We request that you respond to us no later June 22. 2022 with the account access Information . We understand that you may not have control over all or any of thes accounts and that you may only be able to h elp us In influencing the person with control over these accounts to comply with our request. If t hat is the case please exert your influence and let us know of the situation and th remedies set forth .
In add1t1on, at the City Council meeting held on Tuesday, May 24, 2022, the Councll voted unanimously in favor that SCPAL complete our audit of the required PayPal accounts and that the account holde r(s) turn over the PayPal access credentials.
You can reach me at my cell phone number should you have any questions, comments or challenges in meeung the requested deadline at: y Cell Phone umber (408) 667-5499 or my Emal! at:
mmwalke@com c;1st.net
If this request goes Ignored without any contact, you will place SC PAL In an uncomprom 1s1ng position of having to exerc,se any legal means as necessary.
We trust you will take this request seriously and not delay any longer the requested access. An Immediate response would be much opprecloted os to the nature of yourlntentions to SCPAL's requesr upon receipt of this letter . Agam, you can reach me immediate! at my cell phone number or emall address noted above.
Sincerely,
SANTA CLARA POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE
'#(Je_d/d/e_
Mike Walke
Executive Board President
Atta chment :
1). Email Dated April 6, 2027 w ith SCPAL's Original R qu t.
CC: Mayor Ms. Lisa Gillmor
Counci lmember Ms. Kathy Watanabe
City Manager Mr. Rajeev Batra
Assistant City Manager M s. Cynthia Boiorquez
SCPAL Execut ive Board of Directors
File BMX Track
^ĂŶƚĂůĂƌĂW>ʹDydƌĂĐŬ
&ŽůůŽǁͲƵƉƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ^ĂŶƚĂůĂƌĂŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůDĞĞƚŝŶŐ :ƵůLJϴ͕ϮϬϮϮ
WĂŐĞϭϲŽĨϲ
Santa Clara Police Activities | 601 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, CA 95050 | P: (408) 615-4879 F: (408) 984-1407
CJ
m
"' N
r-...,
U.S. Postal Service··
CERTIFIED MAIL"' RECEIPT
Domr:~t,c l,'.911 Only
m
"' k==-i==== :Hiii!i:tti
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ 1,,=i:='========i
N
~ lm"-iioiilr.io:;::-----7
"" ~==---,..------::-- -'-- ..,.,,c-ttffs;::,~
N
CJ
r-
-.J
CJ
N
'--+.::+- -,in,- ~:-.\, -.;.......:.-'-"-----"'-"'-=:i! lo' lai~ ---~!!!!'.l.!!!.!!!!l!!!lU!l!ll !!l
ru
b = ==-=- ..:..;_--~~ CJ
Cl
CJ
CJ
CJ
~F==:u.:=:a:,,~ 1n
r----a!.~ ~~~~ .... ri~~~~ l;! -.J
A1uo /ICJ'/ :m,; .. -,woo
ldl303!:l .,71VI/\I 031~1l!:l30
• 8:l!IIJllS IBISOd ·s·n
ru
"' ru
"'
l'
:r
"' ru
I'..,
m
"'
C
C
C
CJ
U.S. Postal Service~
CERTIFIED MAIL" RECEIPT
Oomes t,c u.,11 Ontv
c lE~~~~== = =\
N
~ lb,,.._,=.n;------ - 7
"" b;.:-r-:.;..:.:.:;.,,--.-::-:-.,;-~__.:=----i
ru
Cl
r- -----1
JuneϮϬ,2022 ^ĞŶƚǀŝĂĞŵĂŝů͗ŵŵǁĂůŬĞΛĐŽŵĐĂƐƚ͘ŶĞƚ
DŝŬĞtĂůŬĞ͕WƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚ
SantaClaraPoliceActivitiesLeague,Inc.
SantaClaraPoliceAdministrationBuilding
601ElCaminoReal
SantaClara,CA95050
Re: SantaClaraPALBMXProgram
DearDƌ͘tĂůŬĞ:
Pursuanttoourengagement,weperformedadetailedanalysisofthefinancialrecordsoftheSantaClara PoliceActivitiesLeague(“SCPAL”)BMXProgram(the“Program”)fortheperiodJanuary1through December31,2021(the“Period”).Basedonthedocumentsreviewed,theanalysesperformed,andthe assumptionspresentedthroughoutthisreport,
itisouropinionthattheProgramhasanunknown discrepancy of$129,672 in its cash receipts compared toexpected revenues for the Period.We understandthis report will be reliedupon by theSCPAL andthe City of Santa Clarain evaluating the reasonablenessofthereportedrevenuesandintegrityoftheProgram’saccountingduringthePeriod. Inperformingouranalysis,wereliedupon
documentsprovidedtousbySCPAL.Wehavenotconfirmed theaccuracyofalldatapresentedwithin thedocumentsandhavereliedupontheunderlyingdataas completeandaccurate.Theinformationreviewedinthismatterincluded,butwere notlimitedto,the followingSCPALdocuments:
1. SCPAL detailedfinancialtransactionsasrecordedintheProgram’saccountingsoftwareforthe Period
2. Program bankstatementsforthePeriod
3. Historical FacebookpagesfromtheProgram’ssitesupportingtheassumptionsmaderegarding eventsandregistrationactivityandconfirmationduringthePeriod
4. PayPal records and a
ctivity received both from SCPAL and directly from a small sample of registrantsoftheProgramduringthePeriod
5. Racing eventdataobtainedbySCPALthroughinformationgatheredontheUSABMXwebsite ThisanalysiswaspreparedunderthesupervisionanddirectionofRichardC.Gordon,CPA/ABV/CFF,CFE, CGMA.Mr.GordonisaCertifiedPublicAccountant(“CPA”)and holdstheCertifiedFraudExaminer(“CFE”)
credentialfromtheAssociationofCertifiedFraudExaminers(“ACFE”)aswellastheAccreditedinBusiness Valuation(“ABV”),CertifiedinFinancialForensics(“CFF”)andCharteredGlobalManagementAccountant (“CGMA”) credentials from the American Ins titute of Certified Public Accountants (“AICPA). Our compensationisnotcontingentuponthefindingsoutlinedherein. Attachment 5
Forensic Accounting Report withum ~~
ADVISORY TAX AUDIT
WithumSmith+Brown, PC 5000 Executive Parkway, Suite 400, San Ramon, California 94583-4344 T [925] 277 9100 F [925] 277 9552 withum.com
AN INDEPENDENT MEMBER OF HLB - THE GLOBAL ADVISORY AND ACCOUNTING NETWORK SantaClaraPoliceActivitiesLeague,Inc.
JuneϮϬ,2022
Page2
AnalysisandAssumptions
TheProgramwasmaintained,andrevenueswerecollectedandreported,byvolunteermembersofthe communityasauthorizedbySCPAL.ThesemembersmaintainedtheFacebookpages,collectedfees, registeredattendees,oversawmaintenanceoftheBMXtrack,andwere responsiblefortheoverall monitoringandoperationsoftheProgram.
Baseduponouranalysisofaccountingrecords,financialreporting,andbankstatements,theSCPAL recordedanddeposited$217,201duringthePeriodfortheProgram. WewerelimitedinourabilitytoverifyactualProgramrelatedregistrationsandattendeecashreceipts duringthePeriod,asitisourunders
tandingthatthemembersassociatedwithcollectionsand maintenanceof thePayPalaccounts(towhichregistrationfeesweresubmitted byattendees)didnot provideorallowaccesstoSCPALExecutiveCommitteeforpurposesofthisengagement.Forthatreason, ourprojectionsofestimatedrevenuesfromProgramac tivitiesforthePeriodarelimitedtoinformation availableasprovidedbytheSCPAL.
Annualexpectedrevenuesandcollectionsourcesconsistofthefollowingmajorcategories:
1. BMX Clinics
2. BMX Camps
3. BMX RacingEvents
1. BMX Clinics were held weekly on Thursdays during the Period. During the Period, there were approximatelyfortyͲeightclinics(excludingrainouts)andfourmakeͲupclinicstoaccommodate registrantswhowere“waitlisted”forcertainweeksduetothefactthatmostclinicsconsistently hadregistrantsofbetweenfortytofiftyparticipants,usuallyatcapacitylevel.Inreviewingthe provided Facebook pages and considering historical participation, we estimate that over the courseofthePeriodprojectedrevenuesamounte
dto$45,525.SeeExhibit1.
2. BMXCampswereheldinthemonthsofJuneandJuly.Sevencampsintotalwereheldwithan estimatedtwohundredtwentyͲsevenattendeesatapriceofeither$199or$209perperson.In reviewingtheprovidedFacebookpagesandconsideringhistoricalparticipation,weestimatethat overthecourseofthePeriodprojectedrevenuesamountedto$45,933.SeeExhibit2.
3. BMX RacingEventswereheldonTuesdays,Fridays,andSundaysofeachweek.Inreviewing2021 Race Data received from SCPAL through activity compiled from race data originating on the USABMXwebsite,weestimatethatoverthecourseofthePeriodprojectedrevenuesamounted to$255,415.SeeExhibit3.
SantaClaraPoliceActivitiesLeague,Inc.
JuneϮϬ,2022
Page3
Conclusion
OurengagementproceduresandresultsindicatethatadiscrepancyexistsbetweenexpectedProgram revenuesandactualcashdepositsduringthePeriod,representedbythefollowingreconciliation: Accordingly,basedonthedocumentsreviewed,analysesperformed,andassumptionspresented throughoutthisreportandschedules,itisouropinionthatanunknowndiscrepancyexistsintheamount of$129,672betweencashdepositedandexpectedProgramrevenues. Asaddressedabove,inordertoreconciletherevenuesmoreaccurately,andverifytheactualProgram resultsforthePeriod,wewouldnee
daccesstotheactivityoftheapplicablePayPalaccountsusedand registrationreportsfromtheresponsibleparties.TothatendonApril6,2022,SCPALmadearequestby email to two of the principals previously involved in operating the track, asking that they provide the PayPalaccountaccesscredentialsbyApril21,2022,towhichnoresponsewasreceived(SeeExhibit4). It was also represented to us that in a meeting between SCPAL and USA BMX on June 9, 2022, SCPAL requestedthattherepresentativefromUSABMXpresentusetheirinfluencewiththepriortrack operations team to gain access to the PayPal account, which request was denied. Finally, on June 15, 2022,SCPALsentaregisteredlettertoeachofthethreeprincipalspreviouslyinvolved inoperatingthe trackrequestingPayPalaccountlogincredentialsandaccesstothetransactioninformationinthePayPal accounts(SeeExhibit5).Asofthedateofthisreport,weunderstandthatnoresponsehasbeenreceived bySCPAL.
Wereservetherighttoamendorsupplementthisreportshouldsuchactionbedeemedappropriateor necessary.
Weshallbepleasedtodiscusstheenclosedreportwithyouatyourconvenience. Sincerely,
RichardC.Gordon,CPA/ABV/CFF,CFE,CGMA
Principal,ForensicandValuationServices
Program Source Amounts
BMX Clinics $45,525 Exhibit 1
BMX Camps 45,933 Exhibit 2
BMX Racing Events 255,415 Exhibit 3
Expected Revenues $346,873
Cash/Revenue Reported 217,201
Unreconciled Difference ($129,672)
SANTACLARAPOLICEACTIVITIESLEAGUE,INC.
BMXCLINICSͲ2021
ClinicDate
Estimated
Attendees
Estimated
Revenues Status Notes/Facebook Comments
1/7/21 45 1,125 $ Clinicon "Clinic full"Approx45ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 1/14/21 47 1,175 Clinicon "Clinic full"Approx47ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 1/21/21 40 1,000 Clinicon "Clinic full"Approx40ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 1/28/21 0 0 No clinic/Rainout Rainout
2/4/21 47 1,175 Clinicon "Clinic full"Approx47ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 2/11/21 38 950 Clinic
on "Clinic full"Approx38ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 2/18/21 45 1,125 Clinicon "Clinic full"Approx45ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 2/25/21 39 975 Clinic on "Clinic full"Approx39ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 3/4/21 48 1,200 Clinicon "Clinic full"Approx48ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 3/11/21 40 1,000 Clinic
on "Clinic full"Approx40ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 3/18/21 0 0 No clinic/Rainout Rainout
3/25/21 32 800 Clinic on "Clinic full"Approx32ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 4/1/21 42 1,050 Clinicon "Clinic full"Approx42ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 4/8/21 52 1,300 Clinicon "Clinic full"Approx52ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 4/15/21 0 0 No clinic No clinicdatanoted
4/22/21 45 1,125 Clinicon "The1st 45PayPalswillbewhoarein.Restwillbewaitlisted."(74totalrespondents) 4/25/21 29 725 MakeupClinic This amakeupclinicforthoseon4/22waitlist.(74Ͳ45=29attendees) 4/29/21 43 1,075 Clinicon Approx 43ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 5/6/21 39 975 Clinic on Approx 39ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 5/9/21 24 600 Makeup Clinic Makeup clinicforthoseon5/6waitlist,whichwas24ifcommentsareaccurate. 5/13/21 39 975 Clinic
on Approx 39ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate
5/16/21 30 750 Makeup Clinic Makeup clinicforthoseon5/13waitlist,whichwas30ifcommentsareaccurate. 5/20/21 39 975 Clinic on Approx 39ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 5/23/21 24 600 Makeup Clinic Makeup clinicforthoseon5/20waitlist,whichwas24ifcommentsareaccurate. 5/27/21 44 1,100 Clinic
on Approx 44ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate
6/2/21 45 1,125 Clinicon "GateClinic tonight"(Wed.)"Cashonlyatthetrack.GetreadyforSummerNationals" 6/10/21 43 1,075 Clinicon Approx 43ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 6/17/21 31 775 Clinic on Approx 31ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 6/24/21 30 750
Clinicon Approx 30ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 7/1/21 39 975 Clinicon Approx 39ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 7/8/21 37 925 Clinic on Approx 37ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 7/14/21 30 750 Clinic on Approx 30ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate.HeldonWednesday. 7/22/21 23 575 Clinic on Approx 23ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 7/29/21 21 525 Clinic on Approx 21ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 8/5/21 43 1,075
Clinicon Approx43ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate
8/12/21 43 1,075 Clinicon Approx 43ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 8/19/21 41 1,025 Clinicon Approx 41ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 8/25/21 35 875 Clinic on Approx 35ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate.HeldonWednesday. 9/2/21 0 0 {1}
9/9/21 0 0 {1}
9/16/21 0 0 {1}
9/23/21 41 1,025 Clinicon Approx 41ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 9/30/21 37 925
Clinicon Approx 37ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 10/7/21 33 825 Clinicon Approx 33ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 10/13/21 37 925 Clinic on Approx 37ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate.HeldonWednesday. 10/20/21 33 825 Clinicon Approx 33ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate.HeldonWednesday. 10/28/21 37 925 Clinicon Approx 37ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 11/4/21 38 950
Clinicon Approx 38ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 11/11/21 41 1,025 Clinicon Approx 41ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 11/18/21 47 1,175 Clinicon Approx 47ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 11/25/21 0 0 {1}
12/2/21 35 875 Clinic on Approx 35ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 12/9/21 35 875 Clinic on Approx 35ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 12/16/21 35 875 Clinicon Approx 35ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate 12/23/21 0 0
Noclinic/Rainout Rainout
12/30/21 40 1,000 Clinicon Approx 40ridersifFBcommentsareaccurate Totals 1,821 45,525$
{1} TherewerenoFacebookpostsforclinicson9/2/21,9/9/21,9/16/21and11/25/21.Itislikelythatclinicsdidoccuronthesedates,sincethepossibiltyofrainis usuallylow,andwhenitdidraintherewasusuallyanotificationposted.Itismorelikelythatclinicsdidoccuronthosedatesandthatthepostsweredeleted.
Wewereabletoconfirmpaymentson9/2/21and9/9/21byreviewingPaypaltransactionsofsomeparentswhosechildrenattended,andwhoprovided personalpaymentinformationdirectlytous.Nevertheless,forconservatism,calculationsandestimatesaboveassumetheseclinicsdidnotoccur.Ifattendees werebetween35and45forthese4clinicstheestimateofclinicrecieptswouldbebetween$3,500and$4,500higher.IfweweretoobtainaccesstoPaypal accountsandFacebookpages,wewouldbeabletogainadditionalinsightandamoreaccurateestimatationofrevenuesforallclinics.
Exhibit 1
SANTACLARAPOLICEACTIVITIESLEAGUE,INC.
BMXCAMPSͲ2021
Date
Estimated
Attendees
Estimated
Revenues Category Notes
6/7/202 40 7,960 $ Camp $199perattendee
6/12/21 32 6,368 Camp $199 perattendee
6/14/21 40 7,960 Camp $199 perattendee
6/28/21 39 7,761 Camp $199 perattendee
7/5/21 30 6,270 Camp $209 perattendee
7/19/21 18 3,762 Camp $209 perattendee
7/26/21 28 5,852 Camp $209 perattendee
Totals 227 45,933$
Exhibit 2
SANTACLARAPOLICEACTIVITIESLEAGUE,INC.
BMXRACINGEVENTSͲ2021
Race Name/Data Source Entrants Fees
Triple Point State Race 661 28,230$
https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/464252 661 28,230 Earned Double 323 7,625$
https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/468469 323 7,625 Local Race Single 22,498 215,900$
https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457553 170 1,645 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457555 165 1,590 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457558 244 2,235 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457559 192 1,855 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457566 199 1,915 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457568 216 2,055 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457570 182 1,770 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457574 170 1,625 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457577 227 2,190 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457579 246 2,370 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457581 234 2,265 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457586 170 1,635 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457588 141 1,335 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457590 140 1,335 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457592 169 1,620 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457594 138 1,300 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457596 205 1,990 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457598 177 1,730 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457600 141 1,340 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457602 228 2,225 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457603 202 1,935 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457605 224 2,195 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457607 212 2,090 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457610 152 1,470 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457614 91 875 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457615 182 1,780 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457616 202 1,960 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457617 126 1,235 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457619 164 1,605 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457621 203 1,960 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457622 210 2,055 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457623 118 1,160 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457627 183 1,775 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457628 138 1,360 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457629 87 835 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457630 159 1,535 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457631 159 1,505 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457632 74 675 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457633 156 1,495 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457634 134 1,295 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457636 172 1,650 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457637 203 1,965 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457638 128 1,220 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457639 128 1,220 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457640 150 1,445 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457642 124 1,205 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457646 187 1,835 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457648 141 1,360 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457650 128 1,225 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457652 137 1,335 Exhibit 3
SANTACLARAPOLICEACTIVITIESLEAGUE,INC.
BMXRACINGEVENTSͲ2021
Race Name/Data Source Entrants Fees
https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457654 150 1,440 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457656 93 -
https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457658 125 1,215 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457660 176 1,705 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457662 137 1,335 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457666 165 1,610 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457670 200 1,980 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457672 158 1,560 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457674 160 1,570 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457676 244 2,410 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457679 195 1,925 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457685 188 1,855 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457687 186 1,835 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457698 140 1,355 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457699 171 1,665 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457703 261 2,545 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457707 200 1,930 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457708 232 2,100 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457709 211 2,010 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457710 185 1,770 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457711 232 2,120 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457712 220 2,110 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457714 241 2,215 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457716 205 1,985 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457718 194 1,860 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457720 199 1,850 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457722 202 1,950 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457723 169 1,620 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457725 223 2,170 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457727 223 2,165 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457734 142 1,375 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457738 92 870 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457740 183 1,760 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457742 177 1,725 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457744 131 1,260 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457746 189 1,830 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457748 184 1,790 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457751 193 1,875 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457753 160 1,535 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457756 191 1,845 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457758 144 1,385 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457759 175 1,690 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457760 140 1,355 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457765 170 1,670 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457771 181 1,765 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457782 128 1,210 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457788 140 1,315 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457792 148 1,420 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457794 170 1,650 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457796 158 1,545 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457798 157 1,510 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457800 141 1,365 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457802 162 1,580 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457804 155 1,500 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457808 167 1,645 Exhibit 3.1
SANTACLARAPOLICEACTIVITIESLEAGUE,INC.
BMXRACINGEVENTSͲ2021
Race Name/Data Source Entrants Fees
https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457810 136 1,325 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457814 163 1,615 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457816 176 1,740 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457818 223 2,170 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457820 213 2,095 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457822 146 1,435 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457825 190 1,860 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457831 157 1,525 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457833 185 1,825 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457835 265 2,625 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/457837 207 2,035 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/460459 190 1,865 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/460460 166 1,630 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/460461 152 1,485 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/460462 134 1,310 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/460843 206 2,025 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/460844 185 1,805 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/462652 127 1,255 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/462752 174 1,700 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/467377 290 2,775 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/467378 102 970 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/468743 210 2,035 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/468982 168 1,620 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/474116 89 860 https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/478810 81 -
https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/485542 72 705 State Race Double 632 - $
https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/468470 632 -
Warnicke Double 372 3,660$
https://www.usabmx.com/tracks/1031/events/478603 372 3,660 Grand Total 24,486 255,415$
Exhibit 3.2
Exhibit 4
r
6/15/22, 10:11 AM
Santa Clara PAL- BMX
Catalina Rangel <[email protected]>
Wed 4/ 6/ 2022 3:07 PM !
Mail - Catalina Rangel - Outlook
To: dawg i [email protected] < dawg [email protected] > ;joey .bixler@yahoo .com <joey .bixler@yahoo .com > ;cody@usabm x.com <[email protected]> ;John@usabm x.com <John@usabmx .com >;justin@usabm x.com <justi n@usabmx .com > ;heath@usabmx .com < heath@usabmx .com > ;sfernandez@usabm x.com <sfernandez@usabmx .com >;MIKE WALKE <[email protected] >;Mary Ellen Stewart < me24stewa rt@ea rthli nk.net> ;da n [email protected] < danraci [email protected] > ;wolfefam ilysj@yahoo .com <wolfefamilysj@yahoo .com > ;joh [email protected] <johne@kylli .com > ;echofo [email protected] < [email protected]> ;briannei lallen@yahoc .com < [email protected] >; lecalinda2001 @yahoo .com < lecalinda2001@yahoo .com > ;cheryl@seansk9s .org < [email protected] > ;CPellecchia@slattcon .com < CPellecchia@slattcon .com > ;kevin@kmooreandmoore .com < kevi n@kmooreandmoore .com > ;dea [email protected] <deana .wynne@abbott .com > ;[email protected] <[email protected] > Cc: Cynthia Bojorquez <[email protected] >;Wali Aminyar <WAm inyar@santaclaraca .gov> ;Pat Nikolai < PN ikolai@santaclaraca .gov> ;lisagi II [email protected] < Ii sag i II mor@g mai I.com >; [email protected] < kath leenwatanabe@yahoo .com >; MAYO RAN DCOU N Cl [email protected] < MAYO RAN DCOU NCI [email protected] > Nick and Joey
In order to resolve current operating issues/concerns; as well as moving forward , SCPAL requires you both to provide/complete the followings actions:
1. The BMX board shall be increased to a minimum of 7 persons, with regular monthly recorded meetings minutes, A SCPAL re resentative shall be resent at all meetin s -2. PA requires au it access ere ent,als to all PayPal accounts as utilized over the past 5 years, this will start the financial audit process in support of a proper IRS reporting requirement under a 501 (c) 3 organization
3. SCAPL requires super administrator rights to all social media sites utilized by the track over the ast 5 ears
-4. The "Track Operator" agreement with USA BMX shall be changed from Joey Bixler's name to Santa Clara Police Activities League (SCPAL)
s. SCPAL will require signed contracts and fingerprint/background checks for all BMX board members; any/all members selected shall be approved by SCPAL Executive Board and or their re resentative s ---SCPAL requires your response in writing to the 7 items outlined above via this email with all requested information No Later Than (NLT) Thursday, April 21, 2022.
Thank You in advance for working with SCPAL to make all of the above to happen.
Sincerely
Santa Clara Police Activities League Executive Board
Catalina Rangel I Administrative Assistant
601 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408)615-4879
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/MQkADkzN2E0NzAwLTFjMjMtNGFIYy04ODYwLWQ5MDlmZDdhODFmNAAQANvB8URgPEFnsg%2B1 tlh%2Fo... 1/2 Exhibit 5
Exhibit 4
FOUNDER
Frank Sapena
CHIEF OF POLICE
Pat Nikolai
PRESIDENT
K. Mike Walke
VICE PRESIDEN T
Mary Ellen Stewart
SECRETARY
Larry Wolfe
TREASURER
Dan Racimo
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
John Elwood
Tim Frazier
Linda Leca
Deana Wynne
Christian Pellecc hia
Cheryl Walsh
Kevin Moore
Brian Allen
Ana Vargas-Smi th
Dan Meyberg
HONORARY BOARD
MEMBE RS
Richard Rossi
CITY COUNCIL
MEMBER-LIAISON
Lisa Gillmor
Kathy Watanabe
Federal Tax ID
#23-7088136
SANTA CLARA
POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE
Developing Youth in Our Community
June 15, 2022
Ms. Marisa Sereni
36753 Mulberry St.
Newark , CA 94560
Mr. Nick Valencia
35428 Breton Dr.
Newark, CA 94560
Mr. Joey Bixler
1085 Tasman Dr. spc 772
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
RE :
Subj:
Santa Clara Police Activities League
Acces~ to BMX Related PayPal Accounts
Dear Lady and Gentlemen:
SENT VIA REGISTERED LETTER
Pursuant to the Email issued on A ril 6 2022 Co attached the Santa Clara Police Activities League (SCPAL) had formally requested that you provide access to the applicable PayPal accounts in order for SCPAL to reconcile the revenues more accurately, and verify the actual Program results we would need in generating registration reports from the responsible parties .
To that end, the request by email was made of the two principals previously involved in operating the t rack, that they provide the PayPal account access credentials by April 21, 2022 to which went ignored without a response.
It is our understanding that you are part of the team which solicited and received payments into the following PayPal accounts :
Account No. 1
Account name: Marisa Sereni
Account identifier : santaclarapa [email protected]
Account No. 2
Account name Santa Clara PAL BMX
Account identifier: scpalbm [email protected]
Account No. 3
Account name : Santa Clara PAL BMX
Account identifier bmxrider cl ini [email protected]
In addition, SCPAL requests that you provide any other PayPal accounts that may have been used to solicit payments for activities at the BMX track.
Santa Clara Police Activities j 601 El Camino Real, Santa Clara , CA 95050 IP : (408) 615-4880 F: (408) 984-1407 Exhibit 5.1
Santa Clara Police Activities League
Access to BM X Related PayPal Accounts
June 14, 2022
We request that you respond to us no later June 22, 2022 with the account access information . We understand that you may not have control over all or any of these accounts and that you may only be able to help us in influencing the person with control over these accounts to comply with our request. If that is the case please exert your influence and let us know of the situation and the remedies set forth .
In addition , at the City Council meet ing held on Tuesday, May 24, 2022, the Council voted unanimously in favor that SCPAL complete our audit of the required PayPal accounts and that the account holder(s} turn over the PayPal access credentials .
You can reach me at my cell phone number should you have any questions, comments or challenges in meeting the requested deadline at: My Cell Phone Number {408} 667-5499 or my Email at:
[email protected]
If this request goes ignored without any contact, you will place SCPAL in an uncompromising position of having to exercise any legal means as necessary.
We trust you will take this request seriously and not delay any longer th e requested access. An immediate response would be much appreciated as to the nature of your intentions to SCPAL's request upon receipt of this Jetter. Again, you can reach me immediately at my cell phone number or email address noted abov e.
Sincerely,
SANTA CLARA POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE
?/(Je_~ a/!k_
Mik e Walk e
Executive Board President
Attachment :
1). Email Dated April 6, 2022 with SCPAL's Original Request.
CC: Mayor Ms. Lisa Gillmor
Council member Ms. Kathy Watanabe
City Manager Mr. Rajeev Batra
Assistant City Manager Ms. Cynthia Bojorquez
SCPAL Executive Board of Directors
File BMX Track
Santa Clara Police Activities I 601 El Camino Real, Santa Clara , CA 95050 IP: (408) 615-4880 F: (408) 984-1407 From: Cody Wilson
To: Cynthia Bojorquez
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Santa Clara BMX
Date: Sunday, November 27, 2022 6:20:06 AM
Cynthia,
No change in our status. We are happy to lease the property directly and provide sanctioned activities as soon as we can have a lease directly with the city.
Thanks
CODY WILSON
Director Of Track Operations
USA BMX | BMX Canada
USA BMX Freestyle
USA BMX Foundation
O: 480-961-1903 X145
[email protected]
LEGAL NOTICE: Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this e-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 4:02 PM Cynthia Bojorquez <[email protected]> wrote:
Good afternoon,
On December 6, staff will be providing at update to the City Council on the status of the BMX lease. The last correspondence I had received indicated that USA BMX was not interested in working with PAL and would not sanction the facility if PAL remained the operator. It has been several months since that correspondence so I just wanted to circle back with you to reaffirm that this continues to be the position of USA BMX.
Can you please let me know what your position is at the current time? Thank you! From: MIKE WALKE
To: Cynthia Bojorquez; Mayor and Council
Cc: Wahid Kazem; [email protected]; [email protected]; Larry Wolfe; Maryellen Stewart; [email protected]; [email protected]; Linda Leca; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Catalina Rangel; Pat Nikolai; Mike Walke
Subject: Santa Clara PAL BMX track Dec. 6 council meeting Date: Sunday, November 20, 2022 1:18:45 PM
Cynthia
In regard to the BMX track, the track is open 3 days a week, Tuesdays (6:00PM to 8:00PM), Friday (6:00PM to 8:00PM), and Sundays (2:30PM to 4:30PM). Each day we have strider riders (age 5 and under) for the first 45 minutes of each practice session.
SC PAL kept the track open free of charge from June 2022 to October 2022. On October 11, 2022, we started charging 8 dollars per rider for each practice session and 4 dollars for strider riders.
This is 2 dollars cheaper than previously charged. All transactions are completed via PayPal and no cash is accepted other than the snack shack.
We have a new management team of 7 BMX volunteers that hold open meetings every month.
All activities that are held at the track are held with a current board member on site. The insurance is current and fulfills all terms/requirements of the land lease agreement.
The management team at the track expressed a need for rental bikes and a timing system. To date we have purchased 8 rental bikes and are investigating adding more as needed. We have purchased a timing system; the BMX team installed the system; the system is operational should a rider chose to use it.
We have a total of 350 riders that have completed the required wavier form which is a prerequisite to utilizing the facility.
This a representation of the total amount of people
that are using our facility. We have an average of 50 riders on Tuesday nights, 54 riders on Friday nights, and 30 riders on Sunday afternoons.
In addition to the normal days of operations, we are offering track rentals and clinics during the off hours of normal operating days and hours. To date we have had 2 track rentals and 3 clinics (1 free) with more on our schedule.
We did receive notification of 3 non-conformances from a county environmental inspection and are working to bring all 3 items into compliance with the county.
We
do expect to have all 3 non-compliances competed by the end of the calendar year.
We are working closely with Dave Staub Deputy Director of Public Works and Inspector Nicole Jorgensen Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health.
I would like to offer an open invitation to any council member or city official to come out and visit the BMX track. Contact me directly for a site visit. Please feel free to reach out to me directly should you have any additional questions, or you want a tour of the BMX Track and their operations.
Sincerely
Mike Walke
SC PAL Executive Board President
(408) 667-5499 cell
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-1053 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Update on Collaboration with the City of San José, Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) on Recycled and Purified Water; Action on Letter of Intent with Valley Water and the City of San Jose for Collaborating on Expanding the Use of Purified Water; Action on Memorandum of Understanding with San Jose and the SFPUC on a Purified Water Feasibility Study and Action on a Class 6 Categorical Exemption Under CEQA.
COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure
BACKGROUND
Santa Clara is the co-owner of the Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF), co-owned and administered by the City of San José. The City of Santa Clara’s sewer customers discharge approximately 14 million gallons a day (MGD) to the RWF. Valley Water operates the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center (SVAWPC), located at the RWF. The SVAWPC currently treats the secondary effluent from RWF and blends it with tertiary treated recycled water to customers in San José, Santa Clara and Milpitas for various non-potable uses such as irrigation and industrial processes.
In January 2020, Valley Water approached San José and Santa Clara about a Purified Water Project at the RWF. Valley Water intended to model a project similar to the one with the cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View to expand potable reuse by approximately 24,000 acre-feet (AF) as described in their Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan. In order to implement this project, Valley Water would need approximately 30 MGD of wastewater from RWF.
In September 2020, the San José and Santa Clara Councils both directed staff to proceed with negotiating an agreement. In October 2020, Santa Clara Council reiterated the need for this effort.
Meetings continued into late 2021. Discussion items included the cost and amount of the effluent, the length and cost of the land lease at the RWF site, and the allocation of the purified water, among others.
The SFPUC is also exploring and performing feasibility studies to increase water supply and water resiliency. As part of its Alternative Water Supply Program, SFPUC holds quarterly meetings and presents Water Supply Development Reports. SFPUC is partnering with Santa Clara and San José to find additional water supply through purified water projects at the RWF to increase supply and make Santa Clara and San José permanent customers with guaranteed water allocations.
DISCUSSION
The attached documents are indicative of the status of these ongoing collaborative efforts. All of the parties have shared goals related to water supply resiliency and have been negotiating the City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-1053 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
framework for these collaborative efforts moving forward.
The attached Draft Letter of Intent (LOI) (Attachment 1) provides a framework for collaborative efforts between the cities of Santa Clara and San José (as co-owners of the RWF) and Valley Water. The LOI is designed to assist earlier negotiations between the parties that did not produce an agreement on a project. Valley Water finalized agreements for a Purified Water Project with the City of Palo Alto in December 2021. Valley Water Board directed their staff to continue negotiations with San José and Santa Clara to work towards a project that would provide up to 24,000 acre-feet (AF) of potable reuse of wastewater effluent from the RWF. The LOI is non-binding and no investments have been agreed to at this time.
The attached Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (Attachment 2) between the cities of San José and Santa Clara and SFPUC is the result of a parallel effort being undertaken by staff regarding water supply resiliency. When the Water Supply Agreement (WSA) between the SFPUC and 26 wholesale customer agencies was amended and restated in 2019, Section 4.06 of that agreement set a deadline of December 2028 to decide on the question of making San José and Santa Clara permanent and uninterruptible customers with dedicated water supply allocations from the Hetch Hetchy system.
Direct Potable reuse projects were determined, as part of the Alternative Supply Program, to be potential paths to the kind of regional supply reliability that may make permanent status for Santa Clara and San José possible. The MOA provides a framework for a feasibility study for potable reuse projects that may be completed as cooperative efforts of the parties. As part of the MOA, all parties will contribute $100,000, including Santa Clara, in order to fund the feasibility study.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15306 (Class 6 - “Information Collection” ) which exempts projects that consist of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. These may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded. Here, the LOI and MOA will assist the City in evaluating the potential to participate in recycled water efforts and guaranteeing future water supplies.
FISCAL IMPACT
This informational report does not have a fiscal impact beyond administrative staff time, nor does the proposed Letter of Intent to collaborate with San José and Valley Water on a Purified Water project.
Any proposed investment in a purified water project from the City of Santa Clara would return to City Council for consideration. The MOA with the SFPUC and San José includes a city contribution of $100,000 towards a feasibility study in cooperation with those two parties regarding purified water and water supply resiliency.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-1053 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Class 6 Categorical Exemption Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15306);
2. Note and file the informational report on the Collaboration with the City of San José and Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) on Recycled and Purified Water;
3. Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Letter of Intent for Collaborating on the Expansion of Purified Water in Santa Clara County, subject to minor modifications approved by the City Attorney; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Memorandum of Agreement Between San Jose, Santa Clara, and the SFPUC for the South Bay Purified Water Project Feasibility Study.
Reviewed by: Gary Welling, Director, Water & Sewer Utilities Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter of Intent for Collaborating on the Expansion of Purified Water in Santa Clara County
2. Memorandum of Agreement Among City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara, and City & County of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for the South Bay Purified Water Project Feasibility Study City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
LETTER OF INTENT
FOR COLLABORATING ON THE
EXPANSION OF PURIFIED WATER IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
THIS LETTER OF INTENT (“LOI”) is made and entered into as of the date it is fully executed (“Effective Date”) by and between the Santa Clara Valley Water District, an independent special district of the State of California (“Valley Water”), and the City of San José, a municipal corporation (“San José”), and the City of Santa Clara, a municipal corporation (“Santa Clara”).
San José, Santa Clara, and Valley Water shall sometimes hereinafter be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” Additionally, San José and Santa Clara may sometimes hereinafter be referred to collectively as the “Cities.”
RECITALS
A. San José is the administering agency for the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant that is currently known as the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (“RWF”), jointly owned by San José and Santa Clara.
B. On March 2, 2010, San José and Valley Water entered into the Ground Lease (“Ground Lease”) and Property Use Agreement for Advanced Water Treatment Facility to provide for Valley Water to construct and operate its advanced water treatment facility and related facilities on a portion of the RWF premises; and Recycled Water Facilities and Programs Integration Agreement to financially support the production and use of recycled water in Santa Clara County consistent with each San José and Valley Waters’ separate and distinct interests: for wastewater treatment and disposal for San José, and water quality and supply for Valley Water, as well as to coordinate and cooperate in meeting each other’s needs.
C. On October 23, 2012, San José and Valley Water entered into an Agreement for Operation and Maintenance of the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center (“O&M Agreement).
D. The Ground Lease and O&M Agreements authorize Valley Water to operate and maintain the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center (“SVAWPC”), to provide highly purified water to blend with the RWF's existing tertiary treated water output to produce higher quality non-potable recycled water to be distributed by the South Bay Water Recycling Program, subject to the requirements of both agreements.
E. Valley Water desires to develop a process and facilities to purify treated wastewater for potable uses, including (1) using purified water to replenish groundwater basins, an outcome commonly referred to as Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR), and/or (2) delivering the purified water directly to Valley Water's raw water sources and subsequently to surface water treatment plants for additional treatment and delivery to potable water consumers [aka Direct Potable Reuse (DPR)], collectively (New Project).
F. On January 27, 2022, Valley Water and San José executed the Master Agreement Relating to Valley Water’s Payment for San José’s Support Services to Valley Water’s Purified Water Program (“Master Agreement”), which expresses the desire of Valley Water and San José to negotiate in good faith to reach an agreement on a New Project(s) to purify treated wastewater.
G. On August 1, 2022, Valley Water and San José executed a First Amendment to the Master Agreement which extended the term of the Master Agreement and revised Valley Water’s funding obligations therein.
H. Valley Water, San José, and Santa Clara now desire to execute this LOI to reflect the Parties’ intent to negotiate in good faith, in accordance with the Master Agreement, a collaborative agreement (“Collaborative Agreement”) for the development of joint water reuse project(s) that expands upon the San José, Santa Clara, and Valley Water’s existing collaborative efforts related to the SVAWPC for the purpose of improving water supply reliability in the County of Santa Clara (“County”) in the face of the impacts of climate change.
1. Recitals. The above recitals are incorporated herein and made a part of this LOI.
2. Definitions. The following terms, when utilized in this LOI shall have the following definitions:
a. Recycled water: or sometimes called “purple pipe” due the distinguishing color of infrastructure reserved for its conveyance and distribution, generally refers to treated domestic wastewater used for non -potable uses such as irrigation and industrial uses.
b. Purified water: is recycled water that has gone through additional advanced treatment such as microfiltration, reverse osmosis (“RO”) and disinfection to meet and exceed state and federal drinking water standards.
3. Good Faith Negotiations of a Collaborative Agreement to Maximize the Use of Treated Wastewater to Best Serve the Water Supply Needs of the Community. The Parties hereby agree to engage in good faith negotiations to develop a more sustainable, water-resilient future for the Cities and Valley Water via the Collaborative Agreement, which shall result in the significant increase of available treated wastewater from the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (“RWF”) that can be recycled and used for potable and non-potable purposes in a manner that serves the best interest in meeting the water supply needs of each Party’s jurisdiction with minimal impact to the environment.
4. Picture of Success. As the population of the County, which includes the jurisdictions of the Parties, continues to expand and as climate change makes an already variable California climate more vulnerable to long term drought, the future of San José, Santa Clara, and Valley Water depends on the significant and rapid expansion of recycling treated wastewater from the RWF for outdoor irrigation of functional landscape and the conversion of wastewater to purified water that can serve both potable and non-potable purposes. The RWF’s South Bay Water Recycling Master Plan, the RWF Master Plan, and Valley Water’s Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan form the basis of the portfolio of potential recycled water projects and the Collaborative Agreement. The Parties will employ their best efforts to enter into a Collaborative Agreement that positions the Cities and Valley Water on a path to meeting or exceeding the essential, goals of each Party’s respective plan(s).
5. Mutual Goals. The Parties share the following mutual goals, which the Parties seek to memorialize via the mutual execution of the Collaborative Agreement:
a. Improvement of water supply reliability in the County; b. Meeting each Party’s respective shared water supply needs; c. Increase of the amount of treated wastewater available from the RWF for conversion into recycled water for potable and non-potable uses; d. Support of water reuse projects with a capital expansion area adjacent to the location of the SVAWPC;
e. Support of the production and use of recycled water in the County consistent with the interests of each Party’s respective rate payers;
f. Ensure that each Party plans and develops recycled water projects that are ready to take advantage of current and future state and federal funding opportunities;
g. Develop a prudent and fair way to manage any resulting RO concentrate such that it does not create undue financial burdens or regulatory liability on the Parties;
h. Develop water reuse projects in a way that protects groundwater quality; i. Maximize demand management and water conservation, including for non- potable uses; and
j. Consider feedback from the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee that includes San José, Santa Clara, the City of Milpitas, the Cupertino Sanitary District, the West Valley Sanitation District, the Burbank Sanitary District, and the County Sanitation District 2-3.
6. Collaborative Agreement. The Parties agree to engage in good faith negotiations to develop the Collaborative Agreement containing a general scope of projects and/or capital improvements that would enable the realization of the picture of success described in Section 4 above, that encompasses the mutual goals set forth in Section 5 above, and that otherwise includes other considerations set forth herein this LOI. The Collaborative Agreement shall: (i) describe an approach to share costs for joint recycled water projects and capital improvements amongst the Parties; (ii) assign responsibility amongst the Parties to operate and maintain facilities; (iii) recommend to Party’s respective governing bodies how the Parties can improve their current governance structure related to joint recycled water efforts; and (iv) set forth a fair process to resolve disputes and share liability. The proposed scope of the Collaborative Agreement that the Parties are currently contemplating is further elaborated upon below:
a. Define the project(s) to be pursued by the Parties:
i. Consider feasible recycled and purified water projects (e.g. targeted non- potable, indirect and direct potable), including any partnerships with third- parties;
ii. Determine each Party’s water, treatment, real property, and infrastructure needs;
iii. Consider capacity and supply amount of current water sources; iv. Describe capital and operational expansions of SVAWPC; and v. Develop a schedule of implementation.
b. Develop terms in the Collaborative Agreement to address:
i. Revisions to the Recycled Water Facilities and Programs Integration Agreement, effective March 2, 2010, Operation and Maintenance of the Silicon Valley Advanced Water Purification Center, and the Ground Lease and Property Use Agreement;
ii. RO concentrate responsibilities and management;
iii. Necessary approvals by applicable regulatory agencies; iv. The amounts of recycled and purified water to be developed for potable and non-potable uses;
v. Compensation terms, cost sharing, liability allocation, collaboration on grant acquisitions, and other financing mechanisms;
vi. Conceptual design of any project(s) pursued;
vii. Real Property needs for the any project(s) pursued; viii. Design and construction delivery method;
ix. Public outreach and educational programs;
x. Collaboration on potable reuse regulatory advocacy;
xi. CEQA/NEPA requirements; and
xii. Other contractual, regulatory, and policy obligations of each Party, which may include but are not limited to, compliance with the requirements and limitations of San José’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, Proposition 218, Proposition 26, and contractual obligations under the Master Agreements between San José, Santa Clara, and Tributary Agencies including the City of Milpitas, the Cupertino Sanitary District, the West Valley Sanitation District, the Burbank Sanitary District, and the County Sanitation District 2-3.
7. Process. By taking a win-win mutual gains approach, the Parties seek to creatively develop solutions that meet the Parties’ respective interests and build a foundation of a trusted partnership necessary for the complicated long-term work of construction and operations of facilities that allow the Parties to realize the Parties’ mutual goals set forth in Section 5 above. The Parties shall engage in honest and open dialogue with commitment to ensure each Party’s respective negotiations team members explore the development of the Collaborative Agreement.
8. Schedule and Term. The term of the negotiations of the Collaborative Agreement shall extend to the earlier of the mutual execution of the Collaborative Agreement by the Parties or July 31, 2024 (“Term”). The Parties agree to achieve, in good faith, the following milestones no later than the dates indicted below:
a. On or before March 30, 2023, the Parties agree to develop a conceptual project definition to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties; and
b. On or before July 31, 2023, the Parties agree to mutually execute collaborative agreements.
9. Non-Binding Terms. Except as provided for in Section 10 of this LOI, all other terms and conditions of this LOI are non-binding.
10. Binding Terms. Notwithstanding any other provision herein this LOI, the Parties agree the following terms are binding:
a. Good Faith Negotiations. In accordance with the terms of the Master Agreement, San José and Valley Water are obligated to engage in good faith negotiations of the Collaborative Agreement. As Santa Clara is not a party to the Master Agreement, it is under no such obligation. San José or Valley Water, so long as either San José or Valley Water, as the terminating Party, has engaged in good faith negotiations, may terminate the negotiations of the Collaborative Agreement prior to the expiration of the Term. Santa Clara may terminate its participation in the negotiations of the Collaborative Agreement at any time for any reason.
b. Compensation. San José and Valley Water acknowledge the existence of the Master Agreement entered into by San José and Valley Water, on January 27, 2022, which sets forth the terms and conditions for Valley Water’s payment obligations to the City for the City’s support services related, directly or indirectly, to Valley Water’s Purified Water Program and to the negotiation of the Collaborative Agreement, including the City’s support related to LOI.
11. Governing Law. The Parties agree that California law governs this LOI. In the performance of this LOI, each Party will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and applicable local government.
12. Venue. In the event that suit is brought by any Party to this LOI, the Parties agree that the venue will be exclusively vested in the state courts of the County of Santa Clara, or if federal jurisdiction is appropriate, exclusively in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose, California.
13. Counterparts; Electronic Signature. This LOI may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, will be deemed to be an original, and all of which, taken together, will be deemed to be one and the same instrument. Unless otherwise prohibited by law or policy of the Cities or Valley Water, the Parties agree that an electronic copy of a signed contract, or an electronically signed contract, has the same force and legal effect as a contract executed with an original ink signature. The term “electronic copy of a signed contract” refers to a writing as set forth in Evidence Code Section 1550. The term “electronically signed contract” means a contract that is executed by applying an electronic signature using technology approved by the Parties.
14. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any binding provision of this LOI to be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid in whole or in part for any reason, the validity and enforceability of the remaining binding provisions, or portions of them, will not be affected, unless an essential purpose of this LOI would be defeated by the loss of the illegal, unenforceable, or invalid provision.
15. Headings. The section and exhibit headings are for convenience only and are not to be used in its construction.
WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF on the day and year first written below.
CITY OF SAN JOSE
Dated: _______________, 2022 By: _______________________________ Title: ______________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: ______________________
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Dated: _______________, 2022 By: _______________________________ Title: ______________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: ______________________
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Dated: _______________, 2022 By: _______________________________ Title: ______________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
By: ______________________
1 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG CITY OF SAN JOSE,
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, AND CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION FOR THE SOUTH BAY
PURIFIED WATER PROJECT FEASIBILITY STUDY
THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), made in the State of California, on this ____ day of _______, 2022, is by and among the City of San Jose (“San Jose”), the City of Santa Clara (“Santa Clara”), and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Public Utilities Commission (“San Francisco” or “SFPUC”). San Jose, Santa Clara, and the SFPUC are herein referred to collectively as the “Parties” and individually as “Party.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, The SFPUC supplies water from the San Francisco Regional Water System (“RWS”) to 26 wholesale customers in the Bay Area, including San Jose and Santa Clara, under the terms of the Water Supply Agreement dated July 1, 2009, as amended and restated on December 11, 2018, by SFPUC Commission Resolution No. 18-0212, with subsequent approval from each of the wholesale customers (“WSA”); and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Sections 9.06 of the WSA, the SFPUC supplies water to San Jose and Santa Clara, specifically, on a “temporary, interruptible” basis; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.06 of the WSA requi res the SFPUC to decide whether to make San Jose and Santa Clara “permanent” customers of the SFPUC by December 31, 2028, and to do so only if, and to the extent that, it determines that RWS long-term water supplies are available; and
WHEREAS, Section 3.06.D of the WSA re quires the SFPUC and each wholesale customer to diligently apply their best efforts to use both surface water and groundwater sources located within their respective service areas and available recycled water to the maximum feasible extent, taking into account the environmental impacts, the public health effects and the effects on supply reliability of such use, as well as the costs of developing such sources; and
WHEREAS, Through its Alternative Water Supply Program, the SFPUC is developing new projects beyond the existing infrastructure and surface water supplies of the RWS, including “potable reuse” or “purified water” projects, which will help the SFPUC increase reliability and meet future water supply needs in its service area, including the needs of San Jose and Santa Clara; and
WHEREAS, San Jose and Santa Clara wish to become permanent customers of the SFPUC and are committed to developing new permanent water supplies of their own to
2 support future demands and increase reliability in their respective service areas as well as the Bay Area region; and
WHEREAS, The Parties agree that a joint potable reuse project that serves the local demands of San Jose and Santa Clara during all types of water years, while also supplementing the RWS in dry years, would (1) provide greater water supply reliability to the Parties and the public they all serve; (2) help each of the Parties meet their obligations under WSA section 3.06.D; and (3) contribute to the SFPUC’s evaluation of whether it can provide permanent status to San Jose and Santa Clara; and
WHEREAS, The Parties desire to colla borate on a study exploring a concept for a South Bay Purified Water Project (“Project”), and evaluating and recommending the treatment processes, technologies, and infrastructure needed to produce and distribute purified water in normal and dry years (“Feasibility Study”); and
WHEREAS, The SFPUC has entered into a contract with the consulting firm Carollo Engineers (“Consultant”) under which the Parties agree the Consultant will conduct the Feasibility Study via task order, and the Parties have together developed and approved a scope of services for the Feasibility Study (“Scope of Services”), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 1, and obtained a not-to-exceed cost estimate of $300,000 from the Consultant for the Scope of Services; and
WHEREAS, The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to establish the respective roles and responsibilities of the Parties with respect to the Feasibility Study as well as the terms for the sharing and payment of its costs;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations of the Parties herein expressed, the Parties agree as follows.
1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the respective roles and responsibilities of the Parties with respect to the Feasibility Study as well as the terms for the sharing and payment of its costs.
2. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date that all Parties have signed the Agreement and expire on August 31, 2023, or when all obligations under this Agreement have been performed, whichever occurs first, unless earlier terminated or modified as provided herein.
3 3. GENERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
The general roles and res ponsibilities of each of the Parties under this Agreement are as follows:
a) Work cooperatively with the other Parties and the Consultant, and commit staff time as needed, to develop the Feasibility Study and complete other related tasks and activities, as described in the Scope of Services. This work includes providing oversight of, and reviewing and preparing comments on, the Consultant’s draft and final deliverables as well as other work product prepared for the Feasibility Study. This work also includes coming to consensus on the underlying assumptions and project scenarios to be evaluated, to the extent not already agreed upon in the Scope of Services, and resolving any conflicts that may arise during the course of the Feasibilty Study.
b) Commit reasonable staff time consistent with the Parties’ normal business operations and staff availability to work on tasks related to the Feasibility Study that facilitate completion of the Scope of Services, which the Parties agree are necessary or important for the development of the Project. These tasks may include, but are not limited to, (1) requesting data and other information from entities who are not parties to this Agreement but are critical to the operation of the facilities identified in the Feasibility Study (e.g., wastewater service providers in the South Bay), and (2) developing additional briefing and educational materials concerning the Project and purified water in general for each Party’s leadership, stakeholders, and community members, as needed. c) Contribute its share of the total costs of the Feasibility Study, as specified in Section 5 of this Agreement.
d) Share relevant engineering, permitting, regulatory and operational information regarding its own facilities and permits with the other Parties and/or the Consultant for the benefit of the Feasibility Study when requested, subject to a non-disclosure agreement, if there a legal basis exists for the non-disclosure and there is a reasonable need for the information to develop the Feasibility Study. e) Provide the other Parties and/or the Consultant with access to facilities and operational data when requested, if there is a reasonable need for the access or data to develop the Feasibility Study (such access or data might concern intakes, aqueducts and pumping plants, transmission lines, reservoirs, treatment plants, interties). If there is also a reasonable need, commit reasonable staff time consistent with the Parties’ normal business operations and staff availability to conduct analysis of its existing information on its own facilities, permits, operational data, modeling information, procedures or requirements, or any other data needed for the Feasibility Study and share the information from such analysis with the other Parties and/or the Consultant. Access to facilities will be consistent
4 with, and will follow, the facility owner’s standard safety and notification requirements.
f) Participate in Feasibility Study kick-off and coordination meetings with the other Parties and the Consultant, as well as a meeting with the other Parties after the completion of the Feasibility Study to discuss the results and next steps with respect to the development of the Project.
4. ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SFPUC
The additional roles and responsibilities of SFPUC under this Agreement are as follows:
a) Manage and administer the contract with the Consultant and the task order thereunder to develop the Feasibility Study as described in the Scope of Services. b) Receive and pay all invoices from the Consultant for services rendered under the contract to develop the Feasibility Study with SFPUC funds, with reimbursement of two-thirds (i.e., 66.66%) of the total costs to be provided by San Jose and Santa Clara, collectively, to the SFPUC following the completion of the Feasibility Study, as provided in Section 5 of this Agreement.
c) Instruct the Consultant to communicate with all Parties directly about the development of the Feasibility Study and related activities and deliverables. d) Instruct the Consultant to distribute both draft and final deliverables for the Feasibility Study, and other related work product, to all Parties directly for review and comment.
e) Prepare and transmit to San Jose and Santa Clara invoices for their respective shares of the total costs of the Feasibility Study, per Section 5 of this Agreement. f) Instruct the Consultant to perform the Scope of Services from a neutral perspective, considering the interests of all Parties, without preference, and produce a Feasibility Study that is fair and balanced for consideration by the Parties’ decision-makers.
5. COST SHARING AND PAYMENT
Each of the Parties agrees to pay one-third (i.e., 33.33%) of the total actual costs of the Feasibility Study, and the total amount paid by each Party shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), given the Consultant’s not-to-exceed cost estimate of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) for the performance of the Scope of Services.
As provided in Section 4 of this Agreement, the SFPUC will pay, with SFPUC funds, all of the invoices it receives from the Consultant for its performance of services
5 under the contract related to the Feasibility Study. After the Consultant has completed the Scope of Services, the SFPUC will prepare and transmit to San Jose and Santa Clara invoices for their respective shares of the total actual costs (one-third, or 33.33%, each), up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). San Jose and Santa Clara will pay the SFPUC their respective shares in a single payment within thirty (30) days of receipt of the SFPUC’s invoices.
If a Party chooses to terminate its partic ipation in the development and preparation of the Feasibility Study under the terms of this Agreement, that Party shall remain financially responsible for its individual share of the total actual costs of the Feasibility Study, once completed, as specified in Section 8.
6. OWNERSHIP OF RESULTS
The Parties shall have join t ownership of and access to the deliverables that are produced for the Feasibility Study under this Agreement, including any drawings, plans, specifications, blueprints, studies, reports, memoranda, computation sheets, computer files and media or other documents prepared by the Parties and/or the Consultant for the purposes of the Feasibility Study.
7. NOTICES
Any notice, demand, or reque st made in connection with this Agreement must be in writing and will be deemed properly served if delivered in person or sent by United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses of the Parties identified in this Section.
Any Party may change its signatory authority, delegated project contact, or agency phone number or mailing address to which notices are to be sent by giving written notice thereof to the other Parties. Day-to-day communications about the Feasibility Study and related tasks and activities under this Agreement will be among the delegated project contacts identified in this Section.
6 8. TERMINATION
If an individual Party elects to terminate its participation in this Agreement, it may do so by providing each of the other Parties with at least thirty (30) days’ written notice of its intention to terminate. The terminating Party’s notice shall state the effective date of its termination. Termination of San Jose or Santa Clara from this Agreement shall not terminate this Agreement with respect to the remaining two Parties, nor shall it terminate that Party’s obligation to pay one-third (33.33%) of the total actual costs of the Feasibility Study, once completed, as provided in Section 5 of this Agreement (i.e., the terminating Party will remain obligated to reimburse the SFPUC up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for its individual share of the total actual costs of the Feasibility Study, once completed).
If the SFPUC is the terminating Part y, SFPUC shall notify Consultant whose responsibilities under the contract with the SFPUC with respect to the Feasibility Study shall also terminate. Under such circumstances, Consultant will complete any work paid for by the SFPUC before the effective date of termination, and San Jose and Santa Clara shall reimburse the SFPUC for one-third (33%) of the total costs of the services provided,
AGENCY SIGNATORY
AUTHORITY
DELEGATED PROJECT
CONTACT
AGENCY MAILING
ADDRESS AND
PHONE NUMBER
San Jose Sarah Zarate
Nicole Harvie
[email protected]
(408) 277-3671
City of San Jose
Municipal Water System
3025 Tuers Road
San Jose, CA 95121
(408) 277-3671
Santa Clara Rajeev Batra
Shilpa Mehta
[email protected]
(408) 615-2011
City of Santa Clara
Water and Sewer Utilities
Department
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(408) 615-2000
SFPUC Dennis J. Herrera
Fan Lau
[email protected]
(415) 554-2498
San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 551-3000
7 and shall have joint ownership of and access to the deliverables that were produced, as of the effective date of termination.
9. AMENDMENT
The Parties may amend this Agreement by written instrument executed and approved in the same manner as this Agreement.
10. GOOD FAITH
Each Party shall use all reasonable effo rts and work wholeheartedly and in good faith for the expedited completion of the objectives of this Agreement and the satisfactory performance of its terms.
11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any claim that a Party may have agains t another Party or Parties regarding the performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, claims for compensation will be submitted to the other Party or Parties in writing. Parties will meet and confer, first at a staff level and then elevated to a meeting of executive management, as needed, in a good faith attempt to negotiate a resolution of the claim and, if necessary, process an amendment to this Agreement or a settlement agreement to implement the terms of any such resolution.
12. SEVERABILITY
If any term or provision of this Agreemen t is deemed invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation of any applicable law, it will not affect the validity of any other provision, which will remain in full force and effect.
13. WAIVER
The waiver at any time by any Party of its right with respect to default or other matter arising in connection with this Agreement will not be deemed a waiver by that Party with respect to any subsequent default or matter.
14. BOOKS AND RECORDS
The SFPUC agrees to maintain accurate books and accounting records relating to this Agreement for a period of not fewer than five (5) years from the date of final payment to the Consultant for its services related to the Feasibility Study. The SFPUC agrees to provide the other Parties with access to its books and records for audit purposes.
15. SAN FRANCISCO SUNSHINE ORDINANCE
The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement and all related records are subject to the California Public Records Act, (California Government Code §6250 et. seq.), and the
8 San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, (San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 67).
Such records are subject to public inspection and copying unless exempt from disclosure under federal, state, or local law.
16. SAN FRANCISCO CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS
This Agreement is subject to the budget and fiscal provisions of the City and County of San Francisco’s (“City’s”) Charter. Charges will accrue to San Francisco only after prior written authorization certified by the City’s Controller, and the amount of San Francisco’s obligation hereunder shall not at any time exceed the amount certified for the purpose and period stated in such advance authorization. This Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability, or expense of any kind to San Francisco at the end of any fiscal year if funds are not appropriated for the next succeeding fiscal year. If funds are appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year, this Agreement will terminate, without penalty, liability, or expense of any kind at the end of the term for which funds are appropriated. San Francisco has no obligation to make appropriations for this Agreement in lieu of appropriations for new or other agreements. San Francisco budget decisions are subject to the discretion of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. THIS SECTION
CONTROLS AGAINST ANY AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS
AGREEMENT.
17. SAN FRANCISCO MAXIMUM COSTS
As provided in Section 5, in no event sh all the amount of this Agreement for the SFPUC exceed $100,000. The SFPUC’s payment obligation under this Agreement cannot at any time exceed the amount certified by City's Controller for the purpose and period stated in such certification. Absent an authorized Emergency per the City Charter or applicable Code, no City representative is authorized to offer or promise, nor is the City required to honor, any offered or promised payments under this Agreement in excess of the certified maximum amount without the Controller having first certified the additional promised amount and the Parties having modified this Agreement as provided in Section 9.
18. LIABILITY OF PARTIES
The Parties’ payment ob ligations under this Agreement shall be limited to the payment of the amounts provided for in Section 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement or Government Code Section 895.2, in no event shall the Parties be liable, regardless of whether any claim is based on contract or tort, for any special, consequential, indirect, or incidental damages, including, but not limited to, lost profits,
9 arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the services performed by the Consultant in connection with this Agreement.
19. AGREEMENT NOT A PRECEDENT
The Parties intend that the provisions of this Agreement will not bind the Parties as to the provisions of any future agreement between them, including, but not limited to an agreement for the use or purchase of purified water. This Agreement was developed specifically for the specified Agreement term.
20. ASSIGNMENT
This Agreement is not assignable either in whole or in part, except upon mutual written consent of the Parties.
21. SUCCESSORS
This Agreement shall bind the successors of the Parties in the same manner as if they were expressly named.
22. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, together with the attachment hereto, represents the entire agreement of the Parties as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written communications among the Parties shall be of any force or effect with respect to the matters covered hereunder.
23. INTERPRETATION
This Agreement shall be deemed to have been prepared equally by all Parties, and its individual provisions shall not be construed or interpreted more favorably for one Party on the basis that the other Parties prepared it.
24. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement is governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
25. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in count erparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and but all of which taken together constitute one and the same Agreement.
10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized representatives, in counterpart.
CITY OF SAN JOSE
By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Sarah Zarate
Director, Office of the City Manager
Approved as to form:
By:____________________________
Colleen Winchester
Sr. Deputy City Attorney
11 CITY OF SANTA CLARA
By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Rajeev Batra
City Manager
Approved as to form:
By:____________________________
Jennifer Pousho
Assistant City Attorney
12 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Dennis J. Herrera
General Manager
Authorized by SFPUC Resolution No. ___________
Approved as to form:
David Chiu, City Attorney
By:_____________________________
Deputy City Attorney
13 ATTACHMENT 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR
SOUTH BAY PURIFIED WATER PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Exhibit A - Scope of Services
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
CONSULTANT/WRE JV
PRO.0118 Water Resources Professional Services
Task Order 10
Task Order:
Ȃ
May 12, 2022 1
OBJECTIVE
Consultant to provide evaluation of DPR treatment and infrastructure for:
1. Two Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWTF) production capacities
2. Three purified “finished” water blending and distribution options
1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) faces water supply shortfalls during future droughts. In response, SFPUC continues to look for opportunities to develop alternative water supplies regionally that can provide dry year supply reliability. Simultaneously, the Cities of San José and Santa Clara (SJ and SC) who are interruptible customers of the SFPUC, are seeking permanent supplies to support projected future demands. The SFPUC must evaluate whether it can provide permanent status and meet the needs of both existing and future permanent customers. This task order evaluates the implementation of an AWTF that would produce Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) water (i.e., purified water) from water supplies from the San José-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF).The purified water would be provided to SJ and SC in all year types, and to the Regional Water System (RWS) for the benefit of all SFPUC customers during dry years when supply shortages are likely to occur. The SFPUC is administering the project contract. This project will require subject matter expertise from SFPUC, SJ, and SC. Input from other South Bay water agencies (e.g., Sunnyvale and/or Valley Water) may also be needed during the course of the study.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION OF CONSULTANT SERVICES Project Overview and Deliverables
The CONSULTANT will prepare, with SFPUC, SJ, and SC input, a project summary that summarizes the goals and components of the project. The summary will also be accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation of the project to share updates on the project progress for the project proponents, as needed. The summary and PowerPoint will be developed initially and updated at the 50% and 95% stages of the project.
Included in this effort is the review of prior work regarding potable water reuse (either indirect [IPR] or direct [DPR]) that has involved the RWF. It is assumed that all of this work was done in collaboration with Valley Water and thus available on the Valley Water website.
Project Kick-Off Meeting
To efficiently engage CONSULTANT, SFPUC, and SJ and SC, a kick-off meeting to review the scope and schedule for the subject work will occur (online meeting). A data and information request will also be discussed at the kickoff meeting, along with schedule for delivering data needed (information request 2 detailed in Task 3). Meeting notes summarizing key discussion points, decisions, and action items will be provided within one week.
Monthly Technical Coordination Meetings
This project is anticipated to span 8 months, understanding that the deliverable goal is by early December 2022. Over that period, monthly technical coordination meetings and up to two workshops are anticipated.
During these meetings, CONSULTANT, SFPUC and SJ and SC staff will review tasks, completed work (deliverables), and project challenges. The timing of the meetings may be adjusted to align with key milestones.
Targeted Technical Meetings & Workshops
Two workshops between CONSULTANT, SFPUC, and SJ and SC (and potentially other regional partners) are necessary to capture ideas and share information. These include:
a. Preliminary Project Update – 90-minute Workshop with all collaborating partners to provide a project review at ~50% completion stage of the project. b. Draft Report – 90-minute Workshop with all collaborating partners to provide a project review at the 95% completion stage of the project.
CONSULTANT will develop meeting materials (presentations and agendas) at least one day ahead of the workshops/technical meetings and circulate workshop notes summarizing key discussion points, decisions, and action items within one week of each workshop. It is assumed workshops will be virtual.
General Project Management and Reporting
The CONSULTANT will provide overall financial and administrative management for the task order and will maintain effective communication and coordination with the SFPUC project manager and project team, including the development of a Project Plan (schedule, communication, QA/QC, and deliverables). Specific project management activities include work coordination and scheduling, project budget and schedule monitoring, subcontracting, preparation of monthly invoices including a monthly progress report, and maintaining a decision log and action items log.
Agency Support for Task 1:
SFPUC, SJ, and SC staff will provide the following support services for Task 1:
• Attendance at meetings and workshops of key project team members • Coordination internally with the different departments and disciplines within SFPUC, SJ, and SC to support engagement and discussion.
• Review and comment on Task 1 deliverables.
Deliverables for Task 1:
• Project Summary and PowerPoint
• Kick-Off Meeting materials (agenda, notes).
• Monthly coordination meetings (9) materials (agenda, notes). • Monthly reports and invoices provided on a monthly basis. • Workshops agendas, PowerPoint presentations, and meeting notes.
TASK 2 REGULATORY SUMMARY
CONSULTANT shall review and summarize the following regulatory elements:
• Current potable water reuse regulations
• Draft CA DPR regulations
• anticipated challenges for DPR implementation
3 Assumptions for Task 2:
• Information to be presented by CONSULTANT during the monthly technical coordination meetings, when appropriate, and included in the Draft and Final Report detailed further on.
Deliverables for Task 2:
• PowerPoint presentation
TASK 3 TREATMENT, MONITORING, AND DELIVERY ANALYSIS
CONSULTANT will evaluate DPR treatment and infrastructure necessary to produce 10.0 mgd (Option 1) or more (Option 2) of purified water for treated water augmentation.
Task 3.1 – Information Request and Review
CONSULTANT will develop an information request at the onset of the project to collect the necessary information from SFPUC and from SJ and SC and potentially Valley Water. This information request will include, but not be limited to, the following:
• RWF effluent quality
• RWF daily, monthly, and seasonal flow data
• SJ and SC potable water distribution system information, including pipeline locations and sizes, reservoir locations and sizes, and minimum reservoir operational volumes. • RWS connection locations
• Prior potable water reuse studies done for or with SJ and SC • Reverse osmosis concentrate (ROC) studies done for or with SJ and SC • Power infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed AWTF CONSULTANT will summarize requested information and provide data gaps to the project team, which can either be filled with new information or assumptions can be made in the absence of such information.
Task 3.2 – Treatment and Monitoring Systems
CONSULTANT will utilize the information summarized above to develop the two AWTF options, including preliminary sizing and design criteria. As noted above, one AWTF will be a 10-mgd project that is operated at
6.5 mgd in all years and increases deliveries to the full capacity of 10 mgd during droughts. The ability to increase production during droughts helps to meet a dry year reliability objective for the SFPUC. The second AWTF would be maximum sized based upon an evaluation of (1) available supply, (2) ROC NPDES concerns, and (3) availability of potable water distribution infrastructure. The preliminary concepts will include treatment and monitoring systems to meet draft DDW DPR criteria (including distribution system blending) as well as layout, footprint, power, and costs.
CONSULTANT will summarize work by others regarding the acceptability and potential challenges associated with ROC discharge in the RWF outfall.
Task 3.3 – Infrastructure
CONSULTANT will utilize the information summarized above to identify the infrastructure necessary to transport RWF effluent to the proposed AWTF, to transport purified water to the potable water distribution system, and to transport ROC to the RWF outfall. Pipeline alignments and pipeline costs are included in this effort.
CONSULTANT will, with the support of SJ, SC, and SFPUC, evaluate and develop up to three options for blending of purified water into SJ’s and SC’s potable water distribution system (including blending locations (mixing reservoir) and connection points within the potable water distribution system) and evaluate and ---
4 develop options for connection to the RWS. Efforts may include engagement of parties beyond SFPUC, SJ, and SC, such as Valley Water or other South Bay cities.
Task 3.4 – Power Needs
CONSULTANT will utilize the information summarized above to evaluate identified needed additional power infrastructure and costs associated with the potential AWTF (including AWTF, supply pump station, treatment facilities, discharge pump station). Additional details on the power analysis scope are provided below.
CONSULTANT will hold planning meeting with your staff engineers and decision makers to review expected power usage and daily electrical load curves, general site conditions, and available footprints at the site, vicinity to the electrical switch gear and electrical power needs.
CONSULTANT will develop preliminary sizing of possible solar PV systems using industry specific tools as well as internal calculations and cost models based on recent projects. A general layout drawing with recommended solar project sizes and ideal installation locations will be prepared. The layout may include battery storage footprint as appropriate.
Planning tools: CONSULTANT will use ‘Homer Energy’ a micro-grid optimization software developed by NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) USA. HOMER stands for Hybrid Optimization Model for Multiple Energy Resources and includes Simulation, Optimization and Sensitivity Analysis tools based on power usage forecasts.
Specific Solar Deliverables:
The following items will be included in the deliverables:
1) Simulated solar PV energy production model to develop scenarios to either cover partial or all power demands. The output will be including an economic evaluation based on local rates. 2) Layouts for roof mounted options, carports, or possible ground mounted system with associated battery storage layout as appropriate.
3) Schematics to show electrical site connections from solar PV sites to the switch gear. 4) CAPEX and OPEX calculations.
5) Conclusions and Findings that will be included in the larger project report, including site layout conceptual drawings for solar PV and energy storage systems and economic benefits (return on investment).
Specific exclusions and caveats:
• Current-voltage characteristic curves or shading analysis. • Loss factors during PV power generation.
• The PV electricity generation report is limited to average weather data and module data.
Task 3.5 – NDPES Discharge Analysis
CONSULTANT will summarize prior ROC analysis and NPDES impact associated with the two AWTF production options.
Assumptions for Task 3:
• SFPUC, SJ, and SC will assist in gaining information related to connection of purified water to potable water distribution systems and the RWS.
• SJ and SC will provide detailed information pertaining to available land, existing utilities (including power) on potential AWTF sites, and relevant geotechnical studies for the potential AWTF site. No new geotechnical information will be generated as part of this project. 5 • Best available ROC data and analysis, identified in coordination with SJ and SC, will be used to evaluate the acceptability of ROC discharge into the RWF outfall based upon the two finished water production targets of 6.5 mgd and 10.0 mgd.
• Information to be presented by CONSULTANT during periodic meetings and included in the Draft and Final Report detailed further on.
• A new reasonable potential analysis, pertaining to NPDES discharge, will be NOT be conducted as part of this scope of work.
• The level of design development is anticipated to be no greater than 2%, focused on the treatment process, conveyance, and power systems infrastructure.
• Regarding cost estimating: The opinions of probable cost is a Class 5 estimate as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE). Class 5 estimates are prepared from planning and preliminary design where engineering is from 0 to 2 percent complete.
For this Project, the Class 5 estimating methodology includes capacity factored, parametric models judgement and allowances and/or scale-up factors for less significant or support areas of the facilities. The expected accuracy range for this class of estimate -20 to -50 percent on the low range and +30 to +100 percent on the high range.
• The schedule assumes agency comments will be provided within 2 weeks of submission of the materials.
Deliverables for Task 3:
• PowerPoint presentations, as needed over the project duration to share information.
TASK 4 DPR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
CONSULTANT shall prepare an OUTLINE of major aspects of a successful potable reuse program, based upon the 2021 DPR Implementation Guide for California Water Utilities, highlighting key cost and non-cost items that include and go beyond treatment and delivery infrastructure that could potentially add substantial cost burdens to the project. The Outline will document major anticipated efforts necessary for DPR success and the approximate timeline for implementation (including permitting, design, and construction).
Assumptions for Task 4:
• Information to be presented by CONSULTANT during the monthly technical coordination meetings, when appropriate, and included in the Draft and Final Report detailed further on.
Deliverables for Task 4:
• PowerPoint presentations, as needed over the project duration to share information. • The schedule assumes agency comments will be provided within 2 weeks of submission of the materials.
TASK 5 PROJECT REPORT
CONSULTANT will compile the above information into an annotated outline as part of the ~50% completion workshop (along with slide materials) and later as a Preliminary Draft and Final Draft Report at the ~95% stage of the project, followed by one Final (100%) report.
Assumptions for Task 5:
• Review of reports will be conducted virtually from a MS Teams location if possible with participating agencies, in which comments from all parties will be collected on one document. A procedure for 6 addressing conflicting views by participating agencies will need to be developed at project initiation. • The schedule assumes that agency comments will be provided within 2 weeks of submission of each draft.
Deliverables for Task 5:
• Two Draft and one Final Report (electronic)
3.0 TIME OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall commence work immediately following authorization to proceed. A task schedule is included as EXHIBIT B. CONSULTANT agrees to deliver the Final Report within 8 calendar months after authorization to proceed with this task order. The following table highlights key milestones.
Milestone Weeks Following
Notice to Proceed
Kickoff Meeting
~50% Completion Outline and Workshop
First 95% Draft Report
95% Workshop
Revised 95% Draft Report
Final Report
2 20-22
25-28
26-29
28-31
35 CONSULTANT and SFPUC mutually agree that they will work toward meeting the above schedule. Should the Scope of Work be changed and/or should problems arise during the course of the work effort that could affect the above schedule, it is understood that both SFPUC and CONSULTANT will develop a revised schedule and budget limit, if required, to address scope changes, delays outside control of CONSULTANT, or other problems.
4.0 COMPENSATION
CONSULTANT will bill all work completed for this scope on a “cost-plus basis.” This means that CONSULTANT and associated subconsultants will bill the time required to complete the tasks based upon hourly billing rates as contained in the contract. The not-to-exceed amount is $29͟,244.
The estimated budget for each task is presented in EXHIBIT C. SFPUC and CONSULTANT agree to allow redistribution of funds between tasks as appropriate to allow flexibility in providing the needed services within the not-to-exceed budget. Invoicing will be at the task order level; SOLIS budgets will not be established for the individual subtasks.
CONSULTANT agrees to complete these services for this amount unless the SFPUC and CONSULTANT amend the budget as a result of a change to the Scope of Services or Time of Performance. 7 Exhibit B – Schedule
PRO.0118 TO10 - SŽƵƚŚĂLJWƵƌŝĨŝĞĚtĂƚĞƌWƌŽũĞĐƚʹ&ĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ^ƚƵĚLJ
EXHIBIT C
Project Items
Project Start
Task 1 - Project Management
1.1 Kick-off Meeting
1.2 Monthly Technical Coordination Meetings
1.3 Targeted Technical Meetings and Workshops
1.4 General Project Management and Reporting
Task 2 - Regulatory Summary
2.1 IPR and DPR Regulations LEGEND
2.2 Challenges for DPR Implementation Consultant activity Task 3 - Treatment, Monitoring, and Delivery Analysis Internal Peer Review
3.1 Information Request and Review SFPUC Review
3.2 Treatment and Monitoring Systems
3.3 Infrastructure
3.4 Power Needs
3.5 NPDES Discharge Analysis
Task 4 - DPR Implementation Plan
4.1 Components
4.2 Timeline
Task 5 - Reporting
5.1 Draft Reports
5.2 Final Report
Month from Start of Contract
10 11 12123 6789 54I I I I I I I I I I I I
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------- □ □ □ □ n □ □ n
I
I I
I I
I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
EE
I I I I b
8 Exhibit C - Budget
SUB Sub Markup WRE Total Project Budget
EXHIBIT C - PRO.0118 Task Order. #10 - South Bay Purified Water Project - Feasibility Study
Andy Elizabeth Kourtnie Dylan Darren Christian Erik B Christian Michelle H Chris Loving Jacqueline Briana Kris Graphics Loretta Total Labor Total hourly cost 240$ 191$ 134$ 107$ 240$ 216$ 236 $ 216$ 184$ 226$ 102$ 92$ 162 $ 130$ 96$ Task 1 - PM and Coordination of Consultant Services 40,597$ 2,400 $ 42,997 $ Develop project brief and PowerPoint (initial) + review prior work 41 6 1 6 46 , 5 4 9$ Project brief update (at 50% stage) 24 4 21 , 9 7 4$
Project brief update (at 95% stage) 24 4 21 , 9 7 4$
Develop data request (see task 3.1) -$
Kickoff meeting, including prep and minutes 41 2 4 3,790$ Monthly technical coordination meetings, with prep (8) 16 32 8 11,028$ Workshops, with prep and minutes (2) 11 19 11 7,746$
Monthly project reports, and decision log (9) 27 18 4.5 7,538 $ Task 2 Regulatory Summary 10,529$ - $ 10,529 $ Powerpoint on IPR, draft DPR regs and anticipated challenges 48 4 43 , 5 4 4 $ Write up of regulatory section in final report (draft) 41 6 8 5,090$ Write up of regulatory section in final report (final) 26 2 1,895$ Tasks 3.1 Treatment, Monitoring, and Delivery Analysis: Information Request and Review 5,066$ - $ 5,066$
Develop information request and coordinate information gathering 22 4 5,066$ Task 3.2 Treatment and Monitoring Systems 30,272$ 13,142 $ 43,414 $ Size max flow alternative -$
Analyze wastewater flows for AADWF 51 0 2,297$
Analyze reservoir data (or obtain min res volume and outflows) 51 0 2,297$ Review and summarize existing ROC NPDES documentation (see task 3.5) -$ Available space analysis 16 32 7,351$
Design criteria for 2 alternatives 83 2 4 5,927$
Layouts for 2 alternatives 83 2 4 5,927$
Cost estimates for 2 alternatives (capital and O&M) 12 24 4 6,473$ Task 3.3 Infrastructure 19,715$ 21,552 $ 41,267 $ Develop pipeline alignments and pump station needs (3 alternatives) 44 0 2 4 11,891$ Cost estimates for infrastructure (3 alternatives) 42 4 1 6 7,824$ Task 3.4 - Power Needs 27,624$ 40,000 $ 2,000 $ - $ 69,624 $ Internal coordination (kick off, document management, PM) 36 1 1 0 1 2,545$ Planning (review site and electric needs, layout, calcs) 5 9 17 12 11 2 8 4 14,399 $ Report preparation (Appendix?) 10 5 17 2 2 1 2 24 10,680 $ Task 3.5 - NPDES Disharge Analysis 5,074$ 12,485 $ 17,559 $ Review and summarize existing ROC NPDES documentation 21 0 2 0 5,074$ Task 4 DPR Implementation Plan 16,394$ - $ 16,394 $ Outline for DPR Implementation Plan 16 32 48 16,394$
Task 5 - Reporting 39,126$ 11,267 $ 50,392 $ Regulatory summary (see Task 2) -$
Alternatives descriptions, with figures 12 24 16 7,587 $ Treatment design section 81 6 3,675$
Infrastructure design section 41 6 8 4,831$
Power needs section 81 6 3,675$
Cost estimate section 41 6 2,911$
Compile draft report 16 16 4,598 $
QA/QC Draft report 12 2,880$
Final Report 16 24 87 , 0 4 8$
QA/QC Final Report 8 1,920$
194,397.21$ 40,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 60,846.00$ 297,243.21$ CarolloCarollo Labor
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I
PRO.0118 TO10 WRE Resource Breakdown
Firm:
Staff: G.
Arboleda S. Knott C. Cano L. Pound A.
Javaheri M. Perez
Role: Principal
Sr.
Project
Manager
Project
Manager
Drafting/
GIS
Project
Engineer
Staff
Engineer
Rate: $240.00 $175.50 $137.70 $121.50 $110.70 $97.20
Task 1 - PM and Coordination of Consultant Services
Kickoff meeting, including prep and minutes 2 2 480 $
Monthly technical coordination meetings, with prep (8) 4 4 960 $ Workshops, with prep and minutes (2) 4 4 960 $
Analyze wastewater flows for AADWF 21 6 4 0 58 6,571$ Analyze reservoir data (or obtain min res volume and outflows) 21 6 4 0 58 6,571$ -
-
Develop pipeline alignments and pump station needs (3 alternatives) 8 120 128 15,204$ Cost estimates for infrastructure (3 alternatives) 84 0 48 6,348$ Task 3.5 - NPDES Disharge Analysis -
Review and summarize existing ROC NPDES documentation 82 4 8 0 112 12,485$ Task 5 - Reporting #REF!
Treatment design section 24 2 4 30 3,515$
Infrastructure design section 48 4 0 52 6,792$
QA/QC Draft report 4 4 960$
Total Hours 40 20 56 0 200 184
Total Labor Costs 9,600 $ 3,510 $ 7,711 $ -$ 22,140$ 17,885$ 500 60,846$ Task 3.2 Treatment and Monitoring Systems
Task 3.3 Infrastructure
WRE
Labor
Costs
WRE
Total
Hours
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-1554 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Informational Report on a Written Petition (Council Policy 030) Submitted by Anurag Aggrawal and Ajay Thadhlani and Other Residents of North Santa Clara Near Levi’s Stadium which Requested a Debrief of the Noise Levels Associated with the Coldplay Concert Held on Sunday, May 19, 2022.
COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
BACKGROUND
A written petition per Council Policy 030 (Attachment 1), was submitted by Anurag Aggrawal and Ajay Thadhlani and other residents of North Santa Clara near Levi’s Stadium. The petition requested six pieces of information related to concerts conducted at Levi’s Stadium. At the June 21, 2022 City Council meeting, the petitioners shared their experiences related to heightened noise at their residences during the Coldplay concert. The residents also commented on the especially loud nature of fireworks towards the end of the concert. In response to the petition, the Council voted unanimously to direct staff to place on a future Council agenda a debrief of the noise levels associated with the Coldplay Concert held on Sunday, May 19, 2022.
Allowable noise levels for the stadium and events at the stadium, including concerts, are established within the Stadium Permit issued by the City in 2010. The Stadium Permit provides the governing regulations for the stadium’s operations and takes the place of the City’s general noise standards for fixed sources that would be otherwise applicable. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the development of the stadium and certified by the City when the City issued the Stadium Permit. The EIR does not establish City policy, but it is referenced within the Stadium Permit and in some cases provides clarification of the City’s intended standards for the operation of the stadium.
The City has contracted with a consultant, Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, since 2018 to provide noise monitoring for events at the stadium, including the ongoing installation of four noise monitors within the residential neighborhoods to the south and east of the stadium, and for occasional in-person (attended) monitoring as needed by the City.
The submitted written petition also includes questions regarding the City’s process for granting curfew extensions as well as data received on complaints regarding noise. Responses to the questions are included in the Discussion section below.
DISCUSSION
The following discussion first addresses the Council request for information regarding the Coldplay concert and then provides a summary of the City’s response to other items included within the City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-1554 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
petition.
Noise Analysis
In preparation for the agenda item to discuss the written petition, staff engaged with city consultants, Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, to analyze noise data for the Coldplay concert utilizing data collected by the City’s noise monitoring stations located in the neighborhoods surrounding the Stadium. Staff also requested Wilson, Ihrig, & Associates perform attended noise monitoring during two subsequent concerts (The Weeknd and Elton John) to provide more information to the Council regarding Stadium concert noise. The attended noise monitoring for the Weeknd and Elton John concerts took place adjacent to resident addresses which were identified as experiencing heightened noise experiences in the written petition as well as adjacent to one of the noise monitoring stations (Cheeney and Lenox) in order to compare attended monitoring data with unattended monitoring data.
The attached report (Attachment 2) provides the analysis and conclusions of the noise monitoring data collected from the fixed noise monitors as well as the subsequent attended, in-person monitoring. The noise analysis reflects refinements to remove jet noise from the noise levels attributed to the concert noise. The data also accounts for the drop in noise levels that would occur between the portion of the stadium nearest to a residential use (e.g., a rear yard property line) and the location where noise monitoring took place.
Concert noise levels are benchmarked against ambient noise levels, the noise levels called for in the Stadium Permit conditions of approval, and the target noise levels predicted in the Stadium EIR.
The concert noise levels can be summarized as follows:
· Noise levels from the Coldplay concert on May 15, 2022 exceeded both the noise level called for in the Stadium Permit by up to 9 dBA and the concert-noise level target predicted for the EIR by up to 3 dBA at the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring station. · Noise levels from The Weeknd concert on August 27, 2022 exceeded the noise level called for in the Stadium Permit by 3 dBA, but did not exceed the concert-noise level target predicted for the EIR at the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring station. Noise levels also exceeded the noise level called for in Development Permit at 2382 Avenida De Guadalupe (east of the Stadium) by 1 dBA.
· Noise levels from the Elton John concert on October 9, 2022 did not exceed either the Stadium Permit noise level or the concert-noise level target predicted for the EIR at any location.
The Stadium Development Permit and EIR use a decibel level for the 1-hour Leq (“average”) level applicable to the residences closest to the Stadium. This standard was established in the Community Noise Analysis report dated May 27, 2010 and referenced in the Stadium Development Permit.
Although the regulatory standards established regarding noise levels at the Stadium are based on an hourly average, residents often express concerns about single noise events. Residents who submitted the 030 Written Petition referenced the late fireworks at the Coldplay concert as being especially loud. Wilson, Irhig & Associates provided data regarding the maximum noise levels due solely to fireworks during the Coldplay concert, which were 77 to 87 dBA Lmax at the Cheeney and City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-1554 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
Lenox monitoring station.
No noise complaints were received by the City for the Weeknd and Elton John concerts.
Other Questions Raised in the Submitted Written Petition The following questions were raised in the written petition with responses are provided.
Question: Request for reports of all noise complaints received by the Santa Clara Police Department either through Stadium Event non-emergency number or through the Santa Clara Police Department non-emergency number.
Response: The City received three noise complaints regarding the Coldplay concert. The callers reported concerns regarding the volume and duration of the concert and two of the callers identified where they were experiencing the noise. One caller was located in the Rivermark area and the other caller was located in the Don Callejon area.
Question: Request for a copy of the amendment that changed the curfew agreed to in November 2010 that was a condition of approval for the stadium to be built.
Response: The existing Stadium Permit Condition P22(c) allows the City Manager to approve curfew exemptions for night outdoor Non-NFL events. For reference P22(c) reads as follows:
Night outdoor non-NFL events shall be scheduled to end not later than 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 PM Friday and Saturday, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or their designee.
1. Stadium event field lighting (not including emergency lighting, normal operations lighting, or lighting necessary for post-event cleanup, maintenance, or equipment load-out) shall be doused not later than one hour following the conclusion of the event.
2. Speaker sound system shall be operated not more than one-half hour following conclusion of a non-NFL event.
Additionally, on November 16, 2021, the City Council took the following actions:
1. Directed the City Manager to provide exemptions under Conditions of Approval P22(c) for up to five weeknight concerts per year, including pyrotechnics, that are scheduled to end no later than 11:00 PM Sunday through Thursday,
2. Directed the City Manager to provide those exemptions within 48 hours of the request by the Stadium Manager, and
3. If there are additional requests for an exemption beyond those five exemptions, direct the City Manager to bring the requests to Council for consideration where the Council will weigh the pros and cons.
Question: Provide report and data showing what outreach was conducted to get input from the residents regarding the change from the curfew being 10PM on Sunday to 11PM.
Response: No specific outreach was conducted regarding the curfew prior to the Council’s November 16, 2021 action.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-1554 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
Question: What happened to the community survey done in 2018 that gave residents input regarding weekday concerts?
Response: As part of a City Council study session on June 21, 2018, the consultants, The Lew Edwards Group with EMC Research and Public Dialogue Consortium, presented the final results of the Stadium Authority Board Community Outreach and Engagement Project. The consultants’ summary and presentation shared at the June 21, 2018 study session are attached (Attachments 3 & 4). Through their engagement efforts, the consultants found that residents were dissatisfied with the level of traffic, parking, and “disruptive behavior” following stadium events. In general, stadium- related issues were not “top-of-mind” concerns in relation to other issues, such as generalized traffic concerns and the high cost-of-living. However, it was noted in the summary and final report that stadium-related issues did become more important and higher intensity among the near neighbor population.
As part of a May 2018 solutions survey that was conducted, the consultants found support for specific solutions to community concerns, particularly related to parking, neighborhood security, and stadium-related issues. In general, residents strongly supported services that would mitigate event related issues following stadium events. Specifically, residents seek solutions to: (1) Stadium-related traffic, (2) Stadium-related parking, (3) Disruptive behavior pre/post Stadium events (particularly loitering, security/enforcement and noise control), and (4) Improving city-constituent communication.
Residents were satisfied with the existing curfew system but were open to changes and additional community engagement on that issue.
Several Council directions have resulted in City and Stadium Authority staff implementing various efforts to address Stadium-related traffic, parking, disruptive behaviors pre and post Stadium events, and increasing communication to residents about Stadium events. These efforts include setting up a complaint line for stadium events, hiring a noise monitoring consultant, providing neighborhood protections, and increasing communications about event impacts. Both the City and Stadium Authority continue to engage the Stadium Manager to assist with mitigating these issues.
Next Steps
Based upon the information provided in the noise analysis, noise levels generated by the Coldplay concert exceeded the City’s standards, while The Weeknd concert was in substantial conformance and the Elton John concert remained within the City’s standards. This suggests that noise levels vary from concert to concert and can be influenced by the way in which the concert is conducted. Staff will follow-up with stadium management to discuss these conclusions and work with them so that future events at the stadium conform with City requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, the City’s noise consultant, as part of their contract, which was extended through Amendment No. 5 by the City Council through March 31, 2023, conducted noise monitoring and performed analysis of noise data. Funding for these contractual services were included in the annual operating budget.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-1554 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Manager’s Office and City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Note and File the Informational Report
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director, Community Development Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Written Petition submitted by Anurag Aggrawal Ajay Thadhlani and other North Santa Clara residents near Levi's Stadium
2. Wilson, Ihrig & Associates Memorandum on Stadium Noise Level Monitoring Project 2022 Concert Level Noise
3. Lew Edwards, Group EMC Research, and Public Dialogue Consortium summary of the Stadium Authority Board community outreach and engagement project, June 19, 2018
4. Presentation provided at June 21, 2018 Study Session on community engagement report for Levi’s Stadium
City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
CITY COUNCIL WRITTEN PETITION
RE(!E't!VED
MAY ~f 1 2022
City C!erl<'~; Office
City of Santa Clara
Please provide the information requested below. When comple te, please submit to the City Clerk's Office 1500 'Warburton Avenue. Santa Clara, CA 95050 .
Date:05/30/2022
I, Anurag Aggrawal and Ajay Tt adhlani and other residents of N0(1Jl Santa Clara arnuJ'ld Levi's stadium, are hereby requesting to bo placed on the Santa Clara City Council Agen da fo< the foflowing purpose
A debriefing of the CotdpJay concert held on Sunday , May 19, 2022 We are requesting :
(1) All the compla ints received by 49ers r porting line during and days aft r the concert regarding the noise and othe r disruption s in the area , (2) Reports of ALL noise complaint:;; rece.ived by the Santa Clara Police Department either through the Stadium Event Non-Emergency Number or the SCPD Non-Emerge cy Number.
Many Santa Clara resjdents 'hav had expressed their conc-erns and compla ints due to noise from Coldpl.:iy concert on Ncxtdoor . Nextdoor link is: wwyl,tjnyurl com/coldplay-Saa1ac1ara. (3) a copy of the amendmen t t t changed the wrfew agreed to in November' 2010 that was a conditron of approval for th-e stadium to be built; and (4) Report and data showing what outrench was conducted to get input from he residents regarding the change from the curf w being 10 PM on Sunday to 11 PM (5) Request tor noise dB level of the sensors inside and outside the stadium (in relevan t areas) durrng the concert.
,(7) Vv'hat happened to the commun ity survey dofle in 2018 that gave fi,.Srdents input regarding weekday concerts
derstand that it is imPortant that I attend the meeting in the event there are any questions the Counci l wishes to 8$k me.
Signed~
NAM : AQ!irag Agg.ra,..vaJ
ADDRESS: 4305 Vll'atson Circle. Santa Clara, CA 95054
\
·• I i .
NAM : Ajay Thadnlam /
ADDR ESS: 234().-Espcr ca Ave. Santa Clara . CA 95-054
EL PHONE:• _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _
Optional
DAT . 05/30/2022
"NOTE: Thi.s is a public doc mcnt. If your lelepho n.um .1 · unLi ted or if you do no wMt i lo be public, 1ea ~. provi e an a cmal·e numbef" wt.ere you c.a:n be re ch-ed orm • 2016.doc
1 WI #16-125
MEMORANDUM
3 January 2023
To: Andrew Crabtree, Reena Brilliot, Leah Ruch
Community Development Department, City of Santa Clara
Fr: Sarah Kaddatz, Derek Watry
Re: Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring Project
2022 Concert Noise Levels
Executive Summary
The community noise levels from three concerts are analyzed in this report: Coldplay, The Weeknd, and Elton John. In addition to using data from the unattended noise monitoring stations installed in the neighborhoods south and east of the Stadium, Wilson Ihrig conducted attended measurements for The Weeknd and Elton John Concerts on 8/27/22 and 10/9/22 respectively.
The noise levels are compared to the target maximum noise exposure level in the Stadium’s Development Permit, the concert-noise level predicted for the environmental impact report (EIR), and typical noise levels on days when no events (NFL games, concerts) are held.
The closest noise monitoring station is at Cheeney and Lenox in the neighborhood south of the Stadium. The closest attended measurement location was at 2382 Avenida de Guadalupe (east of the Stadium). The concert noise levels can be summarized as follows:
• Noise levels from t he Coldplay concert on 5/15/20 exceeded both the Development Permit target and the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR at the Cheeney and Lenox location. • Noise levels from The Weeknd concert on 8/27/2022 exceeded the Development Permit target, but did not exceed the concert-noise level p redicted for the EIR at the Cheeney and Lenox location. Noise levels also exceeded the Development Permit target at 2382 Avenida De Guadalupe (east of the Stadium).
• Noise levels from t he Elton John concert on 10/9/2022 did not exceed either the Development Permit target or the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR at any location.
CALI FORN IA
WASHINGTON
NEWYORK
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
2 Introduction
This memorandum presents concert noise levels, compares them to the community noise level target set in the Stadium’s Development Permit, and puts them in the context of average non-game- day noise levels and noise level estimates taken from the Stadium’s environmental impact report (EIR). Because jets are a major noise source in the area, noise from jets is explicitly noted. The community noise levels analyzed in this report are for three major concerts held in 2022 at Levi’s Stadium: Coldplay, The Weeknd, and Elton John.1
Since 2017, noise level data has been collected continuously in the neighborhoods around the Stadium using Seti-Media unattended noise monitoring stations installed expressly for this purpose. Measurements are being made at four locations around the Stadium (see Figure 1), but this memo only reports data from the monitor at Cheeney and Lenox. The Cheeney and Lenox monitor characterizes noise in the neighborhood south of the Stadium which was the focus of the Stadium’s EIR noise analysis; it is about the same distance from the Stadium as the Hughes Elementary School monitor; and it is lined up with the open, southern end of the Stadium. The Hughes location is shielded from Stadium noise to some extent by the bleacher seats on the eastern side, so stadium-generated noise levels are typically lower than those at Cheeney and Lenox. At the City’s request, data from the Hughes and the other monitors could be analyzed and added to this report.
Additionally, attended measurements were conducted on 8/27/22 and 10/9/22 both to collect more data and to make site observations while two concerts were taking place (The Weeknd and Elton John, respectively). The attended measurement locations are shown in Figure 22.
Concerts Analyzed The 2022 data analyzed are for the following concerts:
Event Date Event Start Time End Time
5/15/2022 Coldplay 7:00 p.m. 11:00 p.m.
8/27/2022 The Weeknd 6:30 p.m. 11:00 p.m.
10/9/2022 Elton John 8:00 p.m. 10:40 p.m.
Explanation of Sound Level Metrics Sound (noise) levels vary continuously, so acoustical engineers and scientists have developed a number of metrics to characterize them. This memo, following the EIR analysis, primarily uses the “Leq”:
Average or Equivalent Level (Leq) The equivalent level, abbreviated “Leq” is the steady sound level that contains the same amount of acoustical energy during the measurement period as the actual, time-varying sound level did. For all intents and purposes, it is the average level and shall be referred to as such in this memo. While the measurement period may be of any duration, in this report the duration is 1 hour.
1 Elton John also played a concert on10/8/2022.
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS , NOISE & VIBRATION
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
3 This memo also reports some maximum noise levels (Lmax):
Maximum Noise Levels (“Maximum”) The maximum noise level as discussed in this report refers to the loudest 1-second during documented events, e.g., the single loudest second when fireworks were used.
Unattended Noise Monitoring System Data Analysis and Assessment • The unattended noise monitoring stations collect data on a second-by-second basis, but, for the most part, the Leq, Lmax, and other data are summarized on a 1-hour basis for consistency with the EIR noise analysis.
• The noise monitoring system can filter out most jet noise based on the typical characteristics of jet noise.2 When it detects a jet, the system disregards the 30 seconds during which the jet flies over. Data with and without the inclusion of jet noise are presented in this report. The levels without jet noise include Stadium noise and all other non-jet sources. • The Stadium’s Development Permit includes the following condition regarding noise:
In order to control noise, the stadium loudspeakers systems (permanent and temporary) shall be oriented in a manner consistent with Community Noise Analysis prepared by WJHW, dated May 27, 2010 for the proposed 49ers Stadium, in order to control noise impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods. In accordance with Section 9.10.070(c) of the Santa Clara City Code, and t he recommendations of this noise analysis, sound system levels shall be limited to 100 dBA for NFL games and other uses of the permanent speaker system, and not more than 105 dBA for temporary concert speaker systems as presented in the analysis. For soun d system installations and modifications within the stadium site, the target for maximum sound level exposure in residential areas to the east and south shall be 60 dBA, in order to minimize noise impacts to sensitive receptors.3
The concert noise levels are compared to the “60 dBA target”. As established in the WJHW report, this decibel level target is intended for the 1 -hour L eq (“average”) level at the residences closest to the Stadium – about 1,200 feet from the center of the stadium. The Cheeney & Lenox sound monitoring station is more deeply embedded in the community, about 50% farther away. To account for the extra attenuation with distance, 4 dB have been subtracted from the 60 dBA Leq target4, meaning that the target at the Cheene y and Lenox
2 If the jet is not particularly loud or there is another, constant noise source such as a lawnmower at the time, the filter may not identify the jet. The filter excludes the noise from about 85% of all jets. 3 Development Permit PLN2008-06947, 11/30/2010, Condition P23 4 Technical note: Noise attenuates with distance for the same reason that the height of circular waves resulting from a rock thrown in a still lake get smaller as they travel away from the source location: the energy in the wavefront is spread over a larger and larger area which reduces the wave’s amplitude. This is called “attenuation due to geometric spreading”. Noise that is fairly far from the source – even a large source such as Levi’s Stadium – spreads at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The distance from the center of the stadium (which is the effective location of the noise source) to the homes where the EIR predicted noise levels is about 1,200 feet, whereas the distance from the center of the stadium to the Cheeney and Lenox monitor is about 1,800 feet, a 50%
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS , NOISE & VIBRATION
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
4 monitoring location is 56 dBA Leq. The 2340 Esperanca location is about 2,200 feet from the center of the stadium , so the target there is effectively 55 dBA Leq. Noise levels at 2382 Avenida De Guadalupe are assessed using the 60 dBA Leq target as this location is representative of the residences closest to the stadium to the east. Measurements made at 4305 Watson will not be assessed relative to the Development Permit target as this location is too far away to adjust the target in a meaningful manner. • For context, data from 46 Sundays in 2021 when there were no NFL games (“non-game days”) were arithmetically averaged to ascertain representative ambient levels on an hourly basis for non-game/non-event days.
• Also for context, the concert-noise level estimated for the Stadium project EIR is presented.
From the Environmental Noise Assessment done for the project:
A concert at the proposed stadium would also be expected to generate noise levels audible in the su rrounding residential neighborhoods. Concert noise levels would vary depending on the type of music performed. On average, concerts typically generate an average noise level of approximately 95 dBA Leq measured 100 feet from the stage and speakers. Concert generated noise levels are likely to be similar or slightly less than the maximum crowd noise (i.e., cheering) at an NFL event. Concert noise levels would be approximately 66 dBA Leq or less at the nearest residences south of the stadium site .
Hourly average noise levels would exceed the ambient hourly average noise levels by 4 dBA Leq and would exceed background noise levels by 19 to 24 dBA. Because concerts would occur during evening hours, the increase in ambient average noise levels over an approximately two to three hour period would be more obvious to nearby residents. 5 The EIR predictions are for the residences closest to the Stadium whereas the Cheeney & Lenox sound monitoring station is more deeply embedded in the community, about 50% farther away. To account for the extra attenuation with distance, 4 dB have been subtracted from the levels predicted in the EIR 6, meaning that concert noise levels were nominally predicted to be 62 dBA Leq at the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring location. Similarly, predicted concert noise levels at the 2340 Esperanca location (about 2,200 feet from the center of the stadium) were nomi nally 61 dBA Leq. The 60 dBA Leq target directly applicable to 2382
increase. Given the logarithmic mathematics of decibels, one may calculate that the expected attenuation for a 50% increase in distance is about 4 dB using the equation 20 log 10 (distance1/distance2). 5 Illingworth & Rodkin, 49ers Stadium Project Environmental Noise Assessment, Santa Clara, California, I&R Job No. 08-046, 24 February 2009, p 14. Underlined emphasis added. 6 Technical note: Noise attenuates with distance for the same reason that the height of circular waves resulting from a rock thrown in a still lake get smaller as they travel away from the source location: the energy in the wavefront is spread over a larger and larger area which reduces the wave’s amplitude. This is called “attenuation due to geometric spreading”. Noise that is fairly far from the source – even a large source such as Levi’s Stadium – spreads at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The distance from the center of the stadium (which is the effective location of the noise source) to the homes where the EIR predicted noise levels is about 1,200 feet, whereas the distance from the center of the stadium to the Cheeney and Lenox monitor is about 1,800 feet , a 50% increase. Given the logarithmic mathematics of decibels, one may calculate that the expected attenuation for a 50% increase in distance is about 4 dB using the equation 20 log10 (distance1/distance2).
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS , NOISE & VIBRATION
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
5 Avenida de Guadalupe as it is as close as any other residence to the east of the stadium. The EIR did not predict concert noise levels at distances as far as 4305 Watson Circle. • The 202 2 concert hourly average levels (Leq) as measured by the Cheeney & Lenox unattended noise monitoring station are plotted along with the 56 dBA Leq target from the Development Permit and the contextual backdrop of average non-game Sunday noise levels and the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR in Figure 3 to Figure 5. The approximate timeframe of the concert is indicated on each data plot along with commentary on the noise levels vis-à-vis the relevant assessment metrics.
Manual Analysis of Coldplay Concert Noise Monitoring System Data At the request of the City of Santa Clara, additional manual analysis was conducted on data collected by the unattended noise monitoring station at Cheeney & Lenox during the Coldplay concert on 5/15/22. Our understanding is that this request stems from a written petition (Council Policy 030) which complained about noise from the Coldplay concert. Specifically, complaints were made about late-night fireworks which occurred after 10:00 pm.
Manual review of the data and audio recordings enabled us to ident ify events above 60 dBA Leq (mostly jets and fireworks) that occurred between 9 :00 and 11:00 pm, the period of concern. The concert noise level including fireworks noise during the 10:00 to 1 1:00 pm hour was 65 dBA Leq (excludes jet noise). This exceeds the 62 dBA Leq concert-noise level predicted for the EIR . The concert noise level during that same hour excluding both fireworks and jets was 61 dBA Leq. This is below the predicted noise level of concerts presented in the EIR, but still above the 56 dBA Leq target in the Development Permit. A plot of the results of this additional analysis is presented in Figure 6.
As discussed previously, the E IR analysis and, therefore, the Development Permit noise target uses the one-hour average (Leq) metric, which are the standards established for the Stadium , but this is not what people typically respond to in situations like late -night concert fireworks. Rather, they respond to the maximum noise levels. For completeness, the maximum noise levels due solely to fireworks during the Coldplay concert were 77 to 87 dBA Lmax at Cheeney and Lenox . For context, the maximum noise levels due solely to jet aircraft were 64 to 83 dBA Lmax (jets flew until midnight on the night of the Coldplay concert). These maximum noise levels were analyzed during periods when jet aircraft and fireworks did not occur simultaneously.
Attended Noise Measurement Data Analysis & Presentation Wilson Ihrig conducted attended measurements during the concerts on 8/27/22 (The Weeknd) and 10/9/2022 (Elton John) to document noise levels near residences who filed official complaints regarding the Coldplay concert on 5/15/2022, as well as to gather additional information about the concert noise, such as how much traffic influenced the noise measurements. For control, attended measurements were made near the Cheeney and Lenox unattended noise monitoring station. In addition, measurements were made at 2340 Esperanca, 2382 Ave nida de Guadalupe, and 4305 Watson Circle.
Two Wilson Ihrig staff members made measurements during both concerts between 9:00 and 11:00 pm, one stationed near the Cheeney an d Lenox unattended noise monitoring station for the entire duration and one making shorter measurements at multiple locations throughout the area over the
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS , NOISE & VIBRATION
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
6 two hours. Attended noise measurements were made at a 5 ft height at all locations shown in Figure
2. The continuous measurement at Cheeney and Lenox was done to ensure that if fireworks or other unusually loud conce rt-related event occurred, the events would be captured in real -time on an attended recording, however, no fireworks were utilized during either concert nor were there any unusually loud noises.
8/27/22 Concert (The Weeknd)
Over the 2-hour period centered on The Weeknd concert time (9:00 to 11:00 pm), noise levels measured by the unattended noise monitoring station at Cheeney and Lenox – with jet noise filtered out using the automated filter – did exceed 56 dBA Leq (the adjusted target at this location), but were below the 62 dBA Leq level predicted for concerts in the EIR.
As seen in Figure 2, one of the attended measurement locations was right below the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring station. The attended measurements were later post-processed to eliminate all major noise sources not related to the concert (e.g., cars, pedestrians, jet planes, etc.). This manual analysis resulted in noise levels approximately 2 to 3 dBA lower than those measured by the unattended noise monitoring stations even with jet noise filtered out using the automated filter (reflecting the fact that the jet filter does not eliminate car or pedestrian noise, nor even all jets).
Results from this spot check establish that concert-noise levels at Cheeney and Lenox did exceed 56 dBA Leq but were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR throughout the entire concert.
Additional spot-check measurements were made near 4305 Watson Circle, 2340 Esperanca Ave, and 2382 Avenida de Guadalupe. Again, data from these attended measurements were later post- processed to eliminate sources not due to concert-related activity. Results from these spot checks indicate that noise levels at 2340 Esperanca Avenue did not exceed 55 dBA Leq (the adjusted target) and were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR at the time of measurement. At 4305 Watson Circle, it was observed that concert activities were not audible unless noise levels from local traffic were 43 to 44 dBA Leq or less (which only occurred when there were no vehicles in the immediate vicinity). Concert-only noise levels near 2382 Avenida de Guadalupe indicate that noise levels did exceed the 60 dBA Leq Development Permit target between 10:00 to 10:30 pm by approximately 1 dBA, but were still below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR.
It was observed during these measurements that the noise level of the crowd commonly exceeded that of the amplified music at the Cheeney and Lenox, 2340 Esperanca, and 2382 Avenide de Guadalupe locations. Crowd noise was not audible at the 4305 Watson Circle location. 10/9 Concert (Elton John)
Over the 2-hour period centered on the Elton John concert time (9:00 and11:00 pm), noise levels measured by the unattended noise monitoring station at the Cheeney and Lenox location – with jet noise filtered out using the automated filter – did not exceed 56 dBA Leq and were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR.
Attended noise measurements were made at three locations shown in Figure 2, locations #1, #3, and #4.7 One of the attended monitoring locations was next to the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring
7 Analysis of the 8/27 Concert (TheWeeknd) indicated the noise levels measured at Cheeney and Lenox were within 1 dBA of those measured at 2340 Esperanca. Therefore, measurement efforts during the Elton Joh n concert were focused on the other locations.
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS , NOISE & VIBRATION
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
7 station. The short-term measurements were later post-processed to eliminate all major noise sources not associated with the concert. This manual analysis resulted in noise levels approximately 2 dBA lower than those measured using the unattended noise monitoring station (with jet noise filtered out using the automated filter). Results from this spot check indicate that noise levels at Cheeney and Lenox did not exceed the 56 dBA Leq target and were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR throughout the entire concert.
Additional attended measurements were made near 4305 Watson Circle and 2382 Avenida de Guadalupe. All attended measurement data were later post-processed to eliminate all major noise sources not associated with the concert. Results from these spot checks indicate that noise levels at 2382 Avenida de Guadalupe did not exceed 60 dBA Leq target and were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR throughout the entire concert. It was observed that concert activities were not audible at the 4305 Watson Circle location (while clearly audible at the closer Cheeney and Lenox location at the same time).
It was observed during these measurements that the noise level of the crowd commonly exceeded that of the amplified music at the Cheeney and Lenox and 2382 Avenide de Guadalupe locations.
Crowd noise was not audible at the 4305 Watson Circle location.
Data Analysis and Assessment Conclusions
The analysis of data from the unattended noise monitoring station at Cheeney and Lenox for all three concerts and of data from the short-term attended monitoring locations for the 8/27/22 concert (The Weeknd) and 10/9/22 concert (Elton John) is summarized in Table 1 below. The Coldplay concert on 5/15/20 exceeded the 56 dBA Leq Development Permit target and the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR at the Cheeney and Lenox location. The Weeknd concert of 8/27/2022 exceeded the 56 dBA Leq Development Permit target, but did not exceed the concert -noise level predicted for the EIR at the Cheeney and Lenox location. The Weeknd concert -noise levels also exceeded the 60 dBA Leq Development Permit target at 2382 Avenida De Guadalupe. Noise levels from the Elton John concert of 10/9/2022 did not exceed the Development Permit target and also did not exceed the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR at any location.
Table 1A: Noise Standards
Location Development Permit Target
(Adjusted)
Concert Level Predicted
in EIR (Adjusted)
Cheeney & Lenox 56 dBA Leq 62 dBA Leq
2340 Esperanca 55 dBA Leq 61 dBA Leq
2382 Ave. de Guadalupe 60 dBA Leq 66 dBA Leq
4305 Watson Circle N/A N/A
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS , NOISE & VIBRATION
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
8 Table 1B: Noise Measurement Summary
Measurement Location Coldplay
5/15/2022
The Weeknd
8/27/2022
Elton John
10/9/2022
Cheeney and Lenox
(Unattended Noise Monitor) 58-64 dBA Leq 55-59 dBA Leq 55-56 dBA Leq Cheeney and Lenox
Including Fireworks
(Manual Analysis of Unattended Data)
58-65 dBA Leq N/A N/A
Cheeney and Lenox
Excluding Fireworks
(Manual Analysis of Unattended Data)
58-62 dBA Leq N/A N/A
Cheeney and Lenox
(Attended Monitor) N/A 56-57 dBA Leq 51-54 dBA Leq
2340 Esperanca
(Attended Monitor) N/A 55 dBA Leq N/A
2382 Ave. De Guadalupe
(Attended Monitor) N/A 61 dBA Leq 58 dBA Leq
4305 Watson Circle
(Attended Monitor) N/A 47 dBA Leq 42 dBA Leq
Does Range Exceed Development Permit
Target? Yes Yes No
Does Range Exceed EIR-Predicted
Levels? Yes* No No
*If assessed concert noise level includes fireworks noise.
Bold values indicate exceedance of Development Permit target.
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS , NOISE & VIBRATION
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
9 Figure 1 Area Map with Unattended Noise Monitoring Station Locations (Distances are measured from the center of the Stadium) #4
Ave de Lago &
Ave de los Arboles
Stadium: 2,700 ft
#3
Hughes Elementary
Stadium: 1,800 ft
#1
Cheeney & Lenox
Stadium: 1,850 ft
#2
4624 Cheeney
Stadium: 2,460 ft
Stadium
"
0 0
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
10 Figure 2 8-27-2022 (The Weeknd) and 10-9-2022 (Elton John) – Attended Noise Measurement Locations
#3
2382 Avenida De Guadalupe
#2
2340 Esperanca Ave
#1
Cheeney and Lenox
Monitoring Station
#4
4305 Watson Circle
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
11 Figure 3 5-15-2022 (Coldplay) – Hourly-Average Leq The following regards measured noise levels with jet noise and, inadvertently, fireworks noise filtered out by the Seti-Media system: Over the 4-hour period centered on the concert time, noise levels exceeded 56 dBA between 7:00 and 11:00 pm. They were 7 to 15 dB higher than average non-game-day levels. They were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm, but above the predicted level between 9:00 and 11:00 pm.
Because the jet noise filter inadvertently also filtered out fireworks noise, it was subsequently improved by adding information about jet flyover times to the automated filtering process. This new filter will be fully operational for future concerts after 10/21/2022. See discussion at Figure 5 for noise levels with jet noise removed and fireworks noise remaining.8
8 The Cheeney & Lenox sound monitoring station is more deeply embedded in the community than the residences closest to the Stadium, about 50% farther away. To account for the extra attenuation with distance, 4 dB have been subtracted from the 60 dBA Leq target, meaning that the target at the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring location is 56 dBA Leq.
8 <(
ID ,:,
Q)
>
.3
,:,
C
::::i
0 (/)
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS , NOISE & VIBRATION
80 ,-------,--------,-----,--------,-,------,------,-----,---,------------,--,------,--------,-----,---~-,---~-----.-----, Approx imate
Concert Time
70 t------- --1------------------,-------- ~
60 50
40 30
12 3
-----------( -------
I
I
I
I /'
I I
I I
I
6 /---------
/
9 Noon
Non-Game Sundays 2021 with Jet Noise
Non-Game Sundays 2021 without Jet Noise
3 Coldplay Concert Cheeneylenox 5-15-2022 with Jet Noise Coldplay Concert Cheeneylenox 5-15-2022 without Jet Noise EIR-Predicted Noise Level for Concerts
6 9
56 dBA target set in
Development Permit
12 Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
12 Figure 4 8-27-22 (The Weeknd) – Hourly-Average Leq
The following regards measured noise levels with jet noise filtered out: Over the 4-hour period centered on the concert time, noise levels exceeded 56 dBA between 9:00 and 11:00 pm. They were 3 to 11 dB higher than average non-game-day levels, but were generally below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR.
8 <(
ID u
(D
>
~
u C
::l
0 (/)
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS , NOISE & VIBRATION
70 r----------+-------------------+
60 50
30 12 3 6 9 Noon 3 6
Approximate
Concert Time
~
9 12
Non-Game Sundays 2021 with Jet Noise
Non -Game Sundays 2021 witho ut Jet Noise
56 dBA target set in
Deve lopment Perm it
TheWeeknd Concert Cheeneylenox 8-27-2022 with Jet Noise TheWeeknd Concert Cheeneylenox 8-27-2022 without Jet Noise EIR-Predicted Noise Level
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
13 Figure 5 10-9-22 (Elton John) – Hourly-Average Leq
The following regards measured noise levels with jet noise filtered out: Over the 3-hour period centered on the concert time, noise levels did reach but did not exceed 56 dBA. They were 5 to 7 dB higher than average non-game-day levels, but were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR.
8 <(
ID u
(D
>
~
u C
::l
0 (/)
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUST ICS, NOISE & VIBRATION
80 1 ~~~-,-----,-----,~----,-----,-----.---,---------.---,,-----.--------,----------:-----.------.--~- 60 50
30 12 3 6 9 Noon
Non-Game Sundays 2021 with Jet Noise
Non-Game Sundays 2021 without Jet Noise
3 Elton John Cheeneylenox 10-9-2022 with Jet Noise
Elton John Cheeneylenox 10-9-2022 without Jet Noise
EIR-Predicted Noise Level
6 Approximate
Concert Time
~
9 12
56 dBA target set in
Development Permit
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels
14 Figure 6 5-15-2022 (Coldplay) – Hourly-Average Leq, Including Additional Analysis The following regards measured noise levels with jet noise filtered out manually: Between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 p.m., the concert-only noise remained below the 62 dBA predicted noise level, but was still 3 to 4 dB above the Development Permit target level. During the 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. hour, the concert noise equalled the 62 dBA predicted level, 6 dBA above the target. During the 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. hour, the concert noise level – including fireworks – was 65 dBA Leq. This is 3 dB above the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR, 9 dB above the Development Permit target level, and about 15 dB above the non-game (non-event) level for that hour. Without the fireworks (yellow line), the concert noise level was 61 dBA Leq, below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR, but still 5 dB above the adjusted target and 11 dB above the level for that hour when there is no stadium event.
8 <(
Ill
"O
ci> > (l)
...J
u
C
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS , NOISE & VIBRATION
80 70
f--
Approximate
Concert Time
-----------~ ----- -~~-,,,
60 --------- ~
1 ------------- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- ~-+----:: .,;,c.--~ 'l--i 6 50
(/)
40 30
12 3 6 9 Noon
Non-Game Sundays 2021 with Jet Noise
Non-Game Sundays 2021 without Jet Noise
3 Coldplay Concert Cheeneylenox 5-15-2022 with Jet Noise 6 9
56 dBA target set in
Deve lopment Permit
12 Coldplay Cheene ylenox 5-15-2022 Jet Noise Manually Removed (Includes Fireworks ) Coldplay Cheeneylenox 5-15-2022 Jet Noise and Fireworks Manually Removed EIR-Pred icted Noise Level
To: Executive Director Deanna Santana
From: The Lew Edwards Group with EMC Research and Public Dialogue Consortium Date: June 19, 2018
Re: Summary of the Stadium Authority Board Community Outreach and Engagement Project
Introduction:
In December 2017, the City of Santa Clara Stadium Authority Board authorized the Lew Edwards Group (LEG) to direct community research and collaborate on engagement pertaining to Levi’s Stadium. LEG, utilizing respected subcontractor EMC Research and in working collab oration with Public Dialog ue Consortium (PDC), coordinated a multi-disciplinary quantitative and qualitative community engagement program designed to identify resident and near-neighbor views on a variety of issues. The consulting team worked diligently in a variety of research formats to identify the community’s concerns, and desired potential action, through scientific and community-centered engagement and research.
The project utilize d four strategies to determine resident opinions on the Stadium. EMC conducted an initial issues identification survey in January of both citywide residents and “near-neighbor” residents and businesses in close proximity to the Stadium. Following this initial research, EMC and PDC engaged in scientific and non -scientific co mmunity engagement focus groups to add further nuance to constituent attitudes identified in the January survey. Finally, EMC engaged in a May “solutions” survey for citywide residents to evaluate interest in potential city actions. An online platform was also created by PDC to inform and engage residents and stakeholders. The significant data collected in a variety of formats (telephone interviews, one-on-on conversations, online input, and group meetings) informs LEG’s overall policy recommendations for Board consideration and further deliberation which will be reviewed at the Special Stadium Board meeting on June 21st.
Community Attitudes & Key Issues:
Both city -wide and near -neighbor residents in Santa Clara expressed satisfaction with the City and lev el of services provided. Residents are dissatisfied with the level of traffic, parking, and “disruptive behavior” following stadium events.
However, in general stadium-related issues are not “top-of-mind” concerns in relation to other issues, such as generalized traffic concerns and the high cost -of-living. Stadium-related issues do become more salient and higher intensity among the near neighbor population.
The May solutions survey found support for specific solutions to community concerns, particularly related to parking, neighborhood security, and stadium -related issues. In general, residents strongly support services that would mitigate event-related issues following stadium events. Specifically, residents seek solutions to: 1. Stadium-related traffic, 2.
Stadium-related parking, 3. Disruptive behavior pre/post Stadium events (particularly loitering, security/enforcement and noise control), and 4. Improving city-constituent communication. Residents are satisfied with the existing curfew system but are open to changes and additional community engagement on that issue.
Community Solutions & Further Consideration:
Solutions to Stadium-related issues can be siloed into two distinct categories. First, the Board should consider engaging in partnerships with d ifferent agencies, including ManCo and Santa Clara VTA, specifically to alleviate traffic and parking problems. Second, the Board should consider engaging in proactive, in -house solutions to specific Stadium -related concerns. In particular, the City of San ta Clara should consider targeted policy changes designed to mitigate disruptive behavior before/after stadium events. Both the near -neighbors and citywide residents support key policy changes to improve these services. Specific details for policy considerations will be discussed in the consultants’ final report.
Finally, residents expressed a strong desire for additional ongoing community engagement with the City and ManCo on Stadium-related issues. The consulting team views this project as merely the fir st step in an ongoing , long-term need to forge a more effective partnership between the Board, ManCo, and the community at large.
MA~KET
& OPIN I ON
RESEARCH PDC ®. Public D_ialogue
e Consortium
Consultant's Final Report
on Levi's Stadium
Community Engagement
ity
ant
The Center of
SCSA
SANTA CIARA STADIUM AUTHORIIY
: EMC: ■ PDC@ ~~~gR/i~gue
research
June 21, 2018
Stadium Authorit S ecial Meetin
(~,·~"·~~\-, City of
0 ,~ , , Santa Clara
The Center of What 's Possible
SCSA
POST MEmNG MATERIAL
I. 1
Our team prides itself on our professionalism , objectivity, and commitment to report ing on the community s views. We have no pos ition on any of the issues that are the subject of our research and engagement . No members of the team are lobbyists, and none have represented the 49 'ers. • Catherine Lew of the Lew Edwards Group is the Project Lead. LEG specializes in providing award-winning communications services to local governments, which constitutes more than 2/3rds of LEG's practice • Ruth Bernstein from EMC Research directed statistical survey research and scientific focus groups for the project. EMC is a national firm that has conducted thousands of such stuaies.
• Dr. Shawn Spano from Public Dialogue Consortium is directing qualitative focus groups, community dialogue, and collaboration. PDC is a non-i;>rofit organization that has provided a wide spectrum of services to the City in tfie past.
PDC®PubllcDJalogue [[:M::£ ■ 3 8 Consortium research
• lmpl~m~nt an impartial, rr:iulti-pisciplinary engagement process to assess public views on City-Stadium issues
• Utilize multi-disciplinary approaches that include:
• Quantitative methods that provide random, representative samples • Qualitative methods allowing stakeholders a facilitated forum to express views • Engagement of local residents, registered voters and stakeholders, including businesses • Approach that embraces all types of engagemenUcommunications methods • Provide highlights of results and recommendations to the Stadium Authority Board and public
• Appendices of EMC and PDC work products are also posted online Consultants will be responding to questions at the end of the meeting. 2 Benefits of Utilizing Cross/Disciplines
• Public Opinion Surveys are Quantitative
o Random, representative sample allows for generalizability o Choice format measured on a scale for statistical/numerical analysis o More precision, less depth
• Facilitated engagements are Qualitative
o Self-selected sample limits generalizability
o Format enabling participants to express their views and experiences in their own words
o More depth, less precision
Mu lti-Disci pl i nary Cross-Pol Ii nation
• PDC utilized the results of the first citywide and near neighbor scientific surveys to inform the design of its engagement meetings and interviews, and qualitative focus groups
• EMC used PDC1s qualitative research to inform the development of its May Policy Survey which is the basis of the consulting team1s recommendations this evening
3 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
SCSA
Initial Issue Identification Surveys
• A scientific citywide survey of voters was conducted of 600 respondents in January to identify initial issues
pertinent to our team study.
• Two near-neighbor studies were also conducted of:
• Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and North San Jose Residents
(174 respondents) living in close proximity to Levi's Stadium and· ' • Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and North San Jose Businesses in close proximity to Levi's Stadium (82 respondents) [[:M~ 8 research 4 Methodology: Citywide Voter Survey
Live telephone survey - including landlines and cells - of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara, a universe selected as voters are one of several constituencies on these policy issues
Conducted January 8-19, 2018
600 total interviews; Margin of Error ±4.0 points
Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese
~M~
research 9
Methodology: Near Neighbor Surveys
Residents
Live teleP.hone survey - including landlines and cells - of residents within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose
Conducted February 8 - March 3, 2018*
174 total interviews; Margin of Error ±7.4 points
lf'\terviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese
Businesses
Live telephone survey of businesses in selected regions of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and San Jose Businesses were randomly selected from a list of businesses with addresses in Santa Clara and within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose that experience event-related impacts .
Conducted February 2- 23, 2018*
82 total interviews; Margin of Error ±11.0 points
Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers 'Data collection was paused in mid-February during Stadium-related media coverage ~t19 resear ch IO
5 Methodology: Near Neighbor Surveys
Businesses: n=82; Margin of
J Error ±11.0 points
: ::~·~ .. ~ l l
c;
a Sunnyvale
26 Resident
r f' \ f,:\.,e,rv~eWS :'IA•l"l~ H,
,!?.) :H1ine.Ss
hitervte>lis t
'
D - -- @) -
"·, .. ~T'N'orth San
~J,1Sh \°tl\1f10
Jose
32Resldent
Interviews
17 Busln~ss
Interviews
r
0AMCM«c.ldol0 ~ '"':" o...•1.:1 •• "- J
lnlel MLI H tJmG)
t10R1tl S.
~t19
resemch 11
The City gets strong marks for the Job It is doing overall and for keeping citizens informed. About half give the City o positive roting for responding to concerns/complaints and using tax dollars responsibly. Strong negative opinion (''poorN rating) Is very low.
The job the City Neighbor s
Government is
doing overall Voters
The job the City Neighbors
does keeping
citizens informed Voters
■ Total Positive
(Excellent+ Good)
(Don't Know) ■ Total Negative Excellent Poor
(Fair+ Poor)
70% • . 26% , .•
64% • 32% , .•
64% · 34% , .• MMJGE]
60% 35% ,. MMJGE)
The job the City -does responding Neighbors ' ' 14% ' · MMJGE] to citizen concerns
andcomplaints Voters ~ MMJGE]
Please tell me how you think the City of Santa Clara Is doing in each of the following areas. Use a scale of excellent, go~d. only fair, or poor. ·
~M~
research 12
6 Both voters ond stadium near-neighbors hove o positive view of Santo Claro as a place to live.
Positive
88%
Citywide Voters
Negative
[Cl],lj,W,N
Near-Neighbor Residents *
Positive
90%
Negative
[CWOWIN
Overall, how would you rate Santa Clara as a place to live? Would you say It Is an excellent, good, only fa ir, or poor place to live? •Asked only of those residing In Santa Clara, n=116 ~M]J research 13
Top Positives of
Living in Santa Clara
Citywide voters and near neighbors mention the convenient location, small-town feel, friendliness, and the low crime rate as things they like most about living in Santa Clora.
What do you like best about living in Santa Clara? Voters Near Neighbors• Convenient location 21% 34%
Calm/quiet atmos phere/small-town fee l 14% 16%
The community itself/fri endly town/the people 11% 14%
Security/ safety/low crime rate 11% 14%
Climate 9% 9%
Clean/bea utiful city 9% 5%
Amenities : parks/library/swim center 9% 9%
Shopping/bu sinesses 7% 9%
Utilities: lowe r cost/city-o wned/w ell-run 6% 7%
Employment opportunities 5% 6%
Diversity 5% 3%
Have lived here many years 5%
Good schools 4% 3%
Loca l gove rnance/ci ty cou ncil/good city services 4% Activities/events 3% 7%
Affordab le cost of living/housing 3% 3%
What do you like most about living in Santa Clara? {Open-end) ~M]J •Asked only of those residing In Santa Clara research 14
7 Traffic 26% 33%
High housing costs/cost of living 26% 16%
Growth/new development/housing being built 9% 3%
Overpopulated 8% 3%
City government; the Mayor and City Council 5% 1%
Lack of restaurants/shopping/entertainment 4% 9%
Crime/ security 3% 1%
Road condition s/potholes/signag e 3%
Transportation/getting around/public transportation needs upgrades 3% 1% No downtown area 3% 3%
The Stadium 2" 9"
Schoo ls nee d improvement 2% 7%
People are not nice/no sense of community 2% 1%
Garbage in streets/dirty/run -down look 2% 3%
And what do you like~ about living in Santa Clara? (Open-end) ~Mc1 *Asked only of those restd!ng In Santa Clara l!::!~ 15 research Voters and near neighbors are most concerned about the traffic and parking Impacts of the Stadium. Littering, drinking/drugs, and loitering ore also concerns. Roughly a third of near neighbors {36%) and voters {31%) are concerned about noise from events ot night.
Citywide Voters
■ Very ■ Somewhat
Traffic
Parking In neighborhoods dose to the stadium
Littering
Public drinking or drug use
The number of weekday events t
loit ering
Noise from flyovers & hellcopters
Noise from eve nt s at night I
How late weekday events go
How late weekend events go I
Artificial IJgh t from the stadium at night ' ,
Noise from events dur ing the day
Fireworks - 22%
Concerned
... please tell me if you personally are concerned or not about each of the following Near Neighbors
■ Very ■ Somewhat ~
44% ,, 78%
32% 11;
18% II ' •
25%
17%
16% I .,.
13% I ,, ..
13% 11111 I o
[mllllll 23%
~ 20%
mll 17%
~t-19
research 16
8 Voters and near neighbors are most concerned about the traffic and parking Impacts of the Stadium. Littering, drinking/drugs , and loitering are also concerns. Roughly a third of near neigh bars {36%} and voters /3! %/ are concerned about noise from events at night.
Citywide Voters
■ Very ■ Somewhat Concerned
Traffic
Parking in neighbo rhood s close to the stad ium
Utte ring
Public drinking or drug use
Loitering
Noise from flyovers & heUcopters
Noise from eve nts at nlght I
How late weekday events go
How late wee kend events go
The number of weeke nd events
Art!fk ial light from the stadium at night
Noise from events during th e day
Firewor ks
==------
... please tell me If you personally are concerned or not about each of th e following Near Neighbors
■ Very ■ Somewhat ~
mEall 23%
i.9111 20%
mllll 17%
78%
~M]]
resec,rch 17
Voters and near neighbors are mast concerned about the traffic and parking Impacts of the Stadium . Littering, drinking/drugs, and loitering are also concerns. Roughly a third of near neighbors {36%) and voters {31%) are concerned about noise from events at night. <;:itywide Voters
■ Very ■ Somewhat Concerned
Traffic
Parking In neighbo rhoods close to the stadiu m
Utte ring
Pub lie drinking or drug use
The number of weekday events I
loitering
Artificial llght from the sta dium at night
Noise from event s during th e day
==.---- --
... please tell me if you personally are concerned or not about each of the following Near Neighbors
■ Very ■ Somewhat Concern ed
78%
62%
~ 23%
mat zo%
mlll 17%
~M]]
research 18
9 Traffic is the only issue rated as a
problem by a majority of businesses
As with voters ond near neighbors, traffic and parking are tap concerns.
Traffi c
Parking
Maint enance of sidewalks or streets
Littering and trash
Noise
Public drinking or drug use
Illegal dumping
Public urin ation
Graffiti
Crime
Loitering
■ 7 Extremely serious
21%
16%
11 5-6
55%
I'm going to read you a Hst of potential nelghbo(hood Issues that could Impact yourbustness. For each one, please tell me If that Issue is a pl'oblem for your business or not. Use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that issue ls not at all a problem for your business, and 7 means that Issue Is an extremely serious problem for your business. You can use any number from 1 to 7.
Cityof
Santa Clara
([:M]J
research 19
PDC® PublicDJalogue 20 ~ Consortium
. Community Interviews at two events (159 participants) . Six Focus Groups (41 participants)
. Three Community Meetings (23 participants)
. Online Questionnaire (223 participants)
•. Over 400 people total participated
PDClli:'\ publicDJalogue 21 e Consortium
• Near Stadium participants (95054) = 143 (32%)
• Other Santa Clara participants= 182 (41%)
• Non-Santa Clara participants = 117 (27%)
PDC~ Public Djalogue 22 e Consortium
11 . The energy and passion is with those who have concerns about the Stadium
. The "near neighbors" who participated expressed more concerns; others were more likely to voice appreciations
. Participants who don't live near the Stadium expressed support for those who do
• Trust, Transparency and Communication
• Parking and Traffic
• Safety, Security and Noise
• Economic and Entertainment Benefits
PDC®.. PublicDJalogue 23 S, Consortium
Poe~ Public Djalogue 24 S, Consortium
12 Trust, Transparency & Communication
. Many participants say that a lack of trust has developed between the community and Manco, and to a lesser extent, the City . This is due, mostly, to a perceived lack of financial transparency and follow through on initial agreements made when the Stadium was being considered
PDC® PublicDJalogue 25 e, Consortium
. Parking and traffic issues are another major concern
. Both are prominent for near neighbors
. Traffic impacts were identified by other participants as well, regardless of where they live
PDC~PublicDJalogue 26 e, Consortium
13 . Many participants cited security concerns: Littering, vandalism, loud and raucous behavior and public urination
. Near neighbors, especially, voiced concerns about noise generated by Stadium events, including post-event noise from people and traffic
PDC~ PublicD_ialogue 27 e Consortium
. Almost all of those who expressed support for the Stadium appreciate the entertainment and economic benefits for the City . A concern among these participants is that the Stadium is not being utilized to its fullest extent, and not maximizing the potential range of benefits available
PDC~ PublicD_ialogue 28 e Consortium
14 I
City of
Santa Clara
Scientific Focus Groups
Four focus groups held in Sunnyvale on April 25th and 26th, 2018 [[:~
research 29
Focus group participants were Santa Clara, San Jose and Sunnyvale residents -
'
Group 1
Group 2
Santa Clara Non-Neighbors, 15+ years In SC (1+ mlles from stadium) Santa Cla~ Non-Neighbors, <15 years In SC (1+ mlles from stadium) -
Group 3
Group 4
Santa Clara Near Neighbors (<l mile from stadi um)
Sunnyvale & San Jo.se Near Neighbors
Each group had 8-1 O participants
Groups were moderated by Andrew Thibault from EMC Research Note: Due to the nature of qualitative research, the following findings reflect only the attitudes and opinions of the participants In the focus groups, and cannot be reliably projected across the larger population [[:M]J
research 3o
15 For the most part, participants had positive feelings about living in Santa Clara/the region
Santa Clara residents had largely positive views of City government and the job it is doing
Top Positives Expressed:
Small town feel
Locationleasy access to many
attractions and other communities
Weather
Diversity
City serviceslamenities
Top Negatives Expressed:
Traffic
Development of housing faster than
services
Cost of living
Lack of a downtown area
Newer Santa Clara residents and those in Sunnyvale and North San Jose tended to have positive views of the stadium
Santa Clara near-neighbors and long-time residents were more critical and more concerned with perceived negative impacts, but still saw positives The stadium is seen as an attraction that brings benefits and people to the City, including generating business for local hotels, shops, and restaurants Some more concerned residents acknowledged that, as problematic as stadium events may be for them, events aren't that frequent
"It's putting Santa Clara on the map, in
terms of 'Oh! This is a place to go' ...
But at the same time , it does bring
more people in, and it does raise the
cost of living . So, it's good and bad."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor Resident
"It's a horror, but only for a
very small amount of the
time . The other time, it's just
dead." - Santa Clara Non-
Neighbor Resident
31 ~M::9
research 32
16 Scientific Focus Group Issues
. As with the PDC engagement sessions, the EMC focus group participants identified parking as the central issue caused by the stadium, also leading to other issues including litter, noise, public urination and disturbances from foot traffic
. Traffic and traffic jams were viewed as problems as well, but the stadium is not seen as a primary cause of traffic
. Most knew of the curfew but did not know the specifics . While noise was not seen to be as large an issue as parking, there was opposition to eliminating the curfew outright, particularly among Santa Clara near-neighbors
Methodology: May Policy Survey
Live telephone survey of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara Conducted May 10 -17, 2018
400 total interviews; Margin of Error± 4.9%
Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese and included both landlines and cell phones
[fil-1~
research 34
17 Levi's Stadium: Top Positives
The Stadium's impact on the local economy is seen os its biggest positive.
What is the biggest positive? %
Boosts local economy/generates revenue/jobs 39
Draws people/attention to Santa Clara 20
Nearby/local entertainment/events 19
What do you think is the biggest positive about having Levi's Stadium In Santa Clara? (Open-end) ~t19 research 35
Levi's Stadium: Top Negatives
Traffic congestion and parking are by far the most frequently mentioned negative.
What is the biggest negative? %
Traffic congestion and parking 48
Noise from the stadium 14
Crime and security 9
And what do you think Is the biggest negative about having Levi's Stadium In Santa Clara? (Open-end) ~M]l research 36
18 Stadium Importance
Roughly one-In-four respondents soy they hove seen "o lot" about Levi's Stadium recently. A majority say working on Issues related to Stadium events should be a priority for the Mayor and Council, but only 17% say It should be o very high priority.
Attention to Stadium Issues Priority for Mayor and City Council 57%
40%
(Don't
know)
3%
Prior ity
54%
Neta
Priority
22%
How much, if anything, have you heard or seen about Levi's Stadium recently• a lot, some, not too much, or nothing at all?
On a scale of 1 to 7, where 11s a uery low priority and 7 ls a very high priority, how high of a priority do you think working on Issues related to stadium events should be for the Mayor and City Council? Stadium Event Issues
(Don't
know)
24%
[[:M]]
resec,rch 37
Traffic and parking are seen as the most important stadium event Issues to address, with 4-ln-10 saying it Is ''eKtremely important" ta address these issues. Disruptive behavior in neighborhoods around the Stadium Is also a top Issue. Six-In-ten say It is Important to address noise from events, but only a quarter rote It as "extremely Important." ■ 7 Extremely Important ■ 5-6 Total Important
Traffic from stadium events
Parking in neighborhoods close to
the stadium
Disruptive behavior in
neighborhoods around the stadium
on event days
Noise from stadium events
41% _
40% .
37% . ,
26% -,
78%
73%
72%
62%
I'm going to read you a list of Issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium . After eac h one, please rate how Important addressing that Issue is to you, using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all Important, and 7 means extremely important . [[:M]]
resec,rch 38
19 Communicating & Responding
A majority give the City positive marks for communicating about and responding to stadium-related Issues. Stadium management gets lower marks, primarily because fewer respondents are familiar with their performance.
Strongly Strongly
~--■-To_t_a _l A_g_,_•• ___ .,_ (D_o_n_'t_K_n_ow_/_N_o_O_p_ln_l_on_) ___ ■_T_o_t a_l _D_l,_ag_r_•• __ _..,_A=•·--•Olsagr.
The City does a good Job
commun icating with reside nts abo ut
stad ium-relate d Issues
54% 16% Nfi'IIJ;E]
The City does a goo d job responding
to citizen concerns and complalnts
about the sta dium
51% __ 2_1¾_• __ ,~ NVIIJ;E]
Levi's Stad ium manageme nt does a
good Job communicating with
residen ts abo ut stadi um-related
Issues
Levi's Stadium manage ment does a
good Job respo nding to citizen
concerns an d co mplalnts
4 1%
41 %
30%
36%
Please tell me wh ether you strongly agree, some what .agree, som ewh at disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the fol!owlng statement s. If you are not sure please Just say so.
Stadium Problem Frequency
MIIIJ;E]
~M~
research 39
One-In-four respondents soy they hove contacted someone about o stadium-related concern - 6% have contacted someone 3 or more times.
Stadium Event-related Contacts
1-2 nmes
19%
How many times, If a ny, have you or someone in your household cont acted someone about a stadium-related problem or concern? ~M~
research 4o
20 Reactions to Potential Solutions
While oil the solution tested hove majority support, there ore significant differences In intensity of support ("strongly support").
Provide more portable toilets in parking lots to
discourage public urination
Increase neighborhood safety patrols before/after
events
Establish an electronic notification system that
gives residents advance notice of events
Reduce stadium parking prices for people who
carpool
Establish more frequent shuttle service from
parking lots further from the Stadium
Designate drop-off and pickup areas for those
using rideshare service
■ 7-Strongly Support ■ 5-6
48 % I 1;
51% I,
Total Support
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose that proposal and 7 means you strongly support that feMc:1 proposal. If you have no opinion one way or the othe r please say so. ~~ 41 Reactions to Potential Solutions
While oil the solution tested hove majority support, there ore significant differences In intensity of support ("strongly support").
Offer incentives for taking public transit to/from
events such as free or reduced fares
Have a live call-in number during events to
respond to concerns or complaints
Lower the price of parking in stadium lots
Increase the fine for violating the curfew and
noise thresholds
City-issued $20 parking permits for residents in
neighborhoods near the stadium
A 10PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like
concerts at Levi's Stadium
■ 7-Strongly Support ■ 5-6 Total Support
49% I• [CELLRANGE]
[CELL RANGE]
4 1% L, [CELLRANGE]
34% ,, [CELLRANGE]
25% _ '_' [CELLRANGE]
I
27% _'
I -
[CELLRANGE]
Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose that proposal and 7 means you strongly support that proposal. If you have no opinion one way or the other please say so. ~~ research 42
21 Curfew Issue
Just over 4-in-10 ore aware of the curfew and half support it. Only 1-in-4 are opposed to the curfew while the remaining 25% aren't sure. Similarly, about half think the 10 PM curfew is "about right" while one third feel it Is "too restrictive" and 1-in-10 feel it is "not restrictive enough."
Awareness of
Curfew
No
56% Support
50%
Initial Support
for Curfew
Neutral
25%
Curfew is ...
Too Restrictive
About Right 50%
Not Restrictive
i ll% Enough
Don't Know
l·
Were you aware or not that the City has a 10 PM weekdav curfew for nighttime e\lents like concerts at Levi's Stadium? Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose the curfew and 7 means you strongly support the curfew?
[[:M]J In general, do you feel this curfew on weeknights Is too restrlcth,e, not restrictive enough, or about right? research 43
Support for Curfew Modifications
A majority support the general Idea af limited exceptions to the curfew and when asked about specific options, 56% support 3-4 exceptions per year and_ 60% support 2-3 exceptions per summer. Opposition Is consistently about o quarter.
Initial Limited 3-4 Exceptions 2-3 Exceptions
Support Exceptions Per Year Per Summer
Support
Support Support 60%
Support 54% 56%
50%
[[:M]J
research 44
22 Support for Parking Permits
Initially a majority support city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium. Support increases ofter arguments for and against parking permits.
Initial Support
In general, do you support or oppose city-Issued $20 parking permits for residents fn neighborhoods near the .stadium, Including guest parking passes ,, to prevent stadium-goers from using street parking on event days?
Support
52%
Neutral
24%
Informed Support
Some peop le soy parking permits would reduce event traffic In their neighborhoods and help make sure they can find parking on event days . They say it would also reduce rowdy behavior, trash, and disturbances In their neighborhoods .
Other people soya parking permit program will cost the Qty and local residents too much money and resources to Issue, admfnister, and enforce . They soy ft wlll make parking In those neighborhoods too complicated for guests and non -event visitors to the area.
Support
60%
Neutral
20%
l[:M~
research 45
City of
Santa Clara
23 Consultant Observations
. Santa Clarans recognize both the benefits and the impacts of the relationship with Levi's Stadium
. While curfew issues receive significant media coverage, stadium-related noise and the curfew are NOT primary issues for your residents-the following are:
. TRAFFIC
. PARKING
. LOITERING
. Clearly, near-neighbors are more greatly impacted by these issues-the closer one lives to the Stadium, the more intense the reactions and perspectives are . Consultants recommend these top issues of concern be addressed effectively first, prior to addressing any potential curfew review or adjustments . 47
Recommendations: Traffic/Parking
. Establish more frequent shuttle service
. Clarify & enforce drop-off and pickup for rideshare services . Reduce parking prices for carpoolers
. Offer reduced fare incentives for using public transit to/from events . An inexpensive or free permit parking system is overwhelmingly supported by near-neighbors, with far less enthusiasm for a $20 paid- permit system
. Enhance an electronic notification system for events
. Avoid closure of the San Tomas Trail to enable more bicycle and pedestrian access
24 Recommendations: Enforcement
Residents want neighborhood security, and enforcement against disruptive post-event behavior .
. Provide more portable toilets
. Increase neighborhood safety patrols to address loitering/public disturbance
. Expand security and proper enforcement
Recommendations: Noise Control
Near-neighbor residents want some measures to mitigate noise from stadium events .
. Levy larger fines for noise and curfew violations
. . Place new controls on the decibel levels allowed, instituting and enforcing a permanent noise monitoring system
. Institute noise control measures, such as a sound wall and directional speakers to redirect and dampen the noise for near neighbors . 50
25 Recommendations: Communications
Most residents approve of the City's communications efforts. But near- neighbors in particular feel the Stadium has broken promises. There is a lack of trust which must be repaired .
. To rebuild this trust, Manco should take the steps necessary to improve transparency and communications
. A Community Advisory Committee structure to liaison with Manco was of interest to stakeholders and near-neighbors
. Neighborhood improvement projects and benefits such as free or reduced cost tickets or other overtures would assist in rebuilding and improving the relationship
. Set up an effective hotline to call with safety and other concerns during events ■
Cityof -
Santa Clara
The Center of What 's Possible
SCSA
51 ~]] PDC ~ PubllcDlalogue ■ research ~ Consortium 52
26 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
SCSA
~M::£] PDC 'ii"PublicDJa logue ■ 53 research ~ Consortium • All studies listed in the Comprehensive Appendix of Studies are available on the Board's website at:
santaclaraca.gov/outreach
• Appendix materials include:
• Public Dialogue Consortium Summary of Community Engagement Input on Levi's Stadium
• EMC Research January Near Neighbor & Santa Clara Voter Issue Identification Survey
• EMC Research Near Neighbor Business Issue Identification Survey • EMC Research Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report • EMC Research May Solutions Survey
~ Public Dialogue ~ M::£] ■ PDC ~ Consortiu m resec,rch 54 27 PDC ®. Public Djalogue
e Consortium
Summary of Community Engagement Input on Levi's Stadium May 2018
Background
In December 2017, the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority launched a transparent, independent and comprehensive engagement process to hear the community's views on a variety of issues related to Levi's Stadium. The primary purpose of this engagement process was to independently identify the most important issues for Santa Clara residents, and offer policy recommendations to the Stadium Authority Board for addressing these issues. The Lew Edwards Group was hired to coordinate overall efforts related to this project, including gathering statistically valid public views through opinion partner EMC Research . The Public Dialogue Consortium was hired to facilitate meaningful, robust, qualitative input from individuals, groups and organizations. This report is a summary of the qualitative input gathered by PDC during its community outreach and engagement process.
Engagement Events and Outreach
A number of engagement events were conducted to elicit input from community members.
Outreach to participate in these events was conducted via personal emails, City website, Facebook, Twitter,0 Nextdoor, print news, and flyers handed out at events and posted in libraries, community centers, coffee shops and shopping centers.
Here are the specific engagement events conducted:
• Community Interviews with all Stadium Authority Board members were conducted in January 2018, and in March 159 people were interviewed at the Santa Clara farmer's market and at Levi's Stadium during a soccer event.
■ Invitations to participate in Focus Groups went out to a wide variety of individuals and stakeholder groups in Santa Clara, resulting in six focus groups with a total of forty-one participants during March and April 2018.
• An Online Questionnaire was initiated to invite broad participation, with the content mitroring the questions asked during interviews and focus groups. Input was gathered from 231 participants between February and May 2018.
POST MEETING MATERIAL
■ Three Community Meetings were held in late April and early May to invite paiticipants to review input gathered in the previous phases of engagement, and to consider recommendations and solutions, resulting in policy recommendations for City Council and the Stadium Authority. Only twenty-three Santa Clara residents paiticipated in the three community meetings, some of whom had participated in previous focus groups, suggesting a "saturation point" in the community on this topic.
Over 400 people paiticipated in one or more of the community engagement events . See Appendix A for a summary of focus groups and community meeting dates, times and locations.
Appendix B provides a demographic summary of the paiticipants.
Questions Asked: Phases 1 & 2
All questions asked were open-ended, enabling paiticipants to express views and perspectives in their own words and from their own perspectives. The following questions from Phase 1 focused on people's concerns and appreciations for Levi's Stadium.
1. When you think of Levi's stadium, what words come to mind?
2. It sounds like you have some concerns. What are your concerns with the Stadium?
3. It sounds like you have some favorable views . What do you like about Levi's Stadium?
4. What is your overall opinion of the Stadium? (concerned, supportive mixed)
5. What do you say to people who have concerns about the stadium? How should their concerns be addressed?
6. What do you say to people who are more supportive of the stadium? How can we acknowledge their supp01t while addressing your concerns? After collecting responses to the questions above, a second phase of questions was posed to participants to elicit recommendations. These questions were:
1. What suggestions, ideas or recommendations do you have to address and resolve the concerns you have identified?
2. What suggestions, ideas or recommendations do you have to build on and extend the positive features you have identified?
Key Issues & Recommendations
Below are the key issues that emerged through the engagement process, along with recommendations for how best to improve upon these issues to increase the overall quality of ) experience as it relates to Levi's Stadium. These issues and recommendations are organized into themes that relate to the most commonly identified concerns and likes.
The issues and recommendations are attributed to three different categories of participants who responded during the community engagement efforts : Santa Clara Residents who live outside of the Levi's Stadium impact area, Santa Clara Residents who live within the Levi's Stadium impact area in the north side (i.e. near neighbors), and those who live outside of Santa Clara. These three groupings of participants have different experiences and views of the Stadium, with the near neighbors clearly expressing more concerns than the other two participant groups. However, there was some overlap between Santa Clara residents who live outside and inside the Stadium impact area in terms of expressing concerns with Trust, Transparency, ·and Communication (and to a lesser extent, Traffic). Moreover, the vast majority of Santa Clara residents, both inside and outside the impact area, agree that the Stadium is here to stay and open communication and productive problem solving is needed in order to maximize its assets while minimizing negative impacts.
Trust, Transparency & Communica tion
The issues of trust, transparency and communication are of concern to many Santa Clara residents who engaged in this process, regardless of where they live, although the level of intensity is most acute for the near neighbors. Regardless, many participants say that a lack of trust has developed between the City, community, and Stadium Management Company, mostly due to the lack of financial transparency and follow through on initial commitments and agreements made when voters approved the Stadium via Measure J. Many residents say financial transparency is imperative so taxpayers understand the financial tradeoffs of Stadium events and can better understand the value of Stadium revenue to the City. Some residents are concerned that the City is increasing cost concessions to the Stadium, without holding the Stadium to their initial agreements. Santa Clara residents are concerned about the toll the lack of trust and transparency is taking on their community, both financially and socially.
Recommendations
Repair Trust by Establishing Financial Transparency
1. Establish financial transparency and share financial data as it relates to income and expenses directly associated with the Stadium, return on investment, and profit sharing with Santa Clara residents.
a. Report on how many jobs have been created by the Stadium, as well as residual revenue generated for Santa Clara businesses.
2. Clarify costs to Santa Clara tax payers of what portion of Stadium costs are paid for by whom, including costs of security, enforcement and infrastructure.
Repair Trust by Improving Communication
3. Establish ongoing, two-way communication forums for residents to communicate with those in charge of making decisions for Levi's Stadium. Establish an open dialogue to allow for ongoing conversation, feedback, and problem solving. a. Institute a Levi's Stadium Advisory Committee that meets regularly with Stadium Authority, the Stadium Management Company, and the 49ers, allowing residents to give input on policies and decisions.
b. Establish a way to update residents of rules, plans, visions and decisions, i.e. a newsletter or email update.
4. Set up a notification system that notifies resident of Stadium events and concerns, traffic and parking flows and alternatives, fireworks, etc. Include periodic updates in a newsletter format.
5. Set up a hotline for people to call with safety concerns and complaints that is available during events with quick response times - run by either the Stadium, Police, or City.
Provide Neighborhood Improvements and Benefits
6. Allocate revenue to enhance the quality of life for near neighbors and tax payers. a. Earmark revenue to improve the quality of life by making neighborhood improvements (e.g. repair sidewalks, improvements to Lick ill park, etc.). b. Increase revenue and awareness of revenue for schools and libraries.
7. Offer lower cost access to the Stadium to Santa Clara community members. a. Offer low price ticket options and presale access to local neighbors and the community .
b. Create an affordable package for local community and non-profit organizations who want to rent meeting and event space.
8. Offer space for community events throughout the year. a. Hold an open house type event to help the community understand more about the venue. Have 49ers players attend to and connect with the community . b. Offer space for science fairs, stem fairs, etc.
c. Allow a Viva Calle where space surrounding the Stadium is set up with vendors and artisans.
d. Open parking lots for flea market, mtisan space, etc. during times when there are no Stadium events.
Parking & Traffic
Parking and traffic issues are another major concern, with both being prominent for near neighbors, and traffic impacts being singled out by other pmticipants as well, regardless of where they live. Many point out that it is not just the Stadium that is contributing to traffic and parking problems, but also Great America, the Convention Center, the airport, and new development projects. Many participants are concerned about City Place and other large retail and residential developments in the area, saying they will contribute to the overall problems of increased traffic, noise, the need for more parking, and the erosion of their overall quality oflife.
Neighbors of the Stadium indicate they are unable to leave and/or return to their homes easily on event days, with significant increases in commute times. At times they are blocked into their driveways, or others have parked in their driyeways.
The closure of the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail during events is a concern for bikers and pedestrians. The trail is cited as a needed alternative to driving, as well as being a public trail that needs to remain accessible to the community at all times. Detours through parking areas are seen as unsafe to all, especially those with accessibility concerns.
Most participants agree that easy to implement, low cost solutions are most desirable as a starting point, and that long term, holistic planning is needed to address long term infrastructure needs related to traffic, parking and planned development.
Recommendations
Address Parking Concerns with Permits and Enforcement
9. Institute permit parking only on Stadium event days for neighboring streets. Issue affordable parking permits to residents, including guest parking passes.
10. Enforce parking restrictions by ticketing and towing all non-resident parking during events.
a. Add Agnew and Lafayette streets to the list of streets closed for Stadium parking .
11. Station guards at roadblocks past event start times as those looking for parking ignore and go around roadblocks when left unguarded.
a. Train parking and security guards to stand outside of their cars to increase enforcement of roadblocks.
12. Employ motorcycle and/or bicycle officers to be able to respond more easily to parking and security concerns, while increasing the security staff at events.
Address Traffic Concerns with Alternatives and Improvements
13. Establish a shuttle service from parking lots further from the Stadium.
14. Designate a rideshare area to easily drop off and pick up passengers. a. Extend Uber partnership to Lyft and other transportation services.
15. Reconfigure traffic flows and build pedestrian ove1passes. The light rail, pedestrian crossings and cars all need to stop for each other at certain intersections, contributing to congestion.
a. Build pedestrian and bicycle overpasses to ease congestion and contribute to safety.
b. Open up the south east corner of Levi's Stadium to alleviate dangers to pedestrian traffic on Tasman.
c. Install a three-way stop at Mercado 20 shopping center entrance.
16. Avoid closure of the San Tomas Trail and encourage its use to decrease traffic. a. Move the magnetometers and portable traffic signs so they do not block the trail.
1. Alternately, put temporary holes in the fencing along the trail and have everyone on the trail go through security .
11. Alternately, detour the trail down to river level during events to avoid closure .
17. Invest in more signage to indicate parking and road closures. a. Install permanent parking signs so temporary signs can be removed from the San Tomas trail.
b. Indicate where there is bike parking and security for events.
18. Devise a clear system and training of law enforcement so residents with red stickers are allowed to easily turn onto blocked neighborhood streets on event days.
19. Consider scheduled events in the area holistically when scheduling Stadium events .
Incentivize and Expand Public Transportation
20. Offer incentives for public transit, such as free VTA light rail on event days. a. Add a tax to parking or event tickets that generate revenue and incentives to encourage people not to drive and to offset public transportation costs.
21. Coordinate with VTA to ensure public transit is running after events as sometimes people have been left stranded after events.
22. Improve VTA light rail to make it faster and more efficient by introducing express routes with no stops and increasing capacity.
23. Add remote parking lots with VTA transit options east of the Stadium.
24. Establish an inter-department, inter-agency task force to address public transportation and other issues and infrastructure needs for long term planning.
Safety, Security & Noise
Many Santa Clara residents and almost all near neighbors expressed the need for better security and police patrol during events, citing unmanaged crowds and safety concerns, as well as noise disturbances. Neighbors close to the Stadium frequently cited security concerns ranging from littering and vandalism to loud and raucous behavior, public consumption of alcohol and drugs, drunk driving, and public urination.
Neighbors living close to the Stadium frequently cite noise concerns, including high decibel levels generated by the Stadium, ongoing air traffic during and after Stadium events, and noise from attendees walking through neighborhoods after events. Air and foot traffic noise last for hours after a Stadium event ends.
Recommendations
Invest in Neighborhood Safety and Security
25. Increase patrol before and after events in neighborhoods near the Stadium. a. Employ motorcycle cops to be able to respond more easily to parking and security concerns.
b. Train security and traffic officers to interact with the neighbors more effectively. c. Increase police presence in Mission Park.
d. Structure event permitting to pay for increased neighborhood security .
26. Add more public bathrooms to decrease public urination. a. Increase portable bathrooms in the parking lots.
b. Construct and maintain a bathroom in Fairway Glen Park.
27. Add more trash cans and pass around trash bags during game to minimize litter.
28. Employ staff to pick-up litter along the creek, trails and in neighborhoods after events.
Recommendations
Take Noise Control Measures
29. Levy heavierfines for noise and curfew violations.
30. Institute stricter noise control measures.
a. Place new controls on the decibel level allowed, instituting and enforcing a permanent noise monitoring system.
b. Legislate stricter air traffic control restrictions to control late"night fly over noise. c. Require the Stadium to institute noise control measures such as a sound wall and directional speakers to redirect and dampen the noise for nearby neighbors. i. Combine a sound wall with a shade structure if possible to protect event- . goers during hot and sunny days.
d. Enforce the current weekday and weekend curfews; do not extend them; revisit the curfew to consider that the noise goes hours past the time the events end. e. Patrol residential streets after events to deter noise from those walking through the neighborhoods.
31. Set up a program for nearby neighbors who are most impacted by the noise to compensate for the installation of thicker windows, insulation and air conditioners.
Economic & Ente1taimnent Benefits to the City
Almost all of those who supported Levi's Stadium said that they appreciated having a top-tier entertainment venue in Santa Clara, as well as a facility that can bring revenue, jobs and economic development to the City. A major concern among these participants is that the Stadium is not being utilized to its fullest extent, and therefore is not maximizing the potential range of benefits possible, particularly in terms ofrevenue generation. They state that the caliber, size and expense of the Stadium justify adding events and extending curfews, including for carefully selected weeknight events.
Recommendations
Expand Events and Extend Curfew
32. Increase the number of events, as reasonable.
33. Schedule weekend events whenever possible.
34. Selectively extend the curfew to 11 pm on weeknights and to midnight on weekends . a. Increase the amount of times the stadium is allowed to host past 1 0pm ( e.g. from four to ten times a year).
b. Charge extra for permitting to mitigate noise concerns for near neighbors. c. Select extended curfew events carefully, with consideration of school and work schedules.
In many ways, these recommendations point to the fundamental tension that the Stadium Board Authority will need to manage as they develop policy options for the Stadium: How to maximize the benefits of the Stadium for Santa Clara, while minimizing (i.e. maintaining, improving) the negative impacts to the near neighbors and the rest of the City.
Strategic Guideline for Policy Options
We offer these concluding observations to suggest a strategic guideline for the Stadium Authority Board to consider as they respond to the issues and recommendations and develop policy options.
J. The energy and passion is primarily with those who have concerns about the Stadium.
It became clear as we talked with participants that the people who expressed mostly concerns about the Stadium have more to say, and are more animated and passionate than those who expressed m,ostly appreciations and support. This observation is not meant as an evaluative statement about the validity of the concerns and appreciations we heard.
However, it does point to the need to address those Santa Clara residents who have strong concerns about the Stadium because the intensity and depth of their views are not likely to dissipate easily or quickly. The energy and passion is with those who have concerns , even though, overall , they are fewer in number than those who do not have concerns.
There is also some energy and passion from those who support the Stadium, but it is muted compared to those who voice concerns. Neve1theless, the passion on the support side comes from wanting to maximize the potential benefits of the Stadium for the City.
From this perspective, the Stadium Authority Board should be working to utilize the Stadium as much as possible to provide economic benefits to the City, which is the basis for the recommendations to increase events and extent the curfew.
2. There is support from most Santa Clara residents for the near neighbors. One of the more heaitening findings from this engagement process is the way in which most of the Santa Clara residents who do not live near the Stadium support those who do. Even participants who strongly support the Stadium recognize that there are negative impacts to the near neighbors, and they would like to see those impacts addressed. Put differently, most of the Stadium supporters we talked with are aware that their recommendations to increase events and extend the curfew will increase the negative impacts to the near neighbors, and they want those impacts to be lessened, reduced, or eliminated.
3. This leads to a strategic guideline for the Stadium Authority Board to consider:
Explore policy options to increase events and extend the curfew, but only while pursuing policy options to resolve, minimize, or mitigate the Trust/Transparency/Communication, Parking/Traffic, and Safety/Security/Noise issues.
Appendix A: Focus Groups & Community Meetings
1. Focus Group with Engaged Community Members, March 19, 2018, 6:00 - 7:30 p.m., Santa Clara City Hall Cafeteria, 1500 Warburton Ave, Santa Clara, CA
2. Focus Group with Engaged Community Members, March 21, 2018, 6:00 - 7:30 p.m., Santa Clara City Hall Cafeteria, 1500 Warburton Ave, Santa Clara, CA
3. Focus Group with Great America, March 28, 2018, 10:00 - 11:00 a.m., Great America Administrative Offices, Santa Clara, CA
4. Focus Group with Northside Neighbors, April 2, 2018, 5:00 - 6:30 p.m., Northside Library, Santa Clara, 695 Moreland Way, CA
5. Focus Group with Northside Neighbors, April 2, 2018, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m., Northside Library, Santa Clara, 695 Moreland Way, CA
6. Focus Group with Chamber of Commerce, April 13, 2018, 11:00 a.m. - 12 p.m., Chamber of Commerce Offices, 1850 Warburton Ave, Santa Clara, CA
7. Community Meeting at Central Park Library Redwood Room, April 26, 2018 6:00 - 8:00 p.m., 2635 Homestead Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95050
8. Community Meeting at Santa Clara Community Recreation Center, April 28, 2018, 6:00 - 8:00 p.m., 969 Kiely Boulevard, Santa Clara, CA 95051
9. Community Meeting at Northside Library Community Room, May 9, 2018, 6:00 - 8:00 p.m., 695 Moreland Way, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Appendix B: Demographics of Levi's Stadium Community Engagement Participants Stadium &
Focus Groups Farmers
& Public Market Online
Meetings Interviews Participation Totals(%)
Zip Code Near Stadium 95054 36 5 102 143 = 32%
Santa Clara 15 44 123 182 = 41%
Other 1 110 6 117 = 27%
Totals 52 159 231 442
Gender Male 23 104 113 240 = 54%
Female 28 54 100 182 =41%
Prefer not to say 1 1 18 20 =5%
Totals 52 159 231 442
Age Under 18 0 10 0 10 = 2%
18-30 1 41 11 53 = 12%
31-40 10 55 35 100 =23%
41-55 14 29 90 133 = 30%
Above 55 27 23 85 135 = 31%
Prefer not to say 0 1 10 11 = 2%
Totals 52 159 231 442
Ethnicity White 23 49 116 188 = 42.5%
Hispanic 7 85 7 99 =22%
Indian 4 9 20 33 = 7.5%
Filipino 5 1 10 16 = 3.5%
Chinese 0 2 11 13 =3%
African American 2 2 3 7 =2%
Vietnamese l 0 3 4 =1%
Korean 2 1 1 4 = 1%
Japanese 2 1 1 4 =1%
Native American 1 0 1 2 =.5%
Pacific Islander 2 0 0 2 = .5%
Mixed Ethnicity 3 7 10 20 = 4.5%
Prefer not to say 0 2 48 50 = 11%
Totals 52 159 231 442
1 EMC
1 I I
research
January Issue ldentificatio~ Survey ·
of Santa Clara Voters &
Nea Neighbor Residents
Methodology
Citywide Issue Identification Voter Survey
► Live telephone survey - including landlines and cells - of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara, a universe selected as voters are one of several constituencies on these policy issues ► Conducted January 8-19, 2018
► 600 total interviews; Margin of Error ±4.0 points
► Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish~ Chinese, and Vietnamese Near Neighbor Residents Issue Identification Survey
► Live telephone survey - including landlines and cells - of residents within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose
► Conducted February 8 - March 3, 2018*
► · 174 total interviews; Margin of Error ±7.4 points
► Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese *Data collection was paused February 9-19 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 2 Near Neighbor Survey Areas
' -;
.. •
C'
' ,.. ..!<,:Ju,.,,,, 'r
~
l o, .. u
0 Twin Creeks
Bay/ands P rk
,·,kn 1 •,JJ " ~" ;..
Santa Clara
116 Intervi ews
El
Santa Claru ~
Convention Center .:. \l A
3<,nl Jal
Levi's Stadiun, t!i
u
;;: California's es
:,. Great America ~
CollegeO
0 AMC Mere do 20 !,:
Intel Museum ®
,' I
■
~M~
research
T.irg
North San Jose
32 Interviews
,,.
Ulisrac
Nnl'ura/Ar
Orncl O
lg
-
N R H .
,.. .. .,.
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 3
1EMC 1
I I
research .
City of Santa Clara
Opinions and Job Ratings
Santa Clara Quality of Life ■ ~M~ research
Both voters and stadium near-neighbors have a positive view of Santa Clara as a place to live.
Positive
88%
Citywide Voters
Negative
11%
Only Fsir 10%
(Don't
know)
1%
Positive
90%
Near-Neighbor Residents*
Negative
10%
Q2. Overall, how would you rate Santa Clara as a place to live? Would you say it is an excellent, good, only fair, or poor place to live? (Don't
know)
0%
*Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara, n=116 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 5 Top Positives of Living in Santa Clara ■ ~M~ resea rch
Voters and near neighbors mention the convenient location, small-town feel, friendliness, and the low crime rate as things they like most about living in Santa Clara.
Near
What do you like best about living in Santa Clara? Voters Neighbors* Convenient location 21% 34%
Calm/quiet atmosphere/small-town feel 14% 16%
The community itself/friendly town/the people 11% 14%
Security/safety/low crime rate 11% 14%
Climate 9% 9%
Clean/beautiful city 9% 5%
Amenities: parks/library/swim center 9% 9%
Shopping/businesses 7% 9%
Utilities: lower cost/city-owned/well-run 6% 7%
Employment opportunities 5% 6%
Diversity 5% 3%
Have lived here manyyears 5% -
Good schools 4% 3%
Local governance/city council/good city services 4% -
Activities/ events 3% 7%
Affordable cost of living/housing 3% 3%
Q3. What do you like most about living in Santa Clara? (Open-end} *Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara, n=116 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 6 Top Negatives of Living in Santa Clara ■ ~M~ research
Traffic and housing costs/cost of living are the things people like least about living in Santa Clara. One-in-ten near neighbors specifically mention the stadium as the thing they like least about living in Santa Clara.
What do you like least about living in Santa Clara?
Traffic
High housing costs/cost of living
Growth/new development/housing being built
Overpopulated
City government; the Mayor and City Council
Lack of restaurants/shopping/entertainment
Crime/security
Road conditions/potholes/signage
Transportation/getting around/public transportation needs upgrades No downtown area
The Stadium
Schools need improvement
People are not nice/no sense of community
Garbage in streets/dirty/run-down look
Q4. And what do you like least about living in Santa Clara'? (Open-end} * Asked only of those residing in Sant a Clara, n=116
Near
Voters Neighbors *
26% 33%
26% 16%
9% 3%
8% 3%
5% 1%
4% 9%
3% 1%
3% -
3% 1%
3% 3%
2% 9%
2% 7%
2% 1%
2% 3%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 7
Favorability of Local Organizations ■ ~M-c7 t=.!.~
_ resea rch
Overall, near neighbors give higher ratings than voters to all organizations tested. A strong majority of near neighbors and voters have a favorable view of Levi's Stadium, although roughly 1-in-4 have a negative opinion. The City Council is viewed favorably by two -thirds of near neighbors and a majority of voters, with low negative opinion. Opinion of 49ers management is divided, while the Stadium Authority is less well known . .._ ______________ _ Santa Clara Fire Department
Santa Clara Police Department
Neighbors*
Voters
■ Total Favorable (Don't Know/No Opinion) ■ Total Unfavorabl e 95°0 l~V/.111
90% · ·~ 1
. ' .
Strong!~
Fav.
70%
67%
51% Neighbors *
Voters . ' . ' 8% llfil"AII 51%
Great America Amusement Park
Levi's Stadium
Santa Clara City Council
San Francisco
49ers Management
Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clara Stadium Author ity
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors*
Voters ~=========~~========== ~=== -~-===
68%
57°0 ~
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors
Voters
, .
' . '
34°0
30°0
0 0
43%
39%
27%
25%
18%
16%
29°0 12%
13%
10%
12%
11%
25°0 10%
Strong!~
Unfav.
0%
0%
2%
1%
2%
1%
11%
15%
2%
6%
11%
16%
1%
4%
6%
10%
QS-12. I'm going to read you a list of people and organizations. Please teil me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of each one. *Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara, n=116 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 8 Job Ratings for City ■ ~M~ research
The City gets strong marks for the job it is doing overall and for keeping citizens informed. About half give the City a positive rating for responding to concerns/complaints and using tax dollars responsibly. Strong negative opinion ("poor" rating) is very low.
The job the City
Government is doing
overall
The job the City does
keeping citizens
informed
Neighbor s
Voter s
Neighbors
Voters
The job the City does Neighbors
■ Total Positive
51%
{Don't Know) ■ Total Negative Excellent Poor
70% 26% 14% 2%
64% 32% 13% 5%
64% · 34% 17% 9%
60% 35% 18% 9%
14% 35% 12% 9%
responding to citizen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~====~~~~~~~~~~~~~------- 50% 16% 34% 12% 10% concerns and complaints Voters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~====~~~~~~~~~~~------
The job the City does
using your tax dollars
responsibly
Neighbor s
Voter s
55%
49%
Q13-16. Please tell me how you think the City of Santa Clara is doing in each of the following areas. Use a scale of excellent, good, only fair, or poor. 9%
10%
35% 10% 10%
41% 9% 10%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 9
I T II F
i l__,E
i EDWARDS
I: C I{ () u I'
:1
1EMC 1
I I
research Neighborhood Issues
General Neighborhood Issues ■ ~M]J resea rch
Traffic and parking are the top neighborhood concerns of both voters and near neighbors . One-in-four near neighbors mention noise as a problem in their neighborhood.
Voters Near Neighbors
■ 7 Extremely serious ■ 5-6 Problem ■ 7 Extremely serious ■ 5-6 Problem Traffic
Loitering
Graffiti
Public urination
22% 55%
Ql 7-27. I'm going to read you a list of poten tial neighborhood issues. For each one, please tell me if that issue is a problem in your neighborhood or not. Use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that issue is not at all a problem in your neighborhood, and 7 means that issue is an extremely serious problem in your neighborhood. 9" 56%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 11 Causes of Noise Problems ■ ~~ research
Near neighbors are most likely to mention the Stadium and airport as the cause of noise problems in their neighborhood.
What is the main cause of the noise Voters --
problem in your neighborhood? n=47
Noise NOT a serious problem 92%
Stadium 2%
Airport 1%
Traffic 3%
Other 1%
Q28a. What is the main cause of the noise problem in your neighborhood? Neighbors
n=22
87%
5%
5%
3%
1%
Noise
"The stadium and Great America"- · Neighbor
"The stadium on certain days, the airport and the train" - Neighbor
"The car racing and other things like speeding" - Neighbor "Drunken fans at Levi's Stadium" - Neighbor
"The airplane noise" - Neighbor
"Cars and traffic noise" - SC Voter
'7he events at Levi's Stadium" - SC Voter
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 12 Cause of Traffic and Parking Problems ■ ~~~ .
One in ten near neighbors say the Stadium is the main cause of traffic and parking problems in their neighborhood.
What is the main cause of the traffic Neighbors
problem in your neighborhood? n=69
Traffic NOT a serious problem 60%
Too many people/congestion/density 13%
The Stadium 10%
Commuters 9%
Nearby businesses /Infrastructure 6%
Parks/Amusement Parks 2%
Other 1%
What is the main cause of the~ Neighbors
problem in your neighborhood? n=40
Parking NOT a serious problem 77%
Too many people/Infrastructure 11%
The Stadium 9%
Work Commuting 1%
Other 1%
Q28b. What is the main cause of the traffic problem in your neighborhood? * Neighbors only Q28c. What is the main cause of the parking problem in your neighborhood? * Neighbors only Traffic
''Just the layout of the neighborhoods and the streets" - Neighbor "The commute is very heavy during peak hours and amplified during stadium events" - Neighbor
"Most definitely the stadium being there" - Neighbor
"We're building a lot around us, with the economy being good people are back to work, and with lots of new buildings and construction that leads to lots of traffic everywhere" - Neighbor
Parking
"Too many people. Traffic from the high-tech companies" - Neighbor "The stadium and Great America" - Neighbor
"Overpopulation and events, lack of civil engineering." - Neighbor "There are too many people and game visitors" - Neighbor "It's always been a problem. Too many people crammed into one city." - Neighbor
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 13 1EMC1
I · I
research
Levi's Stadium
. Awareness and Issues
Heard/Seen About Levi's Stadium Recently ■ ~M~ research About half of voters and near neighbors say they have heard or seen "a lot" or "some" about Levi's Stadium recently. - J
Near
Neighbo rs
Voters
Q30. How much, if anything, have you heard or seen about Levi's Stadium recently? 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 15 Potential Stadium Issues ■ feMic1 ~~
research
, Voters and near neighbors are most concerned about the traffic and parking impacts of the Stadium. Littering, drinking/drugs, and loitering are also concerns. Roughly a third of near neighbors {36%} and voters {31%} are concerned about noise from events at night.
Voters Near Neighbors
Traffic
Parking in neighborhoods close ..
■ Very ■ Somewhat Concerned
69%
-===---'---====== ==-------------
Littering 47% __,__ _ ______ ____________ _ _
Public drinking or drug use 49%
The number of weekday events
Loitering
-===== = ====='---------- --
34%
39% 13% - ,, -......_ ____________________ _
Noise from flyovers and .. 8% '. -,~ -f 9%
Noise from events at night 10% I, :, 31%
How late weekday events go 12% _ ,,_ 35%
■ Very ■ Somewhat
44% ,
32% ',
18% 46%
25% , ,, 43%
17% , I 43%
16% _ 40%
13% I .'--/ 40%
36%
17% ,, 35%
10% - ';,_ How late weekend events go 27% 27%
Concerned
78%
62%
....__------------- - ---------'-'---'-----''-'----'------------------- The number of weekend events 22% 27%
Artificial light from the stadium.. 26% 23%
f----,-,,,,---,-cc-=----------- ------- ------ --------- ------- Noise from events during the day 19% - 20% --!--- - ----------------- --=- - - ---,-------------- - ---- - Fireworks 22% - 17% 6% ,
Q31-44. Thinking about different issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium, please tell me if you personally are concerned or not about each of the following potential issues. -=====-- - ---- - ----- ------
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 16 Positive Stadium Impacts ■ ~M]J research
Strong majorities of near neighbors and voters think all five of the positive stadium impacts tested in the survey are important. The tax revenue and economic impacts are seen as the most important benefits.
The stadium contributes to the city's General Fund, which funds vital services including police, fire, library, senior and youth programs.
The stadium generates millions in economic activity each year, benefitting local businesses, workers, and residents .
The stadium supports local jobs at the stadium and at hotels, restaurants, and other businesses that benefit from stadium events.
The stadium helps showcase our City/area and along with the Convention Center, Great America, and other attractions makes this a place visitors and conventions want to come to. ■ Very important ■ Somewhat important Total Important
Neighbors * 88%
-t=================== ======- - - - ---
V o t er s 83%
Neighbors 83%
-t======= ======= ==========-- - ------
V o t er s 81%
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors 75%
84%
84%
~========== ========== ~----'-- --- --
Voters 73%
The stadium creates great new entertainment options for Neighbors individuals and families to go to fun/exciting events which makes Santa Clara/our area an even better place to live, work, and play. 39% _ 78%
Voters 37% :~ 71%
Q45-49. Next, I'd like to ask you about some of the positive impacts of Levi's Stadium. After you hear each, please tell me if that item is very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all importan t to you. *Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 17 1EMC 1
I I
research
Stadium-Related
Contacts
Contacts About Stadium Problems ■ ~M~ resea rch
One-in-five {19%} near neighbor households and 13% of voters say they have contacted someone about a stadium-related problem or concern at least once. One-in-ten {11%} near neighbor households has made at least three contacts.
Near
Neighbors
Voters
QSl. How many times, if any, have you or someone in your household contacted someone about a stadium-related problem or concern?
19% at least 1 contact
1-2
7%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 19 Contacts About Stadium Problems ■ ~M~ research
Voters and near neighbors contact a variety of institutions - the police, the City, and the Stadium - about stadium-rela~ed problems. No one issue dominates the list of problems residents reach out about.
Who did you contact? Voters Neighbors
n=77 n=33
And what was the specific issue or Voters Neighbors
concern you had? n=77 n=33
Never contacted anyone for a stadium 87% 83% related problem or concern Never contacted anyone for a stadium 87% 83% related problem or concern City government/City Council 3% 3% Traffic 3% 3%
Noise 2% 2%
Police 2% 5%
Parking 2% 4%
The Stadium 1% 3% Security issue/crime 1% 1%
Neighbors/family/other citizens 1% 2% Drugs/alcohol 1% 2% Closure of the trail nearby 1% -
Other 2% 2%
Other 3% 2%
Don't Know 4% 2% Don't Know 1% 2%
QS2. Who did you contact?
Q53. And what was the specific issue or concern you had? 18-6629/30 .Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 20 Satisfaction with Problem Resolution ■ ~M~ research
Only a third of near neighbors and a quarter of voters who have contacted someone about a stadium-related problem say they are satisfied with the response they received. Roughly half are dissatisfied.
Near
Neighbors
(n=33; 19%}
Voters
(n=77; 13%}
■ 1-3 Not satisfied ■ 4/(Don't Know)
17%
QS4. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 7 is extremely satisfied, how satisfied were you with the response you received? You can use any number from 1 to 7. 24%
1 - Not at 7 - Ext.
■ 5-7 Satisfied all sat. sat.
31% 21%
26% 12%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 21 1EMC1
I I
research
Awareness
of Curfew
Awareness of 10 PM Weekday Curfew ~M~
research
A majority of voters and near neighbors are aware of the curfew. Awareness is higher among near neighbors.
Yes
56%
Voters
No
41%
{Don't
know)
3%
QSS. Were you aware or not that the City has a 10 PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like concerts at Levi's Stadium?
Yes
63%
Near Neighbors
No
36%
{Don't
know)
1%
-------
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 23 1EMC 1
I I
research Demographics
Stadium Visits ■ ~M~ research
Roughly 6-in-10 voters and near neighbors have been to the Stadium at least once, with 3-in-10 having been 3 or more times.
Near
Neighbors
Voters
QSO. How many times, if ever, have you been to an event at Levi's Stadium? 1-2 Times
27%
1-2 Times
31%
57% at least once
61% at least once
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 25 Media Habits ■ ~M]] research
Newspapers (print and online), social media, and television are the top sources for local news and events in Santa Clara.
Roughly half of voters and near neighbors say they learn about local news through social media at least occasionally.
Local News Sources Voters Neighbors
Newspapers in print or online 49% 32%
Social media like Facebook or Twitter 41% 38% Frequently Television 37% 45%
Radio 20% 23% Occasionally
Local neighborhood biogs 14% 9%
Internet (general) 6% 5% Rarely
Word of mouth 5% 5%
Somewhere else 9% 8%
Not at all
Don't know 3% 2%
Q56. Where do you generally get information about local news and events in Santa Clara? (Multiple Response) Q57. And how frequently do you follow discussions or learn about local news or politics using social media like Facebook and Twitter?
Learn About Local News Using
Social Media
23%
25%
■ Voters
· ■ Neighbors
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 26 Demographics
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65 or over
Age
Gender
Male
Female
■
~~
research
■ Voters ■ Neighbors
Hispanic or Latino
White
Black
Asian/Pacific Islander
Something else
(Refused)
Ethnicity
Own/buying
Rent/lease
(Refused)
Years in Neighborhood/Santa Clara
<11 years ·
11-20 years
21 + years
(Refused)
Home Ownership
~~·~-=~- ---- -~ ----- - ~
•- • - .• • ••. ..,;:::.j
4%
2%
58%
53%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 27 1EMC1
I · I
research
Telephone Survey
Near Neighbor Businesses
City of Santa Clara
Methodology ■ ~M~ research
► Live telephone survey of businesses in selected regions of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and San Jose
• Businesses were randomly selected from a list of businesses with addresses in Santa Clara and within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose that experience event-related impacts
► Conducted February 2 - 23, 2018*
► 82 total interviews; Margin of Error +11.0 points
► Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers * Interviewing paused February 9-15 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 2 Surveyed Regions ■
~~
research
MORSE P ,\I'~
Seven
Seas Park
0 Twin Creeks
Bay/ands Park D
OTa rget
r.
RENAI SSANCE
,?
yo><" lie< , .
m @
WestwmdsO
Cisco Systems
North Sao)ose Building 12 0 n t: r,,,
'?,17 lnteliviews ~
~ (5J ''7<,;
,11 I.. Santa Clam Santa Clara ~(>
Sunnyvale Convention Cente\~n1 •" 50 Interviews
15 Interviews,.., Atlub, v• .. 11s .. Levi's Stadium ~
P l ...,, A 1lf I ► - ' §'
Lakewo od
Parh
le
California 's®
Great America "
Ullstac
Natural Area
r:,.<;f''~"'R<Y
SafewayO
Oracle O 0 Orncle Building 18 u
1l
SAN MI GUEL
Mission
College
Q Q Santa Claro Marrioll
@II t;
anlte Sunnyvale 0
Lowe's Horne 0 Improvement ·
E Ou,111 c Ave
Fry's Electronics
0 AMC Mc;eado 20 Q
0 \i:.IH l" J <.1 11,\~
0 Sports Basement
Intel Museum ®
CD
[jfil
0 Whole Foods Market
,i ...,":1
NOfl TH SAN JOSI
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 3
Locations of Businesses Surveyed ■
~ M]J
research
0 Twin Creeks
" f
Seven
Seas Park
/\N M l , U
t f,, ,11 1 .;)., ,
unite Sunnyvule 0 fry 's El~ctro11I ~
Lowe's Horne O 0
Impr ovem ent
Mission
College
0 AMC Me : ,do 20 0
• ,',' , 1
0 Sport s Basement
"'1.,,,
99 .., Son to Claru Marriolt
Intel Museum •
@)
0 Whole Foods Market
9 .
',' I
9 0 1 19 1!
9 U/1·
N(IIUI
9 .9
ft9 9 9 ·o Systems ,
• 9 9 tullchng 12 0 · ,.,,
99~
RIVI
NORl H AN J O
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 4
1EMC 1
I I
research Neighborhood Issues
Issue Importance ■ ~M~ resea rch
Traffic is the only neighborhood issue that is rated as a problem by a majority of businesses.
Traffic
Parking
Maintenance of sidewalks or streets
Public urination
Graffiti
Crime
15%
■ 7 Extremely serious 5-6
29%
21% 35%
21%
21%
10%
QS-15. I'm going to read you a list of potential neighborhood issues that could impact your business. For each one, please tell me if that issue is a problem for your business or not. Use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that issue is not at all a problem for your business, and 7 means that issue is an extremely serious problem for your business. You can use any number from 1 to 7.
Problem
55%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 6
Causes of Traffic Problems ■ ~M~ ~ resea rch
Among the 36 businesses who say traffic is a serious problem/ the Stadium is the most commonly cited cause. "On game day there are
road closures and an
influx of people going
the games."
What is the main cause of the traffic problem
in the neighborhood your business is in?
Traffic NOT a serious problem
The stadium
Flow of traffic/congestion
Infrastructure
Other
Ql 7. What is the main cause of the traffic problem in the neighborhood your business is in? n
46 22
8 4
2 %of
all
56%
27%
10%
5%
2%
"Levi's Stadium. Cross
streets and minor streets are
flooded with traffic
according to what route
they're given for parking."
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 7
Causes of Parking Problems ~M~
resea rch
Among the 19 businesses who say parking is a serious problem, the Stadium and the overall number of people are seen as the main causes of parking problems.
"During events at Levi's
Stadium , they use our
office parking to park
and that creates a lot of
problems ."
What is the main cause of the parking problem
in the neighborhood your business is in?
Parking NOT a serious problem
The stadium
The general population
Other
Q18. What is the main cause of the parking problem in the neighborhood your business is in? n
63 10
7 2
%of
all
77%
12%
9%
2%
"There's too many
cars on game day."
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 8
Causes of Noise Problems ■ ~M~ research
Among the 5 businesses who say noise is a serious problem, four attributed the noise problem to the Stadium. "The drag racing events
at the stadium and
concerts."
What is the main cause of the noise problem in
the neighborhood your business is in?
Noise NOT a serious problem
Stadium
Traffic
Q16. What is the main cause of the noise problem in the neighborhood your business is in? n %of
all
77 94%
4 5%
1 1%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 9
1 EMC
1 I I
research
Levi's Stadium
Awareness and Issues
Levi's Stadium as a Neighbor ■ ~M]J research
Most businesses rate Levi's Stadium as a good neighbor. One-in-three give the Stadium a negative rating as a neighbor.
Positive
65%
Negative
34%
Only Fair 22%
- _,
Very Poor 6%
Q19. How would you rate Levi's Stadium as a neighbor? In general, would you say Levi's Stadium is an e><cellent, good, only fai r, poor, or very poor neighbor? (DK/Ref)
1%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 11
Positive Impacts of Stadium ■ ~M~ research
A strong majority of businesses value the positive impacts of Levi's Stadium on the local community. ■ Very important ■ Somewhat important Total Important
The stadium contributes to Santa Clara's General Fund, which funds vital services including police, fire, library, senior and youth programs. * 48% ~ 78% The stadium supports local jobs at the stadium and at hotels, restaurants, and other businesses that benefit from stadium events.
The stadium creates great new entertainment options for individuals and families to go to fun and exciting events which makes Santa Clara/our area an even better place to live, work, and play.
The stadium generates millions in economic activity each year, benefitting local businesses, workers, and residents.
The stadium helps showcase our City/area and along with the Convention Center, Great America, and other attractions makes this a place visitors and conventions want to come to.
Q34-38. Next, I'd like to ask you about some of the positive impacts of Levi's Stadium. After you hear each, please tell me if that item is very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important to your business.
*Asked of businesses in Santa Clara only, n=SO
66%
65%
63%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 12
Levi's Stadium Issues ■ ~M~ research
Eight-in-ten businesses are concerned about the traffic impacts during events at Levi's Stadium and 6-in-10 are concerned about the parking impacts. There is also significant concern about drinking/drug use and littering, and the number and lateness of weekday events.
Traffic
Parking in neighborhoods close to the stadium
■ Very ■ Somewhat
41% 1 ~•jl.
24% ';, 57%
Concerned
82%
+---- ----------------------------------
Pub Ii c drinking or drug use 49%
The number of weekday events 48%
+--------------------------------------
Littering 46%
+--------------------------------------
How late weekday events go 41%
Loitering 35% -E::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::====------------------------- N o is e from flyovers and helicopters at stadium ..
-+-----------'-----------------------------
Noise from events during the day 27%
+--------------------------------------
How late weekend events go 24%
The number of weekend events 23%
Noise from events at night 18%
+--------------------------------------
Fireworks 16%
Artificial light from the stadium at night 11%
Q20-33. Thinking about different issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium, please tell me if your business is concerned or not about each of the following potential issues. 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 13 Stadium Problem Frequency ■ ~M~ research
Most businesses have never contacted anyone about a stadium-related concern.
Never
84% 16% at least
once
n = 13
--------''--------{ \
1-2 Times
6%
Q39. As far as you know, how many times, if any, have you or someone at your business contacted someone about a stadium-related problem or concern?
3 Times or More
10%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 14
Most Contacted Agency · ■ ~M-c1 I=.!.~
resea rch
Of the 13 businesses who have contacted someone about a stadium-related concern; the agencies contacted vary.
Who did your business contact? n % of all
Have NOT contacted anyone 69 84%
Police 3 4%
The Stadium 3 4%
City of Santa Clara/City Council 2 2%
Landlord/Building owner 2 2%
Other 2 2%
Don't Know 1 1%
Q40. Who did your business contact? 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 15 .Specific Issues ~M~
research
Of the 13 businesses who have contacted someone, noise and parking/traffic account for about half of reported contacts . ''Access or denial of
access to my business
due to traffic, road
closures and the closure
of the bike trail"
And what was the specific issue or concern
your business had?
Have NOT contacted anyone
Traffic
Parking
Closure of the trail nearby
Noise
Drugs/alcohol
Other
Q41. And what was the specific issue or concern your business ha~? n
69 3
3 2
2 1
2 %
of all
84%
4%
4%
2%
2%
1%
2%
"The noise,
parking and the
littering"
"The intoxicated
Ninersfans
harassing the
employees"
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 16
Satisfaction with Problem Resolution ■ ~M~ resea rch
Ten of the 13 businesses who contacted someone about a stadium-related problem were not satisfied with the response they received.
n = 13; 16%
How satisfied was
your business with
the response you
received?
Q42. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 7 is extremely sat isfied, how satisfied was your business with the response you received? You can use any number from 1 to 7. 1- Not at all 7 - Extremely
satisfied satisfied
54% 0%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 17
1 EMC
1 I I
research Demographics
Business Demographics ■ re-Mc1 , '-=!.~
research
Business Size
1-4 employees 32%
Type of Business %
Technology 30%
5-9 employees 22% Professional
,
13%
10-19 employees 15% Manufacturing 12%
Food Service 6%
20+ employees 32%
Retail 6%
Time at Current Location Service 5%
Hospitality 4%
<5 years 39%
Health 4%
5-10 years 28%
Re-seller 2%
Distribution Center 1%
11+ years 33% Other 15%
Don't Know /Refused 1%
Q43. How many years has your business been at yoµr current location? Q44. Approximately how many employees does the company you work for employ at this location? 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 19 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Ne·ar Neighbor and
S.anta Clara Resident
Focus Groups
Methodology ~M~
research
► Four focus groups held in Sunnyvale on April 25th and 26th, 2018 ► Focus group participants were Santa Clara, San Jose and Sunnyvale residents Wednesday,
April 25th
Thursday,
April 26th
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Santa Clara Non-Neighbors, 15+ years in SC {l+ miles from stadium) Santa Clara Non-Neighbors, <15 years in SC {1+ miles from stadium) Santa Clara Near Neighbors {<1 mile from stadium)
Sunnyvale & San Jose Near Neighbors
► Each group had 8-10 participants
► Groups were moderated by Andrew Thibault from EMC Research Note: Due to the nature of qualitative research, the following findings reflect only the attitudes and opinions of the participants in the focus groups, and cannot be reliably projected across the larger p Op U I at i On 18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 2 Near-Neighbor Regions
r,.
'
•r,• t-• ..,., "l ,
.:,
'
O Twln Creek
Bay/ands P rk
Sunnyvale
Near Neighbors
E &.. If I hy
.., ....
..u
..
.. ::,
" Santa Clara ,:, ,
~ Near Neighbors . . ,
Santa Clara I';\
Convention Center _~.. "'O' a
Levi's Stadiun1 t!) ,_rJol.J1 • '! 11S .:.. .,
1 .... u
California 's
i Great America
eJ
,, ,.
~
-< ;
r-
~
.•
V}
d·;,,,_
0 AMC Mere do 20 !
4 :,., I t~ :It ' fl h
, .... ~::,, ...
~ ....
~
'·· r~ ; .
~ ~ 'll
. "=''
'
Intel Museum €)
(i,-,
We· 1w111d·,
North San Jose
Near Neighbors
Ulisla
Narural Ar
\
u'<e
' I
Oracle O
.
,.
■
~~
research
-
N R H '
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 3 1EMC 1
I I
research
General Attitudes
About Santa Clara
General Attitudes ~@
research
► For the most part, participants had positive feelings about living in Santa Clara/the region
► Santa Clara residents had largely positive views of City government and the job it is doing _
Top Positives Expressed:
• Small town feel
• Location/easy access to many
attractions and other communities
• Weather
• Diversity
• City services/amenities
Top Negatives Expressed:
• Traffic
• Development of housing faster than
services
• Cost of I ivi ng
• Lack of a downtown area
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 5 1EMC1
I I
research
Levi's-Stadium Awareness
and Overall Attitudes
Awareness ■ ~M~ research
► Awareness of current stadium issues is low-most did not recall seeing or hearing anything recently regarding the stadium
► Among those who remembered hearing something, details were spotty ► A handful recalled hearing something about youth soccer field issues, .revenue disputes, the cancelled Ed Sheeran concert, or the college football championship
"I heard something about someone owes
some money. I don't know what, I can't
remember it was so long ago."
- Santa Clara Non-Neighbor Resident
"There's some kind of issue
with soccer fields." - Santa
Clara Non-Neighbor Resident
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 7 Overall Attitudes ■ ~M~ research
► Newer Santa Clara residents and those in Sunnyvale and North San Jose tended to have positive views of the stadium
► · Santa Clara near-neighbors and long-time residents were more critical and more concerned with perceived negative impacts, but still saw positives ► The stadium is seen as an attraction that brings benefits and people to the City, including generating business for local hotels, shops, and restaurants ► Some more concerned residents acknowledged that, as problematic as stadium events may be for them, events aren't that frequent "It's putting Santa Clara on the map, in terms of
'Oh! This is a place to go' ... But at the same time,
it does bring more people in, and it does raise the
cost of living. So, it's good and bad."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor Resident
"It's a horror, but only for a
very small amount of the time.
The other time, it's just dead."
- Santa Clara Non-Neighbor
Resident
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 8 The Stadium as a Neighbor ■ ~M~ research
► Because San Jose Airport and Great America cause more constant disturbances, some consider the stadium to be a better neighbor in terms of neighborhood disruptions and impacts
► However, the stadium is seen as unresponsive to concerns and complaints and many do not feel residents' grievances are listened to ► While few are clear on the distinction between Manco and the Stadium Authority, those who live close to the stadium tend to have lower trust in the private side
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 9 Perceived Relationship with the City ■ ~M~ research
► While most did not know specifics, participants shared a general perception that the relationship between the City and the stadium is tense ► There is a great deal of uncertainty about the specific revenue situation between the stadium and City of Santa Clara, but many felt the City was getting less revenue than had been originally promised
► Many had heard the stadium was supposed to give money to local schools but were unsure if they were following through
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 10 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Levi's Stadium
Issues & Solutions
Parking ■ ~M~ research
► Participants identified parking as the central issue caused by the stadium; other issues (e.g. traffic) are made worse by the stadium but have other . primary sources ► Stadium-goers parking in neighborhoods also lead to other problems, including litter, noise, public urination and other disturbances from foot traffic
"The parking [is an issue]. The
walking of the people around me.
My kids play outside, and on game
days, I don't feel safe because of the
people that were walking around."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor
Resident
"People are parking in your
apartment building's parking spots,
you don't have a place to park ... and
the people that are walking to and
from the events ... just with
everything in life, there's some not-
so-nice people." - Santa Clara Near-
Neighbor Resident
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 12 Parking Solutions ■ ~M~ research
► Reactions to the permit proposal were mixed, though many supported enforcement if limited to event days
• Some felt the program wasn't needed or worried it would push the problem into other neighborhoods
► Other ideas expressed by participants:
• More stadium parking for lower cost
• Use more corporate lots and have more frequent shuttles to/from lots • Better-scheduled public transportation
11 lnstead of trying to force people out of
their cars first and onto public transit,
it's like, make it convenient enough and
timely enough that people will want to
or realize it's much easier."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 13 Curfew and Noise ■ ~M~ research
► Most knew of the curfew but did not know the specifics ► While noise is not seen to be as large an issue as parking, there was opposition to eliminating the curfew outright, particularly among near-neighbors in Santa Clara • Reactions to allowing limited exceptions were mixed
• Although some lived within earshot of the stadium, Sunnyvale and San Jose near- neighbors were more supportive of easing the curfew than Santa Clara near-neighbors ► Some respondents pointed out that noise is generated not just within the stadium during events, but also by eventgoers passing through neighborhoods before and after
Ideas Suggested by Participants for Noise Issues:
• Rebates for double-paned windows and air conditioning for .impacted neighbors • Begin events earlier or turn down the volume after a certain time 18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 14 Traffic ■ ~M~ research
► Traffic is viewed as a general problem in the area that is exacerbated by the stadium
► Although there was near unanimous recognition that stadium events cause worse traffic jams, most are habituated to planning around traffic on event days and don't see it as a problem badly in need of solving Ideas Expressed by Participants for Event Traffic Issues:
• lncentivize using public transit to get to and from events • Offer discounted parking fees for carpooling
• Parking further from stadium with frequent shuttle service • Better access points through street closures to neighborhoods for residents 18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 15 Other Solutions Suggested by Groups ■ ~M~ research
► More obvious stadium outreach to near-neighbors
► Free or discounted tickets for near-neighbors
► More portable toilets outside stadium to limit public urination 18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 16 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Solutions Telephone Survey
All Registered Voters
City of Santa Clara
Methodology ■ ~M~ research
► Live telephone survey of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara ► Conducted May 10 - 17, 2018
► 400 total interviews; Margin of Error+ 4.9%
► Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers ► Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese and included both landlines and cell phones
18-6845 Solutions Report I 2
1 EMC
1 I I
research
Levi's Stadium
Awareness and Issues
Stadium Awareness ■ ~M~ resea rch
Awareness levels remain quite similar to earlier in the year. '--------~-~-------- ------------------
January May
Heard Heard
56% 57%
Not heard Not heard
41% 40%
(DK/Ref) (DK/Ref)
3% 3%
Q3. How much, if anything, have you heard or seen about Levi's Stadium recently - a lot, some, not too much, or nothing at all? ' 18-6845 Solut ions Report I 4 Levi's Stadium: Top Positives ■ ~M~ research
The Stadium's impact on the local economy is seen as its biggest positive. -~--- -~--~~ What is the biggest positive? %
Boosts local economy/generates revenue 26
Draws people/attention to Santa Clara 20
Nearby/local entertainment/events 19
Creates local jobs 12
There are no positives (distaste towards the stadium) 9 Sporting events 0
Other 4
Don't know/NA 9
Refused 1
Q4. What do you think is the biggest positive about having Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara? (Open-end) 18-6845 Solutions Report I 5 Levi's Stadium: Top Negatives ■ ~M~ research
Traffic congestion and parking are by far the most frequently mentioned negative and most respondents did not differentiate between the two.
What is the biggest negative? %
Traffic congestion and parking 48
Noise or from the stadium 15
Crime and security 9
Financial impact on the city 4
Economic/infrastructural impact 4
Littering 4
Nothing negative 4
City/Stadium Officials and management 3
Other 2
Don't know/NA 6
Refused 2
. QS. And what do you think is the biggest negative about having Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara? (Open-end) 18-6845 Solutions Report I 6 Stadium Importance ~M~
research
A majority say working on issues related to Stadium events should be a priority for the Mayor and Council, but only 17% say it should be a very high priority.
■ 1-3 Low Priority 4/(Don't Know)
24%
QlO. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is a very low priority and 7 is a very high priority, how high of a priority do you think working on issues related to stadium events should be for the Mayor and City Council? ■ 5-7 High Priority
1 - Very 7 - Very
Low High
4% 17%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 7
·stadium Event Issues ■ ~M]J research
Traffic and parking are seen as the most important stadium event issues to address, with 4-in-10 saying it is "extremely important" to address these issues. Disruptive behavior in neighborhoods around the Stadium is also a top issue. Six-in-ten say it is important to address noise from events, but only a quarter rate it as "extremely important." ~-~------ -------· ■ 7 Extremely important ■ 5-6
Traffic from stadium events 41% ,,
Parking in neighborhoods close to
the stadium
Disruptive behavior in
neighborhoods around the stadium
on event days
Noise from stadium events
'
40% ,
37%
26%
Qll-14. I'm going to read you a list of issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium. After each one, please rate how important addressing that issue is to you, using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all important, and 7 means extremely important.
Total Important
78%
73%
72%
62%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 8
Communicating and Responding ~M~
research
A majority give the City positive marks for communicating about and responding to stadium-related issues. Stadium management gets lower marks, primarily because fewer respondents are familiar with their performance. ■ Total Agree ■ (Don't Know/No Opinion)
The City does a good job communicating
with residents about stadium-rela ted issues
The City does a good job responding to
citizen concerns and complaints about the
stadium
Levi's Stadium management does a good
job communicating with resident s about
stadium-related issues
Levi's Stadium management does a good
job responding to citizen concerns and
complaints
54%
51%
41%
41%
QG-9. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statemen ts. If you are not sure please just say so. 16%
27%
30%
36%
■ Total Disagree
30%
23%
29%
23%
I
Strongly Strongly
Agr. Disagr.
16% 14%
12% 8%
7% 12%
6% 10%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 9
Stadium Visitor Frequency ■ ~M~ resea rch
Most have been to at least one event.
61% at least
once
I 1 \
Never
39% 1-2 Times
28% 3-4 Times 5 Times or more
16% 17%
Q36. How many times, if ever, have you been to an event at Levi's Stadium? 18-6845 Solutions Report I 10 Stadium Problem Frequency ~M~
research
One-in-four respondents say they have contacted someone about a stadium-related concern - 6% have contacted someone 3 or more times.
Never
75% 25% at least
once
_________ l ________ _
I \
1-2 Times
19%
3-4 Times
4%
Q37. How many times, if any, have you or someone in your household contacted someone about a stadium- related problem or concern?
5 Times or more
2%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 11
1EMC 1
I I
research
Interest in
Proposed Solutions
Potential Solutions ■ ~M~ research
While all the solution tested have majority support, there are significant differences in intensity of support ("strongly support").
■ 7-Strongly Support ■ 5-6 Total Support
82%
80%
79%
79%
78% .
77%
49% _. -. '
I , _., --
75%
Provide more portable toilets in parking lots to discourage public urination Increase neighborhood safety patrols before/after events Establish an electronic notification system that gives resident s advance notice of events Reduce stadium parking prices for people who carpool
Establish more frequent shuttle service from parking lots further from the Stadium Designate drop-off and pickup areas for those using rideshare service Offer incentives for taking public transit to/from events such as free or reduced fares Have a live call-in number during events to respond to concerns or complaints Lower the price of parking in stadium lots
Increase the fine for violating the curfew and noise thresholds City-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium A 10PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like concerts at Levi's Stadium 72%
Q25-34. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose that proposal and 7 means you strongly support that proposal. If you have no opinion one way or the other please say so. 18-6845 Solutions Report I 13 1EMC 1
I I
research
Stadium Curfew
Detailed Attitudes
Curfew ■ ~M]J resea rch
Just under half are aware of the curfew. A third feel the curfew is too restrictive while half say it's about right. Only one-in-ten feel it isn't restrictive enough.
Yes
44%
Aware of Curfew
No
54%
{Don't
know)
2%
Too Restrictive
About Right
Not Restrictive
Enough
Don't Know
Q15. Were you aware or not that the City has a 10 PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like concerts at Levi's Stadium?
Q18. In general, do you feel this curfew on weeknights is too restrictive, not restrictive enough; or about right? Feel Curfew is ...
50%
5%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 15
Curfew Support ■ ~M~ research
Half support the curfew. Only 1-in-4 are opposed to the curfew while the remaining 25% aren't sure. '--~------ In general, do you support or oppose this weeknight curfew? ■ 1-3 Oppose 4/(Don't Know)
25%
Q16. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, ·where 1 means you strongly oppose the curfew and 7 means you strongly support the curfew?
■ 5-7 Support
1- Strongly 7- Strongly
Oppose Support
11% 27%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 16
Curfew Reactions ■ ~M~ research
Of those who support the curfew/ most say it is due to the stadium/s proximity to a residential neighborhood and concern for those residents. Of those who oppose the curfew/ the most common reason is because they feel it is too restrictive.
Support Curfew (n=199) % Oppose Curfew (n=l00) %
Residential neighborhood/ residents should be 20 respected Curfew is unnecessary/too restrictive 36 Not fair to residents who work/go to school 13
Disturbs sleep 10
Curfew should be for shorter period/10 PM is too 15 early Security/keep area safe 9
Noise 8 Does not affect me 9
Good/preventative action (generally support) 8
Does not affect me 5 Once in a while 1s okay to go past curfew/depends 6 Once in a while is okay to go past curfew/depends 5
on event
on event
Traffic/foot traffic 4 Losing out on revenue 6
Q17. Why do you say that? 18-6845 Solutions Report! 17
Support Limited Exceptions to Curfew ■ ~~~
After hearing brief arguments from both sides, just over half say they would support allowing limited curfew exceptions. --- Some people say the Stadium's current curfew policy causes the City to lose out on revenue from concerts that choose not to play in Santa Clara because of it. They argue the policy should be changed to allow a limited number of exceptions for profit making events, allowing evening events to go until 11 PM rather than 10 PM.
Other people say the curfew policy should remain as is. The noise generated by events and eventgoers leaving the stadium and passing through nearby neighborhoods is too much of a disturbance to residents during the week before work and school. ■ 1-3 Oppose 4/(Don't Know)
20%
Q19 . Given what you've heard, do you support or oppose allowing limited exceptions to the weeknight curfew? Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
■ 5-7 Support
1- Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose Support
14% 24%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 18
Support 3-4 Exceptions Per Year ~~
research
A majority also support allowing 3-4 exceptions per year.
Would you support or oppose allowing 3 to 4 exceptions per year to the weeknight curfew? ■ 1-3 Oppose ■ 4/(Don't Know)
19%
Q20. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
■ 5-7 Support
1 - Strongly 7 - Strongly
· Oppose Support
18% 27%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 19
Support 2-3 Exceptions Per Summer ■ ~~ research
A majority also support allowing 2-3 exceptions specifically during the summer months. ,._ ___________ _ Would you support or oppose allowing 2 to 3 exceptions per year to the weeknight curfew during the summer months only when kids are out of school?
■ 1-3 Oppose 4/(Don't Know)
16%
Q21. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
■ 5-7 Support
1- Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose . Support
17% 29%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 20
Support for Curfew Modifications ~M~
research
A majority support the general idea of limited exceptions to the curfew and when asked about specific options, 56% support 3-4 exceptions per year and 60% support 2-3 exceptions per summer. Opposition is consistently about a quarter.
Support
50%
Initial
Support
Oppose Neutral
Limited
Exceptions
Support
54%
Neutral
20%
3-4 Exceptions
Per Year
Support
56%
Neutral
19%
2-3 Exceptions
Per Summer
Support
60%
Neutral
16%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 21
1( T H F
ii: LE
EDWARDS
. 1EMC 1
I I Parking.
C R O U P research Issues and Solutions
Support for Permit Program ■ ~M]J research
Initially a majority support city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium.
In general/ do you support or oppose city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium/ including guest parking passes/ to prevent stadium-goers from using street parking on event days? ■ 1-3 Oppose ■ 4/(Don't Know)
24%
Q22. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
■ 5-7 Support
1 - Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose Support
14% 25%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 23
Permit Program Reactions ■ ~~ research
Supporters of the program feel it will help solve the problem. Those who are opposed are largely concerned with the cost to residents, though some do feel it is unnecessary or won't be effective.
Support Program (n=210) % Oppose Program (n=96) %
Will help with lack of parking and traffic 21
It's a good/affordable/necessary measure 14 (generally supportive) Will prevent outside people from parking in 11 neighborhood Residents will have guaranteed parking/ park in 11 front of home More organization/ more control 6
Residents should not have to pay to park/not 39 fair
Its unnecessary/A waste/ will not be effective 14 (generally oppose) The cost is too high 10
It's a good/affordable/necessary measure 7 (generally supportive) Will prevent outside people from parking in
5 neighborhood
Generates revenue for the City 6
Will help the neighbors/residents 6
Residents will have guaranteed parking/ park in - 4
front of home
Parking should be the Stadium's responsibility 5 Parking should be the Stadium's responsibility 3 Q23. Why do you say that? 18-6845 Solutions Report I 24 Support for Permits After More Info ■ ~~ research
After brief arguments on both sides, support for the permit program remains strong.
Some people say parking permits would reduce event traffic in their neighborhoods and help make sure they can find parking on event days. They say it would also reduce rowdy behavior, trash, and disturbances in their neighborhoods.
Other people say a parking permit program will cost the City and local residents too much money and resources to issue, administer, and enforce. They say it will make parking in those neighborhoods too complicated for guests and non-event visitors to the area.
■ 1-3 Oppose ■ 4/(Don't Know)
20%
Q24 . Given what you've heard, do you support or oppose allowing limited exceptions to the weeknight curfew? Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
■ 5-7 Support
1 - Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose Support
12% 21%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 25
Support for Parking Permits ■ ~M]J research
Initially a majority support city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium. Support increases after arguments for and against parking permits. ________________ , Support
52%
Initial Support
Oppose
24%
Neutral
24%
Support
60%
Informed Support
Oppose
20%
'I
12%
Neutral
20%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 26
Demographics ■
~~
research
Age Ethnicity Years in Neighborhood/Santa Clara
18-29 - 18%
Hispanic or Latino - 28%
- 17%
Whit e - 38% 30-39
- 18%
Black I 4%
40-49
Asian/Pacific Islander - 14%
50-64 - 26% I 4% Something else
<11 years
11+ years/(Ref)
50%
50%
65 or over - 21% (Refused) ■ 11%
Gender Home Ownership
Male 49% Own/buying 61%
Female 51% Rent/L ease/(DK) 39%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 27
1EMC 1
I I
research
Andrew Thibault
[email protected]
206.204.8031
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-1570 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Action on Resolution for an Exception to the 180 Day Waiting Period To Appoint Retired Annuitants To Serve as Temporary Extra Help (Government Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224)
COUNCIL PILLAR
Manage Strategically Our Workforce Capacity and Resources
BACKGROUND
Generally, the Public Employment Retirement Law (PERL) requires that retired annuitants serve a 180-day wait period before working in a retired annuitant position. However, the PERL also provides for exceptions to this waiting period if certain criteria are met and the governing body of the public agency adopts a non-consent calendar resolution at a public meeting approving the appointment as a critically needed position before the 180 days has passed. The adoption of the resolution allows the employer to hire a retired annuitant to perform work of a limited duration, such as specialized work and limited term complex projects.
There are two types of post-retirement appointments possible under Govt. Code Section 7522.56: 1) Extra help retired annuitants hired to perform work of limited duration such as special projects (Govt.
Code Section 21224); and 2) Appointment to a vacant position on an interim basis while a permanent replacement is being recruited (an active recruitment must be in place for this type of appointment, and the appointment must end when the replacement is hired, Govt. Code Section 21221(h)).
DISCUSSION
Steven Hance, Silicon Valley Power
Steven Hance was a Senior Electric Division Manager in the Silicon Valley Power Department (SVP).
He retired on December 31, 2022. He was responsible for resource procurement, wholesale trading functions, joint power agency coordination and generation scheduling, stakeholder actions in the California Independent System Operator markets and bi-lateral market procurement along with related compliance and reporting activities.
The City would like to rehire Mr. Hance to provide continued assistance with multi-year and multi- stakeholder projects that stand in mid-process. Tasking new staff would be disadvantageous as some activities have an extremely steep learning curve and depth of knowledge required where there is no opportunity to delay. In particular, Steve would continue to provide institutional knowledge during negotiations with PG&E and the CAISO in relation to SVP’s interest in the Grizzly Hydroelectric Power plant and the resulting impact of the Camp Fire on the generation tie-lines, needed repairs, and any outlays from the Fire Trust. Steve has also been instrumental in supporting SVP’s position and interest in the current PG&E natural gas rate case which impacts SVP and NCPA City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-1570 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
generation units, and would continue to provide important perspective and data analysis until the rate case is finalized.
PG&E also recently announced its intention to spin off all non-nuclear generation into a subsidy named Pacific Generation. This would impact the Grizzly Power Plant and related FERC settlement agreements for which Steve is the leading subject matter expert. His support in assisting SVP to understand the impact of this PG&E action on SVP’s rights and property will be invaluable and his mentorship will support SVP’s future needs.
Steve’s vast institutional knowledge and extensive experience will greatly assist City staff with pending projects, the Department’s Strategic Plan, and projects to meet expected load growth resource requirements.
Mr. Hance will be appointed to a limited term as-needed temporary employee position as a retired annuitant. This position will perform duties comparable to the Senior Division Manager classification.
This position will provide critical understanding and strategic consultation to the City as it relates to generation, natural gas wholesale rates, and other CAISO market impacts. Mr. Hance will work with the team to ensure the utility is prepared to meet the forecasted resource procurement needs resulting from load growth and stay compliant with state regulations. He will not participate in day-to- day administrative oversight of his former position. This employment arrangement would fall under the type 1 appointment (Govt. Code Section 21224) as Mr. Hance will be providing services to assist with limited duration special projects.
Ann Hatcher, Silicon Valley Power
Ann Hatcher was the Assistant Director-Resource Planning and Customer Engagement (Job Code 021) at SVP, and was responsible for resource procurement, customer interface, joint power agency coordination, integrated resource planning, resource scheduling, SVP’s various energy efficiency and rebate programs, stakeholder actions in the California Independent System Operator markets and bi- lateral market procurement along with related compliance and reporting activities.
Ann retired on December 22, 2022, and the City would like to rehire Ann to provide continued assistance with multi-year and multi-stakeholder projects that stand in mid-process. Tasking new staff would be disadvantageous as some activities have an extremely steep learning curve and depth of knowledge required where there is no opportunity to delay. Ann would continue to provide input during Renewable Generation CEQA process, help assist with the CEC’s Integrate Resource Plan and assist with SVP carbon free procurement to meet the City’s Climate Action Plan goals and the State of California greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Ann’s vast institutional knowledge and extensive experience will greatly assist City staff with the above projects and the challenges to meet resource requirements with the observed and expected load growth SVP is experiencing.
Ms. Hatcher will be appointed to a limited term as-needed temporary employee position as a retired annuitant. This position will perform duties comparable to the Assistant Director Resource Planning and Customer Engagement classification. This position will provide critical understanding and strategic consultation to the City as it relates to resource procurement to meet the City’s Climate City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-1570 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
Action Plan objectives, the CEC Integrated Resource Planning obligations and ongoing renewable generation CEQA process. Ms. Hatcher will work with the team to ensure the utility is prepared to meet the forecasted resource procurement needs resulting from load growth and stay compliant with state regulations. She will not participate in day-to-day administrative oversight of his former position.
This employment arrangement would fall under the type 1 appointment (Govt. Code Section 21224) as Ms. Hatcher will be providing services to assist with limited duration special projects.
Scott Anderson, Silicon Valley Power
Mr. Anderson was a Principal Electric Estimator at SVP and retired on December 22, 2022. He will be rehired to assist with critical development project backlog, EV Charger electric service design guidelines, essential updates to SVP’s Underground Electric Standards (UG1000), and various special projects. Additionally, Mr. Anderson will continue efforts on the Capital Improvement Project to upgrade the Automated Utility Design (AUD) Software and Database to increase accuracy of the cost estimating engine for developer contributions. This employment arrangement would fall under the type 1 appointment (Govt. Code Section 21224) as Mr. Anderson will assist with limited duration special projects.
Kurt Anthony Tomaro
The SVP Operations Control group works 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. Typically, there are six Electric & Water System Operators (EWSO) and one Senior EWSO to staff this requirement. SVP had three of the six EWSO’s leave employment before the end of 2022. SVP has hired three replacements. Before an EWSO can work on shift by themselves, it is required that they have a North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) certification to operate SVP’s high voltage systems, and a D1 certificate from the California Water Board to operate the City’s water system. It can take up to a year to train and certify a replacement for a retiring EWSO.
Because of the lengthy period required to certify and train new EWSO’s, the department needs to retain the services of two retired EWSO’s to fill shifts left vacant by their departure. Their experience and presence are crucial in bringing our new EWSO’s up to proficiency and maintaining the high level of safety required by the Operations Division.
Kurt Tomaro was an Electric & Water System Operator (Job Code 390R) at SVP. He retired on December 27, 2022. Mr. Tomaro is certified to operate and control the City of Santa Clara’s Electric and Water control systems. It is SVP’s desire to rehire him to assist with filling vacant shifts and helping to train and mentor our new EWSO’s while on shift on a part-time basis.
He will perform duties identical to the Electric & Water System Operator (Job Code 390R) classification. This employment arrangement would fall under the type 1 appointment (Govt. Code Section 21224) as Mr. Tomaro will be providing his specialized skills for a limited duration.
The recommended actions would certify the appointments of Mr. Hance, Ms. Hatcher, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Tomaro meet the requirements as defined in Govt. Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224, specifically:
1. Appointment is necessary to perform critically needed duties prior to the expiration of the 180- day wait period;
City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-1570 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
2. The individuals have not received a Golden Handshake or any other form of retirement-related incentive;
3. Adoption of resolution was not placed on consent calendar;
4. Employment will be limited to 960 hours/fiscal year; and
5. Compensation will be within the posted salary range in the publicly available salary schedule.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) sets forth limitations for compensating retired annuitants. All retirees must be paid hourly, at no less than the minimum, nor more than the maximum, paid to employees doing similar work. Based on the CalPERS formula for setting retired annuitant pay rates, the individuals will be paid at the hourly rate for as-needed consultant position as follows:
Retired Annuitant Hourly Rate of Pay Fiscal Year Maximum Amount Steven Hance $128.93 $123,773
Ann Hatcher $144.56 $138,777
Scott Anderson $92.37 $88,675
Kurt Tomaro $102.85 $98,736
Retirees also do not receive any benefits. Sufficient appropriations are available in the Silicon Valley Power Department to fund these interim positions.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office and the Finance Department.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected].
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt the attached Resolutions to permit the four Retired Annuitants to provide valuable service to the City post-retirement but within the first 180 days of their retirements; or
2. Direct Staff to return with other options.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-1570 Agenda Date: 1/10/2023
RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Adopt the attached Resolutions for an Exception to the 180 Day Waiting Period To Appoint Four Retired Annuitants To Serve as Temporary Extra Help (Government Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224).
Reviewed by: Aracely Azevedo, Director of Human Resources Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution for an Exception to the 180 Day Waiting Period To Appoint A Retired Annuitant To Serve as Temporary Extra Help (S. Hance)
2. Hance, Steven - Offer Letter
3. Resolution for an Exception to the 180 Day Waiting Period To Appoint A Retired Annuitant To Serve as Temporary Extra Help (A. Hatcher)
4. Hatcher, Ann - Offer Letter
5. Resolution for an Exception to the 180 Day Waiting Period To Appoint A Retired Annuitant To Serve as Temporary Extra Help (S. Anderson)
6. Anderson, Scott - Offer Letter
7. Resolution for an Exception to the 180 Day Waiting Period To Appoint A Retired Annuitant To Serve as Temporary Extra Help (K. Tomaro)
8. Tomaro, Kurt - Offer Letter
City of Santa Clara Printed on 1/6/2023Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/CalPERS Resolution
Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
FOR EXCEPTION TO THE 180 -DAY WAITING PERIOD TO HIRE A
RETIRED ANNUITANT AS A TEMPORARY EXTRA HELP
EMPLOYEE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 AND
21224)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code section 7522.56 the City of Santa Clara must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since his or her retirement date;
WHEREAS, Steven Hance (CalPERS ID 7015096684) retired from the City of Santa Clara in the position of Senior Electric Division Manager in the Silicon Valley Department, effective December 31, 2022;
WHEREAS, section 7522.56 requires that post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is June 29, 2023, w ithout this certification resolution;
WHEREAS, section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180 day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara and Steven Hance certify that Steven Hance has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara hereby appoints Steven Hance as an extra help retired annuitant to perform the critically needed duties of Temporary Employee for the City of Santa Clara under Government Code section 21224, effective January 11, 2023; WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between the City of Santa Clara and Steven Hance has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar;
----
Resolution/CalPERS Resolution
Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year;
WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties; WHEREAS, effective December 25, 2022, the maximum hourly salary rate for the Temporary Employee position is $214.06, and the minimum hourly equivalent is $17.20; WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Steven Hance will be $128.93; and
WHEREAS, Steven Hance has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City of Santa Clara hereby certifies the appointment of Steven Hance and that this appointment is necessary to fill the critically needed position of Temporary Employee for the City of Santa Clara by January 11, 2023. The retired annuitant was the Senior Electric Division Manager for the City of Santa Clara and will be rehired performing the comparable duties of the Senior Electric Division Manager classification. The City would like to rehire Steven Hance to provide critical understanding and strategic consultation to the City as it relates to generation, natural gas wholesale rates, and other CAISO market impacts. Mr. Hance will work with the team to ensure the utility is prepared to meet the forecasted resource procurement needs resulting from load growth and stay compliant with state regulations.
Resolution/CalPERS Resolution
Rev: 11/22/17
2. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE DAY OF __, 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCI LORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
ATTEST:
NORA PIMENTEL, MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:
1. Hance, Steve – Offer Letter
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2080 ● Fax: 408-985-0667 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov 1
Human Resources
January 3, 2023
Steven Hance
1121 Pome Avenue
Sunnyvale, CCA 94087
Dear Steven,
Congratulations! This is to confirm our offer of employment for the As-Needed position of Temporary Employee (Senior Electric Division Manager) in the Silicon Valley Power Department with the City of Santa Clara.
Below are a few key provisions for your offer of employment:
• Effective Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2023
• Salary: Your hourly pay rate is $128.93 per hour.
• Employment Status: As-Needed employment is not to be considered permanent.
This is an “at-will” position and hours in any given week is not guaranteed. Under CalPERS regulations and the City of Santa Clara practices, As-Needed retired annuitants are not permitted to work more than 960 hours per fiscal year (July 1 through June 30). If you reach 960 hours during the fiscal year, your assignment will end. As-Needed employees will be enrolled in PARS retirement system in lieu of participation in CalPERS and Social Security. However, if you have been previously employed by a CalPERS employer and have funds on deposit with CalPERS, you will be enrolled in CalPERS and Social Security upon your first date of As-Needed employment with the City of Santa Clara.
• New Employee Orientation (NEO): You are required to attend virtual NEO with the Human Resources Department to continue your employment. You have been scheduled to attend on:
o Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:30PM
o Zoom Meeting: https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/89928367479 Meeting ID: 899 2836 7479
• Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification: All new employees are required to show documentation which proves their identity and their eligibility to work in the United States. A list of acceptable documentation can be found at http://uscis.gov/i- 9-central/acceptable-documents. Please bring I-9 employment verification identification with you on your first day of employment; original documents are required. This verification must be completed in person at the Human Resources Department within the first 3 days of your employment start date. If this City of
Santa Clara
ThP. CentP.r of What's Possible
Re: City of Santa Clara Offer of Employment – Steven Hance January 3, 2023
2 is not completed within the deadline, you will be ineligible to work until you have completed your I-9 verification.
Please sign and date this offer letter and return it to me by Friday, January 6, 2023. If you have questions, please contact the Human Resources Department at (408) 615- 2080.
Sincerely,
xxxxx
Aracely Azevedo
Director of Human Resources
I accept the terms and conditions of my employment with the City of Santa Clara.
______________________________________ Date: ______________________ Steven Hance
-
Resolution/CalPERS Resolution
Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
FOR EXCEPTION TO THE 180 -DAY WAITING PERIOD TO HIRE A
RETIRED ANNUITANT AS A TEMPORARY EXTRA HELP
EMPLOYEE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 AND
21224)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code section 7522.56 the City of Santa Clara must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since his or her retirement date;
WHEREAS, Ann Hatcher (CalPERS ID 6682283928) retired from the City of Santa Clara in the position of Assistant Director of Electric Utility in the Silicon Valley Department, effective December 22, 2022;
WHEREAS, section 7522.56 requires that post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is June 19, 2023, w ithout this certification resolution;
WHEREAS, section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180 day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara and Ann Hatcher certify that Ann Hatcher has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara hereby appoints Ann Hatcher as an extra help retired annuitant to perform the critically needed duties of Temporary Employee for the City of Santa Clara under Government Code section 21224, effective January 11, 2023; WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between the City of Santa Clara and Ann Hatcher has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar;
----
Resolution/CalPERS Resolution
Rev: 11/22/17
WHEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year;
WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties; WHEREAS, effective December 25, 2022, the maximum hourly salary rate for the Temporary Employee position is $214.06, and the minimum hourly equivalent is $17.20; WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Ann Hatcher will be $144.56; and
WHEREAS, Ann Hatcher has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City of Santa Clara hereby certifies the appointment of Ann Hatcher and that this appointment is necessary to fill the critically needed position of Temporary Employee for the City of Santa Clara by January 11, 2023. The retired annuitant was the Assistant Director of Electric Utility for the City of Santa Clara and will be rehired performing the comparable duties of the Assistant Director of Electric Utility classification. The City would like to rehire Ann Hatcher to provide critical understanding and strategic consultation to the City as it relates to resource procurement to meet the City’s Climate Action Plan objectives, the CEC Integrated Resource Planning obligations and ongoing renewable generation CEQA process
Resolution/CalPERS Resolution
Rev: 11/22/17
2. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE DAY OF __, 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCI LORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
ATTEST:
NORA PIMENTEL, MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:
1. Hatcher, Ann – Offer Letter
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2080 ● Fax: 408-985-0667 ● www.SantaClaraCA.gov 1
Human Resources
January 3, 2023
Ann Hatcher
826 Devonshire Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Dear Ann,
Congratulations! This is to confirm our offer of employment for the As-Needed position of Temporary Employee (Assistant Director of Electric Utility) in the Silicon Valley Power Department with the City of Santa Clara.
Below are a few key provisions for your offer of employment:
• Effective Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2023
• Salary: Your hourly pay rate is $144.56 per hour.
• Employment Status: As-Needed employment is not to be considered permanent.
This is an “at-will” position and hours in any given week is not guaranteed. Under CalPERS regulations and the City of Santa Clara practices, As-Needed retired annuitants are not permitted to work more than 960 hours per fiscal year (July 1 through June 30). If you reach 960 hours during the fiscal year, your assignment will end. As-Needed employees will be enrolled in PARS retirement system in lieu of participation in CalPERS and Social Security. However, if you have been previously employed by a CalPERS employer and have funds on deposit with CalPERS, you will be enrolled in CalPERS and Social Security upon your first date of As-Needed employment with the City of Santa Clara.
• New Employee Orientation (NEO): You are required to attend virtual NEO with the Human Resources Department to continue your employment. You have been scheduled to attend on:
o Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 3:30PM
o Zoom Meeting: https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/89928367479 Meeting ID: 899 2836 7479
• Form I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification: All new employees are required to show documentation which proves their identity and their eligibility to work in the United States. A list of acceptable documentation can be found at http://uscis.gov/i-
9-central/acceptable-documents. Please bring I-9 employment verification identification with you on your first day of employment; original documents are required. This verification must be completed in person at the Human Resources Department within the first 3 days of your employment start date. If this City of
Santa Clara
ThP. CentP.r of What's Possible
Re: City of Santa Clara Offer of Employment – Ann Hatcher January 3, 2023
2 is not completed within the deadline, you will be ineligible to work until you have completed your I-9 verification.
Please sign and date this offer letter and return it to me by Friday, January 6, 2023. If you have questions, please contact the Human Resources Department at (408) 615- 2080.
Sincerely,
xxxx
Aracely Azevedo
Director of Human Resources
I accept the terms and conditions of my employment with the City of Santa Clara.
______________________________________ Date: ______________________ Ann Hatcher
1111
Resolution/CalPERS Resolution
Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
FOR EXCEPTION TO THE 180 -DAY WAITING PERIOD TO HIRE A
RETIRED ANNUITANT AS A TEMPORARY EXTRA HELP
EMPLOYEE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 7522.56 AND
21224)
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code section 7522.56 the City of Santa Clara must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since his or her retirement date;
WHEREAS, Scott Anderson (CalPERS ID 5494632632) retired from the City of Santa Clara in the position of Senior Electrical Estimator in the Silicon Valley Department, effective December 23, 2022;
WHEREAS, section 7522.56 requires that post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is June 20, 2023, w ithout this certification resolution;
WHEREAS, section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180 day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara and Scott Anderson certify that Scott Anderson has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara hereby appoints Scott Anderson as an extra help retired annuitant to perform the critically needed duties of Temporary Employee for the City of Santa Clara under Government Code section 21224, effective January 11, 2023; WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between the City of Santa Clara and Scott Anderson has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar;
----
Resolution/CalPERS Resolution
Rev: 11/22/17