. If there is more than one concurrent vacancy in a Commission, the application period may be extended. Applications are available from the city clerk’s office and on the City’s website. • The city clerk shall notify members whose terms are about to expire whether or not they would be eligible for reappointment. If reappointment is sought, an updated application will be required. • Applicants are required to complete and return the application form for each commission/committee they desire to serve on, along with any additional information they would like to transmit, by the established deadline.

Applications sent by email are accepted.
• After the deadline of receipt of applications, the city clerk shall schedule the matter at the next available regular City Council meeting. All applications received will be submitted and made a part of the City Council agenda packet for their review and consideration. If there are no applications received by the deadline, the city clerk will extend the application period for an indefinite period of time until sufficient applications are received. • Upon review of the applications received, the City Council reserves the right to schedule or waive interviews, or to extend the application process in the event insufficient applications are received. In either case, the city clerk will provide notification to the applicants of the decision of the City Council. • If an interview is requested, the date and time will be designated by the City Council. Interviews are open to the public.
• The selection/appointment process by the City Council shall be conducted at a City Council meeting. The city clerk will ask each City Councilmember for their nominations; the number of nominations is limited to the number of vacancies. The candidate that receives a majority of nominations will be appointed. If there is a tie, multiple rounds of voting will occur.
• Following a City Council appointment, the city clerk shall notify successful and unsuccessful applicants accordingly, in writing. Appointees will receive copies of the City’s Non-Discrimination and Sexual Harassment policies, and disclosure statements for those members who are required to file under State law as designated in the City’s Conflict of Interest Code. Copies of the notification will also be distributed to support staff and the commission/committee chair.
• An orientation will be scheduled by the city clerk following an appointment (but before taking office) and a copy of this policy document will be provided at that time.

Attendance
• A compilation of attendance will be submitted to the City Council at least annually listing absences for all commissions/committee members.
• Absences, which result in attendance at less than two-thirds of their meetings during the calendar year, will be reported to the City Council and may result in replacement of the member by the City Council. • Any member who feels that unique circumstances have led to numerous absences can appeal directly to the City Council for a waiver of this policy or to obtain a leave of absence. • While it is expected that members be present at all meetings, the chair and staff liaison should be notified if a member knows in advance that they will be absent.
• When reviewing commissioners for reappointment, overall attendance at full commission meetings will be given significant consideration.

Page F-1.7

6 COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-23-004
Adopted June 27, 2023
Resolution No. 6840
Compensation
• Members shall serve without compensation (unless specifically provided) for their services, provided, however, members shall receive reimbursement for necessary travel expenses and other expenses incurred on official duty when such expenditures have been authorized by the City Council (See Policy CC-19-002).

Conflict of interest and disclosure requirements
• A Conflict of Interest Code has been updated and adopted by the City pursuant to Government Code §87300 et seq. Copies of the conflict of interest code are filed with the city clerk. Pursuant to the adopted Conflict of Interest Code, members serving on the Complete Streets Commission, Housing Commission, and Planning Commission are required to file a Statement of Economic Interest with the city clerk to disclose personal interest in investments, real property and income. This is done within 30 days of appointment and annually thereafter. A statement is also required within 30 days after leaving office. • If a public official has a conflict of interest, the Political Reform Act may require the official to disqualify themselves from making or participating in a governmental decision, or using their official position to influence a governmental decision. Questions in this regard may be directed to the city attorney.

Qualifications, compositions, number
• In most cases, members shall be residents of the City of Menlo Park and at least 18 years of age. • Current members of any other City commission/committee are disqualified for membership, unless the regulations for that advisory body permit concurrent membership. Commission/Committee members are strongly advised to serve out the entirety of the term of their current appointment before seeking appointment on another commission/committee.
• Commission/Committee members shall be permitted to retain membership while seeking any elective office.

However, members shall not use the meetings, functions or activities of such bodies for purposes of campaigning for elective office.
• There shall be seven (7) members on each commission/committee.

Reappointments, resignations, removals
• Incumbents seeking a reappointment are required to complete and file an application with the city clerk by the application deadline. No person shall be reappointed to a commission/committee who has served on that same body for two consecutive terms; unless a period of one year has lapsed since the returning member last served on that commission/committee (the one-year period is flexible subject to City Council’s discretion). • Resignations must be submitted in writing to the city clerk, who will distribute copies to City Council and appropriate staff.
• The City Council may remove a member by a majority vote of the City Council without cause, notice or hearing.

Term of office
• Unless specified otherwise, the term of office for all commission/committees shall be four (4) years unless a resignation or a removal has taken place.
• If a person is appointed to fill an unexpired term and serves less than two years, that time will not be considered a full term. However, if a person is appointed to fill an unexpired term and serves two years or more, that time will be considered a full term.
• Terms are staggered to be overlapping four-year terms, so that all terms do not expire in any one year. • If a member resigns before the end of their term, a replacement serves out the remainder of that term.

Vacancies
• Vacancies are created due to term expirations, resignations, removals or death. • Vacancies are posted by the city clerk in the City Council Chambers bulletin board and on the city website. • Whenever an unscheduled vacancy occurs in any commission/committee, a special vacancy notice shall be posted within 20 days after the vacancy occurs. Appointment shall not be made for at least 10 working days after posting of the notice (Government Code §54974).
• On or before December 31 of each year, an appointment list of all regular advisory commissions/committees of the City Council shall be prepared by the city clerk and posted in the City Council Chambers bulletin board and on the City’s website. This list is also available to the public. (Government Code §54972, Maddy Act).

Page F-1.8

Page F-1.9
7 COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-23-004
Adopted June 27, 2023
Resolution No. 6840
Roles and Responsibilities
Complete Streets Commission
The Complete Streets Commission is charged primarily with advising the City Council on realizing the City's adopted goals for complete streets, vision zero, climate action plan, and provide input on major land use and development projects as it relates to transportation. The Complete Streets Commission's responsibilities include:
• To advance the goals of the city’s newly adopted climate action plan by making alternatives to driving safer and more attractive
• Advise City Council on the implementation of the transportation master plan. • Continue to advocate for and advise the City Council on planning and installing pedestrian and bicycle rail crossing and safe cycling/pedestrian infrastructure.
• Continue to support City Council in ongoing initiatives to improve access to Downtown and support downtown businesses.
• Continue to support the implementation of the Safe Routes to School strategy and advocate for community engagement, program continuity and engineering implementation. • Continue to support City Council’s role as a stakeholder with regard to regional multi-modal and transportation demand management programs projects to increase
Environmental Quality Commission
The Environmental Quality Commission is committed to helping the City of Menlo Park to be a leading sustainable city that inspires institutions and individuals and that is well positioned to manage present and future environmental impacts, including the grave threat of climate change. The Environmental Quality Commission is charged primarily with advising the City Council on matters involving climate change, environmental protection, and sustainability.. Specific focus areas include:
• Climate Action Plan - Advise and recommend on the implementation of the climate action plan. • Climate Resilience and Adaptation - Ensure that our most vulnerable communities have a voice in policies and programs to protect their communities from environmental impacts. • Urban Canopy - Leverage best practices to advise/recommend on the preservation of heritage trees, city trees and expansion of the urban canopy; and make determinations on appeals of heritage tree removal permits. • Green and Sustainable Initiatives – Support sustainability initiatives, as needs arise, which may include city-led events, habitat protection, healthy ecology, environmental health protection, healthy air, surface water runoff quality, water conservation and waste reduction.

Finance and Audit Commission
The Finance and Audit Commission is charged primarily to support delivery of timely, clear and comprehensive reporting of the City’s fiscal status to the community at large. Specific focus areas include:
• Review the process for periodic financial reporting to the City Council and the public, as needed • Review financial audit and annual financial report with the City’s external auditors • Review of the resolution of prior year audit findings • Review of the auditor selection process and scope, as needed Housing Commission
The Housing Commission is charged primarily with advising the City Council on housing matters including housing supply and housing related problems. Specific focus areas include:
• Community attitudes about housing (range, distribution, racial, social-economic problems) • Programs for evaluating, maintaining, and upgrading the distribution and quality of housing stock in the City • Planning, implementing and evaluating City programs under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
• Review and recommend to the City Council regarding the Below Market Rate (BMR) program • Initiate, review and recommend on housing policies and programs for the City • Review and recommend on housing related impacts for environmental impact reports • Review and recommend on State and regional housing issues • Review and recommend on the Housing Element of the General Plan

8 COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-23-004
Adopted June 27, 2023
Resolution No. 6840
Library Commission
The Library Commission is charged primarily with advising the City Council on matters related to the maintenance and operation of the City’s libraries and library systems. Specific focus areas include:
• The scope and degree of library activities
• Maintenance and protection of City libraries
• Evaluation and improvement of library service
• Acquisition of library materials
• Coordination with other library systems and long range planning • Literacy and ESL programs
Parks and Recreation Commission
The Parks and Recreation Commission is charged primarily with advising the City Council on matters related to City programs and facilities dedicated to recreation. Specific focus areas include:
• Those programs and facilities established primarily for the participation of and/or use by residents of the City, including adequacy and maintenance of such facilities as parks and playgrounds, recreation buildings, facilities and equipment
• Adequacy, operation and staffing of recreation programs • Modification of existing programs and facilities to meet developing community needs • Long range planning and regional coordination concerning park and recreational facilities Planning Commission
The Planning Commission is organized according to State Statute. • The Planning Commission reviews development proposals on public and private lands for compliance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
• The Commission reviews all development proposals requiring a use permit, architectural control, variance, minor subdivision and environmental review associated with these projects. The Commission is the final decision-making body for these applications, unless appealed to the City Council. • The Commission serves as a recommending body to the City Council for major subdivisions, rezoning’s, conditional development permits, Zoning Ordinance amendments, General Plan amendments and the environmental reviews and Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreements associated with those projects. • The Commission works on special projects as assigned by the City Council.

Special Advisory Bodies
The City Council has the authority to create standing committees, task forces or subcommittees for the City, and from time to time, the City Council may appoint members to these groups. The number of persons and the individual appointee serving on each group may be changed at any time by the City Council. There are no designated terms for members of these groups; members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the City Council.

Any requests of city commissions or committees to create such ad hoc advisory bodies shall be submitted in writing to the city clerk for City Council consideration and approval.

Procedure history
Action Date Notes
Procedure adoption 1991 Resolution No. 3261
Procedure adoption 2001
Procedure adoption 2011
Procedure adoption 2013 Resolution No. 6169
Procedure adoption 2017 Resolution No. 6377
Procedure adoption 6/8/2021 Resolution No. 6631
Page F-1.10

9 COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-23-004
Adopted June 27, 2023
Resolution No. 6840
Procedure adoption 3/1/2022 Resolution No. 6706
Procedure adoption 3/8/2022 Resolution No. 6718
Procedure adoption 9/20/2022 Resolution No. 6776
Procedure adoption 1/10/2023 Resolution No. 6803
Procedure adoption 6/27/2023 Resolution No. 6840
Page F-1.11
DISTRICT 4

ATTACHMENT C
Advisory body application !JiMENLO PARK
Subm ss on date: 26July2023, 9:01 AM
Rece pt number:

Related form vers on:

Appl cant's full name (f rst and last)
Des red adv sory body ( check all that apply)
I Applicant interest, experience and qualifications
Educaton
C v c aff I at ons and commun ty act v t es, nclud ng serv ce on other adv sory bod es, comm ss ons or comm ttees
Kathleen OConnell
Parks and Recreation Commission
BS, Finance • San Jose state Univetsity
MBA Finance and Mart<:etlng - Santa Clara University
Parent volunteer at Oak Knoll, Hillview Middle and Menlo Atherton High School 2005 to present. Girl Scout Leader 2008 • 2018.

Descr be your understand ng of the respons b Ites of the adv sory body that Helps provide input regarding Menlo Park's procedures, policies, and you are apply ng for and how your personal commun ty or profess onal recommendations. experence relate to these respons b It es
Descr be why you want to serve on th s adv sory body and what you hope to I have been a renter in Menlo Park for 25-plus years and with my accompl sh as a member
I Contact and residency information
Emal
Cell phone
Home phone
Bus ness phone
Address 1
Address 2
Cty
State
Zpcode
Bus ness address
Number of years as a Menlo Park res dent
Current C ty Counc I d str ct
How d d you hear about th s opportun ty ( check all that apply) experience, I feel I can provide some valuable insight into what current and future renter's needs are I will be.
-
-
Menlo Parle
CA
94025
25 District4
Other: Betsy Nash
Page F-1.12
1 of 2

I
If I am appo nted, the C ty s author zed to post the followng nformat on on Cellphone: No the c ty webs te (please select at least one): Bus ness phone: No Home phone: No
Ema l: Yes
Application acknowledgement and submittal
I cert fy that the answers g ven here n are true and complete to the best of I agree my knowledge.

S gnature
Link to signature
Page F-1.13
2 of 2
DISTRICT 2
Submitted on
Receipt number
Related form version
Applicant's full name (first and last)
Desired advisory body {check all that apply)
Advisory body preference
16 August 2023, 2:19PM
82 8
Shani Podell
Parks and Recreation Commission
Parks and Recreation Corrmission
Applicant interest, experience and qualifications
Education
Civic affiliations and community activities, including service on other advisory bodies, commissions or committees
Describe your understanding of the responsibilities of the advisory body that you are applying for and how your personal community or professional experience relate to these responsibilities Describe why you want to serve on this advisory body and what you hope to accomplish as a member
Contact and residency information
Email
BA UC San Diego 1999
Hillview Tennis Coach 2022 & 2023
M in Action Docent 2013 2022
MinAction Fundraising Board 2013 2018
Bay Area Worren s Sports nitiative Volunteer 2023 present Enhance the quality of life for people in my community of Menlo Park Create opportunities for them to enjoy recreational facilities and open space Be an advocate for everyone who lives here take responsibility for being well informed and properly weigh the opportunity oasis when we are making decisions Be a thoughtful and oollaborative member of the commission and do my best to provide value in each meeting
n my professional career i create technology partnerships t starts with finding creative solutions to everyday problems that oould help our customers and then bringing the right people together to solve them Often this takes research and education digging deep to understand the nuances and decide which direction might be best The ideation process can take time to get right and needs input from many stakeholders also have to bring people to the table who may not see the benefit In executing and its my responsibility to articulate it to them and help them see the common interest and how it benefits them too think this experience could be an asset to the commission
Additionally have been intimately involved in trying to resolve some of the ongoing conflict between the tennis and pickleball communities to find space for everyone and make that equitable have worked hard to build relationships with both oomrnunities and encouraged them to come together to wor1< towards compromise This seems like a topic where my partnership experience and my creative problem solving skills could be helpful
love to be of service in my community visit our par1<s and public spaces every day did a lot of community outreach while researching the pickle/tennis situation and got an appreciation for the compl8l<ities of meeting the needs of a broad oommunity The concerns (and wants) vary tremendously also attended P&R meetings as well as City Council would prefer to get involved rather than sit on the sidelines want to help and give back
Page F-1.14
1 of 2

Cell phone
Home phone
Business phone
Address 1
Address 2
City Menlo Park
State CA
Zip code 94025
Business address
Number of years as a Menlo Park resident 16 Years
Current City Council district District 2
How did you hear about this opportunity (check all that apply) City website Other Multiple community members contacted me and suggested join If I am appointed, the City is authorized to post the following Cellphone: No information on the city website (please select at least one): Business phone: No Home phone: No
Email: Yes
Application acknowledgement and submittal
I certify that the answers given herein are true and complete to the best agree of my knowledge.

Signature
Link to signature
Page F-1.15
2 of 2
DISTRICT 4
Submitted on
Receipt number
Related form version
Applicant's full name (first and last)
Desired advisory body {check all that apply)
Advisory body preference
18 August 2023, 4:33PM
83 8
Kate K Wessel
Parks and Recreation Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
Applicant interest, experience and qualifications
Education
Civic affiliations and community activities, including service on other advisory bodies, commissions or committees
Describe your understanding of the responsibilities of the advisory body that you are applying for and how your personal community or professional experience relate to these responsibilities Describe why you want to serve on this advisory body and what you hope to accomplish as a member
Juris Doctor The George Washington University Law School (2011) Bachelor ofArts Northwestern University (2007)
Board Member Mento Park Atherton Education Foundation
The Parks and Recreation Commission of Menlo Park is responsible for advising the Menlo Par!< City Council on issues pertaining to the City's recreation programs and facilities ts focus Is ensuring that these recreation programs and buildings are effectively maintained for sufficient commmity enjoyment and access The Commission also helps detemine needed adjustments based on commmity needs and engages in long term regional planning
My professional background has provided me with a broad experience in public S01Vice and policy specifically at the local city level For four years worked for the DC Council and the DC Mayor where conducted policy research advised the Councilmember and other electeds on legislative and regulatory issues and drafting memos talking points and questions for oversight and investigative hearings also regularly engaged with corrmunity stakeholders including at evening commmity and commission meetings to address complex policy and regulatory matters After moved from Washington DC to the Bay Area in 2015 joined Salesforce's ethics and compliance team as an in house counsel 'M'lere worked closely with the Government Affairs team to ensure that the company's government interactions (including at local city levels) were compliant On a personal community level frequent Menlo Park's recreation programs and facilities on a daily basis and would welcome the opportunity to play an active role In helping maintain and shape the future of the City's programs am strongly interested in serving on the Parl<s and Recreation Comrrission because have a strong commitment to and background In public service and community development Additionally as a Mento Par!< parent with young children we heavily rely on and utilize Menlo Pari<'s parks and recreation related programrring and facilities whether it's visiting a different playground every day attending gymnastics classes at Arillaga listening to live music at Fremont Park through the summer concert series or reading the City's various weekly digests to see how we can get more involVed
As a Commissioner \'\Ollld hope to continue to build on all the wonderful developments from the Commission and City make sure the programs are running smoothly as well as detemine how we can improve and expand moving f01Ward n short with my background in local government legislation/policy cross functional relationship building (including listening to and actioning constituent concerns) and avid love of the Menlo Park's recreation programming it would be a great honor to serve on this Corrmission
hope to acoomplish active listening and also actioning feedback Page F-1.16
1 of 2

Contact and residency information
Email
Cell phone
Home phone
Business phone
Address 1
Address 2
City Menlo Park
State CA
Zip code 94025
Business address
Number of years as a Menlo Park resident 1 5
Current City Council district District 4
How did you hear about this opportunity (check all that apply) Email If I am appointed, the City is authorized to post the following Cellphone: No information on the city website (please select at least one): Business phone: No Home phone: No
Email: Yes
Application acknowledgement and submittal
I certify that the answers given herein are true and complete to the best agree of my knowledge.

Signature
Link to signature
Page F-1.17
2 of 2
DISTRICT 5

COMMISSION & COMMITTEE APPLICATION
City Clerk
701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025
tel 650-330-6620 fax 650-328-7935 CITYOf

MENLO PARK
Please type or print clearly. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This is a public document.

Date: April 4, 2019
Commission or Committee of Interest:

Name: Recreation Commission
Education: BS. ME / MS ME / PhD Management Science/ Post Doc Fellow Business Strategy- Policy (see attached resumo) Civic affiliations and community activities, including service on other commissions or committees:

Past : Menlo Park Economic Vitality Task Force
Stanford University : Graduate student housing planning commission •Sacred Heart Preparatory - Team Parent •Lehigh University President's Leadership Council • Menlo Park Economic Vrtality Task Force · Board Member and Youth Coach - Pop Warner Football, AYSO Soccer, Llltlle League Baseball, ASA Softball Local Business Owner And CEO
Describe your understanding of the responsibilities of the commission or comm~tee that you are applying for and how your personal community or professional experience relate to these responsibilities:

The Planning Commission supports decisions and makes recommendations to the City Council on a broad range of issues such as land use, environmental, and the changing needs of the city in relationship to the general plan.

As a long time resident and business owner in Menlo Park I feel I have benefited from living in Menlo Park. My recent professional work in developing SMART Cities can be applied to the changing needs of Menlo Park and support preparing it for the future. I am also concerned about the opportunities provided to our citizens in the various neighborhoods in the city and how we can create better support for each neighborhood and continue to develop Menlo Park as a model total SMART city for the future. ( see attached resume) Describe why you want to serve on this commission or committee and what you hope to accomplish as a member:

I have had the privilege to live, work, raise a family and create long lasting friendships in Menlo Park over the last 30 years and feel I both want and should contribute back to this city. As a member of the Planning Commission I would like to support decisions that will allow Menlo Park to continue to be the type of city that people want to live and feel it is a privilege to be a citizen. I believe there Is work to be done to prepare Menlo Park for the changes that are happening in society and technology. I hope to contribute to the present and future plans for this development. ~~ Date J
OFFICE USE ONLY:

Application Received:- 2/8/2023 Address Verified m City Limits: K By: JAH (Initials) Considered by City Council: _ _ _____ Appointed: D Yes D No Considered by City Council: _______ Appointed: D Yes D No Considered by Cly Council: Appointed: D Yes D No
it Appointed Term ends:~
CC-2F Rev 1 1 15
Page F-1.18
2 Personal Information:

Name: Brian J. Westcott Number of years as a Menlo Park resident: , City: Menlo Park State: CA Zip: 94025
City: State: Zip: -----------r-- ---"---------1
Emai
Zip:94025
Registered Voter: ii Yes □ No
How did you hear about this opportunity:
□ Newspaper □ Email II City's Website
□ Nextdoor.com □ Patch.com □ Other _______
If I am appointed, the City is authorized to post the following Cell Phone: D Yes No information on the City's website: Business Phone: D Yes ii No Home Phone: □ Yes SNo
Email: ii Yes □ No
Page F-1.19
Brian J. Westcott

PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
Executive leader with overtwentyfive years ofglobal experience in corporate management and governance, business strategy, innovation, morketing,and strategic management oftechnology, ranging from Board level policy and managementfor Fortune 500 companies to CEO of venture backed start-ups. Creative ability to develop high performing businesses by increasing innovation, improving productivity and providing betterleadership, management and business processes.

EXPERIENCE
2016 - Present Intelligent Structures, Inc. Founder/ CEO/ Board of Directors Founded Intelligent Structures Inc. an Enterprise Infrastructure Performance Asset Management Platform a sensor to enterprise Cloud SAAS implementation based on an loT or Industrial Internet platform. • Created business strategy and successfully executed the development of technology and organization of an enterprise software company • lntelliStruct- market introduction and commercial sales 2011-2015 PFI Acquisition - Purfresh / lntelliFleet OBA. President/ CEO/ Board of Directors CEO of Purfresh / lntelliFleet a venture backed company that provided an enterprise information and control solution for perishable supply chain management through a Cloud SAAS implementation based on an loT or Industrial Internet platform. • Created business strategy and successfully executed the transition from a chemical company to an enterprise software company • lntelliFleet-market introduction and development of first integrated perishable supply chain enterprise and control software system • Improved operating margins, increased revenue (4x) and market share Introduced and closed grower customer contracts, • Raised $8 million venture financing Award: 2014 - Top 20 Most Promising Enterprise Software companies by CIO Review 2009-2011 xecuritas Business Unit/ Marsys, Inc. President BU/ Sr. Vice President President of the Xecuritas Business Unit - a security software and business service company delivering a SAAS based solution. • Responsible forP&L. Increased market growth rate while improving EBITDA. • Developed and upgraded two product lines and a hosted exchange partnership on a cloud based infrastructure. • Introduced WEB marketing and improved business processes. 2007-2009 JDS Uniphase, Inc. Vice President/ Sr. Director Created business and acquisition strategy for growth ofthe Advanced Optical Technology Group. • Negotiated and acquired ABNH (public company/ $140 million) and managed the post merger integration. • Planned and formed the Security System Group of JDSU.

Developed company wide growth initiative for high performance and continuous improvement through a focus on creating greater innovation, higher organic market share growth, and return on invested capital. 2005 · 2007 lnogen, Inc. Chief Operating Officer
ChiefOperating Officer of lnogen, Inc. a venture backed medical equipment technology company that produces portable oxygen concentrators for the home health care market. On the executive management team and managed software engineering, product engineering, supply chain management, manufacturing, distributors, customer care, quality and regulatory and information technology. Developed a new technology and supply chain strategy for the company and implemented a complete design and startup of a new product. Public offering 2014 1992 to 2005 WEffi, Inc. President /CEO/ Chairman /Founder A venture backed company that developed and implemented advanced enterprise and industrial information and control software systems. WESTT was a pioneer in the development of custom electro -mechanical automation subsystems serving the industrial equipment industry. Markets included services to customers in the medical products, food processing, flat-panel and semiconductor equipment industries. High rate of sales growth resulted in being awarded the position of #34 in the Inc. 500 (1997) and #68 the Deloitte and Touche Tech 500 (1997)
2000 to 2005 elnnovate - AWESTT business an integrated cloud based innovation businees process site for product development and supply chain management. Cited in Fortune magazine. 1990 to 1992 A.T. Kearney Principal
International management consultant for Fortune 500 clients in the area of strategic planning for new technology and innovation, managing the new product development process and integrated supply chain management. Completed projects in corporate transformation and change specifically related to use of information systems, product marketing strategy, managing research and Brian J. Westcott - Resume
Page F-1.20
development, and managing product development and manufacturing. Worked on new client development, marketing and sales for A.T. Kearney developing programs in strategic management oftechnology. 1980 -1990 General Electric, Inc. Management and Engineering Program Manager at General Electric Corporate Management Development and managed the Integrated New Product and Process Development Program. Worked with Jack Welch (CEO) to develop a corporate program for improved productivity ofthe innovation and technology delivery process. Led adoption ofthis program into the Appliance, Power Systems, Medical Product, and Electronics Divisions.

Control Systems Engineer in the Research Development Program at General Electric's Corporate Research and Development Center in the Thermo-Fluids Group. Developed jointly with the Electric Power Research Institute a real-time multivariable digital control system for operation and control of an Advanced Integrated Combined Cycle Coal Gasification System. Project resulted in the first digital multivariate control system for power production with an increase in performance and decrease in potential cost.

Obtained a PhD in Management Science and was a Post Doctorial Research Fellow at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

Encouraged by management of GE to pursue this higher education.

Combustion Engineering - Control System Engineer - Critial Function Monitoring and Control System for Nuclear Power Systems Bechtel Power Coproration- Resident Control Engineer - Control System Integration on Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant

EDUCATION
Stanford Graduate School of Business Post Doctoral Fellow Business Strategy and Policy Became the first Post Doctoral Fellow in the Business School specializing in technology and new product business strategy focusing on managing technical innovation in manufacturing and product development. Published numerous case studies through Harvard and Stanford and related articles.

Stanford University PhD in Management Science
Focused on the areas of technology strategy, business transformation, organizational behavior, production systems, decision analysis and economics and finance. Teaching assistant for the course Engineering Economics. Received an EPRI Fellowship for 4 years to research the economics of innovation related to electric power production. Dissertation focused on Innovation:

Organizational and Technical Factors that Influence Success Stanford University Masters of Science -- Mechanical Engineering/ Information Control Systems Specialized in the areas of Control Systems and Thermo-fluid systems Lehigh University Bachelors of Science - Mechanical Engineering Graduated with Honors -Award Best Senior Project and Union Carbide Award for Outstanding Engineer OTHER
2014- Present - Industrial Internet Consortium Marketing Committee and Director Thought Leadership Council - 2005-2011 Global Fresh Foods Board Director
Involved with formation and strategy for a technology company developing a solution for the preservation offresh protein using advanced environmental control. Supported raise of a $5.3 million venture equity investment.

CIO Magazine 2018 - Top 10 SMART City Enterprise Software Platforms - lntelliStruct • CIO Review 2014 - Top 20 Most Promising Enterprise Software companies • Tech Inc. 500 Award - 28th Fastest Growing U.S. Technical Company in 1996 (WESTT, Inc ) • Inc. 500 Award - #34 (1996) and Tech 500 #68 in 1997 (WESTT, Inc.) • Tech Inc. 500 Award for Fastest Growing U.S. Technical Company (1997 and 1998) • Business Times largest private companies in Bay Area 2000 (WESTT, Inc.) • Selected as Hero of Manufacturing- Fortune Magazine 1997 • Who's Who in America, The World and Industry and Finance (Marquis -- since 1991) • A.T. Kearney- Global Management Award (1990)
• General Electric Corporate - Selected as a High Potential Leader (1989) • General Electric Company Award to Inventors-Three U.S. Patents (1983) Brian J. Westcott - Resume
Page F-1.21
Community Service
• Sacred Heart Prepatory-Team Parent
• Lehigh University President's Leadership Council
• Menlo Park Economic Vitality Task Force
• Board Member and Youth Coach- Pop Warner Football, AYSO Soccer, Littlle League Baseball, ASA Softball Brian J. Westcott - Resume
Page F-1.22
years, bridge
no.gas hall\: dr<amt
""linan. bridges'' -
ri d,:a that antdl
dcd...to minimize risk:,
nywithin budget. But
d ap<rtise hav,: mad<
d'rca.m. Until now.
, (IS) is changing the
me. ·we mtkc bridges
-di!(itally," explains
rian Westcott, CEO of
t<.lligcm Srnicrurcs. Taking
approach, JS\ i1movativc plat!orm,
dcsign<d from the ground upto be
ad\tana:d and n.dkall)1 f!t."Onomical.
cisionsupport solllt.ion1 bridge mana.r;crs
dc1tikd state oftheir bridges in real
able to prescribe ptt:eis.ion maintenance,
own and n:build. !S's goal is ro
I life ofbridges from SO ro over
· is digial disruption for bridge
tit.l to keepingsmart dties moving.

Our lrld9e1 are 111 Trou~I•
In tbc US, there an: over 600,000 bridges, anda
quancrofthose bridges arc in trouble. US bridges arc aging, be~riskier and more costly. About 10 pC:t'«IU a~posttd. for n:dur~d loads, about 10
percent arc dusified a.s structurallydeficient, and tnorh« 10-12 pc:n.'tnt att dasslfied as fimctionally obsolete, ac..x"Ordingto rhc FcdcnJ Bridge datahasc.

Traditional methods ofbridge ma11agcm('nt
a.re sordy outda.tcd and indfai<Ju. In 1968, in
rcspon« ro th< collapse oftheSilver Bridge in West Virginia cawil1g 46 deaths, bridge insp«-.ion became mandatedby t«kwa<t. Ir bu been n:quir<d thatall bridf.CS bav., bi<nnial (cv,ry tWO year,} inspccti.on.

Tb< majority ofinspections use a visual procedun:
wbkh is highly variable. Forcumpk, ina Fcdcnl
Study oflnsp«tion I<liability 2003, visual inspection
ruinp V1ri.ed by up to five points, on a total ~--ale of JOfor thcsam, bridge. Our bridges, and tltus our
mohiliry, arc a1 risk. With todty's rc<bnology that
has so clearly revolutionized otht"raspects ofhusiuess
and our pcrwnal lives; wt: can and must do btner.
'fbis is wbect: Intdligatt Srru&.TW« 4..•oma in.

Page F-1.23
-
--
The Solu11on: IS's Elterprise lridt• Performance
N1na9enent
A contlucn11.'C ofinnovations and events hucome to the racuc ofaging bridges. JS!ta, dcvdopcd a bridg., p<tforman«
manag<mrnt platform bucd on Internet ofThing, (JoT)
ted,nology ,nd alterpri« cloud ar<hit«run:: lntdliStrurt TM. It gives bridge managen the power ro pr«:isclymcasu.n:
bridge pcifcxmarm: and managc bridge !if< cycles 10minimw:
risk and muimiu mobility, all within Limited budgets. IS csrcrtly lcv«agcs tcchnologica rudt as low-cost ,cnsoi>, loT, edge computing, wirclw communk ation1 mesh nrtworb, big da.ra a.nalytia, and machine Jcaniing ro aablc ~mart bridgd1.

Smart bridgts oner rhc oppommiry ro drasricallyimprovethe real-rime1-nowkdgc ofrbc health ofa bridge, and pr«iscly mana.gc: the bridge forsafety, dl1dc-m:y, andlongevity.

Managers C$ll prevent htidgc rutri1..'tions and doswu1 and direct budgcu for maximum impaa. This is impc-ruivc as our tntlkloads: inc~1 whik ourinfrutruLturcdcrcrioratcs.
"lntdligcnt Structures combines adv.u!c.-ed sa1sor
technology -.kb highly i..·unomizabk: c:dg- 1.-omputiug and cloud-b,s,d cnterpri« softwan, to deliver the critic:tl informatioi1. owners need to optimize the managancnt of bridges,"says DougThomson> CTO, lntdligcnt StnKtUrcs.

Cl~
Our bridge monitoring systems help with both
reol timedata on structural behavior. os well
as identifying trends and changes over time
Fact-hse4 Decblon S.pportfor lrlcl9e Managers lntdligcnr Structures js on the forefront ofddivering smart bridge solutions. Lcvc:ra~iug adv:uKt:d informarion rechnology, IS's bridge pcrformana mo,1jroring and
decision suppon platform t11ablcs bridge
managers
ma.kc highly intOrnxd, fu.'t-based dct..isions.

Here's how it works:
• Sl!J\SOrs arcinstalli::donbridga:- lflC;MUring: strain., ac:cckra.tfon, displacc.mc:nt,. t-.:mpcraturc1 cracks, water height, and/or rilt, dercnding on the bridge.
• Two-Lcvcl Edge Contputing: Con1pone11t level
sensor data iscollccrcd a.nd am.ly,,cd in am ofis>s
propric:rary I-Bridge wirdcss modules, th.en smt
through a mah ncrwo11cto !S's 1-Bridg,,-onrrolkr
that performsadditional bridge kvcl analytics. This
enabks iecouomk wirdc-.s:s rransmi.ssion ro the cloud.
• Cloud-based A1u!ysis is performed by !S's expert analysis engine, cKatiu.g a dashboard ofkey metrics and rr"tnds for bridge m.ariagm, u well a, n,d lb.g alcns and alarms.
• The Managemcut Dashboard is transm.itted to bridg.c:
12,...,•btf• ZOH
mana.gm in tta1 cjme. Managm aneasily monitor a single
bridge. or a fleer, a11dsec when problemsa.re bn:wing.

This enahlcs decisions ro prioriju bridge is.rues, precision ma.intenan« plans, and providttW:r-bascd supportfor the =r-crirical r<pair/rchabilirat</Jtbuild dccisiom. Th< bcn<fu is enormous - bridge managerscan morr dlCc::tivdy 1.l$t: their
limited budget, ro lcttp rhcir bridg,s safe aud open, for longer. • Machine La.ming and big data analytics update and ad.apt ptcdictivc modoh to anticipate ,ridge lifo ,-ycle pcrformanc't.

Fu.tu.N: scenarios arc assessed coguide optirm.l. bridge operating,rratcgics, thus maximizing lite <)<l< performance.

EYerrone Benefits
Wirh .sm.1.rt bridge$. everyone bcudlrs: safc:ry and mobility for people and US-elS, and «ouaily for mldgcts.

With IS1 bridge- owners havt th(: ability to ,rad::
key data on th< pccforman,-c oftheir bridg,-, including a periodic digital s.ignarurc (pc-rfom1utl'C snapshot), compomnt dcfu.~ monitoring (/or critical ,omponcuu),
liv<: load t~King:, andcontioUO\l$ monitoring. This gives ownm rhe data to enable real-time manag<mcnt, as well
u <ritical optimization offleet JU-nniug and maragemcnt overa 10-20 year horizon. Bridge owners 1« rttums on
implemcnution ofinrclliStrurtofover 50 percmt IRR
for indivi.du,I bridges a, well as applimion to .u-rarcgi< ope.rationsmanagement ofthci.rentirc fleer ofbridges.
..Intdligcnt Structun:s has developed a new approach
to providing dtcision rupporr for rht ma1ag.mmu
ofbridge- assc.rs. Theirmoniroring sysrcm fur bridges
collct.'U real-time data that provides w wirh informarion on the structun.l behavior and h also a.bk to dctcl°t anychanges in rhc pcdormanceof tbt struc.1t1~ over time,·• explains RussAndrwhuk, Exn.'Uli\t:

DiRXcor- Strucrurcs:, ManitobaIufnst.nu,"tU.n:..

Architect engineers, rcsponsil>.lc for bridge design and cngine~rin& lever-a.gt Intd.LiStrucc fornydata ~nd analf$is to support their asses:smcnr ofbridge performance, and
cn<tlywbat managcn1cur arrion, an, r,quir<d. Growing databases ofbridge perfomu.nccand issues will intlucnl"C futtur dcs:igns. Bridge in.spct..'tOrscombine: the vitual inspc,:tion information with a measured indkator of bridge State' to provide a siguifkantl)' more acauatcass($$JJ)a1t of bridge hcalrh. Theirexpcn-.isc allows for bcrtcr asscssmcnr ofbrid~ c..·ondition. Tra.uSym:ms, an al\'.'.hitc« engineering firm and Inrclligc:nt Structures pinucr with a focus 011 tran.spomtion System$, state$ that measu.rcd [email protected]
provided by IntclliStruct is the future of rhe industty. "Historically, •c«pUU,~ ofllridgc Health Monitoring
solutions wa.s limited dnc to dlallcngcs related to installation, durability, dau transfer, power"'!'Ply, and data pro<cs,ing.

Int:dligcnt Strut.'tUrc.s' smart bridgt approad1 provides cost-­ dlC:rtivc solutions for c.ach ofthac du.Ucngcs. Owners now ht~ a cost-dl:Cctivc. option to cusrorniic: a solution that supportstheir bri<lr:e managc:mcnr decision,. They havereal· time aoccss to their bridge monitoringirutallacion.s through the web. l'hc symru provide, trend analysis, alem, and other ruc,ruw; ofhowtheir bridg<invcnrory is performing.

Going forwa.td, u more owners recognize the Ya!uc
in rcal•tirnc monitoringoftbci.r bri~invmtoryto th.cir
ma.inrcnant..-e and rehabilitation da.ision mak.ingl the industry will expand rapidJyt uys La.Wtt11c( Kirchncr1 P.E., S.E., Vic.:t: Praidt1u and Senior Assoc..iate, TranSystcms:.

EulJS.ccess IS isaln:,dy,ccingsuccess. A province in Canad, tbar manages ow:r2000 bridg,-, wanr«i ro iueorporarc rn<aSIW:d bridge pcrtomw1<-c into theiropcmiom. IS implanmtcd theirsolwion on a!cwbridg<s u proofof<'00<-q,t, resultingin identificuion ofa l:cy issuewith a hridg,: nottiuu:tioningu antiripan,d with 01~rwcig!tt vdticlc,. 111< n,rum liom dtis infom11tionis o,u50 pcnattarumally. 11,c c"U.ltomawas imp,ca,cdwirl1 the results and bas begun ,caJing thesysocrn to
monitor their !ht ofbridges,
Thecapabilityapplid cqualJy to bridges owned at the city, smc, ornational kvd, and to pn"'-tc open.ton indudingrailroads.

Chuging MuageNeat Strategies for Chuglng Times
Recently, rhc Fcdc:ral Highw.yAdministntion buis:mcd
ntwrequimncuts for highway and bridg,ewet muiagtmcnt that go into full dfect in June 2019. Toes< newn:quin:malfs in,-o!V<dc'.,:iopn>atrand implcrnmtarion ofmt.-based ass<t rrwtagrn1cur1U.11.s1 minimum st~ndard$ for bridge aoJ pawmarr ma.nagcn1cnt systems, and periodic evaluations ro dcttrmin< ifi=onabk alttrnativc,<xist to roads, bigbw,ys or bridscs that n:pcaredly ..quire,q,airand rcconstru..tion ac'tivitic,. IS~ smart btidg., platform dclM:rs the mcarunedperformance and economic analysis tosupportthese DOTn:quircmcnts and
oo:omc the global platform for bridge managema1t This is rhc parh to a newg<ner>riou ofbridge managementsti>t<gies.

S•artlrldses: Essential for Smut Cities "Cities arc becoming'sman cities' by leveraging technologyfor improved inliastrurnm: dficia•:y. Th<r<
uc many dimensions of the smart city vision, tu a key
clancnrisalways mobility. And, bridg<s an: the critical bottkned::inrn.tlic mobili.tyt adds Wt:SttOtt.

As 1S create$ smart bridges to improve our existing
infrurruclUrc• the: t«hnologyand dua an: primed to
int(,gratc inro a ,,:onsolidattd community intiasrnu.'tll~.

Titis will srn:ngthen asmarr city data found.arion and
ofter tl1c next kvd ofbcocfic: from a smart bridge, to a smart fleet ofbridges, totn inregmed smart city.

In addition ro improving theday-to.dayopciational
dlidcncy ofdries, thesmart cityvision includes stca1gthcning the ruiliCI\L'(: ofa l'ity to rao-wr froml-atastrophk cvcnts sud, as carthquab:s, ts11r1amis, and hurricane,. Smart
bridgeswill be stronger, thus better abk to withstand a majorsl,od-, and th< rnctSurcd performance inform,tion
will provide critical information to cvtluatc damagt:
and aid in rapid rccov,:ry. Stnan bridge, will help a dry quid:ly r<gain mobility after an cxtn:mc shock.

CovrmnlttlCS and infwtlUCtU~
managmatt l'(Vtew.ing
the tlSc ofinfonnation tcdu,ologyto incn:asc rhc prodmtivity oftheirassets. In many a.$($, this: wilJ rtquitt a.1\ inmasc in IT budgas. In the cue: of,mart bridg<s, tlii, ITin>Utmcnt will be ot}kt wirh high r<nuru from improvements in bridge lifi:
,-ycks and saving 30-50 pcn-cnt in the bridge annual hudg<t.

Looking ro d.1< furu.rc, JS is developing advam:<d
ana!yti<s wing the dua colkc-,.,:d to build a d>tabasc of how diffi:o:nt bridge, pcrfo m>- 11,cywill apply machineJcaming to rhis dam to help all bridge dcs.igncn and manage"
bcromc moKcffidrnt. EVW::n more w.ir:ing, this ttdinology buthe pokOtial to be applied to otherstcui.'1:urasud, as building,, parking gorages, t nd dams illover rhc world.

ThelMperatiweforChange
The industry must change. Bridgesarc-tailing, and then: is nor enough budget rok<cp up with rbcmrrent bridgc management plOC'C$$CS. Innm--ation is ttqaired to do more: with less. IS delivers t he solution wkb InctlliSuurt. W!Ch smatt bridge technology, the life ofbridges can be extended, and the lifetime cost ofopa>ting a bridgean be reduced by 30-50 pcr<<nt. "'lfwc don't innovate, in 10 yea.rs we'll have autonomous vchida travcLing OV<:r crumbling bridges inspected by people using hammers and ,:ha.ins,"" c:oadudcs Westton. a::

Page F-1.24

ATTACHMENT D
Table 1: Parks and Recreation Commission applicants by District Advisory body Applicant District
Parks and Recreation Commission Kathleen O’Connell 4
Parks and Recreation Commission Shani Podell 2
Parks and Recreation Commission Kate Wessel 4
Parks and Recreation Commission Brian Westcott 5
Page F-1.25

ATTACHMENT E
Table 1: Parks and Recreation Commission by District
Member Last appointment date Expiration date District
Aurora Brosnan 6/8/2021 4/30/2025 4
Mayrin Bunyagidj 5/10/2022 4/30/2024 1
Jessica Gilmartin 4/25/2023 4/30/2027 3
Peter Joshua 5/25/2021 4/30/2025 2
Wonman Lee 4/25/2023 4/30/2027 1
Kelsey Theriault 4/26/2022 4/30/2026 1
Page F-1.26

,.

MENLO PARK
AGENDA ITEM G-1
Public Works

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 8/29/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-188-CC
Consent Calendar: Approve the update to the preferred concept for the Middle Avenue Caltrain crossing design
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the updated preferred concept for the Middle Avenue Caltrain undercrossing project that addresses Caltrain requirements for the crossing.

Policy Issues
The Middle Avenue Caltrain crossing project (project) is consistent with policies stated in the 2016 general plan circulation element, the El Camino Real and Downtown specific plan and is included in the City’s capital improvement program (CIP). These policies seek to maintain a safe, efficient, attractive, user-friendly circulation system that promotes a healthy, safe and active community and quality of life throughout Menlo Park.

In 2021, the City Council identified the Middle Avenue Caltrain crossing project (project) and the Middle Avenue complete streets project as a combined priority. On March 18, the City Council established goals for fiscal year 2023-24. This project supports the safe streets and activating downtown goals.

Background
On July 20, 2016, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) programmed $490,000 from the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program for the preliminary engineering and environmental clearance phases of the project. The City hired AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) to conduct community engagement, prepare 30% design documents, and complete required environmental analysis.

Staff coordinated with Caltrain on design criteria and the electrification of the corridor.

On Aug. 27, 2019, the City Council unanimously passed a motion to select Concept 3 (Attachment A) as the preferred alternative for the crossing. The preferred concept included an undercrossing approximately 10 to 12 feet below the street/plaza elevation generally aligned with Middle Avenue as it extends into 500 El Camino Real (Stanford’s Middle Plaza development) and connecting to Burgess Park across Alma Street.

On Jan. 28, 2020, the City Council certified the project environmental document, an addendum to the El Camino Real and Downtown specific plan environmental impact report (EIR), and approved the 30% project plans. Since approval of the design and environmental review, staff have been working with Caltrain to advance the project into final design and construction. The City executed an agreement with Caltrain in December 2021 to conduct preliminary review of the preferred design.

On Jan. 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6690 authorizing the city manager to execute a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) with Menlo Station Development, LLC, for a portion of 700-800 El Camino Real (APN 071-333-200) to support implementation of the Middle Avenue pedestrian and bicycle City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-1.1

Staff Report #: 23-188-CC
rail crossing. The ramps that connect the undercrossing to Middle Plaza will be located on this property. On May 1, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a planned development permit revision for 700- 800 El Camino Real to reduce the amount of required parking, which was subsequently approved by City Council May 23. The closing of the real estate transaction is scheduled to occur in April 2024.

On April 4, the City Council approved a service agreement with Caltrain to advance into final design, including identifying the appropriate contracting method for construction, developing requests for proposal for final design, and developing a memorandum of understanding about the execution of final design and construction.

Analysis
On July 11, the City Council held a study session to review the updated design and provided feedback.

Attachment B provides a hyperlink to the staff report for the July 11 meeting.

As part of a design review initiated in December 2021, Caltrain identified two constraints to the design of the project. The first requirement from Caltrain was to require use of a construction method that does not disrupt train service. The initial design proposed to use a ‘cut and cover’ method of construction, which would have removed a section of track, placed the tunnel and restored the track. Cut and cover construction would have required taking trains out of service over one or more weekends. Removing and replacing the high voltage electrical wires and related infrastructure would add significant cost and could lead to more extensive disruption of rail service. Alternative construction methods, such as pushing a preformed tunnel segment under the tracks (called ‘jack and bore’), requires more space between the railroad tracks and the top of the tunnel. The final construction method will be selected as part of the contracting process.

The second requirement is for ramps to access the tunnel to be located outside the Caltrain right of way.

Caltrain has an approximately 90-foot wide corridor in the location of the project, widening to 100 feet just south of the property the City is purchasing. Caltrain’s Rail Corridor and Use Policy (RCUP) policy defines how Caltrain-owned right-of-way may be used (Attachment C). The RCUP classifies the land Caltrain owns adjacent to the tracks between San Francisquito Creek and Ravenswood Avenue as “Non-operating with Service Vision“, which means the right-of-way is not used for railroad tracks, but is preserved for potential future service expansion. This right-of-way cannot be used for any permanent purpose, including ramps or stairs to access a crossing, without approval of the Caltrain Board.

At the July 11 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to move forward with the new design while coordinating with Caltrain on leaving a portion of the tunnel on the Alma Street side uncovered. At that meeting, and in correspondence with staff, Caltrain staff committed to exploring this option as part of final design. The tunnel would be designed to allow a cover to be placed on top of the tunnel if and when the right-of-way is required for rail needs.

Table 1 summarizes the differences between the City Council adopted and updated designs (this table is unchanged from the July 11 report to City Council except for the reference to the potential for an uncovered tunnel segment). Attachment A provides a concept design for the updated design, including key differences from the 2020 design.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-1.2

Staff Report #: 23-188-CC
Table 1: Comparison of City Council adopted and updated design Item City Council adopted design Updated design
Near the northern edge of the Tunnel location ~50 feet south 800 El Camino Real property Tunnel length 64 feet 90 feet*
Top of tunnel (under rail) Two feet** Five feet
Tunnel width 20 feet 20 feet
Ramp width (Alma side) 14 feet 13 feet
Sidewalk width (Alma side) 10 feet 7 ½ feet, 10 feet by ramp/stair entrances Ramp width (Middle Plaza side) 14 feet 14 feet
Two fiber lines, portions of Cal Water line, Utility relocations Two fiber lines portions of West Bay sewer line Tree removals*** 20 total 29 total
Alma side 11 14
El Camino Real side Nine 15
Heritage Six 11
* Between 10 to 25 feet of the tunnel on the Alma Street side may be left uncovered unless needed for rail needs. * The initial 30% design showed two feet between the rail and the tunnel, but Caltrain’s design guidelines at the time required three feet of cover. Staff had planned to request an exception, but is no longer considering one. ** The use of the City right-of-way for ramps and stairs may also limit where replacement tree plantings are possible To help the community understand the physical changes proposed, staff installed ‘story poles’ to designate the end of the tunnel on the Alma Street side. Staff also placed an outreach board at the location to help residents understand the project. A picture is included as Attachment D.

Impact on City Resources
The 2020 design plans were estimated to have a total cost of $21.5 million. Staff are updating cost estimates, which will likely be at least $3 to $4 million higher than the current estimate. The City has secured $21.8 million in funding to date for the project from all sources (Table 2).

Table 2: Middle undercrossing funding plan
Funding Source Amount Phase
Measure A/W Pedestrian/Bicycle SMCTA $1,130,000 Program Design Middle Plaza development Private, Stanford University $5,000,000 agreement contribution Construction Transportation impact fees City of Menlo Park $5,658,334 Design, construction, right-of-way
Stanford University recreational Santa Clara County $1,000,000 mitigation grant Construction One Bay Area Grant – Third Cycle Metropolitan Transportation $5,000,000 (OBAG-3) Commission Construction Federal omnibus budget bill USDOT $4,000,000 Construction Total $21,788,334
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-1.3

Staff Report #: 23-188-CC
The City continues to pursue grants to fill the expected funding gap, including a potential additional $870,000 in funding from the SMCTA Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program. The project has already received $1,130,000 from this source and can receive a maximum of $2 million for one project. Other potential sources could include potential federal, state, and regional grants or additional funding from City transportation funds including Measure A or W sales tax funds or other sources.

Environmental Review
The construction of the project is within the scope of the El Camino Real and Downtown specific plan EIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2009122048 (Specific Plan EIR), certified by City Council June 5, 2012, consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15168. The City prepared an addendum to the Specific Plan EIR because changes and additions to the document were necessary, but none of the conditions described in §15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR occurred. On Jan. 28, 2020, the City Council certified an addendum to the Specific Plan EIR, which analyzed potential impacts from the implementation of the Middle Avenue pedestrian and bicycle rail crossing project as provided for under §15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. The design updates do not impact the City’s environmental review determination.

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. Updated concept design
B. Hyperlink – July 11 study session staff report: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-andminutes/city-council/2023-meetings/agendas/20230711city-council-regular-agenda-packet_wpresv2.pdf#page=7 C. Hyperlink – Caltrain RCUP: caltrain.com/projects/rail-corridor-use-policy-rcup D. Picture of tunnel exit location with display board
Report prepared by:

Hugh Louch, Assistant Public Works Director – Transportation Report reviewed by:

Nikki Nagaya, Deputy City Manager
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-1.4
----- 11111111111 11111111111 11
II
II
II
+l
II

II - - II
" II II " II II " II II II "
" II " " II " II II " II
II " " " II
" II " II " II
II II
II " II
,i
II " " " " II
II
II " " II " " " II
" I " " " "
The City has revised the design to address Caltrain comments, including:
• Tunnel 3 feet deeper to allow construction without disrupting train service • Ramps relocated out of Caltrain's right of-way resulting in a 28 foot longer tunnel • Ramps, stairs, and crosswalks reconfigured to align with new ramp locations • Additional utility relocations required (sewer and water) due to new ramp location Property
being
purchased
Landings
required
for ADA
Middle Avenue Caltrain crossing revised design
Burgess Drive
Original location(62 feet long)
90' long tunnel
Alma Street
Existing Caltrain fence
Caltrain right of way

ATTACHMENT A
Caltrain right of way
Page G-1.5
Photos of approximate tunnel exit location near Alma Street (looking west) ATTACHMENT D Page G-1.6

,.

MENLO PARK
AGENDA ITEM G-2
Public Works

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date:

Staff Report Number:
8/29/2023
23-189-CC
Consent Calendar: Authorize the city manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the San Mateo
County Transportation Authority to complete the
landscaping phase of the Willow Road and U.S.

Highway 101 project
Recommendation
Staff requests that the City Council authorize the city manager to execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) to complete the landscaping phase of the Willow Road and U.S. Highway 101 project (Attachment A).

Policy Issues
The City Council provides direction to the city manager regarding services to the community; authorizes the city manager to execute agreements; and sets prioritization for the use of City resources to serve the community. The Willow Road and U.S. Highway 101 interchange improvements project (Project) was first included in the fiscal year 2012-13 capital improvement plan.

Background
In 2019, Caltrans completed modification of the interchange at Willow Road and U.S. Highway 101 from its former “full cloverleaf” style to a “partial cloverleaf” style similar to the Marsh Road and Highway U.S. 101 interchange. This eliminated the short weaves on Willow Road and the freeway. The project replaced the existing interchange with a new, wider bridge; adding sidewalks, striped bicycle lanes and separated bicycle lanes on both sides of Willow Road; and added two signalized intersections. Caltrans began construction in May 2017, and the project was completed in June 2019.

As is typical for a Caltrans construction process, the interchange construction included only the infrastructure portion of the project. The landscaping design and landscaping construction phases are being performed as a separate follow-up project. The landscaping phase was also required to be scheduled after the completion of the San Mateo U.S. Highway 101 Express Lanes project, which recently began operation.

The City Council held a study session July 12, 2022, on the landscaping phase of the interchange project and provided direction to staff to pursue a Caltrans-standard landscaping plan for the interchange with more trees that can be designed and installed within the budget available from the SMCTA for this project.

On May 9, staff transmitted an informational update to the City Council on the status of the project, which had been requested by Vice Mayor Taylor and City Councilmember Combs at the March 28 meeting.

Attachment B provides the current concept design, which was also shared at the May 9 meeting. This concept design reflects Caltrans and other stakeholder reviews and adds approximately 120 more trees than were in place before the interchange reconstruction.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-2.1

Staff Report #: 23-189-CC
Analysis
Over the last several months, staff has been working with Caltrans, SMCTA, and the City of East Palo Alto to advance the landscaping project within the Caltrans right-of-way into final design and construction. About half of the intersection is within the City of East Palo Alto, though the City of Menlo Park has been the local agency lead on the interchange project from the outset.

The MOU (Attachment A) identifies the roles of SMCTA and the City as it relates to this project and provides funding to the City to complete the next phase of work. The specific roles in the MOU include:
• Prepare construction documents, led by the City.
• Install landscaping, led by SMCTA.
• Oversee plant establishment, included as part of the landscape installation contract, with inspection provided by the City.

The MOU funds 100% of City of Menlo Park costs from Measure A sales tax funds to develop final construction documents and provide oversight and inspection of plant establishment.

In addition to the MOU, Caltrans, the City and SMCTA will execute a cooperative agreement that defines roles for Caltrans, the City and SMCTA. Caltrans role on the project going forward will be review and coordination, with all work led by the City and SMCTA. Execution of this agreement is in process.

Schedule
Once this MOU is approved, there are several remaining steps for this project:
• Develop construction documents. This will take nine to 12 months, including reviews by the City staff and Caltrans.
• Finalize plans and bidding. SMCTA and Caltrans will need several months to complete necessary supporting documentation, prepare the project for bidding, and award a contract. • Construction. This will take approximately one year, followed by a three-year plant establishment period.

In addition to landscaping in the Caltrans right-of-way, there are two areas under the City’s jurisdiction where future landscaping will be added, near Pierce Road/Willow Road and Van Buren Road/Bay Road.

Staff anticipates exploring landscaping options for these areas in parallel to the work in the Caltrans right-ofway. Tree planting within the City right-of-way typically happens in the winter and early spring, depending on weather, which provides the best establishment opportunity for new trees.

Impact on City Resources
The SMCTA has $3.5 million remaining in funds from the Willow and U.S. Highway 101 interchange replacement project. Staff anticipates this funding will be sufficient to complete construction documents, install, and maintain the landscaping for the plant establishment period. The City’s work under the MOU will be fully funded by SMCTA. The 2023-27 five-year capital improvement plan added $400,000 of this funding in fiscal year 2023-24 to support development of construction documents for the project. Approximately an additional $170,000 remains in the CIP from prior phases of work that would be used for complementary landscaping design or implementation within City right-of-way.

Environmental Review
Environmental clearance for the project, including landscaping, was obtained by Caltrans November 25, City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-2.2

Staff Report #: 23-189-CC
2013.

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. Memorandum of understanding
B. Approved concept
Report prepared by:

Hugh Louch, Assistant Public Works Director – Transportation Report reviewed by:

Nikki Nagaya, Deputy City Manager
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-2.3

ATTACHMENT A
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
San Mateo County Transportation Authority
and
City of Menlo Park
for the Implementation of
US 101 / Willow Road Interchange Improvements
This memorandum of understanding (MOU) is entered into as of _______________ (Execution Date) by and between the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) and the City of Menlo Park (Sponsor), each of which is referred to herein individually as "Party" and jointly as "Parties."

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004, the voters of San Mateo County approved the continuation of the collection and distribution by the TA of the Measure A half cent transaction and use tax for an additional 25 years to implement the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan, beginning January 1, 2009 (New Measure A); WHEREAS, on May 8, 2015, the TA issued a call for projects for its Measure A Highway Program; and
WHEREAS, in response to the call for projects, Sponsor requested that the TA provide $64 million in funds for the US 101/Willow Interchange Improvements (Project); and WHEREAS, the Project meets the intent of the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 1, 2015, the TA’s Board of Directors programmed and allocated up to $56,400,000 from the New Measure A Highway Program Category for the Construction phase of the Project through Resolution No. 2015-19; and WHEREAS, as part of the allocated $56,400,000, up to $400,000 may be provided in the form of TA staff or consultant support for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Parties secured $10,400,000 in State Transportation Improvement Program funds from the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to fully fund the Project’s Construction phase scope of work budget of $66,800,000; and WHEREAS, construction to replace the interchange was completed in August 2019 and resulted in the removal of trees surrounding the interchange and leaving $3,500,000 of funds allocated by the TA for Project Construction available in the Project budget; and HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 1 19628057.2
Page G-2.4
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that landscaping activities are considered part of the overall Construction phase, as required by the project’s environmental clearance documents, such that up to $3,500,000 of the allocated funds may be provided for the Project’s remaining landscaping activities (Scope of Work); and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor gathered public input on landscaping concept design through a community meeting and Environmental Quality Commission meeting in 2019 and presentations to City Council in 2021, 2022, and 2023 that led to the selection of a preferred landscaping design; and
WHEREAS, the Sponsor will implement the landscaping design activities within the Scope of Work; and
WHEREAS, at the Sponsor’s request, the TA will implement the landscaping construction activities within the Scope of Work as described in Section A-2, below; and WHEREAS, the landscaping construction activities will include a three year landscape establishment requirement as part of the construction contract; and WHEREAS, at the TA’s request, Sponsor will provide oversight of the construction contractor and provide periodic inspection of plant establishment efforts.

Now, THEREFORE, the Parties to this MOU agree as follows:

A. Project Scope and Description

1. Project Definition. This Project is the US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements (Exhibit 1).

2. Scope of Work. The Scope of Work is the implementation of the Project’s landscaping design and construction activities.

3. Limited to Scope of Work. This MOU is intended to cover only the Scope of Work.

Further roles and responsibilities for any other work on, or other tasks related to, the Project have been and/or will be determined by negotiations between the Parties and the right-of-way owners.

B. Funding and Payment

1. Funding Commitment. The TA will provide up to $3,500,000 of New Measure A Highway Program funds already allocated for the Project under Resolution 2015-19 for the following tasks in the amounts specified below:
a. Landscaping Design & Right of Way (R/W): Estimated at $430,000 b. Landscaping Construction: Estimated at $3,070,000
Total for Landscaping Activities: $3,500,000
HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 2 19628057.2
Page G-2.5

2. Use of Funds. Measure A Funds shall be used only for direct eligible costs to complete the Scope of Work. The Sponsor is responsible for demonstrating to the TA that the expenses incurred as specified under Section E: Sponsor Responsibilities were necessary to deliver the Scope of Work.
a. The following costs are not eligible for New Measure A Highway Funds reimbursement:
i. Sponsor’s costs which are unrelated to the Scope of Work; ii. Costs for entering into this Agreement;
iii. Maintenance (unless expressly required during the required 3-year landscaping establishment period), rehabilitation, routine operations of the Project or other facilities or programs; and
iv. Development of proposals, applications or agreements for Measure A, Measure W, or other funding programs.
b. The Parties agree that funds provided pursuant to this Agreement will be used to supplement existing revenue. The Parties will not use Measure A Funds to replace other local taxes or revenues already programmed and available for use for the same purpose. The Parties will use funds provided pursuant to this Agreement only for the Scope of Work.
c. If the TA determines that Sponsor has used Measure A Funds other than for the approved Scope of Work, the TA will notify Sponsor of its determination. Within thirty (30) days of notification Sponsor will either (a) repay such funds to the TA, or (b) explain in writing how the funds in question were spent for the approved Scope of Work. The TA will respond to Sponsor's written explanation within thirty (30) days of receipt. Unless otherwise stated in the response, the TA's response will be final, and Sponsor will repay any funds used other than for the approved Scope of Work within thirty (30) days.

3. Reimbursement Basis. Sponsor may seek pro rata reimbursement for Scope of Work costs incurred on or after the Execution Date. Scope of Work costs must be incurred and paid by Sponsor prior to requesting pro rata reimbursement from the TA. Sufficient documentation must accompany all requests for pro rata reimbursement, including the submittal of all due monthly progress reports.

4. Accounting and Request for Reimbursement Procedures. Sponsor, in coordination with and to the satisfaction of the TA, will establish procedures for accounting and requests for reimbursement related to delivery of the Scope of Work as specified under Section E: Sponsor Responsibilities. These procedures will track and reflect the accumulation of the TA’s pro rata share of Scope of Work Costs. Sponsor will detail the TA’s pro rata share of Scope of Work costs for all work funded under this Agreement with each “Reimbursement Claim Form,” which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. Sponsor will maintain all necessary books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

5. Invoices; Payments. Sponsor must prepare and submit billing statements consistent with the Reimbursement Claim Form with all required supporting documentation.

HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 3 19628057.2
Page G-2.6

Supporting documentation may include, but is not limited to, copies of vendor invoices, timesheets, backup documentation, checks, and payment advice, and must include an accounting of the TA’s share of costs for the Scope of Work as contemplated by this Agreement. Sponsor must detail the tasks performed, associated costs, and pro rata share of Scope of Work Costs to be borne by the TA with each reimbursement request.

The TA will endeavor to disburse reimbursements for approved Scope of Work Costs within thirty (30) days after the TA's approval of each claim, subject to the limits on the TA's maximum contribution as established in Section B.1. The TA's obligation to reimburse Scope of Work costs to Sponsor as provided in this section is conditioned upon the TA’s prompt receipt of monthly progress reports from Sponsor pursuant to Section B.4 above.

Invoices may be submitted, no more frequently than once a quarter, by mail to:

Accounts Payable
San Mateo County Transportation Authority
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
Or by e-mail to: [email protected], [email protected] and the designated TA Project Manager at [email protected]

6. Cost Savings. Any cost savings of the New Measure A funds allocated for the Scope of Work will revert to the New Measure A Highway Program for the TA to reallocate to any eligible project through its usual fund programming and allocation activities.

7. Insufficient Funding. In the event that additional funding is needed to complete the Scope of Work, the TA will identify the additional amounts needed and review those estimates with the Sponsor. The Parties will work together to identify potential sources of funding, as well as obtain the necessary funds to complete the Scope of Work. If additional funding is needed due to a change in the Scope of Work, as requested by the Sponsor, the TA will identify the additional amounts needed and review those estimates with the Sponsor. In such case, it is the responsibility of the Sponsor to identify the potential sources of funding, as well as obtain the necessary funds to complete the changed Scope of Work. The TA may consider requests for additional funding, but is under no obligation to grant such requests.

C. Term

1. Term of Agreement. This MOU is effective upon the Execution Date, and will terminate upon the earliest of: (a) 6 months after written acceptance/endorsement of the Sponsor of the completion of the Scope of Work, (b) termination by Sponsor or the TA pursuant to section C-3 or C-4 or C-5, or (c) five (5) years and six (6) months after the Execution Date of this agreement.

HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 4 19628057.2
Page G-2.7

2. Time of Performance. This Project Scope of Work must be completed no later than five (5) years after the Execution Date of this agreement.

3. Termination by Sponsor. The Sponsor may at any time terminate the MOU by giving ten (10) days’ written notice to the TA. Sponsor will reimburse the TA for all funds expended by the TA in connection with the Scope of Work, and for all costs incurred by the TA in connection with the termination, within ninety (90) days of the TA’s submission to Sponsor of a detailed statement of such payments and costs.

4. Termination by the TA. The TA may at any time terminate the MOU, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days' written notice of such termination. If the TA terminates the MOU for Sponsor's default, Sponsor will reimburse the TA for all funds expended by the TA in connection with performance of this MOU. If the TA terminates the MOU for convenience, the TA will reimburse Sponsor all costs and expenses incurred by Sponsor as a result of such termination.

5. Termination by the Parties. If it is mutually agreed by the Parties that it would be in their mutual best interests to terminate or suspend work on the Project, neither Party may seek nor be entitled to receive further reimbursement for any costs or expenses incurred in connection with the Scope of Work nor termination of this MOU.

6. Expiration of TA Financial Obligations. Any and all financial obligations of the TA pursuant to this MOU will expire upon the expenditure of the TA’s maximum contribution to the Project as established in Section B-1 above or upon termination of this MOU under Section C-1 above, whichever occurs first.

D. TA Responsibilities

1. The TA will perform and complete the Project landscaping construction, either through its own forces or the use of one or more third-party consultants or contractors.

2. The TA will make available to the Project up to $3,500,000 of New Measure A funds already allocated for the Project under Resolution 2015-19 for the Scope of Work.

3. For purposes of delivering the Scope of Work, the TA agrees to:
a. Manage the Project landscaping construction, including developing and carrying out the Project landscaping construction on schedule and within budget; b. Provide technical oversight for performance of the Project landscaping construction; c. Lead coordination with Caltrans and other permitting agencies as necessary for the Project landscaping construction;
d. Obtain the necessary permits and approvals required for the Project landscaping construction;
HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 5 19628057.2
Page G-2.8

e. Procure and administer the consultant/contractor services to complete the Project landscaping construction; including the advertisement, award, and administration of the contract for landscaping construction, as well as for construction management. f. Organize and facilitate regular meetings of a Project Development Team (PDT) comprised of various Caltrans functional units, the Sponsor and representatives from involved local and regional entities to provide input and guidance on the Project landscaping;
g. Keep Sponsor apprised of developments, such as award of contracts or potential changes that may affect the scope, schedule, or budget of the Project or Scope of Work; and
h. Consult with Sponsor where necessary/appropriate and if requested, participate in public meetings.

4. The TA will actively monitor the Sponsor’s progress during the 3-year landscaping establishment period.

5. The TA, will execute a three-party cooperative agreement with the Sponsor and Caltrans for oversight services associated with the Scope of Work.

6. The TA will prepare and provide to Sponsor quarterly status reports including anticipated and expended costs and Scope of Work delivery milestones and schedule forecasts.

7. The TA will review, process, and audit (at its discretion) invoices and other documentation of expenditures for work performed under this MOU. The TA will also track the accumulation and expenditure of Measure A funds allocated for the Scope of Work, and process other documentation of expenditures in compliance with TA accounting and budgeting requirements.

E. Sponsor Responsibilities

1. The Sponsor will perform and complete the Project landscaping design and R/W, either through its own forces or the use of one or more third-party consultants or contractors.

2. For purposes of delivering the Scope of Work, the Sponsor agrees to:
a. Manage the Project landscaping design, including developing and carrying out the Project landscaping design on schedule and within budget; b. Lead coordination with Caltrans and other permitting agencies as necessary for the Project landscaping design;
HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 6 19628057.2
Page G-2.9

c. Obtain the necessary permits and approvals required for the Project landscaping design;
d. Procure and administer the consultant/contractor services to complete the Project landscaping design;
e. Organize and facilitate regular meetings of a Project Development Team (PDT) comprised of various Caltrans functional units, the Sponsor and representatives from involved local and regional entities to provide input and guidance on the Project landscaping design;
f. Provide oversight of the construction contractor and periodic inspection during the 3-year plant establishment period for the Project and ensure the successful establishment of highway plantings provided by the Project landscaping construction;
g. Keep TA apprised of developments, such as award of contracts or potential changes that may affect the scope, schedule, or budget of the Project or Scope of Work; and h. Consult with TA where necessary/appropriate.

3. The Sponsor will execute a three-party cooperative agreement with the TA and Caltrans for oversight services associated with the Scope of Work.

4. The Sponsor will prepare and provide to TA monthly status reports including anticipated and expended costs and Project landscaping design delivery milestones and schedule forecasts.

5. The Sponsor will prepare and provide to TA (monthly status reports including anticipated and expended costs and activities during the 3-year plant establishment period.

6. The Sponsor will provide invoices and other documentation of expenditures for work performed under this MOU to be reviewed by the TA.

7. The Sponsor will be responsible for championing the effort of obtaining political and public support for the Project.

8. The Sponsor will be the public face of the Project for purposes of leading outreach efforts to local stakeholders and community members, including coordination of public meetings and solicitation of public comment.

9. The Sponsor will provide input and oversight based on local policies and desires regarding the outcome of and deliverables of the Project.

HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 7 19628057.2
Page G-2.10

10. The Sponsor will actively participate in the PDT meetings related to the Scope of Work.

11. The Sponsor may, at its discretion, review any professional services agreements, change orders and any other agreements that the TA has entered into for the performance of the Scope of Work; however the TA retains ultimate authority over contracting and related decisions for landscaping construction.

12. The Sponsor may, at its discretion, review the work products and deliverables produced by the TA and/or its contractors/consultants for the landscaping construction Scope of Work, including reports, designs, drawings, plans, specifications, schedules and other materials; however, the TA retains authority to accept or reject associated contractor/consultant work.

13. The Sponsor will approve or endorse, in writing, the final deliverables or work products produced by the TA and/or its contractors/consultants for the Scope of Work.

14. The Sponsor will review progress reports prepared and provided by the TA.

15. The Sponsor may, at its discretion, review and audit invoices and other documentation of the expenditure of New Measure A funds allocated for the Scope of Work, however the TA retains ultimate authority for expenditure of New Measure A funds on the Project.

F. Third Party Roles

1. Third Party Roles. Caltrans as owner operator of the facility proposed for modification is responsible for reviewing and approving the landscaping design and construction documents for the Project.

G. Indemnification

1. Each of the Parties will indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other Party and its directors/councilmembers, officers, employees and agents (collectively, "Indemnitees") against all liability, claims, suits, actions, costs or expenses related to performance of the Scope of Work or the Project, including but not limited to those arising from loss of or damage to property, and injuries to or death of any person (including but not limited to the property or employees of each Party) when arising out of or resulting from any act or omission by the indemnifying Party, its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors in connection with any aspect of the Project, including Project design, construction and/or maintenance.

2. Each of the Parties will also fully release, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the other Party and Indemnitees from and against any and all claims or suits that may be brought HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 8 19628057.2
Page G-2.11

by any of the indemnifying Party's contractors or subcontractors performing work in connection with or related to the Project.

3. The indemnifying Party's obligation to defend includes the payment of all reasonable attorneys' fees and all other costs and expenses of suit, and if any judgment is rendered, or settlement entered, against any Indemnitee, the indemnifying Party must, at its expense, satisfy and discharge the same. Indemnitees may require the indemnifying Party to obtain counsel satisfactory to the Indemnitees.

4. This indemnification will survive termination or expiration of this MOU.

H. Miscellaneous

1. Ownership of Work. All reports, designs, drawings, plans, specifications, schedules, studies, memoranda, and other documents assembled for or prepared by or for; in the process of being assembled or prepared by or for; or furnished to the TA or the Sponsor under this MOU, are the joint property of the TA and the Sponsor. Each Party is entitled to copies and access to these materials during the progress of the Project and upon completion of the Scope of Work or termination of this MOU. Both Parties may retain a copy of all material produced under this MOU for use in their general activities.

2. Attribution to the TA. Sponsor must include attribution that indicates work was funded by New Measure A funds from the TA. This provision applies to any project, or publication, that was funded in part or in whole by New Measure A funds. Acceptable forms of attribution include TA branding on Project-related documents, construction signs, public information materials, and any other applicable documents.

3. No Waiver. No waiver of any default or breach of any covenant of this MOU by either Party will be implied from any omission by either Party to take action on account of such default if such default persists or is repeated. Express waivers are limited in scope and duration to their express provisions. Consent to one action does not imply consent to any future action.

4. Assignment. No Party can assign, transfer or otherwise substitute its interest or obligations under this MOU without the written consent of the other Party.

5. Governing Law. This MOU is governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts that are made and performed entirely in California.

6. Modifications. This MOU may only be modified in a writing executed by both Parties.

7. Disputes. If a question arises regarding interpretation of this MOU or its performance, or the alleged failure of a Party to perform, the Party raising the question or making the allegation must give written notice thereof to the other Party. The Parties will promptly meet in an effort to resolve the issues raised. If the Parties fail to resolve the issues raised, alternative forms of dispute resolution, including mediation or binding HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 9 19628057.2
Page G-2.12

arbitration, may be pursued by mutual agreement. It is the intent of the Parties to the extent possible that litigation be avoided as a method of dispute resolution.

8. Attorneys' Fees. In the event legal proceedings are instituted to enforce any provision of this MOU, the prevailing Party in said proceedings will be entitled to its costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in addition to such other remedies to which it may be entitled.

9. Relationship of the Parties. It is understood that this is an MOU by and between independent contractors and is not intended to and does not create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association, or any other relationship whatsoever other than that of independent contractor.

10. Warranty of Authority to Execute MOU. Each Party to this MOU represents and warrants that each person whose signature appears hereon is duly authorized and has the full authority to execute this MOU on behalf of the entity that is a Party to this MOU.

11. Severability. If any portion of this Agreement, or the application thereof, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining portions of this Agreement, or the application thereof, will remain in full force and effect.

12. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in counterparts.

13. Entire MOU. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties pertaining to its subject matter and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous written or oral agreement between the Parties on the same subject.

14. Notices. All notices affecting any of the clauses of this MOU must be in writing and mailed postage prepaid by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by personal delivery or overnight courier, to the appropriate address indicated below or at such other place(s) that either Party may designate in written notice to the other.

Notices will be deemed received upon delivery if personally served, one (1) day after mailing if delivered via overnight courier, or two (2) days after mailing if mailed as provided above.

To TA: San Mateo County Transportation Authority
1250 San Carlos Avenue
P.O. Box 3006
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
Attn: Dora Seamans
District/TA Secretary
To Sponsor: City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Attn: Hugh Louch, Assistant Public Works Director
HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 10 19628057.2
Page G-2.13

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have hereunder subscribed their names the day and year indicated below.

City of Menlo Park
By:

Name:

Its:

Approved as to Form:

Attorney for the City of Menlo Park

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
By:

Name:

Its:

Approved as to Form:

Legal Counsel for the TA
Attachment A: Exhibit D – Measure A/W Reimbursement Claim Form HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 11 19628057.2
Page G-2.14
Project 10 / Class:

SMCTA Project Allocation:

Claim Date:

Claim Number:

Claim Period:

Claim Amount: $0.00
Consultant/Contractor/
Vendor Invoice#
Total
Quarterly Progress Report included?
Please issue check payable to:

Invoice Total
-
Agency
Contact person
Address
Exhibit D

REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM
San Mateo County Measure NW Funds
Funding Source
% of % of
Fund Source1 TU Fund Source2 Ttl MeasureA/W
#-
#ttlff#I -~
#-
#-
####
---# - ·- - lffl#f/11 -
YIN
MeasureA/W
%of Prior Total Life to Date Budget
TU Measure A/W S Measure A/W S Balance
#DIV/0!
#OIV/01
#DIV/0!
#OIV/01
#OIV/0'
#OIV/0! s - - -
Attachment A
HIGHWAY PROGRAM 2021 CALL FOR PROJECTS
San Mateo County Transportation Authority/City of Menlo Park US 101/Willow Road Interchange Improvements: Construction Phase Landscaping Activities 12 19628057.2
Page G-2.15
U.S. ROUTE 101

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO CITY OF MENLO PARK
BAY RD

PIERCE RD

VAN BUREN RD

E BAYSHORE RD

SARATOGA AVE BAY RD

HAIGHT ST

VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA) GRAYSON CT

MEDICAL CENTER

TO SAN FRANCISCO TO SAN JOSE

BELLE HAVEN

CITY OF

MENLO PARK

CALTRANS-MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE AREA
LEGEND

CITY OF EAST

PALO ALTO

THE WILLOWS

LAUREL AVE

WILLOW ROAD

WILLOW RD

HOLLAND ST

AVE CARLTON

MADERA AVE SEVIER AVE
0 30’ 60’ 120’
\\
' \\ /
. \\J/
\ / i. \ - -
'
L__ __ _
----__.~-----,1..i
~- "---~-~
---\-..-=c=-_,~ --
-
--
---------~.-
+-- --

EXHIBIT A
Page G-2.16
•
-
-
--
~
\,l
=~
-~
=--- ====-~·'
\\
-
---
./' 1-
\
LEGEND
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN CITY LIMITS STATE RIGHT OF WAY CALTRANS REQUIRED TREE PLANTING SETBACK, TYP.

ATTACHMENT B
U.S. ROUTE 101

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
CALTRANS REQUIRED TREE PLANTING SETBACK, TYP.

EXISTING CULVERT

EXISTING MID-BLOCK CROSSING PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY CONNECTION

CITY OF MENLO PARK
BAY RD

E BAYSHORE RD

SARATOGA AVE BAY RD

HAIGHT ST

LAUREL AVE

WILLOW ROAD

WILLOW RD

HOLLAND ST

AVE CARLTON

VINE PLANTING ON WALL
IRRIGATED LOW-GROWING, SPREADING GROUNDCOVER IRRIGATED STORMWATER-TOLERANT PLANTING IRRIGATED ACCENT PLANTING NON-IRRIGATED HYDROSEED MULCH LANDSCAPE SCREEN “NO TREE” ZONE C o n c e p t u a l L a n d s c a p e P l a n
W i l l o w R o a d / H i g h w a y 1 0 1 I n t e r c h a n g e L a n d s c a p i n g

PIERCE RD

VAN BUREN RD

MADERA AVE SEVIER AVE

TREES, SEE PLANT LIST
Note: Tree spacing shown on the plan is diagrammatic. Design refinements will need to be made in a future phase to ensure adequate spacing for each species.

GRAYSON CT
0 30’ 60’ 120’
May 26, 2023 Menlo Park, CA
19026_ConceptPlan.indd
Page G-2.17
-
---

PLANT LIST
Scientific Name Common Name Size Spacing*
TREES
CONICAL TREES 30’ O.C.

Calocedrus decurrens Incense cedar** 24” box Cedrus atlantica Atlas cedar** 24” box Cedrus deodara Deodar cedar** 24” box CANOPY TREES 20’ to 25’ O.C. Aesculus californica California buckeye 15 gal Lyonothamnus floribundus ssp. aspleniifolius Santa Cruz Island ironwood 15 gal Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak 24” box Quercus wislizeni Interior live oak 24” box Umbellularia californica California bay laurel 15 gal ACCENT TREES Arctostaphylos manzanita ‘Dr. Hurd’ Dr. Hurd manzanita 15 gal 10’ O.C. Cercis occidentalis Western redbud 15 gal Chilopsis linearis Desert willow 15 gal Garrya elliptica Coast silk tassel 15 gal Prunus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Cherry 15 gal

SHRUBS, GROUNDCOVER, AND VINES
Acacia redolens ‘Low Boy’ Prostrate acacia 1 gal 12’ O.C.

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi ‘Point Reyes’ Point Reyes manzanita 1 gal 12’ O.C.

Artemisia californica California sagebrush 5 gal 6’ O.C. Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush 5 gal 6’ O.C. Ceanothus griseus horizontalis ‘Yankee Point’ Yankee Point ceanothus 1 gal 15’ O.C. Cistus pulverulentus Rockrose 5 gal 6’ O.C. Eriogonum fasciculatum foliolosum Leafy California buckwheat 5 gal 6’ O.C. Salvia ‘Bee’s Bliss’ Bee’s Bliss sage 5 gal 8’ O.C. Muhlenbergia rigens Deer grass 5 gal 6’ O.C. Ficus pumila Creeping fig 1 gal 8’ O.C. Gelsemium sempervirens Yellow jessamine 1 gal 8’ O.C. Vitis californica California wild grape 1 gal 8’ O.C.

NON-IRRIGATED HYDROSEED MIX
Clarkia purpurea Winecup clarkia
Eschscholzia caespitosa Dwarf California poppy Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue Gazania splendens Mixed color gazania Lasthenia californica Goldfields Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine Lupinus nanus Sky lupine Nemophila menziesii Baby blue eyes Poa secunda Native pine bluegrass * Tree spacing shown on plan is diagrammatic. Design refinements will need to be made in a future phase to ensure adequate spacing for each species. ** Standard form, prune up lower branches.

Conceptual Plant List
Willow Road / Highway 101 Interchange Landscaping
May 26, 2023 Menlo Park, CA
19026_ConceptPlan.indd
Page G-2.18

,.

MENLO PARK
AGENDA ITEM G-3
Public Works

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date:

Staff Report Number:
8/29/2023
23-190-CC
Consent Calendar: Authorize the city manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement
with West Coast Code Consultants (WC3) for
improvement plan review services for the Willow
Village project
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the city manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement (Attachment A) with WC3 for improvement plan review services for the Willow Village project in the amount of $220,000.

Policy Issues
This recommendation is consistent with the City's purchasing policies. Use of professional service agreements assists with the timely delivery of public works services and improvement plan reviews. It also serves as a risk management tool to quickly address shifting priorities and staff vacancies.

Background
The City of Menlo Park has a history of effectively utilizing professional contract services to augment its operations. These agreements ensure service continuity by engaging experienced consultants who are well-versed in the regulations and policies of the City and leads to increased efficiency for staff.

Signature Development Group and Peninsula Innovation Partners, on behalf of Meta Platforms, Inc., plan to redevelop 1350-1390 Willow Rd., 925-1098 Hamilton Ave., 1005-1275 Hamilton Ct., 1399, 1401 Willow Rd. and 871-883 Hamilton Ave. into an industrial, office, warehouse, and research and development site using a mixed-use master plan known as the Willow Village project. The project involves demolishing existing onsite buildings and constructing new ones, including a town square district, a residential/shopping district, and a campus district. The project encompasses the installation of necessary utilities, constructing public and private streets, and other related infrastructure. The City Council approved resolutions and ordinances pertaining to the project entitlements during its meetings Dec. 6 and 13, 2022. The Willow Village development agreement (DA) has designated this project review as a priority.

The Willow Village project developer has submitted comprehensive improvement plans and other engineering documents for the construction of both public and private streets. The engineering division team will conduct initial and comprehensive assessments of improvement plans, along with reviewing all engineering-related documents. Additionally, they will manage this phase of the project, consultant and coordinate with external agencies when necessary. Given the existing workload, vacant positions, priority of the Willow Village project, and required timelines, the team necessitates the expertise of a qualified consultant to perform an in-depth evaluation of the improvement plans and engineering documents.

Attachment B contains the scope of services and proposal for WC3.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-3.1

Staff Report #: 23-190-CC
Analysis
WC3 currently has a master agreement with the community development department for building projects and has been selected to perform plan check for Willow Village project. Furthermore, recognizing WC3's proficiency in reviewing engineering plans, the public works engineering team has enlisted their assistance for the off-site improvement plan review. Staff recommends continued collaboration with WC3 for engineering review of the project’s public and private streets. This will leverage WC3’s comprehensive understanding of the project.

The original agreement with WC3, which amounted to $80,000, was allocated to cover only a portion of the development review services required for public works. This initial amount was needed to start plan review services, with the intention of amending the agreement once staff verified that the quality of plan checking from WC3 met City standards. There is a need to amend the agreement to facilitate a comprehensive and thorough engineering review that aligns with the project's scale and complexity.

In light of the above considerations, staff recommends increasing the total amount allocated for WC3 to $300,000, which will be fully paid by the developer, reimbursing the city. This amendment will enable WC3 to continue their in-depth engineering plan review that encompasses all necessary aspects of the project for public works engineering.

Impact on City Resources
The proposed agreement amendment with WC3 will not exceed $220,000, and the total agreement will be $300,000. The project will be a 100% cost recovery effort, with the developer reimbursing the City for any all expenses incurred for the review of the project.

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. Agreement amendment
B. WC3 scope of services and proposal
Report prepared by:

Ebby Sohrabi, Senior Civil Engineer
Report reviewed by:

Tanisha Werner, Assistant Public Works Director – Engineering City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-3.2

ITY Of

MENLO PARK

AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

ATTACHMENT A
City Manager’s Office
701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025
tel 650-330-6620
Amendment #:

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MENLO PARK AND WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS, INC.

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into this __________________________, by and between the CITY OF MENLO PARK, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “CITY,” and WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS, INC., hereinafter referred to as “FIRST PARTY.”

1. Section 4. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT of Agreement No. 4127, (“Agreement”), Section 4.

COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT [amendment to section] is hereby amended to read as follows:
“A. CITY shall pay FIRST PARTY an all-inclusive fee that shall not exceed $300,000 as described in Exhibit "A, A-1, and A-2," Scope of Services. All payments shall be inclusive of all indirect and direct charges to the Project incurred by FIRST PARTY. The CITY reserves the right to withhold payment if the City determines that the quantity or quality of the work performed is unacceptable.”

2. Section 24. TERM OF AGREEMENT of Agreement No. 4127, (“Agreement”), Section 24. TERM OF AGREEMENT [amendment to section] is hereby amended to read as follows:
“This agreement shall remain in effect for the period of May 1, 2023 through August 31, 2024 unless extended, amended, or terminated in writing by CITY.

Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of Agreement No. 4127 remain the same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written.

SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW
Page G-3.3
CC Rev 20230505

2 FOR FIRST PARTY:

Signature Date
Printed name Title
Tax ID#
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Nira F. Doherty, City Attorney
FOR CITY OF MENLO PARK:

Date
Justin I. C. Murphy, City Manager
ATTEST:

Date
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk Date
Page G-3.4
CC Rev 20230505
Respectfully Submitted,
--
Giyan A. Senaratne, S.E., P.E., LEED Ap.

Principal / CEO
West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. - WC3
5000 Executive Parkway, Suite #510
San Ramon, CA – 94583;
Phone #(925) 275-1700
Cel # (925) 766-5600
Email: [email protected]

I J i

ATTACHMENT B
City of Menlo Park – Willow Village Project
Improvement Plan Review
Scope of Services and Fee Estimate
The City of Menlo Park Engineering Division has requested that West Coast Code Consultants (WC3) provide Improvement Plan Review Services for Meta Platform, Inc.’s Willow Village Project. WC3’s civil engineering team has the knowledge and expertise to assist the City of Menlo Park with Improvement Plan Review Services.

Scope of Services ~ Improvement Plan Review Services.
 WC3 will review the following documents submitted for review on July 10,2023:
o Willow Village Improvement Plans
o Specifications
o SWPPP
o Check List for Engineering Submittals
o Engineers Estimates
o SWMP
o Hydrology Report
 WC3’s scope of review will follow the guidelines outlined in the agreement (Agreement # 4127) between the City of Menlo Park and WC3 dated June 13, 2023.

Fee Estimate:

Based on the volume of plan documents, we estimate our total fee for the first review to be One Hundred Thirty-Two Thousand Dollars ($132,000.00). For projects of this size, there is typically a second and third review but are at a reduced cost. We are estimating the second and third review fees to be One Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand Dollars ($168,000.00). The total estimated review fee would be Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00). Proposed fees are on a Time and Material basis.

Respectfully Submitted,
--
Giyan A. Senaratne, S.E., P.E., LEED Ap.

Principal / CEO
West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. - WC3
5000 Executive Parkway, Suite #510
San Ramon, CA – 94583;
Phone # (925) 275-1700
Cel # (925) 766-5600
Email: [email protected]
Page G-3.5

Ebby Sohrabi, PE
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Menlo Park
City Hall - 1st Floor
701 Laurel St.

P: 650-330-6743
E: [email protected]

PROPOSAL
Prepared for: City of Menlo Park, CA
Engineering Division
Submitted by: Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Improvement Plan Review
Services for the Willow
Village Project
West Coast Code Consultants, Inc.
417 Grand Avenue, Suite 201
South San Francisco, CA 94080
CALIFORNIA | UTAH | WASHINGTON | NEVADA | IDAHO
Teaming with Your Community to Make a Difference
PROJECT CONTACT:

Donald Zhao, PE, MCP, CBO
Vice President, Regional/Client Manager
417 Grand Avenue, Suite 201
South San Francisco, CA 94080
P: (650) 754-6353
C: (925) 997-4322
E: [email protected]
www.WC-3.com West Coast Code Consultants, Inc.

Page G-3.6

West Coast Code Consultants, Inc.

May 22, 2023
Ebby Sohrabi, PE
Senior Civil Engineer
City of Menlo Park
City Hall - 1st Floor
701 Laurel St.

RE: Proposal to Provide Improvement Plan Review Services for the Willow Village Project Attn: Ebby Sohrabi
West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. (WC3
) is thrilled to present our proposal to the Engineering Division of the City of Menlo Park. We are offering our services to provide Improvement Plan Review services for Meta Platform, Inc.'s Willow Village Project.

WC3 has a proven track record of providing reliable support and excellent service for plan checking throughout California. We are confident in our ability to provide these important services to your City.

Our team of professionals includes licensed civil engineers, structural engineers, fire protection engineers, land surveyors, ICC-certified building officials, fire marshals, plans examiners, building and public works inspectors, permit technicians, and other experts. Our vast experience working on various civil, engineering, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, solar, fire, and energy projects has provided WC3 with unparalleled knowledge of local codes and ordinances, State Codes, Federal Codes, and Standards.

Our combined experience, knowledge, and customer service are key to our performance. We are fully capable of meeting the plan check needs for your projects. Our prime strategies for serving your agency are as follows:

X Provide accurate and responsive plan review services to ensure compliance with applicable codes and standards.

X Provide the highest level of customer service and perform plan reviews that meet or beat standard turnaround times.

X Balance the need to ensure conformance to standards and regulations with the need for predictability, uniformity, and efficiency.

Improvement plan review work associated with the Willow Village Project will primarily be undertaken within WC3 ’s
local offices. However, we propose to work with West Yost as a third party sub-consultant to aid WC3 's team regarding
the scope of work associated with the review of water lines. While we are fully capable of providing assistance in this area, depending on the specific scope of work, we believe that their expertise could prove valuable in ensuring a comprehensive and effective review.

We thank you for your consideration and look forward to an opportunity of working together. We are confident in our ability to meet the needs of the City of Menlo Park and eager to deliver professional, thorough service with our diverse, experienced team. If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me, or our Civil Division Manager, Mr. Maurice Kaufman, PE, LS, at anytime.

Maurice Kaufman, PE, LS - Civil Division Manager
West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. | Oakland Regional Office 1144 65th Street | Oakland, CA 94608 | C: (925) 548-2648 | E: [email protected] Sincerely,
Donald Zhao, PE, MCP, CBO | Vice President, Regional Manager [email protected] | (650) 754-6353
417 Grand Ave., Suite 201 | South San Francisco, CA 94080 | P: (650) 754-6353 | www.WC-3.com Page G-3.7
Teaming with Your Community to Make a Difference | www.WC-3.com

Scope of Work
West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. (WC3) will provide Improvement Plan Review Services for the following Scope of Work as related to the following project(s):

Meta Platforms Menlo Park Willow Village Project - Signature Development Group and Peninsula Innovation Partners, on behalf of Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook) plan to redevelop an industrial, office, warehouse, and research and development site with a mixed-use master plan. The project includes an increase in height, density, and floor area ratio under the bonus level development allowance in exchange for community amenities. The project will demolish existing on-site buildings and landscaping and construct new buildings within three sub districts: A town square district; a residential/shopping district; and a campus district. Key project components include a 1.6M square feet of office and accessory uses in the campus district, including meeting/collaboration space. Up to 200K square feet of retail/non-office commercial uses, including a grocery store, pharmacy services, entertainment and restaurant uses. Up to 1,730 multi-family housing units, including 312 below market rate units of which 119 will be age-restricted senior housing units.

The project also includes a 193 room hotel with associated retail and dining with publicly accessible open space that includes a 3.5-acre park, 1.5-acre town square, a dog park and 2-acre elevated linear park. A publicly-accessible, below grade tunnel for Meta intercampus trams, bicyclists and pedestrians is tentatively planned to connect the project with the West and East campuses.

WC3
's civil engineering team has the knowledge and expertise to assist the City of Menlo Park with Improvement Plan Review Services, and as a general guideline, will follow the protocol and standards as outlined below:

Improvement Plan Review
> Review conceptual development/improvement plans, traffic studies, hydrology studies, sewer studies and tentative maps during the entitlement phase and develop Conditions of Approval (COAs). Attend monthly technical advisory group, planning commission, and/or city council meetings as requested. Once COAs have been completed, copies will be emailed to City staff or uploaded onto preferred systems of the City. > Review of improvement plans for conformance to approved tentative map, specific plans, and conditions of approval. Confirm that plans conform to City standard design criteria and infrastructure or other master plans.

Coordinate plan review with other City departments. Confirm that developer has obtained necessary permits or approvals from other public agencies as needed.
> Review engineering bond estimates and subdivision guarantees. Assist staff in preparing subdivision improvement agreements, other agreements, and staff reports. > Review hydrology/hydraulic reports, stormwater management reports, geotechnical reports, title reports, traffic impact reports, and other support documents for developments. > Assist the City's utility team with review of the water lines. > Review stormwater control plans and improvement plans for conformance to the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, including City green infrastructure and trash capture requirements. > Review developments to determine possible impacts from flooding and/ or encroachment into FEMA floodplains. Review Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMRs), Letters of Map Revision (LOMRs). Ensure designs meet requirements of the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and FEMA regulations. > Review subdivision maps, lot line adjustments, lot mergers, easement plats, legal descriptions, and documents. > Prepare staff reports and resolutions for City Council or Planning Commission approval as requested. Attend City Council or Planning Commission meetings as requested. > Attend meetings with staff, developers, consultants, or other agencies as needed. > Provide support as needed for permitting, construction, project closeout, and acceptance of improvements. 2 Page G-3.8
Teaming with Your Community to Make a Difference | www.WC-3.com

Rate and Service Structure
WC3 PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE OF

PUBLIC/PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT PLAN REVIEW
*Additional notes and details to follow below or on subsequent page(s).

HOURLY RATES*
Principal $247.00 / Hour
CASp Plans Examiner $237.00 / Hour
Project Manager $216.00 / Hour
Land Surveyor $206.00 / Hour
Traffic Engineer $206.00 / Hour
Structural Engineer $206.00 / Hour
Senior Civil Engineer $206.00 / Hour
Associate Civil Engineer $180.00 / Hour
Assistant Engineer and Plan Reviewer $155.00 / Hour
Public Works Inspector (Prevailing Wage - Daytime Hours) $184.00 / Hour Public Works Inspector (Prevailing Wage - Evening Hours) $201.00 / Hour Administrative Assistant / Permit Technician $90.00 / Hour MISCELLANEOUS RATES*
Courier / Delivery Expenses Included
Reimbursable Expenses At Cost + 10%
Mileage Expenses Staff Hourly Rate + IRS Standard Rate
SUB-CONSULTANT RATES**
West Yost Per West Yost Rate Schedule
Annual Hourly Rate Adjustment - WC3
’s proposed hourly rates are applicable through June 30, 2024. Hourly rates are * subject to an annual increase based on a minimum 3% cost-of-living, the Engineering News Record’s (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI), or the Consumer Price Index - Urban (CPI-U); whichever is greater.

Consulting Services and Meetings - Consulting services and meetings between plan review staff, applicants, and/or City staff will be billed on an hourly basis, subject to prior approval by the City. (Continued on the next page.)
3 Page G-3.9
Teaming with Your Community to Make a Difference | www.WC-3.com

Rate and Service Structure (Continued)
Preliminary, Revisions and Deferred Submittals- For building plan review services, any preliminary plan reviews, review of revisions after a project has been approved, review of shop drawings, and review of deferred submittals, etc., will be completed on an hourly basis with a minimum charge of 2-hours and a mutually acceptable notto-exceed amount.

Electronic Plan Review - Electronic plan review services will be performed for plan review services facilitated off-site at WC3 office locations. WC3 will automatically coordinate all processes.

Prevailing Wage Assignments - If, or when services are necessary, proposed hourly rates for Public Works Inspections are applicable to prevailing wage assignments. Proposed hourly rates for As-Needed Building Inspection Services are not applicable to prevailing wage assignments. Any prevailing wage assignment rates submitted to the jurisdiction will comply with State of California's Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) regulations.

Public Works Inspection Services - If, or when services are necessary, a four (4) hour minimum is required for all requested Public Works Inspections.

Overtime - Inspection services more than forty (40) hours a week, overtime work, holiday work, weekend work, etc. will be invoiced as follows:
• Overtime – One hundred fifty percent (150%) of regular rates. Overtime is defined as working more than forty (40) hours a week, more than eight (8) hours a day or more than six (6) consecutive days in a week
• Double Overtime – Two hundred percent (200%) of regular rates. Double overtime is defined as working more than twelve (12) hours a day or working more than eight (8) hours on the seventh consecutive day of work.
• Holidays and Weekends – Two hundred percent (200%) of regular rates.

Reimbursable Expenses - Reimbursable expenses (i.e., specialized equipment rental or printing costs) will be authorized prior to charge and billed at actual cost + 10% mark up.

Courier / Delivery Expenses - Should the need arise, WC3 will use our established shipping service to pick up
documents for courier/delivery to and from our WC3 office(s) at no additional cost.

Mileage Expenses - When applicable, reimbursements for mileage are for the use of personal automobiles within the City’s limits, typically Inspectors. Reimbursements for mileage are applicable to the staff hourly rate plus the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) standard mileage rate.

Invoicing Procedures - At the beginning of each month, WC3 will furnish the City an invoice and a statement of
work performed for compensation during the preceding month. ** Sub-Consultant Expenses - Invoices from sub-consultant will be marked-up as a Reimbursable Expense + 10%.

When invoicing for sub-consultant, WC3
will also invoice reasonable time for the WC3 Project Manager to coordinate sub-consultant and provide quality control between the various disciplines. WC3 will also invoice for
clerical time for processing sub-consultant invoices.
4 Page G-3.10
Teaming with Your Community to Make a Difference | www.WC-3.com

"'' WEST • YOST
Wo ler. En9ineered .

Rate and Service Structure (Continued)
2023 Billing Rate Schedule
(Effective January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023)*

POSITIONS

ENGINEERING

LABOR CHARGES
(DOLLARS PER HOUR)
Principal/Vice President $338
Engineer/Scientist/Geologist Manager I / II $319 / $334 Principal Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $288 / $307 Senior Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $259 / $272
Associate Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $215 / $231 Engineer/Scientist/Geologist I / II $173 / $201
Engineering Aide $101
Field Monitoring Services $125
Administrative I / II / III / IV $92 / $115 / $138 / $152

ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
Engineering Tech Manager I / II $332 / $334
Principal Tech Specialist I / II $305 / $315
Senior Tech Specialist I / II $279 / $291
Senior GIS Analyst $252
GIS Analyst $239
Technical Specialist I / II / III / IV $178 / $203 / $228 / $254 Technical Analyst I / II $128 / $152
Technical Analyst Intern $103
Cross-Connection Control Specialist I / II / III / IV $133 / $144 / $162 / $180 CAD Manager $201
CAD Designer I / II $156 / $176

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
Senior Construction Manager $322
Construction Manager I / II / III / IV $197 / $211 / $224 / $283 Resident Inspector (Prevailing Wage Groups 4 / 3 / 2 / 1) $172 / $191 / $213 / $221 Apprentice Inspector $156
CM Administrative I / II $83 / $112
Field Services $221
■ Hourly rates include Technology and Communication charges such as general and CAD computer, software, telephone, routine in-house copies/prints, postage, miscellaneous supplies, and other incidental project expenses. ■ Outside Services such as vendor reproductions, prints, shipping, and major West Yost reproduction efforts, as well as Engineering Supplies, etc. will be billed at actual cost plus 15%. ■ The Federal Mileage Rate will be used for mileage charges and will be based on the Federal Mileage Rate applicable to when the mileage costs were incurred. Travel other than mileage will be billed at cost. ■ Subconsultants will be billed at actual cost plus 10%. ■ Expert witness, research, technical review, analysis, preparation and meetings billed at 150% of standard hourly rates. Expert witness testimony and depositions billed at 200% of standard hourly rates. ■ A Finance Charge of 1.5% per month (an Annual Rate of 18%) on the unpaid balance will be added to invoice amounts if not paid within 45 days from the date of the invoice. * This schedule is updated annually Page 1 of 2
5 Page G-3.11
Teaming with Your Community to Make a Difference | www.WC-3.com 9fl/
WEST . YOST
Water. Engineered .

Rate and Service Structure (Continued)
2023 Billing Rate Schedule
(Effective January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023)*
Equipment Charges

EQUIPMENT BILLING RATES
2" Purge Pump & Control Box $300 / day
Aquacalc / Pygmy or AA Flow Meter $28 / day
Emergency SCADA System $35 / day
Field Vehicles (Groundwater) $1 / mile
Gas Detector $80 / day
Generator $60 / day
Hydrant Pressure Gauge $10 / day
Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Impulse (Transient) $55 / day Hydrant Pressure Recorder, Standard $40 / day
Low Flow Pump Back Pack $135 / day
Low Flow Pump Controller $200 / day
Powers Water Level Meter $32 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 300ft $30 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 500ft $40 / day
Precision Water Level Meter 700ft $45 / day
QED Sample Pro Bladder Pump $65 / day
Stainless Steel Wire per foot $0 / day
Storage Tank $20 / day
Sump Pump $24 / day
Transducer Components (per installation) $23 / day
Trimble GPS – Geo 7x $220 / day
Tube Length Counter $22 / day
Turbidity Meter $30 / day
Vehicle (Construction Management) $10 / hour
Water Flow Probe Meter $20 / day
Water Quality Meter $50 / day
Water Quality Multimeter $185 / day
Well Sounder $30 / day
* This schedule is updated annually Page 2 of 2
6 Page G-3.12

,.

MENLO PARK
AGENDA ITEM G-4
Community Development

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 8/29/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-191-CC
Consent Calendar: Authorize the Mayor to sign the City’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report:
“Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s
Panacea of Prevarication?”
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the City’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report: “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?” and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter (Attachment A).

Policy Issues
There are no immediate policy implications as a result of the City responding to the grand jury report regarding accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The City is committed to implementing its Housing Element policies and programs.

Background
Empowered by the state judicial system, the San Mateo County Grand Jury is a fact-finding body that makes specific recommendations on a wide range of topics to help improve local government operations.

On June 12, the 2022-23 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued a report titled “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?” (Attachment B). The City of Menlo Park, like all 20 jurisdictions in the County and the County of San Mateo, itself, is required to submit responses to the findings and recommendations included in the report pertaining to the matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The City Council’s response to the report is due no later than 90 days from the date the report is issued or Sept. 11. The governing body of each jurisdiction must approve the response at a public meeting.

Analysis
Each jurisdiction in San Mateo County and the County of San Mateo are required to adopt a Housing Element, which creates the foundation for policies and programs related to housing and demonstrates how a jurisdiction plans to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City Council adopted Menlo Park’s Housing Element for the 2023-2031 planning period on Jan. 31. The Housing Element includes programs to help produce and incentivize housing at all income areas, with an emphasis on affordable housing and opportunities primarily focused in high resource areas.

The 2022-23 San Mateo Grand Jury Report questions whether some San Mateo County communities are misusing ADUs to avoid the construction of multifamily low-income housing over the next eight years. The City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov Page G-4.1

Staff Report #: 23-191-CC
report includes seven findings and six recommendations related to ADUs. The City’s responses to the findings and recommendations are included in Attachment A. In the City of Menlo Park, the use of ADUs is one source of affordable housing, but represents less than 5% of the City’s proposed affordable units in the Housing Element during the 2023-2031 planning period.

The City is committed to implementing its Housing Element policies and programs, including supporting the production of ADUs and collaborating with 21 Elements to seek ways to monitor the affordability of units and streamline the ADU process. The 21 Elements effort allows the 20 jurisdictions plus the County to partner on a regular basis to collectively address the region’s housing needs through shared learning, collaboration and coordinated action. Housing remains a top priority of the City Council, and staff will continue to collaborate with 21 Elements on housing topics.

Impact on City Resources
Approving and submitting a response to the Civil Grand Jury has no direct impact on City resources.

Implementation of future Housing Element programs would require additional staffing and/or consulting services and may require future City Council review and action.

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. City of Menlo Park response letter to San Mateo Civil Grand Jury Report B. San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report: “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?”
Report prepared by:

Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.gov Page G-4.2

,.

MENLO PARK

ATTACHMENT A
City Council
August 29, 2023
The Honorable Nancy L. Fineman
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Bianca Fasuescu
Hall of Justice
400 County Center, 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
RE: Civil Grand Jury Report: “Accessory Dwelling Units: Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?”
Dear Honorable Judge Fineman:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond on the above-referenced Grand Jury Report filed on June 12, 2023. The City Council of the City of Menlo Park (City) voted at its public meeting on August 29, 2023 to authorize this response to the findings and recommendations of the report.

Response to Grand Jury Findings
F1. Due to recent changes in California ADU-related laws, local governments cannot condition ADU permits in San Mateo County on complying with affordability monitoring and verification.

City Response: The City agrees with finding F1.

F2. San Mateo County and most of its municipalities rely on ADUs to meet their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

City Response: The City of Menlo Park disagrees with finding F2. The use of ADUs is one way to help meet a jurisdiction’s affordable housing requirements. The City of Menlo Park’s Housing Element for the 6th cycle (2023-2031) meets its RHNA requirement plus a 30% buffer through different strategies to provide a variety of housing types at all income levels, primarily focused in high resources areas of the City. The use of ADUs is just one strategy for meeting the City’s RHNA. The Housing Element identifies 85 ADUs, including 51 affordable to lower income households, and accounts for less than three percent of the overall number of units and less than five percent of affordable units to lower income households. If no ADUs are built during this planning period, the City could still meets its required housing allocation.

Page G-4.3

F3. Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside rely on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

City Response: The City of Menlo Park is not the subject of finding F3 and therefore cannot respond to this finding.

F4. HCD has instructed San Mateo County jurisdictions to monitor and verify future ADU production and affordability every two years but has yet to specify how to verify whether very low-, low- or moderate-income households occupying the ADUs as planned.

City Response: The City of Menlo Park disagrees partially with finding F4. As part of the City’s Annual Progress Report on housing submitted to HCD, the City documents all housing production, including ADUs, and their affordability level, for the prior calendar year. The City does not believe HCD has instructed the City to monitor and verify future ADU production and affordability every two years. However, the City of Menlo Park is exploring a regional ADU monitoring effort through ABAG or 21 Elements, a long-standing collaboration amongst the County of San Mateo and the 20 jurisdictions in the County. The City does not except HCD to specify how to verify income levels of ADU occupants.

F5. Other than Brisbane and Redwood City, San Mateo County and its jurisdiction have yet to articulate how they will monitor and verify ADU production or affordability.

City Response: The City of Menlo Park disagrees partially with finding F5. The City of Menlo Park monitors annual ADU production through building permit data and assesses affordability generally using the recommended distribution of 30/30/30/10 (30% very low income/30% low income/30 % moderate income/10% above moderate income) based on a UC Berkeley study. The City cannot respond to this finding for San Mateo County and its other jurisdictions.

San Mateo County jurisdictions met on June 20, 2023 to discuss potential strategies for monitoring ADU affordability levels. The City of Menlo Park is committed to providing reasonable ADU monitoring and reporting, and is exploring a regional ADU monitoring effort through ABAG or 21 Elements. This monitoring effort is expected to begin no later than January 2025.

F6. Without effective ADU monitoring and verification, it will be impossible to evaluate whether the jurisdictions are meeting their RHNA-6 obligations for low-, very low, and moderateincome housing units.

City Response: The City of Menlo Park disagrees partially with finding F6. As noted in response to finding F2, the City of Menlo Park does not rely solely on ADUs to meet the City’s RHNA obligation for lower income households, and theoretically could still fully meet its RHNA obligation in the absence of any ADU production during the planning period. The City of Menlo Park agrees that effective monitoring and verification can help evaluate compliance in meeting a jurisdiction’s RHNA.

F7. ADU affordability and occupancy could be monitored by agencies such as HIP Housing which has proven systems and processes to verify occupancy of deed-restricted rental properties in San Mateo County.

City Response: The City of Menlo Park disagrees partially with finding F7. The City of Menlo Park does not have direct experience with HIP Housing providing ADU affordability and occupancy monitoring and therefore, cannot respond to the finding in F7. Theoretically, ADU Page G-4.4

affordability and occupancy could be monitored by an outside agency, but this has not been verified by the City.

Response to Grand Jury Recommendations
R1. San Mateo County and each City should immediately stop using ADUs to meet their Statemandated very low-, low- and moderate-income housing targets in their Housing Element submissions until they have also proposed an effective monitoring system that verifies how newly developed ADUs will be used.

City Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The City of Menlo Park’s Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on January 31, 2023 and developed through a multi-year process. It is unreasonable to revise the City’s adopted Housing Element to eliminate the use of ADUs to meet the City’s affordable housing goals. Per HCD’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook (updated July 2022), ADUs and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) may be utilized towards meeting a jurisdiction’s RHNA and included in the Annual Progress Report (APR). As mentioned in response to finding F2, however, the City of Menlo Park could still meet its RHNA without ADU production. The City of Menlo Park is committed to following state housing law and to providing a variety of housing types for all income levels in the City.

R2. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop, adopt, and implement a verification system capable of monitoring and verifying how newly developed ADUs are being used.

City Response: The recommendation will not be fully implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. The City will continue to explore with 21 Elements on its or ABAG’s ADU monitoring program. The monitoring program is projected to launch in January 2025 and will likely survey applicants about their ADU plans at the time building permits are issued. Due to homeowner privacy concerns and the cost of engaging with potentially thousands of applicants every year, it would not be practical to have an ongoing system that verifies the income of every ADU resident in the County.

R3. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt incentives for ADU owners which could be offered in exchange for deed restrictions that would include requirements for ADU tenants to participate in independent monitoring.

City Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but may be implemented in the future. The City of Menlo Park’s Housing Element contains programs to support the production and affordability of ADUs. Program H3.I of the City’s Housing Element directs the City to evaluate and adopt incentives to encourage accessible ADUs and rent restricted units. The timeline to implement the program is within two years of Housing Element adoption.

The City is also involved with 21 Elements, who is evaluating on behalf of the jurisdictions in San Mateo County the creation of an ADU nonprofit to serve San Mateo County jurisdictions.

The draft work plan for the nonprofit includes programs to incentivize the production of affordable ADUs and support homeowners in constructing ADUs in exchange for agreement to rent at affordable levels. The nonprofit is projected to launch in July 2024 and would be financially supported by San Mateo County jurisdictions and private philanthropy, if possible.

Page G-4.5

R4. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should track the intended use of ADUs – rented or non-rented – during the permitting process and offer incentives in exchange for deed restrictions that require ADUs to be used as rentals.

City Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but may be implemented in the future. As part of Program H4.F of the Housing Element, the City is planning to request information on projected ADU rents as part of the development application by the end of 2024. As part of Program H3.I, the City will be exploring potential incentives for ADUs in exchange for renting the units at affordable levels within two years of Housing Element adoption.

R5. By April 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt a new ADU affordability distribution formula specific to each jurisdiction to the extent they are used for meeting the very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing requirements in their RHNA housing elements.

City Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. The City of Menlo Park’s ADU affordability distribution is based on a UC Berkeley study, which surveyed thousands of homeowners statewide. The collected data was aggregated to reduce the margin of error, which could be large if only surveying a small sample size. There is also no evidence in the data to suggest significant variation from city to city. The recommendation for an affordability distribution of 30/30/30/10 (30% very low income/30% low income/30 % moderate income/10% above moderate income) has a significant cushion built in to minimize underproduction of housing. HCD did not question the City’s use of this methodology for determining the affordability levels of the anticipated ADU production to meet the City’s RHNA for the planning period. Since ADUs are a relative small portion of the City’s total units for meeting its RHNA, the development of a new distribution formula is not warranted or reasonable to implement. As more data becomes available for ADUs in San Mateo County through work with ABAG or 21 Elements, the distribution formula could be modified for future use.

R6. San Mateo County and each jurisdiction should consider working together to address Recommendations 2 and 3.

City Response: This recommendation has been implemented. San Mateo County jurisdictions work collaboratively through 21 Elements to develop, adopt, and implement a range of policies and programs in the County. The City of Menlo Park has partnered with 21 Elements on number of items and will continue to work with 21 Elements to explore collaborative efforts to address issues raised in the Grand Jury’s Recommendations 2 and 3.

If you have further questions, please contact Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director, at [email protected] or 650-330-6733.

Sincerely,
Jen Wolosin
Mayor
Page G-4.6
Attached ADU (internal)
Attached ADU (via addition)
Detached ADU
Image credit: City of Saini Paul, MN

ATTACHMENT B
Accessory Dwelling Units:

Affordable Housing’s Panacea or Prevarication?
Release Date: June 12, 2023
2022-2023 San Mateo County Grand Jury
Page G-4.7

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” Winston Churchill
“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.” Martin Luther King, Jr. 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 1
Page G-4.8

Issue | Summary | Background | Discussion | Findings |
Recommendations | Requests for Responses | Methodology | Glossary | Bibliography | Appendices ISSUE
Are some San Mateo County communities misusing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to avoid the construction of multifamily low-income housing over the next eight years?

SUMMARY
Anointed the “epicenter of America’s housing dysfunction” by Harvard Business Review this year, the San Francisco Bay Area has faced an acute housing shortage at all levels for decades, especially for those who have the least.

And it is no longer news that many of the workers that San Mateo County communities depend upon daily – first responders, teachers, nurses, city employees, gardeners, and housekeepers, to name just a few – cannot afford a decent place to live and raise their families close to their jobs.

To address the issue, the State Legislature in 1969 passed the Housing Element Law, which says all California cities, towns, and counties, every eight years, must plan for the housing needs of all their residents regardless of income, which effectively requires development of affordable housing. Many changes and additions have been made to the law over the years, most recently eliminating zoning restrictions governing ADUs – small homes or apartments that share a single-family lot of a larger primary residence – and allowing communities to count them as affordable housing in their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) plans.

At issue:
● Although their intentions have been good, the State has neglected to include any form of regulation to ensure low-income tenants ultimately use these ADUs as planned. ● Because owners often rent their ADUs to family and friends, they can exacerbate patterns of segregation and exclusion.1
● And perhaps most importantly – counting ADUs as affordable housing will likely result in cities issuing permits for fewer deed-restricted low-, very low-, and moderate-income apartments and homes.

Without accountability through oversight and regulations, low-, very low-, and moderate-income housing now planned in some San Mateo County jurisdictions may end up existing solely on paper and never in operation.
1 Association of Bay Area Governments, “Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan, San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031”, accessed May 27, 2023, https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 12/Final_RHNA_Allocation_Report_2023-2031-approved_0.pdf 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2
Page G-4.9

This problem is most acute in Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside, where some residents are up in arms over the State-mandated housing requirements, and the city governments, trying to appease them, are proposing counting on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing targets.

Assembly Bill 72 (2017) gives the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) enforcement capability on local government’s land use, planning, and zoning requirements. In the current RHNA-6 (2023-2031) planning cycle, HCD demands that San Mateo County jurisdictions monitor and verify ADU affordability every two years. However, HCD has not specified how to prove the ADUs are rented to very low-, low- or moderate-income households, leaving it to the communities to find a solution.

So far, jurisdictions have yet to do so, even though local independent agencies such as HIP Housing have systems and services in place, which they use to verify affordability of deed-restricted affordable housing, and that could be adapted Countywide to monitor and verify ADUs’ affordability and occupancy in a manner that adheres to fair housing guidelines.

California needs to build 2.5 million homes by 2030 to meet current housing demands, according to the HCD. But the State averages only about 125,000 new homes annually – a shortfall by nearly two-thirds.

ADUs can, indeed, provide affordable housing. And to many citizens of affluent communities, they are an appealing alternative to multi-family, deed-restricted affordable housing projects. However, just because the law makes it possible to count ADUs as affordable housing, it does not exempt cities and towns from credibly planning for badly needed affordable housing.

BACKGROUND
One of the State’s long-standing priorities has been to increase the availability of affordable housing for all economic segments.

HCD – the California Department of Housing and Community Development – focuses on making this happen by working with local jurisdictions to create rental and homeownership opportunities for all Californians, including individuals and families who are experiencing homelessness.

Beginning in 1969, the State mandated that all California cities, towns, and counties must plan for the housing needs of all Californians, regardless of income. They meet this mandate by developing and updating a Housing Element, part of a local jurisdiction’s General Plan, which shows where they will allow new housing and describes the policies and strategies necessary to support building new housing.

The process of updating the Housing Element involves HCD working with various Councils of Governments (COG) to develop a RHNA plan that includes the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), which assigns the number of housing units that each county and city are expected to facilitate being built in the subsequent eight years to accommodate projected growth.

In the case of the Bay Area, this Council of Governments is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which represents all nine Bay Area counties, including San Mateo County and its 20 cities and towns. Components that ABAG considers in determining each Bay Area county’s and city’s allocation of housing units include population, employment potential, proximity to transportation centers, open space, 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3
Page G-4.10

inclusivity, and diversification, all of which are becoming increasingly important to the State, according to ABAG reports.

Multiple bills in both houses of the State Legislature have been proposed over the years to change the process and increase the amount of State control over housing development. Particularly significant changes occurred during the 2017 legislative session when senators and assembly members proposed approximately 150 housing bills. That year the Governor ultimately signed a package of 15 bills related to funding for housing, streamlining development approvals, and increasing accountability for meeting the requirements of the Housing Element Law. These included bills that significantly changed the RHNA process, requiring additional outreach and reporting, modifying how to calculate the RHND to reflect unmet housing needs better, increasing the number of topics to be considered in the allocation methodology, and giving HCD, on behalf of the State, the ability to sue individual counties or cities for not meeting requirements.

Updating the Housing Element every eight years is an iterative process involving HCD, the regional COGs, the State Department of Finance (DOF), and local jurisdictions. (See Appendix D.) But the ultimate authority for approval of the RHNA, the RHND, and the associated Housing Elements resides with HCD.

The current approved RHNA plan developed by ABAG is known as RHNA-6, which spans 2023 to 2031.

HCD requires each jurisdiction to submit its completed Housing Element for review and approval by a specific date. For RHNA-6, the due date for San Mateo County and its cities was January 31, 2023.

Before the due date, the jurisdictions were able to send their draft Housing Elements to HCD for preliminary review and comments and make necessary modifications that HCD highlights. Any jurisdiction which fails to meet the deadline for submission of their completed Housing Element is subject to a potential “builders remedy” action that forces a city to allow building projects regardless of whether they meet most of the local zoning restrictions.

Once Housing Elements are approved, HCD monitors the progress of approved RHNA plans by requiring each jurisdiction to report its building permit activities annually. If progress is below expectations, the jurisdiction must develop alternative strategies for review and approval by HCD.

During the RHNA-5 (2015-2023) progress reviews submissions, cities began including ADUs as part of the overall housing inventory in their annual reports because State legislation (Government Code section 65852.150) that became effective in January 2017 stated that ADUs are a valuable form of housing in California, which also "provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods." Numerous Senate and Assembly bills were enacted in 2018 and 2020, requiring local jurisdictions to streamline and allow for ease of ADU production to increase housing for all income categories. With these encouragements, ADUs being deemed a viable housing option, and facing stringent RHNA-6 requirements of approximately three times more housing units than in the RHNA-5 cycle, a few affluent San Mateo cities have proposed using ADUs to satisfy most of their plans to meet the required number of housing units in the various income categories.
“ADUs are not a panacea, but they’re a good tool in the toolbox,” said a planning consultant working for a San Mateo County city. “Most land on The Peninsula is single-family homes. ADUs are opening land that was not open before. But higher density housing near transit is better.” 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4
Page G-4.11
Affordable Housing Targets vs Permits
2000 ---------------------------------------------
UIOO 1------------------------------------------<--------- 1600 l----------------------------------1----------,--------- ■ RHNA-5 ■ Permits
1400 l----------------------------------1----------,--------- uoo l----------------------------------1----------,--------- 1000 l----------------------------------1----------,--- ------- ,OO f----------------------------------1----------,--- ------- 600 1------------
400 I-------~-----
Added a city manager: “I think they (ADUs) are a piece of the solution, but not all of it. I think ADUs are an important way to provide opportunities for other things – where people want multigenerational living onsite, for caretakers, or other folks – they can reside in an ADU even if they’re not paying rent.”

DISCUSSION
While HCD-approved RHNA Housing Elements do not require the cities and counties to build affordable housing, the jurisdictions must adjust zoning ordinances, issue permits to allow construction of affordable housing, and initiate programs that incentivize such construction.

However, as shown in Chart 1 below, significant portions of San Mateo County's affordable housing in RHNA-5 (2015-2023) plans did not materialize – most likely due to a lack of permit applications.

With RHNA-5’s significantly lower targets, the less-than-expected performance during the RHNA-5 cycle foreshadows the enormous challenge the County’s cities and towns now face in meeting the RHNA-6 goals for the next eight years, which are approximately three times larger, as shown in Chart 2 below.

Chart 1: RHNA-5 Affordable Housing Required vs. Permitted 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5
Page G-4.12

Housing RHNA-5 vs RHNA-6
4500
4000
RHNA-5 RHNA-6
3500
3000
2500
2000
Chart 2: RHNA-5 Affordable Housing Allocations vs RHNA-6 Besides increasing affordable housing targets by nearly 300 percent, the State has made other significant changes in the ADU laws to address the current housing crunch.

Law Year Impact
AB671 2019 Through Housing Elements, HCD to promote ADUs for affordable rent AB670 2019 Any local covenants and restrictions on new housing are void AB587 2019 Deed-restricted sale of ADU is allowed separately from the main house AB 68 2019 Removes local restrictions on minimum size, requirement of owner occupancy, parking requirements for garage conversion, and any impact fee.

AB 3182 2020 Permitting process within 60 days
SB9 2021 Facilitates lot split and allows more than1 ADU per property AB 345 2021 Allows owners to sell ADUs separately
AB 2221 2023 Pre-specific time permit frame for approval of ADU applications SB 897 2023 Increases the ADU height limit to 18’ and allows retro permitting of previous unauthorized ADUs.

The net effect of these changes was to minimize municipal-level regulations on ADUs – such as parking requirements, property line setbacks, height limits, or the number of ADUs on one property – and make 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6
Page G-4.13

ADUs an acceptable means to meet affordable housing obligations. Given these changes, namely high mandatory targets for affordable housing, enthusiastic support by the State of ADUs as affordable housing, and requiring zero land use rezoning for ADUs, nearly all San Mateo County cities and towns include ADUs in their RHNA-6 Housing Elements.

The issue, however, is that for every ADU included in a Housing Element – regardless of whether the ADU is built and rented to very low-, low-, or moderate-income tenants – one verifiable, deed-restricted affordable housing unit will not be built in that jurisdiction by a developer.

So, How Did We Get Here?
California cities and counties can now use ADUs to help satisfy their RHNA requirements. But calculating how many ADUs to put into a Housing Element and how to distribute them into each income category, differ from other housing options.

ABAG instructs San Mateo County jurisdictions that the standard method is first to estimate the number of ADUs that homeowners will build in a planning period, which is 2023 through 2031 for RHNA-6.

In its technical memo “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA,” ABAG advises members that the estimate should be based on the average number of ADU building permits issued each year, multiplied by eight, because there are eight years in a housing element cycle.
“Most cities base their determination of annual ADU permits by averaging the building permits approved each year since 2019 when State law made it easier to construct the units,” the technical memo explains:
“There is a small amount of flexibility in the calculations,” the memo continues. “If numbers were low in 2019 but were high in 2020, 2021, and 2022, a jurisdiction could potentially use 2020-2022 as the baseline. This rationale would be bolstered if there was a logical explanation for the change, e.g., the jurisdiction further loosened regulations in 2020. Projecting a higher number of ADUs than what has been demonstrated through permit approvals in recent years may be possible, but more challenging. A slightly larger number may be warranted if a robust, funded, and clear plan to increase production has been put in place. However, you are strongly encouraged to coordinate with HCD before deviating from the standard methodology.”
Once cities complete their estimate, they must distribute those units into each income category.

To help its members, ABAG analyzed ADU affordability. Using data from a 2020 statewide survey of homeowners who had constructed ADUs in 2018 or 2019, ABAG concluded that the assumptions in the chart below are generally applicable in most jurisdictions. Many Bay Area jurisdictions chose to use these numbers instead of conducting their own affordability analysis.

Percent Income Category
30% Very Low Income
30% Low Income
30% Moderate Income
10% Above Moderate
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7
Page G-4.14

“UC Berkeley Terner Center did a statewide survey of ADU affordability, and they worked with ABAG to adjust it for the Bay Area specifically,” said a San Mateo County planner. “So those (numbers) are based on surveys and data analysis of actual ADUs that have been produced, and the rents that are being offered to tenants. We are just accepting their analysis as is.” San Mateo County jurisdictions have almost unanimously adopted ABAG’s 30-30-30-10 formula.

However, a 2021 report and recommendations for RHNA-6 prepared by ABAG’s Housing Technical Assistance Team, titled “DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units,” says that although ADUs are often affordable, jurisdictions should be cautious about relying on them too heavily because of fair housing concerns:
“Many ADUs are affordable to lower and moderate-income households because they are rented to family and friends of the homeowners,” the report states. “If minorities are underrepresented among homeowners, the families and potentially friends of the homeowners will be primarily white. Therefore, relying too heavily on ADUs could inadvertently exacerbate patterns of segregation and exclusion.” The report also acknowledges that ADUs often do not serve large families, another critical fair housing concern.

And while ADUs accomplish an essential fair housing goal by adding new homes in parts of the municipality that are more likely to be areas of opportunity, the report recommends that jurisdictions with fair housing concerns "may want to use more conservative assumptions based on open market rentals, excluding units made available to family and friends," as summarized below:

Percent Income Category
5% Very Low Income
30% Low Income
50% Moderate Income
15% Above Moderate
So far, 16 San Mateo County cities have chosen the 30-30-30-10 formula, implying there are no fair housing concerns in their jurisdictions.

Only two cities – San Carlos and San Mateo – use ABAG’s more conservative formula of 5-30-50-15 in their plans. One city – Belmont – used its own judgment.2 And one – Colma – does not use ADUs in their plans at all to meet State requirements.

But in all cases, these statistical estimates may not reflect the actual usage of constructed ADUs.

Determining that would require actual verification by each local jurisdiction. 2 City of Belmont, “General Housing Element Draft 2023-2031”, p. 25, accessed May 27, 2023, https://www.belmont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/21721/637968613354630000 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8
Page G-4.15

ADUs planned in RHNA-6
(May 11, 2023)
City Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total ADUs Total
RHNA-6
Requirement
Atherton 56 56 56 112 280 348
Belmont 0 0 80 0 80 1785
Brisbane 12 12 12 4 40 1588
Burlingame 50 50 50 17 167 3257
Colma - - - - 0 202
Daly City 151 151 151 50 503 4838
East Palo Alto 35 34 34 12 115 829
Foster City 7 7 7 3 24 1896
Hillsborough 84 84 84 28 280 554
Menlo Park 26 25 26 8 85 2946
Millbrae 34 34 33 11 112 2199
Pacifica 56 56 56 19 187 1892
Portola Valley 28 28 28 8 92 253
Redwood City 152 152 152 50 506 4588
San Bruno 72 72 72 24 240 3165
San Carlos 10 61 102 30 203 2735
San Mateo 22 132 220 66 440 7015
South San
Francisco
113 113 113 38 377 3956
Unincorporated
San Mateo
107 107 107 36 357 2833
Woodside 36 36 36 12 120 328
(This table includes all San Mateo County jurisdictions that have submitted Housing Element plans to HCD for review. As of June 1, 2023, Half Moon Bay and Daly City have not submitted RHNA-6 plans for HCD review.) Accordingly, if HCD approves cities and towns' current Housing Elements, San Mateo County may end up with many affordable housing units that exist only on paper because they are counted as affordable units by the State but never made available or occupied by people who need affordable housing:
“BMR (below market rate) unit displacement is a legitimate issue,” said a city planning consultant. “RHNA looks at (the number of) units, not the number of people being housed. For the State, they’re all counted the same – an ADU or three-bedroom apartment, five vs. one or two people. In the eyes of the State, they’re all the same.”
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9
Page G-4.16

I ■ I - ■ I I I I I I I I
Finally, the cities and towns relying primarily on ADUs to meet their RHNA-6 housing targets do not meet the overall objectives required by HCD and RHNA of:
● Increasing the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability ● Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, protecting environmental and agricultural resources, and encouraging efficient development patterns ● Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing ● Balancing disproportionate household income distributions ● Affirmatively furthering fair housing
Housing and Community Development Pushes Back
Four San Mateo County municipalities – Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside – rely heavily on ADUs to meet low-income housing requirements in their RHNA-6 Housing Elements.

May 17, 2023
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ADUs as Percent of RHNA6 Affordable Housing
While HCD does not single out those four cities for their heavy reliance on ADUs to meet their affordable housing needs, throughout the process of submission and review of draft RHNA-6 plans, HCD consistently instructed San Mateo County cities and towns that they must monitor and verify ADU production and affordability at least every two years but has not specified an acceptable process for verifying the affordability level of ADUs as planned.

Should San Mateo County and its cities seek outside help on this issue, there are a handful of independent non-profit agencies and for-profit real estate management companies operating today in the Bay Area that have established systems and processes for monitoring and verifying rented occupied housing for continued affordability and adherence to fair housing guidelines while maintaining tenant and owner privacy – which was an issue continually raised by City Managers and other officials during Grand Jury interviews.
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10
Page G-4.17

ADU Affordability Monitoring Emphasized in HCD Review Letters to Jurisdictions Atherton (4-4-23)
Program 3.812 (New Construction of Affordable Accessory Dwelling Units): While the element was revised to include timing of each action, it is unclear how affordability will be established. The program should be revised to clarify actions to establish and track affordability.

East Palo Alto (4-25-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): As noted in the prior review, the element should include a program that commits to frequent monitoring (every other year) for production and affordability, and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) as needed.

Foster City (4-24-23)
Program H-D-4-h (ADU Monitoring): While the program commits to evaluating alternative actions by the end of 2026, it must commit to specific alternative actions and monitor production and affordability of ADUs more than once in the planning period (e.g., every two years).

Hillsborough (1-10-23
This analysis should specifically address whether the ADU strategy to accommodate lower-income households contributes to continued exclusion and disparities in access to opportunity and how the strategy promotes housing choice for a variety of households including lower-income households, and large families.

To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, the element should reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year and reconcile trends with HCD records, including additional information such as more recent permitted units and inquiries, resources and incentives, other relevant factors, and modify policies and programs as appropriate. Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year), and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if ADU production assumptions are not being achieved.

Millbrae (1-24-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) of production and affordability and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if needed.

Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production and affordability throughout the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers within a specified time period (e.g., within six months).

Redwood City (7-8-22)
Programs must be expanded to include incentives to promote the creation and affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Examples include exploring and pursuing funding, modifying development standards and reducing fees beyond State law, increasing awareness, pre-approved plans and homeowner/applicant assistance tools. In addition, given the city’s assumptions for ADUs, the element should include a program to monitor permitted ADUs and affordability every other year and take appropriate action such as adjusting assumptions or rezoning within a specified time period (e.g., 6 months).

San Bruno (3-29-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While the element revised the ADU assumptions, Program 4-P must be revised to commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if needed. The element must also address affordability assumptions for ADU projections.

San Mateo (3-27-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): Program 1.4 must commit to also monitoring affordability of the ADU units that are permitted as well as provide additional incentives or identify additional sites if production and affordability assumptions are not met.

County of San Mateo (4-20-23)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring for production and affordability (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if needed. The element must also address affordability assumptions for ADU projections, by clarifying what ABAG assumptions are utilized.

South San Francisco (3-30-23)
The element should include a commitment to reconcile trends with reported units within the Cities submitted annual progress report. Further, as Stated in the previous review, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., six months) if number and affordability assumptions are not met.

Woodside (10-14-22)
Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production and affordability throughout the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers within a specified time period (e.g., within six months).

2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11
Page G-4.18

In their HCD approved housing plans, Brisbane and Redwood City aren’t definitive about how they will monitor ADU affordability but imply they will use surveys to comply with HCD instructions.

Redwood City plans to collect ADU rental data during its permitting process. And Brisbane says, if available, it will participate in a regional forgivable ADU construction loan program in exchange for limiting rentals of the ADUs to extremely low-income households for 15 years. Brisbane said it is also exploring a possible city forgivable loan program if the regional program doesn’t materialize. “We can’t force people to report to us or to be honest with us,” said one jurisdiction’s planner.

Another city’s chief planner concluded that a deed restriction – any limitation on a property that affects the ability of the property owner to utilize the property as they wish, such as a requirement to verify a tenant’s income and rent charged – “is the best way to (enforce) affordability.” Alternatively, one city planning official suggested the formation of a Countywide nonprofit to income-qualify and match renters to available ADUs, thereby monitoring and enforcing affordability because the smaller towns and cities don't have the resources to perform that function on their own.

Finally, a fourth city planner offered an alternative view: “We’re not a city hiding behind ADUs. ABAG gave us a formula. We plopped it in. If the State said you can’t count ADUs at all, that would be fine.” A Long, Long Way to Go
The Superior Court of California requires all San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury investigation reports to be completed and published by June 30 annually.

And although the law required San Mateo County cities and towns to submit their housing plans by January 31, 2023, as of June 1, Daly City has yet to adopt and submit a draft plan to HCD for review and approval.

Meanwhile, plans from Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae and Pacifica are now under HCD review.

So far, HCD has reviewed and rejected plans from 14 jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, Colma, East Palo Alto, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Woodside, and San Mateo County, which is responsible for unincorporated areas.

As of the publication of this report, only Redwood City and Brisbane had completed the process and received the green light from HCD to proceed.

One reason cited for the delay is most San Mateo County cities and towns don’t have a large enough staff to manage the workload that RHNA planning represents, so they outsource. And many could not find timely help because the consultants were busy preparing RHNA-6 plans for Southern California cities, which were due before San Mateo County municipalities. That caused many communities here to fall behind and are now out of compliance with the timing of their Housing Element submissions.

These delays, coupled with citizen objections to multifamily housing in their communities, almost guarantee RHNA-6 disputes will end up in the courts and remain unresolved for many years to come and postpone the building of sorely needed affordable housing indefinitely. 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12
Page G-4.19

FINDINGS
F1. Due to recent changes in California ADU-related laws, local governments cannot condition ADU permits in San Mateo County on complying with affordability monitoring and verification.

F2. San Mateo County and most of its municipalities rely on ADUs to meet their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

F3. Atherton, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside rely on ADUs to meet as much as 80 percent of their affordable housing commitments in their RHNA-6 plans.

F4. HCD has instructed San Mateo County jurisdictions to monitor and verify future ADU production and affordability every two years but has yet to specify how to verify whether very low-, low- or moderate-income households are occupying the ADUs as planned.

F5. Other than Brisbane and Redwood City, San Mateo County and its jurisdictions have yet to articulate how they will monitor and verify ADU production or affordability.

F6. Without effective ADU monitoring and verification, it will be impossible to evaluate whether the jurisdictions are meeting their RHNA-6 obligations for low-, very-low, and moderate-income housing units.

F7. ADU affordability and occupancy could be monitored by agencies such as HIP Housing which has proven systems and processes to verify occupancy of deed-restricted rental properties in San Mateo County.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. San Mateo County and each City should immediately stop using ADUs to meet their Statemandated very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing targets in their Housing Element submissions until they have also proposed an effective monitoring system that verifies how newly developed ADU’s will be used.

R2. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop, adopt, and implement a verification system capable of monitoring and verifying how newly developed ADU’s are being used.

R3. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt incentives for ADU owners which could be offered in exchange for deed restrictions that would include requirements for ADU tenants to participate in independent monitoring.

R4. By February 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should track the intended use of ADUs – rented or non-rented – during the permitting process and offer incentives in exchange for deed restrictions that require ADUs to be used as rentals.

R5. By April 1, 2024, San Mateo County and each City should develop and adopt a new ADU affordability distribution formula specific to each jurisdiction to the extent they are used for meeting the very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing requirements in their RHNA housing elements.

R6. San Mateo County and each City should consider working together to address Recommendations 2 and 3.
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13
Page G-4.20

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses from San Mateo County and all 20 cities’ governing bodies for each and every Finding and Recommendation.

The governing bodies should be aware that their comments or responses must be conducted subject to the Brown Act's notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
California Penal Code Section 933.05 provides: For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the disputed finding and shall include an explanation of the reasons.

For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall be at most six months from the Grand Jury report's publication date.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

METHODOLOGY
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury used numerous approaches to develop this report. ● Preliminary Research
The Grand Jury studied RHNA-5 historical information and RHNA-6 Housing Elements submitted to HCD by the cities and towns in San Mateo County as they became available.

Before conducting in-depth research, the Grand Jury studied ABAG's reports on RHNA-6 housing allocations, introducing numerous issues and a means to understand how jurisdictions establish housing allocations. Additionally, the Grand Jury reviewed a 2021 ABAG report on ADU affordability for RHNA-6 and RHNA-5 annual progress reports to understand history. 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14
Page G-4.21

The Grand Jury also reviewed a report on ADUs titled “A Solution on the Ground: Assessing the Feasibility of Second Units in Unincorporated San Mateo County, Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California's ADU Owners,” April 22, 2021, Karen Chapple, Dori Ganetsos, Emmanuel Lopez, UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation.

An additional resource for Preliminary Research has been the press. Particularly following the January 31, 2023 deadline for RHNA-6 submissions, nearly 60 articles provided insights and analysis the Grand Jury could not find elsewhere.

For a complete list of sources, see the Bibliography below. ● Survey
After conducting its Preliminary Research, the Grand Jury sent an eight-question survey in October 2022 to the city managers of the 20 San Mateo County cities and towns and the San Mateo County planning and building department responsible for the County's unincorporated areas.

See Appendix A for survey results.
● Interviews
Much of the time spent by the Grand Jury on this investigation was in more than 30 interviews with 21 city managers and planning managers, five heads of nonprofit housing entities in San Mateo County, and executives at ABAG, HCD, and several other government bodies. ● Continued Research
Because RHNA-6 submissions and HCD replies are ongoing, the Grand Jury has continued to monitor the status of RHNA-6 submissions and HCD responses.

This report reflects submissions received prior to the report's due date of June 30, 2023.

GLOSSARY
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a legal and regulatory term for a secondary house or apartment that shares the building lot of a larger primary home. The unit is often used to provide additional income through rent or to house a family member. For example, an elderly parent could live in a small unit and avoid having to move to an assisted living facility. (Source: Investopedia) Affordable Housing: Very Low Income; Low Income; Moderate Income; Above Moderate Income Affordable housing is generally defined as housing on which the occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs, including utilities. (Source: www.hud.gov) 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15
Page G-4.22

111 ,ur:• •--~ , :

Arule.lvlow
Exlrem""'low
Vervlow
LOVl'!!r<l
r.1oc1ara1a
b.hn_u" ~~~"'""'
Ve Low
ow ncome
Median ln oorne
Moderate Income
t ' . 0 - 15% of area me-dien inooma
15% - 30% al area median iBCOlll8
30%.-50% of illaa median inoome
S0¾-80% of area median iooome
80%- 1201¼ ol area median iJIDJ018
llhn~" 1:100:,:, of grea n,ed'ian inoome
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the Council of Governments (COG) for the ninecounty Bay Area. One of California’s earliest COGs, ABAG was founded to protect regional assets from State control. ABAG continues to serve the Bay Area by providing a regional venue for collaboration and problem-solving. ABAG’s work program includes management over key regional assets, such as the San Francisco Estuary and the Bay Trail Project. It also offers a variety of cost-effective member services programs such as Pooled Liability Assurance Network (PLAN) Corporation (offering affordable liability, property insurance, claims management, risk management, and bond coverage to 30 municipalities) and financial services (offering tax-exempt capital financing for the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable multifamily housing, health care facilities, schools, and other community facilities). ABAG POWER Natural Gas Pool conducts pooled purchasing of natural gas on behalf of 38 local governments and special districts. ABAG is also the COG that allocates the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA). (Source: CALCOG)
Below Market Rate (BMR)
A BMR unit is a housing unit that is priced to be affordable to households that are of moderate income or below. These housing units are often built by local government, nonprofits, or as a requirement of the developer (Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance). As a result, these homes have certain deed restrictions recorded on the property, ensuring the home remains affordable for future generations. (Source: County of San Mateo)
California Department of Finance (DOF)
The California Department of Finance is a state cabinet-level agency within the government of California.

The Department of Finance is responsible for preparing, explaining, and administering the state's annual financial plan, which the Governor of California is required under the California Constitution to present by January 10 of each year to the public. The Department of Finance's other duties include analyzing the budgets of proposed laws in the California State Legislature, creating, and monitoring current and future economic forecasts of the state, estimating population demographics and enrollment projections, and maintaining the state's accounting and financial reporting systems.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) develops housing policy and building codes (i.e., the California Building Standards Code), regulates manufactured homes and mobile home parks, and administers housing finance, economic development, and community development programs. (Source: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/about-hcd)
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16
Page G-4.23

Council of Governments (COG)
Councils of Governments (COGs) are voluntary associations representing member local governments, mainly cities, and counties, that seek to provide cooperative planning, coordination, and technical assistance on issues of mutual concern that cross jurisdictional lines. (Source: WRCOG) Deed Restrictions
A deed restriction is a term widely used in real estate to refer to any limitation on a property that limits the ability of the property owner to utilize the property as they wish. (Source: CA Realty Training) General Plan
State law requires every city and county in California to prepare a General Plan for its future growth and development. A General Plan covers land use, transportation, housing, open space, natural resources, and public services. Local General Plans have been mandatory in California since the 1950s. State law also requires the cities and counties to periodically update their General Plans in response to changing conditions. Each General Plan includes maps expressing the community's vision of how and where it will grow and change. The General Plan typically has a time horizon of about 20 years. Once a General Plan is adopted, it is used by the City Council, local commissions, and City Staff as they make day-to-day decisions about the community's future. (Source: City of San Rafael) Housing Element
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California's local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their General Plan (also required by the State). General Plans serve as the local government's blueprint for how the city or county will grow and develop and include eight elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, environmental justice, and housing. California's Housing Element Law acknowledges that, for the private market to address Californians' housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests mainly on the effective implementation of local General Plans and, in particular, local Housing Elements. (Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development)
Jurisdiction (city, town, or county)
1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law; a matter that falls within the court’s jurisdiction
2: a: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b: the power or right to exercise authority: CONTROL
3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised (Source: Merriam-Webster) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Every eight years, ABAG develops the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) plan approved by HCD and used to assign each city and county in the Bay Area their fair share of new housing units to build. These housing units are intended to accommodate existing needs and projected growth in the region. The RHNA process is critical because it requires all cities and counties to plan for the region's housing needs, regardless of income, to prepare for future growth and ease the California's acute housing crisis. (Source: ABAG)
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17
Page G-4.24

Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND)
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifies the total number of homes each region in California must plan to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels. They base the number on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance and adjustments incorporating the region's current housing needs. The jurisdictions separate the total number of housing units from HCD into four income categories that cover everything from housing for very lowincome households to market-rate housing. ABAG is responsible for developing a methodology to allocate a portion of this housing need to every local government in the Bay Area. (Source: ABAG)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Government Agencies
● Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. “U.S Accessory Dwelling Units: Case Study”. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/adu.pdf. June 2008
● U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Glossary of Terms to Affordable Housing”. https://archives.hud.gov/local/nv/goodstories/2006-04-06glos.cfm. August 18, 2011 ● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy. “ADU Law Amendments Memorandum”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/Accessory-Dwelling-Unit-Legislation.pdf. May 29, 2018 ● California Legislative Information. “Assembly Bill No. 68”. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB68. 2019-2020 ● OpenStates. “California Senate Bill SB 13”. https://openStates.org/ca/bills/20192020/SB13/. 2019- 2020
● 21 Elements. “Second Units and Junior Second Units”. http://www.21elements.com/second-units. 2020
● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy. “Local Agency Accessory Dwelling Units, Memorandum”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/ADU_TA_Memo_Final_01-10-20.pdf. January 10, 2020 ● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy. “Final Regional Housing Need Determination”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/docs/ABAGRHNA-Final060920(r).pdf. June 9, 2020 ● Association of Bay Area Governments. “Housing Element Law. Changes from 1969 to the Present”. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/rhna_background.pdf. August 1, 2020 ● California Legislative Information. “Assembly Bill No. 3182”. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3182. September 28, 2020
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18
Page G-4.25

● Southern California Association of Governments. “SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis”. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/adu_affordability_analysis_120120v2.pdf?1606868527. December 1, 2020 ● Association of Bay Area Governments. “DRAFT Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units”. http://21elements.com/documents-mainmenu-3/housing-elements/rhna-6-2022-2030/1327-draft-aduaffordability-report-sep-8-2021-1/file. September 8, 2021 ● California Legislative Information. “Assembly Bill No. 345”. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB345. September 28, 2021
● Association of Bay Area Governments. “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA”. https://abag.ca.gov/technicalassistance/using-adus-satisfy-rhna. March 10, 2022 ● Auditor of the State of California. “Regional Housing Needs Assessments”. https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2021-125.pdf. March 17, 2022 ● California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/ADUHandbookUpdate.pdf. July 2022 ● Association of Bay Area Governments. “Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031”. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022- 12/Final%20RHNA%20Methodology%20Report%202023-2031_update_11-22.pdf. November 2022 ● State of California Department of Justice. “Attorney General Bonta Puts city of Huntington Beach on Notice That Its Proposed Ordinance Violates State Housing Law”. https://oag.ca.gov/news/pressreleases/attorney-general-bonta-puts-city-huntington-beach-notice-its-proposed-ordinance. February 13, 2023
● Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Housing Policy Development. “RE:

Town of Atherton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element”. https://www.dropbox.com/home/Grand%20Jury%202022%20-%202023/Committees/ADUs/ADU%20- %20research%20materials/Housing%20Elements/Pending?preview=Atherton_HCD_Letter40423.pdf.

April 4, 2023
Grand Jury Reports
● San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. “Second Units: Adding New Housing In The Neighborhood”. https://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2019/second_units.pdf. 2019-2020 Independent Agencies
● UC Berkeley. “A Solution on the Ground: Assessing the Feasibility of Second Units in Unincorporated San Mateo County”. https://smcrecovery.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/UC-Report-on-ADUfeasability.pdf. January 2017 ● Ramsey-Musolf, Darrel. “Accessory Dwelling Units as Low-Income Housing: California’s Faustian Bargain”. https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/2/3/89. September 18, 2018 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19
Page G-4.26

● AARP. “The ABCs of ADUs”. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/adu-guide-websingles.pdf. 2019 ● California YIMBY (Yes in My Back Yard). “AB 881”. https://cayimby.org/ab-881/. October 9, 2019 ● Center of Community Innovation. “The ADU Scorecard: Grading ADU Ordinances in California”. https://www.aducalifornia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ADU-Scorecard-InterimReport-200201-

1.pdf. February 1, 2020
● UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation. “Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners”. https://www.aducalifornia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/Implementing-the-Backyard-Revolution.pdf. April 22, 2021 ● Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkely. “First Ever Statewide ADU Owner Survey Shows Growth, Room for Improvement”. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/cci-adu-survey/. April 22, 2021
● University of California, Berkeley. “California ADU”. https://www.aducalifornia.org/. August 16, 2021 ● Colburn, Gregg. Aldern, Clayton. “Homelessness is a Housing Problem”. https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/. 2021-2022
● Sumner, Scott. “California housing prices and homelessness”. https://www.econlib.org/californiahousing-prices-and-homelessness/. May 23, 2022 ● Williams, Paul. “Carving out a Path for Public Developers”. https://housingchronicle.substack.com/p/carving-out-a-path-for-public-developers. July 14, 2022 ● Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley. “ADUs for All: Breaking Down Barriers to Racial and Economic Equity in Accessory Dwelling Unit Construction”. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/adu-equity-barriers/. August 4, 2022 ● Bertolet, Dan. “Washington Bill Would Boost In-Law Apartments Throughout the State”. https://www.sightline.org/2023/01/21/washington-bill-would-boost-in-law-apartments-throughout-theState/. January 21, 2021 ● Ohanian, Lee. “California’s Failed Soviet-Style Housing Mandates Should End Now”. https://www.hoover.org/research/californias-failed-soviet-style-housing-mandates-should-end-now.

February 7, 2023
● Hamilton, Emily. “Learning from Houston’s Townhouse Reforms”. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/learning-houstons-townhouse-reforms. April 11, 2023 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20
Page G-4.27

tamm1a1tty
~Dpm!!nl
Offlclal
9'!.

1. Did your city/town include ADUs in its Regional Housing Needs Allocation 5 (RHNAS) Housing Element plan?
21 responses
Yes 15 (71.4%)
No
0 5 10 15

APPENDICES
● A: Survey Results
● B: Timeline of Important Legislative Events
● C: ADUs: An American Tradition
● D: Housing Elements Are an Iterative Process

APPENDIX A
Survey Results
Who responded to the survey
Survey responses
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21
Page G-4.28
1A. If response was yes (indicate n/a if no): a. How many were planned? 21 responses
4 3
2 0
13 per acre
7 b. How many were permitted?
21 responses
2 24 56 98 over the 7 year cycle
42 92 n/a
1 (4.8':h:(4.8':1,:(4.8''.1,(4.8':1,:(4.8':1,:(4.8':1,:(4.8~1,:(4.8',1,:(4.8':1,:(4.8~1,:(4.8':1,:(4.8':1,:(4.8'.1,(4.8':1,:(4.8':1,:(4.8~1,:(4.8%:(4.8%) 0 11 54 115 192 62 through 10-14-22
36 91 137 262 n/a
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22
Page G-4.29
c. How many were built and completed?
21 responses
2 0
120 (finalled, all oth ... 25 55 completed, some ...
11 48 69
115 91 to date
167 n/a

2. Were any of your city/town's RHNAS ADUs designated to provide low, very low, and moderate income housing?
21 responses
Yes 12 (57.1%)
No

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 23
Page G-4.30

3. Is your city/town counting ADUs in RHNA6 Housing Element towards partial fulfillment of RHNAS housing needs?
21 responses
Yes
No 15 (71.4%)
0 5 10 15
3A. If response was yes (indicate n/a if no): a. How many ADUs for very low-income housing? 21 responses
15 10
5 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%) 1 (4.8%) 0 6 113 Final determination has no... This has not been determi ... 34 156 N/A n/a
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 24
Page G-4.31
b. How many ADUs for low-income housing?
21 responses
15 10
5 0
2 34
29 113
c. How many ADUs for moderate-income housing?
21 responses
15 10
5 0
2 33
9 113
156 N/A n/a
Final determination ha... This has not been dete .. .
156 N/A n/a
Final determination ha... This has not been dete ...
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25
Page G-4.32

4. Does your city/town collect race and income data on who is renting or occupying ADUs in your city/town?
21 responses
Yes O (0%)
0 5 10 15 20
4A. If response was yes, when did you start collecting such data? (indicate n/a if no) 21 responses
15 10
5 1 (4.8%)
0 25
N/A n/a n/a currently, will collect with RHNA 6
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 26
Page G-4.33

5. Does your city/town collect data on the range of the rents charged today for ADUs in your city/town?
21 responses
Yes
No 19 (90.5%)
0 5 10 15 20
SA. If response was yes, does the data include details such as in-lieu services provided by the renter to the owner (i.e., landscaping, housekeeping, childcare services)? 21 responses
Yes O (0%)
No
Not Applicable 18 (85.7%)
0 5 10 15 20
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27
Page G-4.34

6. Are there any regulations or oversight systems in place in your city/town to monitor the status of very low-, low-, and moderate-income affordable ADUs?
21 responses
Yes
No 18 (85.7%)
0 5 10 15 20
6A. If yes, does your city/town have regulations or oversight systems in place to monitor usage for ADUs over time, especially for ADUs in homes that are sold or remodeled or rebuilt? 21 responses
Yes
No
Not Applicable 17 (81 %)
0 5 10 15 20
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 28
Page G-4.35

7. Does your city/town have long-term covenants for ADUs like those that regulate conventional low and very low-income housing units (e.g., tax-credits, voucher subsidized, or other)? 21 responses
Yes
No 19 (90.5%)
0 5 10 15

8. Does your city/town plan to include ADUs in its RHNA6 Housing Element submission? 21 responses
No 0 (0%)
0 5 10 15 20
20 25
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 29
Page G-4.36
If yes, will any of those ADUs be designated for very-low, low and moderate income, as defined by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development?
21 responses
Yes 18 (85.7%)
No
Not Applicable 0 (0%)
0 5 10 15 20
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30
Page G-4.37

APPENDIX B
Timeline of Important Legislative Events

1. 1970 — the Legislature directed HCD to develop guidelines for housing element preparation on one and five year cycles. SB 1489 (Moscone), emphasized housing need, passed in 1971, and ABX 1 of 1971 established more standards. The California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), which also assisted communities in providing affordable housing, was created in 1975. The legislation authorized HCD to review local housing elements for conformity to its guidelines.

2. 1976 — Fair-share was added to the guidelines by HCD. The COGs are now given the responsibility by HCD to distribute shares of low-income and moderate-income housing. The local housing element had to include these income requirements — whether or not communities wanted them. HCD also was given responsibility to review local housing elements. Statewide hearings in 1977 brought out a number of positions on housing elements and HCD requirements.

3. Mid 1980’s — AB 2853 (Roos), provided for faster permit processing and higher densities, and allowed the housing element to meet State goals and be reviewed by HCD. COGs would continue to formulate the fair share for each community, but HCD had final approval of the numbers and each community was to revise its Housing Element every five years.

4. 1990s — Cities and counties looked at housing elements, if certified, as providing protection against lawsuits. In addition, this decade also created the concept of regional allocation “sharing burdens of lower- income households among geographic areas,” without mandated goals.

5. 1993 — The Senate Committee on Local Government held hearings on housing element progress and heard concerns that communities were not doing enough and that housing elements were despised by local governments. Bills changed the cycle timeframe, including AB 2172 (Hauser), SB 1703 (Costa) and SC 320 (Committee). Main topics for discussion by the Committee on Housing and Land Use hearings in 1995 were the housing allocations and the Department of Finance (DoF) projections. A common complaint was that the DoF projections were not complete enough for communities to develop appropriate allocations. The COGs projections also were criticized.

6. 1998 — AB 438 (Torlakson), allowing for the creation of sub-RHNA areas, looked at how housing units were counted. 2001 — SB 910 (Dunn) would have included imposing fines on jurisdictions not complying; and would have tied RHNA to transportation planning on a six year cycle. However, this bill did not pass. 2002 — SB 423 (Torlakson) created a jobs and housing balance incentive program, also known as Workforce Housing Incentive Program. In 2003, at HCD’s request, a working group of stakeholders met to make recommendations, which included:
● Develop more transparency in determining fair shares
● Clarify land inventories of building sites
● Ensure inventories were buildable
● Increase HCD review consistency of local elements
● Explore city self-certification
● Devise better housing element enforcement that would penalize non-compliance.

7. 2004 — AB 2348 (Mullin) clarified the relationship between the land inventory and adequate sites requirement, provided guidance on the content of adequate land inventory, and provided greater development certainty. AB 2158 (Lowenthal) revised the process for determining allocation from just 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 31
Page G-4.38

DoF to include transportation planning numbers and created a review process.

8. 2005 — AB 1233 (Jones) assured that unmet need from previous RHNA cycles was added into the next cycle.

9. 2017 Housing Legislative Package
Approximately 150 housing bills were submitted in 2017. Fifteen relating to funding, streamlining and accountability, were signed by the governor. These bills significantly changed how RHNA is conducted, requiring additional outreach and reporting, increasing the number of factors included, and the ability of HCD to sue individual cities for not meeting requirements.

SB 2 (Atkins) Building Homes and Jobs Act is projected to generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually for affordable housing, supportive housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and other housing needs via a $75 to $225 recording fee on specified real estate documents.

SB 3 (Beall) Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018 places a $4 billion general obligation bond on the November 2018 ballot to fund affordable housing programs and the veterans homeownership program (CalVet).

SB 35 (Wiener) streamlines multifamily housing project approvals, at the request of a developer, in a city that fails to issue building permits for its share of the regional housing need by income category.

SB 35 city approval of a qualifying housing development on a qualifying site is a ministerial act, without need for CEQA review or public hearings.

AB 73 (Chiu) streamlines the housing approval process by allowing jurisdictions to create a housing sustainability district to complete upfront zoning and environmental review in order to receive incentive payments for development projects that are consistent with the ordinance.

SB 167 (Skinner), AB 678 (Bocanegra), and AB 1515 (Daly) are three measures that were amended late in the 2017 legislative session to incorporate changes to the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).

The HAA significantly limits the ability of a jurisdiction to deny an affordable or market-rate housing project that is consistent with existing planning and zoning requirements.

AB 1505 (Bloom) allows a jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance that requires a housing development to include a certain percentage of rental units affordable to and occupied by households with extremely low, very low, low or moderate income.

AB 879 (Grayson) expands upon existing law that requires, by April 1 of each year, general law cities and charter cities to send an annual report to their respective city councils, the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and HCD that includes information related to implementation of the General Plan.

AB 1397 (Low) makes numerous changes to how a jurisdiction establishes its housing element site inventory.

AB 72 (Santiago) provides HCD broad new authority to find a jurisdiction’s housing element out of substantial compliance if it determines that REGIONAL the jurisdiction fails to act in compliance with 2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 32
Page G-4.39

its housing element and allows HCD to refer violations of law to the attorney general.

10. 2018 — SB 828 (Wiener) changed the way HCD determines each region’s RHND, adding a number of new factors for consideration and accounting for “unmet need” in the existing housing stock by applying “adjustment factors” to a region’s total projected households, not just the incremental housing growth.

11. 2018 — AB 1771 (Bloom) and AB 686 (Santiago) strengthened the mandate for regions and local governments to combat discrimination, overcome historic patterns of segregation, and create equal access to opportunity through housing planning and decision-making, in other words, to “affirmatively further fair housing.” AB 1771 (Bloom) added to RHNA an enhanced focus on racial equity with an explicit mandate that COGs’ housing distribution plans affirmatively further fair housing and required COGs to survey jurisdictions on their fair housing activities, to identify regional barriers to furthering fair housing, and to recommend strategies or actions to overcome those barriers. AB 686 (Santiago) created a mandate that local jurisdictions plan and administer housing and community development programs and activities in a manner that affirmatively further fair housing.

12. 2019 — AB 1486 (Ting) strengthened the Surplus Lands Act (SLA), which requires that local agencies provide right of first refusal to affordable housing developers when disposing of surplus land by expanding the scope of land subject to the right of first refusal requirement, updating the mechanics of the surplus land disposal process, extending HCD’s enforcement mandate to include the SLA and establishing financial penalties for violation of the act.

AB 1487 (Chiu), authorized ABAG and MTC to place on the ballot regional housing measures to help fund affordable housing and established 3 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION the Bay Area Regional Housing Authority. The 2019-20 State Budget also included significant new resources to support housing planning, including $250 million for local governments and COGs for planning activities. The Bay Area is receiving approximately $50 million in combined funds, split between ABAG and local jurisdictions.

SB 330 (Skinner) made further revisions to the HAA, establishing new criteria for housing approvals at the local level, including prohibiting a local agency from subjecting a project to new ordinances, rules or fees after an application is submitted and limiting the number of hearings on a project to five. The bill also prohibits a local agency from lowering the allowed residential density below that level in effect on January 1, 2018 in high rent, low-vacancy areas, as defined. The bill’s provisions sunset in five years.

AB-881, “Accessory dwelling units,” and AB-68, “Land use: accessory dwelling units”: Makes many of the current restrictions that cities place on ADUs obsolete. It also provides for a streamlined process for approvals.

These bills require permits for ADUs added to single-family and multifamily homes to be approved or denied faster. Current law permits these decisions to take 120 days, but this new law requires decisions within 60 days. These approvals or denials must be issued ministerially, so that way, there are fewer potential issues to encounter. Cities and counties may establish minimum and maximum ADU size requirements, but the maximum size cannot be less than 850 square feet for a one-bedroom ADU or 1,000 square feet for more than one bedroom.
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 33
Page G-4.40

Most importantly, these bills prohibit any lot coverage, minimum lot size, etc. requirements that municipalities have. Cities have enacted these laws to have the effect of making it impossible to build an ADU. Cities cannot require the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions as part of the approval process.

SB-13 Accessory dwelling units are similar to AB-881 and AB-68 with a couple of significant differences. Before this bill, local agencies could require that the person applying for the ADU occupy either the primary residence or the proposed new structure. This bill exempts from these requirements all proposed ADUs until Jan. 1, 2025. Additionally, this bill removes the impact fee for ADUs smaller than 750 square feet. Even for ADUs larger than that, the impact fees assessed must correlate with the square footage of the primary residence.

SB-13 makes building ADUs cheaper and also removes an essential regulation. Now, landlords who rent their properties out can apply for an ADU for their rental properties.

AB-670, “Common interest developments: accessory dwelling units,” makes it easier for people within HOA complexes to construct ADUs. Specifically, it prevents banning or unreasonably restricting on single-family lots on the construction of these units. Presently, many HOAs have CCRs ("conditions, covenants and restrictions") that prevent people from building ADUs. HOAs may worry about the uniformity of the properties if one has an ADU on it, or they might be concerned that they don't know who is and who isn't renting from an ADU. Regardless, HOAs now need to have a way for people to construct ADUs if they so choose.

HOAs will likely challenge this bill, at least to some degree, in court, but for now, if you live in an HOA complex with single-family homes, you can construct an ADU.

AB-671, “Accessory dwelling units: incentives," requires that general plans incentivize homeowners in some way to construct these ADUs and make them available for low-to-moderate-income households to rent. While it doesn't specify what these incentives will be, it does require local agencies to think about financial incentives and construct a plan.
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 34
Page G-4.41
ccessory dwelling units have been around for centuries, going by dozens ol names over time, such as in~w apartment.. guest house. granny flal, and carriage house.

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) traces the tradition ol ADUs in th8 U.S. to early sotUers who built small homes to live in while oonstcu:.ting their larger, primary house nearby. When farming was a SOLU'Ce of survival ror most of the
nation's households, families commonly built
additional homes on their pcop&rty to live io duMg
planting or harvesting seasons. Wealthy people wilh
What Is an ADU?
large lots ftequentty built secondary homes and • An ADU is a small re:&ldence thal shares a sing1e~lamily lot with a larger, ptimary
dwe41ing. other independenl skuctures for household slaff and guests.

Unlit the 20th cenlucy, there were few or no zoning
rules restcicting people with land from building as
many homes as they wished on their lanct
Aeconiing to AAnf' e hi3toric procodonl for tho
modern ADU is the carriage house, or coach house,
inlooded for horse-drawn carriages, and often large
enough to include living quarlers foe workers.

Many years later, in respOflse to housing shortages
and eoonomk: needs, carriage houses were
• As an independent living space, an ADU is
self-contained, wtth its own kitehen or
kitchenette, bathroom and sleeping area.

An ADU can be locat&d within, attached to
or detached r~ the matn residence.
• An Ant I r.:itn l)A r.MvArtAd f(ntn An ,-vi$dlno
structure (such as a garage}or buill anew.
• ADUs can be found in citf4s, in suburbs
and in rural areas, yet i31e often invisible
from view because they' re positioned
behind or .are lndl'S.tinct from the main
house.
oonverted into rental homes. Garages have a similar •
histOI)', and over time, many have been converted -
oflen illegally - into small living spaces.

Becau&e ADUs are buill on single-family
lots-as a secondary dwelling, they typically
cannot be partiboned off to be sold
separately.

During Wocld War II, for example, the Bay Area
experienced a def8l'lse boom that created a high
demand for wockforoo housing, resulting in many
illegally constructed second units. By 1960, San
Francisco ooooted between 20,000 to 30,000
secondary units. of which 90 percent were built
illegally. according lo the San Francisco Planning
and Urban Research Association.

With the rise of suburban single-family home
developments in the 1950s and 1960s ADUs
practicaly stopped being built legally because
zoning oodes typtcally allowed only one home per
lol
Since then, some cities have grandfathered in !)(&­
existing ADUs if the residences remained
oonsislentfy occupied. But even today, many
oommunities still don't allow new AOUs.

AOUs became popular again in the 1980s as cities
k>oked for new sources of smaller and more
affordable housing. And most recently. lhere·s been
• An ADU can pfOVKle rental Income to
homeowners and an affo,dabte way for
renters lo live In $lngle-famlly
nelgbbofhoods.
• An ADU can enabte family membet$. to five
6n the same property whlie having their
own i vil')Q &pace$ - or PfOvide housing fOf
a hired caregiver.
• Unlike tiny houses, ADUs are compact but
not teeny, so they're a mo,e practical
option for individuals. couples and famlies
seeki'lg small. affordable hOu$lng.
• for h0meowners-I00Jung to dOWllS!Ze, an
ADU can be a more appealing option than
moving tnto an apartrMnt oc, if older. an
ago-restricted community.
• ADUs can help older residents remain In
theifoommunity and age in place.

Sowce.MRP, 2019
increasing interest al the state and local levels in legalizing and encouraging the construction of AOUs, driven by the high cost of housing.

APPENDIX C
ADUs: An American Tradition
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 35
Page G-4.42

CD 1-0--+ I ABAG I~ 11~
©
6 Homeowners Developers
Cities &
Counties
t I

1. HCD sends ABAG a housing planning target for the number of unilts that are needed over the next eight years at all income levels.

2. ABAG works with the cities and counties to allocate the HCD totals among the Bay Area junsdlctlons, creating a Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Plan.

3. ABAG sends the RHNA Plan to HCD for review and approval.

4. Once the RHNA Plan Is approved, each jurisdiction must update tlhe Housing Element of their General Plan.

5. The cities and counties send their Housing Elements to HCD for review and approval by a prescribed due date.

If a jurisdiction misses the submission deadline It is subject to potential bulldors-mmedy action that forces the city to allow building projects without meeting most of the local zoning restrictions.

6. HCD mturns the Housing Elements with necessary changes. 9 Once approved, permitting affordable housing begins.

7. Penn Its are Issued for construction.

8. Developers and homeowners build housing.

9. Over the next eight years cities and counties must annually report their building ponnlt activity.

If progress Is doomed below expectations, junsdlctlons must dov0<lop and send altemative strategies to HCD for review and approval.

APPENDIX D
Housing Elements Are an Iterative Process
2022-2023 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 36
Page G-4.43
,.

MENLO PARK
AGENDA ITEM G-5
City Manager's Office

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date:

Staff Report Number:

Consent Calendar:
8/29/2023
23-192-CC
Waive the second reading and adopt an ordinance
for streetaries outdoor dining areas
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the City Council waive the second reading and adopt an ordinance adding Chapter

13.30 Streetaries Outdoor Dining Areas to Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Utilities) and amending Sections

13.18.10 and 13.18.20 of Chapter 13.18 (Use of Public Right of Way) (Attachment A).

Policy Issues
In June 2020, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance to establish a temporary outdoor use permit (TOUP) program as well as to close portions of Santa Cruz Avenue and Ryans Lane for pedestrian use.

This ordinance expired in February 2023 with the end of the California COVID-19 State of Emergency Order. The decision to establish the TOUP program was exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to the temporary emergency nature of the decision.

The addition of Chapter 13.30 Streetaries Outdoor Dining Areas to Title 13 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code and amendments to corresponding sections of Title 13 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code relating to outdoor dining in the public right-of-way through Streetary encroachment permits establishes a long-term policy including permitting, operational and maintenance regulations for outdoor dining in the public right-ofway.

Streetary outdoor dining design standards and fees will be established be separate resolutions on the Aug. 29 City Council agenda.

Background
The City Council voted unanimously to introduce the streetary outdoor dining areas ordinance at the Aug. 15 City Council meeting. The staff report and materials are available in Attachment B, and include a history of outdoor dining regulations in Menlo Park, existing outdoor uses, and an overview of business outreach activities.

Analysis
“Streetary” or “Streetaries” are defined in the proposed ordinance as an outdoor eating area that operates within and uses the public right-of-way directly adjacent to the food service establishment street frontage.

The Streetary outdoor dining program, which includes the proposed ordinance as well as design and development standards, establishes guidelines, requirements, and operational regulations for outdoor dining in the public right-of-way, including on sidewalks and in public parking spaces on the side of the street or in public parking lots.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-5.1
Staff Report #: 23-192-CC
The proposed Streetary program intends to:

1. Activate the public realm in Downtown Menlo Park and other commercial areas.

2. Maintain physical and visual access to Menlo Park businesses.

3. Provide safe, attractive, and accessible spaces for outdoor use.

4. Provide accessible amenity areas for private businesses during operating hours.

5. Support the economic vitality and growth of businesses and the City.

Alignment with Specific Plan
In alignment with the El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan Section D – Public Space, the proposed Streetary outdoor dining program standards use the functional zones of the sidewalk and parking / travel lane identified in the Specific Plan to help establish locations for parklets and sidewalk cafes. The El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan identifies a need to improve the pedestrian realm on Santa Cruz Avenue, which includes sitting and outdoor dining options in functional sidewalk zones. The plan establishes sidewalk functional zones, ensuring a pedestrian clear zone and more pleasant and functional sidewalks. It redistributes the right-of-way between traffic lanes, on-street parking, and sidewalks in order to focus on an enhanced pedestrian experience while still accommodating vehicular circulation and on-street parking. Per the Santa Cruz Avenue Sidewalks section (D10) of the Specific Plan, Activities outside the building, such as outdoor dining, can enliven adjacent sidewalks. These are desirable attributes in areas with high levels of activity such as the downtown and station area.

Impact on City Resources
Implementation of the Streetaries program will largely be handled by staff. The City of Menlo Park provides services and infrastructure that contribute to quality-of-life for all Menlo Park residents. Rates for Streetary permit fees would be subsidized at a midlevel of cost recovery in acknowledgement that the program benefits participating businesses, activates the public realm, and supports economic vitality of businesses and Menlo Park as a whole. Note: Information on City resources required for proposed fee waivers is included in another agenda item on the Aug. 29 City Council agenda.

Environmental Review
The Streetary outdoor dining areas ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to §§15301 (Class 1), 15304 (Class 4) and 15305 (Class 5).

Class 1 categorical exemptions (Existing Facilities) consist of minor alterations or private facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing uses. This ordinance will allow for minor alterations to private dining facilities to allow for negligible expansion of use into the public right of way.

Class 4 Categorical exemptions (Minor Alterations to Land) consist of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes, including “minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment . . .” (CEQA Guideline §15304(e).) This ordinance will involve the temporary, non-permanent use of land; all uses authorized pursuant to this ordinance would involve temporary, non-permanent improvements in the public right of way including temporary structures, tables and seating.

Class 5 categorical exemptions (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) covers projects that consist of minor alterations in land use limitation in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density including but not limited to issuance of minor encroachment permits.

This ordinance will result in the issuance of licenses and/or permits for use and encroachment into the City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-5.2
Staff Report #: 23-192-CC
public right of way.

The proposed project is consistent with these exemptions because the requested action will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable change in the environment and because there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on 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. Ordinance adding Chapter 13.30 Streetaries Outdoor Dining Areas to Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Utilities) and draft ordinance Amending Sections 13.18.10 and 13.18.20 of Chapter 13.18 (Use of Public Right of Way)
B. Hyperlink – Aug. 15 City Council staff report: https://menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendasand-minutes/city-council/2023-meetings/agendas/20230815-city-council-agenda-packet-wpres.pdf#page=244 Report prepared by:

Kirstin Hinds, Senior Advisor, HdL Companies
Report reviewed by:

Stephen Stolte, Assistant City Manager
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page G-5.3

ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK ADDING CHAPTER 13.30 (“STREETARIES” OUTDOOR DINING AREAS) TO TITLE 13 (STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND UTILITIES) OF THE MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 13.18.10 and 13.18.20 OF CHAPTER 13.18 (USE OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY), OF THE MENLO PARK

MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO OUTDOOR DINING AREAS IN THE PUBLIC

RIGHT-OF-WAY
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that outdoor eating areas within certain of the City’s rights-of-way provide economic vitality to the City and businesses, create community gathering spaces, contribute to the enjoyment of public spaces, and increase opportunities for more enjoyable pedestrian travel in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to permit outdoor eating areas within parking spaces and sidewalks of the public right-of-way – known as “Streetaries” – through Streetary Encroachment Permits; and
WHEREAS, in May 2016 the City Council approved outdoor dining in the public right-of-way as part of the Santa Cruz Street Café Pilot Program; and
WHEREAS, seven merchants currently operate outdoor dining facilities authorized by the Santa Cruz Street Café Pilot Program;
WHEREAS, between June 19, 2020 and February 23, 2021, in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the California COVID-19 State of Emergency Order, the City Council approved Urgency Ordinances No. 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, and 1085 establishing a Temporary Outdoor Use Permit Program and closing portions of Santa Cruz Avenue and Ryans Lane for pedestrian use; and
WHEREAS, twelve total merchants currently operate outdoor dining facilities authorized by the Santa Cruz Street Café Pilot Program or the Temporary Outdoor Use Permit Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to transition pre-existing outdoor dining established into longer term facilities once current permits expire; and WHEREAS, on February 28 and August 15, 2023, staff presented Draft Streetary Guidelines to the City Council setting forth staff’s recommendations for design and development standards, operational standards, fees, and other related requirements for new Streetary Encroachment Permits that would apply after current permits expire; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Public Works Director should be the City’s designated representative to issue Streetary Encroachment Permits because of their locations within sidewalks and right of way currently used for vehicular parking; and WHEREAS, the City Council aims to balance the desire for outdoor dining in the public right-ofway with adequate public parking and pedestrian and bicycle access; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22507(a), cities may, by ordinance or resolution, restrict or otherwise remove parking from city streets during all or certain hours of the day; and Page G-5.4
Ordinance No. XXXX

WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance to add Chapter 13.30 (“Streetaries” Outdoor Dining Areas) to Title 13 and amend corresponding sections of Title 13 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code relating to outdoor dining in the public right-of-way through Streetary Encroachment Permits qualifies for the exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15304 and 15305 and statutory exemption 15183; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, considered all public comments on the revisions and related CEQA exemptions, and determined that the amendments are consistent with the General Plan and that the revisions would be internally consistent with all other provisions of the Menlo Park Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Division 1. The above findings are adopted and incorporated herein.

Division 2. Addition of Chapter 13.30 to the Menlo Park Municipal Code.

Chapter 13.30 – “Streetaries” Outdoor Dining Areas is hereby adopted and made a part of Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Utilities) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Division 3. Amendments of Section 13.18.10 of Chapter 13.18 (USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTSOF-WAY) of the Menlo Park of Menlo Park Municipal Code.

Section 13.18.10 (DEFINITIONS) of Chapter 13.18 (USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY) of Title 13 (STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND UTILITIES) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to add subsection (10) to section 13.18.010 as set forth below. Deletions are in strikethrough, and additions are in underline.

13.18.010 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given in this section.
. . .
(10) “Streetary” or “streetaries” shall mean an outdoor eating area that operates within and uses parking spaces and/or sidewalks within the public right-of-way directly adjacent to the food service establishment street frontage and/or operates within and uses public right-of-way on streets or portions thereof that have been closed to vehicular traffic.

Division 4. Amendments of Section 13.18.20 of Chapter 13.18 (USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTSOF-WAY) of the Menlo Park of Menlo Park Municipal Code.

Section 13.18.20 (PERMIT REQUIRED) of Chapter 13.18 (USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY) of Title 13 (STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND UTILITIES) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to add subsection (d) to section 13.18.20 as set forth below. Deletions are in strikethrough, and additions are in underline.

Page G-5.5
Ordinance No. XXXX

13.18.020 Permit required.
(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), above, an encroachment permit shall not be required for streetaries that have obtained and maintain a streetary encroachment permit pursuant to section 13.30.020.

Division 5. Amendments of Section 16.82.440 of Chapter 16.82 (PERMITS) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code.

Section 16.82.440 (GRANTING) of Chapter 16.82 (PERMITS) of Title 16 (ZONING) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to add subsection (A) to section 16.82.440(2) as set forth below. Deletions are in strikethrough, and additions are in underline.

16.82.440 Granting.
(2) Outdoor Seating. That the outdoor seating would maintain unimpeded pedestrian access on the public right-of-way.
(A) Notwithstanding subsection (2), above, a zoning permit shall not be required for streetaries that have obtained and maintain a streetary encroachment permit pursuant to section 13.30.020.

Division 6. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 (Class 1), 15304 (Class 4) and 15305 (Class 5).

Class 1 categorical exemptions (Existing Facilities) consist of minor alterations or private facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing uses. This ordinance will allow for minor alterations to private dining facilities to allow for negligible expansion of use into the public right of way.

Class 4 Categorical exemptions (Minor Alterations to Land) consist of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes, including “minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment . . .” (CEQA Guideline § 15304(e).) This ordinance will involve the temporary, non-permanent use of land; all uses authorized pursuant to this ordinance would involve temporary, non-permanent improvements in the public right of way including temporary structures, tables and seating.

Class 5 categorical exemptions (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) covers projects that consist of minor alterations in land use limitation in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density including but not limited to issuance of minor encroachment permits. This ordinance will result in the issuance of licenses and/or permits for use and encroachment into the public right of way.

The proposed project is consistent with these exemptions, because the requested action will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable change in the environment and because there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

A. Additionally, the City prepared an Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR and subsequent EIR (SEIR) (Attachment D) and an Addendum to the Specific Plan Program EIR Page G-5.6
Ordinance No. XXXX

(Attachment E) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that examined potential environmental impacts of (1) amendments to the General Plan Circulation Element to allow the City Council to consider street closures within the Main Street and Alley classifications, and (2) amendments to the Specific Plan to allow street closures on Santa Cruz Avenue in additional locations. The City found no substantial evidence to support requiring additional environmental review, in part given that the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments would not increase the development potential identified in the plans or lead to any activity that might cause new or increased environmental effects, as discussed in more detail in the Addenda. Additionally, notifications of the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendments were sent to California Native American tribes of the opportunity to conduct consultations on the proposed amendments, per the State of California Senate Bill 18 requirements, and there were no requests to consult on the proposed amendments.

Division 7. Severability.

The City Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, cause, and phrase of this ordinance is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases.

Division 8. Publication; Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall be published once, in full or in summary form, after its final passage, in a newspaper of general circulation, published, and circulated in the City of Menlo Park, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. If published in summary form, the summary shall also be published within fifteen (15) days after the adoption, together with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against same, in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Menlo Park, County of San Mateo, State of California.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Page G-5.7
________________________
_________________________
Ordinance No. XXXX

INTRODUCED on the fifteenth day of August, 2023.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as an ordinance of the City of Menlo Park at a regular meeting of said City Council on the twenty-ninth day of August, 2023, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:

Jen Wolosin, Mayor
ATTEST:

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits:

A. “Streetaries” Outdoor Dining Areas is hereby adopted and made a part of Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Utilities)
Page G-5.8

EXHIBIT A
Ordinance No. XXXX

Chapter 13.30 – “STREETARIES” OUTDOOR EATING AREAS

13.30.010 - Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth below. Unless in direct conflict with terms defined herein, other words and phrases shall be interpreted as defined in the Streets and Highways Code:

A. “Director” shall mean the Public Works Director or their designee.

B. “Food service establishment” shall mean businesses primarily engaged in serving prepared food and/or beverages for consumption on or off the premises.

C. “Parking spaces within the public right-of-way” shall mean the designated on-street or offstreet area where parking of vehicles does not violate any posted parking restriction and the use of the space does not interfere with the safety or the passage of persons and vehicles.

D. “Permittee” shall mean the permit holder of a valid streetary encroachment permit issued by the city.

E. “Sidewalk” shall mean any public right-of-way designated for pedestrian access.

F. “Streetary” or “streetaries” shall mean an outdoor eating area that operates within and uses parking spaces and/or sidewalks within the public right-of-way directly adjacent to the food service establishment street frontage and/or operates within and uses public right-of-way on streets or portions thereof that have been closed to vehicular travel

13.30.020 - Permit required.

Any person desiring to erect, construct, place or maintain an encroachment upon any City sidewalk and/or existing parking spaces within the public right-of-way for a streetary must first obtain an annual streetary encroachment permit pursuant to this chapter. No other permits shall be required in order to operate a streetary. Each applicant for an annual streetary encroachment permit shall comply with the requirements of this chapter, any other applicable laws, and any regulations and policies adopted pursuant to this chapter.

Permits shall only be issued to applicants with a valid business license issued by the city to operate a food service establishment which is directly adjacent to the right-of-way within which a streetary encroachment permit is sought.

All persons operating and/or maintaining streetaries as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be required to (1) submit a complete streetary encroachment permit application and pay applicable fees no later than December 31, 2023 and (2) obtain final inspection approval of the streetary encroachment permit by June 30, 2024. Failure to submit a complete application within this timeframe, or to meet the regulations required to obtain a streetary encroachment permit, while continuing to operate the existing outdoor dining facility within the public right of way shall constitute a violation of this chapter and may subject the current streetary operator to closure and/or enforcement pursuant to this chapter.

13.30.030 - Permit application.

The director of public works (the “director”) shall establish an application form for an annual streetary encroachment permit, including any application materials, and application and permit issuance procedures and timelines.

Page G-5.9
Ordinance No. XXXX

The application shall be valid for an initial term of three years, and then accompanied by an annual fee, in an amount set forth by separate resolution of the City Council.

The director shall transmit a copy of each application and renewal application for a streetary encroachment permit to the director of community development (the "planning director"). The planning director shall review the application for compliance with all applicable design and development standards.

13.30.040 - Fees.

Each permit application shall be accompanied by a permit application fee. Prior to permit issuance, the permittee shall pay an annual encroachment lease fee and a one-time, refundable deposit. Fees shall be in amounts set forth by separate resolution of the City Council.

13.30.050 - Where permitted.

A. Streetaries are permitted in existing parking spaces within the right-of-way. The stopping, parking and/or standing of vehicles shall be prohibited in all locations and existing parking spaces within the City where a streetary encroachment permit has been issued.

B. Streetaries are permitted on sidewalks within the right-of-way.

C. Streetaries are permitted within the right-of-way on streets or portions thereof that have been closed to vehicular access, where, in the determination of the Director, use of such right-of-way will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons or adjacent businesses.

13.30.060 - Location criteria.

A. Notwithstanding section 13.30.050 subsections A and B, above, streetaries shall not be permitted along streets with (1) peak hour parking restrictions or (2) speed limits greater than 25 miles per hour.

B. Notwithstanding subsection B, above, streetaries shall not be permitted in parking spaces that (1) are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) designated, (2) are designated for no parking (red curb), passenger loading zones (white curb), commercial loading zones (yellow curb), limited parking zones (green) and/or any other colored curb zones with restrictions on driveways, ADA ramps, or entrances to parking lots or city-owned parking facilities, (3) would block or obstruct any fire hydrant, fire sprinkler or standpipe hose, or other public safety infrastructure, (4) would obstruct utility access panels, manhole covers, storm drains, valves, or any other type of utility assets, or (5) would obstruct any bicycle facility, or (6) provide bicycle parking, unless the bicycle parking can be reasonably relocated within 300 feet.

C. Maximum parking stalls. A maximum of three parking spaces shall be used for each streetary.

D. Adjacency to storefront. Streetaries may only be permitted in parking spaces and on sidewalks within the right-of-way that are directly in front of and adjacent to the permittee’s food service establishment. If a food service establishment fronts more than one but less than two parking spaces and fronts more than fifty percent (50%) of the second parking space, the permittee is eligible to apply for two parking spaces for use as a streetary.

E. Notwithstanding subsection D, above, the Director at their sole discretion may consider an exception to the adjacency to storefront requirement if: (1) the proposed Streetary was in operation as an outdoor food service establishment for six months prior to the effective date of this ordinance, (2) the proposed Streetary had obtained and at all times maintained all Page G-5.10
Ordinance No. XXXX

required permits and licenses to operate as an outdoor food service establishment, and (3) the Director determines that the location of the proposed Streetary will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons or adjacent businesses as evidenced by the permittee obtaining written consent from the establishments fronting the proposed location and providing to the City.

F. Travel lane setback. Streetaries shall have an eighteen inch (18”) minimum setback from the travel lane measured from the parking striping adjacent to the travel lane. In cases where no striping exists, the maximum length of the streetary measured from the face of the curb shall be determined by the director or their designee.

G. Side setback. Streetaries shall have a two-foot minimum side setback to each wheel stop located at each end of the parking space.

H. Utilities. A minimum clearance of four feet (4’) from either side of utility access panels, manhole covers, storm drains, street valves, or any other type of utility assets will be required to allow for maintenance access. Streetaries proposed under overhead utility lines shall meet the minimum vertical distance requirements as established by the California Public Utility Commission. Streetaries that block the outlet of a sidewalk underdrain shall ensure the outlet is functional and flowing. Permittees shall take a thorough inventory of utility access covers in the proposed streetary area by checking under parked cars.

Permittees shall provide for access to any city or public utility company that may have underground conduits beneath the constructed streetary. Access to utilities may require that a permittee temporarily remove all or a portion of the constructed streetary. Permittees shall be responsible for the cost of removing, re-installing and restoring any damage to the streetary.

13.30.070 - Design and development standards.

The City Council shall, by separate resolution, adopt design and development standards regulating the form, design, safety, and maintenance of streetaries. The director may, from time to time, make minor modifications to the design and development standards.

13.30.080 - Criteria for issuance.

A. The director, in acting upon any application for a streetary encroachment permit, shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the issuance of a permit based on the following principles and standards:
a. That the proposed use of the parking spaces and/or sidewalks within the public rightof-way is in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter; b. That the proposed use of the parking spaces and/or sidewalks within the public right is so arranged as to ensure the protection of public health, safety and general welfare, and prevent interference with users of the sidewalks, streets and holders of other permits; and
c. That the proposed use will properly comply with the provisions and development standards prescribed in this chapter, or as prescribed by the director and/or planning director.

B. The streetary encroachment permit may be subject to additional conditions where the city has documented any violation of this chapter, other applicable laws and regulations, or the streetary is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or is detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood.

C. Deviations from Adopted Standards. Where the director determines that (1) a strict application of standards set forth in this ordinance cannot be met by a proposed streetary, Page G-5.11
Ordinance No. XXXX

and (2) the streetary, as proposed, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood, the director may grant exceptions or minor modifications to the standards set forth in this ordinance.

13.30.090 - Limited to food service establishments.

All permits issued pursuant to this chapter shall be limited to streetaries established in conjunction with food service establishments.

13.30.100 - Operational standards.

A. No live entertainment or amplified music. No live entertainment or amplified music shall be permitted in streetaries established pursuant to this chapter without first obtaining all required permits including but not limited to those issued pursuant to Chapter 8.06 (Noise).

B. No outdoor food preparation, flames, heating. Outdoor food preparation, food heating mechanisms, cooking and open flames, hotpots, candles, open flames, and barbecues shall not be permitted in streetaries.

C. Alcohol service. Alcohol service shall be permitted subject to the acquisition of all required local and State permits and licenses.

D. Noise and disruptive behavior. Permittees shall be responsible for ensuring their patrons minimize noise and disruptive behavior while using their streetary space.

E. Site maintenance. Streetaries shall be maintained free of litter, refuse and debris. The area shall be scrubbed and mopped daily by the permittee to remove any food or drink stains.

Such cleaning shall be in accordance with the City’s Storm Water Management Program per Chapter 7.42 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code, which prohibits any discharge other than rainwater into the storm water drainage system.

F. Streetaries shall adhere the following site maintenance requirements:
a. The permittee is required to keep the streetary area safe, free of debris, grime, and graffiti, and to keep any plants in good health.
b. Outdoor seating shall be scrubbed and mopped to remove any food or drink stains on a daily basis and the sidewalk shall be power washed quarterly by the permittee. Such cleaning shall be in accordance with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Program, which prohibits any discharge other than storm water into the storm water drainage system.
c. Streetaries and enclosures shall be designed in a manner that does not negatively impact existing drainage patterns. Features shall be incorporated into the design that allows water to flow freely off the street surface and along any existing gutter. d. The permittee shall be required to clean tree grates, the gutter, and drainage inlets.

Business and/or property owners shall be required to remove any debris that accumulates against their streetary. The areas on, under, and around the streetary must be clear of leaves and debris, which may require the restaurant operator or property owner to blow underneath the streetary or enclosure. The permittee shall also provide cleanout access upon request.
e. The permittee is required to maintain the pedestrian access clearances in sidewalk café and curb extension area and keep these areas safe, clean, and free of debris. f. Streetaries shall not block access necessary to maintain the canopy of City maintained street trees.

Page G-5.12
Ordinance No. XXXX

g. Failure to maintain the cleanliness, safety, and accessibility of a streetary or café may subject the permittee to violations and fines. If maintenance issues are not resolved, a streetary permittee may be required by the City to remove the streetary at the permittee’s expense.

G. Sidewalk Cleaning. The permittee shall comply with all State and local regulations related to waste disposal including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA) as follows:
a. Pollution Prevention (visit www.cabmphandbooks.com for more information) i. Use dry cleaning methods whenever practical for surface cleaning activities. ii. Use the least toxic materials available (e.g. water-based paints, gels or sprays for graffiti removal).
b. Surface Cleaning
i. Regular broom (dry) sweep the streetary, sidewalk, plaza, and parking areas to minimize cleaning with water.
ii. Dry cleanup first (sweep, collect, and dispose of debris and trash) when cleaning sidewalks or plazas, then wash with or without soap.
iii. Block the storm drain or contain runoff when cleaning with product H. ADA compliance. Streetary seating areas must, at all times, comply with all requirements of the ADA and provide sufficient clearance and walkway space to allow safe access and egress. For multi-level streetaries, a minimum of one level of ADA access shall be required.

I. Hours of operation. The streetary shall adhere to the same approved hours of operation as the associated food service establishment business, with the following limitations:
a. For streetaries that are within 150-foot horizontal or vertical distance from residences:

Streetaries shall not commence operations prior to 7 a.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; Streetaries shall not commence operations prior to 6 a.m. Monday through Friday; Streetaries shall not operate after 10 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays; Streetaries shall not operate after 9 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and holidays. For purposes of this section, “holidays” shall have the same meaning as set forth in chapter 8.13 (Noise) of title 8.

J. Insufficient usage. Streetaries must demonstrate adequate usage in order to contribute to the economic vitality of the city. The city requires these streetaries to be set up and readily available for use during the operational hours of the food service establishment associated with the streetary, except in inclement weather and subject to the hours of operation limitations under subsection G. The city has the right to notify any streetary in writing of insufficient usage and invoke the enforcement procedures set forth in this chapter.

13.30.110 - Indemnification and insurance.

As a condition of the issuance of an annual streetary encroachment permit, the permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Menlo Park and shall present, along with each application or renewal application for an annual permit, evidence of liability insurance in a form acceptable to the director.

13.30.120 – Enforcement.

A. Any person who violates this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be subject to any and all enforcement proceedings or remedies, including the imposition of penalties as authorized by law. The provisions of this chapter are cumulative to any other remedies authorized by law. Any streetary may be subject to inspection by the city on an annual basis or as needed to ensure compliance with this chapter and permits issued pursuant to this chapter.

Page G-5.13
Ordinance No. XXXX

B. The city retains the right to revoke a streetary encroachment permit at any time where a violation of this chapter has occurred and/or revocation is necessary to protect the public interest, health, safety and/or welfare of the community. If the director believes that a permittee is in violation of this chapter, the director may issue a notice of violation to the permittee. The notice of violation shall be served on the permittee, either in person or by first class mail. The notice shall indicate that the permit is subject to termination unless, within 30 days of service of the notice of violation, the violation is corrected or a hearing pursuant to this chapter is requested in writing.

C. If the director or their designee determines that a permittee will not be able to continue to meet the requirements of this chapter because of a proposed public highway right-of-way improvement, the director or their designate shall notify the permittee, either in person or by first class mail, that the permit will be terminated within 30 days of service of the notice of termination.

13.30.130 – Appeals
Any person aggrieved by the director's action on a streetary encroachment permit application or revocation may appeal by submitting a written appeal to the city manager, along with any applicable appeal fee as provided in the city's master fee schedule, within fifteen (15) days of the date on which the permit was issued or on which the application was denied or on which the permit was revoked. The city manager, or their designee, shall hold a hearing on the appeal within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal, and shall give the applicant and the appellant at least ten (10) days' written notice of the time of the hearing. The decision by the city manager or their designee on the appeal shall be final.

Page G-5.14

,.

MENLO PARK
AGENDA ITEM H-1
City Manager's Office

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 8/29/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-193-CC
Regular Business: Adopt resolutions to approve streetary design standards and streetary fees
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the City Council:

1. Adopt resolution to approve streetary outdoor dining design standards (Attachment A)

2. Adopt resolution to approve streetary outdoor dining fees (Attachment B) Policy Issues
The addition of Chapter 13.30 Streetaries Outdoor Dining Areas to Title 13 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code and amendments to corresponding sections of Title 13 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code relating to outdoor dining in the public right-of-way through streetary encroachment permits establishes a long-term policy including permitting, operational and maintenance regulations for outdoor dining in the public right-ofway.

Streetary outdoor dining design standards establish streetary encroachment permit application submittal guidelines and detailed standards for design elements, furnishings and fixtures, and operations and maintenance. Streetary outdoor dining fees set both initial and annual renewal permit and use of space fees that account for the City’s administration of the program and use of the public right-of-way for private business purposes.

Background
The City Council voted unanimously to introduce the streetary outdoor dining areas ordinance at the Aug. 15 City Council meeting. The staff report and materials are available in Attachment C, and include a history of outdoor dining regulations in Menlo Park, existing outdoor uses, and an overview of business outreach activities. At that meeting, the City Council requested staff review visibility and height requirements outlined within the streetary design standards (Attachment A, Exhibit A) and adjust requirements that do not impact safety. For the streetary fee structure, the City Council requested staff provide additional data on unsubsidized fees and information on expanding a fee waiver program to new streetary applicants without prior outdoor uses. Updates to streetary design standards and additional information on fees are described in the Analysis section below.

Analysis
Streetary outdoor dining design standards
The streetary ordinance section 13.30.070 states that the City Council will adopt design and development standards regulating the form, design, safety, and maintenance of streetaries by resolution (Attachment A).

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page H-1.1

Staff Report #: 23-193-CC
Staff prepared the streetary outdoor dining design standards to establish the streetary encroachment permit application submittal guidelines for parklets and sidewalk cafes, as well as detailed standards for design elements (location and setbacks, platforms, barriers/enclosures, and overhead structures), furnishings and fixtures, and general safety, operations and maintenance. The streetary design standards were created through a collaborative effort that was facilitated by HdL Companies and involved the expertise of City staff from planning, building, public works, transportation and economic development, as well as the Menlo Park Fire District.

As noted above, staff reviewed and updated visibility and height requirements outlined within the streetary design standards (Attachment A, Exhibit A).
• Wind barriers: The maximum height of wind barriers was increased from six feet to 10 feet above the platform floor to align with the maximum height for overhead structures and provide for more flexibility.

The requirement for wind barriers above 36 inches to be transparent was removed to allow more discretion of streetary owners in their designs and to promote privacy for diners. However, a condition was added that wind barriers must not conflict with the sight distance triangle and the 20 feet clearance zone.
• Overhead structures: The minimum height of overhead structures was updated to align with California Building Code standards, which stipulate heights of overhead structures must be no less than seven feet and six inches from the finished floor. While the building code does not establish a height maximum, the streetary design standards limit overhead structures to a maximum height of 10 feet with some increased height allowances for situations where it will not conflict with safety or visibility standards. • Tables, seating and chairs: The recommended table size within the furnishings and fixture section was removed. The section now focuses on accessibility for tables, seating and chairs. • Lighting: The minimum height of lighting was reduced from 10 feet to seven feet and six inches to align with the minimum height of overhead structures. Through a review of current outdoor dining, SZFM Design Studios, Inc. indicated the previously proposed minimum height of 10’ for string lights would make them seem both too far away for providing useful light as well as harder to properly maintain. The design standards do not include a maximum height for lighting to accommodate situations where lights need to be greater than seven feet and six inches in height to work around trees and other existing features around the streetary.
• Plants and Planters: Maximum height of plants in planters was increased from six inches to between 12 inches and 18 inches total depending on the allowable planter height range from 30 inches to 36 inches.

Note: Existing cement planter barriers are 30 inches in height. The updated combined total maximum height for planters and plants is 48 inches to ensure visibility and sightline of the surrounding retail tenant establishments both into and out of the parklet. There is an exception for planters at intersections or midblock crosswalks that prohibits combined planters and plants heights greater than 36 inches so as not to block vehicular, bicycle, and/or pedestrian visibility.

Streetary outdoor dining fees
The streetary ordinance section 13.30.040 states that the City Council will establish fee amounts for permit applications by resolution (Attachment B). The streetary fees include initial fees for both a streetary permit, including permit review and program administration, and use of public space at a per square foot (SF) cost.

The initial streetary permit term will be three years, after which annual fees will be required to cover minor administrative costs and use of space within the public right-of-way. The proposed streetary encroachment permit fee structure is outlined in Table 1.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page H-1.2

-
Staff Report #: 23-193-CC
Table 1: Proposed streetary encroachment permit fees
Annual renewal (begins First year Notes after initial 3 year term) Streetary Permit - parklets
(plus sidewalk cafes where
applicable)
$1,725 $250
First year permit fee is the same as the
administrative permit fee for outdoor dining
on private properties. Applicants may be
subject to a surcharge for a structural review.

Renewal fee covers administration.

Streetary Permit - sidewalk
cafes (standalone)
First year permit application same as a major
$810 $250 encroachment permit fee. Renewal fee
covers administration.

Streetary use of space fee Total would vary based on the actual area $4.24/SF $4.24/SF proposed in the streetary application.

In determining fee options, staff considered comparable outdoor dining program fee structures adopted by cities within the region as shown in Table 2. The proposed rate for the Menlo Park streetary program would be the third highest rate, below Redwood City and Burlingame, respectively. Current average initial permit and use fees among cities with outdoor dining are $2,641 and average annual fees are $1,915. Median initial permit fees are $1,914 and median annual fees are $997.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page H-1.3

Staff Report #: 23-193-CC
Table 2: Comparable outdoor dining program fees
City First year permit and use
fees Annual fees Notes
Redwood City
$2,226 permit fee
$10.16/SF Use fee ($3,657.60
for 360SF space)
= $5,883.60
$10.16/SF Use fee
($3,657.60 for 360 SF
space)
$583 renewal fee
= $4,240.60
Annual use fee waived for first year for
businesses who obtained a permit by
Oct. 31, 2022.

Burlingame
$431 permit fee + $1/ every SF
over 200-SF over max
$5,100 for first year use of
space = $5,531.00
$1,500 use fee
$3,000 cleaning fee
= $4,500.00
Menlo Park
(Proposed rate)
$1,725 permit fee
$4.24/SF per year ($1,526.40
for 360SF)
=$3,251.40
$250 permit renewal
$4.24/SF per year
($1,526.40 for 360SF)
=$1,776.40
Permit + use fees.

Annual (after 3-year term) renewal +
use.

Mountain View
(Downtown Castro
St)
$769 permit fee
$2,400 for first year use of
space
= $3,169
$205 use fee
$180 cleaning fee
= $385
San Rafael
$2,000 permit fee
($2,000 one-time deposit)
= $2,000
$3,600 use fee
Permit fee waived through 2023 and
annual use fee waived until June 1.
50% fee discount applies between June
1 and May 30, 2024. 25% fee discount
applies June 1, 2024 and May 31,
2025. No discounts or waiver beginning
June 1, 2025.

San Carlos
$539 permit fee
$1,289 for first year
= $1,828
$289 use fee
$705 cleaning fee
= $994
San Mateo
$500 permit fee
$1,000 for first year use fee
= $1,500
$500 use fee
$500 encroachment permit application
+ 250/stall first year
Annual renewal of $250/stall
Morgan Hill
$716.10 permit fee
($1,000 security deposit)
= $716.10
$1,000 use fee
Fees waived until Jan. 1. Permit fee is
paid every seven-years. Annual use fee
is only charged for parklets in the public
right-of-way
Los Altos $500 permit fee $100 use fee
Average $2,641 $1,915 (Does not include proposed Menlo Park Median fees) $1,914 $997
At the Aug. 15 City Council meeting, the City Council requested additional information on the potential streetary fee structure. Table 3 outlines the amounts for streetary encroachment permits, use fees, and annual renewals across three rate options and two comparable cities in San Mateo County. Data is based on average streetary size of 360 SF. Total fee amounts will vary based on actual SF of a streetary. Three City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page H-1.4

–
Staff Report #: 23-193-CC
rate options for use fees are included: (1) a monthly $4.24 per SF rate based on the full average annual retail rent per SF in Menlo Park ($50.88 per SF per year), (2) the proposed $4.24 per SF rate (discounted rate), and (3) an $8.50 per SF rate (discounted rate) that is closer to the rate in neighboring Redwood City.

Table 3: Example of streetary encroachment permit fees first year Rate options Comparable cities
$4.24/SF per $8.50/SF per year month (Full $4.24/SF per year Fees (Additional increased average retail rent (Proposed rate) rate option) per SF) Redwood
City Burlingame
Streetary encroachment $1,725 $1,725 $1,725 $2,226 $591 permit fee Use fee (360 SF) $18,316.80 $1,526.40 $3,060 $3,657.60 $5,100 Total initial streetary $20,041.80 $3,251.40 $4,785 $5,883.60 $5,691 permit + use fee Annual permit renewal $250 $250 $250 $583 $3,000* fee
Annual use fee (360 SF) $18,316.80 $1,526.40 $3,060 $3,657.60 $1,500 Total annual fee $18,566.80 $1,776.40 $3,310 $4,240.60 $4,500 *Cleaning fee. Proposed streetary ordinance in Menlo Park places cleaning responsibility on streetary owner.

Two use fee options would be significantly subsidized by the City compared to average retail rent rates in Menlo Park:
• For the proposed rate of $4.24/SF, use fees would be discounted by $16,790.40 compared to the average annual retail rent per SF.
• For the additional increased rate option of $8.50/SF, use fees would be $1,533.60 higher than the proposed rate and discounted by $15,256.80 compared to the average annual retail rent per SF.

Business assistance for transitioning to streetary program The streetary program contains multiple elements aimed to assist businesses to comply with new streetary standards and provide financial support. First, the City engaged SZFM Design Studios, Inc. (SZFM), a California based design firm, to review existing outdoor dining uses for compliance with proposed streetary design standards. SZFM provided recommendations to help existing outdoor dining facility owners more easily implement improvements (Attachment C).

Staff also recommend fees be waived until Jan. 1, 2025, for food-service establishments with existing outdoor dining areas that submit a completed streetary encroachment permit application by Dec. 31 and for any new food-service establishments that apply for a streetary permit. On and after Jan. 1, 2025, first year permit fees will apply to new streetary applicants, and the annual renewal fees will apply to existing streetaries once their initial three-year term is reached. This delayed effective date for fees provides financial support for businesses that invested in creating outdoor use spaces and provides other businesses an opportunity to create outdoor dining with subsidy. Table 4 outlines the City subsidy through fee waivers.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page H-1.5
Staff Report #: 23-193-CC
Table 4: Estimated fee waiver
Fee Price Existing outdoor dining areas Estimated fee waivers Initial permit fee $1,725 (one-time)
12 Streetaries
(Using approximately 30
parking spaces, or an estimated
5,400 SF)
$20,700
Initial use of space fee $4.24/SF per year $22,896
Annual renewal year 1 $250 + $4.24/SF $25,896
Annual renewal year 2 $250 + $4.24/SF $25,896
Total estimated cost of streetary encroachment permits for 12 existing uses $95,388 Table 4: Estimated fee waiver
Fee Price New outdoor dining areas Estimated fee waivers Initial permit fee $1,725 (one-time) Five streetaries
(Assuming use of two-parking
spaces per streetary (360 SF) or
1,800 SF total)
$8,625
Initial use of space fee $4.24/SF per year $7,632
Annual renewal year 1 $250 + $4.24/SF $8,882
Annual renewal year 2 $250 + $4.24/SF $8,882
Total estimated cost of streetary encroachment permits for 5 new areas $34,021

Estimated fee waivers are provided as an example in Table 4. Estimates are based on proposed fees and two assumptions: (1) all 12 existing outdoor dining uses apply for streetaries permits and (2) potentially five new businesses apply for streetaries permits in year one. Total City subsidy of fee waivers in the initial three-year period would be $95,388 for existing outdoor dining uses and $34,021 for potentially new Streetaries, for a total of $129,409.

Alignment with Specific Plan
In alignment with the El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan Section D – Public Space, the proposed streetary outdoor dining program standards use the functional zones of the sidewalk and parking / travel lane identified in the Specific Plan to help establish locations for parklets and sidewalk cafes. The El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan identifies a need to improve the pedestrian realm on Santa Cruz Avenue, which includes sitting and outdoor dining options in functional sidewalk zones. The plan establishes sidewalk functional zones, ensuring a pedestrian clear zone and more pleasant and functional sidewalks. It redistributes the right-of-way between traffic lanes, on-street parking, and sidewalks in order to focus on an enhanced pedestrian experience while still accommodating vehicular circulation and on-street parking. Per the Santa Cruz Avenue sidewalks section (D10) of the Specific Plan, Activities outside the building, such as outdoor dining, can enliven adjacent sidewalks. These are desirable attributes in areas with high levels of activity such as the downtown and station area.

Impact on City Resources
Total fee waivers from the start of the streetary program to January 2025 would require an estimated City subsidy of $129,409 if all 12 existing outdoor uses and potentially five new food-service establishments apply for Streetary permits. Total subsidy would vary based on actual square footage of streetaries.

The City of Menlo Park provides services and infrastructure that contribute to quality-of-life for all Menlo City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page H-1.6

Staff Report #: 23-193-CC
Park residents. Rates for streetary permit fees would be subsidized at a midlevel of cost recovery in acknowledgement that the program benefits participating businesses, activates the public realm, and supports economic vitality of businesses and Menlo Park as a whole.

Environmental Review
The streetary outdoor dining areas ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301 (Class 1), 15304 (Class 4) and 15305 (Class 5).

Class 1 categorical exemptions (Existing Facilities) consist of minor alterations or private facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing uses. This ordinance will allow for minor alterations to private dining facilities to allow for negligible expansion of use into the public right of way.

Class 4 Categorical exemptions (Minor Alterations to Land) consist of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes, including “minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment . . .” (CEQA Guideline § 15304(e).) This ordinance will involve the temporary, non-permanent use of land; all uses authorized pursuant to this ordinance would involve temporary, non-permanent improvements in the public right of way including temporary structures, tables and seating.

Class 5 categorical exemptions (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) covers projects that consist of minor alterations in land use limitation in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density including but not limited to issuance of minor encroachment permits.

This ordinance will result in the issuance of licenses and/or permits for use and encroachment into the public right of way.

The proposed project is consistent with these exemptions because the requested action will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable change in the environment and because there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on 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. Resolution to approve streetaries outdoor dining design standards B. Resolution to approve streetary outdoor dining fees
C. Hyperlink – Aug. 15 City Council staff report: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-andminutes/city-council/2023-meetings/agendas/20230815-city-council-agenda-packet-wpres.pdf#page=244 Report prepared by:

Kirstin Hinds, Senior Advisor, HdL Companies
Report reviewed by:

Stephen Stolte, Assistant City Manager
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Page H-1.7

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 13.30 (“STREETARIES” OUTDOOR DINING

AREAS) OF THE MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING DESIGN

STANDARDS FOR THE STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT FEES FOR

PARKLETS AND SIDEWALK CAFES
WHEREAS, at its August 15, 2023, regular meeting, the City Council introduced an ordinance to add Chapter 13.30 (“Streetaries” Outdoor Dining Areas) to Title 13 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code (MPMC), which establishes permit requirements, location and operational criteria and standards, and enforcement of the Streetary Outdoor Dining program; and WHEREAS, Section 13.30.070 of the Ordinance states that the City Council shall establish by resolution design and development standards regulating the form, design, safety and maintenance of Streetaries; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director may, from time to time, make minor modifications to the design and development standards.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Incorporation of recitals.

The City Council hereby finds the recitals set forth above to be true and correct.

Section 2. Streetary Outdoor Dining Design Standards Adopted.

The Streetary Outdoor Dining Design Standards, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A, are hereby adopted. The Public Works Director may, from time to time, make minor modifications to the design and development standards.

Section 3: Environmental Review.

This Resolution is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment.

Section 4: Effective Date.

This resolution shall become effective on the same date the ordinance adopting Chapter 13.30 becomes effective.

Section 5: Severability.

The City Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, cause, and phrase of this resolution is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution Page H-1.8

___________________________
is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases.

Section 6: Certification.

The City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution.

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 twenty-ninth day of August, 2023, 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 August, 2023.

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits:

A. Streetary design standards
Page H-1.9
City of Menlo Park
“Streetaries”
Outdoor Dining Areas
Design Standards
Page H-1.10 EXHIBIT A

Contents
STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING AREAS PROGRAM OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING AREA – PARKLETS................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 STREETARY PARKLET SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 STREETARY PARKLET SITE PLAN CHECKLIST............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 STREETARY PARKLET ELEVATION CHECKLIST........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 OUTDOOR PARKLET STREETARY DESIGN STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 SELECT PARKLET DESIGN COMPONENTS ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 DETAILED DESIGN STANDARDS.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 A. LOCATION AND SETBACK CRITERIA .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 B. PARKLET PLATFORM DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 C. BARRIERS, RAILINGS, OR ENCLOSURES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 D. OVERHEAD STRUCTURES........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING AREA – SIDEWALK CAFÉS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22 SIDEWALK CAFÉ ZONES...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 SIDEWALK CAFÉ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST..................................................................................................................................................................... 24 STREETARY FURNISHINGS & FIXTURE DESIGN STANDARDS .................................................................................................................................................................. 25 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR STREETARIES............................................................................................................................................................................. 29 2 Page H-1.11

STREETARY PROGRAM

STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING AREAS PROGRAM OVERVIEW
In 2015, the City of Menlo Park approved the Santa Cruz Street Café Program and assisted seven businesses in building semi-permanent parklets. The initial terms of the Santa Cruz Street Café program agreements expired in 2021 and the agreement holders were able to continue operating in the parklets on a month to month basis. The City’s Temporary Outdoor Use Permit (TOUP) program began in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic and California State of Emergency order. The TOUP Program was tied to duration of the COVID-19 California State of Emergency Order, which expired February 28, 2023.

To continue outdoor dining operations, the Menlo Park City Council adopted the Streetaries Outdoor Dining Areas Ordinance to add Chapter 13.30 –Streetary Outdoor Dining Areas to the Menlo Park Municipal Code. The Streetaries outdoor dining areas program is an expansion of past outdoor use and parklet programs with improved design standards for the operation of outdoor dining installations in the Downtown Business District and other commercial areas of the City in the form of parklets and sidewalk cafes. Allowing for Streetaries provides an opportunity for businesses to expand their operations outdoors onto public streets or private spaces.

A “Streetary” refers to an outdoor eating area that operates within and uses public parking spaces and/or sidewalks within the public right of way directly adjacent to a restaurant or café or other food service establishment’s street frontage. Streetaries are generally allowed within two areas of the right-of-way: (1) the sidewalk area between the curb and the building or parcel frontage and (2) parking areas, generally the parking spaces between the curb and travel lane, as well as parking stalls in public or private parking lots.

Streetaries are generally permitted in the El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan / Downtown Business District area and most other commercially zoned areas for restaurant and dining space uses where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour or less. However, Streetaries are not allowed where bike/pedestrian safety and vehicle travel would be impacted, as well as along El Camino Real because it is a State-controlled roadway and is not under the City’s jurisdiction.

STREETARY GOALS

1. Activate the public realm in Downtown Menlo Park and other commercial areas.

2. Maintain physical and visual access to Menlo Park businesses.

3. Provide safe, attractive, and accessible spaces for outdoor uses.

4. Provide accessible amenity areas for private businesses during operating hours.

5. Support the economic vitality and growth of businesses and the City. 3 Page H-1.12

SECTION 1. STREETARY PARKLETS
STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING AREA – PARKLETS

PURPOSE
The purpose of the Streetary parklet standards is to ease the approval process for parklets by establishing parklet template design solutions for an applicant to meet the design, locational, and permitting requirements of the City.

GUIDELINES
The Streetary parklet design standards provide design guidelines and requirements for Menlo Park businesses to use in the preparation of an application to construct a parklet on a public parking space under City control in any commercial district where outdoor uses are permitted. A parklet is a sidewalk extension, typically installed on public parking spaces, that provides more space and amenities for outdoor dining (such as seating or greenery area) operated and maintained by the business establishment operating the Streetary.

RELATION TO SIDEWALK CAFÉ STREETARIES
The Streetary Program includes parklets and sidewalk cafes to facilitate additional outdoor dining and social gathering spaces in the public realm.

Businesses that will only implement a sidewalk cafe should refer to the sidewalk café Streetary overview and may proceed to sidewalk café Streetary section of this document on page 21. Businesses that desire to implement a parklet should follow the parklet Streetary guidelines contained in this section. Where both a parklet and an adjoining sidewalk cafe are planned, both sections should be consulted.

PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
An Streetary encroachment permit is required for all parklet installations and sidewalk cafes, including those that were in place prior to the creation of these guidelines. Streetary Permit application packets, as described below, must be submitted prior to the construction of any new parklet or the modification of an existing parklet previously permitted under the Santa Cruz Street Café or Temporary Outdoor Use Permit pilot programs.

All permits will be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Divisions and other relevant City departments, prior to approval. Permits for use of sidewalk and public parking plazas shall be revocable upon 72-hour notice if the City determines the sidewalk space or public parking plazas are needed for other non-emergency uses, such as expanded walking space on sidewalks for events or additional parking in public parking plazas. 4 Page H-1.13

STREETARY PARKLET SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

STREETARY ENROACHMENT PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKLETS The following shall be submitted to the City of Menlo Park Public Works Department as part of the Streetary Encroachment Permit:
 Permit fee payment (as defined in the Streetary Fee Structure)  Site Plan (scaled - I.e., 1/8” = 1’10” | dimensioned - I.e., 5’0” clearance path) (refer to site plan checklist)  Elevation drawing (refer to elevation drawing checklist)  Identification of Parklet Design Components (refer to Design Components Checklist)  Photograph of proposed design components
 Photograph of proposed Streetary location (showing the front and side views along the business frontage)  Required insurance forms (see below)
 Traffic control plan (for installation/construction)

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
 Completed Hold Harmless Agreement (review requirements listed)  Insurance Endorsement Form
 Insurance Certificate (must name City as additional insured, see Hold Harmless Form) Insurance Category Minimum Limits
Worker’s compensation Statutory Minimum
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000.00 per accident for bodily injury or disease Commercial General
Liability
$1,000,000.00 ($2,000,000.00 for parklets) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage
Streetary permit(s) are revocable. Compliance with Streetaries (Chapter 13.30) and the design / program guidelines in this document is required. 5 Page H-1.14

□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ 1----------------------; □
□

STREETARY PARKLET SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
The Site Plan Checklist provides information required to be shown on the applicant’s submitted site plan. The Checklist includes information for the existing site conditions for the desired parking space and parklet location requirements to verify that the proposal is suitable along the business frontage. Example site plans that include the Checklist items are provided in the following section for each parklet template.

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PROPOSED PARKLET STREETARY INFORMATION Applicant building and adjacent businesses (with entry
doors shown) Proposed parklet footprint and dimensions
Existing sidewalk width(s) Egress plan and accessibility compliance Existing curb cuts and driveways Number of parking spaces that the parklet will occupy Adjacent bicycle lane or auto traffic lane Parklet setbacks:
- Minimum 3-feet from adjacent parking spaces
- Minimum 2-foot from adjacent bicycle lane or auto traffic lane - Minimum 2-feet from fronting driveways (if applicable) Existing parking spaces, ADA spaces, accessible routes and loading zones with dimensions
Other existing sidewalk features (e.g., fire hydrants,
streetlights, planters, bike racks, bus stops, outdoor dining, trees, signs, trash cans, etc.)
Distance from the proposed parklet to the nearest crosswalk or intersection
All color curb zones (red, yellow, green, white, blue) Location, height, impact rating, and materials of barriers, railings, and/or enclosures
Scale Location and spacing of parklet tables, chairs, umbrellas/fabric sails, and other furnishings
North arrow Additional bike racks adjacent to the parklet (if applicable) Name and location of adjoining streets or alleys Lighting (if applicable) no new foundations are allowed Adjacent existing parklets Portable heaters and power source (if applicable) Height of building at proposed location and adjacent Café counter: a long flat-topped fixture for dining (if applicable) buildings Benches (if applicable)
6 Page H-1.15

1 Inch = Feet
The overhead structure in this image is shown only to
demonstrate how clearance is measured. Overhead
structures are not used in typical parklets and require a special allowance with a longer approval process subject to staff discretion. Typical parklets preferred by the city include the use of colorful umbrellas, fabric awnings, or other retractable and soft material for shading that still allow light to the public realm.

Street Crown
Top of Asphalt
Overhead Structure
Clearance/Height
Feet
□
□
□
□
□
□
Parklet Width
Feet
Transparent Wind
Barrier
Barrier Material
Platform Leveling
Barrier Height
F@@t
Sidewalk Width
FPPt
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Storefront

STREETARY PARKLET ELEVATION CHECKLIST
The Parklet Elevation Checklist provides information required to be shown on the Parklet Applicant’s submitted parklet elevation drawing.

PROPOSED PARKLET BARRIER AND STRUCTURE INFORMATION PROPOSED PARKLET PLATFORM AND OTHER INFORMATION Parklet width Platform Support
Barrier Height Platform Leveling (i.e., pedestal or other means) Barrier Materials (including planters, railings, and soft posts (if Platform Anchorage applicable) Drainage Clearance
Overhead Structure (if approved as a special allowance) Existing Asphalt and street crown Overhead Structure minimum 7' 6" clearance Sidewalk Width Overhead Structure Height Storefront
7 Page H-1.16

OUTDOOR PARKLET STREETARY DESIGN STANDARDS

SELECT A PARKLET STREETARY TEMPLATES
Each template reflects conditions that generally exist for on-street parking spaces in commercial areas: parallel parking spaces, diagonal parking spaces, and special condition parklets. The applicant shall select a parklet template based on the existing conditions along the site frontage.

Special condition parklets allow for unique or site-specific conditions. Each special condition template has a unique icon that is used throughout these guidelines to indicate where a program requirement is specific to that special condition parklet.

Once the applicant has selected a parklet template, the applicant may then select an option for each of the design components listed on page 12. These include enclosure or platform materials, seating options, and other considerations. Parklets shall meet all additional design requirements starting on page 13. Please see the Appendix for additional parklet template renderings and site plans.

A-1 PARALLEL SPACE PARKLET (1 PARKING SPACE)
• The Parallel Parklet template occupying one parking
space is a compact parklet that provides an intimate
outdoor dining setting.
• This template limits the maximum parklet area to one
parking space and can be utilized in areas where
available on-street parking spaces are limited.
• Parklets proposed for perpendicular parking spaces can use a modified version of this template.

Parklet Streetary Template Options
A. Parklet in parallel parking space(s):

1. A-1 One Space

2. A-2 Two Space
B. Parklet in a diagonal parking space
C. Special Condition Parklets:

1. C-1 Parklet/Sidewalk Café
Combination

2. C-2 Parklet/Sidewalk Café Curb
Extension

3. C-3 Parklet/Pedestrian Street
Combination
8 Page H-1.17

A-2 PARALLEL SPACE PARKLET (2 PARKING
SITES)
• The Parallel Parklet template occupying two
parking spaces provides a larger outdoor
dining setting.
• This template limits the maximum parklet
area to two parallel parking spaces.
• Parklets proposed for perpendicular parking
spaces can also use a modified version of
this template.

B-DIAGONAL SPACE PARKLET
• The Diagonal Space Parklet template
provides a larger outdoor dining
setting.
• When including the necessary
setbacks, this template would need
three spaces.
9 Page H-1.18

C-1 PARKLET/SIDEWALK CAFÉ COMBINATION
• The Parklet/Sidewalk Cafe Combination
template is for conditions where an applicant
has the opportunity to incorporate both a
sidewalk cafe and a parklet for a combined
space.
• This Special Condition template can be used in
either a parallel parking or diagonal parking
site.
• The combined space should be designed as a
comprehensively planned singular space.

C-2 PARKLET/SIDEWALK CAFÉ CURB

EXTENSION COMBINATION
• The Parklet/Sidewalk Cafe Curb Extension
Combination template is provided for sites
where a business would like to incorporate a
sidewalk cafe on an adjacent curb extension
with a parklet.
• This Special Condition template can be used in
either a parallel or diagonal parking site
adjacent to an intersection.
• The combined space should be designed as a
comprehensively planned singular space.
10 Page H-1.19

C-3 PARKLET/PEDESTRIAN STREET COMBINATION
• The Parklet/Pedestrian Street Combination template is designed with flexibility for parklets that are proposed on streets the City has permanently closed to vehicular through-traffic to enable pedestrian access and circulation. • This template shall not be used where streets are only temporarily closed. • Expanded seating areas would not be allowed unless the supplementary seating is specifically reflected in plans submitted and approved by the City.
11 Page H-1.20

SELECT PARKLET DESIGN COMPONENTS
Each of the Parklet templates can be constructed with a series of components of a variety of materials to ensure quality design and an enhancement of the public realm. The applicant shall select one or more of the appropriate features from the Required Design Components, below, and then select additional, Optional Design Components. The design should be compatible with the façade of the adjacent building/restaurant. The applicant may propose to use an alternative material that may be approved upon review by City staff.

REQUIRED DESIGN COMPONENTS OPTIONAL DESIGN COMPONENTS** Platform
Select one:

Shading
Select one:

Brick pavers ________ Concrete Pavers ________ Umbrella (Fire resistant) ___________
Fabric sail shade
(Fire resistant) __________ Wood boards ________ Other: __________________ Platform Support
Select one: Lighting
Wood platform support _____ Steel-frame
platform support _______ String Lights ___________ Light post __________ (No new foundations allowed)
Barriers
Select one:

Overhead Structures as a Special Condition
Select one of the following:

Wood planter* _________ Concrete Planter* _______ Pergola ___________ Solid Roof ___________ Steel planter _________ Perforated steel
Railing _______
Tent/Membrane
Structure ___________ Other: ___________________
Tables and Seating Other
Movable café tables
and chairs ________ Metal benches ________ Additional planters _________ Bike rack ___________ Wooden benches ________ Café counter ________ Portable heaters __________ Other: ___________________ *Wood and Concrete Planters must be painted or finished, and colors should be compatible with the façade of the adjacent building. **Fuel fired heating devices are prohibited inside of cloths, umbrellas, tents, canopies, and membrane structures (electric is okay). Heating devices must be CSFM rated.
12 Page H-1.21

DETAILED DESIGN STANDARDS
This section provides detailed requirements and standards that are applicable to all parklet templates. Parklet design elements and materials consist of the following elements, generally: (A) Location and Setback; (B) Platforms; (C) Railings or enclosures; and (D) Overhead Structures as a Special Allowance. Furnishing & Fixture Design Standards and General Operation & Maintenance Requirements for parklets and sidewalk cafes are at the end of the document. These requirements are established to maintain safety, accessibility, and an enhanced design that connects the public realm.

The applicant’s compliance with these requirements shall be shown on the applicant’s site plan, submitted as part of the parklet permit application.

A. LOCATION AND SETBACK CRITERIA
Streetaries are generally allowed in most commercial districts along the curbside on public streets where on-street parking spaces exist. However, parklets are not allowed along El Camino Real because it is a State-controlled roadway and is not under the City’s jurisdiction.

1. Permitted areas within City: Streetaries are intended for outdoor dining in the El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan /Downtown Business District, as well as other commercially zoned areas where outdoor uses are permitted. Streetaries are only permitted on roads with speed limits less than 25mph. Parklets are not allowed in ADA/handicap parking spaces or red curb zones.

2. Parklet Size
• A maximum of three parking spaces shall be used for each Streetary. A typical parklet occupies approximately 360 square feet (equivalent to about 2 parallel parking spaces). Parklets that occupy more space may be approved at the City’s discretion. • A parklet located in an angled space shall occupy a minimum of 3 diagonal spaces to allow for sufficient buffering to vehicles parking in adjacent parking spaces. This may be reduced to 2 diagonal parking spaces where a parklet is proposed in combination with a curb extension.

3. Parklet Setback Requirements
• 2.5-feet from driveway flare
• 2-feet from the travel lane (1-foot from the travel lane may be acceptable where the travel lane is 11 or 12-feet in width), measured from the parking striping adjacent to the travel lane. Where the parking striping does not exist, the applicant shall confirm with City staff the width of the travel lane measured from the street centerline and provided the setback from the identified travel lane edge.

The 2-foot setback must be kept clear at all times, unless occupied by reflective delineator posts or their equal • 2-feet from a bike lane
• 3-feet from the side to the adjacent parking space, parallel or diagonal. Where parking striping does not exist, the applicant shall confirm with City staff the width and location of each parking space and shall measure the setback from the identified parking space location

4. Crosswalk & Bulb-out Setback: When located near an intersection or mid-block crosswalk, parklets must be located at least 20-feet from the nearest boundary (edge of the crosswalk that is closest to the parklet) of a crosswalk at the nearest intersection or street corner. A curb extension (commonly referred to as a “bulb-out”), some other physical barrier that would protect the parklet in a corner location, or other specific site condition may allow the City to consider variations from the 20-foot minimum requirement. 13 Page H-1.22

6-lrch \.11r mum
G tter W :i I
PARKLET CURB/ 4-lrch l\-11r1murn SIDEWALK Gutter Height t
STREET

5. Other Location Criteria:
• Utilities: Parklets may not be constructed over or obstruct utility access panels, manhole covers, storm drains, survey monuments, or fire hydrants. A minimum clearance of 4-feet from either side of said utilities will be required for maintenance access.  Be sure to take a thorough inventory of utility access covers in your proposed parklet area by working with city staff to determine utility locations, surveying your proposed parklet area, and checking under parked cars.  A minimum clearance of 4-feet from either side of storm drains and manhole covers will be required to allow for maintenance access.
 Parklets proposed under overhead utility lines will be required to meet the minimum distance requirements as established by the CPUC.
 Parklets that block the outlet of a sidewalk underdrain will be required to ensure the outlet is functional and flowing.  Parklet sponsors must provide for access to any City or utility company that may have underground conduits beneath the constructed parklet at all times, or immediately following a request for access. No notice can be guaranteed for emergency access to underground utilities. For planned access, 72-hour notice will be issued to the parklet sponsor. Access to utilities may require that a parklet sponsor temporarily remove all or a portion of the constructed parklet at the parklet sponsor/owner’s expense.
• Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall not be blocked and parklet owners must maintain a 3-foot radius clearance around the physical hydrant and 15 feet access to hydrant in each direction linear along street. • Fire District Connections (FDCs): to maintain access to FDCs, five-foot wide openings should be provided between every two adjacent parklets (and no more than 75-feet apart).

B. PARKLET PLATFORM DESIGN CRITERIA

1. Materials: Platforms must be constructed with durable, fire resistant materials and be able to withstand the effects of the outdoor environment. Examples: naturally durable wood,
preservative-treated wood, or other engineered material suitable for exterior conditions.
• Concrete platforms are not permitted; however, you
may use concrete pavers on a platform structure.
• Surface materials must be textured or treated with a
non-skid coating to ensure a safe walking surface. Loose particles, such as sand and loose stone, are not
permitted.

CURBSIDE DRAINAGE
Page H-1.23
14 • Applicants interested in utilizing fabric sails or other architectural features which may “catch” wind, must provide proof of wind loads.

2. Maintain access to utilities: Parklets must be designed to provide access to site-specific utilities, such as storm sewer covers, utility cabinets, and underground vaults, by employing in their design and construction access panels or removable pavers. • A minimum 15-foot clearance shall be maintained from a fire hydrant and all other fire appurtenances.

3. Flush to sidewalk: Platforms must be flush and even with the sidewalk and must not leave a gap greater than one-half (1/2) an inch, nor a vertical separation greater than one-quarter (1/4) inch.

4. No wheel mounts: A parklet platform or its enclosure shall not be mounted on wheels.

5. Drainage, Ventilation and Rodent Proofing: Platforms shall allow curbside draining flow with the following:
• A four-inch (4”) height by six-inch (6”) width minimum clear gutter space shall be provided along the entire length of the proposed platform.
• Openings under the platform shall be screened with corrosion-resistant material with a maximum of 1/4-inch (one-fourth inch) mesh to prevent rodent access and debris buildup beneath the platform and in the gutter. • The parklet permittee shall clean covers or screens regularly to prevent any blockage of flow in the gutter. • All parklets shall provide access through the parklet platform or threshold to the gutter adjacent to the curb. Access may be provided through removable panels, pavers, or other means.

6. Bolting Not Allowed: At no time may structures be bolted or affixed in any way to the roadway or any structure (including but not limited to buildings, fire hydrants, street trees, streetlight, parking meters, or traffic poles, etc.). • An exception to this is that wheel stops for traffic protection must be bolted to the roadway as described in the Traffic Protection section of these Guidelines. However, in case of removal, the establishment shall be responsible for repairing the pavement holes at the permit holder’s expense.

7. Sub-structure: Designs for the sub-structure of a parklet vary and depend on the slope of the street and overall design for the structure. The sub-structure must accommodate the crown of the road and provide a level surface for the parklet. • “Bison pedestals” spaced under the surface and of different heights are a common application. Another method is to provide steel sub-structure and angled beams.
15 Page H-1.24

Change in Pedestal I-------------,
Height to Maintain A 1---------------, Level Platform
Street Pedestal
Platform Level with
Curb/Sidewalk
Sidewalk CROWN OF STltEIT/

CENTEALINE
Parl<l<t ..... 1 w 1n (Urt,/ dow
PARl<lET GutnR SIDEWALK

PEDESTAL SYSTEM LEVELING SUBSTRUCTURE OR PLATFORM LEVELING

8. ADA Accessibility: All accessibility elements of the proposed platform shall be designed, constructed and/or conform to the applicable provisions, rules, regulations and guidelines of the California Building Code and Americans with Disabilities Act. • Accessible Platform Surface: The portion of the parklet platform connected by the accessible path of travel to the wheelchair turning space and wheelchair resting space must be level. The accessible platform surface maximum cross slope (perpendicular to the sidewalk or curb) and running slope (parallel to the curb) cannot exceed 2%. The maximum elevation difference between the sidewalk and the Streetary platform shall be either ¼-inch (one-fourth inch) vertical change in level, or ½-inch (one-half inch) beveled change in level. Platform surface shall be made of slip resistant material. • Accessible entry: Shall be a minimum of 48 inches wide. • Accessible path of travel: It must connect the sidewalk to the accessible entry, platform surface, wheelchair turning space and wheelchair resting space.
• Wheelchair turning space: Shall be 60 inches in diameter and located entirely within the platform; a 12-inch maximum overlap on the curb and sidewalk is acceptable.
• Wheelchair landing: A 30- by 48-inch clear floor area. It’s permitted to overlap with the Wheelchair Turning Space by 24-inches maximum in any orientation.
16 Page H-1.25

Wheelchair
Resting Space
Minimum 60-lnch
Wide Access
60-lnch Diameter Wheelchair
Turning Space

WHEELCHAIR ACCESS

9. Platforms within closed streets: Variations from the requirement to have a platform may be permitted within the travel way of closed streets, provided that the applicant can show that accessibility, setback, visibility, maintenance and other safety requirements outlined here are met.
17 Page H-1.26

BARRIER HEIGHT

WIND BARRIER AND OVERHEAD STRUCTURE
MAXIMUM 10 FEET
--
•

TRANSPARENT WIND BARRIER
,- PLATFORM FLOOR

ENCLOSURE HEIG HT
,!cf"_
C. BARRIERS, RAILINGS, OR ENCLOSURES
The parklet railing or enclosure marks the boundary between the parklet and the street or sidewalk. Traffic barriers are required to surround the parklet on three sides to protect from oncoming traffic and patrons inadvertently entering the vehicular way. It should serve as a safe edge while also being visually appealing, permeable, and inviting. The following standards and guidelines should inform your design:

1. Force / Impact Rating: Barriers, Railings or Enclosures must be stable and sturdy enough not to fall over or be pushed over (must withstand
250-lbs of force).

2. Height: The height of the enclosure shall be between 30 to 36-inches from the parklet platform floor to the top of the railing. • A combination of planter barriers plus plants shall not exceed 48-inches. When located at an intersection or mid-block crosswalk, the combined total maximum height of planters and plants is 36-inches. • Wind barriers shall be installed and engineered to withstand expected wind loads, in conformance with any necessary building permits. Wind barriers above the height of the 36-inch enclosure shall not create a conflict with the sight distance triangle and the 20-foot clearance zone at intersections and mid-block crosswalks. • The total height of the enclosure plus wind barrier, lighting and/or overhead structures, should not extend more than 10-feet from the floor platform. Overhead structures must be designed per requirements for overhead structures. • Openings in rails must prevent passage of 4-inch sphere. 18 Page H-1.27

3. Visibility: The enclosure should not block the view of conflicting movements of traffic, including pedestrian traffic, nor block the view of traffic control devices such as traffic signs, traffic signals, and other traffic warning devices. • Property addresses need to remain visible. If needed, post reflective visible addresses on structures if blocking from street view on building.

4. Reflectors: All railings/enclosures must have retro-reflective reflectors or retro-reflective tape on the corners of the parklet facing the travel lane such that they are visible by vehicle traffic at night.

5. Posts or Bollards: Parklets shall have vertical elements that make them visible to traffic, such as flexible posts or bollards both with retroreflective tape. One possible measure are safe hits posts (as shown in the picture below). These vertical elements shall be placed 2 feet from the edge of the parklet on both sides of the parklet not adjacent to the travel lane. Structural bollards may be required if deemed necessary by the city.

6. Design: Barriers may be made up of or encased by one of the following materials: (1) wood planters, (2) concrete planters, (3) steel planter, or (4) perforated steel railings.
• Wood and concrete planters must be finished or painted. • The colors and materials should be compatible with the design, materials, and colors of the façade of the adjacent building/restaurant frontage.

7. To accommodate seasonal conditions, the applicant may propose alternative platform and wind barrier materials and designs for review and approval by City.
19 Page H-1.28

D. OVERHEAD STRUCTURES
Overhead structures may require a longer review and approval process subject to staff discretion. Typical parklets preferred by the city include the use of umbrellas, fabric awnings, or other retractable and soft material for shading that still allow light to the public realm in colors that are compatible with the façade of the adjacent building/restaurant.

1. Construction of overhead structures must be done in accordance with the California Building Standards Code as adopted by the City of Menlo Park.

2. Inspection: Installation of any roof or overhead structure is subject to review by the city.

3. Site plan requirements for overhead structures: A site plan and elevation drawing of the parklet shall be provided with a structural engineer or architect’s stamp if the applicant proposes to include an overhead structure, such as a pergola or other affixed roof structure. • Umbrellas or fabric sail shades are not considered overhead structures. However, umbrellas and fabric sail shades must be identified in the site plan for the city to review for compliance with standards such as sight lines, height, wind/fire resistance, etc.

4. Visibility and clearance: The City will review any proposed overhead structures to ensure that sufficient visibility for pedestrians, traffic, businesses, and other site-specific conditions, are properly maintained. The city may require modifications or deny the proposed overhead structure. Other visibility and clearance requirements for overhead structures include:
• The minimum vertical clearance for an overhead structure within the parklet footprint, a sidewalk cafe, or curb extension is 7'6" (seven feet and six inches) above the finished floor level and the maximum vertical height is 10-feet or the height of the first floor top of plate height of restaurant, whichever is shorter in height. • In order to ensure motorist sight lines at street intersections, overhead structures or other parklet features higher than 36 inches are prohibited within a 30-foot vision triangle measured from the intersection of the curb or curb extension line. • Parklets with overhead structures may only be placed where a minimum 8-foot pedestrian clearance is provided along the pedestrian path. No portion of the structure may encroach within this clearance. • Shading materials should be soft to reduce prominence and retractable so it can be pulled back when not in use or when more light is desired in the space.

5. Any fabric, membrane shade, or other weather protection, including umbrellas and tents of any size, must be CSFM listed and constructed of fire-resistant treated material as per the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Section 315(a). • Heating devices within overhead structures shall meet the requirements on page 26. 20 Page H-1.29
Overhead
Structure
Minimum
7 Foot
Vertical
Oearance
~~~ ..... ~~-=----~►~
Sa-eec
------ l'1c1tfurm l"i 11i~h flOQr
Minfmurn 8 Foot Pedestrian Path
Clearance
Minimum Oearance
Height of BO Inches
Sidewalk
..

I
I l
_______ -- -

SIDEWALK
rhe
runu
jacen
- Jnnetted lO
theB I .g
Parklet/Curb El<tension Area
/
/
/
Prohibited Location for Overhead Structure
or Other Features Higher than 36 Inches
Curb/Curb Extension Plane

BUILDING/BUSINESS
30 Feet
..

STREET INTERSECTION STREET

OVERHEAD STRUCTURE CLEARANCES
Overhead structure
minimum 7' 6"
vertical
clearance

VISION TRIANGLE
21 Page H-1.30

SECTION 2. SIDEWALK CAFÉ STREETARY PROGRAM
STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING AREA – SIDEWALK CAFÉS

PURPOSE
The purpose of these guidelines is to help clarify and provide standards for sidewalk cafes uses in order to enhance the quality and safety of the pedestrian experience and reinforce a sense of place and economic vitality. These guidelines and requirements are established to achieve the Streetary goals by maintaining safety, accessibility, and an enhanced design that connects the public realm. Compliance with all applicable sections of these guidelines is required at all times.

DEFINTION OF A SIDEWALK CAFÉ
An outdoor area located on the public right-of-way within the sidewalk area which is used to provide more space and amenities for outdoor dining operated and maintained by the business establishment conducting the outdoor dining.

SIDEWALK CAFÉ AREA
The sidewalk cafe area can be defined as one or a combination of:

1. The space delineated by the facade of the building to the adjacent street, perpendicular to the public right-of-way.

2. The recessed entries immediately adjacent to the outdoor sidewalk cafes.

3. Certain alleys determined by the city that are adjacent to the operating business.

SIDEWALK CAFÉ AREA CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS
The cafe operators are required to maintain all minimum distances and clearance requirements at all times: Minimum 5-foot pedestrian path clearance; min. 5-foot entrance clearance radius; and min. 5-foot pedestrian path at crosswalks from edge of curb at all times. City staff will perform compliance inspections. Application submittals are required to comply with all Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

MOVEABLE IMPROVEMENTS
The sidewalk cafe area contains various sidewalk patterns which affect the placement of improvements such as tables and chairs in the public right-of-way. The installation of these improvements is considered temporary in nature. The operator shall locate moveable flower boxes or planters adjacent to the street in such a way as to visually define and contain the sidewalk cafe area. The sidewalk cafe improvements shall be set up during the applicable hours of operation.

PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS
Unless the applicant obtains a building permit, the operator shall not make any permanent changes, such as building structures or bolting tables to the ground. Permanent improvements within sidewalk areas must be in conformance with the applicable provisions and guidelines of the California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements, and all other life, health, and safety requirements.
22 Page H-1.31

ing
1Frontiag1e
z:one
Pedestrian
Thru Zone
Sidewalk
Curb
Parking
Zone
Furnishirng
Zone
SIDEWALK CAFÉ ZONES
Any sidewalk cafe area may be viewed as containing
several functional zones which must be respected at all times. The El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan*
establishes sidewalk functional zones, ensuring a
pedestrian clear zone and more pleasant and functional
sidewalks. Understanding these zones will assist the
applicant in determining the best layout for their sidewalk cafe area. These zones include:
• Sidewalks: The area dedicated to pedestrian activity
made up of the building frontage, pedestrian thru, and
furnishing zones, and adjacent to the curb parking or
street traffic zone.
• Building Frontage Zone: The area of a public sidewalk located between the pedestrian thru zone and adjacent
building or property line, assuming the sidewalk
dimension allows for it. Depending on the location of
the building, a frontage zone may accommodate
outdoor seating and planting
• Pedestrian Thru Zone: Allows for unimpeded
pedestrian circulation, free of all obstruction, including utility boxes and fences for outdoor dining.
• Furnishing Zone: The buffer between the pedestrian
thru zone and curb parking/street traffic. The furnishings zone accommodates public amenities such as street trees, streetlamps, benches, bike racks, kiosks, news racks, mailboxes, transit shelters, public art, plantings, utility poles and utility boxes. In some cases, the furnishings zone is also used for outdoor seating and dining by shops, cafes, and restaurants. • Curb Parking Zone: The interface between the roadway and sidewalk and accommodates vehicular parking, and in most cases parklets. *Please note that not all sidewalks within the Specific Plan are wide enough to incorporate each of the aforementioned zones. Sidewalk cafes should be planned according to the sidewalk zones and width in front of the building / restaurant. 23 Page H-1.32

SIDEWALK CAFÉ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
The following shall be submitted to the City of Menlo Park Public Works Department as part of the Streetary Permit Application, submitted through Menlo Park’s online permitting platform, Accela:
 Permit fee payment
 Site Plan (scaled - I.e., 1/8” = 1’10” | dimensioned - I.e., 5’0” clearance path) (refer to site plan checklist)  Identification of Parklet Design Components (refer to Design Components Checklist)  Photograph of proposed design components
 Photograph of proposed Streetary location (showing the front and side views along the business frontage)  Required insurance forms (see below)
 Traffic control plan (for installation/construction)

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
 Completed Hold Harmless Agreement (review requirements listed)  Insurance Endorsement Form
 Insurance Certificate (must name City as additional insured, see Hold Harmless Form) Insurance Category Minimum Limits
Worker’s compensation Statutory Minimum
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000.00 per accident for bodily injury or disease Commercial General
Liability
$1,000,000.00 ($2,000,000.00 for parklets) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage
Streetary permit(s) are revocable. Compliance with Streetaries (Chapter 13.30) and the design / program guidelines in this document is required. 24 Page H-1.33

5-Foot Pedestrian
Path Clearance
Minimum 5-Foot Encro1nce
Clearance Radius
\
..
1iii
■ •
" \
I
I
/
1iii
■ •
1iii
■ •
• I
• • I
•
• I
•
-----
2-3 Foot Buffer Zone
Must keep 6 inch clearance between edge of
curb and any improvements at all times
I;:;
w
w
0,:
t:;
Minimum 5 Foot clear pedestrian path at
crosswalks from edge of curb at all times .

Crosswalk and Pedestrian Zone must intersect.

CROSSWALK
--~------------

FURNISHINGS & FIXTURE DESIGN STANDARDS

STREETARY FURNISHINGS & FIXTURE DESIGN STANDARDS

FURNISHINGS AND FIXTURES DESIGN STANDARDS
All furnishings and fixtures in Streetaries shall comply with the California Building Code, California Fire Code, and the Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility requirements.

1. TABLES, CHAIRS, AND SEATING. Tables and
chairs shall match and be made of safe, sturdy,
and durable material, such as wood, steel,
plastic, and wrought iron. All furniture shall be
commercial grade and manufactured for
outdoor commercial use.
• Tables shall meet clearance
requirements for parklets and sidewalk
cafes.
• Accessible seating shall be provided and
comply with the following California
Building Code Sections:
i. 11B-305 Clear floor space of 30”
by 48” at 5% of seating
ii. 11B-306 Minimum knee and toe
clearances
• Seating in Sidewalk Cafes: Small round
or square tables shall seat no more than
four people unless otherwise approved
by the City, subject to compliance with
any required pedestrian clearance. Use of larger tables may be granted by the City provided that all clearance requirements are met.

2. FURNISHINGS. Furnishings and fixtures must be designed to be weighted down (or fixed to parklet) for wind protection. Items may need to be stored inside the business during periods of high winds. Please ensure that the weights used do not create tripping hazards for pedestrians. No furniture or any parts of a parklet or sidewalk café shall be attached, chained, or in any manner affixed to any tree, post, 25 Page H-1.34

DEVICE
Minimum 5-Foot Heating Device
Setback from Parklet Entrances

UMBRELLA
signs, sidewalk, streetlight, fire hydrant, or other public fixture within or near the licensed area. Applicant must demonstrate that required egress/door swing, etc., from occupancies is protected for occupant load to public way.

3. FIRE RESISTANT MATERIALS. Any fabric, membrane shade, or other weather protection, including umbrellas and tents of any size, needs to be constructed of fire-resistant treated material as per the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Section 315(a). Fire-resistant materials must have documentation of a California State Marshal’s Seal on all panels, or meet NFPA 702 testing requirements by a NRTL, or meet CPAI 84 standards.

4. PORTABLE HEATERS & OTHER HEATING DEVICES. Heating devices may be electric, propane, or natural gas powered, and shall meet the following requirements:
• Heating devices are prohibited inside of tents,
canopies, and membrane structures.
• A minimum 5-foot clearance shall be provided
between the building and the heating device.
• A minimum 5-foot clearance shall be provided
between combustible materials and a heating device.
• A minimum 5-foot clearance shall be provided
between exits or exit discharges and a heating device.
• Propane or natural gas heating devices shall have a tip over switch that shuts off the flow of gas.
• Propane or natural gas heating devices shall have a
maximum of 20 pounds’ capacity gas container.
• Propane storage shall remain outside in approved
area; propane storage is not allowed inside.
• Gas heating appliances are NOT permitted on wood-based parklets, nor are gas heating appliances permitted under structures made of combustible materials (such as common construction materials like wood and wood-plastic composite and plastic products).

5. SHADING & UMBRELLAS.
• Individual canvas or other non-vinyl umbrellas of a compatible design may be permitted in the right-of-way and shall not extend over the Pedestrian Zone.
• Umbrellas shall be made for outdoor commercial use subject to City approval. • Any fabric, membrane shade, or other weather protection, including umbrellas and tents of any size, needs to be constructed of fireresistant treated material as per the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Section 315(a). Fire-resistant materials must have documentation of a California State Marshal’s Seal on all panels, or meet NFPA 702 testing requirements by a NRTL, or meet CPAI 84 standards.
26 Page H-1.35

• Umbrellas must be at least 80-inches above the parklet platform or sidewalk. • Umbrellas and shading must not block sight lines for traffic or pedestrians in crosswalks.

6. ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS. Electrical service to any parklet requires a permit. All wiring and electrical cords must be exterior rated, GFCI protected, and UL listed. Electrical extension cords between buildings and a parklet are not allowed. • Cords within the parklet must not create tripping hazards on the sidewalk. • The use of adapters is prohibited.
• Businesses are not allowed to tap into existing City electrical connections such as twinkle light outlets or streetlight poles. • Generators are not allowed in association with parklets.

7. LIGHTING. Lighting is encouraged and may be provided through separately permitted electrical connections to the building. Solar powered (small scale) or battery powered lighting is encouraged. • Lighting shall not be directed towards the roadway to unintentionally cause glare for vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. • Light strings must be hung to allow for a minimum clearance of 7'6" (seven feet and six inches) above the sidewalk and the platform of the parklet.
• Candles and open flames are prohibited within a parklet. • No new foundations are permitted for light poles.

8. SIGNAGE. All signage must comply with the City’s Sign Design Guidelines. Non-illuminated signs are allowed provided the sign area does not exceed 6 square feet (this is in addition to the sign ordinance maximum sign area limitations). For Streetaries/parklets on a corner, two signs not exceeding 9 total square feet may be permitted. Sign copy is limited to business identification, except that if the parklet is meant to serve the general public, signage should reflect such. If the parklet is meant to serve as restaurant seating, signage should correlate in design with the signage on the primary building. Menu boards, both portable and on walls, shall be subject to sign permit approval and shall comply with the Menlo Park Sign Ordinance.

9. LANDSCAPING AND PLANTERS. All planters and planting areas must contain live plants year-round. The sidewalk café and/or parklet owner shall be responsible for the prompt removal of all empty or poorly maintained planting areas. Landscaping and planters must be maintained, kept healthy and free of litter/debris at all times. Plants that are drought resistant and/or native are encouraged. • Neither the planter nor plant material shall impede or hinder pedestrian and vehicular visibility. • Landscaping or planter options include planter boxes within the setback area or serving as the parklet platform enclosure; hanging planters; or raised planter beds.
• Plants that have thorns, spikes, or sharp edges, or that are poisonous or invasive, are not permitted. • Parklet Landscaping & Planters Standards:
i. Planters are allowed within the parklet setback area. ii. The height of the planter shall be between 30 and 36-inches in height, not including the height of plants. iii. Total height of the combination of plants within planters shall not exceed 48” in height to ensure visibility and sightline of the surrounding retail tenant establishments both into and out of the parklet. 27 Page H-1.36

iv. For parklets located at intersections and/or crosswalks, the total height of planters and plants shall not exceed 36” in height so as not to block vehicular, bicycle, and/or pedestrian visibility. • Sidewalk Café Landscaping & Planters Standards:
i. The cafe owner may use flower boxes or planters to define the boundaries of the cafe seating area. ii. The boxes or planters in Sidewalk Cafes shall be no greater in height than 3-feet and no wider than 2 feet at the base. iii. The flower boxes, planters, and storage bins shall be portable and be made of safe, durable, and attractive material such as wood or steel.

10. BARRIERS/FENCES
• Parklet Barriers/Fences: Refer to Parklet Design Standard Section C. “Platform barriers, railings, or enclosures” • Sidewalk Café Barriers/Fences: Barriers should provide visual and physical connections with the surrounding public realm. Barriers should have a low height that allow views into and out of the space with at least one opening between barriers for an area of passage. The use of barriers should be limited and only occur where needed. All in-ground improvements require a building permit which is subject to approval by the Engineering Department. All barriers and fences shall be shown on the application site plan and are subject to approval by the City.

11. TRASH RECEPTACLES. The number, type, and location of trash receptacles shall be determined by the City and shall comply with the public right-of-way access code. Trash receptacles shall be made of durable material to match the existing facade and shall be commercial grade as determined by the City.
28 Page H-1.37

GENERAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR STREETARIES
A. LIVE ENTERTAINMENT. No live entertainment or amplified music shall be permitted in streetaries established pursuant to this chapter without first obtaining all required permits including but not limited to those issued pursuant to Chapter 8.06 (Noise).

B. NO OUTDOOR FOOD PREPARATION. Outdoor food preparation is not permitted. No heating, cooking or open flames are permitted in a parklet.

Hotpots, barbecues, or other heating of food in the public right of way is not allowed.

C. NO OPEN FLAMES. Candles and open flames are not allowed on the parklets.

D. ALCOHOL SERVICE. Restaurants and food establishments licensed by the State of California will be permitted to sell and allow on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages. Establishments that serve alcoholic beverages in the parklet area shall be required to meet all requirements of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and any other federal, state, or local laws and regulations governing the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages.

E. NOISE & DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR. Streetary owners are responsible for ensuring their patrons minimize noise and disruptive behavior while using their Streetary space.

F. SEMI-PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION.

1. Noise generated by construction activities is regulated in the City of Menlo Park. Semi-permanent construction activities in a parklet or sidewalk café must adhere to the city’s noise ordinance and allowable construction hours.

2. Traffic Control Plans are required for construction in the right-of-way. Traffic control plans must be completed in accordance with the latest edition of the “Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones” issued by the State of California, Department of Transportation and as required in the City of Menlo Park’s Guidelines for traffic control plans.

G. SITE MAINTENANCE. All Streetaries must be maintained at all times by the Streetary owner, including the space leading to and from the parklets and sidewalk cafes.

1. The permittee is required to keep the parklet or café area safe, free of debris, grime, and graffiti, and to keep any plants in good health.

2. Outdoor seating shall be scrubbed and mopped to remove any food or drink stains on a daily basis and the sidewalk shall be power washed quarterly by the permittee. Such cleaning shall be in accordance with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Program, which prohibits any discharge other than storm water into the storm water drainage system.

3. Parklets and enclosures shall be designed in a manner that does not negatively impact existing drainage patterns. Features shall be incorporated into the design that allows water to flow freely off the street surface and along any existing gutter.

4. The permittee shall be required to clean tree grates, the gutter, and drainage inlets. Business and/or property owners shall be required to remove any debris that accumulates against their parklet. The areas on, under, and around the parklets must be clear of leaves and debris, which may require the restaurant operator or property owner to blow underneath the parklet or enclosure. The permittee shall also provide cleanout access upon request.
29 Page H-1.38

5. The permittee is required to maintain the pedestrian access clearances in sidewalk café and curb extension area and keep these areas safe, clean, and free of debris.

6. Parklets shall not block access necessary to maintain the canopy of City maintained street trees.

7. Failure to maintain the cleanliness, safety, and accessibility of a parklet or café may subject the permittee to violations and fines. If maintenance issues are not resolved, a parklet permittee may be required by the City to remove the parklet at the permittee’s expense.

H. SIDEWALK CLEANING
The permittee shall comply with all State and local regulations related to waste disposal including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA) as follows:

1. Pollution Prevention (visit www.cabmphandbooks.com for more information) • Use dry cleaning methods whenever practical for surface cleaning activities. • Use the least toxic materials available (e.g. water-based paints, gels or sprays for graffiti removal).

2. Surface Cleaning
• Regular broom (dry) sweep sidewalk, plaza, parklet, and parking areas to minimize cleaning with water. • Dry cleanup first (sweep, collect, and dispose of debris and trash) when cleaning sidewalks or plazas, then wash with or without soap.
• Block the storm drain or contain runoff when cleaning with product I. ADA COMPLIANCE. Streetary seating areas must, at all times, comply with all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and provide sufficient clearance and walkway space to allow safe access and egress. For multi-level Streetaries, a minimum of one level of ADA access shall be required.

J. HOURS OF OPERATION. Streetaries shall adhere to the same approved hours of operation as the associated business, with the following limitations:

1. For Streetaries that are within 150-foot horizontal or vertical distance from residences: Streetaries shall not commence operations prior to 7 a.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; Streetaries shall not commence operations prior to 6 a.m. Monday through Friday; Streetaries shall not operate after 10 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays; Streetaries shall not operate after 9 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and holidays (as defined in the Menlo Park Municipal Code chapter 8.13 “Noise” of title 8).

K. USAGE OF STREETARY SPACE. Streetaries must demonstrate adequate usage in order to contribute to the economic vitality of the city. The city requires these Streetaries to be set up and readily available for use during the operational hours of the food service establishment associated with the Streetary, except in inclement weather and subject to the hours of operation.

L. FURNITURE & STORAGE.

1. Applicants may store parklet or sidewalk café tables, chairs, portable heaters, umbrellas, and other furnishings within the business, parklet, or café area. No storage containers shall be allowed in the parklet or café area, except for propane storage with approval by city 30 Page H-1.39

staff. Restaurants and cafes may use minimal storage space (i.e., waiter stations for storage of utensils, linens, and menus) during operating business hours to store.

2. Storage of furnishings shall not be allowed along the sidewalk or any required pedestrian clearances.

3. Furnishings shall not be secured to lampposts, streetlights, trees, or any other public street furniture/infrastructure.

4. All approved furnishings shall be properly maintained and cleaned regularly.

5. Propane storage shall remain outside in approved area; propane storage is not allowed inside.

M. LANDSCAPING.

The café operator shall maintain flower boxes and planting areas unless otherwise determined by the City. All boxes, planters and planting areas shall be planted with seasonal blooming or ornamental evergreen live plants year round.

N. PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCIES AND REMOVAL.

1. Because a parklet may be installed above underground utilities, there may be occasions in which a parklet may need to be removed with little or no notice. In the event of a utility failure, such as a gas leak or similar threat to public safety, the city or a utility provider may remove a parklet with little or no notice. Sidewalk cafes may also be removed with little or no notice where there is a threat to public safety. The parklet or sidewalk cafe permittee is responsible for the cost of re-installing and restoring any damage to the parklet or sidewalk cafe.

2. When the permittee removes their parklet or sidewalk cafe, the permittee shall be responsible for notifying the City and removing the parklet at the permittee’s expense.

3. If the business associated with a parklet or sidewalk café ceases operation, changes its business name or type of use permit, or decides to no longer maintain its parklet or sidewalk cafe for more than 30 days, the City may remove and dispose of the parklet or sidewalk cafe at the permittee’s expense.

4. The permittee shall be responsible for any surface restoration required after the parklet or sidewalk cafe removal. A separate Encroachment Permit shall be required for any restoration or other work performed in the public right-of-way. Restoration of the public right-of-way shall be done by a licensed contractor, to City of Menlo Park standards and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
31 Page H-1.40

OUTDOOR PARKLET TEMPLATES

SELECT A PARKLET TEMPLATES
• Parklet in parallel parking space (s)
• A-1 One Space
• A-2 Two Space
• Parklet in a diagonal parking space
• Special Condition Parklet, which includes three alternative conditions
• C-1 Parklet/Sidewalk Café Combination
• C-2 Parklet/Sidewalk Café Curb Extension
• C-3 Parklet/Pedestrian Street Combination
32 Page H-1.41
A-1 PARALLEL SPACE

PARKLET
1 PARKING SPACE
• The Parallel Parklet template
occupying one parking space is a
compact parklet that provides an
intimate outdoor dining setting.
• This template limits the maximum
parklet area to one parking space and
can be utilized in areas where available
on-street parking spaces are limited.
• Parklets proposed for perpendicular
parking spaces can use a modified
version of this template.
33 Page H-1.42

I
SAMPLE SITE PLAN :1 A-1 PARALLEL SPACE PARKLET (1 Parking Space) Adjacent
Property
Business name
and Address
0 Minimum S~Foot
Pedestrian Path
Clearance
•
Business Frontage Width Along Street _
Applicant Property
Business name and Address
Building
Entrance

SIDEWALK
Adjacent
~~,..,~"~""~'°')~ ;:;~:Ct Space
Travel Lane Setback
Parking Space Dimension_
Scafe of Drawin1; (Provided By Applicant)
EB Existing Street Light 0
G Existing Street Tree •
Existing Utilities
Existing Parking Meter

STREET NAME
.l Parking Space
Marking
.,.I ----1 Bike Rack
□ Parklet Table 0 Parklet Chair ········" Fence/Barrier Example site pion for 11/uscrocive purposes only; complete sire pion requirements provided on •
Sidewalk
Width
Adjacent
Property
Business name
and Address
Proposed Parklet Location
and Dimensions
~ Required setbacks
Page ___
Page H-1.43 34
A-2 PARALLEL SPACE

PARKLET
2 PARKING SPACES
• The Parallel Parklet template
occupying two parking spaces provides
a larger outdoor dining setting.
• This template limits the maximum
parklet area to two parallel parking
spaces.
• Parklets proposed for perpendicular
parking spaces can also use a modified
version of this template.
35 Page H-1.44

I
SAMPLE SITE PLAN II A-2 PARALLEL SPACE PARKLET (2 Parking Spaces) Business frontage W1 dth Along Street_ Adjacent Adjacent Property Property
Business name i Applicant Property Business name
and Address Business name and Address and Address
Building
Entrance
Minimum 5-Foot
Pedestrian Path
Clearance S Sidewalk IDEWALK
Width
•
0 Travel La ne Setback
Parking Space Dimension _

STREET NAME
Scale of Drawing (Provided By Applicant)
Parking Space Proposed Parklet Location EB Existing Street Light 0 Existing Utilities .L Marking and Dimensions 0 Existing Street Tree Existing Parking Meter 1-I----11 Bike Rack Required setbacks • □ Parklet Table 0 Parklet Chair Example site pion for illustrative purposes only; complete site pion requirements provided on , 36 Page H-1.45

I B-DIAGONAL

SPACE PARKLET
The Diagonal Space Parklet template provides a
larger outdoor dining setting. When including the
necessary setbacks, this template would need three
spaces.
37 Page H-1.46

SAMPLE SITE PLAN I B-DIAGONAL SPACE PARKLET
Salle of Drawing (Provided By App/leant)
EB Existing Street Light 0
0 Existing Street Tree •
SID1:WALK
BusltieS$ Fl'Onlag~ Wideti Alorig Str~el -
Applicant Property
Business name and Address
B:uilding
l!:nlr;moa
Parking Space Dimension_
Existing Utilities
Existing Parking Meter

STREET NAME
Parking Space
Marking
.. , _ _., Bike Rack
□ ParkletTable 0 Pa rk1et Chair ·····•••·· Fence/Barrier Example site plan for i/lustrntive purposes only; complete site plan requirements provided on -
Mit1imum 5-Foot
Pedestrian Path
Clearance
Proposed Parklet Location
and Dimensions
~ Required setbacks
Page ___
Page H-1.47 38
C-1 PARKLET/SIDEWALK
CAFÉ COMBINATION
• The Parklet/Sidewalk Cafe
Combination template is for conditions
where an applicant can incorporate
both a sidewalk cafe and a parklet for a
combined space.
• This Special Condition template can be
used in either a parallel parking or
diagonal parking site.
• The combined space should be
designed as a comprehensively planned
singular space.
39 Page H-1.48

SAMPLE SITE PLAN II C-1 PARKLET/SIDEWAtK CAFE COMBINATION Adjacent
Property
Business name
andAddres~
oDo
I Minimum 5-Foot
Pedestrian Path
Clearance
Business Frontage Width Along Stree _
Applicant Property
Business name and Address
Building
Entrance

SIDEWALK
oDo
---------------------------~
Sidewalk
Width
Adjacent
Property
Business name
and Address
CURB . o '
0 Parking Space Dimension_
Scale of Drowing (Provided By Applicant)
E9 Existing Street Light 0 Existing Utilities
G Existing Street Tree • Existing Parking Meter

STREET NAME
.L Parking Space
Marking
""I _...,.I Bike Rack
□ Parklet Table 0 Parklet Chair ,......... Fence/Barrier Example site pion for if/ustrotive purposes only; complete site pion requirements provided on Travel Lane Setback
Proposed Parklet Location
and Dimensions
~ Required setbacks
Page ___
Page H-1.49 40

I
C-2

PARKLET/SIDEWALK
CAFÉ CURB EXTENSION

COMBINATION
• The Parklet/Sidewalk Cafe Curb Extension Combination
template is provided for sites where a business would like to incorporate a sidewalk cafe on an adjacent curb extension with a parklet.
• This Special Condition template can be used in either a parallel or diagonal parking site adjacent to an intersection. • The combined space should be designed as a
comprehensively planned singular space.
41 Page H-1.50
SAMPLE SITE PLAN I C-2 PARKLET/SIDEWALK CAFE CURB EXTENSION COMBINATION Minimum 5-Foot
Pedestrian Path
Clearance SIDEWALK
f!U<ln ~ Fron .geWldth AI-OngStreei:_
Applicant Property
Business. name and Addre$s
euldins
llltr.iUKQ
Parking S~ace Dimenston _
Sc.ale of Drawing (Provided By Applicant)
EB Existing Street Light 0
G Existing Street Tree •
Existing Utilities
Existing Parking Meter

STREET NAME
Parking Space
Marking
"'I -...,.I Bike Rack
□ Parklet Table 0 Parklet Chair · •· · · · ·••· Fence/Barrier Example site plan for illustrative purposes only; complete site plan requirements provided on -
Sidewalk
Width
•
Adjacent
Parking Space
Setba~k
Proposed Parklet Location
and Dimensions
~ Required setbacks
Page ___
Page H-1.51 42
C-3

PARKLET/PEDESTRIAN

STREET COMBINATION
• The Parklet/Pedestrian Street
Combination template is designed with
flexibility for parklets that are proposed
on streets the City has permanently
closed to vehicular through-traffic to
enable pedestrian access and circulation.
• This template shall not be used where
streets are only temporarily closed.
• Expanded seating areas would not be
allowed unless the supplementary seating
is specifically reflected in plans submitted
and approved by the City.
43 Page H-1.52

I
SAMPLE SITE PLAN ]
Adjacent
Property
Business name
and Address
Business Frontage Width Alo ng Street _
Applicant Property
Business name and Address
Building
Entrance I SIDEWALK
Minimum 5-Foot
Pedestrian Path
Clearance
----- -
0 Scale of Drawing (Provided By Applicant)
EB
0 □
Existing Street Light
Ex isting Street Tree
Parklet Table
0 0
Parklet Square Footage
(The applicant doe$ not need to show setbacks from 9djacent parl<ing spaces or other standards that are not applicable to the ParkleVPedestrian Street Combination)
Existing Util it ies
Parklet Chair

STREET NAME
.l Parking Space
Marking
lt--""I Bike Rack
Example site plan for illustrative purposes only; complete site plan requirements provided on Sidewa lk
Width
Adjacent
Property
Business name
and Address
Proposed Pa rklet Location
and Dim ensions
C-3 PARKLET/PEDESTRIAN STREET COMBINATION
Page ___
44 Page H-1.53

ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 13.30 (“STREETARIES” OUTDOOR DINING

AREAS) OF THE MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING

STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT FEES FOR PARKLETS AND

SIDEWALK CAFES
WHEREAS, the City has the authority to impose fees, charges, and rates to offset the costs for municipal services and regulatory programs under its police powers under California Constitution Article XI section 7; and
WHEREAS, at its August 15, 2023, regular meeting, the City Council introduced an ordinance to add Chapter 13.30 (“Streetaries” Outdoor Dining Areas) to Title 13 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code (MPMC), which establishes permit requirements, location and operational criteria and standards, and enforcement of the Streetary Outdoor Dining program; and WHEREAS, Section 13.30.040 of the Ordinance states that the City Council shall establish by resolution the amount of fees for Streetary permit applications, including an annual encroachment lease fee and a one-time refundable deposit.

WHEREAS, the proposed user and regulatory fees (“Proposed Fees”) comply with Article XIII-C of the California Constitution because they are either (1) charges imposed for a specific government service or product that are not imposed on those not receiving the service or product and do not exceed the City’s reasonable costs of providing the service or product; or (2) charges imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to the City for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, and administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof; and
WHEREAS, it is the general policy of the City to charge for the full costs of services provided by City Staff when such services benefit individual users rather than members of the community as a whole; and
WHEREAS, to better achieve the City’s cost recovery goals, the City Council deems it advisable and in the best interests of the City to adopt and update certain fees, included in the City’s Master Fee Schedule; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Incorporation of recitals.

The City Council hereby finds the recitals set forth above to be true and correct.

Section 2: Fees Adopted. The Proposed Fees, set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby approved and adopted.

Section 3: Effective Date. Pursuant to Government Code section 66017, the Proposed Fees adopted in this Resolution shall go into effect on January 1, 2025. Once effective, the Proposed Fees shall be incorporated into the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

Page H-1.54

___________________________
Resolution No. XXXX