Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-19 City Council Agenda PacketCity Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. September 19, 2016 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Study Session 5:00-7:00 PM 1.Study Session on Motor Vehicle Level of Service (LOS), Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS), Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and CEQA Changes Related to Transportation Impacts Special Orders of the Day 7:00-7:05 PM 2.Selection of Applicants to Interview on September 27, 2016 for the Historic Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the Storm Drain Oversight Committee Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:05-7:15 PM Oral Communications 7:15-7:30 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. MEMO 2 September 19, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Minutes Approval 7:30-7:35 PM 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the August 29 and September 6, 2016 Council Meetings Consent Calendar 7:35-7:40 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4. Approval of a Contract With Buhler Commercial in the Amount Not-To- Exceed $586,803 for the Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements; Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number C15157772 in the Amount of $60,730 With FOG Studio for Design and Construction Administration Services; Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation for the Baylands Interpretive Center Facility Improvements, Capital Improvement Program Project PE-15029; and Find the Project Categorically Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act Under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) 5. Approval of the Third Amendment to the Agreement Providing for Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Between Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Multiple Santa Clara County Cities to Extend its Term 6. Approval of the Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study Report and Direct Staff to Pursue Replacement of the Boardwalk, Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Contract Number C16163750 in the Amount of $439,992 With Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. to Provide Design and Environmental Services and Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Capital Improvement Program Project PE-14018 Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:40-9:15 PM 7. Discuss and Identify a Preferred Alternative for Roadway Improvements to Embarcadero Road Between El Camino Real and Emerson Street and Direct Staff to Complete the Environmental Analysis and Plans, Specifications and Estimates for Construction 9:15-10:45 PM 8. Review of the Draft Transportation Element Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Update Community Advisory Committee (Continued From August 15, 2016) 3 September 19, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 September 19, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Meeting September 20, 2016 Rail Committee Meeting September 21, 2016 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) Draft Business Plan Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6763) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 9/19/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: LOS, MMLOS, Bicycle Level of Stress, VMT and CEQA Changes Study Session Title: Study Session on Motor Vehicle Level of Service (LOS), Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS), Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and CEQA Changes Related to Transportation Impacts From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is a study session. No formal action is recommended. The Council may discuss and provide comments and questions. Executive Summary The purpose of this study session is to familiarize the Council with the existing Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transportation Impact Analyses Guidelines, current transportation impact analysis practices in the City of Palo Alto (including thresholds of significance), changes to the California Environmental Quality Act as a result of the passage of SB 743, and common methods used to calculate level of service for transit, bicyclists and pedestrians. This study session is also intended to provide the Council with an opportunity to discuss and provide comment on the topics above. A similar study session was conducted with the Planning and Transportation Commission on June 29, 2016. The minutes of the meeting are included as Attachment A. Background The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the state-designated congestion management agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County under California’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) statute. The intent of the CMP legislation is to develop a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions that will reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision-making and air quality. The VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (2014) provide a consistent basis for evaluating development-related impacts to the CMP transportation system. VTA member City of Palo Alto Page 2 agencies, which include Santa Clara County and all 15 cities in the county, are required to follow the guidelines when evaluating new development in order to comply with the CMP. The current guidelines can be accessed here: http://www.vta.org/cmp/tia-guidelines. VTA currently requires that a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) be completed if a proposed development will add 100 or more net new trips during the weekday AM or PM peak hours or during the weekend peak hour. Net new trips are defined as motor vehicle trips generated by the proposed project, minus motor vehicle trips from existing uses and/or trips allowed under existing entitlements. The City of Palo Alto may require TIAs for smaller projects and Palo Alto has often prepared TIAs for smaller projects. Some jurisdictions in Santa Clara County have incorporated TIAs as the Transportation section of environmental documents, rather than preparing stand alone reports. The City of Palo Alto is responsible for determining which CMP roadway facilities should be included in a TIA. A CMP intersection shall be included in a TIA if it meets any one of the following conditions: 1. The proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per lane to any intersection movement; 2. The intersection is adjacent to the project; 3. Based on engineering judgment, [City of Palo Alto] staff determines that the intersection should be included in the analysis. Congestion management program intersections within Palo Alto include: • El Camino Real (SR 82) at Embarcadero Road/Galvez Street • El Camino Real (SR 82) at Page Mill Road • El Camino Real (SR 82) at Palm Drive • El Camino Real (SR 82) at Palo Alto Avenue/Sand Hill Road • El Camino Real (SR 82) at University Avenue • El Camino Real (SR 82) at West Charleston Road/Arastradero Road • Foothill Expressway at Arastradero Road • Oregon Expressway at Middlefield Road • Page Mill Road at Foothill Expressway • Page Mill Road at Hanover Street • San Antonio Road at East Charleston Road • San Antonio Road at Middlefield Road The full list of CMP intersections is included as Attachment B. VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines - Thresholds of Significance Consistent with VTA’s role as a Congestion Management Agency, CMP impacts are defined as increased delay for motor vehicles at CMP intersections, using the Highway Capacity Manual (2010) motor vehicle level of service (LOS) metric for intersection delay. The VTA transportation City of Palo Alto Page 3 impact analysis guidelines are supplemented by VTA LOS Analysis Guidelines (2003). Broadly speaking, the VTA transportation impact analysis guidelines tell the analyst what should be evaluated in a TIA, while the LOS Analysis Guidelines tell the analyst how to evaluate it. The LOS Analysis Guidelines detail VTA’s recommended procedures for conducting LOS analysis using TRAFFIX software. Compared to other available software, TRAFFIX is outdated and has limited capacity to analyze signal timing changes or conditions where congestion occurs or traffic signals are closely spaced. Currently there is no scheduled update for the LOS Analysis Guidelines; however VTA is considering options to replace TRAFFIX as the preferred analysis software. The Systems Operations & Management Working Group of the VTA Technical Advisory Committee has recently hosted presentations by software vendors on the strengths and weaknesses of various software packages. The VTA standard is LOS E. If a transportation impact analysis shows that a development project is projected to cause LOS on a CMP roadway or intersection to fall from LOS E or better to LOS F under project conditions, then the project is said to impact the facility. In addition, for facilities determined to have been at LOS F under the “Without Project” analysis scenario (Existing, Background or Cumulative Conditions without the project), a project is said to impact the facility if the analysis shows that the project will cause LOS to deteriorate by a given threshold amount. The threshold amounts for each of the three CMP facility types are described as follows: • Intersections at LOS F: A project is said to impact an intersection determined to have been at LOS F under the without project analysis scenario if: o addition of the project traffic increases the average control delay for critical movements by four (4) seconds or more, and o project traffic increases the critical v/c value by 0.01 or more. The exception to this threshold is when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average control delay for critical movements, i.e., the change in average control delay for critical movements are negative. In this case, the threshold is when the project increases the critical v/c value by 0.01 or more. City of Palo Alto - Adopted Thresholds of Significance Historically, local jurisdictions in Santa Clara County have also used VTA’s guidelines as a model for evaluating impacts to local intersections, although each jurisdiction has the authority to establish impact thresholds for intersections and streets within its purview (sometimes called non-CMP intersections). To be clear, VTA requires local jurisdictions to use VTA’s thresholds for evaluating CMP intersections, but local agencies have the latitude to adopt alternative thresholds for these and other intersections. The City may also use alternative thresholds for CMP intersections for City purposes related to CEQA and general plan consistency. Pursuant to CEQA, local significance thresholds have to be developed through a public review process and City of Palo Alto Page 4 be supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7). If travel demand forecasting models are used to evaluate transportation impacts of land use decisions, they must be consistent with the VTA Countywide Transportation Model. VTA has developed procedures for member agencies to use in developing consistent models. These procedures are described in the Local Transportation Model Consistency Guidelines of the Technical Standards and Procedures. The last time Palo Alto discussed significance thresholds in 2007 as part of a Comprehensive Plan update staff report, it identified the thresholds in effect today, which include: • Cause a local [City of Palo Alto] intersection to deteriorate below a [motor vehicle] level of service (LOS) D • Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average control delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more • Cause a regional [CMP] intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F • Cause a regional [CMP] intersection already operating at LOS F to deteriorate in the average control delay for the critical movements to increase by four seconds or more, and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more • Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity. Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps • Cause a freeway segment (for each direction of traffic) to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F • Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities • Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion • Create an operational safety hazard • Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Intrusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more on a local or collector residential street • Result in inadequate on-site parking capacity • Result in inadequate emergency access Nearby Jurisdictions – Adopted Thresholds of Significance City of Menlo Park (in San Mateo County) The City of Menlo Park has varying criteria for different roadway classifications: • City Arterial Intersections: Project traffic increment causes an intersection that operates at LOS D or better to reach LOS E or F, increases average vehicle delay by more than 23 seconds, or increases vehicle delay for the most critical movements at an arterial City of Palo Alto Page 5 intersection that operates at LOS E or F prior to the addition of Project traffic by more than 0.8 second. • Local Approaches to State-Controlled Intersections: Project traffic increment causes an intersection that operates at LOS D or better to reach LOS E or F, increases average vehicle delay by more than 23 seconds, or increases vehicle delay for the most critical movements at an arterial intersection that operates at LOS E or F prior to the addition of Project traffic by more than 0.8 second. • Other City Intersections (Collector and Local Streets): Project traffic increment causes an intersection that operates at LOS C or better to reach LOS D, E, or F; increases average vehicle delay by more than 23 seconds; or increases vehicle delay for the most critical movements at a collector or local street intersection that operates at LOS E or F prior to the addition of Project traffic by more than 0.8 second. City of Mountain View The City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) EIR established the following interim level of service policy standards: • Interim level of service (LOS) standards: Until adoption of the mobility plans described in Action MOB 1.1.1 [and adoption of alternative impact thresholds in Action MOB 8.1.2], maintain the Citywide vehicle LOS standards from the 1992 General Plan, which include a target peak hour LOS policy of LOS D for all intersections and roadway segments, with the following exceptions in high-demand areas: o Use LOS E for intersections and street segments within the Downtown Core and San Antonio areas where vitality, activity and multi-modal transportation use are primary goals; and o Use LOS E for intersections and street segments on CMP designated roadways in Mountain View (e.g., El Camino Real, Central Expressway and San Antonio Road). Significant impacts at signalized City of Mountain View intersections are said to occur when the addition of project traffic causes one of the following: • Intersection operations degrade from an acceptable level to an unacceptable level; or • Exacerbate unacceptable operations by increasing the average critical delay by four seconds or more and increasing the critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more; or • An increase in the V/C ratio of 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change. City of Los Altos Los Altos and Palo Alto have the same thresholds of significance for signalized intersections: • Intersection operations degrade from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F); or • Exacerbate unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) by increasing the critical delay by more than four seconds and increasing the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or City of Palo Alto Page 6 more; or • An increase in the V/C ratio of 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change. VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines - Future Year (Cumulative) Conditions The VTA guidelines specify that the Cumulative Conditions scenario shall evaluate the addition of the project, along with estimated project-generated trips, to longer term conditions than those described under the Background Plus Project condition. In general, the Cumulative Conditions scenario is analyzed as the combination of Background Conditions (Existing Conditions + Approved Projects) + Expected Growth + Project. This section shall identify project impacts on the surrounding transportation network. For any impacts identified, mitigation measures shall be developed based on the results of this study scenario. The parameters of the Cumulative Conditions scenario should be clearly defined in the TIA. Cumulative Conditions scenarios can be near- or long-term, as follows: • Near-Term Cumulative Conditions: This scenario is a near-term cumulative analysis scenario to be provided for each jurisdiction’s planning and information purposes. The analysis shall include expected growth until the project is expected to be available for final occupancy; • Alternate Cumulative Conditions Analysis: The Lead Agency may substitute an alternate Cumulative Conditions analysis for the near-term Cumulative Conditions analysis described above. For example, the long-term Cumulative Conditions analysis conducted as part of an environmental analysis may be provided in place of the near-term Cumulative Conditions analysis. VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines - Other Topics The 2014 VTA guidelines introduced several new analysis requirements, as well as new approaches to existing analysis requirements. Transit Delay Analysis The 2014 update introduced a requirement to evaluate transit delay resulting from project- related traffic. Except for very large projects (e.g. Levi’s Stadium), the transit delay analysis supersedes the transit capacity analysis required by the 2009 version of the guidelines. The transit delay analysis includes both quantitative and qualitative components:  Quantitative Component: The TIA must include an analysis of delay resulting from project-related congestion at intersections. This analysis can be drawn from the TIA’s auto LOS calculations  Qualitative Component: The TIA must assess whether delay for transit vehicles would result from project-related changes to roadway and/or intersection geometry & operations. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Trip Generation Methodologies The 2014 update encourages the use of trip generation methodologies that are most appropriate for proposed projects. In some cases, this leads to the use of methodologies other than those published in the Trip Generation Manual by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The average trip generation rates for land use categories in the ITE Trip Generation Manual represent weighted averages from studies conducted throughout the United States and Canada since the 1960s. Data was primarily collected at suburban locations having little or no transit service, nearby pedestrian amenities, or travel demand management (TDM) programs. At specific sites, users may wish to modify trip generation rates presented in the manual to reflect the presence of public transportation service, ridesharing, or other TDM measures; enhanced pedestrian and bicycle trip-making opportunities; or other special characteristics of the site or surrounding area. When practical, users are encouraged to supplement the data in the manual with local data that have been collected at similar sites. Trip generation rates and equations in the manual have been developed for the average weekday, Saturday and Sunday; the weekday morning and evening peak hours of the land use category; the weekday morning and evening peak hours that occur during the traditional commuting peak hours of the adjacent street traffic (that is, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.); and the Saturday and Sunday peak hours of the land use category. In some cases limited data was available; thus, the statistics presented may not be truly representative of the trip generation characteristics of a particular land use. There are at least four general situations when a Lead Agency should consider using an alternative to ITE Trip Generation Manual rates:  When ITE data is insufficient  When the project’s land use category has trip generation characteristics that differ from categories covered by ITE  When the project’s land use context differs substantially from the suburban, single-use context covered by ITE  When the project includes a mix of land uses. Potential alternatives to ITE Trip Generation Manual rates include mixed-use methodologies, locally-validated rates, and other rates adopted by public agencies. In all cases, the VTA Guidelines emphasize that the choice of trip generation methodology relies on the professional judgment of Lead Agency staff and transportation planning and engineering consultants. Trip Reduction Strategies To reflect current development practice at the local level, the 2014 update permits transportation impact analyses to reflect a project’s approach to reducing vehicle trips. Three approaches are identified: City of Palo Alto Page 8  Standard Approach: This approach allows projects to take specific percentage reductions for defined trip reduction strategies, including reductions for mixed-use projects, pass-by trips, transit proximity, and transportation demand management (TDM) programs. CEQA requires substantial evidence to support all analysis decisions.  Peer/Study-Based Approach: This approach allows projects to take trip reductions based on documented examples of similar land uses or similar TDM programs. For example, an employer with a robust TDM program may take a Peer/Study-Based Approach when conducting a transportation impact analysis for a new campus, since the TDM program would continue at the proposed project site. This approach allows for greater reductions than the Standard Approach, but requires more rigorous documentation and ongoing monitoring to ensure that trip generation remains consistent with what was proposed in the analysis.  Target-Based Approach: The approach allows projects to take trip reductions based on a target that is agreed to by the developer and the lead agency. For example, a developer may agree to operate within a trip cap or single-occupant vehicle mode share target. This approach allows for greater reductions than the Standard Approach, but requires more rigorous documentation and ongoing monitoring to ensure that trip generation remains consistent with what was proposed in the transportation impact analysis. Queuing Analysis Recommendations In many cases, isolated intersection LOS analysis does not accurately capture the effects of new development on the transportation network. To address this issue, the 2014 update provides new guidance on when a supplemental queuing analysis is appropriate, including four broadly- defined situations:  Where significant auto LOS impacts to CMP intersections are identified;  At on-ramps with existing or planned operational ramp meters;  At off-ramps controlled by signals at junctions with local streets;  At any other intersection or freeway on-ramp, based on engineering judgment, proximity of the project to a freeway interchange, existing queuing situations (such as spillback onto local streets from on ramps), or localized conditions along the project’s frontage. Multimodal Level of Service Analysis Methods The VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines requires quality of service (QOS) analysis for bicycle and pedestrian modes when projects make changes to roadway and/or intersection geometry or signal operations. The changes can result from project implementation (e.g. frontage changes) or from mitigations to project-related auto LOS impacts. Bicycle and/or pedestrian capacity analysis is only required for projects that generate unusually high numbers of bicycle and pedestrian trips (e.g. Levi’s Stadium). The VTA guidelines do not specify which QOS methodologies should be used, but do provide guidance on existing methodologies, such as the Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index, Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS), and City of Palo Alto Page 9 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress. The choice of methodology is up to the lead agency in charge of the TIA, and is expected to vary according to project type and land use context. Nationally, there is increased interest in making transportation investment decisions based on how the system performs. Driven by a recognition of the need to be accountable to the users of system, public agencies are working to identify performance measures that help them demonstrate how infrastructure investments meet the goals that they have set for their transportation systems. In addition, recent federal legislation requires states and regional agencies report on the performance of the transportation system. At the national level, much of the work conducted to identify performance measures has focused on automobile travel, addressing issues such as traffic congestion, safety, freight movement, and other issues. Increasingly, public agencies interested in investing in active transportation modes have recognized the need to identify performance measures that help put these modes on equal footing. This next section of the staff report describes several recently developed tools that are intended to improve our understanding of the performance of active transportation systems, specifically focused on the comfort of travelers. Safety performance measures are also typically examined, but these are somewhat easier to collect, calculate, and explain; they are not addressed here. Summary of Key Issues On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law and started a process intended to fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include elimination of auto delay, motor vehicle level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. Furthermore, parking impacts will not be considered significant impacts on the environment for select development projects within infill areas served by frequent transit service. According to the legislative intent contained in SB 743, these changes to current practice were necessary to, “More appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” To implement this intent, SB 743 contains amendments to current congestion management law that allows cities and counties to effectively opt-out of the LOS standards that would otherwise apply in areas where Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) are still used. Further, SB 743 requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to update the CEQA guidelines and establish, “... criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas.” The new criteria, “… shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” Once the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency certifies the new guidelines, then “…automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular City of Palo Alto Page 10 capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment…, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” OPR plans to submit new guidelines to the Resources Agency during the summer of 2016 and is recommending VMT as the preferred CEQA transportation metric and the elimination of motor vehicle delay and LOS statewide. (A link to OPR’s draft guideline is provided below.) As noted above, SB 743 requires impacts to transportation network performance to be viewed through a filter that promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. VMT can help identify how projects (land development and infrastructure) influence accessibility (i.e., access to places and people) and emissions so its selection is aligned with the objectives of SB 743. The draft guidelines require analysis of the induced travel effects of roadway capacity expansion projects, which is a significant change from the past. The guidelines recommend accessing trip length and VMT estimates from the California Statewide Passenger Travel Demand Model. This statewide model has not been calibrated and validated for local area applications consistent with the expectations set forth in the modeling guidance contained in the California Regional Transportation Guidelines (2010). More refined data is available through metropolitan planning organization models. Other reliable sources of trip length or VMT data include the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) and mobile device data from assorted vendors. Accessibility is an important planning objective in many communities but so is travel time or delay experienced by users. SB 743 does not prevent a city or county from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e. the general plan), fee programs, or on-going network monitoring, but these metrics will no longer constitute the sole basis for CEQA impacts. With SB 743 eliminating level of service as the primary transportation impact metric under CEQA, transportation impact analysis for CMP purposes will have to be done in parallel with (and not as part of) the CEQA analysis. The same will be true if Palo Alto chooses to maintain LOS thresholds within its Comprehensive Plan. In both cases, projects can be evaluated for consistency with the adopted plans, but this will not be considered a CEQA analysis. The latest draft of the new guidelines includes specifications for VMT methodology and recommendations for significance thresholds. The draft guidelines can be accessed here: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Revised_VMT_CEQA_Guidelines_Proposal_January_20_2016.pdf A slide presentation used as part of a recent SB 743 webinar hosted by OPR can be found here: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/743_February_2016_Webinar.pdf. The recording of the most recent webinar is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9m9ddQk78Q&feature=youtu.be City of Palo Alto Page 11 Changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) – VTA Response The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) submitted two rounds of comments to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) regarding implementation of SB 743. The first set of comments, submitted to OPR in April 2014 and included as Attachment C, requested the following:  Application of new CEQA guidelines statewide, instead of just within Transit Priority Areas,  Delegation of authority to set VMT thresholds to agencies at the County/CMA level,  Advanced notification of transit agencies early in the CEQA process, and  Clarification of methods to determine significant impacts in areas that are well served by transit. The second set of comments, submitted to OPR in February 2016 and included as Attachment D, requested the following:  Expeditious development of new CEQA guidelines,  Retention language impacts to the performance and safety of transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities,  Retention of tie to Congestion Management Programs (CMPs),  Inclusion of language outlining the role of Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs) in setting VMT thresholds,  Clarification of the definition of “major transit stops,”  Development of more appropriate fair-share framework for the significance threshold for transportation projects,  Clarification of the level of analysis required for the addition of turn-lanes at intersections,  Discussion of required Analysis Scenarios,  Discussion of relationship between roadway speeds and transit performance,  Inclusion of additional countermeasures for pedestrian safety and comfort,  Discussion of target-based VMT reduction requirements in the Mitigation Measures section,  Review of performance of new CEQA guidelines one to two years after adoption, and  Support for statewide research on VMT. The current draft guidelines from OPR include a two-year opt-in period for agencies, which is estimated to begin in January 2017. When the opt-in period ends, all agencies, including cities, will be required to have implemented the new guidelines and use VMT for determining significant impacts under CEQA. Cities are permitted to opt in and begin implementing the new guidelines immediately. Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Level of service (LOS) refers to a commonly used methodology to describe the experience of motorists using a transportation facility. There are calculation methodologies for roadway segments and intersections. The methods have evolved over many years to take into account City of Palo Alto Page 12 various factors, including vehicle delay, congestion, and increasingly travel time reliability (i.e., the predictability of travel time across time of day, day of week, and season). LOS is defined through the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), a publication of the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The HCM is updated regularly through research funded by TRB and other agencies, including the U.S. Department of Transportation and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). In 2010, the HCM consolidated and updated methodologies for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit into a Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS), based on research conducted for TRB. This research sought to develop a single, nationally consistent methodology which would achieve three objectives. The full report is available here: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_616.pdf The NCHRP researchers sought to develop a single, nationally consistent methodology which would achieve three objectives. • Enable comparability of meanings for LOS grades across modes • Establish models for predicting LOS that reflect the interactions across modes • Establish a credible national basis for multimodal framework and models Researchers gathered traveler satisfaction data based on imagery of roadways, bikeways, sidewalks, and transit systems using video. Regression models of input variables were tested and fit to the data. The recommended models produced scores which were categorized into ranges and translated to letter grades. When adopted into the HCM some changes were made, primarily to the pedestrian model. The bicycle LOS model based on several input variables: • Driveway conflicts/mile • Vehicles/hour in the peak period • Vehicle through lanes • Speed • Percent heavy vehicles • Pavement condition • Width of outside lane • On-street parking occupancy • Street and bicycle lane width; and • For intersections, the width of streets crossed by the bicycle lane The pedestrian LOS model uses several of the same input variables as the bicycle LOS model, and both may be developed concurrently. Pedestrian LOS models compute pedestrian density to determine the level of service for an urban street, or may focus specifically on sidewalks and City of Palo Alto Page 13 pedestrian waiting areas at signalized intersection street corners. Other models determine a level of service for an urban street based on factors other than density. These input variables include: • Width of sidewalk and buffer • Width of outside lane • Pedestrian flow rate • Vehicles through lanes • Shoulder width • Presence of barrier • Speed In addition to the HCM model, there are several other LOS-like efforts. For example, the City of Charlotte has established a point-based bicycle and pedestrian LOS system for intersections that accounts for features that support or detract from the user experience, including speeds, volumes, and the number and type of turning movements and conflicts. The primary purpose of the method is to evaluate the impact of roadway improvements of bicyclists and pedestrians. Charlotte’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service methodologies are provided as Attachment E. There are several potential issues with using the HCM methodology to support analysis of bicycle investment, including: • Relevant to a limited portion of the street network. Only arterials and collectors were included in developing the model, but bicycle networks include a wide variety of street types. In a City like Palo Alto, bicycle boulevards on local streets and Class I trails provide critical links in a connected network that may not be measureable within the LOS context, though some simplifying assumptions could be used (e.g., consider these types of facilities to LOS A. • The definitions of level of service are not clearly explained. The TRB work simply defines LOS A as ‘Best Performance’ and LOS F as ‘Worst Performance’. But the breaks between the letter grades are not necessarily intuitive. This makes setting a target for acceptable LOS challenging. • Limited model fit. The fit of the model describes how well the predicted ratings match those made by users. Two possible models were developed, one of which correctly predicted 27 percent of cases; the correctly predicted 46 percent. If a tolerance of 1 letter grade is given, the fit improves to 77 to 85 percent. While this is not an uncommon level of fit for a statistical model, it does raise concerns with the usefulness of LOS as a decision-making tool. Level of Traffic Stress Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis was developed in 2012 by the Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) and documented in MTI Report 11-19: Low-Stress Bicycling and Network City of Palo Alto Page 14 Connectivity. Unlike LOS, LTS applies to all types of facilities used by bicyclists and is focused on the bicyclist perspective, instead of pivoting from an auto-centric measure. The full report is available here: http://transweb.sjsu.edu/project/1005.html. LTS is a four-point scale that captures the level of stress that bicyclists experience using various transportation facilities. It corresponds to the types of cyclists characterized by Portland’s bicycle coordinator Roger Geller in his Four Types of Cyclists report:  LTS 1, is assigned to roads that are tolerable for most children to ride and to multi-use paths that are separated from motorized traffic  LTS 2 roads are those that could be comfortably ridden by the mainstream adult population, often referred to as “interested, but concerned” cyclists.  LTS 3 is the level assigned to roads that would be acceptable to current “enthused and confident” cyclists  LTS 4 is assigned to segments that are only acceptable to “strong and fearless” cyclists, who will tolerate riding on roadways with higher motorized traffic volumes and speeds. The definitions for each level of traffic stress are shown Table 1. Table 1: Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS) Definitions LTS 1 Presenting little traffic stress and demanding little attention from cyclists, and attractive enough for a relaxing bike ride. Suitable for almost all cyclists, including children trained to safely cross intersections. On links, cyclists are either physically separated from traffic, or are in an exclusive bicycling zone next to a slow traffic stream with no more than one lane per direction, or are on a shared road where they interact with only occasional motor vehicles (as opposed to a stream of traffic) with a low speed differential. Where cyclists ride alongside a parking lane, they have ample operating space outside the zone into which car doors are opened. Intersections are easy to approach and cross. LTS 2 Presenting little traffic stress and therefore suitable to most adult cyclists but demanding more attention than might be expected from children. On links, cyclists are either physically separated from traffic, or are in an exclusive bicycling zone next to a well-confined traffic stream with adequate clearance from a parking lane, or are on a shared road where they interact with only occasional motor vehicles (as opposed to a stream of traffic) with a low speed differential. Where a bike lane lies between a through lane and a right-turn lane, it is configured to give cyclists unambiguous priority where cars cross the bike lane and to keep car speed in the right-turn lane comparable to bicycling speeds. Crossings are not difficult for most adults. City of Palo Alto Page 15 LTS 3 More traffic stress than LTS 2, yet markedly less than the stress of integrating with multilane traffic, and therefore welcome to many people currently riding bikes in American cities. Offering cyclists either an exclusive riding zone (lane) next to moderate-speed traffic or shared lanes on streets that are not multilane and have moderately low speed. Crossings may be longer or across higher-speed roads than allowed by LTS 2, but are still considered acceptably safe to most adults. LTS 4 A level of stress beyond LTS3. Source: Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11-19. The primary data for measuring LTS include roadway network data, including:  Number of lanes in each direction  Presence of centerline marking  Presence of a median & width of median  Presence of on-street parking & width of on-street parking (when next to a bike lane)  Posted speed limit (mph)  Functional roadway class (residential, arterial, freeway)  Segment length (for calculating detours)  Bike lane widths  Bike lane treatment at intersections (pocket bike lanes, abrupt end to bike lane, etc.)  Presence and length of left turn lanes Some cities have used a subset of these attributes to generate a LTS-light score, with potential concerns for the accuracy of the analysis. Some factors, like posted speed and number of travel lanes impact every roadway segment and proxies can significantly alter results, while factors like length of left turns lanes only impact analysis in small number of circumstances. The primary use of LTS has been to examine the connectivity of the bicycle network. The MTI report defines a connected network as one where all links meet or exceed a particular level of stress. The reasoning for this is that traditional methods typically do not consider issues like lane drops at intersections that have a significant impact on bicyclist comfort using facilities. The other advantage of this approach is that it links the proposed network to the user group. For example, if an objective is to attract ‘interested, but concerned’ bicyclists, a network that provides LTS level 2 connectivity should be evaluated. City of Palo Alto Page 16 The Google Bike Network Stress Test While LTS provides a method more closely related to user experience, one limitation of LTS is the lack of connection to the use of the system. LTS can identify network gaps, but these gaps are only relevant if they consider how bicyclists use the network. The Bike Network Stress Test developed for the Google Bike Vision Plan is a destination-based analysis tool for measuring the quality of a given bike network. The model uses a simplified form of LTS to ensure ease of use across jurisdictions. The full plan is available here: https://16294-presscdn-0-20-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/Google-Bike-Vision- Plan_high_res.pdf The Bike Network Stress Test is based on academic research that evaluated how bicyclists make route choices using GPS data.1 This research noted that bicyclists experience stressful roadways as longer than they are and low stress facilities, like bike paths, as shorter than they are. Based on a combination of roadway characteristics (lanes, traffic, speed limit, etc.) and bicycle facility types (lanes, bicycle boulevards, multi-use paths) this method generates an estimate of the impact on the level of stress (in terms of perceived distance) for the user. Bicycle paths, for example, reduce expected level of stress (i.e., perceived distance of these facilities is less than actual). Other conditions increase the level of stress (perceived distance greater than actual). This approach is an adaptation of the level of stress method described above that has three components:  Streets are evaluated for their level of stress based on roadway characteristics – in other words, how much stress does the street add, regardless of bicycle facilities. Streets with higher speeds, volumes, and lanes generally add more stress  Bicycle facilities are categorized by type – from Class I shared use paths to bicycle boulevards to bicycle lanes. The combination of the roadway categorization and the bicycle facility categorization yields a stress score for every segment  Geographic Information System (GIS) routing algorithms are used to determine the most likely bike route taken from anywhere in a given network to one or more destinations, taking into account the above research on willingness of bicyclists to travel out of direction. In combination, this method can provide a picture of who and how many people can and will travel by bicycle to reach a particular destination. Most of the work on this method has focused on commuters, though the academic research on which it is based also developed factors for other utilitarian trips. 1 Broach, Joseph, Jennifer Dill, and John Glebe. Where do cyclists ride? A route choice model developed with revealed preference GPS data. Transportation Research Part A 46 (2012) 1730-1740. City of Palo Alto Page 17 The Bike Network Stress Test offers several measures of bike network quality, including stress measurements for expected bike routes, measurements of network connectivity, and projection of bicyclist mode share. Specific analyses include:  Total Stress Analysis – This measure captures the total accumulated stress of each selected route from all origins to a specific destination.  Average Stress Analysis – This measure normalizes the total stress scores by the distance traveled, allowing a comparison across a map of the average amount of stress a bicyclist will encounter along their most likely route.  Incremental Stress Analysis – This measure normalizes the total stress relative to the minimum amount of possible stress (i.e., if the whole route were a Class I path). This helps to measure the connectivity of the bike route throughout the length of the chosen route.  Network Connectivity – This measure displays the bike network available to a bicyclist based on their tolerance for stressful roadway segments. It can display whether the available network meets their needs and if the available network offers continuous, connected routes to their destination. The method for the Bicycle Network Stress Test was developed specifically in consideration of the type of urban form of the Peninsula and, through the Google Bike Vision Plan, was applied to many routes within Palo Alto, with Google’s Mountain View campus as the destination. Similar analyses could easily be conducted with other destinations. Alta also recently applied a version of this method to the Cupertino Bike Plan Update, which included selecting a set of employment, shopping, and recreational destinations to help define a set of low stress bicycle network investments that have a significant benefit for Cupertino. Policy Implications The following Goals, Policies and Programs from the Comprehensive Plan are directly related to this discussion: • Program H-2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including, traffic capacity, are available. • Policy L-67: Balance traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable neighborhoods that are designed and oriented towards pedestrians. • Program T-1: Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit, bicycling, and walking. • Program T-3: Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near multi- modal transit stations. • Policy T-2: Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. • Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective City of Palo Alto Page 18 programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. • Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. • Program T-32: Improve pedestrian crossings with bulbouts, small curb radii, street trees near corners, bollards, and landscaping to create protected areas. • Policy T-27: Avoid major increases in street capacity unless necessary to remedy severe traffic congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists. • Policy T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. • Policy T-49: Lead and participate in initiatives to manage regional traffic. • Policy T-56: Support state and federal legislation to reduce motor vehicle emissions, noise, and fuel consumption. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Comprhensive Plan Update recently considered potential changes to the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and has forwarded their draft recommendations to the City Council for review (now scheduled for September 19). Based on extensive discussions at a transportation subcommitte and the full CAC, the draft Transportation Element includes policies related to LOS, MMLOS, and VMT, as well as a wide range of other transportation and parking topics. Resource Impact As this is a study session and no action will be taken, resource impacts are limited to the staff and consultant resources required to prepare for and staff this Council meeting. Timeline As this is a study session and no action will be taken, the timeline for any future action items will be included in staff reports for those items. Environmental Review As this is a study session and no action will be taken, environmental review is not required. Attachments:  Attachment A - PTC Minutes 06-29-2016 (PDF)  Attachment B - VTA CMP Intersections (PDF)  Attachment C - VTA Comments SB 743 04-16-2014 (PDF)  Attachment D - VTA Comments SB 743 02-29-2016 (PDF)  Attachment E - City of Charlotte BLOS+PLOS Approach (PDF) City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 1 1 ===============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26================= This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. 2 3 Wednesday, June 29, 2016 Regular Meeting 4 12:00 PM, Council Chambers 5  6  7 Call to Order / Roll Call: 6:05 PM 8 Commissioner Alcheck absent, Commissioner Downing late 9  10 Chair Fine: Order this meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for June 11 29th and Robin if you would please take roll.  12  13 Robin Ellner, Administrative Associate III: Commissioner Alcheck, Commissioner Downing, Chair 14 Fine, Vice‐Chair Gardias, oh this is an old one, Commissioner Rosenblum, Commissioner Tanaka, 15 Commissioner Waldfogel; five present. And also before we begin the meeting tonight a 16 reminder that the July 13th meeting is canceled.   17  18 Chair Fine: Thank you very much.  19  20 Oral Communications 21 The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 22 None 23  24 Chair Fine: I don't believe there are any additions or deletions? Nope. Director Gitelman if you 25 have a report we’d… We can do Oral Communications first. Yes, thanks. Any cards? None, none. 26  27 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 28 The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. 29 None 30  31 City Official Reports 32  33 Assistant Director’s Report  34 Director Gitelman provided the Commission updates on City Council items. 35  36 Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: Ok, ok. Well thank you. Hillary Gitelman, the Director. I’m 37 standing in this evening for Jon, Jonathan Lait, who is on a well‐deserved vacation. Already on 38 the East Coast presumably laying on a beach somewhere or will be in the morning. I just 39 wanted to report on the City Council's activities of the last couple weeks. They've been busy 40 because they're heading out on their summer break starting today.  41 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 2 There was a meeting on June 20th where they considered the Commission's recommendation 1 on the Midtown Connector and they ultimately decided that they were not interested in 2 pursuing that trail along the Matadero Creek and directed staff to consider that alternate 3 alignment that you looked at on Loma Verde. So you'll probably hear more about that in the 4 future. Then just this week the Council had two meetings, one on Monday and one on Tuesday 5 night. On Monday night they really discussed the transport… the idea of a business tax for 6 transportation purposes. I don't know if you've been following that, but it was a really 7 interesting discussion and they ultimately decided not to put something on this year's ballot, 8 but to start laying the groundwork to potentially put something on the ballot in 2017 or 2018. 9 So I'm sure we will all be hearing more about that in the coming year.  10  11 Then just last night the Council discussed the Commission's recommendation on the Maybell 12 tentative map and they followed your recommendation and approved the project last night 13 really with no changes although there was quite a healthy discussion of a number of issues. 14 Then finally the Council had jurisdiction over a change to the final subdivision map that was 15 approved for part of for the Mayfield development project at the end of California Avenue. And 16 so there was a long discussion of that because of hazardous materials that have been found on 17 the site and ultimately they ended up approving this minor amendment to the, to the final map. 18 And that's, that's it. So they don't meet again until August 15th. We're already working on the 19 staff reports for August 15th. So thank you very much. 20  21 Chair Fine: Thank you very much, Director. I’d just like for the record Commissioner Downing 22 has joined us. We have two items tonight a comment letter related to the Draft Environmental 23 Impact Report (DEIR) for two projects in Menlo Park, while the Facebook Campus project and 24 for the Comp Plan Update and a study session tonight on some different measures of traffic and 25 transit.  26  27 Action Items 28 Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. 29 All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker. 30  31 Study Session 32 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker. 33  34 1. Review of City of Palo Alto Comment Letters Related to the Draft Environmental Impact 35 Reports Prepared for two Separate Projects: The Facebook Campus Expansion Project in 36 the City of Menlo Park and the City of Menlo Park Comprehensive Plan Update 37  38 Chair Fine: Let's begin with Item Number 1 and does staff have a report? 39  40 Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director: I’d like to introduce Meg Monroe on our staff who's going 41 to take us through this first item and has been working to prepare these draft letters. 42  43 Meg Monroe, Management Specialist: Good evening. I'd like to just begin by saying I don't 44 know that you’ve had an occasion to review one of these before so I wanted to remind you that 45 a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is a disclosure document. The purpose is to identify 46 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 3 and to analyze environmental effects that a project might cause. And our responsibility as a city 1 when somebody prepares one of these is to review it and focus on concerns that Palo Alto 2 might have that for one reason or another might not have been addressed or might not have 3 been adequately mitigated when there are suggestions in the DEIR. We make comments. We 4 ask for either for information or we raise questions for further evaluation for those preparing 5 the DEIR. In this case it would be to the City of Menlo Park and their consultants.  6  7 As staff we've prepared… I drew the short straw maybe. I was the staff lead in Planning on this 8 and I didn't do it by myself. I worked with Joe Teresi in Public Works and his areas of focus are 9 San Francisquito Creek flooding and water quality. I worked with Jarrett Mullen, Transportation 10 Planner. He looked at the traffic and bicycle circulation proposals that were made and Jim 11 Wadleigh who is the maintenance manage, I'm sorry, Manager of Maintenance and Operations 12 at the airport who looked at impacts of the airport's presence would have on the development 13 proposed. As staff we’ve prepared two letters. They’re attached to your staff report, A and B. 14 We don't expect you to read the documents; I thought I'd bring them just so you could see 15 what I did read and to review our comments and add any questions that you might have that 16 we would add to our comments. Before we sort of get into that part it was suggested that we 17 go briefly through a description of what the projects are to help you orient and I have never 18 used this PowerPoint before so… This one? Oh, page down. I see. Ok. Sorry about that. 19  20 There are two, Menlo Park managed to release these two draft environmental documents 21 virtually simultaneously and one encompasses the other so the larger document is the Connect 22 Menlo document which is the document on the General Plan, the Land Use Element update, 23 and the circulation element for the whole city plus the environmental analysis of some rezoning 24 for the Bayfront Area. The plan would increase the current… would include the Facebook 25 Expansion so it's a little hard in reading the two DEIRs to figure out which is what, but the plan 26 is the larger document it and its main besides refocusing I'm going to go down here one more if 27 I can. Yeah. This is the land use map taken out of the DEIR. The grey area at the top is the 28 Bayfront Area which is the area that they are amending the land used designations for and then 29 they're also doing some amendment for the red area along El Camino Real; however, the DEIR 30 addresses the entire document which includes the Conservation and Safety Element and so 31 forth and so the impacts that are shown or discussed are for the entire plan.  32  33 The Facebook Expansion Project… let’s see I’ll do this again. The Facebook Expansion Project is 34 actually a redevelopment of a 58 acre parcel that is on the Bayfront. This is the site location 35 map. You can see the area that's surrounded in black is the site. They would be building a total 36 of 1,200,000 square feet (sf) of new floor area, but it's only a net increase of 121,300 sf. In 37 other words they are virtually replacing what's there, but they are changing a lot of the uses 38 from warehouse to office uses and they're adding at the very end they're adding a hotel which 39 you can see on this slide. It's a little hard to see if you've got your ones at your desk there are 40 two new buildings, 22 I think it’s 21 and 22 and then the hotel at the very end. The two 41 buildings at either extreme ends 20 and 23 are existing and will remain and be there. Traffic 42 impacts will be incorporated into the analysis, but those buildings aren't going to be expanded 43 or changed.  44  45 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 4 So that pretty much covers the projects and sort of a bird's eye view. The comments on the 1 DEIR for Connect Menlo are due on July 15 and the comments on the Facebook Campus 2 expansion are due on July 11th. And our next step would be to get your comments and revise 3 the letters as you see fit. I should note that at your desks you have a letter from Nielsen 4 Buchanan at 155 Bryant Street informing you of his concerns relating to the two DEIRS. I'm 5 assuming that Mr. Nielsen would submit that letter to Menlo Park. And I'd be happy to answer 6 any questions or take any comments you have. 7  8 Chair Fine: Thank you very much. Do we have any speaker cards on this issue? 9  10 Vice‐Chair Gardias: As you have suggested we have a speaker card for Neilson Buchannan.  So 11 sir if you could take please five minutes. 12  13 Neilson Buchannan: I'll try not to use five minutes. Neilson Buchannan, 155 Bryant. I sort of 14 have a fantasy of what you might do at the end of this discussion and that you would give 15 yourself a self‐appraisal on how well you prepared comments to another neighboring city. I 16 personally think this is a unique opportunity to have some interface commentary even meet 17 and confer with Menlo Park. The system is staged against any meaningful content and 18 comment given the time frames that that are on. That sort of confounds the whole process as 19 far as I'm concerned. If you go to development tricks 101 you'll learn that first thing you do is to 20 launch two big projects on a very tight time frame. That will make sure everybody is thoroughly 21 confused and can't comment. That be as it may that's the system that we operate under.  22  23 If you want to evaluate yourself I have two polar examples of how you might want to evaluate 24 yourself. If you think this is a relatively unimportant and benign process, that there is no traffic, 25 there's no housing concerns between the two cities or nearby then you could give yourself an A 26 plus. There's no reason to get very involved or do very much, the situation is harmless. On the 27 other hand if you think issues that confront our communities up and down the peninsula and 28 just using traffic and housing as two examples are really important and we're missing 29 opportunities left and right to do something about it. The transportation tax was a prime 30 example of get ready, aim, fire, and wait for the Palo Alto process to play out over the next two 31 years. I would or urge you to figure out which of the two scenarios are there. Is it relatively 32 benign? This is a bureaucratic process just go ahead and dismiss it going on or is this an 33 opportunity that could be a meet and confer comment period with some depth to it? It's a real 34 thankless process at this point on how do you do something.  35  36 I talked to several people in Palo Alto and in Menlo Park that isn't this something that should be 37 done? And people, the ordinary citizen just throw their hands up, that this is part of the 38 process, it's hopeless, there's no reason to become involved.  Expectations of the Planning 39 Commission and City Councils are so low that why get involved? I don't believe that is the case. 40 I don't know how to solve this particular problem that I see it as a wonderful opportunity that is 41 going to come and go, but if you chose to there would be a chance to start meeting and 42 conferring with Menlo Park about what really is going on outside the boundaries of the 43 commentary of DEIRs.  44  45 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 5 I recall and I think it was in the discussion of the Transportation Management Association 1 (TMA) that several overtures are made. We need to sit down and talk to the neighboring towns 2 about whether the TMAs could be more compatible and more viable. That's just one tiny 3 example assuming we have a TMA to even talk about. So I close on hoping that you will have a 4 healthy discussion on whether this is important or not and if there's anything you could do 5 better than what's going to happen tonight and at the end of the day give yourself a grade. I 6 think that process starts a better dialogue. Thank you. 7  8 Chair Fine: Thank you very much Mr. Buchannan. No other cards so I'd like to open it up to both 9 comments and questions from Commissioners. I think this is, Commissioner Downing, I think 10 you’re first. 11  12 Commissioner Downing: So I think you have correctly identified that we don't see all that many 13 of these kind of letters so I wanted to ask some background information just kind of before we 14 kick off comments. So the first one is I do want to understand a little bit about Environmental 15 Impact Reports (EIR) and their scope and whether or not or how unusual it is for an EIR that's 16 for a particular city to take into account cities and streets and congestion outside of its 17 jurisdiction. Is that a normal thing for another city to do? 18  19 Ms. Gitelman: Thanks for the question. I think there is an obligation to look at the impacts 20 wherever they might occur. With that said obviously cities focus primarily on their own 21 jurisdiction, but if there are spillover impacts to other communities or facilities that are outside 22 the cities jurisdiction: freeways, on ramps, freeway segments it is the agency's responsibility to 23 identify those impacts. 24  25 Commissioner Downing: Are there any examples of projects that have come up in the last year 26 or two were Palo Alto’s EIRs have studied impacts on either Menlo Park or Mountain View? 27  28 Ms. Gitelman: We have the Comp Plan EIR that we've been working on for a while and we do 29 look at freeway segments and freeway ramps that are outside our jurisdiction. I don't 30 remember exactly what the boundaries of our analysis are, but again it is your obligation to 31 identify the impacts where they would occur irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries and so we 32 have tried to do that. 33  34 Commissioner Downing: Can you think of a project that did that though? 35  36 Ms. Gitelman: Well, we don't do a lot of EIRs. Oh, the Hospital Medical Center was probably the 37 last big EIR and that did look at the impacts on adjacent jurisdictions, yes. 38  39 Commissioner Downing: Ok. And then I guess if a city found that let’s say Menlo Park looks at 40 our letter. Let’s say they decide that they fully mitigated. They believe that their EIR does the 41 mitigation that it ought to do or in fact they go ahead and decide that there were overriding 42 considerations. At that point in time what recourse if any does Palo Alto have against that 43 assessment? 44  45 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 6 Ms. Gitelman: Well I think it would be I wouldn’t want to speculate that we just like wouldn't 1 reach agreement. We're at the phase now where we're in good faith going to offer comments 2 and hope that the comments will be responded to and the Final Environmental Impact Report 3 (FEIR) will be adequate in terms of addressing the impacts. I think you're getting to a point that 4 is an important one and that's partly the reason why we tend to bring these comment letters to 5 the Council and failing the Council to the Commission because tone is important. I mean the 6 expression what goes around comes around, if you make a snarky comment on someone's EIR 7 they're going to make one back to your EIR. So we don't want to enter into an arms race here. 8 We want to be respectful, identify issues that we think need to be surfaced, ask respectful 9 questions, and expect that our colleagues across the border will be do the responsible and 10 professional thing and respond in kind.  11  12 Commissioner Downing: Ok, well let me proceed to ask the lawyerly question. If for whatever 13 reason we are unsatisfied with Menlo Park’s determination, not that we would, but technically 14 do we have standing to sue on that EIR? As a city. 15  16 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes, the City does have standing to sue and there 17 actually have been some lawsuits including lawsuits against Palo Alto where other agencies 18 have sued cities over EIR determinations.  19  20 Commissioner Downing: Ok. So those are my questions for now. I’m going to hold off on 21 comments until others have had a chance to ask their questions as well. 22  23 Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Downing. I don't see any other lights. Commissioner 24 Rosenblum. 25  26 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, I think that in your letter there are a number of issues that you 27 raise to the city and it’s around hazards and hazardous material and then traffic at some 28 specific intersections to study. My guess is the community is largely concerned about traffic. So 29 to the extent that this is a body that represents the community and their questions that 30 surround the impact on traffic in various places.  The Facebook, the Facebook project I would 31 think is the simpler of the two discussed because it's a more discrete project and Facebook runs 32 an active shuttle program and polls their own employees so they have a pretty good idea of 33 where people coming from. To what extent did Facebook cooperate? And as you noted the 34 whole EIR is a thick document and so I might not have seen this; is there submission from 35 Facebook on the point to point transportation plans of the marginal employees that they would 36 house in these, in these facilities? So i.e. what we’d be concerned about in particular is how 37 many of them would have to transit through Palo Alto? So to what extent would that 38 overburden some of our roadways? And they probably already have this data and certainly I 39 know when I worked at Google we had it and we knew where every employee was coming 40 from, had pretty detailed maps on this.  41  42 Ms. Monroe: I didn't see anything in the document about origin destination of employees. I 43 think it's a legitimate question to ask them and nor did they expound upon their Transportation 44 Demand Management (TDM) program beyond saying that they ought to have one. 45  46 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 7 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. 1  2 Ms. Monroe: And you may have noted our response about that. 3  4 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes. 5  6 Ms. Monroe: That short terms fine, but what if there are 50 businesses there later? 7  8 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. 9  10 Ms. Monroe: And so that's really what I think the Planning Department would make a condition 11 on the approval.  12  13 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah so that's what I would ask for is a detailed Facebook plan and 14 also the data that Facebook currently has on a number of expected marginal employee counts 15 and then the expected burden on Palo Alto streets and then what TDM measures they expect 16 to have in place which I know that you've asked for. But they again, I assume they actually have 17 planned this. This shouldn't be a burden on them. 18  19 Ms. Monroe: And they do have a program in place so yeah they should have information. 20  21 Commissioner Rosenblum: The Menlo Park plan is in some ways similar, but they don't know 22 what the impacts will be of zoning for additional housing. But I wanted to ask some questions 23 about that. So is it correct they're planning on zoning for additional 5,500 units? Is that 24 (interrupted)  25  26 Ms. Monroe: That's what they indicated. 27  28 Commissioner Rosenblum: Over what period of time? 29  30 Ms. Monroe: To 2040. 31  32 Commissioner Rosenblum: 2040, right? 33  34 Ms. Monroe: Yes. 35  36 Commissioner Rosenblum: So this is in line and so how does that compare to their Association 37 of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) commitment? 38  39 Ms. Monroe: It's a lot higher than their ABAG. 40  41 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes so the first comment I wanted to make is as to the extent that 42 we're doing our job and commenting as a Planning Commission to a neighboring city is huge 43 kudo's. These guys are stepping up to the plate and helping out with our regional problem of 44 housing. So to the extent that we’re taking this job seriously and commenting on what they are 45 planning next door both the idea that they are taking a regional problem by the horns, adding 46 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 8 an attractive employer nearby where they're adding their housing it seems like a rational thing 1 to do. Having said that 5,500 units obviously adds pressure on the infrastructure itself and so 2 the other area I would comment on is I would as part of the Comprehensive Plan they should 3 have an idea of the sources of funding for the TDM. So they have ambitions for TDM, but not 4 where the funding would come from. And I know that this will feel hypocritical coming from 5 Palo Alto, but you’re again as the Planning Commissioner that is what I'd want to look for is 6 adding a significant population and what is their plan to mitigate.  7  8 The specific intersections that you identified to study I think are the obvious ones, but by the 9 same token I think that having a few projects together is useful. Seeing the Facebook transit 10 commute patterns and they should have more detailed data than even the City of Menlo Park I 11 would guess should give an idea of what a dramatic expansion of the City of Menlo Park should 12 do to traffic patterns. I know those are two different things employer versus housing. I fear they 13 don't have the data on where the pattern of commuting comes from people living in Menlo 14 Park, but certainly whatever data they currently have I didn't see it in the current EIR. And so to 15 the extent that you can extrapolate this I think they should submit that to us which is 16 destinations for current working population in Menlo Park because it's such a significant 17 population expansion. 18  19 Ms. Monroe: They're working in the… in the residence. 20  21 Commissioner Rosenblum: Correct.  22  23 Ms. Monroe: Ok. 24  25 Commissioner Rosenblum: And I would agree with Mr. Buchanan in the sense that this is a 26 dramatic population expansion which again as I said, I'm happy that one of our communities is 27 stepping up for this, but there are implications and I don't think that the DEIR addressed where 28 the additional load is going to be distributed. Those are all the basic questions I have for now. I 29 have some additional comments after other Commissioners might have their turn.  30  31 Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Rosenblum. Commissioner Waldfogel. 32  33 Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you. Let's see a couple comments on this, one I think is an 34 amplification of Commissioner Rosenblum’s question, but when you look at this and look at 35 assumptions about transit use, potential transit use, where does the transit capacity on the 36 peninsula get coordinated between different agencies? So if Menlo Park is assuming that they 37 can use every transit seat that's projected on Caltrain and Sunnyvale and Santa Clara and Palo 38 Alto who coordinates that and who keeps score? I don't know that we can resolve this through 39 this process, but it might be interesting to start a dialogue through this process if that's, if that's 40 possible.  41  42 The second point I want to thank you for raising, for coordinating with the airport team and 43 looking at those issues. I think there are also some state law issues. I think there's some issues 44 about potentially about San Mateo County's compliance with state law on land use plan. So I 45 think that that should be surfaced and maybe just ask them what their intent is around that and 46 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 9 just insure that they're complying with relevant state law and disclosures that are required. So 1 those are really two comments, two principal comments I would raise on this, but otherwise I 2 think that it's a good start on a ladder and it's thank you for reading all those documents so we 3 don't have to. 4  5 Chair Fine: Thank you.  Commissioner Tanaka. 6  7 Commissioner Tanaka: I have a quick question. So how much of an increase in population is this 8 for Menlo Park? I guess in terms of household and in terms of office in terms of people. 9  10 Ms. Monroe: I think it about doubles the population by 2040. It increases the employment a 11 little bit more than that. 12  13 Commissioner Tanaka: Do you know how much more? 14  15 Ms. Monroe: Not a whole lot more. You know there’s the daytime population, the nighttime 16 population I think would be about the same. 17  18 Commissioner Rosenblum: It's on 4.11‐17 of the report by the way just in case you're curious 19 It's 53 percent growth rate in population, 52 percent in households, 72 percent in employees.  20  21 Commissioner Tanaka: So it's very significant.  22  23 Ms. Monroe: Yes. 24  25 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, great.  Thank you. 26  27 Chair Fine: Vice‐Chair Gardias.   28  29 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. In addition to those, to those comments that my colleagues just 30 expressed and I'm not sure if their DEIR already includes the methodology of calculation we 31 know that it's going to be changing because we will be having the same discussion in a couple 32 of minutes, right? I'd be curious if they would be in addition to the old California Environmental 33 Quality Act (CEQA) methodology if there would be also an updated document they would be 34 translating this to the new document that would be just showing the vehicle miles traveled. So 35 that's number one.  36  37 And in terms of methodology because having such impactful increase of the population will this 38 will surely impact the adjacent streets and roads in a very significant way and that methodology 39 needs to be updated and clearly presented. I can foresee that for example those housed 40 employees that would be in the vicinity of the main campus may decide because of the simple 41 leisure desire to travel on Friday, Friday evening thus adding to the clogged street and those 42 that would be traveling home this way they will pretty much double traffic on Dumbarton 43 Bridge and that will impact Willow and that will impact Middlefield or University and pretty 44 much the cars will stall in Palo Alto. So they would have to clearly and carefully look at the 45 impact and at adjacent municipalities and major arteries. So that would be my comment in 46 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 10 terms of methodology and of course disclose it to us. I don't, I have not studied document. It 1 might be there but, I think this is a fair comment to ask. 2  3 In terms of the, from a different side in terms of the height could you tell us knowing that their 4 new development will be going to 75 feet is their current campus currently at 75 or it’s going 5 over that limit? 6  7 Ms. Monroe: I think that one building connects to an existing building which is close must be 8 close to that because the roof, roofs connect, but the buildings that are there on the site now 9 are about 35 feet. The ones that will be removed. 10  11 Vice‐Chair Gardias: 35? 12  13 Ms. Monroe: About. 14  15 Vice‐Chair Gardias: And but there is a Hacker Way, right?  1 Hacker Way, the campus that's in 16 the very close proximity, those buildings they are at 75 feet? 17  18 Ms. Monroe: I don't think so, I think they're like 54. 19  20 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Ok, so they are pretty much going significantly over the limit, right? So 21 understanding this my question and concern would be pretty much changing the view profile of 22 the bay because this way we're doing we're pretty much putting a number of the tall buildings 23 on the waterfront and that significantly changes the way that we're going to… pretty much see 24 the bay. Knowing that all over the bay on at least on the on the east side there is action to 25 return the former industrial salt conversion to the nature and then pretty much it's 26 automatically just puts all the development beyond the marshes.  27  28 Ms. Monroe: Right. 29  30 Vice‐Chair Gardias: But here we're just doing something else, we're just putting the tall 31 architecture on the very close to the water. So my concern would be about the impact of the 32 change of the changing landscape at the bay perimeter. 33  34 Ms. Monroe: Ok. 35  36 Vice‐Chair Gardias: How this reconciles with everybody’s expectation of this how Bay would 37 look like many years from now. Thank you. 38  39 Chair Fine: Thank you, Vice‐Chair. I just want to thank staff for going over this and putting 40 together a pretty concise and I think fairly appropriate letter to Menlo Park. I also appreciate 41 that the staff reached out to the Palo Alto Airport. I think that’s an important one. So at least 42 my first question, what other groups were contacted across Palo Alto? Were there any or is 43 (interrupted)  44  45 Ms. Monroe: Just the ones I described. Public Works there, this is a staff reviewed thing. 46 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 11 Chair Fine: Ok. And you just reached out to the airport because you thought (interrupted)  1  2 Ms. Monroe: I talked to, yes the operator of the airport. 3  4 Chair Fine: Ok. So I completely agree with Commissioner Rosenblum that there is, there is a 5 need to send Menlo Park some kudos for taking on a pretty ambitious plan like this given our 6 regional need for it. And I think Palo Alto could probably go a bit further in emphasizing that 7 Menlo Park specify the physical infrastructure improvements that are needed for some of those 8 assumptions. A few of them that come to mind; one is as Vice‐Chair just mentioned access to 9 the bay or views of it, there's the whole Bay Trail there, I think there's partially stuffed plan 10 through the Don Edwards area, but it's not built out yet, I'm not sure how this plan will affect 11 that. There's also an opportunity for us to convey experiences that Menlo Park might be 12 experiencing that we already have. So on that came to mind is retail preservation. I don't know 13 if Menlo Park’s interested in that at the moment, but I'm assuming they probably have similar 14 problems to Palo Alto and it may be worth considering or giving them our experiences.  15  16 I think the area that concerned me the most was kind of this confluence where Menlo Park, 17 Palo Alto, and East Palo Alto all come together. There's a whole lot of roads there that are 18 packed during commute hours. If you go through there nowadays there's a much, much larger 19 bicycle commuter population going through there whether it's going to businesses in Redwood 20 City to Google in Mountain View or to Facebook from any area on the peninsula. I don't think 21 we've been strong enough in emphasizing how important that is areas through like Belle Haven, 22 along 84, along the Bay Trail, Willow, really large bicycling areas and I think we could emphasize 23 that a bit more. I was a little surprised that the City had to comment, oh, well your bike plan is 24 out of date, you're not showing the latest routes. Go check out this manual. So there might be a 25 bit more digging there. 26  27 Two questions not related to this; so one is when is ABAG next update their projections, do we 28 know? 29  30 Ms. Gitelman: They're actually in the process of doing that right now. They're going through 31 kind of a scenario process and I forget I think sometime this fall they're supposed to land on a 32 scenario and then have a set of projections to follow. 33  34 Chair Fine: Ok, and this plan I mean will Menlo Park have to update anything once those are 35 released or they’re getting in before then? Ok. And the second question is do we know what 36 East Palo Alto is commenting about on this? Have they resubmitted their letter? Do we have 37 any idea? 38  39 Ms. Monroe: I don't know. Communities don't normally share their letters they send them to 40 Menlo Park. So I assume that they would have some response. 41  42 Chair Fine: Yes, I assume so. I hope so too. I guess just for me this area is becoming a lot hotter 43 in terms of development pressures and transit pressures and work stuff that there may be 44 some, some advantage to maybe share our letter with East Palo Alto and seeing if they have 45 any comments. I think that also speaks Mr. Buchanan’s point about regional cooperation for 46 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 12 these regional issues. This is a huge use of land. I think the Bay Area and the South Bay here is 1 very privileged to have a company like Facebook located here, but there's big pressures that 2 need to be addressed regionally as well. That's my first pass. Commissioner Downing. 3  4 Commissioner Downing: So my next cut, my next comment I think has to do with tone, but also 5 has to do with content. I think I've said this before, but I think in general when we as a City of 6 Palo Alto when we look at EIRs, people look at the EIRs we tend to look at it in a legally 7 prescribed manner, right? The difference between doing this thing or not doing this thing, but 8 the correct way to actually look at something is not between doing and not doing it but also but 9 the future of what that looks like, right? So what I mean by that is in the letter we make this 10 comment of oh, there's going to be all these people and all this housing and it’s going to have 11 all this impact, but I would sort of caution Palo Alto in making those kind of comments because 12 the real question should be well, what happens if they build out that Facebook campus and 13 don't add any housing, right? Because we're complaining about the impacts of the 5,500 units 14 of housing whereas in reality they're doing us a favor by building that housing. That's 5,500 15 hundred people that aren't driving through Palo Alto to get to their Facebook jobs. And so I just 16 feel like it would be useful if we could kind of look at it from that perspective, right? It mean 17 yes, the Facebook project is one thing, but the housing they're building out and the other things 18 they are doing as part of their plan and part of the infrastructure is another.  19  20 So before we get too committed to complaining about how much housing they're adding or 21 how much population they're adding we should really ask ourselves is it really in our best 22 interest if they don't add that stuff at all. And I don't, I don't actually think it is. The fact that 23 they're adding housing means that there's less housing pressure in Palo Alto. That means that 24 our rents won’t skyrocket as much as they would if they didn't add that housing. So I would like 25 to see that somehow worked in here. The number one concern the people in Palo Alto have is 26 about housing and about housing affordability and this letter really seems to be only full of 27 complaints; whereas in reality they're doing us a big service by building out housing there. 28 That's less pressure on our most vulnerable people.  29  30 Ms. Gitelman: Well maybe I can interject, I mean some of your colleagues have suggested that 31 we start by saying thank you for being aggressive or forward looking in providing the housing, 32 but… please address these impacts related to the strain on infrastructure and other things. If 33 we use that approach would we be responsive to your suggestion? 34  35 Commissioner Downing: Yes, I think so. I mean I think it's one thing, the way the letter is 36 phrased now it's sort of like we're concerned about the impact to the population and the 37 housing. The population and the housing aren’t hurting us. Those are good things for us. Like if 38 we were serious about actually looking at this from a practical perspective then yeah I think 39 addressing ok well what about the infrastructure, what about your roads, What about water, 40 what about your electricity, right? Those are all legitimate things to be concerned about and to 41 worry about and to write them about, but getting upset about them building housing is not one 42 of them. So like I said, you can’t just, it can’t just be a matter of what with this look like without 43 this project and what does it look like with this project, it's well what does it look like without 44 this project 10 years from now? That's the real question. 45  46 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 13 And to let you know we're so focused on impacts that are so you know, I mean I understand 1 we're looking at the EIR, but we're so focused on like the EIR impacts of like oh, traffic and 2 what's this going to look like at this particular intersection or that intersection, but there is a lot 3 to be grateful for as well, right? And even though it's not an EIR impact the affordability of Palo 4 Alto, people's ability to keep living here and not be pushed out by Facebook workers is a really 5 big thing. 6  7 Chair Fine: Thank you. Commissioner Rosenblum. 8  9 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, so I agree with Commissioner Downing’s comments in general; 10 however, I think our job as Planning Commissioners is to think about the impacts on our City 11 and how to mitigate those even though like I said I'm very admiring that they're taking this bold 12 step. I think a lot of the request again the specific request is to study those, the intersections. 13 And you have identified the obvious intersections. And as I said you may identify additional 14 intersections when you understand the patterns of commute from a more detailed submission 15 from someone like Facebook to see how people are actually coming through our community. 16  17 The area to dig into is their traffic model and that was alluded or not alluded to, you've asked 18 for more detail about their traffic model in your letter and I think that is the place to dig. Now in 19 terms of the process I think is going to take you some time so they've developed a model that 20 spits out what they expect the traffic to be at all major intersections in Menlo Park. And I have a 21 feeling that is disconnected from I don't, I don't know exactly what these models look like. I 22 have a feeling that it's done not in complete connection with how an effective TDM program 23 may be implemented because the TDM section of the same documents is extremely light and 24 only gives a few suggestions for measures that might be taken and some principles of TDM and 25 this is where I was saying that the thing that would make me feel better as a Palo Alto resident 26 knowing that a population is about to double in size, our neighbor, is that they've identified 27 funding sources commensurate with this ambitious plan. And so it's not just the traffic model, 28 but to understand how they plan on paying for the offsets. And that part so they've listened 29 some general TDM principles, but I don't think they've even discussed where the money would 30 come from unless I may be missing that. I'm on the section of TDM measures and principles. 31  32 Ms. Monroe: I'm sorry, did you have a section number? 33  34 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, I'm going to go back up to it. Give me a moment. 35  36 Ms. Monroe: Sorry. 37  38 Commissioner Rosenblum: TDM guidelines are 14.4.13‐10. 39  40 Ms. Monroe: Ok. 41  42 Commissioner Rosenblum: And unless there's a more detailed section this is one of the lighter 43 sections the plan. It alludes to some work that may be ongoing and parallel so there may be a 44 much more detailed project that's going on. Similarly, they similarly allude to the El Camino 45 Real/Downtown Specific Plan in the following section with similar kind of very high level 46 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 14 principles and so I suspect that there's a much more detailed plan that's behind each of these, 1 but it's not in this plan. And the one that I would be most, actually I'd be let me amend that; 2 both the specific plans and the TDM plan would be important to having confidence that they 3 can accommodate this kind of growth in households and employment. That's the sum of my 4 comments. Thank you. 5  6 Ms. Monroe: Ok, thanks. 7  8 Chair Fine: Do we have any other Commissioners with questions/comments? Vice‐Chair. 9  10 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Just a minor comment, but it might be also important. So there may be 11 impact because they will be bringing some population from the outside. The expansion there 12 may be also an impact on the railroad, on the Caltrain. So I was wondering if they might have 13 already stated that, but if not I would like to understand what’s the critical point at which 14 population trying to reach Menlo Park would overwhelm or would become so significant then 15 pretty much we will have to have another stop in Menlo Park that will be added to the bullet 16 trains. There may be some inflection point that the train would be reaching because if people 17 want to go to Menlo Park as opposed to Palo Alto (interrupted)  18  19 Ms. Monroe: Redwood City (interrupted)  20  21 Vice‐Chair Gardias: They may want to just add another stop which would add to the delays. So 22 that would be my question. Thank you. 23  24 Chair Fine: I think that's all. Commissioner Tanaka. 25  26 Commissioner Tanaka: This is a part of a smaller issue, but in terms of parking there was much 27 analysis done around that. So for instance like recently there's been issues about spillover 28 parking coming over from other cities. Have you thought about that and what do you think the 29 effects will be? 30  31 Ms. Monroe: The parking for the Facebook project met the code requirements and there is the 32 implicit assumption in the plan that the parking for the development of the plan would meet 33 the parking requirements in zoning code. So I don't think and as far as I know unlike situations 34 that we have on the edge of parts of East Palo Alto there has been no parking spillover that I'm 35 aware of from Menlo Park into Palo Alto. 36  37 Commissioner Tanaka: So even if there's a significant increase in units on Menlo Park side you 38 don't see any potential impact on Palo Alto? 39  40 Ms. Monroe: Right. 41  42 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, thank you. 43  44 Chair Fine: Alright, I think that's about it from us. Just one last question, it’s a bit tongue in 45 cheek. Why is their plan for 2040 and ours is only for 2030? 46 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 15  1 Ms. Monroe: I'm sorry, what? 2  3 Chair Fine: Why is their plan for 2040 and ours is only for 2030? When I saw it I’m like gosh, we 4 should (interrupted)  5  6 Ms. Monroe: It turns out that when this plan was proposed it was for 2035 and I believe they 7 extended it 2040 because of the ABAG horizon. So I can't answer the question. 8  9 Ms. Gitelman: We started doing our plan for 2025 and now we're at 2030 so every agency kind 10 of chooses what they, what they want. 11  12 Chair Fine: Maybe we should extend ours so you know all this hard work we're putting in we 13 can avoid it, right? 14  15 Ms. Gitelman: Well thank you Commissioners for your comments.  We’ll get these letters fixed 16 up and out the door. Thanks very much. 17  18 Chair Fine: Thank you very much. Do you all want to keep going or take a five minute break? 19 Let's take just five minutes. 20  21 Commission Action: No action taken, Commissioners provided comments only. 22  23 The Commission took a break 24  25 2. Study Session on Motor Vehicle Level of Service (LOS), Multimodal Level of Service 26 (MMLOS), Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and CEQA Changes 27 Related to Transportation Impacts 28  29 Chair Fine: Study session on Level of Service (LOS), Multimodal Level of Service 30 (MMLOS), bicycle level of Stress, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and California 31 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) changes related to transportation impacts. This is a 32 study session for us so we can just listen, learn, ask some questions. Just for a little bit of 33 context the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) is currently discussing the Transportation 34 Element of the Comp Plan and there was discussion last week on whether the City 35 should keep on using LOS or just move straight on to VMT. Seemed like most of the CAC 36 was in favor of using both going forward, but that is a discussion that the CAC is going 37 through in order to open the question up for Council. This is a great opportunity for us 38 to learn about these methodologies and produce some fodder for Council to think about 39 it. Of course a lot of these changes are occurring because of Senate Bill (SB) 743 which is 40 kind of the death knell for automotive LOS. Anyways, staff has a report, please take it 41 away.  42  43 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 16 Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Greeting Commissioners, I’m Josh Mello, 1 the City's Chief Transportation Official. I'm joined this evening with a whole contingent 2 of experts on all of these topics. To my right is Sarah Peters from the consulting firm 3 Fehr & Peers, to her right is Hugh who is with Alta Planning + Design. We have Ron 4 Milam who's with Fehr & Peers. I actually had the honor of sitting in a presentation that 5 Ron gave last year at the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) national conference 6 in Las Vegas. He's been very involved in the changes to CEQA that we’re going to hear 7 about this evening. Robert Eckols who's also with Fehr & Peers behind him and then we 8 have Ruta Jariwala and Nayan Amin with TJKM. They conduct quite a few traffic studies 9 in Santa Clara County so they're also available. And we also have Rafael Ruiz who's our 10 chief, our Traffic Engineering Lead who does a lot of our traffic signal operations and up 11 until recently worked quite a bit on traffic impact analyses.  12  13 So tonight we're going to give you an overview of motor vehicle LOS. We're also going to 14 talk a little bit about the guidelines that have been developed by the Santa Clara Valley 15 Transportation Authority (VTA) in regard to traffic impact analyses. We're going to cover 16 the changes that are coming to CEQA and the identification of impacts as they relate to 17 our transportation network and then we're going to cap it off with a discussion about 18 MMLOS, bicycle level of stress, and then some of the pros and cons of the different 19 measurements of pedestrian and bicycle LOS that are out there. So Sarah Peters is going 20 to kick it off followed by Hugh. 21  22 Sarah Peters, Fehr & Peers: Hi, thank you. There we go. So first we'll talk about what is a 23 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). Briefly, TIA evaluates the impacts of proposed land 24 use changes and identifies on the transportation system and it identifies measures to 25 mitigate those impacts. Historically TIAs have focused on the auto mode and what that 26 has unintendedly resulted in is a preference of auto throughput over all other modes: 27 walking, bicycling, and also the use of transit. So recently agencies around the Bay Area 28 and around the United States (US) have looked to expand the focus of TIAs to address 29 those other modes.  30  31 Here in Santa Clara County VTA is the congestion management agency. So as part of 32 that, as part of its role it publishes guidelines to ensure that TIAs that are developed at 33 the local level are consistent in how they analyze impacts to major roadways in Santa 34 Clara County. These guidelines were last updated in 2014 and included several new 35 elements. VTA requires a TIA for any project that would generate 100 or more net new 36 trips during any peak hour; however, Palo Alto and several other cities around Santa 37 Clara County typically require that a TIA be conducted for a smaller project maybe 38 generating only 50 trips in a peak hour. And note that TIA requirements from VTA are 39 very different from the ones required by CEQA analysis even before SB 743. So VTA 40 requires that TIAs analyze both current and future conditions when adding project 41 traffic to the CMP network and typically that means that a TIA is going to analyze three 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 17 scenarios. So existing conditions, that’s existing traffic levels plus your project traffic, 1 background conditions, that’s existing traffic plus traffic from projects that have already 2 been approved, but not yet constructed, and then cumulative conditions and that's 3 those background conditions plus anticipated growth. And often that anticipated 4 growth is estimated for a specific horizon year using a travel demand model.  5  6 VTA also sets thresholds for impacts at within the CMP network. So those impact 7 thresholds are defined in terms of auto LOS, briefly a measure of delay at intersections 8 or congestion on freeway segments. Though auto LOS as you know is graded between 9 LOS A which is free flowing traffic and LOS F which is major delays. For CMP facilities, 10 that's major roadways and freeway segments, LOS E is the standard and an impact 11 occurs when added traffic would cause the LOS to drop from E to F or would 12 substantially exacerbate congestion at a facility that's already operating at LOS F. 13 Historically local jurisdictions have used these guidelines to evaluate impacts to their 14 local intersections, but often have adapted them to local conditions. And note also that 15 these guidelines typically address isolated intersections, but where queuing can occur 16 spill back from a single intersection to other intersections upstream VTA does require 17 additional queueing analysis. 18  19 Here in Palo Alto for local intersections auto LOS is set at D. And Palo Alto has also 20 identified impact thresholds for queuing for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle modes and 21 has also identified a threshold for cut through traffic on neighborhood streets. Nearby 22 jurisdictions can also provide some context for Palo Alto’s threshold. So broadly Palo 23 Alto has pretty consistent thresholds as other local jurisdictions. Note however that 24 Mountain View has some interim thresholds of LOS E within its downtown core and the 25 San Antonio areas and that's going been established to recognize the multi‐modal 26 nature of transportation in those areas.  27  28 The 2014 update of VTAs TIA guidelines also expanded the requirements for evaluating 29 other modes. So it added a transit delay requirement asking the question: does added 30 project traffic create delay for buses operating on local streets. It also added a 31 requirement to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian conditions using a quality of service 32 metric in any situation where a project or mitigation measures for projects impacts 33 would alter a roadway or intersection. And finally the 2014 guidelines update 34 encourages a broader approach to understanding trip generation. So for example at a 35 mixed use site like you see here you would want to use a methodology that really takes 36 into account the crossover between retail uses on the ground floor and residential uses 37 upstairs. The guidelines also added a new approach to understanding how trip 38 reductions might occur as a result of a TDM program or as a result of a TDM 39 requirement at the local level. We’ll hand it over to Ron Milam next to talk about SB 40 743. 41  42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 18 Ron Milam, Fehr & Peers: Thank you very much. First little background about why I'm 1 giving this particular part of the presentation. We were hired by the governor's Office of 2 Planning and Research (OPR) to help them develop a white paper on VMT. How do you 3 calculate it? How do you set thresholds? Since that time we've also been hired by 4 Caltrans, a number of other cities, counties, Los Angeles (L.A.), San Francisco, Pasadena 5 to help them develop their methodology and their thresholds for shifting from LOS to 6 VMT as the new CEQA metric. So it's a little bit of background.  7  8 As it relates to what you can expect SB 743 the title this slide is “An Evolutionary Change 9 to Transportation Impact Analysis.” It’s going to be probably what it feels like and it 10 really did start back in 2006 with Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and this is where the state 11 basically said climate change greenhouse gas reduction are very important state goals 12 and policies and we need to work towards that and starting to change other laws 13 including CEQA to align with the state policy on greenhouse gases. So you see SB 97 up 14 there was the first time the legislature actually gave us a new metric and it was 15 greenhouse gases. They told us within CEQA we have to analyze greenhouse gases. They 16 didn’t tell us how and they didn't tell us what the thresholds were and we're still fighting 17 about that in the courts.  18  19 So fast forward to SB 743, I’m not sure we’re upright and walking yet, but the legislature 20 is definitely more active. Not only did they give us a new metric and it is VMT, Vehicle 21 Miles Traveled. They did let OPR select that particular metric, they had a choice, but 22 they also required OPR develop guidance on the specific methodology and the 23 thresholds. So helping all of us to understand what constitutes an unacceptable or 24 acceptable level of VMT. That's a pretty substantial change compared to traditional 25 practice. When you think about the thresholds every lead agency has the discretion to 26 set their own thresholds unless the environmental topic is governed by a federal or 27 state law, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, those kinds of things. So you have a lot 28 of discretion at the local level to choose for yourselves what VMT threshold’s 29 appropriate, but OPR is providing in their guidance where they think you should be 30 drawing the line. Let’s go to the next slide. 31  32 It's also important when you think about a new law like this is pay attention to the 33 legislative intent. The lawyers in the room do, the judges do. There are legal challenges. 34 And the legislature was pretty clear here in what they were expecting with this 35 particular change. And Item 2 here is particularly important. You'll notice here that they 36 want to more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management and the word 37 management is specific here. It’s not congestion relief. The state’s not saying we need 38 to relieve congestion. We expect we expected to continue to grow, but we want to 39 manage that and balance it against our other objectives or values. And there's actually 40 three here: infill development, they want to encourage infill development. They want to 41 promote public health through active transportation, that's bicycling and walking. And 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 19 they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So we actually have three objectives 1 and when you think about the VMT metric it can be a proxy for all three. It's more useful 2 in the calculation of greenhouse gases from mobile sources.  3  4 There are other metrics that might be more meaningful for active transportation, modes 5 split for example or just the number of bicycle or walking trips. So while OPR is providing 6 us guidance on VMT the laws suggest there's at least three objectives you want to be 7 thinking about. So as you think about new transportation metrics you have the option to 8 follow the OPR guidance, but you can also develop your own method, your own metrics, 9 your own thresholds. Let’s go to the next slide. 10  11 Also I want to point out some things that 743 does not do because there's been a lot of 12 confusion within the transportation planning practice that somehow vehicle LOS has 13 gone away permanently and it really hasn't. Nothing in 743 has changed general plan 14 law, it hasn't changed the Constitution, it hasn't changed Subdivision Map Act or other 15 ways that a city or county can condition projects. So to the extent that vehicle LOS is still 16 important to a community you can continue to use it in all those different aspects of 17 your planning. And it's still a very useful metric when you're analyzing traffic operations 18 if you're using it to size your intersections your roadway segments and we've had a lot 19 of history with that. So a lot of cities and counties that rely on LOS what will likely 20 happen is they won't see it so often showing up in environmental documents, but it will 21 be a fundamental part of their general plan analysis or impact fee programs and we 22 have a number of jurisdictions we're already working with that intend to continue doing 23 both types of analysis. So it’s really important that we recognize it did not go away 24 entirely. It's still around for those communities that want to use it.  25  26 Now we do have some communities that are largely almost built out. They don't need to 27 continue expanding their own road network or they don't want to. And they are willing 28 to shift entirely to a VMT metric because they don't need to use the LOS metric 29 anymore. Let’s go to the next slide. 30  31 So if you don't remember anything else about the presentation remember this slide 32 because this is what 743 really does and what's probably the most important thing to 33 recognize and will be one of the challenges that cities have to deal with counties as well. 34 When you think about vehicle LOS and the way we mitigate for it the picture there of 35 mobility on the top is an intersection being expanded to accommodate a better LOS. 36 That's a pretty common outcome of using LOS as a CEQA metric. And developers have 37 become accustomed to that. They're used to paying to widen an intersection, install a 38 traffic signal or pay an impact fee that goes to widening the road system. 39  40 When you talk about VMT though the way you mitigate VMT for a project is you change 41 the project, you increase its density, you add more people to the site, you change the 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 20 diversity of uses more mixed use type projects or you overlay a TDM program. This is 1 something that developers are still getting used to when you deal with VMT and other 2 aspects of an environmental impact document we already analyze it in the energy 3 section, the greenhouse gas section, and the air pollution section. In many of those 4 other sections though we can typically mitigate for example, with greenhouse gases 5 through offsets, we can offset the emissions associated with the mobile sources. When 6 you put VMT into the transportation section you have to physically reduce the VMT, 7 change the number of vehicle trips or shorten their length and that means changing the 8 project in some way, shape or form that's going to be different than what the developer 9 proposed. That's going to be a pretty big evolutionary change for a lot of cities and 10 counties and for the developers themselves that aren't used to having to change their 11 project based on what the traffic engineers or the transportation planners 12 recommended. 13  14 A couple of other things that are important here when you think about the other 15 aspects of 743 the you know encouraging the active transportation or infill it does 16 create a new dialogue about should we be analyzing the specific impacts to bikes and 17 peds differently and even safety a lot of communities that have LOS C or D thresholds 18 and don't have queuing at a lot of their intersections or their off ramps haven't really 19 thought as much about safety because they didn't have to deal with long queues in this 20 and the problems those might cause. By limiting LOS in the environmental document 21 now a lot of cities and counties are rethinking their processes to understand do we need 22 to look at safety a little differently.  23  24 As I mentioned earlier OPR is creating guidance. There's been two versions of that 25 guidance. The current version was out in January. This fall they expect to finalize that. 26 It'll go to the Natural Resources Agency for rulemaking. That takes about six months. 27 From that point forward it'll become law and they're probably going to include a two 28 year grace period before you're absolutely required to implement it. Now some 29 jurisdictions like San Francisco have already jumped to implementing it so they went 30 ahead and took OPRs January 20th guidelines and said we're going to use them as is.  31  32 And then the final thing I want to mention is this question of thresholds. That one is 33 going to be very important. Every city and county already has a VMT threshold based on 34 their general plan. When you adopted your general plan you decided how much 35 population, employment growth, and associated transportation infrastructure you felt 36 was necessary. When we run that through our models we end up coming out with VMT. 37 It's a composite metric. It comes out end of the process. So right now you have a budget 38 and one of the questions will be do you set a threshold based on your current general 39 plan because all projects need to be consistent with your general plan or do you follow 40 the guidance from OPR which suggest a 15 percent reduction in VMT per capita 41 compared to your baseline levels. And baseline under CEQA always changes. It’s tied to 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 21 when a project’s actually proposed. So it's a pretty aggressive threshold that will be very 1 challenging for projects especially in rural or suburban areas, little easier here in the 2 urban areas where you have transit options and those kinds of things. So that's another 3 thing to keep in mind. 4  5 Now this is just been a very broad overview. I also teach an eight hour class on this so I 6 anticipate you might have some questions, but at this point I'll turn it back over to Josh 7 and the gang. Thank you. 8  9 Hugh – Alta Planning: I’m going to get closer, sorry. So switching gears a little bit I'm 10 going to talk to you a little about measuring bicycle and pedestrian comfort and stress 11 so switching from sort of thinking about the impacts to thinking about how do we 12 understand what makes people use active transportation modes and the ways you can 13 encourage that and understand better what drives those decisions really. And I think 14 overall the there's a sort of general trend this is sort of a piece of a larger trend where 15 folks are kind of recognizing the importance of measuring the way the transportation 16 system performs and needing to understand how the active transportation system 17 performs sort of on the same level as the way that the automobile the transportation 18 system focused on automobiles performs. 19  20 So starting with the same kind of LOS there's been a lot of work at the national level and 21 really a lot of states and cities and other agencies have thought about how do we bring 22 up bicycle and pedestrian travel to the same kind of level and transit as well and VTA 23 has some things that you've already seen that they're trying to do and sort of fit in that 24 same framework of LOS where you know A is a really good LOS and F. is terrible. And 25 they use sort of equivalent kinds of methods and approaches and really I think the 26 attempt here which has been driven like I say from a lot of different angles, but the 27 most recent stuff I guess is coming out of the Highway Capacity Manual and the 28 Transportation Research Board who do a lot of this kind of research. And so on the 29 bicycle side they're looking at things like driveways and volumes, speed, percentage of 30 heavy vehicles, and widths of lanes and things like that, parking, cross‐street widths, and 31 other similar kinds of things. And on the pedestrian side they're looking at things like 32 pedestrian density so how much space is there available for pedestrians traveling as well 33 as other kind of similar things as I mentioned on the bicycle side. 34  35 But most of these methods really kind of derive or kind of have been derived from 36 wanting to compare them essentially to the automobile side and really have that and in 37 a way that's a benefit, really have that kind of comparable grading system that you have 38 for automobiles. So if you take a road you can say this is an A for autos and an F 39 bicyclists or it's a B for autos and a C for bicycles or whatever kinds of things you might 40 want to look at there. So that's really it has an advantage, but it also has a little bit of a 41 disadvantage in that you're kind of focused on thinking about this one framework that 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 22 maybe doesn't really relate to the way bicyclists and pedestrians use the transportation 1 system on a day to day basis. So certainly that comparability is good. Being able to 2 consider on the same level that interaction across modes can be kind of handy when 3 you're thinking about well, what choices do I have to make and ultimately that this is 4 what that comes down to. And then at a national level there's sort of some consistency 5 around this.  6  7 And then some of the cons that we kind of see the models that have been developed 8 have really been developed around arterials and major collectors primarily the analysis 9 that they've done, the data they've collected, they kind of show people these videos and 10 ask them to rate them. They’re all based on these sort of larger more significant streets 11 whereas the bicycle and pedestrian system especially really the local streets, the paths, 12 the other kinds of elements of that system that make it a complete system are pretty 13 important elements in it and it's important to sort of think about your measures of 14 bicycle comfort and pedestrian comfort taking into account the whole system.  15  16 I just wanted to kind of flash up a couple quick examples that we have. These are 17 actually from Jacksonville and they just show you kind of the idea here which is pretty 18 understandable and straightforward. So you take the system, you rate it, you get a 19 rating from A to F, you can kind of see ok well these are where we have parts of the 20 system that maybe don't work so well for bicyclists or pedestrians. And you still have to 21 ask the question: well does that matter, right? Are these parts of the system you want 22 to work well, are there alternatives, are the places you might want to look? And then 23 you'll notice this is very much focused on a high level. This is again back up at that kind 24 of arterial collector kind of level and then a similar thing at the pedestrian level. And of 25 course you can zoom in, you can try and rate stuff in a more detailed way, but this sort 26 of big picture understanding of these are the parts of the system that work well or don't 27 work well. And at some level that's kind of effective, right? Because then you've taken 28 these kinds of methods and you started to understand how you can use them or should 29 understand what your system looks like. So that’s something you think about. 30  31 A couple other quick examples on the left we have an example from Charlotte. They 32 have a different approach to measuring LOS and really what they're trying to do is look 33 at well, if we're doing a roadway project how does that impact bicyclists and 34 pedestrians? So how do we take the features of that project and say these aren’t good 35 and this is an example of kind of slip lanes and if you're putting those in if you have 36 those how can you adjust them in a way that is better for bicyclists and pedestrians? 37 And so they score their projects. They kind of give them points based on that and that 38 example is in your in the packet you got. And then on the right there's an example from 39 San Francisco that really is very similar to LOS. They use a variety of different kind of 40 factors that go beyond I would say what the LOS metrics use. So they look at 41 intersection safety, they look at traffic kind of issues, they also look at street design, 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 23 they look at land use, and they consider kind of perceived safety types of issues and in 1 the end they have 31 different indicators which is probably more than most people are 2 going to want to look at when they're thinking about this type of analysis.  3  4 So that's kind of the LOS/MMLOS part of this. It's a method it's again it's been a lot of 5 research has gone into it and there's a great understanding and use of that I think and 6 there are quite a few states like Florida and others that have their own LOS manuals 7 that they require that include looking at pedestrians and bicyclists and transit in 8 addition to thinking about automobiles. And that's a great evolution, but then sort of a 9 further evolution on that that's a little bit more recent that started down here at San 10 Jose State is this kind of level of traffic stress concept. And the concept’s not necessarily 11 all that different from LOS, but the real issue here is trying to relate these levels of 12 traffic stress to the types of users. And so you know the Roger Keller has these four 13 types of bicyclists that have been identified from the sort of strong and fearless, they're 14 a small part of the population who will ride on an arterial 45/55 miles an hour doesn't 15 care, all the way down to the people who say of course I will never ride a bicycle ever. 16 And really the key observation he makes I think which is really useful is there's this very 17 large portion of the population that might be willing to ride, but is concerned and is 18 going to want to ride on facilities that are lower stress. And so trying to relate an 19 analysis to these different concepts so from the strong and fearless through the kind of 20 enthused and confident who will ride on many facilities if not the very worst to those 21 who are these interested but concerned and then these are facilities that are for most 22 adults all the way down to facilities that you would let your children ride on without 23 concern. So I’m trying to make that connection is probably the key evolution I think of 24 the level of traffic stress.  25  26 And it’s something that using an example again from San Jose where you kind of rate 27 each of these roads and now you're looking at a kind of broader set of roads and what 28 you're really looking for are where are these gaps. So you can kind of see the green 29 areas are areas where there's connectivity across the different or within the network so 30 you can make a movement at a very low level of stress. And then where you see the 31 darker colors you're seeing where there are issues and there are gaps in between those 32 parts of the network. And that's really what it helps you do, it helps you start to see 33 these kinds of gaps in the network for bicyclists really from that perspective. And there 34 are similar kind of simplified LOS metrics I would say that you can do on the pedestrian 35 side as well that really try to look at what is that kind of connectivity of the system.  36  37 So the other evolution that we've worked on recently that I think is pretty interesting 38 and worth looking at is taking that level of traffic stress concept and thinking not just 39 about ok, where do we have connected low stress networks which is great, but how do 40 people use the transportation system especially from a bicycling perspective. So keeping 41 in mind these same kind of low stress facilities and taking into account research that 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 24 comes out of Portland State that looks at what people's perceptions are when they're 1 bicycling of the distance that they travel. And so you can see if you're traveling on a very 2 high stress street so that's that red arc there, it's a much longer perceived distance and 3 there's a lot of great research that kind of shows this difference as opposed if you're 4 traveling on a very low stress street where you might actually believe the distance to be 5 less. So over here on the right you can kind of see a protected bike lane, maybe that's a 6 one, that's sort of a mile is a mile; whereas a buffer bike lane actually that I think those 7 should be reversed there, sorry. It is a little less than one, a bike boulevard also a little 8 less than one, and a path a good deal less than one. So you're traveling a mile, but you 9 think you're traveling .84 miles, right? That's kind of the concept there as it's applied. 10  11 And so what we've done and for those of you who've seen the Google Bike Network, the 12 Google Bike Vision Plan is do some analysis that essentially routes people through the 13 network to understand how their level of stress impacts their likelihood of riding 14 essentially. And so we have these very colorful maps and there are a whole bunch of 15 them and there's more work related to this that we've been working on since then that 16 starts to get at how far out can you travel and have a low stress journey.  17  18 And so we've looked at this in a variety of different ways. One simple way is this kind of 19 total stress map. So it shows you obviously as you get further away you have greater 20 stress, right? There's just a function of distance being a big part of stress as a bicyclist 21 because you're having to deal with some situations even if they're relatively low stress, 22 but then you can also look at the average stress. So given a point that you start from is 23 that stress kind of relatively less or more than other similarly distanced points, right? So 24 normalizing it by distance or the other thing that we've done recently that we find very 25 useful is to compare it, normalize it basically by the lowest possible stress. So let's say 26 that route was a path the whole way with no interruptions, right? That way the lowest 27 stress route so how would you make that comparison? And that's pretty helpful for sort 28 of understanding where are there kind of pockets of people especially for a project like 29 this where you are looking at a specific destination or set of destinations where you 30 could identify low stress networks or with some projects you could create low stress 31 networks and that would get a lot more people bicycling because there's a very good 32 kind of research that shows that if you have these lower stress networks you'll get more 33 people out there bicycling. So that's kind of the basic concept there and the variety of 34 different things we also have maps that kind of show the routing algorithms and other 35 kinds of things that we could share with you. And some of that is in your packet as part 36 of that plan.  37  38 And then the last thing I wanted to show quickly which is an example that we've done 39 recently, this was actually adopted by the city of Cupertino last week which we're very 40 happy about. And it was to inform their most recent bicycle plan update and essentially 41 what we did was we looked at for the existing network how do you if you pick a set of 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 25 destinations and the destinations were some key employment centers which you can 1 probably imagine what those are as well as kind of the civic center area, some of the 2 neighborhood movements, and some of the most important kind of school based 3 movements and you look at a map like this for each one and understand where those 4 pockets of high stress, where the pockets of low stress, where if we put some project in 5 would we be addressing multiple different pockets of high stress and that would allow 6 you to sort of get your biggest bang for your buck in terms of making those 7 improvements. So that's kind of some of the most recent research and efforts that are 8 going on out there as they relate to bicycle and pedestrian comfort.  9  10 Mr. Mello: Great, thank you everyone. We are available for questions/comments. 11 Anyone that I introduced is available so if you have a specific question chances are we 12 have someone who can answer it for you. 13  14 Chair Fine: Great, thank you so much this is a lot of information to go over, but I think 15 it's really helpful for the Commission and the City. Before we go to our own comments 16 and questions we have a public speaker.  17  18 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. So we have a public speaker with a familiar name, Arthur 19 Keller. 20  21 Arthur Keller: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. A couple things to point out, so 22 first of all I'm not speaking on behalf of any official capacity; however, I will point out 23 that at the most recent meeting of the CAC for the Comprehensive Plan the member, 24 the voting members of the CAC did unanimously in the straw poll agree that we should 25 retain a vehicle LOS as part of the process of evaluating projects. So there was a Motion 26 to that effect and then we also in terms of retaining that as a policy and also with 27 respect to a program we wanted the thresholds to be updated. And I'm going to speak a 28 little bit to the issue of thresholds. 29  30 So one interesting thing is when I served on your body I reviewed, my colleagues then 31 reviewed the Stanford Medical Center project to expand that. And one of things that I 32 was fascinated about was that most of the traffic impacts for Stanford Medical Center 33 expansion were in Menlo Park and very few of the impacts of traffic were in Palo Alto 34 which kind of flies in the face of expected reality. And that's because Menlo Park’s LOS 35 thresholds are much more strict than Palo Alto’s LOS thresholds. We consider a four 36 second delay to be acceptable while they consider .8 second delay to be acceptable. We 37 basically talk about thresholds from changing from D to E and to F. Well, as was 38 mentioned in the materials on many intersections they want D and or even C on local 39 intersections. So I think it makes sense to think about adopting the LOS thresholds from 40 Menlo Park to the, when, as we update our thresholds. And I think that this is a long 41 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 26 time in coming because frankly we should have had impacts of Stanford Medical Center 1 expansion mean improvements to our Palo Alto streets and that did not happen. 2  3 I do see understand that the as was mentioned the LOS is not going to be part of CEQA 4 so we will need a separate process for handling that and I think that's worthwhile 5 considering and how to do that. So I realize as study sessions you won't be considering 6 this in terms in particular detail in terms of proposals, but for thinking about how we 7 integrate LOS us into a development analysis project independent of CEQA is a 8 worthwhile consideration. And I do think that that is a question that you may wish to 9 ask of the presenters for the study session. Thank you for the opportunity to address 10 you at this time and I look forward to hearing this discussion and your deliberations. 11 Thank you.  12  13 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. 14  15 Chair Fine: Thank you, Mr. Keller. I'd like to open it up for questions or comments from 16 anyone up here. Commissioner Rosenblum. 17  18 Commissioner Rosenblum: First just in the spirit of study session and I'm happy to learn 19 more so thank you. Question about VMT models: how mature are they? So I find VMT as 20 a concept to be a little bit unintuitive i.e. LOS is very easy for me to imagine that a 21 project would or would not hit a certain threshold. So I can understand how many 22 vehicles pumped through a certain size road, can see the impact of that. VMT feels less 23 intuitive although I understand the concept of VMT. So I guess the question is how do 24 you validate and test and how consistent are these models now? So has there been a 25 coalescing of different cities around standard models and has there been fairly good 26 research to back up the validity of the model? 27  28 Mr. Milam: The simple answer is that we've had VMT being produced by travel 29 forecasting models ever since the Clean Air Act. We need for air pollution analysis, we 30 need it for greenhouse gas analysis, and it's also the same models that produce the 31 individual intersection volumes for LOS analysis. So the models have been around a long 32 time. What's happening with 743 they're being put under a spotlight asking those kinds 33 of exact questions: how do we know if they're valid, what form of VMT are we looking 34 at, total VMT, VMT generated per capita. For the public often times if you talk about 35 VMT they don't have a point of reference. They know maybe how many miles they 36 travel in their car in a given year. I might travel 12,000 miles in a year. That's a point of 37 reference, but a lot of the ways we express the metric in transportation planning or air 38 quality analysis is a little bit of a foreign concept.  39  40 So the models are valid and in fact if you think about what we have to do at the regional 41 level with our models for air quality conformity there have been a lot of rules and 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 27 regulations about how we go about creating those models, putting them through testing 1 to verify that they're actually valid for that purpose, but there are some changes. One of 2 the things that the governor's OPR has recommended in their guidelines is that when 3 you analyze VMT for a land use project for example right here in Palo Alto that you do 4 what I would call a full accounting of the VMT, that you don't truncate trips at the edge 5 of your political boundary. That tends to suggest we need to use regional models and 6 track the trips to their end point. You could even go farther in that and say well a 7 regional model has a boundary, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 8 model or the VTA model here have boundaries, and there are trips that cross over those 9 boundaries into the Valley for example. So the CEQA purists and some of the lawyers 10 will tell you better chase that trip even outside the model boundary if you're using a 11 regional model. Those are be some of the questions that will end up debating, but I 12 think you can be pretty certain that using a local city model that is literally has its limits 13 at your political boundary that would not be appropriate. It would tend to be too 14 limiting in terms of keeping track of the full length of the trip.  15  16 Commissioner Rosenblum: So two quick follow up questions. So first could you just 17 elaborate a little bit more on how the models are validated?  So you made a statement 18 these models been around for a long time they have been validated. I’d love just know 19 how they, how you actually validate. So what methodologies have been used?  20  21 And then my second follow up question just to anticipate is and I don’t know if you 22 know the answer to this one, but someone sitting at this table probably does. In Palo 23 Alto when we do VMT studies does do we end at our political boundaries normally? But 24 first question first. 25  26 Mr. Milam: Ok. Yes, so when we evaluate a model and I'm specifically talking about 27 what I’m calling travel forecasting models. We have lots of models in transportation 28 planning and traffic engineering industry and so when you think about LOS that's a 29 traffic operations model. We actually use the travel forecasting model to come up with 30 the traffic volumes that are used as inputs to the traffic operations model. So the way to 31 validate a travel forecasting model there’s a number of different tests we can do. I tend 32 to break them up into two categories, what I'll call static test, those are statistical test to 33 compare the model’s outputs to things we can go measure on the ground. A roadway a 34 traffic count, an intersection traffic count, and there should be a relatively close match. 35 But we also have dynamic validation tests and those are really more important because 36 that's how we use models. We change the inputs and we expect an output change. And 37 so we'll do certain testing. We’ll increase land use or we’ll change a link in the network, 38 we’ll add lanes to it and we expect the model to change in the appropriate direction and 39 magnitude. So those are the two kind of basic tests and whether or not you pass those 40 test depends on what the purpose is and what entity is governing that particular model. 41 So here in California one of the basic set of guidelines we use at the California Regional 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 28 Transportation Plan Guidelines Chapter 3 has complete model documentation on all the 1 validation tests that are appropriate for regional models and they extend those test to 2 local models like your own city model or doing a model for a local project.  3  4 Now with regards to VMT one of the benchmarks tends to be comparing the VMT 5 results from a model to a database of VMT estimates that comes from the federal and 6 state governments based on traffic counts. It's called the Highway Performance 7 Monitoring System (HPMS), HPMS for short. That's also just another model though. So 8 anytime you're comparing models I get little nervous. So one of things we've started to 9 do is use big data. We can actually use cellphone data, mobile device data for example, 10 to track you. All legally by the way, there's a lot of privacy protection. And use that to 11 verify trip links from particular origins or destinations. And you can get pretty accurate 12 with that. You can get down to a 250 meter grid cell. So if you wanted to figure out 13 Trader Joe's what's their typical trip length? We could figure that out. And VMT is simply 14 a calculation when you talk about individual land use project of trip generation 15 multiplied by the trip lengths. So those are just some of the ways we go about the 16 validation process and I'll leave the question of Palo Alto specific to anybody else in the 17 room that wants it. 18  19 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you for that question. We did in the Comp Plan EIR do an analysis 20 of VMT and our consultant used our model which synced with the regional model. So it 21 was looking at origins and destinations in the region to calculate the VMT attributable to 22 our project. 23  24 Commissioner Rosenblum: So, on a project level when projects come before this body 25 and we have to calculate impact and there's a VMT study then generally would expect 26 the standard to be used is regional? 27  28 Ms. Gitelman: I'm guessing yes, but we haven't crossed that bridge yet. I mean we really 29 haven't started doing this type of analysis on a project basis yet.  30  31 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. Yeah, those are my only questions for now. I'll wait to 32 see if other colleagues have questions.  33  34 Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Rosenblum. Vice‐Chair. 35  36 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. So this session is very, very useful because more we're 37 going to talk probably we're going to get to the enlightenment point. We're going to get 38 to your level of understanding and expertise. So feel free just to because there are so 39 many experts in this room so any comment from your side would be appreciated. So if 40 we may, maybe just rolled in the session to be more interactive that would be great, it 41 would be better for this Commission.  42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 29 I have a couple of questions. So I think that I'm just getting after these comments to the 1 understanding that under CEQA each project needs to consider options. So there is a 2 possibility that under the traffic studies there may be decision under CEQA to select 3 some other option as opposed to the first one that was first one that was put on the 4 table because that VMT impact would be so great for the option number one that 5 preferred option three would jump immediately to the top of the line. So it's I think that 6 this is just I’m getting to the understanding so and I see shaking heads so that looks like 7 yes, right?  8  9 Mr. Mello: If I could jump in and then hand it off to Ron. So currently with a TIA that's 10 focused on just LOS. A project is conceived and planned and designed and then the 11 impacts to the roadway network are looked at and there's mitigation measures that are 12 identified. I think with the SB 743 changes there's going to be more of an iterative 13 process where a project is conceived you start to look at what the VMT generation is 14 going to be, how long the trips are going to be, what the trip generation rate’s going to 15 be, and then there have to be a kind of a back and forth about design changes that can 16 be made to the project. Are there transit expansions that could be done, Transportation 17 Demand Management (TDM) programs, land use decisions that may need to be 18 rethought in order to either reduce trip lengths or reduce the number of trips coming 19 and going and coming from that development.  20  21 Mr. Milam: Yeah and there's a little bit of a nuance with CEQA as it relates to 22 alternatives and also your requirements for mitigation so if a project does have a 23 significant VMT impact what CEQA requires is you are obligated to mitigate to the 24 extent feasible. Now that to the extent feasible is typically at the discretion of the lead 25 agency. You’re the judge of what's feasible in your community. That can be challenged 26 in court and the lawyers could spend lots of time on that, but that's kind of the basic 27 way it works. Also if you have a significant impact and you're developing project 28 alternatives the idea of developing alternatives is to eliminate or minimize those 29 significant impacts. So it's very likely that in crafting new alternatives if you know you 30 have a significant VMT impact you might want one of those alternatives to be maybe a 31 different design or different land use concept that is specifically targeted at reducing 32 VMT because it will reduce the significant impact.  33  34 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. And another question from a… yes, please. 35  36 Ms. Gitelman: I just wanted to add one more thought on this issue. I just wanted to 37 clarify that alternatives analysis is an important part of CEQA. It really comes into play 38 when you have a significant impact, when you expect you're going to have a significant 39 impact. So we will often do TIAs and have a CEQA analysis conducted for projects that at 40 the end of the day we discover we can mitigate the impacts. So you're not going to get 41 to the level of significance where you would be forced in an EIR context to analyze 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 30 alternatives. So the kind of the first line of inquiry is around mitigation and then you get 1 to the alternatives question. 2  3 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Of course. I totally understand this, but then just giving the project 4 that we're just looking into Facebook expansion having this residential development in 5 some other area you would potentially find that this would create large impacts from 6 VMT perspective and for this reason you may suggest locating this campus expansion in 7 a different area that would be significant change, right? 8  9 Ms. Gitelman: Yes, certainly with a project of that scale alternatives are an important 10 inquiry. 11  12 Vice‐Chair Gardias: So a question from a different perspective, understanding VMT and 13 how you're tracking this is there a correlation with the desire to start taxing the car trips 14 based on the mileage knowing that there is a declining revenue from the taxation on 15 gasoline? Is there a correlation between this two? 16  17 Mr. Milam: There's a correlation. It’s not direct. The, you have the challenge of the gas 18 tax being a declining revenue source because of improved mileage and how it hasn't 19 been adjusted for inflation and so a VMT or a road user charge has been in 20 consideration. In fact there's a pilot test going on here in California right now. And so it 21 is related in that there is kind of this objective at the state level to reduce VMT. And the 22 idea is if you reduce VMT you achieve lots of different goals. You reduce greenhouse 23 gases, you reduce air pollutants, you reduce the cost of traveling, you potentially reduce 24 the impact of pavement, you potentially reduce the level of congestion that would 25 otherwise occur if there's less people out driving around.  26  27 So it's all related from the high level state policies, but how VMT is actually being used 28 can be very different depending on the purpose. Even something as simple as an EIR I 29 mentioned there's now going to be four sections of the EIR that has to use VMT the 30 energy, greenhouse gases, air quality, and transportation. Right now we actually analyze 31 VMT differently in the greenhouse gas section then we do in the air pollution section 32 depending on the pollutant. If you're worried about carbon monoxide we actually look 33 at that right around intersections and sensitive receptors. We don't look at the regional 34 VMT like we would for greenhouse gases. So depending on what you're doing there's 35 lots of ways to analyze VMT and it may even be expressed in a different form like I said 36 VMT per capita or per service population. Lots of different ways you might use it.  37  38 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. And the last question relates to those to the use of those 39 two measures. How suspecting that we may recommend retaining and using both for 40 some period of time how one would translate to the other one?  41  42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 31 Mr. Milam: Yeah, now that's a really good question because they measure two different 1 things. Vehicle LOS is measuring traffic operations and it's largely measured from the 2 driver's perspective. You have to remember that, that's the focus doesn't tell you thing 3 about the bicyclists or the pedestrians and what they're perceiving as they travel across 4 the network. And VMT you can think of it as more of an efficiency metric especially if it's 5 expressed as VMT per capita. You can compare different geographic areas and tell 6 something about how much they had they have to travel by vehicle and so it's 7 measuring something very different and it's directly related also to the air pollutants 8 and greenhouse gases, but when you think about having both metrics and putting it in 9 the context of a city you have to think about your community values.  10  11 And if you think about your general plan, the goals and the policies in plan, they’re an 12 expression of your community values. What are you trying to create? What are you 13 trying to protect? What are you trying to avoid? And where does vehicle LOS rank in 14 terms of your values versus VMT reduction? Which one ranks highest? Because if one 15 outranks the other then when you set thresholds it has to be quite clear which one wins 16 if there is competition or a conflict. In fact our general plans have to be internally 17 consistent. So you couldn't pick two different thresholds that actually competed. You 18 need to resolve that at the general plan level so when individual projects come in it's 19 quite clear whether or not they're going to have an impact or not. And what happens in 20 a lot of communities is it comes down to where does the value of driving really fit within 21 the community?  22  23 Some communities are much more spread out. They're very dependent being able to 24 get around in an automobile and the value they place on vehicle LOS will be much 25 higher. Other places would like to have more travel choices. They’re, they tend to be 26 more compact, they tend to be more urban, more dense, you have more travel choices 27 and so they might lean towards VMT reduction being a more important goal. And 28 there's not one size fits all in a state as big as California. And that's one of the challenges 29 that OPR has run into in putting out a threshold guidance recommendation that says 15 30 percent below the existing VMT per capita. That's tough if you don't have those travel 31 choice options because land uses are spread far apart or you don't have the bus service 32 to connect you. 33  34 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Right, and I understand this goal of 15 percent reduction, but 35 observing traffic increase and the congestion in the Bay Area it's a no brainer to us, 36 right? It keeps increasing, going up and up. So that is I just maybe hopeful, but very 37 skeptical about achieving this reduction because giving the population growth, 38 Facebook expansion, and farther development in all the adjacent municipalities I can 39 see that pretty much the traffic will be constantly increasing regardless of this 15 40 percent goal reduction.  41  42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 32 Mr. Milam: Yes (interrupted)  1  2 Mr. Mello: If I could just jump in and address the earlier point? One of the other things 3 that the OPR guidance includes is a requirement to analyze induced demand. And so 4 there's a large body of evidence that shows that the easier it is for folks to drive the 5 longer distances they’ll travel and the more often they'll drive. So there could be a direct 6 or an inverse correlation between making improvements related to improving the LOS 7 and an increase in VMT because the easier you make it for people to travel during the 8 peak hour the more likely they are to use a motor vehicle to make a trip that they may 9 use another mode for.  So I don’t know, Ron you want to talk a little bit about the 10 induced demand guidelines? 11  12 Mr. Milam: Yeah, it's a topic that came up not just through OPR, but through California 13 Department of Transportation (Caltrans). So we just finished a white paper for Caltrans 14 they're rewriting all of their transportation analysis guidance right now including their 15 Transportation Impact Study Guidelines for purposes of CEQA compliance. That's 16 something that I'm directly working on. And the induced travel there’s a white paper it’s 17 published now. It’s available through their website and we can share that with you if 18 you want to get into the details, but Josh is right that basically especially in urban 19 congested areas it's very difficult to add any kind of roadway supply or make some type 20 of modification to the network that would lower travel times that wouldn't just induce 21 new traffic that would fill that space back up. And it used to be in looking at older 22 research it would take a few years for the new lanes to fill up a combination of 23 population employment growth plus existing people just making more trips, but if you 24 followed some of the news the 405 High‐Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane in Southern 25 California, Katy Freeway in Texas, I think it’s I‐25 in Denver, some of these projects are 26 now filling up in one or two years because there's that much latent demand that wants 27 to get out there and drive if you if you make it easier to drive. So that is a consideration.  28  29 And OPR makes it pretty clear in their guidance that if you are building a general what 30 they call a general purpose lane on a freeway or a major arterial that those are of the 31 types of projects likely to have a significant impact. But they also acknowledge that 32 transit bike and ped projects are likely not to have significant impacts. So that helps in 33 those places that want to pursue the active transportation projects, but the bar is going 34 to be held a little bit higher on those bigger freeway or roadway projects. 35  36 The other contacts that we've worked with Caltrans on is whether in the Bay Area or 37 Southern California you'll hear typically congestion is a problem. And I'm not going to 38 disagree with that, but I would append it to say congestion is a problem, but it's also a 39 symptom of poor seat utilization caused by the fact we don't price travel. We basically 40 have every morning and evening peak period where we have our roadway system 41 oversubscribed by folks because the cost of travel just isn't high enough to avoid that 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 33 peak. The only real pricing we have is I’ll call it shadow pricing. It’s the travel time 1 penalty you have to experience if you decide to travel in the peaks. And if you look at 2 our freeway system we don't utilize it very well. That seat utilization issue is a really big 3 deal because we have thousands of empty seats every morning and evening. So if you 4 filled up the seats you wouldn't have the congestion problem or the degradation in 5 travel flow that we experience. So for agencies like Caltrans that own and operate a big 6 say, highway system those are some of the questions they're facing is do we continue to 7 expand the system which is expensive, has environmental impacts, and other issues or 8 do we find a way to take advantage of the system we've already built and just operate it 9 in a wiser way.  10  11 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Right. Thank you very much for your time and I see that my 12 colleagues have questions, but before I just give up my microphone I remember and this 13 is exactly on in regards to the comment that you made, I still remember the comment 14 that back then our Chairman Greg Tanaka made when we were reviewing a 15 Transportation Management Association (TMA) program that was aiming 30 percent 16 reduction. We're here requested to change the objective of this program to incentive 17 from perspective as opposed to the restriction and that was the perception of the 18 Commission that we believe that it's better to incentivize or create incentives to change 19 from the car to other modes of transportation as opposed to restrict folks because that 20 may not be the right way of resolving things. And thank you very much for time.  21  22 Chair Fine: Thank you. Commissioner Waldfogel, I think you were next. 23  24 Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you.  Thank you for the report. This raises a lot of 25 interesting questions and ideas, but what I'd really like to get at is I think there's a sense 26 among residents in the community that their subjective experience with travel whether 27 it's local travel or regional travel is a lot worse than the data reflects. I mean I know that 28 if I want to San Francisco for 7:00 p.m. I leave at 4:30 now instead of 5:30 or getting 29 across town at 5:00 p.m. can be an interesting project. And we all wear different hats, I 30 mean sometimes we're cyclists, sometimes we’re pedestrians, sometimes we’re drivers. 31 It depends on the mission, it depends on the task at hand, depends on the urgency. I 32 think what's missing in this is we need to find a way to explain to the community what 33 are reasonable expectations over the next 10 years?  34  35 I can't really read into this. I understand that under CEQA we’ll pivot to VMT. Clearly 36 we’ll do that. We’ll probably retain LOS in some other frameworks, but I don't think the 37 community has a good sense of what the experience will be if you live in pick your 38 favorite street and you need to commute to work or go to the supermarket or go to San 39 Francisco or any of these missions what are reasonable expectations? So how do we 40 communicate that? Because it's really hard for me to look at this, this is a big stack of 41 documents a lot of really good science and I don't want to get into the situation of 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 34 saying what do I believe the science or my lying eyes, but I mean what just what's your 1 sense about how we talk about this so that we don't have 10 or 15 years of regret, 2 remorse, disappointment. We don't have people saying oh look, we've approved 77 3 projects and the cumulative impact was supposed to be minimal, but in fact it's if you 4 look at the actual data from 2000 versus 2016 the cumulative impact is ginormous. So 5 how do we actually do this in a way that captures experience? So I don’t know who 6 wants to touch that one. 7  8 Mr. Mello: I’ll start and I think Hillary will probably want to jump in too. I think without a 9 doubt we can say that we experience congestion in Palo Alto especially during the peak 10 hour. I think the rapidity of the increasing congestion is really what is frustrating people. 11 Areas that have been congested for long periods of time, decades, I think people grow 12 more accustomed to congestion and they find alternative means to move around. I 13 think we have folks in the community that remember when it was relatively easy to get 14 around and we didn't have the economic growth and the robust economy that we have 15 today. I mean congestion at the end of the day is really related to economic growth 16 (interrupted)  17  18 Commissioner Waldfogel: But doesn't this say that we have unmitigated impact or is 19 that just something that we should have expected along the way? I mean I think that's 20 where the gap is because I think we're all admitting that the experience is worse now 21 than it used to be. But is that something that should have been mitigated along the way 22 and we need to go back and fix that or do we just say hey, we just should have 23 understood that's what would happen? 24  25 Mr. Mello: I don't think it's a uniquely Palo Alto situation. I think the whole Bay Area 26 right now is struggling with massive amounts of freeway and surface street congestion. 27 More so than people experienced even a decade ago. It's related to the growth in the 28 economy. I think we need to start to measure the expectations a little bit and I don't 29 think outside of some great economic shift that we're going to see immediate 30 congestion relief and we're going to be able to go back to a place where people no 31 longer are concerned about congestion. 32  33 Commissioner Waldfogel: But how do we tell this to people? I mean if the reasonable 34 expectation is that between now and 2040 sort of given levels of road investment, 35 transit investment, economic growth, etcetera that it'll take in 2040 it'll take two hours 36 to get across town or four hours to get to San Francisco. Basically it’ll be faster to walk 37 than to than to drive. I mean if that's where we're headed how do we depict that to 38 people so people can make rational choices? 39  40 Mr. Mello: So I think if that is where we're headed we need to really start to think about 41 what are the impacts to neighborhoods? Are we experiencing regional traffic on local 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 35 neighborhoods? Is that something we focus on trying to stem that growth. Do we start 1 to really provide travel alternatives for people that are realistic, transit and active 2 transportation and (interrupted)  3  4 Commissioner Waldfogel: Yes, but that’s great, but I mean we're like $2 billion dollars 5 behind regionally on transit investment and we can't fix that on an agency basis, 6 probably more than $2 billion. So I’m just sort of saying what I'm trying to drive at is sort 7 of what do? I mean how do we set expectations so five years from now whoever 8 happens to be sitting on this Commission isn't getting basically isn’t getting a bunch of 9 people with spears demanding redress? 10  11 Ms. Gitelman: Maybe I can chime in. I mean I guess my I've been doing this for a long 12 time now and I have been working professionally in the Bay Area through several 13 economic cycles it's been so long. And I remember for example when I started working 14 in San Francisco we were using an office employment density of about 235 square feet 15 (sf) per employee. I mean it was boom times in San Francisco. And then we went into an 16 economic downturn and it became quite defensible even kind of optimistic to be using 17 an employment office density of about 310 sf per employee. So that was a change in 18 probably I don't know the first five or six years of my professional career in San 19 Francisco and that just shows you how big an economic swing can be. And I think the 20 same is true in traffic.  21  22 I think if I look forward 40 years I'm expecting that between now and the 40 year period 23 we're going to see ups and downs. We're going to see periods where traffic is not as bad 24 as it is now. We're going to see periods where traffic is worse. In some periods we're 25 going to see lengthening the peak so that horrible congestion that drives you nuts in the 26 rush hour is not just going to be the rush hour, but it's going to be the shoulders of the 27 rush hour. But there are going to be other times and other changes in the way we work 28 in the way we think about travel and time of day and all that stuff that will result in 29 other changes. So and that's with or without additional square footage, additional 30 population. I think these changes are so related to the economic cycles that and how we 31 how we work and kind of when we make our trips that it's going to fluctuate over time. 32  33 Commissioner Waldfogel: Yes. Well and I don't battle that. It's this is really just a point 34 that we need to find language, nontechnical language, that we can use to explain to 35 people what are reasonable expectations. And I think that's something that's really been 36 missing from this process. I mean we have this great technical document that describes 37 and we’ve seen numerous traffic studies, intersection studies, and we have other 38 phenomenon going on here like Waze which is moving traffic off arterials onto side 39 streets and we could have a policy debate about whether that's a good idea or a bad 40 idea, but it's a fact. And I just get the sense that there's a disconnect between what the 41 technical traffic community is doing and what the public perceives. And this study 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 36 session should be an opportunity to close that gap and I welcome just some thoughts on 1 that. 2  3 Mr. Milam: Yes, you hit on a topic that is resonating not just here in California, but 4 around the country. The expectation that we continue to run into in most urban areas is 5 travel time reliability. People are willing to accept ok better economy there's going to be 6 some congestion, but I need to plan my day. I need to plan my schedule. I need to get 7 my kids to school or to soccer practice. I need to get to work or an important meeting 8 and I need to understand what my travel choices are and need to understand the 9 reliability. So that puts it back on the technical folks like myself to think about well how 10 can we do that? And when we think about that it is through better data, through better 11 models which we do have access to, but it's also part of the conversation you have when 12 you do your general plan updates going back to the expectations. What are the 13 expectations for what travel markets you want to serve? Do you want to serve people 14 just moving around Palo Alto? Do you want to be able to serve people that want to go 15 from Palo Alto to San Francisco?  16  17 A lot of the way LOS analysis has worked up to this point is we chase bottlenecks. We 18 look at an intersection, it's congested, we try to fix the intersection. We never stop to 19 ask the question who's traveling through that intersection? Who do we want to 20 prioritize traveling through that intersection? Should we travel by, should we prioritize 21 the bikes getting through the intersection or the cars? So what’s happening in a lot of 22 communities now is they're asking those kinds of expectation questions. Who do we 23 expect to serve and what should they expect in terms of reliability in their in their travel 24 day so they can appropriately schedule. 25  26 Commissioner Waldfogel: So to not beat a dead horse I think if there are technical ways 27 to capture those ideas about reliability and maybe feed those into this process I think 28 that would be incredibly helpful. I don't know whether LOS or VMT or something else.  29  30 Mr. Milam: It tends to be…  31  32 Commissioner Waldfogel: This isn’t the right way, think about it, but (interrupted)  33  34 Mr. Milam: Yes it tends to be travel time related. In fact, Caltrans has something called 35 the Smart Mobility Framework. They’re actually doing a learning network this year. They 36 were going around to their different districts and teaching people about what that 37 particular process looks like, but instead of looking at just vehicle LOS they look at six 38 different principles including equity, the environment, the economy, and trying to look 39 at all those things that are important to communities. And travel time reliability is one 40 of the calculations you can do and you can do that for the city residents, you could do 41 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 37 that for the employees, you could do that for the region. There's a lot of different ways 1 to break that up. 2  3 Commissioner Waldfogel: And that doesn't have to be biased by modality, but anyhow 4 just please consider thinking about those kind of metrics.  5  6 Mr. Mello: Certainly. I neglected to mention at the opening that we're taking all of this 7 feedback and we're going to be going to your City Council in September with the same 8 presentation so we can certainly incorporate any ideas you have as to how to have that 9 discussion or Council as well.  10  11 Ms. Gitelman: There's one kind of tangentially related topic that I wanted to make sure 12 we raise which is we have actually funded in last year's budget update to the nexus 13 study that helps us establish a transportation impact fee. So we have several impact 14 fees that apply to different areas of Palo Alto. We're trying to simplify that a little, but 15 also update the fees. And it's an opportunity because this whole world of methodology 16 and different types of analysis is changing. It's an opportunity for us to think about what 17 we want those fees to address. What are the impacts that we're really trying to address 18 and whether we want to focus our program on traffic calming on the experiential aspect 19 of this that you're raising and I think that's going to be a really interesting line of inquiry 20 if we, as we go forward to start the study. 21  22 Commissioner Waldfogel: Great, thank you. 23  24 Chair Fine: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka. 25  26 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you for this update actually in general I think this seems to 27 be headed the right direction. It seems like it's considering more of the factors and while 28 not perfect I think it is definitely better. I do have a few questions which is, my colleague 29 asked about kind of like the models you guys are using. You kind of explained about 30 that, but one thing you didn't talk about that I was interested in is and I like how you 31 guys are actually measuring against reality which I think is a really good policy, but what 32 can you speak about what are the error rates you get? Like how different is the model 33 from actual reality? Can you speak about how accurate are the models and you know… 34 because I rarely see the like the error [rich] report. I see what the models say, but rarely 35 what actually is a reality. 36  37 Mr. Milam: Yes, So I give you a warning. I don't want to scare you, but when we talk 38 about travel forecasting model it’s very difficult to forecast the future if you just watch 39 the news and look at the Fed and their ability to forecast economic growth it's a 40 challenge and we deal with much longer time frames. So the general accuracy has to be 41 viewed from the lens of what do we want the model to do? If the model is helping us to 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 38 decide do we need to build two lanes, four lanes or six lanes 20 years in the future we 1 can have a quite a bit of level of error. You could be as high as 20 or 30 percent and still 2 not make a lane, a laneage error, but that also has to be thought about in the context of 3 the performance metric.  4  5 If you’re talking about VMT which is a pretty aggregate measure you also want to think 6 to the future and understand well how much of variation could there be in the future? 7 So we've done one particular analysis that looks at the variation in VMT per capita over 8 the next through 2040. The range is about 8,000 to 18,000 VMT per capita. That's how 9 big the range is without the city doing anything with land use or transportation. That’s 10 some of the things that we just heard about in terms of the economic differences, the 11 disruptive forces of technology, and the Millennials and aging population. Lots things 12 are going to happen outside your control that's going to change VMT per capita quite 13 dramatically.  14  15 So when we think about these models and we think about accuracy those are the kinds 16 of things we look at. And when we look at what the statistics are in terms of validation 17 you'll typically see things in the range of plus or minus 10 percent when you're looking 18 at large order facilities like a freeway or an arterial, but it tends to fluctuate with 19 volume. We do not want a 20 percent error on a freeway facility carrying 100,000 20 vehicles a day. If I've got a road carrying a thousand vehicles a day I could be off by 100 21 percent and it's not going to make that much difference because it's going to be a two 22 lane road. So we have to think about it in that kind of context.  23  24 Commissioner Tanaka: I see. Well, I mean to me if you're making a you have a ten or 25 even twenty percent error 10 years from now or 20 years now that's pretty good. I 26 mean just in terms of forecasting. Am I hearing that right or am I getting it wrong? 27  28 Mr. Milam: If you want to think about in terms of years we have one researcher, a 29 gentleman by the name of Robert Bain that used to work for Standard & Poor's. He 30 evaluated toll road projects around the world including transit projects and he did 31 before and after studies. And he isolated the US. We spent some time working with him 32 to look specifically at US projects and he did create a little formula that tells you how 33 much area you can expect in a small area forecast. Small area would be like the City of 34 Palo Alto. And when you got twenty‐five years it's plus or minus 40 percent. If you're 35 only going out ten years yeah, you're probably closer to that 15 to 20 percent range, but 36 remember it's plus or minus.  37 And so when you… this is also important when you think about the impact studies you 38 currently look at when you look at LOS you oftentimes see intersection analysis in like 39 the year 2040 as part of the cumulative analysis. Someone had to actually forecast the 40 left turn volume at that intersection. Frankly, we're not that good. When it comes to an 41 intersection if it's two 4 lane roads that cross each other we'd probably recommend 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 39 reserve right away to build two lefts, two thrus, and a right. But telling you in the year 1 2040 there's only going to be 150 left turns and so you have to build one lane that's not 2 something… we do it in practice because agencies require it, but it's not something that 3 we're you should think the models are actually that accurate. 4  5 Mr. Mello: If I could jump in? I think it's important to realize the traffic is not a naturally 6 occurring phenomenon. It's all a result of land use decisions that are made and 7 development that's occurring. So the models are protecting predicting traffic based on 8 historic land development patterns and how Americans travel and how Bay Area 9 residents travel. All of those things can be manipulated through land use decisions and 10 planning decisions that communities make. So I don't want to seem like it's some fixed 11 the model is doing its best based on historic patterns of growth.  12  13 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. But anyways it gives me confidence that it's not too far off, at 14 least from what I'm hearing. I guess the second question is and I’m just thinking about 15 my own usage of my car which is actually dropping, right, because I bike a lot now or for 16 instance if I have to go to the airport I would take Uber or UberPool I share the car with 17 other people. Or if I go to the City I might actually do things like Lux where they do valet 18 parking, right?  It’s kind of like anywhere in the city. And what I wonder is and  just in 19 horizon have things like autonomous cars and I wonder how is that looking at 10‐20 20 years how’s, how are the again what's the current thought process around how is this 21 going to be changing traffic? 22  23 Mr. Milam: That's a very astute question with regards to VMT. So there has been 24 research on it and what we know about if there is autonomous vehicles it will increase 25 VMT. And that would be something outside your land use or transportation controls in a 26 typical city. That's something the market's going to deliver, but it basically reduces the 27 cost of driving. You don't have to pay attention so you can do something else and what 28 all of our research tells us is that leads to people being willing to make more trips or 29 longer distance trips.  30  31 The other thing we have is if they're delivered through transportation network 32 companies the way Uber and Lyft work today we're going to have a phenomena that I 33 call simultaneous trip generation. I did it the other day in Washington, D.C. (D.C.) where 34 I ordered UberEATS at the same time that I ordered an Uber to come pick me up 35 because I was going to take the food with me to a different destination, so I generated 36 two trips that I wasn't in the vehicle and then I got into the vehicle and made a third trip 37 all in a very short period of time. So if you own your own car you're only going to be 38 making those trips with you in the car. TNCs, autonomous vehicles all have the potential 39 to increase the amount of VMT even if they reduce the number of vehicles on the road. 40 So it’s a difference between vehicles on the road versus the number of trips and the 41 total VMT we generate. 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 40 Mr. Mello: So I don't know if any of you have had the honor Stefan Heck’s presentation 1 it's absolutely amazing. He talks a lot about the transition period and when the 2 ultimately we're going to get to a point where we have autonomous electric shared 3 vehicles, but there's going to be a transition period I think where we may see an 4 increase in trips and an increase in VMT where we have folks that own their own 5 autonomous vehicles. They're not sharing them, they may be driving around while 6 somebody is at a meeting. We're also going to think about what impacts it's going to 7 have on parking eventually and we get to that mode.  8  9 So I think we're at a real watershed moment when we start talking about the future of 10 transportation and a lot of the folks in our field are really kind of uncertain where that's 11 going to take us. There are arguments that it will increase VMT. There are arguments 12 that we’ll quickly adapt a shared autonomous shared model of vehicles where multiple 13 people are using the same vehicle at the same time throughout the day and the vehicle 14 doesn't need to be stored. So we then have to look at whatever our minimum parking 15 requirements may need to be. So I think we’d be remiss if we didn't think about that 16 and when it's going to come. Stefan Heck predicts in 2020 or the years shortly after that. 17 A lot of folks are saying 2030 or a little bit after that, but that's all within the horizon of 18 the planning that we're doing today.  19  20 Commissioner Tanaka: One last question which is so with these changes especially like 21 with the VMT change is this supported by all the software packages that the City is using 22 and I mean are we like do our systems support this, these kind of measures? 23  24 Mr. Mello: I'm sorry what was the question? 25  26 Commissioner Tanaka: Well, so like for instance like the change, well the move towards 27 like the VMT versus LOS does, do the current software packages that we use is this 28 supported? Like how is our software? 29  30 Mr. Mello: So if I can just so we have a City travel demand model that will actually 31 generate VMT for the City as a whole. I think Hillary can talk about how we exported 32 that to the model used for the complex.  33  34 Ms. Gitelman: Yes, no we use that that model for the Comp Plan and they built some 35 connection to the regional model for outside that, the focused area. And so they used 36 that to calculate VMT. I think the larger question is when we get to the point where 37 we're doing these VMT calculations and comparing to a threshold for smaller projects 38 than a citywide plan what does that look like? I mean how are we going in the next, over 39 the next two years transition to an organization like everyone will have to that finds a 40 more cost effective faster way to do that analysis for even smaller projects and what 41 does that look like. 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 41 Mr. Mello: Yes, I wonder if Ron could talk about whether anyone is looking at just 1 establishing kind of VMT generation rates by land use or outside of running a model for 2 every single project is some kind of formula that could be used for a single family 3 residential or? 4  5 Mr. Milam: There are simplified models that do that now and so the point Hillary’s 6 making is you’re going to have to decide when you come up to your threshold that's one 7 of the first questions you’re going to ask yourself: what's the methodology we're using? 8 Because if you're using the regional model the OPR guidance says whatever model you 9 use to set your threshold is the same model you should use to analyze the project so 10 you get apples to apples. And that can be a pretty daunting task because what OPR 11 seems to be suggesting is hey, regional models are probably best because they capture 12 more of the total travel. They don't truncate the trips at the political boundaries.  13  14 But just to run for example the MTC model we're doing some projects analysis right 15 now. We at 40 hours Robert? Forty hours to do a run versus the simple model we have, 16 which is also a very accurate model that is in compliance with CEQA. In terms of 17 substantial evidence to support the trip generation and the trip lengths we can run that 18 in about 15 minutes. So you’re going to have to make some decisions between the 15 19 minute models and the 40 minute or the 40 hour models and it's going to come down to 20 what are you trying to capture when you look at VMT. What do you want to understand 21 about the potential impacts?  22  23 We did a project recently in Davis, California where they wanted a research and 24 development project to put on the around the edge of the city as an incubator for 25 University of California, Davis (UC Davis). And if we had run just one of the simple 26 models we could told you in 15 minutes what the VMT of that particular project is. It 27 wouldn't have told you anything about what the VMT for the community is and how it 28 changes that. And by putting a bunch of jobs in Davis where they have no new housing 29 actually is a worse situation from a VMT standpoint. We would actually have to run the 30 regional model to demonstrate that. So if you're worried about the total VMT effect on 31 the community then yes using a regional model makes sense. If you just need to isolate 32 what the project’s generating you can do that with these simpler tools.  33  34 Chair Fine: Commissioner Downing. 35  36 Commissioner Downing: I actually wanted to follow up on that. And I was wondering if 37 there is any published guidance with regard those thresholds. Like if you're looking at an 38 apartment complex, 100 units for example. What do you expect to happen to the VMT? 39 What’s, what are sort of reasonable guidelines for areas like Palo Alto and our 40 neighboring cities? Do we have any models for that yet? 41  42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 42 Mr. Milam: Well you do, you have the first recommendation from OPR which for a 1 residential project is a 15 percent reduction below baseline for VMT per capita. So you'd 2 measure the VMT per capita for the existing residents and you would expect that the 3 apartment project to perform at least 15 percent better than that project. But as I said 4 earlier your general plan already has a VMT threshold baked into it if you think about 5 this. Let’s say that a project comes in it's consistent with your general plan and it's 6 consistent with your zoning. So it's part of the VMT you’ve already anticipated. You 7 could even extend that argument to say that while the regional models were based off 8 your general plan to a large degree and so that project and that location was part of the 9 regional modeling for air quality conformity for SB 375 which is our greenhouse gas 10 reduction targets for the for the regional agencies. You could make the argument that 11 that project’s also part of the regional solution to achieve air quality conformity and 12 meet the greenhouse gas reductions.  13  14 The question then becomes do you want to expect that project to perform any better 15 than what you've already baked into the general plan and baked into that regional 16 transportation plan. And the one reason that you might there's more, but there's one 17 important one that most of the modeling done at the regional scale and at your local 18 general plan scale those models don't build TDM into them. So there are additional 19 strategies you could add to a project as mitigation that would lower its VMT compared 20 to what you'd get from just land use and transportation inputs that are typically 21 analyzed in the model. 22  23 Commissioner Downing: So if I can walk you back a little bit. So you talked about for 24 residential for example lowering the VMT by 15 percent per capita. But what do I guess 25 who are you looking at for that? I mean if the project doesn't exist so 100 people aren't 26 there and then tomorrow they are there so how are you doing that calculation? 27  28 Mr. Milam: Yes, so if you want to follow the OPR guidance they’re suggestion you 29 measure the existing VMT per capita for the existing residents in the city. And you can 30 compare to the city VMT per capita or you can compare to the region VMT per capita. 31 They've given you both options and there's different ways of doing that depending on 32 the models you use. You can even use that big data if you wanted to actually compare 33 to other apartment projects in Palo Alto we could go order up some cell phone data and 34 go out and put some traffic counters around the apartment so we could tell you how 35 many trips they generate and how far those trips go. And you could compare then to 36 existing apartment projects if you wanted to. 37  38 Commissioner Downing: Ok, so are you comparing the VMT per capita for the entire city 39 versus the VMT per capita of the people who would live in the project? Is that? 40  41 Mr. Milam: Yes. 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 43 Commissioner Downing: Ok. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. 1  2 Mr. Mello: And the 15 percent reduction is based on greenhouse gas emission goals in 3 the state plan, correct? 4  5 Mr. Milam: More or less, yes. So if you followed SB 375 what the state did with 375 was 6 to say for the land use and transportation sector greenhouse gas reductions that we 7 expect we delegate that the MPOs because it's really hard for the state to figure out. 8 And the MPOs here the Bay Area for example MTC they've largely adopted about a 15 9 percent reduction. AB 32 recommended about a 15 percent reduction. There is new 10 information out of ARB that’s suggesting that that 15 percent reduction if you go all the 11 way out to 2050 you may even need a little bit more than the 15 percent, but that's kind 12 of where it's coming from. Caltrans has also recommended a 15 percent reduction in 13 VMT per capita as part of the strategic plan that they just prepared and released back in 14 March.  15  16 Commissioner Downing: Ok, so I think I want to poke at the practicalities a little bit. Ok, 17 so let's say we have it we have a project. We’ve done it, we've done the calculation. It 18 doesn't reduce by 15 percent. Let’s say it reduces by 13 percent. What can the project 19 do at that point to fix that? 20  21 Mr. Milam: I’ll let Sarah answer that.  Sarah’s done a lot of our TDM work and looking at 22 specific strategies that work like best in the Bay Area. So one of the challenges with TDM 23 is there's lots of different strategies, but they're not always transferable. The work that 24 like Robert and I are doing right now for Stanford those are pretty unique and they 25 won't work just anywhere. So Sarah why don’t you give her an idea? 26  27 Ms. Peters: Yeah, absolutely. So there are a range of TDM strategies of course as Palo 28 Alto Planning Commissioners you're familiar with what goes on at Stanford and some of 29 the larger employers in the area. For residential projects specifically some of the most 30 effective, some of the most effective strategies are pricing parking. So what you can do 31 is you can require that people rent a parking space or a second parking space separately 32 from the rent on their apartment. You can also do a targeted outreach program. So 33 Portland has been very successful with its Smart Trips program which is about, cost 34 about $10.00 per capita to do outreach in targeted neighborhoods getting people to be 35 aware of the different alternatives they have and actually doing some social 36 encouragement and competition around using active transportation like biking and 37 walking and using transit. You can also incentivize the use of transit. So one strategy 38 that's becoming increasingly popular is buying passes for Caltrain or VTA for an entire 39 apartment complex. Caltrain and VTA have been doing that for years with employers 40 and so a lot of large employers including Stanford might provide discounted passes for 41 employees. That's now becoming possible at the residential complex level as well. So in 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 44 addition to all those strategies that you see happening at employers you can also do 1 stuff residentially.  2  3 And so what all that means is you're basically shifting people's travel from driving to 4 using other modes and that's going to reduce VMT. There's a lot of different ways to 5 quantify that. There are several different models. There's the California Emissions 6 Estimator Model (CalEEMod) model, we have an in‐house model that we helped to 7 develop for that Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and all of those estimates of 8 VMT reduction resulting from TDM strategies are based on peer reviewed research and 9 typically calibrated to local or regional conditions.  10  11 Commissioner Downing: Ok (interrupted)  12  13 Mr. Mello: Well and I think we're also going to have to start talking about design of 14 particular projects. Maybe it may be appropriate to include a corner store or something 15 or a dry cleaner or something that's going to eliminate the need for somebody to use a 16 motor vehicle to make an everyday errand. Walkability to and from the site the 17 surrounding roadway network could definitely have an influence too if it's along a major 18 arterial that's difficult to cross to get to transit you're probably not going to see the kind 19 of transit use that you may need to achieve that 15 percent reduction. 20  21 Commissioner Downing: Ok. And then if I if I could also ask you what that might look like 22 for commercial project. Let's say it's a building one floor retail three floors office. What 23 would VMT guidelines generally look like for our area for that? 24  25 Ms. Peters: In terms of the VMT guidelines or in terms of how you would try to reduce 26 VMT once you establish what reduction you're getting? 27  28 Commissioner Downing: No, what we would consider acceptable thresholds. 29  30 Ms. Peters: Ok, I’m going to let Ron answer that one. 31  32 Mr. Mello: For the City of Palo Alto? We haven’t really gotten to the point where we've 33 thought about thresholds. I think Ron can talk about what other communities may have 34 adopted. 35  36 Commissioner Downing: Yeah. That’s what I’m looking (interrupted)  37  38 Mr. Milam: For mixed use projects OPR is applying the same 15 percent reduction and 39 they've suggested though that you break out that by land use. So you look at the 40 residential separately from the office. We’ve suggested that you might actually want to 41 look at the mixed use project in its entirety because you want to make sure you don't 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 45 dilute the benefits of putting the mix of uses together. So that's one of things OPR is 1 currently considering a potential change to is at least looking at the mixed use project in 2 its entirety.  3  4 And then in terms of a local threshold one of the other things that you're going to want 5 to think about is to the extent that you've already made decisions about greenhouse 6 gases or air pollution in terms of what kind of threshold you've set for those there's a 7 mobile emissions component of that that's tied to VMT in most cases. And one of things 8 that’s a little bit challenging for some cities that have already adopted like climate action 9 plans and they've put very specific greenhouse gas reduction threshold in there they 10 never thought that there'd be a new law that come along and would use VMT as a 11 threshold. And those agencies are finding wow, we wanted to be really aggressive on 12 greenhouse gases and we could be because there's a lot of things you can do that like I 13 said earlier to offset that. Without having to change the project is someone paying 14 money typically. In the transportation section there's not offsets. It's change the project 15 or add that TDM program. It usually means more costs. So if you do have things like 16 greenhouse gas or air pollution reduction targets already you want to make sure you 17 understand the connection to VMT that's already embedded in those threshold or 18 objectives. 19  20 Ms. Gitelman: Yes, I just had a thought to add on that and this is really not something 21 that I've had the opportunity to think about a lot, but I want to point out that here in 22 Palo Alto all areas are not created equal. I mean we may have an opportunity over the 23 next two years as we start to develop our thresholds and our methodology for analyzing 24 projects using the new metrics to think about areas like Downtown and our more 25 walkable neighborhoods in a different way than we think about development that 26 happens in areas that are not as transit accessible and that don't have the mix of 27 services. Our current Comp Plan, the Comp Plan that was adopted in 1998, really has a 28 strong flavor of walkable neighborhoods. We saw the transition to mixed use zoning 29 districts and all of the mixed use districts that are in our zoning code is a reflection of 30 that kind of policy direction the last Comprehensive Plan. And I think we can start to 31 think about our City in that way as we figure out how to assess VMT and potentially 32 think about different neighborhoods differently. 33  34 Commissioner Downing: Yes, and I think this was kind of the last thing that I wanted to 35 talk about. So the way that you talked about doing the VMT comparisons, taking the per 36 capita of the city and then comparing it to the VMT of the project that’s kind of a very 37 static way of looking at it, right? Because in reality the project itself changes what the 38 rest of the community does.   39  40 So let's say you build an office building, and let's say we make assumptions of most of 41 these people are coming from out of Palo Alto. Ok, so now suddenly the building looks 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 46 really bad from VMT perspective. But on the other hand if the building is replacing 1 something ugly and rundown on El Camino which I could point to 20, it makes that area 2 suddenly a little bit more walkable, right? It makes it nicer, right? It increases the 3 chances of people walking there, biking there, feeling safer there, right? If they add in 4 some portion of retail that reduces VMT for the rest of the city. And so I'm just 5 wondering how these kind of I mean to me these things kick off feedback loops. And I 6 kind of wonder how you make sure that you're taking those into account. 7  8 Mr. Milam: Yes, you’re bringing up a point that is a big difference between looking at 9 the project myopically versus looking at it in the community setting or the neighborhood 10 setting. Now one of my favorite examples is a Trader Joe's. If you look at a Trader Joe's 11 by itself it's got new trips coming to it. It’s going to generate new VMT. But if I put that 12 Trader Joe's into what I’m going to call a food desert where it's nothing but residential 13 and they have to drive seven miles to the nearest grocery store if I measure the market 14 area for Trader Joe's that neighborhood the VMT per capita for the neighborhood 15 probably went down. So it depends on how you measure it and what kind of story are 16 you telling.  17  18 And in the context of CEQA I would prefer to tell a very complete story as full disclosure 19 that yes, the Trader Joe's if I look at it myopically does generate 10,000 VMT, whatever 20 the number is, but I'm also going to measure that at the community scale and measure 21 what did it do to my community? Did it make it more efficient because VMT per capita is 22 actually going to go down because I didn't have the grocery store in close proximity to 23 where people live. 24  25 Commissioner Downing: Thank you. 26  27 Chair Fine: I'm going to take a round and then pass it back to you all. Thank you 28 everyone for these very detailed reports. I think it's very helpful to us all. It just shows us 29 how much more complex the world is getting and how much more work you are going 30 to have to do. But it is exciting and it is actually nice to see that the state is able to attain 31 some of its greenhouse gas goals and trip reduction goals through this new plan a little 32 bit. That’s nice to see. 33  34 I’m really interested in this idea of kind of layering with VMT and maybe get part of the 35 way there with your transportation planning, maybe get part of the way there with the 36 land use, maybe a bit of it's with TDM and Commissioner Downing was touching on this; 37 I'm wondering are any cities so far reacting in their zoning to this change and if so, how? 38 And how they're actually like implementing it, making amendments there.  39  40 Mr. Milam: Both in the general plan and zoning in fact one of the first jurisdictions to 41 deal with VMT as a threshold was Yolo County of all places. And they did it for a kind of 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 47 unique reason. They said this is back when the attorney general's office was actually 1 legally challenging cities and counties over not having climate action plans. They were 2 doing their general plan update and they wanted assurances in the general plan and a 3 follow through to even zoning that new growth areas would be designed for low VMT 4 and therefore low greenhouse gases.  5  6 So what they ended up in the general plan was a VMT threshold 44 VMT generated per 7 household per weekday that a new growth area had to be designed to. They also 8 followed that up in the land use section and said you need to have a jobs/housing 9 balance and a jobs/housing match. The wages of the house, the wages of the workers 10 have to match the prices of the houses so we get a connection there. We don't want to 11 see just a jobs/housing balance because we don't have that match. They also set 12 minimum density of eight units per acre. That tends to create a more walkable 13 environment. They also limited the roads to two lanes in the center of the new 14 development and allowed LOS F. You couldn’t have four lane roads for example.  15  16 So we are seeing some more aggressive treatments that are starting the general plan 17 and then trickling down into how they handle the zoning when it's that important of an 18 objective to the community. And this goes back to what I said earlier, where does VMT 19 reduction or greenhouse gas reduction fit within all those different community values? 20 And if it's at the top of the list yeah you're probably going to see it show up in your 21 general plan and in your zoning. 22  23 Chair Fine: That’s been really helpful. Thank you so much; just a few comments for the 24 City. I think Commissioner Rosenblum brought this up pretty well in terms of how do 25 you validate what the reduction is. As the city builds this out we should consider is 15 26 percent good enough for Palo Alto? Or as Hillary as you mentioned do you want to make 27 a neighborhood by neighborhood, right? Maybe Downtown and Cal Ave. it's higher than 28 that. 29  30 The other question is a little bit less about VMT and it's about some of the other parts of 31 this presentation. I was wondering how can Palo Alto validate and potentially 32 incorporate some of the more active mode methodologies? So I was just interested like 33 the stress model that it’s that map of Google and like why are parts of Palo Alto green 34 and other parts not? Are we looking at anything there? 35  36 Mr. Mello: So we have been working with Google on that plan and they're actually 37 they're trying to advance a grant program where they would actually fund closing some 38 of the gaps that are identified in their vision plan. That's the vision plan was kind of the 39 first step. If you remember they actually funded the concept planning for four of our 40 bike boulevards and those were funded by Google because they saw those as specific 41 gaps in the network connecting to the North Bayshore area.  42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 48  1 I've done a little thinking about how we could potentially use the Google modeling in 2 our own, do our own development review process and our own planning process. And 3 there's the potential to do a map similar to what Hugh showed showing the average 4 level of stress for any parcel within the City. So we could feasibly use what's commonly 5 accepted as the bike shed which is a three mile radius around a point. We could 6 potentially look at the bike shed for a specific parcels or nodes Downtown, Cal Ave. and 7 we could look at the average level of stress from within that three mile bike shed. And 8 then we could identify specific gaps whether it be a roadway crossing, an intersection, 9 or a missing trail segment and we could direct our either our resources or resources that 10 we may collect through other means whether it be the traffic impact fee to actually 11 close those gaps and make that parcel accessible from the entire bike shed around the 12 parcel.  13  14 Chair Fine: That's very exciting. I guess just the last thing to the City then is it would be 15 nice especially as this goes to Council kind of show the different options here, right? 16 There's a bit of like the traffic impact fees is a bit of TDM, TDM layering there's 17 neighborhood by neighborhood thresholds, I think showing those different levers is 18 really important.  19  20 I do a few other small questions, but want to pass it off to other folks. So I believe Vice‐21 Chair you were first or… Ok. Commissioner Rosenblum. You always lead us off. 22  23 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yes, I just have a quick question. I wanted to address Arthur 24 Keller's question and unfortunately he left. But I want to first verify that the statements’ 25 accurate that we have a 4 second delay as threshold for triggering a transit review and 26 City of Menlo Park has a .8 second. And I assume that's on bike collectors and arterials 27 or something, but first I want to see if that is an accurate statement.  28  29 Ms. Peters: Yes, so the difference is whether the facility is already at a failing grade. So 30 because Menlo Park and Palo Alto are in different counties arterials in Palo Alto are set 31 at LOS E per VTA and then local streets are set it LOS D. So Menlo Park actually has a bit 32 of a more restrictive standard. Local streets are at LOS C and arterials are at LOS D. So 33 then below those points, below those thresholds you get to the point of saying that the 34 intersection is already below what we want. And at that point Palo Alto continues the 35 VTA model of if your intersection is already “failing” from a congestion perspective 36 adding up to four, adding more than four seconds of delay four seconds or more would 37 be a significant impact. It's much more restrictive in Menlo Park. It's .8 seconds of delay. 38 And so really what that amounts to is getting a whole lot more impacts for a very few 39 very limited number of trips. 40  41 Robert Eckols, Fehr & Peers: So can I? 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 49 Mr. Milam: Robert do you want to add? 1  2 Mr. Eckols: Yes. I’d just like to add the .8 seconds only, is only invoked on Caltrans 3 facilities where you have a local street. So if you're in a non‐Caltrans facility then they 4 just use the four seconds as well, which is what is used in San Mateo County. But this 5 was an eight tenths of a second which is very difficult to calculate in some senses. That 6 eight tenths of a second it was implemented probably 10 years ago and the whole idea 7 was they wanted on state facilities basically El Camino at the time they wanted to have a 8 more sensitive one for that facility. So it is a little unique that way. It's not… 9  10 Commissioner Rosenblum: And my follow up is so he had suggested that Palo Alto adopt 11 a similarly strict standard and outside of whether or not that's a wise thing or possible 12 thing I want to understand the impact of that. I would assume the impact is that any 13 project you have more of a hair trigger, right? That (interrupted)  14  15 Mr. Eckols: Yes. 16  17 Commissioner Rosenblum: So you have a higher burden for any project and so it would 18 be in some ways “slow growth,” more difficult to develop projects. Is that correct? 19  20 Mr. Eckols: Correct, absolutely. 21  22 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 23  24 Mr. Mello: Well it could lead to two outcomes. It could be more difficult to develop 25 projects or you could end up adding capacity roadways more frequently than you would 26 under a lower threshold. 27  28 Commissioner Rosenblum: Or potentially force projects to have more aggressive TDM 29 measures for example. Ok. Thank you, those are my questions. 30  31 Chair Fine: Just one before I ask for the next Commissioner. Can thresholds be 32 challenged? Does it happen often I mean? 33  34 Mr. Milam: I'll give an answer then I'll defer to the attorney, but CEQA allows lead 35 agencies to set their own thresholds for general use. So if you going to use this for all 36 your projects Section 15064.7 says lead agencies should adopt their threshold by a 37 public process ordinance resolution, but they have to be supported by substantial 38 evidence and that is a legal bar within CEQA in terms of when you're setting thresholds. 39 You can't be arbitrary and someone could challenge you if the substantial evidence did 40 not support where you chose to draw the line in terms of what's acceptable versus 41 unacceptable.  42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 50 Off the top of my head one case I can think of where thresholds were challenged was 1 just a couple years ago. A lot of cities and counties have not adopted their own 2 thresholds. They'll use what's called Appendix G out of the CEQA guidelines. It's a 3 sample checklist of potential environmental topics, but they'll turn it into thresholds 4 because of the way the questions in the Appendix G are phrased it sounds like you're 5 above the line or below the line. And the court reaffirmed that those are not thresholds, 6 it is a sample checklist and so they do not have any kind of legal standing as thresholds. 7 So that was one case where they reaffirmed that you local agencies or lead agencies do 8 have the discretion to set your own thresholds if supported by substantial evidence. 9  10 Ms. Gitelman: I'd just like to add a couple things to that. First, I don't think actually that 11 thresholds get challenged a lot, but I have worked in agencies where we decided not to 12 adopt thresholds on a certain subject because we were afraid of legal challenge. I mean 13 so it has the effect of kind of influencing local agency decision making because of that 14 opportunity to challenge local thresholds.  15  16 The other thing I would say and this is really interesting to me I of course I respect 17 Arthur a lot and his suggestion that we reexamine our thresholds is perfectly legitimate. 18 We adopted, last adopted thresholds in Palo Alto I don’t know, 2008 or something. It 19 was during the early years of preparing the Comp Plan and there was a whole series of 20 thresholds adopted that have since had to evolve a little bit because changes in the law 21 and practice in CEQA. But yes, obviously we could take some time to reexamine those 22 standards and adopt new thresholds based on substantial evidence. The question I have 23 is, is that effort worth it at this point or should we be focusing on this change in 24 methodology that the state is forcing on us and on Commissioner Waldfogel’s question 25 which is how do we translate this technical area into something that is more 26 understandable and people can relate to how they experience transportation 27 challenges. So good interesting questions. 28  29 Mr. Mello: And just to build off that a little bit it kind of goes back to the earlier 30 discussion about how do VMT and LOS relate. If people are traveling fewer miles they're 31 probably traveling through fewer intersections and fewer congested roadway segments. 32 So I think you might be getting to the same outcome that we ultimately want to see 33 which is to make mobility easier for folks. If they have to travel fewer miles to reach a 34 destination they may be just as happy as if they're traveling a longer distance through a 35 less congested corridor. 36  37 Chair Fine: Thank you very much. Commissioner Waldfogel. Oh, you ok? Can I give it to 38 the Vice‐Chair. 39  40 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you. So I just want to, just want to add to the discussion 41 because this was I also had a question about Arthur’s proposal and he’s back on the 42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 51 floor. So he may chime when he wishes to. We talk Arthur about your proposal to align 1 ourselves with Menlo Park if you heard the last staff’s comments. And I just wanted to 2 understanding Hillary’s point, right? It's possible that that we can still live with LOS for 3 many years because of its understandability and despite of this change in CEQA. So from 4 this perspective we may consider potential benefits of aligning ourselves with Menlo 5 Park given that Menlo Park retains its metrics for the years to come. So I would first 6 check with Menlo Park whether the plans with LOS before we go any farther. So that's 7 the comment about this. 8  9 I would like to just go back to the topic that Commissioner Downing opened with the 10 excellent inquiry when he, when she talk about local projects because we're going to 11 face many of them and listening to this exchange of comments I realized that probably 12 at a certain point of time you will provide us with some plan and methodology for 13 implementation of this CEQA change for the projects where you’re going to propose the 14 map that’s going to relate to the zoning. We will be able to comment on this map and 15 understand pros and cons.  16  17 Once you're going to do this I would like to also ask about addressing process. How 18 impact of VMT will influence selection of options for a local project and how 19 Commission will be exposed, how our Commission will be exposed to the selection of 20 those different options. I can imagine that staff would be discussing those options with 21 the developer or a builder how to reduce the impact on VMT on a given project. I would 22 like to understand how our Commission would have a say on the selection and agreeing 23 with the potential outcome that would come to our Commission from the discussion 24 between the staff and the developer. The reason is that pretty much we may want to 25 have, we may have a different perspective or maybe we would like or we would like to 26 understand the selection process and weighting down the best scenario. 27  28 Ms. Gitelman: Right, well I think we're all going to get a whole lot more sophisticated 29 about all of this in the next two years. And so I think the first step would be to have a 30 conversation as a community and with the staff with the Commission about how we're 31 going to implement this change in methodology for CEQA analysis, what the thresholds 32 will be. And once we understand that and the methodology for doing these analyses on 33 a project basis we’ll be able to have a conversation about what information analysis the 34 applicant brings to the table and what staff's analytical response will be, what the 35 Commission's role is, but I feel like we have to get a couple steps down the road before 36 we can have a meaningful conversation about that question. 37  38 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Of course. Thank you.  39  40 Chair Fine: Thank you Vice‐Chair. Commissioner Waldfogel. 41  42 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 52 Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you. Very informative discussion so appreciate all the 1 thoughtful responses. I mean I think there are a lot of great ideas that we've discussed 2 here and I think there is probably some community concern about what is the vision 3 point that is somehow captured in the middle of this. I think the CEQA changes are 4 inevitable, but and I love some of the ideas I love some of the ideas about walkable 5 retail, walking to a store. I’m not sure a dry cleaner is what I want to live next to 6 specifically, but… they're better than they used to be, but there are other there's other 7 retail that I'd be pretty enthusiastic about.  8  9 But the thing is again the community needs to be prepared for this discussion. There's 10 more here than transportation experience. There's this whole kind of complete 11 disruption in how we think about land use, how we think about how we circulate, and 12 what we build. I mean is single family residential R‐1 something that survives this 13 methodology over the long term or does it just not make the cut in the long term 14 because of some of the objectives that are buried in this? And that's not a 2 year 15 question that's like a 30 year question. So I'm not really looking for a specific response 16 on that, but again I just think we have to be as explicit as possible to say what this 17 material implies for what the community looks like. Does it mean we look like Fillmore 18 Street? Does it mean we look like Park Slope? Does it… sort of what's the end goal and 19 where do we get to? And again I just can’t discern it from this particular set of 20 documents, but I believe that they imply some outcomes that I can't that I can't discern.  21  22 The other thing I would just be very I would urge you very strongly as you think about 23 technology diffusion and innovation, I've spent my whole career working in that in 24 diffusion of new technologies sometimes physical objects or, and it turns out that in 25 least in my experience it's always slower than you expect in the near term. So as we 26 think about autonomous connected electric shared vehicles, if you think about those 27 trends which are quite likely to happen they'll be way less of it then we think there will 28 be over the next 10 or 15 years. And then assuming it happens it will be very rapid 29 adoption at some point, at some transition point. And the problem with that is that 30 we're writing plans that go out to 2030 against changes that may not be material until 31 almost the end point of those plans. And I worry about things like Sarah you mentioned 32 things you can do in residential to discourage driving, but in the short term you have 33 huge problems with freeloaders. And so you sort of have to figure out how do you 34 manage that? I'm happy… if you charge for parking spaces 20 years out that may be 35 wonderful, but in years 1 through 7 all those cars are going to end up parked on a street 36 two blocks away.  37  38 So we have to find ways to sort of deal with people's expectations. You know to deal 39 with the transitions to have reasonable assumptions about technology diffusion so that 40 we don't really get ahead of ourselves. So again I just look for… just really encourage 41 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 53 you to think about that and think about how to explain that to the community so that 1 the community doesn't say in five years well, that's not what we expected. 2  3 Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Waldfogel. I don't believe we have any other 4 questions or comments. So I hope this was helpful. I think it was helpful to us and I think 5 we gave you a range of comments from the very wide broad ideas of how do we 6 interpret this, how does the community understand, to some pretty specific questions 7 about VMT. But thank you all for your input and for this report and answering our 8 questions and for your time. Thank you. That closes Item 2. 9  10 Commission Action: No action taken, Commissioners provided comments only. 11  12 Approval of Minutes 13 Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker. 14 3. May 25, 2016 15  16 Chair Fine: Our last item for tonight is approval of minutes from May 25th. I'm not going to be 17 voting on this Motion because I wasn’t at that meeting, but if there is a Motion? 18  19 MOTION 20  21 Vice‐Chair Gardias: So Motion to approve the meeting minutes dated May 25.  22  23 SECOND, VOTE 24  25 Chair Fine: So we have a Motion on the floor to approve the minutes for May 25th. Is there a 26 second? And a second by Commissioner Tanaka. Let’s take a vote. All those in favor? So we 27 have three in favor, three abstaining because they were not there. Does that count as a pass?  28  29 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Actually you don't have to be present to vote on 30 minutes so if somebody would vote we’d appreciate it.  31  32 Chair Fine: I do too. Ok, unanimously passes.  33  34 MOTION PASSED (6‐0‐1, Commissioner Alcheck absent) 35  36 Commission Action: Minutes of May 25, 2016 approved. 37  38 Committee Reports 39  40 Commissioner Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 41  42 Chair Fine: Thank you all so much. I think that concludes our meeting at 8:50 tonight. Thank you 43 all. 44  45 City of Palo Alto June 29, 2016 Page 54 Adjournment: 8:50 PM 1 ID CMP System Roadway Cross Street Location Jurisdiction 1991 1992 1993 1994/5 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 101 S. Bascom Avenue Campbell Av. Campbell Campbell E C NM B B D-CCCCCC-C-CC 102 Hamilton Avenue Winchester Blvd. Campbell Campbell E D NM D E E D- D-DDDDE+E+D 103 Hwy 17 (NB) Hamilton Av. Campbell State A A NM C C B C+ C+ C B- B- C C C+ C 104 Hwy 17 (SB) Hamilton Av. Campbell State F F E E EEEEEE-EEEEE 105 Hamilton Avenue Bascom Av. Campbell Campbell D D NM E E E E E- E E D D- E+ E+ D- 202 Hwy 280 NB Ramps Wolfe Rd. Cupertino Cupertino NM B- B B+ B B A B+ B B B 203 Hwy 280 SB Ramps Wolfe Rd. Cupertino Cupertino NM B B+ A A B+ A B+ A A A 204 Stevens Creek Blvd. Wolfe Rd./Miller Av. Cupertino Cupertino DDDCDCD+D+D+CCD+D+D+D+ 206 Sara-Sunny Rd/De Anza Blvd. Prospect Rd. Cupertino Cupertino NM NM NM D D C- C C D+DCDCB-C 208 Hwy 85 SB Ramps Sara-Sunny Rd/De Anza Blvd. Cupertino Cupertino NM NM NM D D C+ C C C C- C- C C- C C 209 Hwy 85 NB Ramps Sara-Sunny Rd/De Anza Blvd. Cupertino Cupertino NM NM NM C C C+ C C+ C+ C- B C D B B 210 De Anza Blvd. (Rte. 85) Bollinger Rd. Cupertino Cupertino E DDDCCCCCCB-CCCC 211 De Anza Blvd. (Rte. 85) Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino Cupertino E DDDDDDDEDC-DD-DD 212 Hwy 280 SB Ramps De Anza Blvd. Cupertino Cupertino DCCCCCDCCC-BCB-BB- 213 Hwy 280 NB Ramps De Anza Blvd. Cupertino Cupertino F E DCDCD+C-CD+CCC+C+C- 214 De Anza Blvd. (Rte. 85) Homestead Rd. Cupertino Cupertino E DDDDD-DDE+D+C-D+D+D+D+ 217 Stevens Creek Blvd. Stelling Rd. Cupertino Cupertino DDDDDDCD+DD+DDDDC- 219 Stevens Creek Blvd. Hwy 85 SB Ramp Cupertino Cupertino C C B C C C B B- C+ C+CCCCC 220 Stevens Creek Blvd. Hwy 85 NB Ramp Cupertino Cupertino B B B C D B- B- C+ B- C C C- C- C B- 301 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 152) Leavesley Rd. Gilroy State C C NM DDCCCCCCCCCC 601 Saratoga-Los Gatos (Hwy. 9) University Av. Los Gatos State C C NM CCDDCC-DC-CCCC 602 Saratoga-Los Gatos (Hwy. 9) Santa Cruz Av. Los Gatos State D D NM DDDDDE+DDDDD+D+ 603 Los Gatos Blvd. Lark Av. Los Gatos Los Gatos C NM NM B C C- D C- D D D+ C- E+ D+ D+ 701 Calaveras Blvd. (Rte. 237) Abel St. Milpitas Milpitas E F D E D D D- D- D-DDDDE+E 702 Calaveras Blvd. (Rte. 237) Milpitas Blvd. Milpitas Milpitas F F D D D E+ E+ E D D D+ E+ D E D 1001 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Castro St. Mountain View State DDDDDEE+DDDDCDD+D 1002 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) El Monte Av. Mountain View State C B B B C C D C- D+ C- D+ C C C C- 1003 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Hwy 237/Grant Rd. Mountain View State E DDDDFFD-D-D-DDD-D-E+ 1004 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Miramonte Av./Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View State DDDDCEE-DDDDDD-DD 1005 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Rengstorff Av. Mountain View State CDDCCD-C-CCCCC+CC+C 1006 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) San Antonio Rd. Mountain View State E DDDDD-ED-D-DDDDDD 1100 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Alma Av. Palo Alto State B B NM B B B B C D D+ D D D+ D+ D+ 1102 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Embarcadero Rd./Galvez Palo Alto State D D NM DDDDDED-DD+DDD+ 1104 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expwy. Palo Alto State E D NM E D E E E+ E+ E+DDDDD 1106 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Charleston Rd./Arastradero Palo Alto State D D NM D D E+ E+ D-DDDDDDD 1108 San Antonio Rd. Charleston Rd. Palo Alto Palo Alto D D NM DDDDDDDDD+DDD 1110 San Antonio Rd. Middlefield Rd. Palo Alto Palo Alto D D NM E E E E+ E E D- D D+ D E D+ 1112 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Palm Dr. (San Mateo Co.) Palo Alto Palo Alto NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM CCCC 1114 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) University Av. (San Mateo Co.) Palo Alto Palo Alto NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM C C+ C C- 1200 Bowers Avenue Scott Blvd. Santa Clara Santa Clara DDDCCD+DE+DDC-CCCC 1201 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Kiely Blvd./Bowers Av. Santa Clara State D D NM DDDDDDDDC-DC-C 1202 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Lafayette St. Santa Clara Santa Clara DDDCDDD+D+DDD+DD+D+D 1203 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Lincoln Av. Santa Clara Santa Clara B B NM B B C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ C C+ C+ C 1204 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Monroe St. Santa Clara Santa Clara B C NM B C C D+ C D+ D+ C C- C- C- C 1205 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Scott Blvd. Santa Clara Santa Clara D C NM C C C- C- D+ D D D D+ D D+ D+ 1206 Great America Parkway Mission College Blvd. Santa Clara Santa Clara E D D E E E E F E E- D- D- D- D D 1207 Great America Parkway Tasman Dr. Santa Clara Santa Clara B B NM B C C C C- D+ D C C C- C C 1208 Hwy 101 (SB) Bowers Av. Santa Clara State B A NM A A B+ B B B- B B B+ A A A 1209 Hwy 101 (NB) Great America Pkwy Santa Clara State C B NM B C B B B C+ C B- A A A A 1210 Hwy 280 (SB) Stevens Creek Blvd. Santa Clara State E D D E DCCCC-DD+D+E+CC 1211 Stevens Creek Blvd. Lawrence Expwy. (E side) Santa Clara Santa Clara B B NM C B C+ C C D+ D+ D+ C- C C C 1212 Stevens Creek Blvd. Lawrence Expwy. (SB ramp) Santa Clara Santa Clara B A NM B C C C C+ D+ B CCCCC 1213 The Alameda (Rte 82) El Camino Real (Rte 82) Santa Clara State A B NM B B B C C+ B- B C+ B C B B Table 5 - Intersection LOS, 1991 – 2012 1214 Lawrence Exp. El Camino Real (Rte 82) Santa Clara State NM NM NM NM NM B C- D D+ D C-CCCC 1301 Big Basin Way (Hwy 9) Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. Saratoga State E D NM C D D D+ D D D C- D D+ D+ D+ 1401 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Fremont Av. Sunnyvale Sunnyvale D D NM DDDDDD-DDNMDDD 1402 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Remington Dr. Sunnyvale Sunnyvale E C NM DDDDDDDDNMDC-D 1404 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Fair Oaks Av. Sunnyvale State D E D E D E+ D-DDDDDD+DD 1405 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Wolfe Rd. Sunnyvale State E E E E EEEEEDDD-E-DD 1406 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Mary Av. Sunnyvale State D D NM DDDDDDDD+D+DDD 1407 El Camino Real (Rte. 82) Mathilda Av. Sunnyvale State D E E D E E+ E F E+ E+ C-DDDD 1412 Mathilda Avenue Java Dr. Sunnyvale Sunnyvale B B NM C C C+ NM C- C C C+ C C- C C 1413 Mathilda Avenue Maude Av. Sunnyvale Sunnyvale D D NM CDDDDDD+CD+D+C-D+ 2001 Saratoga-Los Gatos (Hwy. 9) Quito Rd. SC County State A A NM A BBBBBBB+B+B+B+B+ 3001 Hwy 85 Bascom (North) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C BBBBBB-BC+C+C+C+ 3002 Hwy 85 Bascom (South) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C BBBBBBBC+C+CC 3003 Hwy 85 Bernal Rd. San Jose San Jose NM NM NM CCCDD-D+D+CCCCB 3004 Hwy 85 Blossom Hill Rd. (North) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C C C+ C D D+ C-CCCCC 3005 Hwy 85 Blossom Hill Rd. (South) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM D E F E+ D- D- D- D F D- E+ E+ 3006 Hwy 85 Camden (North) San Jose San Jose E NM C D D D+CCCCCCCCC 3007 Hwy 85 Camden (South) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM D D E E+ E D- E+ D- D- E+ E+ D 3008 Hwy 85 Cottle (North) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM B C C+ B B- B B B+ B B A B 3009 Hwy 85 Cottle (South) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C D C-CCCCCCC-C-D 3010 Hwy 85 Santa Teresa (North) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM CCDDDDNMNMCCCC 3011 Hwy 85 Santa Teresa (South) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C C C+CCCCBBBC+B- 3012 Hwy 87 Coleman Av. San Jose San Jose C B NM B B B NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 3013 Hwy 87 Julian (East) San Jose San Jose D D NM D D E D- D D+ D D+ NM D D D 3014 Hwy 87 Julian (West) San Jose San Jose B B NM C C B B B- B B B B B B B 3015 Hwy 87 E. Santa Clara Street (NB Off) San Jose San Jose NM NM NM C C B B B B B B NM B B B 3016 Hwy 101 Santa Clara (East) San Jose State B NM B C C B B B B B B B B B B 3017 Hwy 101 Bernal Rd. San Jose State A A NM A BBBBBBB+B+B+B+B 3018 Hwy 101 Blossom Hill Rd. (East) San Jose State D D NM D D D+ C- D- D D C-CCCC 3019 Hwy 101 Blossom Hill Rd. (West) San Jose State B B NM B B C+ B- C+ C C C+ B B C B 3020 Hwy 101 Brokaw Rd. San Jose San Jose B NM B B C C C- C- C C C C+ C C+ C+ 3021 Hwy 101 Oakland Rd. (North) San Jose State B NM B CCCCCCCC+C+CC+C+ 3022 Hwy 101 Oakland Rd. (South) San Jose State C NM C C C D+ D+ D+ D+ D C C- C C C 3023 Hwy 101 Santa Clara (West) San Jose State C NM C D C B B B B B B B B B B 3024 Hwy 101 Yerba Buena (East) San Jose State B C NM C B B- B C+ C+ C+ C+ B B C+ C+ 3025 Hwy 101 Yerba Buena (West) San Jose State C D NM CCCCCCCCC+CC+C+ 3026 Hwy 237 First St. (North) San Jose State F D NM NM C B- C+ B B B B B B- B- B- 3027 Hwy 237 First St. (South) San Jose State F D NM NM C C D+ C C C+ C+ C+ C+ B- C+ 3028 Hwy 237 Great America Pkwy (N.) San Jose State F F C NM B CCCCCCBBBB 3029 Hwy 237 Great America Pkwy (South) San Jose State F F C NM ABBBB-C+BBB+AB+ 3030 Hwy 237 Zanker Rd. (North) San Jose State F F NM NM B B C+ B B B B+ B+ B+ B B 3031 Hwy 237 Zanker Rd. (South) San Jose State F F NM NM B B C+ B B B B+ B B+ B B 3032 Hwy 280 Bird Av. North San Jose San Jose C C NM C C C C- C C C- C C- C C C 3033 Hwy 280 Bird Av. South San Jose San Jose B B NM B C B C+ C C C C- C- C C C 3034 Hwy 280 11th St. North San Jose San Jose B B NM B BBBBBBBBBBB 3035 Hwy 280 11th St. South San Jose San Jose B B NM A BBBBBBBBBBB 3036 Hwy 280 McLaughlin Av. San Jose San Jose B B NM B B B- B B B B B B B B B 3037 Hwy 280 Moorpark Av. San Jose San Jose B B NM CCCCCCCCCB+BB 3038 Hwy 280 Saratoga Av. North San Jose San Jose B C NM B C C+ E B B- C+ B- C B- B- C+ 3039 Hwy 280 Saratoga Av. South San Jose San Jose B B NM C E F F C- D+ D D+ D D D C- 3040 Hwy 280 10th St. North San Jose San Jose B B NM B BBBBBBBBBBB 3041 Hwy 280 10th St. South San Jose San Jose B B NM B B B B- B B B B B B B B- 3042 Hwy 680 Alum Rock (East) San Jose State B B NM B B C B- C C C C+ C C- C C 3043 Hwy 680 Alum Rock (West) San Jose State B B NM B B C+ C+ C C C+ C+CCCC 3044 Hwy 680 King Rd. N San Jose San Jose C C NM C C C C- D+ D+ D+ C- C- C C- C- 3045 Hwy 680 King Rd. S San Jose San Jose A B NM B B C C+ D+ D+ C C-CCCC 3046 Hwy 880 The Alameda N San Jose San Jose A A NM B A B+ B+ B+ B+ B+ A B B B B 3047 Hwy 880 The Alameda S San Jose San Jose A A NM B B B+ B B B B+ A B- B C+ B- 3048 Hwy 880 Bascom Av. N San Jose San Jose B B NM B BBBBBBAAAB+A 3049 Hwy 880 Bascom Av. S San Jose San Jose B C NM B C B+ C A B B B+ A B+ B+ A 3050 Hwy 880 Brokaw Rd. E San Jose San Jose B B NM C C C+ C+ B- B B C C- D+ C C 3051 Hwy 880 Brokaw Rd. W San Jose San Jose D D NM D D C- C- C C C- D D D D+ D 3052 Hwy 880 Coleman Av. N San Jose San Jose B B NM B BBBBBBB+NMAB+B+ 3053 Hwy 880 Coleman Av. S San Jose San Jose B B NM B D B B- B B B B NM B- C+ C+ 3054 Hwy 880 N. First St. N San Jose San Jose A A NM A A B+ B+ B B B B B B- B C 3055 Hwy 880 N. First St. S San Jose San Jose C B NM B BBBBBBBBBBB 3056 Hwy 880 Stevens Creek Blvd. San Jose San Jose C B NM C C C+ C C+ B- C+ C+ C+ C+ C+ B 3057 The Alameda (Rte 82) Hedding St. San Jose San Jose D C NM CCDDDC-C-CC-C-C-D+ 3058 The Alameda (Rte 82) Naglee Av. San Jose San Jose D C NM CCDCDD+D+D+DDDD 3059 The Alameda (Rte 82) Race St. San Jose San Jose C C NM CCDCCCCCC-D+CC- 3060 Monterey Hwy/First St. (SR 82) Alma Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDDD+DDDD 3061 E. San Carlos St. (Rte 82) Almaden Blvd. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D E D D D+ D+ C- C- D D+ D+ 3062 Alum Rock Avenue (Rte. 130) Capitol Av. San Jose State D D NM D E D+ D D+ D+ NM NM D+ D C- C- 3063 Alum Rock Avenue (Rte. 130) Jackson Av. San Jose State D E D D E D D D+ D+ D D+ D D- D D 3064 Alum Rock Avenue (Rte. 130) King Rd. San Jose State C C NM D D D+ D+ D+ D+ D+ C- C- D C- C- 3065 Alum Rock Avenue (Rte. 130) White Rd. San Jose State D D NM D D E+ E+DDDDDDDD 3066 Autumn Street Santa Clara St. San Jose San Jose B B NM B B B- B- B- B- B- B C C+ B- C+ 3067 S. Bascom Avenue Camden Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D E D- D- D D-DDDDD 3068 S. Bascom Avenue Curtner Av. San Jose San Jose C C NM C B C C+ C D+ C C- D+ D D D+ 3069 S. Bascom Avenue Samaritan Dr. San Jose San Jose D NM CDDDDD+CC+CCD+C-D+ 3070 S. Bascom Avenue Stokes St. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D C-CCCCCCC-CC 3071 S. Bascom Avenue Union Av. San Jose San Jose E D NM D D C D+ C- D D D C- D+ D+ D 3072 Monterey Hwy. E Bernal Rd. San Jose San Jose B B NM A BEBBBB-BBBAB 3073 Monterey Hwy. N Bernal Rd. San Jose San Jose C C NM B C D+ C- C- C-CCCCCC 3074 Monterey Hwy. S Bernal Rd. San Jose San Jose A A NM A AAABAAAAAAA 3075 Santa Teresa Blvd. Bernal Rd. San Jose San Jose E D NM D D D+ D D D D+ C- D+ D D D 3076 Berryessa Rd. Lundy Av. San Jose San Jose E E E DDDDDD-DDDDDD 3077 Bird Avenue (Rte 82) E. San Carlos St. (Rte 82) San Jose San Jose C C NM D D D+ D D+ D D D+ D D+ D+ D 3078 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) N Blossom Hill Rd. San Jose San Jose C NM B B C B B B C+ B B- B- B- B C+ 3079 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) S Blossom Hill Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM C C C C+ C+ C B C C+ C C+ C 3080 Blossom Hill Rd. Santa Teresa Blvd. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDDD+D+DDD 3081 Blossom Hill Rd. Snell Avenue San Jose San Jose D E DDDDDDDDDDDDD 3082 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Branham Ln. San Jose San Jose D NM DDCDC-CC-C-C-C-D+D+D+ 3083 Brokaw Rd. First St. San Jose San Jose F NM D D E D E+DDDDDD-D-D 3084 Brokaw Rd. Old Oakland Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM CDDDDDDDNMDDD 3085 Brokaw Rd. Zanker Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D E E+ E+ D NM NM D+ D D D 3086 Hillsdale Av. Camden Av. San Jose San Jose D C NM C C C C- C+ C D+ C+ C+ C C C 3087 Camden Avenue Leigh Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDD-E+DDDD 3088 Camden Avenue Union Av. San Jose San Jose E E E D D D- D- D- E E D E E E E+ 3089 Hamilton Avenue Campbell Av. San Jose San Jose D C NM CCCCCB-CCB-BBB 3090 Campbell Avenue Saratoga Av. San Jose San Jose F F DDDDDDDDDD-D-D-D- 3091 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Capitol Expwy. N San Jose San Jose B NM B B BBBBBBBBB-BB 3092 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Capitol Expwy. S San Jose San Jose B NM A A ABBBBBBBBBB 3093 Santa Teresa Blvd. Coleman Rd. San Jose San Jose D C NM C C B CCCCCCCCC 3094 Santa Teresa Blvd. Cottle Rd. San Jose San Jose E E DDDDDDD+D+D+DD+D+D+ 3095 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Curtner Av. San Jose San Jose F NM DDDDDDDDDDEE+E 3096 Trimble Rd. De la Cruz Blvd. San Jose San Jose E E E F F D+ E D-DDDDDC-C 3097 S. First Street (Rte 82) Keyes St./Goodyear San Jose San Jose C C NM CCDCC-C-CCCCCC 3098 Trimble Rd. First St. San Jose San Jose F E E E E E E+ D-DDDDDDD 3099 S. First Street (Rte 82) Willow St. San Jose San Jose A A NM A A A A B+ A B+ A A A A A 3100 Guadalupe Parkway Hedding St. San Jose San Jose E E D D D C- NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 3101 Guadalupe Parkway Taylor San Jose San Jose F F E F F F NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM 3102 Hillsdale Av. Meridian Av. San Jose San Jose E E D D D D- D D- D- D-DDDDD- 3103 Saratoga Avenue Kiely Blvd. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDDDDEDD 3104 Stevens Creek Blvd. Kiely Blvd. San Jose San Jose E E E E D E D- D- D- D-DDDDD+ 3105 Tully Rd. King Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D E+ D D- D- D- D D D- D D 3106 Murphy Avenue Lundy Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDDDDDDD 3107 E. San Carlos St. (Rte 82) Market St. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDD+DC-C-D+C-D+ 3108 Tully Rd. McLaughlin Av. San Jose San Jose F D NM D E D E E D- D- D- D D D- D 3109 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Senter Rd. San Jose San Jose C NM C C B CCCCCCCCCC 3110 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Skyway Dr. San Jose San Jose B NM B B BBBBB-CCCCCC 3111 Monterey Hwy. (Rte. 82) Tully Rd. San Jose San Jose B NM B B B B- B C+ B B- C+ C C+ C C 3112 Santa Clara Street (Rte 82) Montgomery St. San Jose San Jose B A NM B B A B- C+ B- B- B B- B B A 3113 Saratoga Avenue Moorpark Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM DDDDDDDDDDDD 3114 Tully Rd. Quimby Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D D D+DDDDDDD+D+ 3115 Santa Teresa Blvd. Snell Avenue San Jose San Jose E D NM DDDDC-C-C-C-CCC-D+ 3116 Stevens Creek Blvd. Saratoga Av. San Jose San Jose E E DDDDDDDDD+DD+D+D+ 3117 Tully Rd. Senter Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D NM D- D- D- D D D D- D D 3118 Stevens Creek Blvd. Winchester Blvd. San Jose San Jose E E DDDDDD-DDDDDDD- 3119 Trimble Rd. Zanker Rd. San Jose San Jose D D NM CDDDE+NMNMNMC-C-C-D+ 3120 Capitol Exp. Pearl Av. San Jose San Jose D D NM D D D NM D+ D+ D C- D+ C- C- D+ 5009 S. Bascom Avenue Fruitvale Av. San Jose SC County B C NM C C D D- D D D+ D+ D+ D+ D D 5012 S. Bascom Avenue Moorpark Av. San Jose SC County C D NM D E E+ D D E E+ D D D D- D 5108 Page Mill/Oregon Exp. Middlefield Rd. Palo Alto SC County E E E E E E E E- E E E E E E+ E+ 5120 Page Mill/Oregon Exp. Hanover Palo Alto SC County D D NM D D E E E E+ E+ D D D+ D D 5205 Page Mill/Oregon Exp. Foothill Expwy. Palo Alto SC County FFFFFFFNMFFFFFFE- 5207 Foothill Exp. Arastradero Rd. Palo Alto SC County E E E E EEEEEED-D-DD-D 5213 Foothill Exp. Main St./Burke Rd. Los Altos SC County C C NM C B C- C C C C+ C+ C C+ C+ C+ 5214 Foothill Exp. San Antonio Rd. Los Altos SC County B B NM B C C+ B- B B- C+ B B B B B 5215 Foothill Exp. El Monte Av. Los Altos SC County D D NM D E E E F F E E E+ E+ E+ D- 5220 Foothill Exp. Magdalena Av./Springer Rd. Los Altos SC County D E D D E E E E+ E+ E+DDDDD 5223 Foothill Exp. Grant Rd./St. Joseph Av. Los Altos SC County C D NM D D D- D- D- E DDDDDD 5225 Foothill Exp. Homestead Rd. Los Altos SC County C C NM CDDDDDDDD+D+D+C- 5305 Central Exp. Rengstorff Av. Mountain View SC County E E E E E E D- E E E+ D E+ E+ D- D 5308 Central Exp. Castro St./Moffet Blvd. Mountain View SC County D D NM D D D-DDDDDDDDD 5310 Central Exp. Shoreline Blvd. East Mountain View SC County B B NM B B D D D- D- B A A B+ B+ A 5311 Central Exp. Shoreline Blvd. West Mountain View SC County B B NM B BBBBBBAB+B+BB+ 5313 Central Exp. Whisman Rd. Mountain View SC County B B NM B BBBBBBBBBC+B- 5315 Central Exp. Hwy 237 Mountain View SC County B B NM B BBBBBBB+AABB+ 5320 Central Exp. Mary Av. Sunnyvale SC County E E D D D D- D E+DDDDDDD 5325 Central Exp. Corvin Dr./Oakmead Pkwy Santa Clara SC County C C NM C D D E+ D- D- C- C C C+ C+ C 5329 Central Exp. Bowers Av. Santa Clara SC County D D NM E E FFFFEE+EEED 5332 Central Exp. Scott Blvd. Santa Clara SC County E D NM D E E+ E+ E- E D D+ D D D- D 5334 Central Exp. Lafayette St. Santa Clara SC County D D NM E FFFFFEE+D-EED- 5335 Central Exp. De la Cruz Blvd. Santa Clara SC County E E E E FFFFFFFFFFF 5405 San Tomas Exp. Stevens Creek Blvd. Santa Clara SC County FFFFFFFFFFFFFEE 5406 San Tomas Exp. Moorpark Av. San Jose SC County E D NM D D E+ D- F E+ E+DDDDD- 5408 San Tomas Exp. Scott Blvd. Santa Clara SC County FFFFNMFFE-EEDDD-DD 5414 San Tomas Exp. Monroe St. Santa Clara SC County E D NM D D E E D- E+ E+ D D D+ D+ D+ 5416 San Tomas Exp. El Camino Real (Rte 82) Santa Clara SC County FFFFFFFFFFEEEE+E+ 5419 San Tomas Exp. Homestead Rd. Santa Clara SC County F E E E E E- F E F E+ E E E E+ E+ 5422 San Tomas Exp. Saratoga Av. Santa Clara SC County E E E E FFFFFFE+EE+E+D 5429 San Tomas Exp. Hamilton Av. Campbell SC County E E E E E FFFFFEEE+DD 5430 San Tomas Exp. Campbell Av. Campbell SC County F F E FFFFE-E-EE+E-E-EE 5432 Hwy 17 (SB) San Tomas Expwy./Camden Av. Campbell SC County F D NM E E E- F F E D+ D+ D E E+ E 5433 Hwy 17 (NB) San Tomas Expwy./Camden Av. Campbell SC County C C NM C D E D F E+ D D D E+ D D 5505 Almaden Exp. Koch Ln. San Jose SC County B B NM B B B+ B B+ B B A A A A A 5512 Almaden Exp. Branham Ln. San Jose SC County F E E D D E+ D- E+ D- D-DDDDD 5513 Almaden Exp. Blossom Hill Rd. San Jose SC County F E E E E E E F F F E E- E E E+ 5516 Almaden Exp. Coleman Rd. San Jose SC County F F F D E E D- D- E+ E D D- D D D 5520 Almaden Exp. Camden Av. San Jose SC County E D NM D E E+ E D- E E DDDDD 5522 Almaden Exp. Hwy 85 N. ramp San Jose SC County NM NM NM C B C+ C C+ C D- E D E D D 5523 Almaden Exp. Hwy 85 S. ramp San Jose SC County NM NM NM B C C F D- C-DCCCCC 5603 Lawrence Exp. Tasman Dr. Sunnyvale SC County D D NM D NM E+ NM F D- D D D- E+ D- D- 5611 Lawrence Exp. Arques Av. Sunnyvale SC County E D NM E NM D- E+ F F F E D D- E+ E+ 5613 Lawrence Exp. Reed Av. Sunnyvale SC County E E E D NM E E- E F F D D D- D+ D 5625 Lawrence Exp. Homestead Rd. Sunnyvale SC County F F F E NM E+ E+ E+ E+ E D D- D D D 5633 Lawrence Exp. Bollinger Rd./Moorpark Av. San Jose SC County D D NM D D D E+ E E E+ E+ E+ E+ D D 5635 Lawrence Exp. Prospect Rd. San Jose SC County E E E D D D- D- D- E+ E+ D D- D D D 5636 Lawrence Exp. Calvert Drive (I-280 on-ramp) San Jose SC County NM NM NM C NM C D+CDDDDD+C-C- 5640 Lawrence Exp. Saratoga Av. San Jose SC County F F F E E E+ F E+ E E+DDDDD 5711 Capitol Exp. Narvaez Avenue San Jose SC County NM NM NM D D D D+ D D+ D+ C-DDDD 5713 Capitol Exp. Hwy 87 on/off ramp San Jose SC County NM NM NM D D D- D E- D- D C- D D- D D 5715 Capitol Exp. Snell Rd. San Jose SC County D D NM DDDDDDDD+D+D+DD 5720 Capitol Exp. Senter Rd. San Jose SC County F F E E EEEEE+E+DD-DDD 5721 Capitol Exp. McLaughlin Av. San Jose SC County D D NM D E E E DDDDDD-DD 5723 Capitol Exp. Silver Creek Rd. San Jose SC County F D NM D E D FFFFFEE+EE+ 5724 Capitol Exp. Aborn Rd. San Jose SC County F F F E E D E D E E+ D E E- E E 5725 Capitol Exp. Quimby Rd. San Jose SC County E E E E E D- D E E+ E- D- E- E- E E 5727 Capitol Exp. Tully Rd. San Jose SC County D E D E E D D E+ D D- D D D- D D 5732 Capitol Exp. Story Rd. San Jose SC County F F E E FFFFFFE+EEEE+ 5734 Capitol Exp. Excalibur Dr. (Capitol Av.) San Jose SC County F D NM D D F D- F E+ E F E+ E+ E+ D- 5801 Montague Exp. Main St./Old Oakland Rd. Milpitas SC County F F E E E FFFFEFNME+DD- 5802 Montague Exp. Trade Zone Blvd./McCandless Milpitas SC County FFFFFFFFFFFFFFE- 5803 Montague Exp. Capitol Av. Milpitas SC County F E E E FFFFFEEE+E+D-D- 5804 Montague Exp. Milpitas Blvd. Milpitas SC County F E E E FFFFFFD+DD+DD+ 5805 Montague Exp. Mission College Blvd. Santa Clara SC County F D NM D D D D+DDDDD+D+DD 5806 Montague Exp. De la Cruz Blvd. Santa Clara SC County C C NM C D C-CCCDDD+DD+D 5807 Montague Exp. First St. San Jose SC County F E E E FFFFFFEFFE+E 5808 Montague Exp. Trimble Rd. San Jose SC County FFFFFFFFFE+DE+E+DD 5809 Montague Exp. McCarthy Blvd./O'Toole Av. Milpitas SC County FFFFFFFFFFEEEEF 5812 Montague Exp. Zanker Rd. San Jose SC County E D NM D E D- D- E E+ E D- E+ E D D- 1 2 3 4 567891011121314151617181920 VTA Questions for OPR on SB 743, including TPA Definition Updated February 25, 2014 Questions Related to Definition of a Transit Priority Area (TPA) and Infill Opportunity Zone (IOZ): 1. What is the definition of a planned Major Transit Stop? Does it need to be included in the latest State TIP or listed in the RTP? Does the stop have to be completed in the time frame of the State TIP (5 years) or RTP (25 years)? 2. Who has the responsibility of maintaining/updating the map of TPAs? MTC/ABAG? CMAs? Cities? Any Lead Agency? Does OPR expect to specify this? 3. What constitutes an “intersection” of bus routes, in the definition of a Major Transit Stop? Just Scenario I, I and II, or all three (as shown in the figure below)? 4. Bus Headways/Service Interval: Can combined headways of 15 minutes or less count, or does each route have to be 15 minutes or better? 5. Will there be guidance on how frequently the map of TPAs needs to be updated? Will each transit operator need to update the TPA map with every bus service change? For example, current route alignments and headways will be used initially to map the locations of TPAs in an area. But if route alignments or headways change (e.g., if a 15- minute route goes to 20 or 30-minute headways) some locations may no longer qualify as TPAs. How will this be handled – keeping in mind the administrative burden/resource constraints? Alternatively, for the purpose of defining TPA locations, would it be sufficient to note that a location is currently a TPA, and that the RTP assumes the same general transit network and service levels (total amount of service) in the future as at present? 6. IOZ Definition: SB 743 seems to contain conflicting language as to whether high quality transit corridors are qualified to become “Infill Opportunity Zones.” They are included in the definition:  65088.1 (e) “Infill opportunity zone” means a specific area designated by a city or county, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65088.4, that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan. VTA Questions for OPR on SB 743, including TPA Definition Updated February 25, 2014 However, later the legislation seems to say that only TPAs would be allowed to become Infill Opportunity Zones:  65088.4 (c) The city or county may designate an infill opportunity zone by adopting a resolution after determining that the infill opportunity zone is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan, and is a transit priority area within a sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy adopted by the applicable metropolitan planning organization. Broader Questions on SB 743: 7. Could OPR please post all letters received on the December 30th OPR memo? 8. Can OPR please clarify the upcoming steps in the development and review of the guidelines (including opportunities for public/agency input)? 9. Who is the official interpreter of SB 743? 10. Does Plan Bay Area have to be “accepted” by CARB before the provisions involving TPAs, IOZs, and/or CEQA exemptions take effect? (factoring in the pending lawsuits against Plan Bay Area) 11. What happens if a project inside a TPA has an Auto LOS impact outside the boundaries of the TPA? If it turns out that Auto LOS is still allowed to be used outside TPAs, will a Lead Agency have to perform the LOS analysis and disclose impacts outside (but not inside) for CEQA purposes? 12. Has OPR considered any further guidance to harmonize CEQA and CMP transportation analysis guidelines (beyond the IOZ provisions in the legislation)? 13. Will OPR be providing specific guidance for applying SB 743 for transportation projects (e.g., transit or roadway capital projects), in addition to for land use/development projects? 14. If a rail station is located in the median of a freeway (and therefore a portion of the freeway falls inside a TPA), would a transportation improvement project on that freeway (e.g., an Express Lane/HOT Lane project) be exempt from Auto LOS analysis in those areas? 15. Who will establish the thresholds of significance for any new metrics that are recommended under the SB 743 guidelines? Is it possible there will be different thresholds (e.g., local, CMA, regional)? Charlotte Department of Transportation PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY FOR CROSSINGS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Updated February 2007 CONTENTS Introduction ………………………………………………………………… p 3 Signal Features and Pedestrian Level of Service …………………………... p 3 Signal Features and Bicycle Level of Service ……………………………… p 6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service Determination …………………… p 9 Summary …………………………………………………………………… p 9 Pedestrian Level of Service Calculation Tables …………………………… p 11 Bicycle Level of Service Calculation Tables ……………………………… p 16 Intersection Example #1 ……………………………….………………….. p 19 Intersection Example #2 ……………………………….………………….. p 22 TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1 Pedestrian LOS: Crossing Distance ……………………………. p 11 Table 2 Pedestrian LOS: Signal Phasing & Timing Features …………... p 12, 13 Table 3 Pedestrian LOS: Corner Radius ………………………………... p 14 Table 4 Pedestrian LOS: Right Turns On Red …………………………. p 15 Table 5 Pedestrian LOS: Crosswalk Treatment ………………………… p 15 Table 6 Pedestrian LOS: Adjustment for One-Way Street Crossings .…. p 15 Table 7 Point Totals and Corresponding Pedestrian Level of Service …. p 15 Table 8 Bicycle LOS: Bicycle Travel Way & Speed of Adjacent Traffic p 16, 17 Table 9 Bicycle LOS: Signal Features – Left Turns & Stop Bar Location p 17 Table 10 Bicycle LOS: Right Turn Traffic Conflict .……..……………... p 18 Table 11 Bicycle LOS: Right Turns On Red ……………………………. p 18 Table 12 Bicycle LOS: Intersection Crossing Distance …………………. p 18 Table 13 Point Totals and Corresponding Bicycle Level of Service ……. p 18 Figure 1 Pedestrian Crossing Conflicts …………………………………. p 5 Figure 2 Corner Channel Island Designs ……………………………….. p 5 Figure 3 Adjustment for One-Way Streets … ………………………….. p 6 Figure 4 Bicycle Crossing Conflicts ……………………………………. p 7 Figure 5 Bike Treatments at Exclusive Right Turn Lanes ..…………….. p 8 Figure 6 Example Intersection #1: Pedestrian LOS Calculation ……….. p 20 Figure 7 Example Intersection #1: Bicycle LOS Calculation ………….. p 21 Figure 8 Example Intersection #2: Pedestrian LOS Calculation ………. p 23 2 INTRODUCTION The Charlotte Department of Transportation has developed the following methodology to assess the important design features that affect pedestrians and bicyclists crossing signalized intersections. Referred to as Level of Service (LOS), this methodology identifies and evaluates features according to their influence on the comfort and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. Among the key features identified and rated are crossing distance, roadway space allocation (i.e., crosswalks, bike lanes), corner radius dimension and traffic signal characteristics. This methodology can be used as a diagnostic tool to assess and improve pedestrian and bicyclist levels of comfort and safety by modifying design and operational features of intersections. The results can be compared with those for traffic levels of service of an intersection and weighed according to user priorities. This methodology is intended to be used to select design and operational features that can help achieve desired levels of service for pedestrians and bicyclists. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION FEATURES AND THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) The primary impediments to comfort and safety for pedestrians crossing at signalized intersections are crossing distance and conflicts with turning vehicles. Vehicle volumes and speeds are factors as well, but are tempered by the presence of the traffic signal, its phasing, and/or physical characteristics of the intersection. For example, tight corner radii can slow the speeds of right-turning vehicles, and right and left turn conflicts can be reduced or eliminated by signal phasing, all design factors affecting comfort and safety between pedestrians and vehicles. So although volumes and speeds are not explicitly addressed by this methodology, they are implicitly dealt with. This approach for assessing pedestrian level of service, therefore, identifies those key elements or features of intersections that enhance or reduce comfort and safety, and then weighs them relative to one another by a point system. Points are assigned to physical and operational features of intersections according to how well they achieve these objectives. These important features are discussed below. Rated Intersection Features Crossing Distance (Table 1) – As previously mentioned, crossing distance is the primary crossing component or obstacle for pedestrians traveling across intersections and therefore receives the greatest weight in this methodology. The less distance one has to walk to cross a street, the easier and more comfortable it is perceived to be. A crossing equivalent to two or three lanes, for example, rates a minimum LOS of B, exclusive of any other features. By contrast, a crossing of eight lanes or more falls in the LOS F range, exclusive of other features. For wide street crossings, where there is a greater probability that pedestrians might fail to make it across the entire roadway during a signal phase, level of service can be improved noticeably if there is a median wide enough to 3 serve as a refuge. Slip lanes and raised corner islands can also enhance pedestrian crossings by breaking long continuous distances into shorter, more manageable crossings. Crossing distance is determined based on the number of motor vehicle travel lanes that must be crossed to reach the far side of the intersection. Travel lanes are assumed to be within the range of 10’ to 14’ in width. If a lane(s) is much wider, one might consider the street crossing as wider than simply the number of delineated travel lanes. For example, the departure leg of an intersection is 20’ wide and unmarked. In this case, the departure leg can be considered as two travel lanes to be crossed instead of one. Signal Phasing & Timing (Table 2) – This is the most intricate of the design parameters and second most important in terms of points. It is rated according to the type and level of crossing information provided to the pedestrian and whether the signal phasing minimizes, eliminates or exacerbates conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles (Figure 1). The signal phasing feature that rates best for reducing left turn conflicts across the pedestrian path is the Protected Only phase (when turns occur on a green arrow only), provided there are signals that inform pedestrians when they can cross without a conflict with left turning vehicles. Protected turn phases (e.g., green arrow only, green arrow/green ball) without accompanying pedestrian signals expose pedestrians to greater risks by adding an extra phase to the signal cycle that may not be perceptible to pedestrians. This condition, which may entice pedestrians into the street while motorist are turning on the arrow and not expecting to encounter pedestrians crossing, is viewed negatively. Also considered an increased risk, and rated accordingly, are lane arrangements that allow multiple lanes of traffic to turn across pedestrian paths, unless the signal phasing reduces or eliminates the conflict. As with left turn conflicts, right turn conflicts are assessed according to lane configuration and signal phasing. Points can only be achieved in this category if the pedestrian conflict with turning traffic is eliminated by the signal phasing. Points are taken away if either the signal phasing creates a conflict similar to that discussed above for left turn phasing (overlap) or multiple lanes of traffic are allowed to turn concurrent with pedestrian crossings. Otherwise, no points are awarded or subtracted. Points can also be attained by the use of pedestrian signals, provided vehicle conflicts are reduced and/or information is given by the signal that shows pedestrians how much time is available for them to cross the street (e.g., countdown signals). Additional points can be obtained within this subcategory by timing pedestrian phases for slower walk speeds, if countdown pedestrian signals are used. Pedestrian phase times based on slower walk speeds without countdown signals are not perceptible to pedestrians, and therefore do not receive extra points. 4 PE D Figure 1. Pedestrian Crossing Conflicts Right Turn Conflict Corner Radius Left Turn Conflict Right Turn on Red Conflict Corner Radius (Table 3) – Corner radius is rated according to its effect on right-turning vehicle speeds and any increased walking distance for pedestrians. The smaller the radius, the slower the turning speeds around it and the less additional distance to be walked. Radii of 20’ or smaller rate best, while large radii (greater than 40’) are considered detrimental enough to be assigned negative point values. If slip lanes or raised corner channel islands suitable in size to serve as pedestrian refuge are provided (Figure 2), then points are assigned according to the type of traffic control present (i.e., yield or signal control) and how this control manages the pedestrian-turning vehicle conflict. For simplicity, no distinction is made between corner radius and its effect on vehicle speeds for turns into a single lane or turns into multiple lanes. Also, the effect of intersection angle on vehicle speeds for a given radius is not directly incorporated. Corner radius ranks third for points among the rated intersection features. Figure 2. Corner Channel Island Designs Wide Angle Reduced Angle (A) Standard slip lane design (B) Modified slip lane design Slower speed, good visiblityHigh speed, low visibility head turner 5 Right Turns On Red (Table 4) – Prohibiting right-turns-on-red eliminates a possible conflict between pedestrians and motorists. The Right-Turns-On-Red and Crosswalk (below) features each account for about 5% of the possible points. Crosswalk Treatment (Table 5) - The presence of and design features of crosswalks are both rated. Crosswalks help raise awareness to motorists of the possibility of pedestrians crossing the street. Enhanced crosswalks (e.g., textured/colored pavement or ladder style pavement markings) are more visible than simple transverse markings, and therefore are rated better. Adjustment for One-Way Street Crossings (Table 6) – This parameter accounts for the increased risk to pedestrians caused by their exposure to left and right turning traffic while crossing the departure leg of a one-way street that intersects a two-way street. With this scenario, pedestrians are exposed to left and right turning traffic for the entire crossing distance of the road, instead of just a portion (such as is the case for crossing a two-way street with traffic stopped on the approach lanes by the signal). One-way traffic One-way traffic Right Turn Conflict Left Turn Conflict P E D (⌧ ‡ † Œ‹ ˆL Figure 3. Adjustment for One-Way Streets SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION FEATURES AND THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE TO BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) The major impediments to the comfort and safety of bicyclists are somewhat different than those for pedestrians. Traffic signal features and potential conflicts with turning vehicles are still prominent issues, but crossing distance is less important and is surpassed by the desire for physical space in the roadway apart from automobile traffic. Because bicyclists share space with and travel alongside motor vehicles, the speed of traffic is also a significant factor. As with the pedestrian level of service methodology, key elements or features of intersections that enhance or reduce comfort and safety are identified and assigned points according to how well they meet the objectives. These important features are discussed below. 6 Rated Intersection Features Bicycle Travel Way & Speed of Adjacent Traffic (Table 8) – Where bicyclists travel within the roadway and how fast motor vehicle traffic is moving next to them is the most important factor in accessing their comfort and safety. For streets with moderate to high traffic speeds (30 mph or more), travel space beyond that provided for general traffic is highly desirable. This extra space may be in the form of separate bicycle lanes, or in the form of wide outside travel lanes (13’ to 14’). Bicycle lanes rate best and are the preferred treatment. Conditions requiring bicyclists to share travel lanes with motorists rate poorly. Bike lanes and wide outside lanes, on the other hand, do not provide as much benefit on low speed streets (less than 30 mph) because cyclists can better match the speed of adjacent traffic. Also, low speed streets generally carry low traffic volumes, which many cyclists prefer. Signal Features – Left Turn Phasing & Stop Bar Location (Table 9) – Features that remove potential left turn conflicts from the path of bicyclists and features that place bicyclists before motorists (in space) are rated as desirable. Signal phasing and stop location rate as the second most important bicycle feature. Left Turn Conflict Rt. Turn on Red Conflict Right Turn Conflict Figure 4. Bicycle Crossing Conflicts BI K E Right Turn Traffic Conflict (Table 10) – This parameter addresses the potential conflict involving motorists turning right and bicyclists traveling straight ahead on an intersection approach. The preferred method of resolving this conflict is for bicyclists to ‘take’ the traffic lane if it is shared with traffic, or if there is a separate right turn lane (Figure 5), motorists should merge right in advance of the intersection while bicyclists travel straight-ahead. Points are awarded if there is no right turn conflict with motorists or if there is a bicycle lane that places bicyclists left of a right turn lane. Otherwise, points are 7 either not awarded at all or they are taken away, depending on whether the bicyclist or motorist is required to merge. Figure 5. Bike Treatments at Exclusive Right Turn Lanes LANE BIKE PED Crossing LANE BIKE LANE BIKE LANE BIKE Typical path of throughbicyclist Typical path of throughbicyclist Typical path of throughbicyclist PED Crossing PED Crossing (A) Straight alignment - (B) Alignment shift - (C) No bike lane - Cyclists travel straight Cyclists merge left Cyclists share and turning motorists and turning motorists lane with motorists yield to cyclists merge right (BEST CONDITION) LANE BIKE LANE BIKE LANE BIKE PED Crossing PED Crossing Typical pathof through bicyclist (D) Bike lane ends - (E) Bike lane right of cyclists shift into motor turn lane vehicle lane (BAD CONDITION) 8 Right Turns On Red (Table 11) - This condition creates another conflict between bicyclists and motorists. Bicyclists can easily blend into the background when a motorist is looking to turn right on red because motorists are often looking for larger motor vehicles (Figure 4). Crossing Distance (Table 12) – Wide street crossings increase the risk of exposure to bicyclists from motor vehicle traffic on cross-streets. Signal clearance times (the yellow and all-red signal phase portions) are timed for motor vehicle speeds and not the slower speeds of bicyclists; therefore, the wider the intersection, the greater the likelihood that cyclists will still be crossing when right-of-way changes to the cross-street. Intersection Features Not Rated in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Methodologies There are several other features not rated in these methodologies that also affect the comfort and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists and should be considered in intersection design. Among these features are sight lines, street lighting, pavement condition, signing, pedestrian and bike detection, curb extensions, and ADA features such as wheel chair ramps and accessible signals. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE LOS DETERMINATION Level of service for an intersection crossing/approach is determined by adding points from Tables 1 through 6 (for Pedestrians) and points from Tables 8 through 12 (for Bicyclists). The accumulation of points is then compared to the points listed in Tables 7 (Pedestrians) and 13 (Bicyclists), which provides the threshold values for levels of service A through F. An overall intersection level of service for either pedestrian or bicycle features can also be determined by adding the total points from each crossing and dividing their sum by the number of intersection crossing legs (e. g., a three leg intersection’s point totals would be divided by three). The higher the point total, the better the level of service. SUMMARY The level of service methodology is intended to be used to assess the most crucial, especially safety related, factors affecting pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ crossing signalized intersections. It attempts to identify and compare those design elements that help make intersection crossings safer and pedestrians and bicyclists feel more comfortable. The methodology is not concerned with the quality of the environment away from the intersection crossing, so those elements that make an area more inviting and attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists, such as visual stimuli, convenience, security, and noise are not considered. These other elements and their importance on creating a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment are addressed through initiatives such as the Urban Street Design Guidelines The focus of this methodology is on those intersection features that reduce traffic conflicts, minimize crossing distances, slow down traffic speeds and raise user awareness. The methodology assumes that all rated features are adequately designed and 9 implemented (e.g., signals are timed adequately and pedestrian signals are well placed), so that equivalent comparisons can be made between features. While important to the overall sense of safety and comfort, elements of risk (e.g., traffic volumes) are not directly evaluated in the methodology since design features are the focus and design features can be used to mitigate the effects of risks. Furthermore, design features such as cross-section distance, number and type of travel lanes, and signal-phasing schemes typically reflect varying traffic volumes. This level of service methodology is expected to be applied in conjunction with the traditional level of service methodology for motor vehicles. The importance or relative weight given to each level of service (for motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians) is expected to vary by intersection, depending on the planned function and context of each intersection. The following pages provide additional detail of the pedestrian and bicycle level of service methodologies, along with example level of service calculations. As a companion piece to this document, Charlotte DOT has also developed an electronic spreadsheet that can be used to quickly calculate levels of service. The spreadsheet should be used when performing level of service calculations. 10 PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION TABLE 1. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Crossing Distance Crossing distance is determined based on the total number of motor vehicle travel lanes that must be crossed to reach the opposite side of the street. The added effect of corner radii on crossing distance is addressed in parameter number 3 (Corner Radius). When the number of travel lanes crossed includes the crossing of corner refuge island lane(s), an adjustment to the points in the table below should be made. This adjustment is described just below the table. Points No Median Refuge Median Refuge Median Refuge Total Travel Lanes Crossed (or less than 4’) (4’ to 6’) (6’ or more) 2 Lanes 80 80 80 3 Lanes 78 78 78 4 Lanes 65 65 68 5 Lanes 50 52 55 6 Lanes 37 40 44 7 Lanes 24 28 33 8 Lanes 8 12 20 9 Lanes -5 0 10 10 Lanes -15 -10 0 Corner Refuge Island Adjustments: • Crossing of corner refuge island lanes is not weighed as heavily as crossing other travel lanes, and therefore the points assigned based on crossing distance in the table above should be adjusted. Six points are assigned for each refuge island lane crossed. Refuge lane points are added to the points assigned for the total crossing distance from Table 1 above. Example: A crossing of 5 lanes (one of which is a refuge island lane) is adjusted as follows: 50 points (based on 5 lanes crossed) + 6 points (for refuge island lane) = 56 points. Example: 5 lane Crossing, with corner refuge island 1 slip lane4 lanes Corner Refuge Island Adjustment 5 total lanes (50 points) + 1 slip lane (6 points) = 56 points 11 • Adjustments are also made based on how slip lane traffic is controlled at the intersection. If slip lane traffic is under signal control then 5 points are added to the crossing total. If traffic is under Yield control then 3 points are subtracted from the crossing total, and if traffic is uncontrolled (i.e., free flow) then 20 points are subtracted. TABLE 2. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Signal Phasing & Timing Features Pedestrian Crossing Conflicts Corner Radius Right Turn Conflict PE D Left Turn ConflictRight Turn on RedConflict Table 2A Left Turn Conflicts (Left Turns into Pedestrian Crossing Path) Points A1. Lefts on GREEN BALL Only (permissive phase - left turns unprotected) • From SINGLE lane, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From SINGLE lane, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From 2 or more lanes, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From 2 or more lanes, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing -5 0 -10 -5 A2. Lefts on GREEN ARROW & GREEN BALL (protected/permissive phase) • From SINGLE lane, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From SINGLE lane, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing -5 0 A3. Lefts on GREEN ARROW Only (protected only phase) • From SINGLE lane, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From SINGLE lane, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From 2 or more lanes, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From 2 or more lanes, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing 5 15 0 15 A4. No Left Turn Conflict (e.g., “T” intersections, one-way streets, exclusive pedestrian phase) 15 12 Table 2B Right Turn Conflicts (Right Turns into Pedestrian Crossing Path) Points B1. Rights on GREEN BALL Only (permissive phase) • From SHARED Thru-Right lane, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From SHARED Thru-Right lane, with pedestrian phase at crossing • From SINGLE Right lane, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From SINGLE Right lane, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From 2 or more Right lanes, no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From 2 or more Right lanes, with pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing 0 0 0 0 -10 -7 B2. Rights on GREEN ARROW & GREEN BALL (overlap phase) • From RIGHT turn lane(s), no pedestrian phase on conflicting crossing • From RIGHT turn lane(s), with pedestrian phase (no conflict for duration of the Green Arrow) -10 0 B3. Rights on GREEN ARROW Only (protected phase) • From SINGLE Right lane, no pedestrian phase • From SINGLE Right lane, with pedestrian phase – turning traffic held for pedestrian movement, which eliminates turning/crossing conflict • From 2 or more Right lanes, no pedestrian phase • From 2 or more Right lanes, with pedestrian phase – turning traffic held for pedestrian movement, which eliminates turning/crossing conflict -10 10 -15 10 B4. No Right Turn Conflict (e.g., “T” intersections, one-way streets, exclusive pedestrian phase) 15 TABLE 2C Pedestrian Phase Signal Display C1. No Pedestrian Phase -5 C2. UPRAISED HAND, WALKING PERSON display 0 C3. UPRAISED HAND, WALKING PERSON display – with LEADING pedestrian phase (pedestrians start crossing seconds before vehicles on the adjacent street) 4 C4. COUNTDOWN display (crossing time is shown) With pedestrian crossing time based on following walk speeds: > 3.5 ft/sec ≤ 3.5 ft/sec 5 8 C5. LEADING COUNTDOWN display (pedestrians start crossing seconds 13 before vehicles on the adjacent street) With pedestrian crossing time based on following walk speeds: > 3.5 ft/sec ≤ 3.5 ft/sec 8 12 TABLE 3. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Corner Radius Standard Radius Points A. Radius ≤ to 20’ B. Radius > 20’ and ≤ 30’ C. Radius > 30’ and ≤ 40’ D. Radius > 40’ and ≤ 60’ (or Equivalent Compound Curve) E. Radius > 60’ (or Equivalent Compound Curve) 10 5 0 -10 -15 Wide Angle Reduced Angle High speed, low visibility head turner Slower speed, good visiblity (A) Standard channel island (B) Modified slip lane design Cr o s s i n g A Cr o s s i n g B Cr o s s i n g B Cr o s s i n g A CHANNEL ISLAND (in lieu of standard radius) F. Painted Channel Island (no curb) - Right turns are uncontrolled (free flow) - Right turns made on Yield or Signal Control G. Curbed Channel Island (Figure A) - Right turns are uncontrolled (free flow) - Right turns on Yield, Green Ball or Green Arrow/Green Ball (& Pedestrian crossing at location B) (& Pedestrian crossing at location A) - Right turns on Green Arrow Only (& Pedestrian crossing at location B) (& Pedestrian crossing at location A) H. Curbed Low Speed Design Slip Lane (Figure B) - Right turns on Yield, Green Ball or Green Arrow/Green Ball (& Pedestrian crossing at location B) (& Pedestrian crossing at location A) - Right turns on Green Arrow Only (& Pedestrian crossing at location B) (& Pedestrian crossing at location A) -20 -10 -20 -10 0 0 5 0 5 5 10 14 I. No Corner Radius (e.g., “T” intersection) 10 TABLE 4. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Right Turns On Red Points Allowed 0 Prohibited (or no conflict because right turns are not permitted/possible) 5 Table 5. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Crosswalk Treatment No designated crosswalk -5 Painted crosswalk - Transverse markings (Type A) 0 - LADDER type markings (Type B) 5 Textured/Colored Pavement 5 Type A Type B Crosswalk Types Table 6. PEDESTRIAN LOS: Adjustment for One-Way Street Crossings Applies only to the departure leg of a one way street with 4 or more lanes that intersects a two-way street. (Figure 3, page 6) Conflicting left turns made on: • Green Ball Only (with or without pedestrian phase) • Green Arrow/Green Ball (with or without pedestrian phase) • Green Arrow Only (without pedestrian phase) • Green Arrow Only (with pedestrian phase) • Condition does not apply -10 -10 -5 -2 0 TABLE 7. Point Totals and Corresponding PEDESTRIAN Level of Service Points LOS 15 93+ A 74 - 92 B 55 - 73 C 37 - 54 D 19 - 36 E 0 - 18 F BICYCLE LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION TABLE 8. BICYCLE LOS: Bicycle Travel Way & Speed of Adjacent Traffic Departure Leg BI K E Approach Leg Bike Travels in: (Approach/Departure Legs) Speed Limit Points • Shared Auto Lane to Shared Auto Lane (lanes ≤ 12’ wide) ≥ 40 mph 5 30 to 35 mph 30 ‹ 30 mph 50 • Shared Auto Lane to Wide Curb Lane (13’ to 14’ wide) ≥ 40 mph 20 30 to 35 mph 40 ‹ 30 mph 55 • Shared Auto Lane to Bike Lane ≥ 40 mph 35 30 to 35 mph 50 ‹ 30 mph 60 • Shared Wide Curb Lane To Shared Auto Lane ≥ 40 mph 15 30 to 35 mph 35 ‹ 30 mph 50 • Shared Wide Curb Lane to Wide Curb Lane (13’ to 14’ wide) ≥ 40 mph 30 30 to 35 mph 50 16 ‹ 30 mph 60 • Shared Wide Curb Lane to Bike Lane ≥ 40 mph 45 30 to 35 mph 60 ‹ 30 mph 70 TABLE 8 (continued) Bike Travels in: (Approach/Departure Legs) Speed Limit Points • Bike Lane to Shared Auto Lane (lanes ≤ 12’ wide) ≥ 40 mph 30 30 to 35 mph 45 ‹ 30 mph 55 • Bike Lane to Wide Curb Lane (13’ to 14’ wide) ≥ 40 mph 40 30 to 35 mph 55 ‹ 30 mph 65 • Bike Lane to Bike Lane ≥ 40 mph 60 30 to 35 mph 70 ‹ 30 mph 80 TABLE 9. BICYCLE LOS: Signal Features – Left Turn Phasing & Stop Bar Location Vehicular Left Turn Phase – turns opposing cyclists (Figure 4, page 7) Points Made on Green Ball Only 0 Made on Green Ball/Green Arrow 5 Made on Green Arrow Only 15 No Left Turn Conflict (e.g., “T” intersection, one-way streets) 15 Stop Bar Location Shared stop bar - automobiles & bikes stop at common point 0 Advanced stop bar – bikes stop closer to intersection than automobiles 10 17 Left Turn Conflict Rt. Turn on RedConflict Right Turn Conflict Bicycle Crossing Conflicts BI K E TABLE 10. BICYCLE LOS: Right Turn Traffic Conflict Points No Right Turn Conflict (e.g., “T” intersection, one-way street) 15 No Separate Right Turn Lane (Bike in Shared Lane) 0 Separate Right Turn Lane (Figure 5, page 8) Bike lane LEFT of right turn lane (cyclist travels straight ahead and motorist merges right) – see Figure 5A 10 Curb lane drops as right turn lane, with bike lane left of turn lane (cyclist merges left, motorist merges right) – see Figure 5B 5 No bike lane (cyclist travels straight ahead and motorist merges right) – see Figure 5C 0 Curb lane drops as right turn lane, no bike lane at intersection (cyclist merges left, motorist merges right) – see Figure 5D 0 Bike lane RIGHT of right turn lane – see Figure 5E -20 TABLE 11. BICYCLE LOS: Right Turns On Red Allowed 0 Prohibited (or no conflict because right turns are not permitted/possible) 5 TABLE 12. BICYCLE LOS: Intersection Crossing Distance ≤ 3 motor vehicle travel lanes 0 4 to 5 motor vehicle travel lanes -5 ≥ 6 travel motor vehicle lanes -10 TABLE 13. Point Totals and Corresponding BICYCLE Level of Service 18 Points LOS 93+ A 74 - 92 B 55 - 73 C 37 - 54 D 19 - 36 E 0 - 18 F Intersection Example # 1 Application of the pedestrian and bicycle level of service methodologies for an example intersection is presented in Figures 6 and 7. The intersection evaluated is that of a one-way street (4th Street) and a two-way street (McDowell Street) in downtown Charlotte. The sample worksheets in figures 6 and 7 provide information on features relevant to the intersection. BIKE LANE 20'R 20'R 15'R 25'R 19 Figure 6. Example Intersection #1: Pedestrian LOS Calculation Location: 4th Street & McDowell Street Crossing of Northbound Approach (McDowell St.) Crossing of Southbound Approach (McDowell St.) Crossing of Eastbound Approach (4th St.) Crossing of Westbound Approach (4th St.) Pedestrian Crossing Distance 5 Lanes (2’ median) 4 Lanes (10’ median refuge) 4 Lanes 4 Lanes Score 50 68 65 65 Signal Features Left Turn Conflict (left turns into pedestrian path) Lefts on Green Ball Only, from a single lane – with pedestrian phase No Left Turn Conflict - (4th St. one-way) Lefts on Green Arrow/Green Ball - with pedestrian phasing No Left Turn Conflict - (4th St. one-way) Score 0 15 0 15 Right Turn Conflict (right turns into pedestrian path) No Right Turn Conflict (4th St. one-way) Right Turns on Green Ball, from a shared thru- right lane - with pedestrian phase Right Turns on Green Ball, from a shared thru-right lane - with pedestrian phase No Right Turn Conflict (4th St. one-way) Score 15 0 0 15 Pedestrian Signal Display Countdown Display (4 ft/sec) Countdown Display (4 ft/sec) Countdown Display (4 ft/sec) Countdown Display (4 ft/sec) Score 5 5 5 5 20 Corner Radius 25' 20’ 20' 15' Score 5 10 10 10 Right Turns on Red No Conflict (4th St. one-way) Prohibited No Conflict (4th St. one-way) Allowed Score 5 5 5 0 Crosswalks Textured/Colored Textured/Colored Textured/Colored Textured/Colored Score 5 5 5 5 Adjustment for One-Way Street Crossings Two-Way Street (Not Applicable) Two-Way Street (Not Applicable) Departure Leg 4 Lanes Wide, with left and right turn conflicts Multilane One- Way street, no left and right turn conflicts (Not Applicable) Score -- -- -10 -- Approach Total 85 108 80 115 Approach LOS B A B A Intersection AVG. 97 INTERSECTION LOS A Figure 7. Example Intersection #1: Bicycle LOS Calculation Location: 4th Street & McDowell Street Northbound Approach (McDowell St.) Southbound Approach (McDowell St.) Eastbound Approach (4th St.) Westbound Approach (4th St.) Bike Travel Way & Speed of Adjacent Traffic Shared 12’ Lane with Motor Vehicles 35 mph Shared 12’ Lane with Motor Vehicles 35 mph Does not Apply Shared 12’ Lane Transitions to 4’ Bike Lane 35 mph Score 30 30 50 Signal Features Opposing Vehicular Left Turn Phase No Left Turn Conflict Green Arrow & Green Ball No Left Turn Conflict Score 15 5 15 Stop Bar Location Vehicles & Bikes Stop at Same Point Vehicles & Bikes Stop at Same Point Vehicles & Bikes Stop at Same Point Score 0 0 0 Right Turning Traffic Conflict Shared Traffic Lane/Separate Right Turn Traffic Lane No Right Turn Conflict Shared Thru-Right lane - no bike lane Shared Thru-Right Lane - no bike lane on approach 21 Score 15 0 0 Right Turns On Red Allowed No Conflict Prohibited Score 0 5 5 Intersection Crossing Distance 4 Travel Lanes 4 Travel Lanes 5 Travel Lanes Score -5 -5 -5 Approach Total 55 35 65 Approach LOS C- E+ C Intersection AVG. 52 Intersection LOS D+ Intersection Example # 2 A second application of the pedestrian level of service methodology is presented in Figure 8. This example illustrates how the methodology should be applied for slip lane or channel island designs. The sample worksheet in figure 8 provides information on features relevant to the intersection. SHARON ROAD WEST SOUTH BOULEVARD 40' R 150' R 22 Figure 8. Example Intersection #2: Pedestrian LOS Calculation Location: South Boulevard & Sharon Road West Crossing of Northbound Approach (South Blvd..) Crossing of Southbound Approach (South Blvd.) Crossing of Westbound Approach (Sharon Rd. West) Pedestrian Crossing Distance 5 Lanes (12’ median refuge) 7 Lanes 6+1 slip lane – under yield control (no median refuge) 5 Lanes 4+1 slip lane – under yield control (no median refuge) Score 55 27 53 Signal Features Left Turn Conflict (left turns into pedestrian path) Lefts on Green Arrow Only, from 2 lanes – with pedestrian phase No Left Turn Conflict Lefts on Green Arrow Only, from 2 lanes – with pedestrian phase Score 15 15 15 Right Turn Conflict (right turns into pedestrian path) No Right Turn Conflict Cross to Corner Channel Island Right Turns on Green Arrow/Green Ball, from single right turn lane Score 15 7 0 Pedestrian Signal Display Countdown Display Countdown Display Countdown Display (4 ft/sec) 23 (4 ft/sec) (4 ft/sec) Score 5 5 5 Corner Radius None (T intersection) Corner Slip Island (crossing point A) Compound Curve (55’ equivalent) Score 10 5 -10 Right Turns on Red Allowed No Conflict Slip Lane, right turns yield controlled Score 0 5 0 Crosswalks Ladder Style Ladder Style Ladder Style Score 5 5 5 Adjustment for One-Way Street Crossings Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Score -- -- -- Approach Total 105 69 68 Approach LOS A C C Intersection AVG. 81 INTERSECTION LOS B 24 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 19, 2016 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Selection of Applicants to Interview on September 27, 2016 for the Historic Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning and Transportation Commission, and the Storm Drain Oversight Committee Staff is requesting the City Council select the candidates to be interviewed for: Three terms (Bower, Bunnenberg, and DiCicco), on the Historic Resources Board, ending on December 15, 2019; Four terms (Hetterly, Knopper, Lauing, and Reckdahl) on the Parks and Recreation Commission, ending on December 15, 2019; Two terms (Gardias and Tanaka) on the Planning and Transportation Commission, ending on December 15, 2020; One unexpired term (Downing) on the Planning and Transportation Commission, ending December 15, 2018; and Interviews are scheduled for Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 6:00 P.M. Each Council Member will receive a selection sheet to use in determining who will be interviewed. Copies of all applications are attached. Some applications may be redacted at the request of the applicant. A full set of non-redacted applications will be emailed to Council Members directly. Recommendation The requested action is for each Council Member to fill out the selection sheet indicating which of the candidates they wish to interview. The City Clerk will announce who will be interviewed at the same meeting. Candidates who receive five or more votes will be scheduled for an interview. Background On July 27, 2016, the City Clerk’s Office received notice of Planning and Transportation Commissioner Yekaterina “Kate” Downing’s resignation effective July 27, 2016. Storm Drain Oversight Committee (SDOC) Members Stepheny McGraw and Susan Rosenberg have been asked to continue serving on the SDOC through the dissolution of this Committee, which is anticipated to occur in the first half of 2017. Applications for the SDOC received from Bill Fitch, Stepheny McGraw, and Susan Rosenberg will be retained on file for future consideration when a Committee with similar subject matter jurisdiction is created. Bucket Page 2 Applicants Historic Resources Board (Three Terms) 1. David Bower (Incumbent) 2. Beth Bunnenberg (Incumbent) 3. Patt DiCicco (Incumbent) 4. Valerie Driscoll Parks and Recreation Commission (Four Terms) 1. Jeff Greenfield 2. Doug Hagan 3. Alice Mansell 4. Kevin Mayer 5. Ryan McCauley 6. Andres Mediavilla 7. Keith Reckdahl (Incumbent) Planning and Transportation Commission (Two Full Terms/One Unexpired Term) 1. Rebecca Eisenberg 2. Claude Ezran 3. Brian Hamachek 4. David Hirsch 5. Frank Ingle 6. Natasha Kachenko 7. Gabriel Kralik 8. Michelle Kraus 9. Ed Lauing 10. Christian Pease 11. Jessica Resmini 12. Reshma Singh 13. Srinivasan Subramanian 14. Doria Summa Please note that the City is testing DocuSign electronic signatures as a method for individuals to submit applications for Boards and Commissions. Formatting irregularities present in the attached applications are the result of this testing and not of the applicants. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: HRB - Bower, David (PDF)  Attachment B: HRB - Bunnenberg, Beth (PDF)  Attachment C: HRB - DiCicco, Patt (PDF) Page 3  Attachment D: HRB - Driscoll, Valerie (PDF)  Attachment E: PARC - Greenfield, Jeff (PDF)  Attachment F: PARC - Hagan, Doug (PDF)  Attachment G: PARC - Mansell, Alice (PDF)  Attachment H: PARC - Mayer, Kevin (PDF)  Attachment I: PARC - McCauley, Ryan (PDF)  Attachment J: PARC - Mediavilla, Andres (PDF)  Attachment K: PARC - Reckdahl, Keith (PDF)  Attachment L: PTC - Eisenberg, Rebecca (PDF)  Attachment M: PTC - Ezran, Claude (PDF)  Attachment N: PTC - Hamachek, Brian (PDF)  Attachment O: PTC - Hirsch, David (PDF)  Attachment P: PTC - Ingle, Frank (PDF)  Attachment Q: PTC - Kachenko, Natasha (PDF)  Attachment R: PTC - Kralik, Gabriel (PDF)  Attachment S: PTC - Kraus, Michelle (PDF)  Attachment T: PTC - Lauing, Ed (PDF)  Attachment U: PTC - Pease, Christian (PDF)  Attachment V: PTC - Resmini, Jessica (PDF)  Attachment W: PTC - Singh, Reshma (PDF)  Attachment X: PTC - Subramanian, Srinivasan (PDF)  Attachment Y: PTC - Summa, Doria (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 4 Historic Resources Board Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci Conflict of Interest Code require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: B0785A6B-D436-4D60-8732-4C5AD86AE27A Historic Resources Board Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: B0785A6B-D436-4D60-8732-4C5AD86AE27A Historic Resources Board Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interestto you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: B0785A6B-D436-4D60-8732-4C5AD86AE27A Historic Resources Board Application 4 of 5 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good historic architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, Staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. 5. Historic Resources Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for: Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings California Environmental Quality Act DocuSign Envelope ID: B0785A6B-D436-4D60-8732-4C5AD86AE27A Historic Resources Board Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: B0785A6B-D436-4D60-8732-4C5AD86AE27A September 8, 2016 David Bower PO Box 1518 Palo Alto, California 94302-1518 Birth Date February, 1951, Palo Alto, California Education San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California 1973-1975 B.A. in Communications, May 1975 Foothill College, Los Altos, California 1970-1973 Liberal Arts Major Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 1969-1970 Liberal Arts Major Honors Professional Experience President, David Bower Incorporated, Palo Alto, California. Residential construction and consulting 2007 to present President, Bower Loops Builders, Palo Alto, California. Residential construction company. 2001 to 2007 President, David Bower Builders, Palo Alto, California. Residential construction company. 1979 to 2001 President, Designs In Wood, Palo Alto, California. Residential construction company. 1975-1979 Licensed contractor in the State of California 1979 to present Community Activities Board of Directors, Treasurer, Western Ballet, Mountain View, California. 1989-1993 Board of Directors, Treasurer, Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra, Palo Alto, California. 1995-1997 Board of Directors, Pelican Homeowners Association, Pajaro Dunes, Watsonville, California. 2005 to present. Current President Chairman, Design Committee, Pajaro Dunes Association, Watsonville, California. April 2006 to January 2015 Board member, Palo Alto Historic Resources Board, Palo Alto, California June 2007 to present Chairman, Palo Alto Historic Resources Board, Palo Alto, California June 2009 to October 2011 Board member, City of Palo Alto Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission, November 2010 to December 2011 Board member, Pajaro Dunes Geologic Hazard Abatement District, July 2014 to present Committee Member, City of Palo Alto Storm Drain Drain Blue Ribbon Committee, April-July 2016 Memberships NARI (National Association of the Remodeling Industry), 1993 to 2013 International Conference of Building Officials, 2004 to 2014 Build It Green, 2009 to 2014 DocuSign Envelope ID: B0785A6B-D436-4D60-8732-4C5AD86AE27A Historic Resources Board Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci Conflict of Interest Code require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F73D1A9-0709-4E09-81AD-708322A2489A Historic Resources Board Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F73D1A9-0709-4E09-81AD-708322A2489A Historic Resources Board Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interestto you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F73D1A9-0709-4E09-81AD-708322A2489A Historic Resources Board Application 4 of 5 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good historic architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, Staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. 5. Historic Resources Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for: Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings California Environmental Quality Act DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F73D1A9-0709-4E09-81AD-708322A2489A Historic Resources Board Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F73D1A9-0709-4E09-81AD-708322A2489A Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the City’s Conflict of Interest Code require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: ADFD155F-6424-4CDB-890E-7F45421F94D6 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: ADFD155F-6424-4CDB-890E-7F45421F94D6 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interestto you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: ADFD155F-6424-4CDB-890E-7F45421F94D6 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good historic architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, Staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. 5. Historic Resources Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for: Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings California Environmental Quality Act DocuSign Envelope ID: ADFD155F-6424-4CDB-890E-7F45421F94D6 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website _ ____ (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) DocuSign Envelope ID: ADFD155F-6424-4CDB-890E-7F45421F94D6 Valerie M. Driscoll 451 War Admiral Avenue San Jose, CA 95111 650-898-4930 Objective: To work as Historical Review Board volunteer. Volunteering Experience: Healthcare- Breathe California, e.g. (American Lung Association) 501 C3: Teaching, database management, article writing, general office and internet, some marketingconsulting regarding advertising, phones and accounts updating, processing. Psychology/Sociology- Counseling Internship with Agency: ACT, San Jose: 2009-2010 Politics- Campaign Support to David Cortese, Santa Clara Supervisor: 2010-2011 Asked to run for office while volunteering with Alza Corporation/Voter Reg.: 2008-2009 Santa Clara County Recreation/Transportation: Dept. Land and Water Preservation; Public Meetings: Transportation; Meetings: League of Women Voters: 2008-2009-Hobby. Investigations- Atlas Investigations, 888 N. 1st st., San Jose, CA: Skip Traces andBackground Checks; Filing: 12/2010-2011 Telecommuting p/t. (I relocated to a new, better city of opportunities). Frank Estrella is listed online, moved from 1795 N. 1st, SanJose. Safety and Emergency Preparedness-Neighborhoods- City of Palo Alto, CA: 2014 to present. Asked if wanted to serve with City Hall on the City Council, Historical ReviewBoard. Better location moved to. (Service, in addition to education and career pursuit, as a resident). Educated about facilities codes and standards for safety, fire, etc. OfferedFacilities position. Seeking similar position, as offered position with City of San Ramone on Council, paid, however, we had just campaigned David Cortese into office withconcerns regarding misappropriations since I had been trained in security issues concerns and investigation. Was told recently I would do well as FBI profiler by Chief ofInternal Affairs, San Jose. I prefer to work with the City and have that as an option in volunteering, as is more suitable to my interests and current experience as well aspreferences. I had many meetings with City Hall and like the Council and their style. I have also completed studies in Real Estate. Work Experience: American Oil Transport Company, Santa Clara, CA: 1996-2003:Accountant Auditor, A/P, A/R database files, with auditing, checking year-to-date totals, Healthcare, Oil industry, Bio Tech, and Non-profit 501 C3, as well Apartment complex admin. Assistant-(Strong literacy in Microsoft Word from 2003-2007 versions); Work asa p/t tech. with Comp. USA, built computer systems with Stanford University Engineers: Hardware/software- 1992; Windows XP and Windows7; Explorer 9; QuickBooks andPeachtree software; Programming and Networks skills, html, Java; Quality Control in computers manufacturing; I.T. Database Mgmt; DOS Trained; Perl, C++; PeopleSoft,H.R. Parks and Recreation Commission Application 1 of 6 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3)be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 8EE6D56B-01FC-4263-BB53-4450236D5D97 • BS Engineering, Harvey Mudd College Parks and Recreation Commission Application 2 of 6 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: DocuSign Envelope ID: 8EE6D56B-01FC-4263-BB53-4450236D5D97 Current Recreation Activities: • Hiking: I enjoy frequent 7-10+ mile hikes in the local open spaces. I typically hike the Foothills Park – Los Trancos Trail (my favorite) a couple times per month. • Soccer: PAASL player for the past 18 years. • Biking: My preferred method of transportation around town is bicycle. • Trees and Plants: a new passion is learning to identify botanical species. • Gardening: I enjoy vegetable and landscape gardening at home. Parks and Recreation Commission Application 3 of 6 1. What is it about the Parks and Recreation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I have resided in South Palo Alto for the past eighteen years with my wife. We have raised our two daughters here in the Palo Alto School system. Over the years, my family and I have been fortunate to enjoy many wonderful resources and services that our community offers. From “Story Time” at the library and dance recitals at Cubberley to Mitchell Park “gopher holes” and May Fete parades; from swimming and art lessons to Kidz Love Soccer and Hi-Fives Camps; from block parties and Foothills Park picnics to family bike outings for “Hot Dog” shows and the Jr. Museum and Zoo; from soccer games and street fairs to Canopy Tree Walks and watching pelicans soar in the Baylands, my family and I truly appreciate and understand many special aspects of Palo Alto. My family also has a track record of contributing within our community. I am very passionate about Palo Alto and many of my pursuits connect directly with our community’s resources and services. My personal passions include soccer, hiking, trees and plants, biking around town, and general environmentalism and sustainability. While I have outlined goals below that I am interested in accomplishing as a Parks and Rec Commissioner, this is not an agenda. These are goals aligned with the in-progress Master Plan. My ultimate aspiration is to give back to and contribute to our community. I have worked directly with the Community Services staff for many years on soccer and field-related matters. I have tremendous respect for this team and would look forward to working with them more closely. More recently, as part of my efforts with Canopy, I have also worked with Public Works staff, and would look forward to broadening this relationship as well. Having worked as a systems engineer and project manager for 30+ years developing professional video products, I thrive on collaborating with others to find creative solutions to difficult problems. I am very detail oriented and organized, and I envision many opportunities to “dig in” if I am selected for this role. I feel privileged to have time and energy to offer. I would be honored to serve our city, contribute to the implementation of our new Master Plan, and learn and grow along the way. Parks and Recreation Commission Application 4 of 6 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 8EE6D56B-01FC-4263-BB53-4450236D5D97 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 5 of 6 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Community Services and Facilities Element Natural Environment Element Baylands Master Plan Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) Bicycle - Pedestrian Transportation Plan Youth Master Plan Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report DocuSign Envelope ID: 8EE6D56B-01FC-4263-BB53-4450236D5D97 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 6 of 6 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, DocuSign Envelope ID: 8EE6D56B-01FC-4263-BB53-4450236D5D97 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 41E55154-BDCE-401D-A26C-C096EFA3D176 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Parks and Recreation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 41E55154-BDCE-401D-A26C-C096EFA3D176 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 41E55154-BDCE-401D-A26C-C096EFA3D176 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Community Services and Facilities Element Natural Environment Element Baylands Master Plan Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) Bicycle - Pedestrian Transportation Plan Youth Master Plan Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report DocuSign Envelope ID: 41E55154-BDCE-401D-A26C-C096EFA3D176 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, DocuSign Envelope ID: 41E55154-BDCE-401D-A26C-C096EFA3D176 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Parks and Recreation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Parks and Recreation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 54A6DCFF-E13B-4F81-B046-D9207CF825E4 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 54A6DCFF-E13B-4F81-B046-D9207CF825E4 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Community Services and Facilities Element Natural Environment Element Baylands Master Plan Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) Bicycle - Pedestrian Transportation Plan Youth Master Plan Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report DocuSign Envelope ID: 54A6DCFF-E13B-4F81-B046-D9207CF825E4 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, DocuSign Envelope ID: 54A6DCFF-E13B-4F81-B046-D9207CF825E4 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 21133A8F-ADED-4EBD-ADD9-8E61F8212C79 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Parks and Recreation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 21133A8F-ADED-4EBD-ADD9-8E61F8212C79 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 21133A8F-ADED-4EBD-ADD9-8E61F8212C79 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Community Services and Facilities Element Natural Environment Element Baylands Master Plan Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) Bicycle - Pedestrian Transportation Plan Youth Master Plan Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report DocuSign Envelope ID: 21133A8F-ADED-4EBD-ADD9-8E61F8212C79 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, DocuSign Envelope ID: 21133A8F-ADED-4EBD-ADD9-8E61F8212C79             DocuSign Envelope ID: 21133A8F-ADED-4EBD-ADD9-8E61F8212C79                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   W eINFORMATION                                    STAKEHOLDERS              DocuSign Envelope ID: 21133A8F-ADED-4EBD-ADD9-8E61F8212C79 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: A147EBCC-FB60-40AC-9559-C19DA7AA2697 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Parks and Recreation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: A147EBCC-FB60-40AC-9559-C19DA7AA2697 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: A147EBCC-FB60-40AC-9559-C19DA7AA2697 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Community Services and Facilities Element Natural Environment Element Baylands Master Plan Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) Bicycle - Pedestrian Transportation Plan Youth Master Plan Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report DocuSign Envelope ID: A147EBCC-FB60-40AC-9559-C19DA7AA2697 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, DocuSign Envelope ID: A147EBCC-FB60-40AC-9559-C19DA7AA2697 -2- PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (continued) Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams, United States Court of Federal Claims, Washington, DC Judicial Extern September to December 2007 and January to May 2009 My primary responsibilities included researching and preparing draft opinions regarding federal procurement, tax and non-tort litigation claims against the U.S. Government. Federal Trade Commission, Seattle, WA Law Clerk July and August 2007 I researched and prepared antitrust and consumer protection cases, interviewed fraud victims, assisted in a Hart-Scott-Rodino review and drafted affidavits and memos. CrowleyFleck PLLP, Helena, MT Summer Associate May to July 2007 I completed regulatory analyses for two large cross-border power transmission projects and worked on several employment and professional malpractice cases. Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA and Florence, Italy Student Life Coordinator, Gonzaga-in-Florence Program August 2005 to July 2006 As part of the leadership life programs, including large-scale travel excursions in Europe and Africa. Adjunct Instructor of Political Science Fall 2004 government institutions and fiscal policy. I researched and prepared lesson plans, lectured three times per week, wrote the final exam and evaluated student performance. Student Body President May 2003 to May 2004 Following a lively campaign, I was elected to serve as student body president during my senior year at Gonzaga. I led a staff of 17 people, designed and implemented comprehensive policy initiatives and served on numerous faculty, administration and board committees. San Diego, CA Paralegal Specialist Major Frauds Division January to August 2005 Assistant U.S. Attorneys and FBI agents to investigate, organize and prepare large corporate fraud and public corruption cases for presentation to a grand jury and trial. United States Forest Service, Townsend, MT Forestry Aide Wildland Firefighter Summer 2002 I served as an initial responder on a fire engine and battled several significant wildfires as part of a 20-person fire crew deployed in Montana, Colorado and Yellowstone National Park. Office of United States Senator Max Baucus, Washington, D.C. Senate Intern Spring 2002 As an intern during college, I covered the Environment and Public Works Committee and researched the economic impact of NAFTA on U.S. workers. COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND INTERESTS Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission member, Silicon Valley Campaign for Legal Services Amicus Committee member; past middle school mentor and high school youth group teacher; outdoors enthusiast and an avid runner. My academic interests are centered on national security law, the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property regimes and immigration policy. DocuSign Envelope ID: A147EBCC-FB60-40AC-9559-C19DA7AA2697 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the Ci require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: A8455F56-9BC3-488D-9DCE-7C4A001765D9 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Parks and Recreation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: A8455F56-9BC3-488D-9DCE-7C4A001765D9 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particularinterest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Parks and Recreation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: A8455F56-9BC3-488D-9DCE-7C4A001765D9 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Parks and Recreation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan: Community Services and Facilities Element Natural Environment Element Baylands Master Plan Park Dedication Ordinance (Municipal Code) Bicycle - Pedestrian Transportation Plan Youth Master Plan Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Report DocuSign Envelope ID: A8455F56-9BC3-488D-9DCE-7C4A001765D9 Parks and Recreation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, DocuSign Envelope ID: A8455F56-9BC3-488D-9DCE-7C4A001765D9                     Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AAE3176-8DAC-4E2F-A51E-E476DC69B3B2 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AAE3176-8DAC-4E2F-A51E-E476DC69B3B2 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AAE3176-8DAC-4E2F-A51E-E476DC69B3B2 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AAE3176-8DAC-4E2F-A51E-E476DC69B3B2 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from roviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AAE3176-8DAC-4E2F-A51E-E476DC69B3B2 Rebecca L. Eisenberg, Esq. 2345 Waverley St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 235-8078 rebecca@privateclientlegal.com OVERVIEW: Effective attorney and general counsel for organizations & individuals. Detail-oriented, empathetic, efficient. Problem-solver. EDUCATION: Harvard Law School, J.D., June 1993 Editor, Harvard Law Review. Harvard Law Record, journalist and columnist. contributor and editor. ABA, President of Harvard Law Chapter. Graduated Cum Laude. Stanford University, B.A. Psychology/Decision Sciences, June 1990 Phi Beta Kappa elected junior year. Departmental distinction. Boothe Prize for Excellence in Writing. Cap & Gown Honor Society; Phi Psi Honor Society. President, Stanford Undergraduate Psychology Association (SUPA). Peer Tutor, Calculus, Stanford Center for Teaching & Learning. Orientation Coordinator, Transfer Students, Stanford Office of Residential Education, 1989. Program Advisor, Ujamaa and Naranja, Stanford Office of Residential Education, 1987-1988. Peer Counselor, the Bridge, 1987-1990. Teaching Assistant, Prof. Philip Zimbardo, Psychology 1, 1987-1990. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Private Client Legal Advisors, San Francisco, CA Principal & Founder, 1/2013 - Present Operate boutique legal services firm, providing following services: Serve as outside GC for nonprofit organizations, technology companies, angel funds, entrepreneurs and executives. Locate, hire and manage specialized outside counsel; serve as intermediary between client and firms. Assist a variety of clients with matters involving regulatory compliance, employment matters, compensation, Fair Pay Act compliance, HR policies, financings and corporate transactions, as well as commercial agreements, licensing, employment disputes, litigation management, dispute resolution, public relations, and other business and legal affairs on behalf of founders, executives, non-profits, companies and start-ups. Analyze, negotiate and advise firms, companies and individuals on their real estate and finance-related documents warrants, convertible notes, stock purchase agreements, articles of incorporation and related corporate documents; provide actionable advice for stakeholders regarding different options and potential outcomes based on quantitative analysis of liquidity flowing through cap tables, interest accruing over time, types of collateral, and otherwise. Handle governance issues on behalf of a variety of organizations, including Board Meetings, public filings, and regulatory and legal compliance; ensure compliance with privacy laws and disclosure mandates. Provide legal consulting on Human Resources issues, including compensation, compliance and risk reduction. Vouch Financial Inc., San Francisco, CA General Counsel, Head of Human Resources & Corporate Secretary 5/14 to 3/15 first GC & Head of HR (4th employee), handled all legal & HR matters, including: Built and established legal department and legal function, including budget and hiring plan. Served as Board Secretary, drafted board resolutions, shareholder consents and board meeting minutes. Ensured compliance with all governance regulatory compliance including privacy and disclosure requirements. Secured new company office space, negotiated real estate transactions, handled office improvements and renovations in cost-effective and efficient, yet highly successful manner. Handled 2 rounds of venture capital financing, as well as venture debt line; advised on all financial transactions. Established compliant HR system & structure, with a focus on risk reduction, recruiting & retention; established all legal and HR form agreements, company manuals and policies; trained employees on compliance. Created compensation programs with focus on compliance, recruiting and retention. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AAE3176-8DAC-4E2F-A51E-E476DC69B3B2 Ensured regulatory and legal compliance with lending regulations (state and federal). Drafted company outward- and inward-facing policies, including privacy policies, user agreements, loan agreements, guarantor agreements, terms of use, license agreements, electronic communications agreements, credit consents and other legal agreements for website users, borrowers and guarantors. Negotiated all contracts with strategic business partners, investors, lenders, customers, and vendors. reddit Inc., San Francisco, CA General Counsel, Head of Finance and Head of Human Resources, 1/12 to 1/13 andled all legal, finance and HR matters for reddit, including: Negotiated and executed successful spin-off of reddit Inc. from Advance/Conde Nast. Served as Board Secretary; drafted & distributed resolutions, consents and board minutes. Legal, Human Resources and Finance departments. ensured regulatory and legal compliance, trained employees, drafted all employee agreements and policies. Handled, managed and trained staff members to respond to all Subpoenas, DMCA requests, infringement letters and other inbound legal communications. Established compensation systems and ensured compliance and consistency. Create . handled investment round and all corporate legal matters. Negotiated all commercial agreements; drafted all standard contracts; handled all other legal matters. Trulia, Inc., San Francisco, CA General Counsel, 3/10 to 12/11 andled all legal issues for this fast-paced Internet start-up in the real estate industry, including: Handled M & A transactions, including acquisition of start-up Movity. Handled financial transactions, including closing high-figure loan financing. Handled, drafted, negotiated all other corporate and commercial transactions, including business development, sales, licensing, co-marketing and other commercial contracts, as well as real estate leases and transactions. Handled human resources issues, including handbooks, terminations, separation agreements and stock issues. Managed IP portfolio, including patents and trademarks. Managed litigation, including several patent infringement lawsuits; obtained very favorable settlement. Handled legal issues in product development, including terms of use, privacy policies and issuing associated with User Generated Content. Served on Senior Management Team, contribute to corporate strategy. Pure Digital Technologies, Inc., San Francisco, CA General Counsel, 9/08-9/09 Handled all legal issues for this consumer electronics technology company that provides the popular line of Flip Video handheld digital video camcorders. Handled successful Exit: Merger of Pure Digital with Cisco Systems, Inc in $615 million transaction. Led $630 Million merger with Cisco, in addition to all other corporate transactions. Successfully settled multi-million dollar (claimed) patent suit, managed all other litigation and threatened litigation. Handled all commercial transactions, licensing, sales and business development deal support (technology, software, content, co-marketing), including with Facebook, Product (RED), YouTube, MySpace, AOL and other industry leaders. Led HR legal organization, provided advice, contracts, separations, consulting, conflict management. Handled intellectual property portfolio: patents, trademarks, copyrights. Leader on executive management team, provided strategic decision making, interfaced with Board of Directors. Managed and hired resources, handled legal budget of approximately $4 million. AdBrite, Inc., San Francisco, CA Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary of the Board, 3/07-9/08 andled all legal matters for this Internet startup in the online advertising space. Handled corporate governance/securities: minutes, resolutions Negotiated/drafted all commercial transactions: licensing, sales, real estate Handled Intellectual Property: Managed IP portfolio, all patents, copyrights, trademarks, DMCA. Successfully avoided litigation/managed risk: disposed of issues before they lead to lawsuits; create policies. Provided executive management, leadership. PayPal, Inc., an eBay Company, San Jose, CA DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AAE3176-8DAC-4E2F-A51E-E476DC69B3B2 Senior Counsel,Senior Director, Assistant Secretary 7/01-3/07 Joined company as second attorney, and assisted with IPO, Secondary Offering and Public Company Merger. Corporate development: assisted with IPO, secondary offering and public company merger with eBay Inc. Commercial Transactions: Handled all commercial transactions for the company. Sales: Supported sales team for $1.5 billion revenue company; create standardized documents and train salesforce. Intellectual property: Advised executives on intellectual property matters & compliance, handle IP licenses and strategy. International: supported business clients in Asia, Europe and Canada. Product Development: Analyzed all product specifications; drafted licenses and terms. User Agreement and Privacy Policy: drafting and maintenance, enforcement. Marketing and Content: Reviewed all marketing and other content; advised company on issues and risks. Management: Build and managed commercial legal team comprised of ten attorneys and staff. Risk management, litigation management, departmental processes. Ecast, Inc. (Internet-based music and games company), San Francisco, CA Vice President of Legal and New Market Development, 9/99-6/01 Helped raise more than $18 M for the company, worked with investors. Managed strategic and business development as well as most legal and corporate development. Successfully closed deals including: digital music licensing with all 5 major labels, film/gaming licenses, wireless distribution deals , $7 million dollar software license/equity investment agreement with UK company. As the first licensed attorney to join the executive team of this fast-paced start-up, also served as lead on risk management, compliance and marketing review, as well as delivered competitive analysis and business strategy. Cole Valley Group Consulting, San Francisco, CA Consultant: Internet business strategy, M&A advising & marketing, 10/95-10/99 Provided strategic, technical marketing and business development services for numerous clients including Pixar, Quokka, Yoga Journal, Adjacency, Inc. (now Sapient), StarMine, Cyborganic Media, MediaCast, Sound Exchange Records, Electric Minds, Verbum and ChemisTree, among other start-ups and new media companies. Wrote over 10 business plans for start-ups, which as a group raised over $30M in venture financing; consulted start- ups and established companies on mergers & acquisitions and other exit strategies; advised on intellectual property strategies. Consulted on intellectual property and strategic legal matters, including contributing to Rembrandts in the Closet, book on IP business strategies written by SmartPatents CEO (now Aurigin). CBS MarketWatch, San Francisco, CA -4/01 ews site; contributed over 100 columns. Columns covered both technology strategic issues as well as high tech legal issues, including a high profile series on Awarded WELL journalism award for column which revealed privacy strategy behind WebMD/Healtheon merger. The San Francisco Examiner Internet business columnist, 6/97-10/99 Wrote Net Skink, a bi-s Business Section. Cyborganic Media Director, Product Management and Corporate Development, 11/95-10/97 Very early member of start-up team on this too-early MYSPACE-like company (community and content aggregator) Web product, GeekCereal.com. Hired, trained, managed and edited group of 12 individuals creating, updating and managing Web site GeekCereal.com. Contributed to Cyborganic business plan, helped raise angel funding. U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Houston, TX Judicial Law Clerk, Chief Judge Carolyn Dineen King, 8/95-11/95. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AAE3176-8DAC-4E2F-A51E-E476DC69B3B2 U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, Washington, DC Judicial Law Clerk, Honorable Gladys Kessler, 8/94-7/95. U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles, CA Judicial Law Clerk, Honorable A. Andrew Hauk, 8/93-8/94. Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, CA Summer Associate, business law and litigation, 1992. Ross & Hardies, Chicago, IL Summer Associate, business law and litigation, 1991. BAR: Active Member of the California Bar and the Federal Bar, Central District of California, sworn in 1993. BOARD MEMBERSHIPS: Board of Directors, Legal Momentum (formerly known as the National Organization for Women Legal Defense Fund national board), 2009-2012. Board of Directors, Craigslist Foundation, Treasurer, Founding member, 1999-2007. Board of Advisors, Kiva.org (Microfinance Nonprofit), 2006-2009. Board of Advisors, The Webby Awards, and Member, International Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2003-present. Board of Advisors, Skinny Scoop www.theskinnyscoop.com -present. PUBLICATIONS: Regulatory Affairs: Rebecca Eisenberg, Proposed Rule Amendments to Regulation D, Form D and Rule 156 Under the Securities Act, https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-06-13/s70613-460.pdf Rebecca Eisenberg, Nordlinger v. Hahn: the , Harvard Law Review, 1992 (available upon request). Academic Writing: Rebecca Eisenberg, Beyond Bray: Obtaining Federal Jurisdiction to Stop Anti-Abortion Violence, 6 Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 155 (1994). http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=yjlf Note, Pornography, Equality, and a Discrimination-Free Workplace: A Comparative Perspective, 106 Harvard Law Review 1075 (1993). http://www.omino.com/~dom/clips/porno.html Book Note, An Unladylike Response to Legal Conceptions of Women (reviewing Faludi, Backlash), 105 Harvard Law Review 2104 (1992). http://www.omino.com/~dom/clips/faludi.html Popular Media Writing: Weekly column, Net Skink, San Francisco Chronicle 1996-1999. Weekly column, Nouveau Geek, CBS MarketWatch, 1997-2000. Regular contributor, Wired, Red Herring, Upside, Fast Company, Time Daily, Entertainment Weekly, Ms. Magazine. List of published clips available by request and online: http://www.omino.com/~dom/clips/ EDUCATION / VOLUNTEER ROLES: Special Gifts / Fundraising / Development Committee, Stanford Homecoming Reunion 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015. Harvard Law School Celebration 55 Committee; Harvard Law School Celebration 60 Committee. Reunion and Fundraising Coordinator, Whitefish Bay High School, Whitefish Bay, WI. Development Committee, Brandeis Hillel Day School, San Francisco, CA Room Parent, Brandeis Hillel Day School, San Francisco, CA Parent Volunteer, Walter Hays Elementary School, Palo Alto, CA Parent Volunteer, Jordan Middle School, Palo Alto, CA DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AAE3176-8DAC-4E2F-A51E-E476DC69B3B2 AWARDS & SPEAKING ROLES: Award Winner, Top 25 Women on the Web, 1999 (Judge, Top 25 Women on the Web 2000, 2001). Award Winner, WELL Writing Award, Journalism and Overall Grand Prize, 2000. s Hardball with Chris Matthews, and PBS Computer Chronicles and Internet Café. Expert on consumer protection online; featured in full-length chapter interview in the 2000 book, Web Rules: How the Internet is Changing the Way Consumers Make Choices by Tom Murphy. Harvard Law School, 2013; Panelist, 2008, led by United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5AAE3176-8DAC-4E2F-A51E-E476DC69B3B2 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: C4A7E229-AF1D-46D7-B739-7EB444287606 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: C4A7E229-AF1D-46D7-B739-7EB444287606 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: C4A7E229-AF1D-46D7-B739-7EB444287606 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: C4A7E229-AF1D-46D7-B739-7EB444287606 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from roviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: C4A7E229-AF1D-46D7-B739-7EB444287606 __ __ __ __ __ __ PersonalInformation Name: Address: Cell Phone: Home / Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident?Yes No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?Yes No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?Yes No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure oftheir financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business inPalo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?Yes No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?Yes No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission? CommunityGroup Email from City Clerk Palo Alto Weekly Daily Post CityWebsite Flyer Other:_ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Page 1 Planning & Transportation Commission 160 Lowell Avenue Brian Hamachek 650-556-4141 650-556-4141 brian@brianhama.com University of California at Santa Barbara, Computer Science DocuSign Envelope ID: BA92A7BA-1B75-44AE-B08B-21848D8139B3 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Page 2Planning & Transportation Commission Nearby CEO Expert Judge - Palo Alto Civic Hackathon Program Participant - Palo Alto Community Emergency Response Team Alumni Advisor - Stanford StartX Student Mentor - Stanford Technology Ventures Program Volunteer - Hack Palo Alto Captain - Palo Alto USTA TeamMember - Palo Alto Tennis ClubFounder - Palo Alto Tennis Meetup DocuSign Envelope ID: BA92A7BA-1B75-44AE-B08B-21848D8139B3 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with yourexperience and of specific interest to you, and why? 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interestto you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meetingyou can view an archive here:LINK. Page 3Planning & Transportation Commission I am very interested in phase 2 of the Embarcadero Road Improvement Project. I grew up a few blocks from Town and Country, attended Palo Alto High School, and later lived in a home only a block off Embarcadero Road. I have driven, walked, and biked the length of Embarcadero Road thousands of times over the past three decades. I have seen the amount of traffic on it explode. I have experienced the anxiety of riding a bike along the underpass at Alma. I have stood at the corner of Emerson while waiting for a break in traffic so I could quickly dart across as a pedestrian. I think that this experience gives me a very unique perspective in understanding the pain points and evaluating theproposed solutions. I have lived in Palo Alto nearly my entire life, so this commission is of particular interest to me because of the direct role it's members have on protecting and guiding Palo Alto's future. My professional experience as a technology executive has given me many relevant skills, but it is my extensive personal history and deep affection for our city thatmakes me such a valuable resource to this commission. DocuSign Envelope ID: BA92A7BA-1B75-44AE-B08B-21848D8139B3 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and TransportationCommission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. Ifyou have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experiencewith these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK CityCharter LINK California Environmental QualityAct LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK Page 4Planning & Transportation Commission Ultimately, I would like to see the commission continue to preserve the unique character of Palo Alto. This city is at a critical point in time, and the decisions made by this commission will determine the type of city Palo Alto becomes. There is no denying that many aspects of the city need to change to accommodate the changing reality of thelarger Bay Area, but the changes need to be done thoughtfully and always with the goalof preserving what makes the city so amazing. I think my first-hand experience growing up, studying, working, starting a business, and living in both an apartment and homes here allows me to understand many different point of views and develop the best solutions for everyone. Having attended/watched many PTC meetings and in order to better understand theissues of the city, I have, over the years, become somewhat familiar with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the City Charter, and the El Camino Real Master Plan. I am currently far less familiar with the other documents. DocuSign Envelope ID: BA92A7BA-1B75-44AE-B08B-21848D8139B3 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without firstobtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will notbe redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here:LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board andCommission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government CodeSection 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email addressfrom the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I amproviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contactinformationinstead. Address: Cell Phone: Home / Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: _ _ _ Date: Page 5 Planning & Transportation Commission DocuSign Envelope ID: BA92A7BA-1B75-44AE-B08B-21848D8139B3 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: A2261FE4-7390-4BFC-AC20-1F777C23939B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: A2261FE4-7390-4BFC-AC20-1F777C23939B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: A2261FE4-7390-4BFC-AC20-1F777C23939B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: A2261FE4-7390-4BFC-AC20-1F777C23939B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from roviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: A2261FE4-7390-4BFC-AC20-1F777C23939B Urban Architectural Initiatives (UAI) is an architectural and planning firm with extensive experience in housing and community facilities, as well as residential, religious, commercial, and historic restoration projects. A primary focus has been serving nonprofit, community-based organizations that provide housing, treatment and social services to various special needs populations including the homeless, mentally ill, senior citizens, and single mothers. The practice draws on the varied experiences of its principals and staff, combining a strong interest in urban building types with a broad and in-depth knowledge of the construction industry. UAI was formed by David Hirsch and Tony Shitemi in 1996, and has grown to become a diverse, eighteen-person firm. After establishing site-specific parameters, we engage our clients in the full design process to define and understand their program, culminating in a design charrette that explores concepts of space and image appropriate to the project. We have comprehensive experience working with government regulating and funding agencies whose projects require greater attention to the allocation of resources. UAI uses the latest in BIM/CAD technology to produce design and construction drawings; and we have fully integrated sustainable design in our practice to achieve buildings that reduce energy costs, are ecologically friendly, and provide a healthy indoor environment. Our mission is to provide the most creative design solution to satisfy all the different challenges; the site, the client’s specific program, zoning and building code requirements, community concerns, agency oversight, budget constraints, etc. Our buildings are warm and welcoming, providing a built environment that supports and enhances the lives of individuals, families, and communities. 02 Office Profile Architecture Architecture Code Compliance Studies Conditions Surveys Construction Supervision Facilities Analysis Historic Restoration Site Design Specifications Planning Feasibility Studies Space Programming Land Use Studies Site Master Planning Site Selection Studies Urban Planning Zoning Interiors Interior Design Space Planning UAI in The Woolworth Building Lobby 03 Office Services David Hirsch RA Anthony K. Shitemi AIA, NOMA Alen Moghaddam AIA Akiko Kyei-Aboagye AIA, LEED AP Jorge Chang AIA, LEED BD+C David is a principal and co-founder of UAI. In a wide-ranging career prior to starting the firm with Tony Shitemi in 1996, David pursued professional interests in photography and urban design, which have shaped and complemented his architectural sensibilities as lead principal on many notable projects. Among them are a series of new supportive housing buildings for a well-known non-profit provider in Harlem and the Bronx, an addition to a well-established educational and religious facility in Long Island, and the rehabilitation and conversion of a historic Brooklyn police station to residences. David has also spearheaded the firm’s forays in development, with a rehabilitation of historic row houses in Westchester County and more recently, a condo development in Brooklyn. Tony is a principal and co-founder of UAI. He contributes to the firm a clear understanding of zoning, code and practical building issues developed over decades of experience, combined with sensitivity to each client’s specific needs. Tony has guided the successful completion of an extensive roster of building projects, including additions, rehabilitations of existing buildings, historical restorations and new construction throughout the New York metropolitan region. Tony values participating in developments that are beneficial to the community: schools, community centers, housing for special needs populations, commercial, and civic facilities Alen has worked for UAI for over ten years, becoming a principal of the firm in 2014. He has been the project manager for several of the firm’s largest and most recognized projects, including a 118-unit, 8-story award-winning apartment building in the Bronx and a 98 bed, 7-story supportive housing facility for mothers rebuilding their lives and their relationships with their children following incarceration. Alen also completed the difficult task of successfully completing the design and renovation of UAI’s office space in the Woolworth Building for a very demanding group of clients. Akiko joined UAI in 2006 and has since worked as project manager and designer on a variety of projects for many different clients. She became a principal of the firm in 2014, and continues to manage projects of all scales and sizes, from clinic renovations to new buildings. Recently completed building projects include a new 65-unit, 4-story supportive housing facility as well as a 40-unit, 6-story apartment complex, both in the Bronx. Akiko has also served on a technical committee working with stakeholders from across the building and construction industry to revise and update the New York City Building Code. Jorge began as a junior architect at UAI in 2006, and was quickly promoted to project manager and then associate. Over the past several years, Jorge has worked on a broad range of new construction and rehabilitation projects. Notable among them are an 87-unit, 6-story residential building with supportive service space for veterans and low-income adults in East Harlem and a 51-unit, 4-story apartment complex for low-income senior citizens in East New York. Jorge’s interest in sustainability in a practical, real world sense has led him to obtain his Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Accredited Professional Building Design + Construction, and to pursue further specialization within the field.04 People KANDAKE HOUSE 435 EAST 119TH STREET, NEW YORK, NY Greenhope Service for Women OASAS & HHAP $11 million Client Sponsor Cost LOUNGE LOBBYDETAIL VIEWCAFETERIAGREEN ROOF TERRACE Greenhope Services for Women is a non-profit organization with a mission to empower women affected by substance abuse and the criminal justice system and to help them reclaim their lives. Kandake House is Greenhope’s new 43,000 SF facility which operates three programs: Residential Treatment, Day Treatment, and Outpatient Services, including an ambulatory medical suite open to the general public. The facility’s complex program includes Administrative offices, classrooms, sleeping quarters, daycare, cafeteria, a terrace garden, and greenhouse. The front facade is a rich weaving of metal, brick, and stucco that draws on the patterning of West African textiles and, in particular, Kente Cloth. The facade curves to the East, optimizing views of the Harlem River, but also invoking the billowing of colorful fabrics in the wind. Environmentally responsible design has been integral to the building design which exhibits both passive and active energy-saving methods. The building received the Energy Star Building Label, as certified by NYSERDA. EXTERIOR FACADE 06 Supportive Housing ODYSSEY HOUSE PARK AVENUE 113 EAST 123RD STREET, NY, NY Odyssey House Office of Mental Health $9.2 million Client Sponsor Cost Odyssey House Park Avenue on 123rd Street in Harlem has been designed as a 34,000 SF, six-story building funded by the New York State Office of Mental Health. Continuing the Odyssey House tradition of supporting individuals recovering from substance abuse problems, the building will house counseling offices and group meeting facilities on the ground floor and cellar, with 50 efficiency apartment units for program participants on the floors above. The main lobby opens up to the rear garden via an elevated walkway over a sunken courtyard and lower level lounge, drawing people into the activity areas of the building. A key element of the therapeutic process at Odyssey House is art and creative expression, and the building features many areas for the display of original work by the program participants, including exterior display panels in the rear garden that are a highlight of the landscaping design. ACCESS STAIRREAR YARDCONFERENCE ROOM FRONT FACADE 07 Supportive Housing City Cedars, L.P. HDC, HHAP, NYSERDA, LPC $20 million Client Major Sponsors Cost The design embraces the centrality of historic Fox Hall by rendering the new eight-story residential portion as a backdrop, which wraps and offsets the renovated landmarked structure. Programmatically, Fox Hall serves as the main hub for activity and community gathering at the heart of the project. On the interior, the central, open stair wrapping a free-standing brick wall reinforces this centrality. Cedars was awarded a NYSERDA grant to be a pilot project for the agency’s Multi-Family High-Rise Energy Star Program. With this grant, the design team implemented a ground-source geothermal well system for heating and cooling which, along with other energy-saving measures will reduce the energy consumption of the building by more than 40%. The design also includes a modular green roof, low VOC paints and adhesives, and high recycled content finishes. Cedars was completed in Fall 2009 and has been awarded a LEED Gold rating.GREEN ROOF LONGWOOD CLUB CIRCA 1895 FOX HALL BECK STREET ELEVATION VIEW FROM EAST 156TH STREET AND FOX STREETVIEW FROM EAST 156TH STREET AND BECK STREET 745 FOX STREET, BRONX, NYCEDARS / FOX HALL 08 Supportive Housing VIEW FROM CORNER WALL DETAIL INTERIOR BRIDGEBRICK DETAIL INTERIOR 880 TINTON AVENUE BRONX, NY Odyssey House Office of Mental Health (OMH) $11 million ClientSponsorCost 880 Tinton Avenue is a four-story building in the Bronx for Odyssey House, sponsored by the NYS Office of Mental Health. It consists of 65 studios and common spaces that embrace the many programs that are part of the recovery and development process for the tenants. The rear yard has been designed with an amphitheater, including a performance platform and ascending levels of seating to accommodate the theater program and acts as assembly space for participants of the running program. The design responds to the prominent corner site with a tower-like projection clad in a curtain wall showcasing double-height tenant lounges and program spaces that can host the various art and computer workshops. In a constant effort to create a sustainable, maintainable building for the owners, simple energy conservation features are planned for the building which is pursuing an Energy Star Building label as certified by NYSERDA. 10 Supportive Housing VIEW FROM STREET Odyssey HouseOffice of Mental Health (OMH)$10 million ClientSponsorCost 715 SOUNDVIEW AVENUE BRONX, NY 715 Soundview Avenue, one of two new Office of Mental Health projects for Odyssey House, consist of 58 new single room occupancy residences on five floors above grade. It is located on an unusual triangular site which challenged UAI to create a dynamic building, narrowing at the most visible end. The program of community functions in the basement and opens to a sunken courtyard, which is terraced from its lowest level to the surrounding grade. The terraces will be private planting gardens for the residents. Many energy conservation features are included in the building, making this Odyssey’s first green building with LEED silver certification. ENTRY VIEWGARDENS BRONX, NY 13 Supportive Housing The Glenmore is a 161-unit building under development by Women In Need. Located in East New York, Brooklyn, the lot is currently occupied by an abandoned storefront church and a parking lot. Adjacent to the north are two shelters run by WIN, creating a campus of WIN buildings in East New York. The building went through several height and mass iterations in order to obtain the required zoning variances to meet Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) approval, culminating in the current scheme, which accommodates a six-story building with a 7,000 SF side yard and commercial space at the ground floor. There will be low-income and affordable studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, with laundry and exercise facilities in the cellar. Community rooms and support services for the tenants and community residents and 24 parking spaces are provided. Much-needed housing, soil remediation for the site, and more green space, are among the benefits that this building will bring to the neighborhood. CORNER RETAIL FROM STREET THE GLENMORE 91 JUNIUS STREET, BROOKLYN, NY RESIDENTIAL ENTRY VIEW Women In Need HPD / HHAP $54 million Client Sponsor Cost Supportive Housing 14 PSCH/CHRISTA APARTMENTS 491 EAST 165TH STREET, BRONX, NY PSCH, Inc CHRISTA Client NYS Office of Mental Health Sponser $12 million Cost Supportive Housing PSCH/CHRISTA Apartments is a new 10-story residence with 58 apartments located in Melrose in the Bronx. There will be a mix of studio, one and two-bedroom apartments, a lounge, recreation room, laundry space, and coundeling offices. A sunken courtyard brings light into the cellar and leads to generously landscaped gardens at the rear. The narrow site, just 50’ wide, requires a poured-in-place concrete structure, in order to meet seismic forces while consuming the least amount of usable space. The facade is punctuated by ample windows and elegantly combines brick and stucco, with metal LOBBY BUILDING ENTRY ELEVATION DETAIL 15 DORMER DETAIL REAR YARD ENTRY DETAIL 480 EAST 176TH STREET, BRONX, NYThe Lantern Group, Inc.NYC, HPD & NYS HHAP$18 million Client Sponsor Cost SILVERLEAF HALL Silverleaf Hall is a 118-unit, 130,000 SF apartment building developed by The Lantern Group, completed in Spring 2006. The units are for low-income families earning below 60% of Area Median Income. 35 of the units, scattered throughout the building, are reserved for homeless families that have been recommended for permanent housing by the New York City Homeless Shelters. More than 50% of Silverleaf’s tenants are from the surrounding Tremont neighborhood of the Bronx. The landscape, canopy, reinvented mansard roof, high-quality finishes, and other design details provide a sense of welcome and pride for tenants. SUNKEN COURTYARD 19 Affordable Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 97979B74-B9B6-4FDC-92FF-1D21ABA36A78 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 97979B74-B9B6-4FDC-92FF-1D21ABA36A78 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 97979B74-B9B6-4FDC-92FF-1D21ABA36A78 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 97979B74-B9B6-4FDC-92FF-1D21ABA36A78 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from roviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: 97979B74-B9B6-4FDC-92FF-1D21ABA36A78 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: F180A914-14E1-4DFC-ABCD-F659CB86C2D4 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: F180A914-14E1-4DFC-ABCD-F659CB86C2D4 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: F180A914-14E1-4DFC-ABCD-F659CB86C2D4 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: F180A914-14E1-4DFC-ABCD-F659CB86C2D4 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from roviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: F180A914-14E1-4DFC-ABCD-F659CB86C2D4 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: ABED7E65-893F-4303-8034-9161889A24DF Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: ABED7E65-893F-4303-8034-9161889A24DF Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: ABED7E65-893F-4303-8034-9161889A24DF Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: ABED7E65-893F-4303-8034-9161889A24DF GABRIEL PATRICK KRALIK PAGE 2 Created, with outside corporate counsel, model agreements for the conversion of foreign research and development teams into separate corporate entities with contract-based milestones for the development of product maintenance and software version iterations adding incremental feature sets. Utilizing this model, converted Shanghai development operations into a third-party service provider. Directed post-divestiture representation of Corel in a dispute over the novation of U.S. Government defense contracts. Co-negotiated post-transaction modifications to global revenue sharing agreement for WinDVD software including to resolve industry standard royalty obligations. PPC Syracuse, NY October 2008 to June 2012 Global designer, manufacturer, and supplier of connector technology products for telecommunications industries, including broadband, satellite, and wireless sectors; privately-owned company has operations in the U.S., Denmark, China, and St. Kitts. Broadband division was sold to Belden in 2012 for $517 Million. VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL COUNSEL, CHIEF PATENT COUNSEL & CORPORATE SECRETARY portfolio. Built and managed an internal and external legal framework to advance corporate objectives of growth, profitability, and innovation. Grew $25M in annual broadband connector product revenue by obtaining and enforcing two General Exclusion orders through successful litigation of coaxial cable connector patents in proceedings before the International Trade Commission, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and through Customs import detention proceedings. revenue gains in the broadband, satellite and wireless divisions; attained a #18 global ranking in the 2011 Institute of atent Power survey for telecom equipment and in the 2008 Wall Street Journal rankings for Excellence in Technology Strength. Saved $3M in annual legal costs through negotiated alternative-fee arrangements with outside legal firms and the establishment of a seven-person internal legal department responsible for handling corporate, commercial, litigation support and worldwide patent prosecution practice areas. Directed legal representation to support and protect the U.S., Denmark, St. Kitts, and mainland China. Participated in the creation and updating of -year strategic plan together with business, finance and manufacturing leads. the Custom Electronic Design and Installation Association market sector, devising and executing successful trademark registrations and designing form agreements for product distribution. Steered corporate acquisition of Evolution Broadband, conducting intellectual property due diligence to inform acquisition strategy. India, Brazil and China, and the dissolution and consolidation of certain U.S. (real-estate holding companies), the U.K. and St. Kitts entities. Coordinated representation of leading to the construction and expansion of its Upstate New York research, development and production operations. Represented PPC in local government hearings to obtain zoning variances needed for approval of facility construction projects in East Syracuse, New York. Served as Secretary to the Board of Directors, drafting minutes and resolutions and managing corporate governance. Served as a director of multiple international affiliate entities. Managed Employment disputes including EEOC Complaint matters. Provided oversight to the resolution of workplace disputes. Developed management training modules for anti-harassment and Defended PPC in a federal district court trade secret misappropriation case brought by competitor subsequent to the hiring of a C-level sales executive, winning dismissal of the allegations. Defended PPC in State Court landlord-tenant dispute concerning rent obligations due in the context of a roof collapse that had necessitated transfer of manufacturing and finished product warehouse operations. Litigated to favorable conclusion a commercial dispute with the supplier of automated product assembly equipment based on failure to achieve contract milestones and operation requirements related to output, versatility and quality. DocuSign Envelope ID: ABED7E65-893F-4303-8034-9161889A24DF GABRIEL PATRICK KRALIK PAGE 5 MORGAN & FINNEGAN New York, NY 1989 to 1996 LITIGATION ASSOCIATE behalf of RVI in the District of Delaware for patent rights covering ibuprofen-pseudoephedrine combination over-the-counter medication (verdict later overturned on appeal on obviousness grounds). Represented clients on intellectual property litigation and prosecution matters, including Procter & Gamble, W.L. Gore, Syva, Brown & Williamson, Richardson-Vicks, Beam-Tech, AccuScan and Sibjet. EDUCATION Notre Dame Law School Notre Dame, IN Juris Doctor - 1989 University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering 1982 ADMISSIONS State Bars of New York, New Jersey and California; Supreme Court of the United States; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal and Second Circuits; U.S. District Courts of New Jersey, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, Western District of New York, Northern District of New York; .United States Court of International Trade; and United States Patent & Trademark Office (Registration No. 34,855). PROFESSIONAL TRAINING, PROJECTS AND PUBLIC SERVICE 2015 Program Mediator and Case Developer, Santa Clara County Office of Human Relations 2015 Vice President, Saint Frances Cabrini Foundation 2014 Graduate of the County of Santa Clara Dispute Resolution Mediation Skills Program; 2012 Graduate of the Pepperdine University School of Law STAR Mediation Program; 2004 Candidate for Mayor, City of Pleasanton, CA.; and 2000 Candidate for Justice, New York Supreme Ct, 9th District. DocuSign Envelope ID: ABED7E65-893F-4303-8034-9161889A24DF Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: F1616292-9E40-4537-9132-0D92DF30861B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: F1616292-9E40-4537-9132-0D92DF30861B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: F1616292-9E40-4537-9132-0D92DF30861B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: F1616292-9E40-4537-9132-0D92DF30861B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from roviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: F1616292-9E40-4537-9132-0D92DF30861B Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: + Commissioner, Current Chair, Parks and Recreation Commission (7 years). Served for three years as Chair and one year as Vice-Chair. + President, Palo Alto Babe Ruth Baseball. (5 years). + Manager, Palo Alto Little League (5 years). Board member and VP Finance, Urban Ministry/ Innvision (2years). With two others facilitated merger and integration of Urban Ministry with Innvision. Board member, Congregation Beth Am (5 years). Vice President (2 years). Chair, Social Action Committee (homeless focus) (3 years). What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience - and of specific interest to you and why? + I have developed a deep understanding of the City of Palo Alto government over the last seven years. I have had perhaps thousands of interactions with all participants in City government including Staff, Council, Stakeholders, other Commissioners, and outside vendors. + I am familiar with the requirements, importance, and process of EIRs. u between my work on the Parks Commission and the Planning and Transportation Commission which I have worked on including: - Safe transportation corridors for bike and pedestrian access to parks and open space. - Parking needs adjacent to, or within, parks - Mutual compatibility of people and bikes in parks or open space such as Arastradero Preserve. - Stanford/City partnerships and conflicts. DocuSign Envelope ID: F1616292-9E40-4537-9132-0D92DF30861B + I have worked on a number of major parks projects which have direct adjacency to Planning and Transportation including: - El Camino Park: possible impact of 27 University Project and EIR impact on potential dog park. Safe routes to the park for pedestrians and vehicles as well as design for safe drop off of children at the playing fields. - Municipal golf course reconfiguration and creation of 10.5 acres for recreational use. Tree mitigation for golf course tree losses in Baylands vicinity consistent with the Urban Forest Master Plan. Essential linkage of transportation routes for any recreational activities on that site. - Creation of Parks Master Plan (in process) especially as related to projected population growth and potential increase in housing units. - Museum and Zoo project encroachment on Rinconada Park and tree loss on site due to large footprint for expansion. Why are these of interest to me? PTC issues are of interest to me as they deal with the toughest problems with the highest impact on citizens in Palo Alto: Population growth, traffic congestion, office density, and the need for affordable housing to assure diversity in the Please describe an issue that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. There are many! I will focus on the Embarcadero Road/ El Camino Real Corridor. It is the poster child for challenges of meeting needs and ensuring safety for students, commuters, residents and visitors at intersections uniquely challenged by a big school, a shopping center, Stanford, and PAMF. This is one of the most problematic and complex intersections in Palo Alto perhaps surpassed only by the East end of Embarcadero intersection with Highway 101 and 101 frontage roads. There are multiple auto, bike, and pedestrian traffic patterns here for Town and Country shopping center, Palo Alto DocuSign Envelope ID: F1616292-9E40-4537-9132-0D92DF30861B High School, and the El Camino/ Embarcadero intersection traffic, with left turn signals at all points in the intersection. This traffic escalates at PALY start/stop times and rush hour. There are also spillover traffic issues west of El Camino toward Stanford and along Embarcadero down to Middlefield especially in late afternoon. My interest in this is twofold: 1.It happens to be a high traffic area for me personally. I have watched all of the improvements being made there step-by-step over time. 2.In addressing this very challenging problem from the post-mortem of the phases of this project which are likely to result in improved process, better solutions, and faster implementation on other very problematic intersections in the city. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Council is grappling with very challenging issues, especially around housing, land use and traffic management. There are strongly held views in the community, including a sense of urgency and concern about growth impacts and compliance with comp plan and zoning codes. - The PTC should address these interconnected concerns more directly by providing fuller context to Council about the pros and cons of various courses of action as well as articulating rationales behind PTC recommendations. PTC should provide reasonable, balanced recommendations to Council after rigorous thought and debate. Why? City Council spends an inordinate amount of time on the details for planning and transportation projects. The commission should vet challenging issues Council to focus on high level policy questions. The commission needs to DocuSign Envelope ID: F1616292-9E40-4537-9132-0D92DF30861B keep to the published schedule of regular meetings and commit to more time invested in special ad hoc committees on individual issues. - PTC should help guide the revised Comprehensive Plan to completion and insure that ongoing recommendations and actions are in adherence with the Why? The Comp Plan update presents an opportunity for the PTC to take a greater leadership role in ensuring consistent interpretation/application of comp plan and zoning requirements, oversight of new data collection and performance measurement strategies, and help Council and the community understand and navigate the complexities of land use decisions. PTC should review the optimal role it should play on the comprehensive plan long term. - Increased creative thinking is needed (and some is already happening) on transportation issues to address congestion. Why? We need to define the problems clearly. For example, does the City have a parking problem? Perhaps we really have a vehicle congestion problem in certain areas at certain times of the day. Let s work on multiple methods of reducing the total number of cars that ever come to congested areas of Palo Alto such as the University Ave corridor. DocuSign Envelope ID: F1616292-9E40-4537-9132-0D92DF30861B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F7C374C-54BD-4AB5-A773-D92AA77CC305 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F7C374C-54BD-4AB5-A773-D92AA77CC305 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F7C374C-54BD-4AB5-A773-D92AA77CC305 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from roviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: 5F7C374C-54BD-4AB5-A773-D92AA77CC305 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BE13222-2F2D-417D-917E-D01024C57C71 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BE13222-2F2D-417D-917E-D01024C57C71 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BE13222-2F2D-417D-917E-D01024C57C71 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BE13222-2F2D-417D-917E-D01024C57C71 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from roviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: 3BE13222-2F2D-417D-917E-D01024C57C71 Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9CA60A-9495-4B78-888E-99227AC1BC5F Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9CA60A-9495-4B78-888E-99227AC1BC5F Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9CA60A-9495-4B78-888E-99227AC1BC5F Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9CA60A-9495-4B78-888E-99227AC1BC5F Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from roviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9CA60A-9495-4B78-888E-99227AC1BC5F Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 39FFCA30-D3A0-43D2-B66A-202E6C0F6E9B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 39FFCA30-D3A0-43D2-B66A-202E6C0F6E9B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 39FFCA30-D3A0-43D2-B66A-202E6C0F6E9B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 39FFCA30-D3A0-43D2-B66A-202E6C0F6E9B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from roviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ___________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: 39FFCA30-D3A0-43D2-B66A-202E6C0F6E9B Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BF2377D-4C93-448E-BC5F-1104C72F57CD Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BF2377D-4C93-448E-BC5F-1104C72F57CD Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commissionmeeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BF2377D-4C93-448E-BC5F-1104C72F57CD Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BF2377D-4C93-448E-BC5F-1104C72F57CD Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from roviding the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your DocuSign Envelope ID: 2BF2377D-4C93-448E-BC5F-1104C72F57CD TO: FROM: DATE: C I TY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 2 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2-Se_lection of Applicants to Interview on September 27, 2016 for the Historic Resources Board (HRB), the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC), the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and the Storm Drain Oversight Committee (SDOC) The attached applications were received after the advertised deadline of 5:30 P.M. on September 14, 2016, but within the midnight timeframe of that date. We are including them for your review and decision as to whether you wish to include them in the interview process. The three applicants are: Corey, Brandon (HRB) Gardias, Przemek (PTC) Incumbent Herrick, Tracy (PTC) With the inclusion of the above 3 applicants, there are 3 terms on the HRB with 5 applicants, 4 terms on PARC with 7 applicants, and 2 full terms and 1 unexpired term on the PTC with 16 applicants. Appricants that receive 5 or more votes will be scheduled for an intervie"'Y· In the event that there are too many applicants to interview in one meeting, Staff will work with the Council to schedule an additional date for the interviews. We will not be interviewing for the ~DOC as that Committee will be disbanded in the first half of 2017. lfthe pro:?itl'Management Fee is approved, and a new Committee will be ~· ~flvd · I Beth Minor7 City Clerk 1 of 1 Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Historic Resources Board Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the City’s Conflict of Interest Code require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D46859B-68C3-43C5-93D1-B9F791017462 X Brandon Corey 5 Brandon Corey City Council member Karen Holman X X X I have no formal training in historic preservation. My degree was in economics, and I work in the field of computer software engineering. I started doing woodwork and metalwork in high school, and have continued building things ever since. I have done extensive renovation work and historic preservation in homes I have owned over the years. I have been owner builder on several on my projects, and while I can afford a contractor, I do a lot of the work purely because I enjoy the work and fun of researching the original architectural style and period, as well as the building process itself. LINK X X Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Historic Resources Board Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D46859B-68C3-43C5-93D1-B9F791017462 I have a deep personal interest in architectural preservation. I was raised in San Francisco where we lived in several historical homes growing up. When my wife and I moved to Palo Alto, Professorville was the area we wanted to settle in. We currently reside in a historic home in the heart of Professorville. My wife and I own and have owned various properties we have restored over the years. We appreciate preserving the past, but are practical in coming up with solutions that work in today's world. Engineering Manager Brandon Corey I am not particularly involved in volunteer work. We have three children in Palo Alto schools, and my wife does volunteer work there. I appear at city council meetings with topics I am passionate about. I attend political fundraisers, block parties, the May Fete parade, and other city functions of that nature. Apple Inc. Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Historic Resources Board Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D46859B-68C3-43C5-93D1-B9F791017462 LINK I have been involved in the some of the early public sessions and meetings concerning the Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines. I am very interested in this topic, and I strongly support standards or guidelines. I feel there have been a lot of what I believe to be unnecessary teardowns and guttings of historic homes in the neighborhood over the past several years. As such, I am very concerned about what we put in guidelines, and I want to make sure we have a good document for people to refer to. For full disclosure, I was not supportive of the document in it's current form, though supportive of the idea in general. I look forward to getting to the point where we have a document that everyone can agree on. Brandon Corey I would like to continue to work on and influence the Design Guidelines. I would encourage and support taking this another step forward, and working towards historic design standards if the community feels that there could be a benefit in having these. I would also like to evaluate and work towards positive solutions on future development proposals. My goal would be to preserve the historic integrity of the buildings as much as possible, while allowing the homeowner or business owner the flexibility to implement creative solutions. Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Historic Resources Board Application 4 of 5 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good historic architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, Staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. 5. Historic Resources Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for: Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings California Environmental Quality Act DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D46859B-68C3-43C5-93D1-B9F791017462 Brandon Corey LINK The Sunbonnet House at 1061 Bryant. The current owners did a fantastic renovation which took several years, but did a fantastic job in keeping with Maybeck's original design. I am very appreciative of the shingle style. I also appreciate the architect Gustav Laumeister, who built my house and the Fowler Mansion. Both shingle style, wood panels and beamed ceiling in the downstairs "public areas", with large bedrooms and sleeping porches on the second floor. The combination of the hipped and bonnet style roof on the Fowler mansion works adds to it's character. I am familiar with the Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.49 and the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. I have read the documents for ideas on personal property projects and as a reference for permitted work on person property. In the latter case, it was to help formulate ideas on how to keep within the guidelines of the mentioned standards. LINK LINK LINK Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Historic Resources Board Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, Check this box and click “Attach” to upload your document(s). DocuSign Envelope ID: 6D46859B-68C3-43C5-93D1-B9F791017462 9/15/2016 LINK Brandon Corey 650-201-3947 X X 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Planning and Transportation Commission Application 1 of 5 Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? ____ Yes ____ No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ____ Yes ____ No California state law and the City’s Conflict of Interest Code require appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ____ Yes ____ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ____ Yes ____ No How did you learn about this vacancy? ____ Community Group ____ Email from City Clerk ____ Palo Alto Weekly ____ Daily Post ____ City Website ____ Flyer Other: List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: DocuSign Envelope ID: 29B6DF89-E3B3-46E3-BB02-C59AB12F9647 przemek@gardias.com X Przemek Gardias X Przemek Gardias 650 289 8154 X X X X 650 323 1238 State of California registered Architect C27737 Worked at: ESPEA, Poland 1988 - 1990 Terpening Architects 1993 - 1995 Kornberg Architects 1996 -1998 1252 Cedar Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 X LINK X Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Planning and Transportation Commission Application 2 of 5 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? DocuSign Envelope ID: 29B6DF89-E3B3-46E3-BB02-C59AB12F9647 Robert Half Technology Member of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) since 2014 currently Vice Chair of PTC Project Manager Architecture and Planning is my profession and primary skill. My interest in PTC is best described in my credo published on the City of Palo Alto website: He [Przemek] is guided with a definition of “a town as a place of high human interaction,” despite the challenges the virtual age brings to the physical space. Przemek recognizes everybody's dream of living in a garden by a main street. He realizes challenges and opportunities of municipal growth, and decided to serve on the Planning and Transportation Commission to cultivate that dream for current and incoming residents. I have total of 15 years experience in architecture and planning, including: *design of bio-tech laboratories and animal facilities at Kornberg & Associates. Menlo Park, CA *urban planning of Ostroleka, Plock-Podolszyce and Sulejowek at ESPEA. Poland *design of single family residences at Terpening Architects *competed in architectural competitions for office buildings and museums In addition, with my current service on the PTC, I believe I provide value by representing the best planning and architectural design practices, while upholding unique to Palo Alto neighborhood values and space characteristics. Przemek Gardias Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Planning and Transportation Commission Application 3 of 5 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? DocuSign Envelope ID: 29B6DF89-E3B3-46E3-BB02-C59AB12F9647 Proper partnership with the City Council needs to be assured. Focus needs to be maintained on professional discussion resulting with identifying, developing and recommending to the Council best option. In addition, best practice for listening residents participating in the PTC meetings, needs to be continued and expanded for the benefit of community inclusion in governance, as well as utilizing community input in the recommendations to the Council. LINK Przemek Gardias The most compelling issue, is to address ongoing discussion of balancing office and housing demand. To illustrate my perspective, I cite my email providing input to the Comprehensive Plan DEIR: Re: 2030 Employment projections o There needs to be distinction between local, regional and global employment.  *Local jobs are to provide goods and services mainly to local population.  *Regional employment with a broader reach, like Stanford Hospital or VA  *Enterprises with global employment, like one concentrated in the Stanford Research Park have larger power, thus should be expected to exercise larger responsibility. What I am proposing? 1. Both scenarios and EIR impacts/mitigation measures need to be split and redefined from local and global perspective. It would allow to focus align areas of responsibility or mitigation measures with the right owners. Prime example may be traffic generated with car trips to Stanford Research Park and opportunity of larger employers to team up on TMA efforts. Another example may be expansion of mixed use zoning for thriving local patrons and local job providers. 2. Both scenarios and EIR impacts/mitigations would need to be recalculated to allow us understand growth for each case. The driver for both cases would not be ABAG projection, but local demand and demand from global employers. 3. For each environmental impact, applicable resources would need to be realigned. For example global employers enjoy larger scale of operations and may subject their suppliers to environmental regulations more quickly than PA. It may result with different goals to reduce environmental impact, based on ability to scale mitigation Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Planning and Transportation Commission Application 4 of 5 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code City Charter California Environmental Quality Act El Camino Real Design Guidelines El Camino Real Master Plan Study and Appendices Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans Baylands Master Plan DocuSign Envelope ID: 29B6DF89-E3B3-46E3-BB02-C59AB12F9647 LINK LINK LINK LINK Due to my two and a half year tenure on PTC, as well as prior design of residences and educational facilities in Palo Alto, I am familiar with all the relevant regulations. LINK LINK Przemek Gardias LINK LINK Not ready to submit 1. Click OTHER ACTIONS Your Application? 2. Click FINISH LATER Planning and Transportation Commission Application 5 of 5 Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: Read the code, and check only ONE option below: _ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ____ Home / ____ Office Phone: ______ E-mail: ____________________________________________ The phone number / address can be non-public and different than the address collected on page one. Signature: Date: (Optional) Additional Attachment(s) If you would like to submit a resume, work sample, etc. along with your Application, Check this box and click “Attach” to upload your document(s). DocuSign Envelope ID: 29B6DF89-E3B3-46E3-BB02-C59AB12F9647 LINK X 9/14/2016 X Przemek Gardias D/29/ l 5 D/29/ l 5 • LICENSE NO. C 27737 RECEIPT NO. 00039663 PRZEMYSLAW GARDIAS 1252 CEDAR STREET PALO ALTO CA 94301 A CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTS BOARD 2420 DEL PASO ROAD, SUITE 105 SACRAMENTO, CA 95834 916 574-7220 VALID UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2017 .In accordance •Wjth the :'Pr~vJsi.on ot•s-ei\;~n .. ···• ··· 5SO<Jo. of tile &uslneis and::. Pt'o.fessh~ns Code, the . individual -nai'ned her.eon j's· iicense1f a.ii. lin .• •·•. ·· Architect and is sub-ject···to-the •rules. and .. r.eg,..lations of · the c·alifornia Ar.chif.ects BoMd. -----NON -TRA NSFERABLE ---POST IN PUBLIC VIEW -----WAEC 12/31/07 • Planning and Transportation Commission Personal Information Name:~ -. -'' Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of ~o Al~o are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYes ~No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ~es 0 No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe Is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Qes ~No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Ovesfi!]No How did you learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission? Ocommunity Group 0Daily Post 0Email from City Clerk Deity Website WPaloAlto Weekly 0Flyer Other: ________________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: . /J/1 ~s1''' ,, p~te'' tv F~>Jorr11 ~ 1t1I~~ iN J{)tttffe.1c.. F1t..1-'-~ r 1 • ~ -M~~ p i:;;,e. , s-fl. )I F e. ,,vat 1 ~ .5o.e. f'tt\t ~ <:c>t..u.Mt (31~ ~"" •--· ~·. I l . 1 7"' ~-'3~ F1"~ct."'4-·-f~O~te.4-'f1€>6/ ~E'(...u.~1.1\ ~ I "1'' ../ Page 1 Planning & Transportation Commission • Erflployment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement In community activities, volunteering or with civic organizations: ~'1'1e:o, ro12-111~e'i~~ .... ~ -h<i>1r u ~, .. '(.~"' ~ :.J-<0-;-~ G-te-01.t.I) Page 2 Planning & Transportation Commission .. ,) '$$ 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific Interest to you, and why? 2. Please describe an Issue that recently came before the Commission that Is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it If you have never been to a Commission meeting · you can view an archived video from the Midpen Media Center: LINK. rf ~ ttl'lc.12 c..s-;-12 1.JJ b ::~'-'"--e 1.-A-Nt:.s '4-V b""' AoV1 ..,,,".;'f 1'" CAt~ /l77iT'1>~> ~ ~T0 ... ~1Ci:5:I r"-7ffe ~~ JY-rr i!P!'Z h(.L Page3 Planning & Transportation Commission sd 3«' If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? --fp dlk"' (.;;\ IV ~ f;A.-1 ~ / L ~'1+c-ht> ~ ~ P J4::s.tlto J.J ,4(~ ~~l\'.)ee'.; t-1.Jc *'~ A 4. Pl_anning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK City Charter LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK Page4 Planning & Transportation Commission ,, Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I!] I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. ,,. ~ Address: J".J ./1C,5 5" ·f/(A'f ~ r 3 ~I -lfJ' l/b Cell Phone: " . [rl'H'ome I 0 Office.Phone: · . , Jl. ""'"' E-mail: { ~ l e-v-<' I vk 3 '3 j M. ~ "' C. O Signature: _Jfi+--ra,_Uj---+-~---· ~,_.___<_f'_~ __________ Date: J ~k,.r-I~ .( ).0/6 Pages Planning & Transportation Commission ···~·1 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK September 19, 2016 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the August 29 and September 6, 2016 Council Meetings Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: 08-29-16 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC)  Attachment B: 09-06-16 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 10 Special Meeting August 29, 2016 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Resolutions 9620 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Steve Eglash,” Resolution 9621 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Jonathan Foster” and Resolution 9622 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Garth Hall Upon Completion of Their Terms as Utilities Advisory Commissioners.” MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to adopt the Resolutions of Appreciation for Steve Eglash, Jonathan Foster and Garth Hall. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 2. Approval of Action Minutes for the August 15, 2016 Council Meeting. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve the Action Minutes for the August 15, 2016 Council Meeting. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 10 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/29/16 MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-8. 3. Resolution 9623 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving an Assignment, Assumption and Consent Agreement With Mercuria Energy America Inc. and EDF North America LLC, and Finding That the Agreement's Approval is not a Project Requiring California Environmental Quality Act Review.” 4. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract With Advanced Design Consultants, Inc., in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $160,701 for Design Services for the Ventura Building, Capital Improvements Program Project PE-15011. 5. Acceptance of the Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2016. 6. Approval of a Contract With Golden Bay Fence Plus Iron Works, Inc. in the Amount of $1,755,510 for the Palo Alto Airport Perimeter Fence and Gate Upgrades, CIP Project AP-16003; Approval of Amendment Number 2 With C&S Engineers, Inc. Contract Number C15155208A to Increase the Contract by $208,329 for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $1,108,329 for Engineering and Design Services; Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Airport Enterprise Fund; and Adoption of Findings That the Project Satisfies the Requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 7. Approval of a Contract With Engineering/Remediation Resources Group, Inc. in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $180,007 for the Municipal Services Center Fuel Station Demolition and Excavation Capital Improvements Program Project VR-14002 and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Vehicle Replacement and Maintenance Fund. 8. Ordinance 5387 Entitled, “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.30 [Contracts and Purchasing Procedures] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Contracting and Purchasing DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 10 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/29/16 Procedures and to Define the Contracting Authority of City Officers and Employees (FIRST READING: August 15, 2016 PASSED: 9-0).” MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 9. Resolution 9624 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Proposing a Storm Water Management Fee of $13.65 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) to Replace the Existing Storm Drainage Fee, Calling a Public Hearing for October 24, 2016 With Respect to Such Fee, and Adopting Procedures Relating to the Conduct of a Protest Hearing and Mail Ballot Election.” MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to adopt a Resolution: A. Proposing a monthly Storm Water Management Fee of $13.65 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) to replace the existing storm drainage fee of $13.03 per ERU; and B. Calling a public hearing for October 24, 2016 with respect to such fee; and C. Adopting procedures relating to the conduct of a protest hearing and a mail ballot election in conformance with Proposition 218; and D. Adopting a categorical exemption under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 10. Policy Discussion on Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report Scenarios 5 & 6 (Continued From August 22, 2016). MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to direct Staff to move forward with Scenarios 5 and 6 as outlined in Tables 2- 5. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “with the following changes to Scenario 5: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 10 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/29/16 A. Add: i. County Expressway implementation; and ii. In the Community Commercial 2 (CC-2) district, the allowable 2.0 FAR would be reduced to an FAR of 1.5 near California Avenue; and B. Subtract: i. Remove ‘Mitigation and sustainability measures would be adopted to minimize impacts…’ Remove performance-based zoning – retain density-based zoning; and ii. Remove ‘Remove constraints on the addition of ADUs;’ and iii. Remove ‘development by right” language in Table 3.” AMENDMENT SEPARATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING AMENDMENT A: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “with the following changes to: A. Scenario 5: i. Add to Table 4 Row 8, ‘County Expressway implementation.’” AMENDMENT A RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “with the following changes to: A. Scenario 5: i. Add to Table 4 Row 8, ‘with or without the addition of a High- Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane (the opposite of Scenario 2).’” AMENDMENT B: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “add to Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Row 8, ‘in the Community Commercial 2 (CC-2) district, the DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 10 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/29/16 allowable 2.0 FAR would be reduced to an FAR of 1.5 near California Avenue.’” (New Part A.ii.) AMENDMENT C: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “remove from Table 4 Row 13, ‘performance-based zoning’ and retain density-based zoning.” (New Part A.iii.) AMENDMENT D: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “remove from Table 2 Row 7 ‘remove constraints on the addition of ADUs.’” (New Part A.iv.) AMENDMENT D RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “replace in Table 2 Row 7, ‘remove constraints on the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)’ with ‘reduce constraints on the addition of ADUs.’” (New Part A.iv.) AMENDMENT E: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “remove ‘development by right’ language in Table 3.” (New Part A.v.) AMENDMENT E RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “replace in Table 3 Row 8 ‘development by right’ with ‘modified regulations.’” (New Part A.v.) AMENDMENT F: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to add to the Motion, “ B. Scenario 6: i. Add to Table 2 Scenario 6, ‘reduce parking requirements for residential developments when in conjunction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Residential Preferential Parking (RPP).’” AMENDMENT F RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to add to the Motion, “ B. Scenario 6: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 10 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/29/16 i. Add to Table 2 Scenario 6, ‘reduce parking requirements for residential developments when in conjunction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and adjacent to on street parking restrictions.’” AMENDMENT G: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to add to the Motion, “ C. Scenarios 5 and 6: i. Add to Table 3, ‘Coordinated Area Plans, (Precise Plans) would be usable and a normal planning tool in Palo Alto.’” AMENDMENT G RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to add to the Motion, “ C. Scenarios 5 and 6: i. Add to Table 3, ‘Coordinated Area Plans, (Precise Plans) would become a routine planning tool in Palo Alto.’” AMENDMENT H: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to add to the Motion, “replace in Table 4 Row 9, ‘in a trench’ with ‘at least.’” (New Part C.ii.) AMENDMENT H RESTATED: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to add to the Motion, “replace in Table 4 Row 9, ‘grade separation of Caltrain in a trench below Charleston and Meadow’ with ‘infrastructure investments to look at grade separations at all grade crossings and.’” (New Part C.ii.) AMENDMENT I: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to add to the Motion, “ D. For Scenarios 5 and 6: i. Provide unbundled impacts of policies and programs to the degree that such information is used in the analysis.” AMENDMENT I RESTATED: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to add to the Motion, “ DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 10 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/29/16 D. For Scenarios 5 and 6, direct Staff to: i. Provide unbundled impacts of policies and programs to the degree that such information can be gleaned from the analysis.” AMENDMENT J: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to add to the Motion, “where applicable, identify lead or responsible party for a given program.” (New Part D.ii.) AMENDMENT K: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to add to the Motion, “add to Table 2 Row 9, ‘potential’ after ‘regulations and.’” (New Part C.iii.) AMENDMENT L: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to add to the Motion, “add Urban Forest as infrastructure.” (New Part C.iv.) AMENDMENT L RESTATED: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to add to the Motion, “add to Table 5, ‘protecting and enhancing the urban forest as natural infrastructure.’” (New Part C.iv.) AMENDMENT M: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to add to the Motion, “replace in Table 1 Column 2, ‘2.7 million’ with ‘2.4 million.’” (New Part C.v.) AMENDMENT N: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “add to Table 2 Row 5, ‘Scenario 5.’” AMENDMENT N WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AMENDMENT I RESTATED: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to add to the Motion, “in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) direct Staff to: i. Provide unbundled impacts of policies and programs to the degree that such information can be gleaned from the analysis.’” AMENDMENT D RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “replace in Table 2 Row 7, ‘remove constraints on the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)’ with ‘reduce constraints on the addition of ADUs.’” (New Part C.vi.) DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 8 of 10 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/29/16 AMENDMENT K RESTATED: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to add to the Motion, “add to Table 2 Row 9, ‘potentially’ after ‘regulations and.’” (New Part C.iii.) AMENDMENT B RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “add to Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Row 8 ‘in the Community Commercial 2 (CC-2) district, the allowable 2.0 FAR would be reduced to an FAR of 1.5 near California Avenue.’” (New Part A.ii.) AMENDMENT B PASSED: 5-4 Berman, Kniss, Scharff, Wolbach no AMENDMENT C RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “remove from Table 3 Row 13 ‘performance-based zoning.’” (New Part A.iii.) AMENDMENT C PASSED: 5-4 Berman, Kniss, Scharff, Wolbach no AMENDMENT E RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to add to the Motion, “in Table 3 Row 8, replace ‘development by right’ with ‘with modified regulations.’” (New Part C.vii.) AMENDMENT E AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-2 Berman, Wolbach no MOTION RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to direct Staff to move forward with Scenarios 5 and 6 as outlined in Tables 2-5 with the following changes to: A. Scenario 5: i. Add to Table 4 Row 8, ‘‘with or without the addition of a High- Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane (the opposite of Scenario 2);” and ii. Add to Proposed Zoning Code Amendments Row 8, “in the Community Commercial 2 (CC-2) district, the allowable 2.0 FAR would be reduced to an FAR of 1.5 near California Avenue;” and iii. Remove from Table 4 Row 13, “performance-based zoning”; and B. Scenario 6: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 9 of 10 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/29/16 ii. Add to Table 2 Scenario 6, ‘reduce parking requirements for residential developments when in conjunction with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and adjacent to on street parking restrictions;” and C. Scenarios 5 and 6: i. Add to Table 3, “Coordinated Area Plans, (Precise Plans) would become a routine planning tool in Palo Alto;” and ii. Replace in Table 4 Row 9, “grade separation of Caltrain in a trench below Charleston and Meadow” with “infrastructure investments to look at grade separations at all grade crossings and;” and iii. Add to Table 2 Row 9, “potentially” after “regulations and;” and iv. Add to Table 5, “protecting and enhancing the urban forest as natural infrastructure;” and v. Replace in Table 1 Column 2, “2.7 million” with “2.4 million;” and vi. Replace in Table 2 Row 7, “remove constraints on the addition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)” with “reduce constraints on the addition of ADUs;” and vii. Replace in Table 3 Row 8 “development by right” with “modified regulations;” and D. In the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) direct Staff to: i. Provide unbundled impacts of policies and programs to the degree that such information can be gleaned from the analysis; and ii. Where applicable, identify lead or responsible party for a given program. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 10 of 10 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 8/29/16 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Mayor Burt reported that the Caltrain Local Policy Maker Group (LPMG) is considering requesting a grant of close to $1 million from the Metropolitan Transit Commission to study grade separations along the Caltrain corridor with the goal of ensuring collaboration between cities and to share lessons learned during past grade separation projects. He intends to support this project unless any Council Members request this topic be agendized for future Council discussion. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Mayor Scharff reported his attendance at the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission meeting. He learned that more than 2 million square feet of office space are planned in Sunnyvale near Moffett Federal Airfield. Council Member Kniss reported the passing of Gladys “Laddie” Hughes. Laddie was very involved in local politics for a number of years. Council Member Holman reported the passing of former Mayor Kirke Comstock. He was an advocate for preserving open space and played a role in the City’s efforts to preserve the Baylands and the acquisition of Foothills Park. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned in honor of Laddie Hughes and former Mayor Kirke Comstock at 11:39 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 7 Special Meeting September 6, 2016 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:07 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois arrived at 5:30 P.M., Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach arrived at 5:26 P.M. Absent: Study Session 1.Study Session on the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Plan. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 2.Approval of Action Minutes for the August 22, 2016 Council Meeting. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Mayor Burt to approve the Action Minutes for the August 22, 2016 Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to approve Agenda Item Number 3. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/06/16 3.Vote to Endorse the Slate of Candidates for the Division’s Executive Committee for 2016-17 and Direct the City Clerk to Forward to Seth Miller, the Regional Public Affairs Manager for the Peninsula Division, League of California Cities the Completed Ballot for the City of Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 5.Direct Staff to Proceed With Discussions With Pets In Need Regarding Animal Care Services and the Construction or Rehabilitation of the Animal Shelter Facility. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to proceed with exclusive negotiations with Pets In Need, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, to provide animal care services and develop a plan for animal shelter facility construction or rehabilitation, and to return to City Council by December 2016 with a recommended agreement. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “including the space that is currently used for other uses and the space rented for vehicle storage be used for animal services.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “and direct Staff to consider the long term capital program for the animal shelter and that this consideration includes the surrounding land and related services.” AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “inviting comments from the Humane Society regarding the cost structure of the potential agreement.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to proceed with exclusive negotiations with Pets In Need, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, to provide DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/06/16 animal care services and develop a plan for animal shelter facility construction or rehabilitation, and to return to City Council by December 2016 with a recommended agreement; and direct Staff to consider the long term capital program for the animal shelter and that this consideration includes the surrounding land and related services. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Council took a break from 8:50 P.M. to 8:58 P.M. 4.Acceptance of the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 Status Update and Resolution 9625 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Eligibility Area for the Program as Directed by the City Council (Continued From August 15, 2016).” Vice Mayor Scharff advised he would not participate in this Agenda Item or Agenda Item Number 6- CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY… because he owns real property in the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Phase 2 district. Vice Mayor Scharff left the meeting at 8:59 P.M. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to: A. Accept the status report on the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program; and B. Adopt a Resolution, expanding the boundary of the Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 eligibility area originally established by Resolution number 9577 to incorporate streets in the Crescent Park neighborhood identified for inclusion by the City Council in response to a neighborhood petition; and C. Immediately freeze the sale of employee permits in Zones 9 and 10 and allow additional streets to petition to be added as resident only parking in Zones 9 and 10; and D. Direct Staff to return to Council by Jan 15, 2017 with proposals for changes to implement at end of Phase 2 that include: DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/06/16 i. Elimination of 5 day passes; and ii. Propose quantitative objectives to reduce the impact on neighborhoods, to eliminate spillover, and to reduce congestion; and iii. Give priority to lower wage employees; and iv. Require registration in the Business Registry Certificate Program and participation in Downtown Transportation Management Association (TMA) to buy employee permits. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part C, “immediately freeze the” with “direct Staff to return as soon as possible to implement a freeze on the.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D.iv., “if legally permissible” after “Certificate Program and.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace in the Motion Part C, “allow” with “direct Staff to return with options to allow.” AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion Part C, “and reduce the total number of available employee permits to 1,465” after “permits in Zones 9 and 10.” AMENDMENT RESTATED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part C, “and reduce the total number of available employee permits in all zones by this amount” after “permits in Zones 9 and 10.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D.iv., “or a Staff approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program” after “Downtown Transportation Management Association (TMA).” DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/06/16 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D.iv., “under a revised fee structure” after “Management Association (TMA).” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “return with a draft set of overriding RPP goals.” (New Part D.v.) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion Part D.ii., “parking” after “and to reduce.” INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove Part C of the Motion and add to the Motion, “implement a freeze on the sale of employee permits in Zones 9 and 10 and reduce the total number of available employee permits in all zones by this amount and direct Staff to return with options to allow additional streets to petition to be added as resident only parking in Zones 9 and 10.” (New Part C.vi.) INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the end of the Motion Part C.iv. “or alternately an incentive structure to encourage participation in the TMA.” MOTION PART C.VII. SEPARATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING MOTION PART C.VII. RESTATED: Implement a freeze on the sale of employee permits in Zones 9 and 10 and reduce the total number of available employee permits in all zones by this amount and direct Staff to return with options to allow additional streets to petition to be added as resident only parking in Zones 9 and 10. MOTION PART C.VII. PASSED: 6-2 Filseth, Kniss no, Scharff absent MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to: A. Accept the status report on the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/06/16 B. Adopt a Resolution, expanding the boundary of the Downtown RPP Program Phase 2 eligibility area originally established by Resolution number 9577 to incorporate streets in the Crescent Park neighborhood identified for inclusion by the City Council in response to a neighborhood petition; and C. Direct Staff to return to Council by Jan 15, 2017 with proposals for changes to implement at end of Phase 2 that include: i. Elimination of 5 day passes; and ii. Propose quantitative objectives to reduce the impact on neighborhoods, to eliminate spillover, and to reduce parking congestion; and iii. Give priority to lower wage employees; and iv. Require registration in the Business Registry Certificate Program and if legally permissible participation in Downtown Transportation Management Association (TMA) under a revised fee structure or a Staff approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to buy employee permits or alternately an incentive structure to encourage participation in the TMA; and v. Return with a draft set of overriding RPP goals; and vi. Implement a freeze on the sale of employee permits in Zones 9 and 10 and reduce the total number of available employee permits in all zones by this amount and direct Staff to return with options to allow additional streets to petition to be added as resident only parking in Zones 9 and 10. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 7 of 7 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 09/06/16 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Berman reported his participation with the Palo Alto and University Rotary Clubs as they posted American Flags along University Avenue on Sunday morning. Closed Session 6.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY—POTENTIAL LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Under Section 54956.9(d)(2) (One Potential Case, as Defendant) – Phase 2, Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Council went into Closed Session at 11:33 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 11:45 P.M. Mayor Burt announced no reportable action. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7211) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/19/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Construction and Design Contract Amendment for the Baylands Interpretive Center Facility Project Title: Approve a Contract with Buhler Commercial in the Amount Not-To- Exceed $586,803 for the Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements; Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Contract Amendment No. 1 to Contract Number C15157772 in the Amount of $60,730 with FOG Studio for Design and Construction Administration Services; Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation for the Baylands Interpretive Center Facility Improvements, Capital Improvement Program Project PE- 15029; and Find the Project Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommended Motion Staff recommends Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Buhler Commercial (Attachment A) for $586,803 for the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Facility Improvements Project (PE-15029); 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the Buhler Commercial contract for additional unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $58,680; 3. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C15157772 with FOG Studio City of Palo Alto Page 2 (Attachment B) for $60,730 for design and construction administration services for the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Facility Improvements Project (PE-15029). The amendment includes $56,110 for base contract and $4,620 for additional services. The amendment results in a total contract amount of $158,630; and 4. Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation for the Capital Improvement Fund by: a. Increasing the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Facility Improvements Project (PE-15029) appropriation by $68,641; and b. Decreasing the Infrastructure Reserve by $68,641. 5. Find that, as a project that involves only the repair and maintenance of an existing facility and involves little or no expansion of use, the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Project meets the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by qualifying for a categorical exemption under section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. Background The Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Facility (Center) is located within the City’s Baylands Nature Preserve. Built on piles above the salt marsh in 1967, the Center was the first educational center within the Bay Area ecosystem. The Center offers various programs and activities such as nature walks, school programs, a wet laboratory for drop-in visitors, and tidelands flora and fauna displays. The City provides hands-on standards-based curriculum to more than 3,000 elementary school students at 30 schools and 80,000 annual marsh visitors. On May 18, 2015, Council awarded a contract to FOG Studio to design Center improvements and prepare final bid documents (Staff Report ID#5760). The design contract included schematic design, design development, and construction documents. The scope of work included the following:  Structural assessment and report;  building code analysis;  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance assessment;  design and construction documents for repairs, code-mandated upgrades and/or improvements to exterior siding, decking, guardrails, interior floor City of Palo Alto Page 3 refinishing and cabinetry, restrooms and the electrical and mechanical systems;  construction bid documents; and  community, board, and commission reviews, agency coordination and permitting. The contract did not include bidding assistance or construction administration services. During design development, building code-related structural and ADA assessment findings were: 1. The Center is structurally sound; however, it requires deck, floor and roof improvements and repairs. These repairs include filling cracks/minor repairs to existing beams and columns, siding, and deck replacement; and 2. The Center does not meet ADA code requirements, such as the need for code-compliant slopes, handrails, guardrails, and restroom circulation and plumbing fixtures. Staff and FOG Studio presented this information during a September 30, 2015 community meeting and an October 27, 2015 Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting. There was agreement on the following items:  all exterior colors should match the earthy color tones of the Baylands;  retain the habitat for swallows on-site;  provide a gender neutral restroom;  glass panes and interpretive signage should be designed in a way that will not injure birds;  interpretive signage should include ADA features;  design should reflect the Baylands Design Guidelines; and  desire to salvage existing siding and other materials for use elsewhere. Staff subsequently met with the PRC June 26, 2016, to receive feedback and there was agreement on the following maintenance improvements:  guardrails with three bird-safe glass/interpretive panels to promote vegetation views; City of Palo Alto Page 4  deck and siding replacement to match existing texture and colors;  gender neutral restroom upgrades;  wall-mounted birdhouses and roof soffit modifications; and  deck replacement with three new deck openings to allow closer views of birds nesting at the roof eves while allowing tidal views beneath the Center. The project received minor staff-level architectural review approval in July 2016. Discussion The project construction includes decking, siding and guardrail replacement, fascia repairs, structural framing repairs, interior flooring refinishing, exterior lighting replacement, electrical panel upgrades, ADA and restroom accessibility upgrades, fire sprinkler heads replacement, piping and conduit repairs, and additional design features described below. Design Features Bird deterrent glass panels will be inserted at three railing locations as an interpretive feature. The glass panels will allow children to view the Baylands through the glass. The removal of select deck sections will allow swallow droppings to fall directly into the marsh. The deck openings to the marsh below will act as an interpretive design feature while reducing the need for on-going cleaning and maintenance. New guardrails will be installed for safety and swallow-nesting boxes will be installed in areas favored by birds. Project Coordination, Outreach and Permits There are three separate CIP projects that involve coordination: Baylands Boardwalk Improvements (PE-14018), Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Exhibit Improvements (AC-14001), and Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Facility Improvements (PE-15029). All three projects will be managed by Public Works and Community Services Departments to ensure design decisions are coordinated with the public. Center and Boardwalk exhibit designs will begin with public input this fall. Exhibit final designs will follow Center construction improvements in early 2017 and Boardwalk construction improvements in winter 2018. It is anticipated the Center railing design will also be incorporated into the Boardwalk project. City of Palo Alto Page 5 The project will require canceling or rescheduling classes at the Center during the temporary closure for construction. However, Community Services will continue education programs at East Palo Alto’s Cooley Landing Nature Center during project construction under an agreement with East Palo Alto and with an anticipated minimal impact. The Boardwalk will be closed during construction. The Center is located in areas of potential habitat for nesting avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and other listed species such as the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and the Ridgway’s Rail (formerly California Clapper Rail). An on-site biologist will conduct surveys and inspections prior to and during construction to determine the presence or absence of these species and to verify that there will be no impact on a protected species. This project does not require permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers or California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project requires a San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) administrative permit that was issued in September 2016. A Building permit for construction was issued that included ARB requirements and conditions. Due to the age of the facility the building is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation. Because the project is consistent with these standards, there is no potential for impact to a historic resource and a historic evaluation is not required. Finally, a Park Improvement Ordinance is not required as the project scope of work is primarily maintenance and code upgrades qualifying for a Class 1 (Section 15301, Existing Facilities) Categorical Exemption. Bid Process On July 19, 2016, a notice inviting formal bids (IFB) for the Lucie Evans Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements Project (PE-15029) was posted online. During the 22 calendar-day bidding period, the electronic bid package was downloaded by 11 builder’s exchanges and 12 contractors. One addendum was issued and bids were received from two contractors on August 23, 2016. The bid results are presented in the Bid Summary (Attachment C). Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements Project (PE-15029)/ IFB# 165301 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Proposed Length of Project 5 months Number of Bid Packages downloaded by Builder’s Exchanges 11 Number of Bid Packages downloaded by Contractors 12 Total Days to Respond to Bid 22 Pre-Bid Meeting? Yes Number of Bids Received: 2 Bid Price Range $586,802.49 - $868,259.50 Bids of $586,802.49 and $868,259.50 ranged from 9% below to 34% above the engineer’s estimate of $646,040. Staff reviewed all bids and recommends the base bid totaling $586,803 submitted by Buhler Commercial be accepted and Buhler Commercial be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The contingency amount of $58,680 represents ten percent of the total contract amount, and is requested for additional but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project. Staff reviewed other similar projects performed by Buhler Commercial and there were no significant complaints with their previous work. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and found the contractor has an active license on file. Amendment No. One to Contract No. C15157772 with FOG Studio FOG Studio and staff developed a plan to modify the exterior soffits and decking and added swallow habitat boxes for nesting at designated locations. This required additional design and coordination with the minor ARB approval process. Design services included revisions to the ARB submittal package, evaluation and design of deck openings, structural calculations, and bidding assistance necessary to obtain construction bids. For the bidding process and construction, services include bidding assistance such as answering requests for information (RFI) from potential bidders and preparing addenda. The scope provides construction administration services such as review of contractor submittals, responses to RFIs from the construction contractor, City of Palo Alto Page 7 review of construction progress payment applications and change order requests, and attending on-site visits twice a month by FOG Studio to provide design guidance, inspect project progress, and to ensure conformance with the Center’s design aesthetic and functionality. The original FOG Studio design contract included $97,900 for schematic design, design development, and construction documents. Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $60,730 funds includes $13,800 for design and bidding assistance performed during the design phase and $40,000 for construction administration services, with an additional $2,310 for reimbursable expenses and $4,620 for additional services. Resource Impact Funding for the project is provided by Capital Improvement Program project PE- 15029, Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Facility Improvements. The project’s funding is as follows: Project Costs Prior Year Actuals (est.) FY2017 Adopted Budget Recom- mended Adjust-ment FY2017 Amended Budget Projected Project Total Design $257,910 $70,000 $70,000 $327,910 Construc-tion $606,546 $68,641 $675,187 $675,187 Total: $257,910 $676,546 $68,641 $745,187 $1,003,097 The FY 2017 Adopted Budget amount of $676,546 includes $322,000 in new funding and $354,546 in reappropriations. An adjustment to the FY 2017 budget in the amount of $68,641 is needed to award the construction contract to Buhler Commercial, execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C15157772 with FOG Studio, and pay for miscellaneous expenses such as permitting, testing, printing services,and plan review fees. Policy Implications Approval of the contracts is consistent with City policies. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under section 15301, which addresses minor alterations and repairs to existing City of Palo Alto Page 8 facilities. An administrative permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Corporation (BCDC) is needed for construction. The contractor will be required to implement design features identified as part of the proposed project to avoid impacts on the environment. The City has a separate contract with a biologist familiar with the ecology and habitat use of the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, California Ridgway’s Rail, California Black Rail, and other special-status species that have the potential to occur within the project area. The third-party biologist will oversee construction activities. To avoid impacts to avian species protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, the contractor may not conduct outdoor, disruptive construction activities during the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Indoor non-disruptive construction activities such as painting and finish plumbing may continue during the avian nesting season to complete the project. Next Steps Staff anticipates construction completion in April 2017. Attachments:  Attachment A: Buhler Commercial Construction Contract C17163501 (PDF)  Attachment B: FOG Studio Amendment No. 1 Contract (PDF)  Attachment C: Bid Summary (XLS) Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C17163501 Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements Project Attachment A Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS…………………………………….…………..6 1.1 Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 1.2 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 SECTION 2 THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..7 3.1 List of Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….........7 3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......7 SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..8 4.1 Contractor's Duties…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 5.1 Contractor's Co-operation………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......8 6.1 Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 6.2 Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.3 Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 6.4 Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..9 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….9 7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………9 SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 8.1 Standard of Care…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………9 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10 9.1 Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 9.2 Survival…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION……..………………………………………………………………………………10 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement…………….………………………………..……………………………….10 SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.…………………………………………………………………………………10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 11.1 Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS…………………………………………………………….…11 12.1 Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 12.2 Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11 SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11 13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12 14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 15.5.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………16 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….16 16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..16 SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS………………………………………………………………………………….…16 17.1 Financial Management and City Access………………………………………………………………..16 17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..17 18.1 Status of Parties……………………………………………………………………………………………………17 SECTION 19 NUISANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited……………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….17 20.1 Payment of Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 21.1 Waiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS……………………………….18 22.1 Governing Law…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 22.2 Compliance with Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………18 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance…………….………………………………………………….18 SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………18 23.1 Integration………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..18 24.1 Survival of Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….19 26.1 Appropriation………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 27.1 Representation of Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 28.1 Multiple Counterparts………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………19 29.1 Severability………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES …………………………………………………..19 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 30.1 Amendments of Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..19 SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….….19 31.1 Workers Compensation…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS………………………………..…20 32.1 General Notice to Contractor…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.3 DIR Registration Required…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.5 Payroll Records…………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on September 19, 2019 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and Buhler Commercial ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a California Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 1003262 and Department of Industrial Relations Registration Number 1000040432. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On July 28, 2016, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB165301) to contractors for the Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements Project (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a Bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements Project, located at 2775 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA. 94303 ("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Orders 3) Contract 4) Bidding Addenda 5) Special Provisions 6) General Conditions 7) Project Plans and Drawings 8) Technical Specifications 9) Instructions to Bidders 10) Invitation for Bids 11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Declaration 12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents 13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at time of Bid) 14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current version at time of Bid) 15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 18) Performance and Payment Bonds 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. 4.1 Contractor’s Duties Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 5.1 Contractor’s Co-operation. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than . Within One Hundred Fifty calendar days (150) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of One thousand dollars ($1,000) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor, including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages. 6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Five Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Three Dollars ($586,803). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Alternate ___ ] 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. 8.1 Standard of Care. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION. 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. 11.1 Evidence of coverage. Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. 12.1 Assignment. City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City. 12.2 Assignment by Law. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice to Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Elizabeth Ames AND [Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.] Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: Buhler Commercial 400 Brannan Street, Suite 204 San Francisco, CA 94107 Attn: Steve Buhler 13.3 Change of Address. In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DEFAULT. 14.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety. 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 15.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 15.2 Delays by Sureties. Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT liable for any additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work. 15.3 Damages to City. 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 15.4 Suspension by City 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 15.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. .4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the Construction Contract had not been terminated. 15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT submittals of as-built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the termination date. SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 16.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 17.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 17.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. 18.1 Status of parties. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 19 NUISANCE. 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 20.1 Payment of Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 21 WAIVER. 21.1 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other place. 22.2 Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract. 22.2.1 Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance. Contractor shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, Contractor shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, Contractor shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 23.1 Integration. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 24.1 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) work. Or Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION. 26.1 Appropriations. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 27 AUTHORITY. 27.1 Representation of Parties. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS 28.1 Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. 29.1 Severability. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES. 30.1 Amendments to Laws. With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents, the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City, unless otherwise required by law. SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. 31.1 Workers Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.” SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS. 32.1 General Notice to Contractor. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” 32.3 DIR Registration Required. City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices. City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. 32.5 Payroll Records. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively. (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. April 27, 2016 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of City’s request. City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. (iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor. This provision supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof. (v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager (Contract over $85k) Purchasing Manager (Contract over $25k) Contracts Administrator (Contract under $25k) APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney or designee (Contract over $25k) Contracts Administrator (Checklist Approval) PWD APPROVED: Public Works Director BUHLER COMMERCIAL Officer 1 By: Name: Title: Officer 2 (Required for Corp. or LLC) By: Name: Title: 1 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C15157772 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND FOG STUDIO This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C15157772 (“Contract”) is entered into on September 19, 2016, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and FOG STUDIO, a California General Partnership, located at 8106 Terrace Drive, El Cerrito, CA 94530 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S A.The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of design services for improvements to the Baylands Interpretive Center (“Project”). B.The parties wish to amend the Contract to increase the scope of services to include additional engineering and architectural services during design, bidding assistance and construction administration during construction for the Baylands Interpretive Center , add $56,110 for the services and reimbursable expenses described in this Amendment No. 1 and $4,620 for additional services for unforeseen conditions. The total contract compensation is increased by $60,730. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 1, SCOPE OF SERVICES is hereby amended to read as follows: Consultant shall perform the services described in Exhibit “A” and Exhibit A-1 as revised in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY. SECTION 2, Section 3, SCHEDULE OF PERFROMANCE is hereby amended to read as follows: Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B and Exhibit B-1”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 3. Section 4, NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION is hereby amended to read as follows: DocuSign Envelope ID: C9CD9585-73B8-4940-BB58-405E6FE9BCA1 Attachment B 2 Revision April 28, 2014 The total compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A and Exhibit A-1”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Ten Dollars ($145,110). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred Fifty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Dollars ($158,630). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “A-1”. SECTION 4. The following exhibits to the Contract are hereby added or amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A-1” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. b. EXHIBIT “B-1”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. SECTION 5. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney or Designee FOG STUDIO By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT "A-1": SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “B-1”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT "C”: COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: C9CD9585-73B8-4940-BB58-405E6FE9BCA1 Owner / Partner, FOG Studio Tiffany Redding 3 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT A-1 SCOPE OF SERVICES AMENDMENT NO. 1 BACKGROUND The FOG Studio design team has met its current contract requirement for providing Engineering and Architectural Services to the City for the Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center Improvements Project. These efforts have exhausted the team’s currently approved budget. The original Contract also didn’t include bidding assistance and construction administration. The purpose of this amendment is to provide for additional design, bidding assistance and construction administration services associated with the Project. Task 1: Design and Bidding Assistance Provide design services for the preparation and revisions for the Architectural Review Board (ARB) submittals as well as a structural assessment and design of the exterior deck openings for the Project. Provide assistance during the construction bid phase. The Consultant shall complete the following during the design and construction bidding: 1. Compilation of drawings and materials previously submitted, as required for ARB minor level review. 2. Revisions as required by the City to develop the ARB package submittals. 3.Attend one (1) pre-bid site visit with potential bidders. 4.Structural Engineer’s evaluation and design of exterior deck openings. a. Provide schematic strengthening recommendations with details and narrative. b. Mark-up Architectural drawings to incorporate recommendations. c. Provide required calculations related to exterior deck openings. 5.Structural Engineer’s response to comments /clarifications as required relating to the exterior deck openings. Task 2: Construction Administration Provide Construction Administration. Task 2 is assuming work will occur from October 2016 through April 2017. The Consultant shall: 1. Provide assistance during construction phase answering RFI’s, preparing Field Reports, reviewing submittals, reviewing change orders, preparing punch list and reviewing applications for payment. 2. Attend one (1) pre-construction meeting with selected contractor. 3.Attend an average of two (2) on-site weekly meetings every month during construction. Any additional meetings shall be done via tele-conference call. Mechanical, plumbing, electrical and structural sub-consultants shall join the weekly construction meetings via tele-conference call if necessary. 4 Revision April 28, 2014 4.Review mark-ups from Contractor for As-Built drawings, include all changes and differing conditions and provide a plan set in AutoCAD. 5 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT “B-1” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE AMENDMENT NO. 1 CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion Weeks from NTP 1. Task 1: Design and Bidding Assistance Completed 2. Task 2: Construction Administration 30 DocuSign Envelope ID: C9CD9585-73B8-4940-BB58-405E6FE9BCA1 6 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION AMENDMENT NO. 1 The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $29,150 (Schematic Design) Task 2 $28,150 (Design Development) Task 3 $29,700 (Construction Documents) Task 4 $0 (Permits) Sub-total Basic Services $87,000 Reimbursable Expenses $2,000 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $89,000 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $8,900.00 Original Contract Total Compensation $97,900 DocuSign Envelope ID: C9CD9585-73B8-4940-BB58-405E6FE9BCA1 7 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 1 BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 as per Exhibit A-1 $13,800 (Design and Bidding Assistance) Task 2 as per Exhibit A-1 $40,000 (Construction Administration) Sub-total Basic Services $53,800 Reimbursable Expenses $2,310 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $56,110 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $4,620 Amendment No. 1 Total Compensation $60,730 Maximum Total Contract Compensation $158,630 (Original contract Staff Report ID #5760 and Amendment No.1) REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. C. Presentation boards and mounting. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $500.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. DocuSign Envelope ID: C9CD9585-73B8-4940-BB58-405E6FE9BCA1 8 Revision April 28, 2014 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: C9CD9585-73B8-4940-BB58-405E6FE9BCA1 CITY OF Palo Alto -Baylands Interpretive Center Bid Summary Attachment C DATE:8/23/2016 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL BASE BID 1 Mobilization and Demobilization LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $15,950.00 $15,950.00 $22,500.00 $22,500.00 2 Demolition, Removal, Cutting and Patching LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $50,674.00 $50,674.00 $47,500.00 $47,500.00 3 Upgrade and Reconfigure Interior Restrooms LS 1 $95,000.00 $95,000.00 $65,194.03 $65,194.03 $91,300.00 $91,300.00 4 Upgrade Electrical, Fire Protection, Mechanical and Plumbing System LS 1 $105,000.00 $105,000.00 $93,565.35 $93,565.35 $236,000.00 $236,000.00 5 Epoxy Injection at Split Columns EA 9 $300.00 $2,700.00 $561.11 $5,049.99 $6,500.00 $58,500.00 6 Strengthen Floor Connections (Decks and Building)GSF 5,495 $3.00 $16,485.00 $1.57 $8,627.15 $5.20 $28,574.00 7 Replace Deteriorated MEP Supports Below the Floor (Deck and Building)GSF 5,495 $2.00 $10,990.00 $0.78 $4,286.10 $3.90 $21,430.50 8 Strengthen Roof Connections Between Roof Joists and Girders GSF 4,450 $3.00 $13,350.00 $0.80 $3,560.00 $10.40 $46,280.00 9 Protect Exposed Ends oF Glulam Beams EA 32 $120.00 $3,840.00 $60.00 $1,920.00 $575.00 $18,400.00 10 Provide and Install Exterior Siding SF 1,375 $25.00 $34,375.00 $40.88 $56,210.00 $15.60 $21,450.00 11 Provide and Install Exterior Decking SF 1,850 $17.00 $31,450.00 $43.04 $79,624.00 $13.00 $24,050.00 12 Provide and Install Exterior Guardrails LF 320 $235.00 $75,200.00 $121.54 $38,892.80 $260.00 $83,200.00 13 Painting and Coating LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $27,995.00 $27,995.00 $32,500.00 $32,500.00 14 Provide and Install New Fascias LF 350 $37.00 $12,950.00 $107.51 $37,628.50 $25.00 $8,750.00 15 Refurbish Fascia Boards LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $7,481.00 $7,481.00 $19,600.00 $19,600.00 16 Provide and Install Swallow Habitat Boxes LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,680.00 $1,680.00 $7,800.00 $7,800.00 17 Modifications to Exterior Soffits to Accommodate Nesting Swallow Habitat Boxes LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $2,870.00 $2,870.00 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 18 Refurbish Interior Wood Flooring SF 2,450 $6.00 $14,700.00 $4.43 $10,853.50 $6.50 $15,925.00 19 Project Management, Coordination and Closeout LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $74,741.07 $74,741.07 $78,000.00 $78,000.00 TOTAL BASE BID $646,040.00 $586,802.49 $868,259.50 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL ADD ALTERNATIVE 1 Provide full-fill rigid polyisocyanurate insulation boards to meet R-19 in all exterior walls LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $32,330.00 $32,330.00 $13,600.00 $13,600.00 TOTAL ADD ALTERNATIVE $15,000.00 $32,330.00 $13,600.00 TOTAL BASE BID + ADD ALTERNATIVE $661,040.00 $619,132.49 $881,859.50 DEDUCT ALTERNATIVE 1 Replace All Deck openings and Associated Framing Connctions, Guardrails and Supports with Exterior Decking LS 1 -$15,000.00 -$15,000.00 -$700.00 -$700.00 -$15,700.00 -$15,700.00 2 Exterior Drinking Fountain EA 1 -$10,000.00 -$10,000.00 -$7,476.00 -$7,476.00 -$3,500.00 -$3,500.00 TOTAL DEDUCT ALTERNATIVE ($25,000.00)($8,176.00)($19,200.00) TOTAL BASE BID + ADD ALTERNATIVE + DEDUCT ALTERNATIVE $636,040.00 $610,956.49 $862,659.50 Engineer Estimate Buhler Commercial Cal-Pacific Construction, CITY OF PALO ALTO Page 1 of 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 7255) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/19/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Third Amendment to Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program MOA Title: Approval of Third Amendment to the Agreement Providing for Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Between Santa Clara County, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Multiple Santa Clara County Cities to Extend Its Term From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the Third Amendment (Attachment A) to an Agreement Providing for Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (Attachment B), a multi-jurisdictional Agreement between Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and multiple Santa Clara County cities, to extend its term. Background The Santa Clara Valley Urban Pollution Prevention and Urban Runoff Program (Program) was originally formed through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with other Santa Clara Valley-based local governments in the late 1980s, as a means to assist the City of Palo Alto negotiate and comply with a federal Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that cities are required to have for storm water that flows to creeks, streams, and ultimately, San Francisco Bay (CMR:255:90). Bay Area municipalities were recently issued a new Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit in November 2015, which became effective January 1, 2016. This new permit continues many of the previous requirements and contains new requirements, including a requirement to develop a green stormwater infrastructure plan. This permit is shared by 76 City of Palo Alto Page 2 permittees in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Program’s allocation of costs to its member agencies is based upon a combination of benefits received and stormwater runoff factors. The Program allows Palo Alto to undertake a coordinated approach and leverage resources with respect to its storm water permit. This approach has proven highly effective in assisting Palo Alto in addressing its responsibilities, twice winning national awards issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Since its original formation, the participating local governments, including Palo Alto, have twice previously authorized a continuation of the Program without changing the original terms (CMR:435:99 and CMR:146:06). Discussion Based on a recent vote of the Program’s Management Committee on August 18, 2016, on which the City participates, a third amendment of the MOA to extend the Program on its original terms was unanimously approved for referral to each governing body for execution. The extension will allow the Program to continue to operate and serve the participating agencies throughout the current Clean Water Act Permit’s term plus one additional fiscal year (providing Program assistance until at least the end of 2021 and addressing the Permit’s next re- issuance by the Regional Water Quality Control Board). Timeline All Program participants have been asked to obtain authorization and return an appropriate signature on the amendment as soon as possible and prior to Thanksgiving as the MOA will expire in December if no action is taken. Resource Impact Approval of the Third Amendment To Agreement Providing For Implementation Of The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program commits the City to continued participation in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program until one year beyond the termination date of the current NPDES storm water discharge permit issued to the Program (current permit is estimated to run through the year 2020). This includes payment of the City’s proportionate share of Program costs (4.06%), funding for and performance of the storm water pollution prevention activities and any other NPDES permit requirements. Continued funding for these activities is available from the Storm City of Palo Alto Page 3 Drainage Fund. Policy Implications Extension of the MOA is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Program N-29: Actively participate in programs such as the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program to improve the quality of storm water runoff. Environmental Review There is no environmental assessment required in conjunction with this report. Implementation of the NPDES Program is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15308 of the CEQA guidelines, as it assures the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment. Attachments:  Attachment A: SAN FRANCISCO-FINAL SCVURPPP MOA Third Amendment (DOC)  Attachment B: MOA Appendices (PDF) 1 THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (the “Amendment”) is entered into by and between the SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a local public agency of the State of California (“District”); CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MILPITAS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SUNNYVALE, a municipal corporation of the State of California; and COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a political subdivision of the State of California. All of the above-mentioned entities are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Parties” or individually as “Party.” RECITALS A. The Parties previously entered into that certain Agreement Providing For Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (the “Agreement” or “MOA”) pursuant to which the Parties established certain terms and conditions relating to the implementation and oversight of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (the “Program”), including a cost sharing allocation, which was appended thereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the Agreement, including Exhibit A, is attached hereto as Appendix 1. Unless otherwise set forth herein, all terms shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement; B. The Agreement originally provided for a five-year term, which, based on its execution, was set to conclude on or about March 10, 2005. However, on or about February 20, 2005, the Parties unanimously entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement (attached hereto as Appendix 2), which extended the term of the Agreement by one additional year; C. The Parties thereafter unanimously entered into a Second Amendment to the Agreement (attached hereto as Appendix 3), which extended the term of the amended Attachment A 2 Agreement by “one fiscal year beyond the termination date of the (then) next NPDES Permit issued to the Parties, including any administrative extension of the (then) next NPDES Permit’s term which occurred pursuant to the NPDES regulations.” The next NPDES permit applicable to the Parties (and others) was subsequently adopted the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (“RWQCB SFBR”) on October 14, 2009 and was known as the Municipal Regional Permit (“MRP”) because it covered numerous public agencies in the San Francisco Bay Region in addition to the Parties; D. The MRP was then administratively extended until a new NPDES Permit applicable to the Parties (and the other public entities in the San Francisco Bay Region) was adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, on November 19, 2015 (“MRP 2.0”). MRP 2.0 became effective on January 1, 2016 and, unless subject to an administrative extension, is scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2020; E. The Parties expect to utilize the Program to continue to represent their interests relative to MRP 2.0 (including with respect to an administrative appeal of its adoption that is currently pending before the State Water Resources Control Board), to help them effectuate certain aspects of compliance with MRP 2.0, and, beyond that, in negotiating the terms of a further renewed NPDES Permit when MRP 2.0 nears the end of its anticipated five-year term and any administrative extension provided thereto; F. The Parties also expect to continue to utilize the Program’s preferred approach of achieving consensus to resolve issues and reach decisions, and to rely on the Majority Vote mechanism set forth in Section 2.08 of the Agreement at the Management Committee level only when consensus-based resolutions appear or become elusive; G. The Parties now desire to update the amended Agreement and further extend the term of the MOA as set forth below; H. Section 7.02 of the MOA provides that it may be amended by the unanimous written agreement of the Parties and that all Parties agree to bring any proposed amendments to their Council or Board, as applicable, within three (3) months following acceptance by the Management Committee; and I. The Program’s Management Committee accepted this Amendment for referral to the Parties’ Councils and/or Boards at its meeting on August 18, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO FURTHER AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Recognition of Current Permit. Recital F of the Agreement, as previously amended, is hereby further amended by the addition of the following subsections: 6. Order No. R2-2009-0074 (the Municipal Regional Permit, NPDES Permit CAS612008); adopted, October 14, 2009 and amended by the RWQCB SFBR on November 28, 2011; 3 7. Order No. R2-2015-0049 (MRP 2.0, NPDES Permit CAS612008); adopted by the RWQCB SFBR on November 19, 2015. 2. Extension of Term of Agreement. Sections 6.02 and 6.02.01 of the Agreement, as previously amended, are hereby replaced as follows: This Agreement shall have a term extending one fiscal year beyond the date of termination of MRP 2.0; such termination date shall, however, be deemed to include any administrative extension of MRP 2.0 which occurs or arises pursuant to the NPDES regulations or any modification of the MRP 2.0 termination date that arises from an NPDES permitting action undertaken by the RWQCB SFBR or California State Water Resources Control Board. 3. Superseding Effect. This Third Amendment of the Agreement shall supplement the Second Amendment of the Agreement and supersede any conflicting provisions of the Second Amendment of the Agreement. [remainder of page intentionally blank] 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Third Amendment effective as of the last date indicated below or December 19, 2016, whichever arises earlier. Santa Clara Valley Water District: By: ____________________________________ Name: ____________________________________ Title: ____________________________________ Date: ____________________________________ County of Santa Clara: By: ____________________________________ Name: ____________________________________ Title: ____________________________________ Date: ____________________________________ City of ____________________: By: ____________________________________ Name: ____________________________________ Title: ____________________________________ Date: ____________________________________ Attachment B sf-3677154 Appendix 1 Agreement Providing For Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program as fully executed as of March 10, 2000 AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this day of ____ 1999 by and between the SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (DISTRICT), a local public agency of the State of California; COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a political subdivision of the State of California; CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MILPITAS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation of the State of California; and CITY OF SUNNYVALE, a municipal corporation of the State of California. All of the above-mentioned entities are hereinafter collectively referred to as "PARTIES" or individually as "PARTY." RECITALS: A. The 1986 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay (Basin Plan), adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, in implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act, required that PARTIES develop a program to control pollution from urban runoff, or nonpoint sources of water pollution in the Santa Clara Valley. · 8. In furtherance of their responsibilities pursuant to the Basin Plan, the PARTIES have previously entered into a series of agreements to jointly fund the cost of preparing an action plan to evaluate nonpoint source pollutants, monitor identified pollutants, and develop control measures to mitigate or reduce nonpoint source pollution. Collectively, the measures undertaken pursuant to the previous agreements and anticipated to continue pursuant to this Agreement, were known as the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program and upon execution of this agreement henceforth shall be known as the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (hereinafter called "Program"). C. In 1987 Congress added Section 402 (p) to the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Section 1342 (p)), which requires certain municipalities and industrial facilities to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NP DES) permit for the 76075_4 MOA JRG:MGD 10/19/99 SCVURPPP MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Page 2of13 discharge of stormwater to navigable waters. NPDES permits are also required under Section 402 (p) for any stormwater discharge which the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a State has determined contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to surface waters. 0. Section 402 (p) further required EPA to promulgate regulations for initial NPDES permit applications for stormwater discharges. The EPA promulgated such regulations in November 1990. E. The EPA has delegated authority to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to administer the NPDES permit process within California and, in turn, the SWRCB has delegated authority to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board -San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB-SFBR) to administer the NPDES permit process within its region. F. Pursuant to Section 402 (p) of the CWA and EPA regulations, the RWQCB-SFBR adopted the following orders further defining the program that the PARTIES are to develop and implement: 1. Order No. 90-094 (NPDES Permit No. CA0029718), adopted June 20,1990; and 2. Order No 95-180 (NPDES Permit No. CAS029718); adopted August 23, 1995. G. In and for the mutual interest of the PARTIES, the PARTIES wish to continue the Program by entering into this Agreement for the purpose of ensuring continued participation, in terms of cost and administrative responsibilities. H. DISTRICT is a local public agency of the State of California duly organized and existing within the County of Santa Clara. The County of Santa Clara is a political subdivision of the State of California. All other PARTIES are municipal corporations, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. I. The RWQCB-SFBR is conducting a Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) in Santa Clara County. The Program is required, as part of its NPDES permit, to develop and implement a Watershed Management Measures Strategy. The Urban Runoff Management Plan of the Program contains the Program's Watershed Management Measures Strategy. This strategy, consistent with the NPDES permit, coordinates Program activities with the WMI to develop and implement cost-effective approaches to address specific urban runoff pollution problems. The Program, through a continuous improvement process, annually reviews the strategy. 76075_4 MOA JRG:MGD 10/19/99 SCVURPPP MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Page 3of13 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO FURTHER AGREE, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program 1.01 The Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program ("Program") is hereby continued as the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program to fulfill the requirements of NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 as it exists, may be modified, or may be reissued in the future (hereinafter referred to as "NPDES Permit"). 1.02 The Program is a collective effort and implementation of area-wide activities, designed to benefit all PARTIES. Section 2. Management Committee 2.01 A Management Committee is hereby reconstituted to provide for overall Program coordination, review, and budget oversight, with respect to the NPDES Permit. 2.02 The Management Committee may as necessary adopt and revise Bylaws for its governance. 2.03 The Management Committee is the official management and oversight body of the Program. The Management Committee shall direct and guide the Program and review and approve the Program Budget. The Management Committee shall consider permit compliance, including benefit to a majority of the PARTIES, as a primary objective in approving Program tasks and corresponding budgets. 2.04 The Management Committee may periodically re-evaluate and make recommendations to the PARTIES concerning reallocation of the proportion of the annual Program contribution that each PARTY shall pay. · 2.05 The voting membership of the Management Committee shall consist of one designated voting representative from each PARTY. An alternative voting representative may be appointed by each PARTY. The RWQCB- SFBR may appoint a non -voting representative and alternate to the Management Committee. 2.06 A quorum of the Management Committee shall be achieved when at least nine (9) voting representatives, including at least one (1) representative from each of City of San Jose and Santa Clara Valley Water District, are present at any Management Committee meeting. 2.07 Meetings of the Management Committee, including any closed sessions with Program Legal Counsel, shall be conducted in accordance with the "Brown Act" 76075_4 MOA JRG:MGD 10/19/99 SCVURPPP MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Page 4of13 (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) The individual parties have differing opinions on whether the Brown Act legally should be interpreted as applying to members of the Management Committee. In executing this Agreement, the parties do not waive their right to take the position that the Brown Act legally does not apply, but voluntarily agree to follow Brown Act procedures for Management Committee meetings. Except for official meetings of the Management Committee, nothing herein shall be interpreted to require meetings between staff members of the individual Parties (including designated representatives of the Parties) to be subject to the Brown Act, where the Brown Act would not otherwise apply. Each party is individually responsible for ensuring that it complies with the Brown Act. 2.08 The affirmative vote of at least eight (8) voting members of the Management Committee, which collectively contribute at least fifty percent (50%) of the area-wide Program costs (a "Majority Voten), is necessary to approve any measure brought before the Management Committee. · 2.09 The Management Committee shall be responsible for selecting any consultant(s) or contractor(s) who are to be paid from Program funds ("Outside Contractors"), using a process approved by the Contracting Agent, and for reviewing and approving any contracts with Outside Contractors, including the scope(s) of work, schedules of performance, use of subcontractors, and compensation for such Outside Contractors. 2.1 O The Management Committee shall select a PARTY or Outside Contractor to act as Program Manager for the Program. The Program Manager shall be responsible for Program management and administration, Permit management, and technical program management all in accordance with the NPDES Permit, this Agreement, Program Bylaws, and as directed by the Management Committee in the best interest of the PARTIES as a whole and individually. The Program Manager shall be paid, from Program funds in accordance with the adopted Program budget, for providing the services described hereunder. The Program Manager shall not be responsible for providing program management services related to individual PARTIES permit programs, but may provide such services under separate contract with any PARTY or PARTIES. 2.11 The Management Committee may select an attorney (Program Attorney) or firm that is experienced with the Clean Water Act and Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permits to provide legal advice to the Management Committee on all matters involving administration of the Program's NPDES permit and such other matters upon which the Management Committee may seek legal advice or request legal representation. Program Legal Counsel shall not be responsible for providing legal advice related to permit compliance to individual PARTIES, but may provide such services under separate contract with any PARTY or PARTIES. The Program Manager may 76075_4 MOA JRG:MGD 10/19/99 SCVURPPP MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Page 5of13 assist in coordination of activities with the Program Attorney but shall not give direction without prior authorization from the Management Committee. 2.12 The Management Committee shall establish timelines and budgets for completion of Program tasks. The Management Committee shall rate the performance of the Program, and in turn rate the performance of the Program Manager, based upon the Program's ability to meet such approved timelines and budgets. 2.13 The Management Committee, through its Bylaws, may establish procedures for tracking, accounting for, and auditing the Program Fund. Section 3. Program Budget 3.01 A collective budget for the Program (Program Budget) shall be based upon a projection of two consecutive fiscal year cycles, however, the Budget shall be adopted for only one fiscal year cycle. The Budget shall include a Contingency/Reserve Fund which shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the operating costs of the adopted Budget. 3.02 The PARTIES shall each pay a yearly assessment into a fund established for Program operations for their assigned portion of the Program Budget. The proportionate share of the Program Budget that each PARTY shall pay is shown in the schedule marked Exhibit A hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 3.03 Except as provided in Section 6.03, the ending fund balance at the close of each fiscal year shall be disbursed annually to the PARTIES, or credited to the PARTIES' share of the next fiscal year's costs, in accordance with the PARTIES defined participation rates, as requested by each PARTY. Section 4. Contracting/ Fiscal Agent 4.01 DISTRICT shall serve as the initial Contracting/Fiscal Agent for the Program. 4.02 DISTRICT may withdraw as the Contracting Fiscal Agent upon the provision of ninety days (90) days written notice to the Management Committee. 4.03 In the event that the Contracting/Fiscal Agent withdraws from the Program or from providing Contracting/Fiscal Agent services to the Program, another PARTY may serve as a successor Contracting/Fiscal Agent. Any PARTY willing to serve as successor Contracting/Fiscal Agent may be nominated by another PARTY. Selection of a Contracting/Fiscal Agent must be by majority vote of the Management Committee. 76075_4 MOA JRG:MGD 10/19/99 SCVURPPP MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Page 6of13 4.04 The Contracting/Fiscal Agent shall act in a reasonable amount of time to execute contracts with Outside Contractors, including the Program Manager, which have been requested and approved by the Management Committee. 4. 05 The Contracting/Fiscal Agent shall be the treasurer of Program funds. The Contracting/Fiscal Agent, in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures, shall keep the Program funds segregated from any other funds administered by the Contracting/Fiscal Agent; shall credit the Program with appropriate interest income earned on Program funds in each fiscal year; and shall not expend any funds except in accordance with the annual budget approved by the Management Committee or as otherwise directed by the Management Committee. 4.06 The Contracting/Fiscal Agent shall provide a copy of any contract executed on behalf of the Program to any PARTY or person designated by any PARTY or the Management Committee upon request. The governing body of the Contracting/Fiscal Agent, at its discretion, may delegate authority to execute agreements and contracts approved by the Management Committee, to a designated employee. Notice of any such delegation of authority shall be provided to the Management Committee. 4. 07 The Contracting/Fiscal Agent may request, as part of the annual Program Budget, reimbursement for reasonable and customary costs incurred in providing the services described hereunder. Reimbursement to the Contracting/Fiscal Agent shall be subject to Management Committee review and approval as part of the Program Budget. Section 5. Ancillary Rights and Duties of the Parties 5.01 In addition to the participation in the Management Committee, the PARTIES accept and agree to perform the following duties: 76075_4 MOA 1. Each will comply with the NPDES Permit conditions set forth in its Community-Specific plan; 2. Each will participate in Management Committee meetings and other required meetings of the PARTIES; 3. Each will implement its Community-Specific program; 4. Each will provide certain agreed upon reports to the Program for purposes of reporting, on a joint basis, compliance with applicable provisions of the NPOES Permit and the status of Program JRG:MGD 10/19/99 SCVURPPP MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Page 7 of 13 implementation; and 5. Each will individually address inter-agency issues, agreements or other cooperative efforts. 5.02 This Agreement does not restrict the PARTIES from the ability to individually (or collectively) request NP DES Permit modifications and/or initiate NPDES Permit appeals for permit provisions to the extent that a provision affects an individual party (or group of PARTIES); however, any such PARTY (or PARTIES) shall make reasonable efforts to provide advance notice of their action to the other PARTIES and allow them to comment upon or join in their action before proceeding. Section 6. Term of Agreement 6.01 The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date the last duly authorized representative of the PARTIES executes it. 6.02 This Agreement shall have a term of five (5) years. 6.03 Any PARTY may terminate its participation in this Agreement by giving the Chair of the Management Committee at least thirty (30) day written notice. The terminating PARTY will bear the full responsibility for its compliance with the NPDES Permit commencing on the date it terminates its participation, including its compliance with both Community-Specific and Program-wide responsibilities. Unless the termination is scheduled to be effective at the close of the fiscal year in which the notice is given, termination shall constitute forfeiture of all of the terminating PARTY's share of the Program Budget, for the fiscal year in which the termination occurred (both paid and obligated but unpaid amounts). In addition, unless notice of termination is provided at least ninety (90) days prior to the date established by the Management Committee for approval of the budget for the succeeding fiscal year, termination shall constitute forfeiture of all of the terminating P ARTY's share of any unexpended, unencumbered funds remaining from all previous fiscal years. The cost allocations for the remaining PARTIES' may be recalculated for the following fiscal year by the PARTIES without the withdrawing PARTY's participation. Section 7. General Legal Provisions 7.01. This Agreement supersedes any prior agreement among all the PARTIES regarding the Program, but does not supersede any other agreements between any of the PARTIES. 7. 02 This Agreement may be amended by unanimous written agreement of the PARTIES. All PARTIES agree to bring any proposed amendment to this Agreement to their Council or Board, as applicable, within three (3) months following acceptance by the Management Committee. 76075_4 MOA JRG:MGD 10/19/99 SCVURPPP MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Page 8of13 I I I 7.03 This Agreement may be executed and delivered in any number of copies ("counterpart") by the PARTIES, including by means of facsimile. When each PARTY has signed and delivered at least one counterpart to the Program, each counterpart shall be deemed an original and, taken together, shall constitute one and the same Agreement, which shall be binding and effective as to the PARTIES hereto. 7.04 No PARTY shall, by entering into this Agreement, participating in the Management Committee, or agreeing to serve as Fiscal Agent, Contracting Agent, Program Manager, and/or Legal Counsel, assume or be deemed to assume responsibility for any other PARTY in complying with the requirements of the NPDES Permit. This Agreement is intended solely for the convenience and benefit of the PARTIES hereto and shall not be deemed to be for the benefit of any third party and may not be enforced by any third party, including, but not limited to, the EPA, the SWRCB, and the RWQCB-SFBR, or any person acting on their behalf or in their stead. 7.05 In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed between the PARTIES pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, the PARTIES agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by a PARTY shall not be shared pro rata but instead the PARTIES agree that pursuant to the Government Code Section 895.4, each of the PARTIES hereto shall fully defend, indemnify and hold harmless each of the other PARTIES from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts of omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying PARTY, its officers agents or employees, under or in connection with or arising from any work, authority or jurisdictions delegated to such PA"'RTY under this Agreement, including but not limited to any non-compliance by a PARTY with its obligations under the Program NPDES Permit. No PARTY, nor any officer, board member, employee or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage·or liability incurred by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other parties hereto, their officers, board members, employees or agents under or in connection with or arising from any work, authority or jurisdictions delegated to such PARTY under this Agreement, including but not limited to any non-compliance by a PARTY with its obligations under the Program NPDES Permit. 7. 06 In the event that suit shall be brought by either party to this contract, the Parties agree that venue shall be exclusively vested in the state courts of the County of Santa Clara, or where otherwise appropriate, exclusively in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose, California. 76075_4 MOA JRG:MGD 10/19/99 SCVURPPP MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT A SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF COST-SHARING PROPORTIONS 76075_4 MOA Jurisdiction Proportional Share Campbell 1.88% Cupertino 2.46% Los Altos 1.59% Los Altos Hills 0.43% Los Gatos 1.74% Milpitas 2.75% Monte Sereno 0.14% Mountain View 3.91% Palo Alto 4.06% Santa Clara 6.23% Saratoga 1.59°~ Sunnyvale 7.25% Santa Clara County 5.94% Subtotal San Jose District TOTAL 39.97% 30.01% 30.02% 100.00% JRG:MGD 10/19/99 sf-3677154 Appendix 2 First Amendment to Agreement Providing For Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program as fully executed as of March 10, 2005 sf-3677154 Appendix 3 Second Amendment to Agreement Providing For Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program as fully executed as of March 10, 2006 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (the "Amendment") is entered into by and between the SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a local public agency of the State of California ("District"); CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MILPITAS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SANT A CLARA, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SARA TOGA, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SUNNYVALE, a municipal corporation of the State of California; and COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a political subdivision of the State of California. All of the above-mentioned entities are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Parties" or individually as "Party." RECITALS A. The Parties previously entered into that certain Agreement Providing For Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (the "Agreement" or "MOA'') pursuant to which the Parties established certain terms and conditions relating to the implementation and oversight of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (the "Program"), including a cost sharing allocation, which was appended thereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the Agreement, including Exhibit A, is attached hereto as Appendix 1. Unless otherwise set forth herein, all terms shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement; B. The Agreement originally provided for a five year term, which, based on its execution, was set to conclude on or about March 10, 2005. However, on or about February 20, 2005, the Parties unanimously entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement (attached hereto as Appendix 2), which extended the term of the Agreement by one additional year and, during that year, directed the Program to undertake a management and cost allocation review. The Program used an independent contractor to conduct the management and cost allocation review, which was completed and submitted to the Management Committee in November 2005; 1 C. The Parties expect to utilize the Program to continue to represent their interests in negotiating the terms of a renewed NPDES Permit, which may manifest itself in a Municipal Regional Permit ("MRP"), in 2006, and to otherwise address a variety of matters related to assisting the Parties in effectuating compliance with the Permit and/or MRP after March 10, 2006; D. The Parties also expect to continue to utilize the Program's preferred approach of achieving consensus to resolve issues and reach decisions, and to rely on the Majority Vote mechanism set forth in Section 2.08 of the Agreement at the Management Committee level only when consensus-based resolutions appear or become elusive; E. The Parties desire to update the Agreement and extend the term of the MOA as set forth below; F. Section 7.02 of the MOA provides that it may be amended by the unanimous written agreement of the Parties and that all Parties agree to bring any proposed amendments to their Council or Board, as applicable, within three (3) months following acceptance by the Management Committee; and G. The Program's Management Committee accepted this Amendment for referral to the Parties' Councils and/or Boards at its meeting on December 15, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO FURTHER AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Recognition of Current Permit. Recital F of the Agreement is hereby amended by the following additional subsections: 3. Order No. 01-024 (re-issued NPDES Permit No. CAS029718); adopted February 21, 2001; 4. Order No. 01-119 (Modification to re-issued NPDES Permit No. CAS029718); adopted October 17, 2001; 5. Order No. R2-2005-0035 (Further Modification to re-issued NPDES Permit No. CAS029718); adopted July 20, 2005. 2. Cost Sharing Allocation. Effective with fiscal year 2007, the following footnote shall be deemed to have been added to "Exhibit A" of the MOA and to be shown by means of an asterisk placed immediately following the Proportional Share of "30.02%" shown for the District: *One-third of the District's 30.02% contribution is expected to be from funding derived by the District from Outcome 2 and Activity 2.5 of the voter-adopted Clean Safe Creeks program; the remaining two-thirds of the District's contribution is expected to be derived by the District from property tax revenues. 2 3. Contracting/Fiscal Agent. Section 4.02 of the Agreement is hereby replaced by the following: In March 2005, the District notified the Management Committee that it was withdrawing as the Contracting/Fiscal Agent within ninety (90) days; the City of Sunnyvale thereafter agreed to serve as the Contracting/Fiscal Agent and was nominated to do so by another Party and selected as the Program's Contracting/Fiscal Agent by a majority vote of the Management Committee. The City of Sunnyvale may withdraw as the Contracting/Fiscal Agent upon the provision of ninety (90) days written notice to the Management Committee. 4. Extension of Term of Agreement. Sections 6.02 and 6.02.01 of the Agreement, as previously amended, are hereby replaced as follows: This Agreement shall have a term extending one fiscal year beyond the termination date of the next NPDES Permit issued to the Parties by the RWQCB-SFBR; such termination date shall, include any administrative extension of the next NPDES Permit's term which occurs pursuant to the NPDES regulations. 5. Superseding Effect. This Second Amendment of the Agreement shall supersede and replace the First Amendment of the Agreement. [remainder of page intentionally blank] 3 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6669) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/19/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study and Design Contract with ... Title: Approve the Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study Report and Direct Staff to Pursue Replacement of the Boardwalk, Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Contract Number C17163750 in the Amount of $439,992 with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. to Provide Design and Environmental Services and Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Capital Improvement Program Project PE-14018 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends Council: 1. Approve the Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study (Attachment A) and direct staff to pursue replacement of the Boardwalk; 2. Approve and Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Contract Number C17163750 with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (Attachment B) in the amount of $439,992 for design and environmental services, including $399,993 for basic services and $39,999 for additional services for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Project, Capital Improvement Program project PE-14018; and 3. Amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget for the Capital Improvement Fund by: a. Increasing the Capital Improvement Program Appropriation for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvements Project (PE-14018) by $40,000; and b. Decreasing the Infrastructure Reserve by $40,000. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background The Baylands Nature Center Boardwalk (Boardwalk) is one of the more popular trails within the City’s Baylands Nature Preserve. This 850-foot long, four-foot wide Boardwalk extends into the Baylands Nature Preserve and connects to the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center (Interpretive Center). On March 10, 2014, the Boardwalk was closed due to structural damage and safety concerns. In May 2015, the City hired Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (BCA) to perform structural inspections and assess the current condition of the Boardwalk; provide options for short-term repairs, rehabilitation and replacement; assess upgrading the structure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and prepare the Boardwalk Feasibility Study Report (Feasibility Study). Staff and BCA presented the preliminary findings and options for repair, rehabilitation, and replacement at a community meeting on September 30, 2015. There was general agreement on the following items:  The Boardwalk should be repaired immediately to provide partial accessibility given the lengthy time necessary to complete the permitting process for major repairs and/or replacement;  Both Boardwalk rehabilitation and replacement options should consider sea-level rise;  Raising the Boardwalk height to prevent flooding may detract from the Baylands experience, part of which is being close to and part of the marshland environment;  Determining the appropriate Boardwalk height should be a balance between public opinion, regulatory requirements, and structural design; and  Consider composite decking (recycled material) if possible. Staff and BCA subsequently met with the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) on October 27, 2015 and March 22, 2016 to present the findings and Boardwalk repair, rehabilitation, and replacement options. The PRC was in favor of Boardwalk replacement due to the longer design life and ADA compliance and code-mandated requirements. Discussion City of Palo Alto Page 3 Feasibility Study The Feasibility Study key findings are: 1. Overall, the existing Boardwalk is structurally unsound; however, the condition of the structure varies over its length. (A 200-foot segment between the Interpretive Center and first overlook platform is now open to the public due to minor repairs completed in 2015.) 2. The existing Boardwalk does not meet current ADA code requirements, including code-compliant slopes, handrails, guardrails, cross slopes, smooth walking surfaces, passing spaces and resting areas. 3. The Boardwalk is in an environmentally sensitive area where nesting birds and several endangered species including the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Ridgway’s Rail (formerly California Clapper Rail) reside. The Boardwalk design and construction shall incorporate minimizing direct impacts to the sensitive environment. 4. The Boardwalk construction will require extensive agency coordination, and time and effort to obtain the following:  United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 federal Clean Water Act permit  California Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Water Quality permit  United States Fish and Wildlife Service consultation  San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission permit 5. The Feasibility Study identified tides, storm surges, and sea-level rise effects in the vicinity of the Boardwalk. Based on the 2012 National Research Council’s sea-level rise projections, the existing Boardwalk would be flooded in a 100-year storm event (1% chance of flooding) under current conditions, whereas it is anticipated to be flooded in a 10-year storm event (10% chance of flooding) by 2030. Increasing the proposed Boardwalk height from its current average height of 9.5 feet could address the potential sea-level rise impacts. Feasible Boardwalk rehabilitation and replacement options are as follows: 1. Rehabilitation Options City of Palo Alto Page 4 Rehabilitation Option 1 consists of a longitudinal timber deck plank and timber beams supported on timber piles/posts with a design life of 25 to 50 years. Rehabilitation Option 2 is similar but supported by steel screw anchors located outboard, moved away from the existing drainage channel below the Boardwalk, with a design life of 30 to 60 years. Summary:  Improvements will be along the entire length of the existing Boardwalk, use some of the existing structure, and include partial ADA upgrades such as railing and deck repairs;  Alignment and configuration remain the same, and width will remain 4 feet;  Rehabilitation Option 2 has a longer design life;  Permitting process and design duration is approximately 1-2 years;  Construction cost range is $860,000 to $1,050,000 (includes construction contingency) for Options 1 and 2 respectively; and  Construction duration is 1-2 years, depending on permit requirements. 2. Replacement Options Replacement Option 1 matches the existing structural frame using longitudinal timber deck planks supported on transverse timber beams. Replacement Option 2 consists of smaller size, transverse timber decking on a platform of longitudinal stringers supported by transverse timber beams. Replacement Option 2 is easier to construct by using smaller size deck boards which are easier to transport, handle and replace. Summary:  Options include complete replacement with ADA upgrades;  Permanent steel screw anchors or treated timber piles are proposed for vertical support and lateral restraint;  Alignment and configuration remain the same, while width is increased to 5 feet;  Design life is 50-75 years;  Permitting process and design duration is approximately 1-2 years;  Construction cost range is $890,000 to $1,140,000; and City of Palo Alto Page 5  Construction duration is 1 to 2 years, depending on permitting requirements. Refer to the Feasibility Study’s Executive Summary in Attachment A for a Comparative Matrix of the Options. The Feasibility Study conclusions are as follows: 1. Rehabilitation options have higher anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation and width, and lower design life expectancies than the replacement options. 2. Replacement options are feasible. Replacement Option 1 mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type and Replacement Option 2 utilizes smaller deck boards that will be slightly easier to transport and construct. 3. Permanent steel screw anchors or timber piles with treated timber elements are proposed for the foundation structure. The repeated wetting and drying cycle of the salt water tidal marsh can have negative impacts on the design life. Therefore, the foundation structure should be further investigated during the design phase. 4. A new Boardwalk has the potential for the longest design life expectancy, 50-75 years. A study of the tidal inundation and sea-level rise indicates the deck height needs to be raised to reduce flooding. Staff recommends: (1) approval of the Feasibility Study (Attachment A) and direction to pursue replacement; and (2) approval of a design services contract (Attachment B) with BCA for design and environmental review and permitting of a replacement Boardwalk. The primary difference between replacement options 1 and 2, as described in the Feasibility Study, is the orientation of the boardwalk deck planks and supporting beams. These options will be evaluated further during the design process, with the eventual design based on consideration of technical information and input from the community and PRC. Design Contract The BCA contract scope of services includes: 1. Design of a new Boardwalk with similar alignment and configuration as the existing Boardwalk; City of Palo Alto Page 6 2. Development of 15%, 35%, 65% and 100% plans, specifications and estimates; 3. Consideration of the design life, potential environmental impacts, costs and timeline (design, permitting, and project completion); 4. Design review and environmental assessment (including obtaining agency permits); 5. Obtain community, board and commission input; 6. Evaluation of structural constraints, design criteria and structure types; 7. Evaluation of constructability and staging; 8. Evaluation of geotechnical constraints and foundation type recommendations; 9. Evaluation of sea-level rise and hydraulic constraints and recommendations; 10. Evaluation of ADA compliance requirements; and 11. Inclusion of architectural and aesthetic treatments compatible with the Baylands Master Plan. The BCA contract provides environmental review and design services through the design phase but does not include construction administration services. Upon completion of the design phase, staff will return to Council with a contract amendment to provide bid and construction administration services during the project’s bidding and construction phases. Construction administration services include responding to contractor questions and participating in project management meetings with City staff and contractor representatives. Project Coordination and Outreach Three separate CIP projects include: Baylands Boardwalk Improvements (PE- 14018), Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Exhibit Improvements (AC-14001), and Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Facility Improvements (PE-15029). All three projects are being managed by Public Works and Community Services to ensure design decisions are coordinated and discussed with the public. Request for Proposal (RFP) Process On May 4, 2016, the City released an RFP (No. 163750) for the Baylands Boardwalk Replacement Project. The RFP requested proposals from qualified firms to provide professional services for design services, environmental clearance, and construction administration for the Baylands Boardwalk City of Palo Alto Page 7 Replacement Project. Table 1 provides a summary of the solicitation process. Table 1. Solicitation Process Summary Evaluation of Proposals A total of 33 vendors downloaded the RFP and one proposal was received. An evaluation committee consisting of Public Works Engineering Services Division staff reviewed the proposal. BCA was invited to participate in an interview on June 3, 2016. The evaluation committee carefully reviewed the firm's qualifications and submittals. The RFP criteria used to evaluate the firm included: quality of the proposals; quality, performance and effectiveness of solutions; experience with projects of similar scope and complexity; cost; financial stability; ability to perform required services within the project schedule; prior record performance; and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The evaluation committee recommends BCA as the designer due to their understanding of project goals and needs, experience and in-depth knowledge working on projects with similar scope and complexity, and BCA’s environmental subconsultants’ (David J. Powers and H.T. Harvey & Associates) experience with the environmental clearance and permitting processes essential for successful project execution and timely completion. David J. Powers and H.T. Harvey & Proposal Description/Number Baylands Boardwalk Replacement Project RFP /Number 163750 Proposed Length of Project Approximately 24 months (without bid and construction administration.) Total Days to Respond to Proposal 22 Pre-proposal Meeting Date May 10, 2016 Number of Company Attendees at Pre-proposal Meeting 5 Number of Proposals Received: 1 Company Name Location (City, State) Selected for oral interview? Proposal Amount 1. Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (BCA) San Jose, CA Yes $399,993 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Associates have extensive knowledge of the Palo Alto Baylands and regulatory requirements. Both firms are working with the City to obtain environmental clearance and regulatory permits for the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Facility Improvements Project, PE-15029 and the Adobe Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project, PE-11011. Timeline Upon receiving Council’s direction, staff will direct BCA to begin the design and technical studies for the required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental assessment. Staff will prepare a CEQA environmental assessment for public circulation in summer 2017. Tentative Project Timeline  Enter into design contract (FY 2017) September 2016  Begin schematic design October 2016  Complete 35% design June 2017  Submit applications/reports for agency permits spring 2017  Circulate environmental document summer 2017  Complete 100% design and construction bid documents summer 2018  Amend BCA contract for bid and construction Administration services summer 2018  Obtain agency permits fall 2018*  Bid project summer 2019  Boardwalk construction phase September 2019  End of construction January 2020** * The tentative project timeline above assumes approximately 18 months for agency environmental and permitting review. If project permits are received in a shorter time period, construction could begin in 2018 rather than 2019. ** To avoid nesting birds in the Baylands, the construction window is limited to five months from September 1 through January 31. This schedule assumes that construction can be completed in this timeframe. The construction duration will be assessed during the design process. Resource Impact In Fiscal Year 2017, the City Council approved and adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvements project (PE- City of Palo Alto Page 9 14018) in the amount of $422,191, including $400,000 in new funding and $22,191 in reappropriations. In Fiscal Year 2019, construction funding in the amount of $1,000,000 is planned. The following table compares the budgeted funding for the projcet with projected actuals. Project Costs Prior Year Actuals (est.) FY 2017 Adopted Budget Recom- mende d Adjust- ment FY 2017 Amende d Budget FY 2019 CIP Plan Projected Project Total Design $110,73 4 $422,19 1 $40,000 $462,191 $572,925 Constructio n $1,000,00 0 $1,000,00 0 Total: $1,572,92 5 Staff requests Council amend the Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Appropriation for the Capital Improvement Fund by increasing the Capital Improvement Program appropriation for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvements project (PE-14018) by $40,000 and decreasing the Infrastructure Reserve Fund by $40,000 to provide sufficient funding to award the design contract and pay for miscellaneous expenses such as testing, printing services and plan review fees. Policy Implications Approval of the Feasibility Study and the design services contract is consistent with City policies. Environmental Review Award of the design contract is not a project under CEQA. CEQA review will be carried out prior to the issuance of a construction contract. Pursuant to CEQA requirements, a draft Initial Study and environmental assessment will be prepared and circulated. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is anticipated for this project, and the project will not result in significant impacts. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 10  Attachment A: Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Report (PDF)  Attachment B: Biggs Cardosa Associates Contract (PDF) City of Palo Alto Public Works Department BAYLANDS BOARDWALK Feasibility Study Report Final March 2016 Attachment A BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 865 The Alameda (408) 296 5515 San Jose, CA 95126 3133 fax (408) 296 8114 City of Palo Alto Public Works Department BAYLANDS BOARDWALK Feasibility Study Report March 2016 ANTHONY P. NOTARO, PE TABLE OF CONTENTS Organization: The Feasibility Study is organized as follows: Chapter 1. Executive Summary Chapter 2. Introduction Chapter 3. Existing Structure and Constraints Chapter 4. Repair Options Chapter 5. Rehabilitation Options Chapter 6. Replacement Options Chapter 7. Recommendation/Conclusion Attachment A. Summary Plan of Structural Assessment Report Findings Attachment B. Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center Attachment C. Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk/Access Compliance Evaluation Attachment D. Baylands Boardwalk As)Built Structure Plans Attachment E. Preliminary Estimate of Probable Construction Cost 1 1 Chapter 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose: The Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study Project has the following stated primary objectives: 1. Perform structural assessment of the existing boardwalk structure. 2. Determine how to best repair, rehabilitate and/or replace the existing boardwalk to meet functional, structural, environmental and code requirements for short'term and long'term improvements. 3. Repair options will review the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near'term reopening (or partial reopening) of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long'term improvements. 4. Rehabilitation options will review the feasibility of making substantial repairs to the existing boardwalk structure to allow long'term public use of the existing/rehabilitated facility. 5. Replacement options will review the feasibility of replacing the existing boardwalk structure with a new boardwalk structure at the same location for long'term use by the public. Structural Assessment: The existing boardwalk was closed in 2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. A detailed two'day structural inspection of the 850 foot long and 4 feet wide boardwalk was performed. Field notes, photographs and observations were collected and compiled into a summary report titled “Structural Evaluation of Baylands Boardwalk 2775 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303.” The overall condition of the boardwalk is structurally unsound. However, the condition of the structure varies over its length. In general, the southernmost portion of the boardwalk adjacent to the Nature Center, including the first overlook platform, is in fair to satisfactory condition. The majority of the more severe deterioration is concentrated in the segment of the boardwalk on either side of the PG&E lines and catwalk. The conditions of the remaining portions of the structure varied between poor and satisfactory condition. Feasibility Study: The Feasibility Study included a site inspection with City staff, review of available record documents, a public information meeting, a meeting with the Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission, and participation in an Interagency Coordination Meeting with various environmental/ regulatory agencies with jurisdiction on the project (USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, and BCDC). Chapter 3 – Existing Structure & Constraints of the report includes a detailed discussion of the structural assessment performed, existing environmental conditions, subsurface conditions, hydraulic conditions including sea level rise, and access and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) constraints of the project. Chapter 4 – Repair Options of the report includes a discussion of the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near'term reopening (or partial reopening) of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long'term improvements. Chapter 5 – Rehabilitation Options of the report includes a discussion of the feasibility of making substantial repairs to the existing boardwalk structure to allow long'term public use of the existing/rehabilitated facility. Chapter 6 – Replacement Options of the report includes a discussion of the feasibility of replacing the existing boardwalk structure with a new boardwalk structure at the same location for long'term use by the public. The following table summarizes the structural feasibility of the Rehabilitation Options and Replacement Options. The Repair Option is not included in the table since City staff has completed minor repairs to the 200 feet segment between the Nature Center and first overlook platform of the boardwalk and reopened this portion of the boardwalk to the public based on the draft feasibility study recommendations. .    &U L W H U L D  5( + $ % , / , 7 $ 7 , 2 1  2 3 7 , 2 1 6  5( 3 / $ & ( 0 ( 1 7  2 3 7 , 2 1 6  5H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    5H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    5H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    5H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    6W U X F W X U H  7 \ S L F D O  6H F W L R Q  6X S H U V W U X F W X U H  7 \ S H  /R Q J L W X G L Q D O  7 L P E H U  ' H F N  3 O D Q N  0 D W F K  H [ L V W L Q J  6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    /R Q J L W X G L Q D O  7 L P E H U  ' H F N  3 O D Q N  7U D Q V Y H U V H  7 L P E H U  ' H F N L Q J  R Q  / R Q J L W X G L Q D O  7 L P E H U  VW U L Q J H U V  6X E V W U X F W X U H  7 \ S H  7LP E H U  E H D P V  E H Q W  F D S V  V X S S R U W H G  R Q  W L P E H U  SLO H V  S R V W V  0 D W F K  H [ L V W L Q J   7LP E H U  E H D P V  V X S S R U W H G  R Q  V W H H O  V F U H Z  D Q F K R U V  OR F D W H G  R X W E R D U G  R I  W K H  E R D U G Z D O N  G H F N L Q J  W R  L P S U R Y H  GH V L J Q  O L I H   7LP E H U  E H D P V  V X S S R U W H G  R Q  V W H H O  V F U H Z  D Q F K R U V  R U  WLP E H U  S L O H V  S R V W V  O R F D W H G R X W E R D U G  R I  W K H  E R D U G Z D O N  GH F N L Q J  W R  L P S U R Y H  G H V L J Q  O L I H   6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    %R D U G Z D O N  : L G W K  DQ G  / H Q J W K   I H H W  Z L G H   [      I H H W  O R Q J  P D W F K  H [ L V W L Q J  6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q     I H H W  Z L G H  D Q G      I H H W  O R Q J  D V V X P H G  V X E M H F W  W R  UH J X O D W R U \  D J H Q F \  D S S U R Y D O  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    &R Q V W U X F W D E L O L W \  8V H  H [ L V W L Q J  E R D U G Z D O N  D V  D  W H P S R U D U \  Z R U N  S O D W I R U P   3UR Y L G H  H T X L S P H Q W  D F F H V V  Y L D  W H P S R U D U \  P D U V K  P D W V  DU R X Q G  Q D W X U H  F H Q W H U   6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    8V H  H [ L V W L Q J  E R D U G Z D O N  D V  D  W H P S R U D U \  Z R U N  S O D W I R U P   3U R Y L G H  H T X L S P H Q W  D F F H V V  Y L D  W H P S R U D U \  P D U V K  P D W V  DUR X Q G  Q D W X U H  F H Q W H U   6OL J K W O \  L P S U R Y H G  F R Q V W U X F W D E L O L W \  R Y H U  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2S W L R Q    G X H  W R  V P D O O H U  G H F N  H O H P H Q W V  Z K L F K  D U H  H D V L H U  WR  W U D Q V S R U W   K D Q G O H  D Q G  U H S O D F H   (Q Y L U R Q P H Q W D O  &R P S O L D Q F H  3H U P L W V  D Q W L F L S D W H G  W R  E H  U H T X L U H G  I U R P   8 6 $ & (   5: 4 & %   & ' ) :   8 6 ) : 6   % & ' &  6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    3H U P L W V  D Q W L F L S D W H G  W R  E H  U H T X L U H G  I U R P   8 6 $ & (   5: 4 & %   & ' ) :   8 6 ) : 6   % & ' &  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    *H R W H F K Q L F D O  ,V V X H V  0D W F K H V  H [ L V W L Q J  V W U X F W X U D O  V \ V W H P  W R  D F F R P P R G D W H  DQ W L F L S D W H G  O R Q J  W H U P  P D U V K  V H W W O H P H Q W  D Q G  F R U U R V L R Q  LV V X H V     )OH [ L E O H  V W U X F W X U D O  V \ V W H P  W R  D F F R P P R G D W H  D Q W L F L S D W H G  OR Q J  W H U P  P D U V K  V H W W O H P H Q W    3 U R S R V H G  V K D O O R Z  V W H H O  KH O L F D O  D Q F K R U  I R X Q G D W L R Q  V \ V W H P V  O R F D W H G  R X W E R D U G  R I  WK H  H [ L V W L Q J  E R D U G Z D O N  G H F N L Q J  I R U  Y H U W L F D O  V X S S R U W  D Q G  WR  L P S U R Y H  G H V L J Q  O L I H   )OH [ L E O H  V W U X F W X U D O  V \ V W H P  W R  D F F R P P R G D W H  D Q W L F L S D W H G  OR Q J  W H U P  P D U V K  V H W W O H P H Q W    3 U R S R V H G  V K D O O R Z  SLO H  D Q F K R U  I R X Q G D W L R Q  V \ V W H P V  L Q F O X G H   $OW     6 W H H O  + H O L F D O  6 F U H Z  $ Q F K R U V  $OW     7 L P E H U  3 L O H V  3 R V W V  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    +\ G U D X O L F  , V V X H V  0D W F K H V  H [ L V W L Q J  V W U X F W X U H  W \ S H  D Q G  F R Q I L J X U D W L R Q    & D Q  RQ O \  D F F R P P R G D W H  D  V P D O O  D G M X V W P H Q W  L Q  G H F N  HOH Y D W L R Q  W R  D F F R P P R G D W H  W K H  U H J X O D U  H E E  D Q G  I O R Z  RI  W K H  W L G H V  D Q G  V H D  O H Y H O  U L V H   0D W F K H V  H [ L V W L Q J  V W U X F W X U H  W \ S H  D Q G  F R Q I L J X U D W L R Q    & D Q  DF F R P P R G D W H  D  V O L J K W O \  K L J K H U  D G M X V W P H Q W  W K D Q  5H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    G X H  W R  W K H  R X W U L J J H U  V X S S R U W V  )OH [ L E O H  V W U X F W X U D O  V \ V W H P  W K D W  F D Q  E H  U D L V H G  R U  O R Z H U H G  DV  U H T X L U H G  W R  E H V W  D F F R P P R G D W H  W K H  U H J X O D U  H E E  D Q G  IOR Z  R I  W K H  W L G H V  D Q G  V H D  O H Y H O  U L V H    6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    $' $  & R P S O L D Q F H  2S W L R Q  Z L O O  P L W L J D W H  P D Q \   E X W  Q R W  D O O   $ ' $  & R P S O L D Q F H  ,V V X H V  6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q    'H V L J Q  Z L O O  D G G U H VV  D O O  D S S O L F D E O H  $ ' $  & R P S O L D Q F H  UH J X O D W L R Q V  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    $Q W L F L S D W H G  ' H V L J Q  /LI H    W R     < H D U V  O L N H O \  J R Y H U Q H G  E \  H [ L V W L Q J  H O H P H Q W V  W R  UH P D L Q  L Q  V H U Y L F H    W R     < H D U V  O L N H O \  J R Y H U Q H G  E \  H [ L V W L Q J  H O H P H Q W V  W R  UH P D L Q  L Q  V H U Y L F H    6 O L J K W O \  K L J K H U  W K D Q  2 S W L R Q    G X H  W R  PR Y L Q J  Y H U W L F D O  V X S S R U W V  R X W E R D U G  R I  W K H  H [ L V W L Q J  ER D U G Z D O N  D Q G  D Z D \  I U R P  W K H  H [ L V W L Q J  G U D L Q D J H  FK D Q Q H O  W K D W  K D V  I R U P H G  E H O R Z  W K H  H [ L V W L Q J  E R D U G Z D O N     W R     < H D U V  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    $Q W L F L S D W H G  'X U D W L R Q   W R    \ H D U V  ' H V L J Q  D Q G  3 H U P L W W L Q J   W R    \ H D U V  & R Q V W U X F W L R Q  6D P H  D V  5 H K D E L O L W D W L R Q  2 S W L R Q     W R    \ H D U V  ' H V L J Q  D Q G  3 H U P L W W L Q J   W R    \ H D U V  & R Q V W U X F W L R Q  6D P H  D V  5 H S O D F H P H Q W  2 S W L R Q    $Q W L F L S D W H G  &R Q V W U X F W L R Q  & R V W V          W R                     W R                     W R                     W R             $Q W L F L S D W H G  6 R I W  &R V W V          W R           ' H V L J Q               a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ( Q Y L U R Q P H Q W D O  a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           & R Q V W   0 J P W     a     F R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ' H V L J Q               a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ( Q Y L U R Q P H Q W D O  a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           & R Q V W   0 J P W     a     F R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ' H V L J Q               a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ( Q Y L U R Q P H Q W D O  a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           & R Q V W   0 J P W     a     F R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ' H V L J Q               a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           ( Q Y L U R Q P H Q W D O  a     & R Q V W U X F W L R Q          W R           & R Q V W   0 J P W     a     F R Q V W U X F W L R Q  1 3 Recommendation/Conclusion: In general, both rehabilitation options discussed in the table above, rehabilitate the existing boardwalk structure along the existing alignment, and configuration, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. However, given the relatively high anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation and lower design life (due to the existing elements to remain), neither Rehabilitation Option is preferred over the Replacement Options presented in the table above and described in Chapter 6. In general, both replacement options discussed in the table above are similar in alignment, configuration and substructure type, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. Replacement Option 2, consisting of transverse timber decking on longitudinal timber stringers supported by transverse timber beams utilizes small superstructure elements that will be slightly easier to construct, maintain and lower in cost than Replacement Option 1. Replacement Option 1 more closely mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type (longitudinal timber deck planks supported directly on timber beams). Permanent steel screw anchors or timber piles with treated timber elements are proposed for foundation of the proposed boardwalk. However, the repeated wetting and drying cycle of the salt water tidal marsh can have a negative effect on the long term life cycle of the structure. Therefore, the foundation system shall be further investigated during the design phase of the project. Based on current conditions, the existing boardwalk would be flooded by a 100'year storm event (1% annual chance of exceedance). Given projected sea level rise, by 2030 the entire existing boardwalk would be flooded by only a 10'year storm event. This is an indication that the City should consider raising the deck level of the replacement boardwalk to reduce future flooding occurrences. Determining an appropriate accommodation for sea level rise shall be a focal point of the design development during the Final Design phase of the project and will be a combination of design engineering, public opinion, environmental considerations, acceptable risk, and anticipated closure frequency. The proposed boardwalk would have a design life of 50'75 years. 2 1 Chapter 2 – INTRODUCTION Purpose and Vicinity Map Purpose: The existing Baylands Boardwalk structure at the Lucy Evans Nature Center (2775 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303) is currently closed to the public due to deterioration of the existing structure. The City of Palo Alto is considering repair, rehabilitation and/or replacement of the boardwalk structure to reinstate public access into the popular Baylands marshlands. The Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study Project has the following stated primary objectives: 1. Perform structural assessment of the existing boardwalk structure. 2. Determine how to best repair, rehabilitate and/or replace the existing boardwalk to meet functional, structural, environmental and code requirements for short5term and long5term improvements. 3. Repair options will review the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near5term reopening (or partial reopening) of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long5term improvements. 4. Rehabilitation options will review the feasibility of making substantial repairs to the existing boardwalk structure to allow long5term public use of the existing/rehabilitated facility. 5. Replacement options will review the feasibility of replacing the existing boardwalk structure with a new boardwalk structure at the same location for long5term use by the public. Vicinity Map 3 1 Chapter 3 – Existing Structure and Constraints Existing Structure General Description: The Baylands has become one of the most important natural environments in the Bay Area. It is particularly rich in bird life boasting a large resident bird population as well as being a way point for many varieties of migratory birds. Over 150 species have been seen within the park boundaries. The Baylands not only attracts large numbers of birds, it also has many excellent spots for viewing them. Up until its recent closure, the Baylands Boardwalk was a favorite viewing location. The existing timber boardwalk structure extends roughly 850 feet north across the Harriet Mundy Marsh towards the San Francisco Bay from the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center and the San Francisquito Creek Trail. The existing boardwalk structure was constructed in 1969 and consisted of a 2’30” wide timber walkway (comprised of two 3x12x 203foot timber planks) with 3’36” high timber railings spaced 2’38” apart. The timber walkway was supported on timber bents spaced roughly 10’30” on center and comprised of timber 4x4 posts driven at roughly a 2½:12 batter into the wetland soil (length unknown) and reinforced with 1x4 timber cross bracing. At the south end, there was a small triangular entry platform at the connection to the nature center and at the northern end of the boardwalk by the bay, the boardwalk transitioned to a raised 103 foot by 183foot observation platform. The existing boardwalk structure was rehabilitated and widened by the City in 1980. Structure improvements included the following: ·The existing 850 foot boardwalk was widened to 4’30” wide by removing the existing timber railing and adding one additional 3x12x 203 foot timber plank on each side of the existing timber walkway supported by the existing timber substructure. New 3x10 fascia beams and 3’36” high timber railings with steel pickets at roughly 9” on center were also provided along the edge of the widened structure. 3 2 ·Two small intermediate overlooks roughly 3’30” by 10’30” were added approximately 2003feet from each end of the structure. Each overlook required the installation of two new vertical 4x4 posts driven into the existing wetlands soil (length unknown). The new posts were connected to the existing boardwalk substructure with a pair of new 2x6x 7’30” timber bent caps (which replace the existing 2x6x 4’30” timber bent caps on each side of the existing timber posts). A 3x12x 6’30” bench was provided at each overlook. Each overlook was sized to allow a 5’30” clearance to facilitate the turnaround of a wheelchair. ·At the north end, the existing observation platform was upgraded with new timber and steel railings similar to those installed along the length of the boardwalk. New 30’30” long steel pipe handrails were installed along the sloped boardwalk ramp leading up to the observation platform. ·At the south end, the existing boardwalk ramp was raised and lengthened by roughly 10 feet to provide an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramp slope of 1:12. New steel pipe handrails were added. 3 3 Structural Assessment: The existing boardwalk was closed in 2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. The driven timber posts and supports have gradually decayed over the years and broken due to the elements and impacts from the corrosive tidal saltwater. The once level boardwalk is now undulating along its surface and listing noticeably to the east in several locations due to failed substructure elements. Per discussions with City Parks and Recreation personnel, the staff has had to make numerous repairs over the years to maintain service including but not necessarily limited to installation of new timber posts and strong backs, replacement of damaged members, patching of damaged members and removal of uneven boards and other tripping hazards (record drawings of repairs were not available). A detailed two3day structural inspection of the boardwalk was performed on June 30, 2015 and July 1, 2015. The structural assessment of the existing boardwalk was performed utilizing a pre3prepared inspection checklist which included general conditions as well as specific concerns developed during review of the available project data. Field notes, photographs and observations were collected and compiled into a summary report titled “Structural Evaluation of Baylands Boardwalk 2775 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303.” The structure was assigned a condition rating in conformance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards. Preliminary field observations by the other design disciplines (Geotechnical, Hydraulic, Environmental and Biological) occurred concurrently with the structural assessment on June 30, 2015. Field investigations were visual in nature and did not include material sampling or testing. The general findings of the structural assessment report are as follows (refer to Attachment A for a summary plan of the general findings from the referenced structural assessment report): ·Superstructure: Overall the members that make up the Superstructure (Deck) of the boardwalk are in SERIOUS CONDITION exhibiting heavy weathering. The timber member’s exhibit splits, missing sections and are disconnected in several locations from the substructure due to corrosion of nails and bolts. Steel members forming the railing exhibit corrosion. Existing timber ledger beams supporting the guardrailings were split for the length of the structure. In addition, the damage to the substructure members has led to settlement and rotation of large segments of the superstructure. ·Substructure: Overall the Substructure of the boardwalk and its members are in SERIOUS CONDITION exhibiting heavy weathering. The posts and braces exhibit reduced sections and broken members along with splits throughout the timber members of the boardwalk. Steel plates, bolts and nails exhibit corrosion throughout. ·Overall: The structure is overall in SERIOUS CONDITION with several posts and braces either broken or exhibiting reduced sections. The superstructure deck planks exhibit splits, missing sections and corroded or missing nails throughout the boardwalk. In addition, the steel plates and bolts that connect the structural members exhibit corrosion at several locations. Finally, the damage described above to posts and braces has led to large segments of the boardwalk to settle and rotate. More specifically, the condition of the structure varied over its length with some portions being in FAIR or SATISFACTORY condition while other portions were In CRITICAL or IMMINENT FAILURE CONDITION. In general, the southernmost portion of the boardwalk adjacent to the Nature Center, including the first overlook platform, is in FAIR to SATISFACTORY condition (roughly Bents 60 to 87). The majority of the more severe deterioration, including broken and buckled posts, missing braces, severe section loss and significant warping and settlement of the boardwalk, is concentrated in the segment of the boardwalk on either side of the PG&E lines and catwalk (roughly Bents 33 to 59). The conditions of the remaining portions of the structure (roughly Bents 1 to 32) varied from bent to bent between POOR to SATISFACTORY CONDITION. Refer to Chapters 4, 5 & 6 respectively for a discussion of the various Repair, Rehabilitation and Replacement options considered as part of this Feasibility Study Report. 3 4 Existing Site/Constraints EXISTING SITE: Palo Alto’s stewardship of the Baylands began in 1921 with the modest purchase of 40 acres. Today the Baylands encompasses 1,940 acres. The park includes some of the last remaining salt marsh/ mudflat habitats on the West Coast. Unlike other Bay Area marshes, the plants within the Baylands have a mixed plant distribution rather than distinct plant zones with pickleweed and cordgrass habitats interspersed with the mudflats. Bird watching is a favorite pastime within the park with a large migratory bird population in the spring and fall. The area immediately adjacent to the Baylands Boardwalk includes the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, the Harriet Mundy Marsh, the Duck Pond and San Francisco Bay. The Lucy Evans Nature Center hosts a variety of public and school education programs year round. The Nature Center will also undergo rehabilitation under a separate contract concurrently with the Baylands Boardwalk Project. A pair of PG&E overhead transmission lines runs roughly east to west across the marsh land. These lines are supported by a series of steel towers which dot the landscape. PG&E owns and maintains the lines and towers from a small dilapidated timber catwalk running below the lines to each tower. The catwalk intersects the Baylands Boardwalk roughly mid3length with access controlled by a pair of locked gates. The Baylands Boardwalk project will be required to maintain permanent access to the catwalk. Environmental Conditions: The project site represents an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) for its entire length through the marsh land. The area is known to be home to several endangered species including the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and the Ridgeway’s Rail (formerly Clapper Rail). The environmental constraints and approval process will be a key driver in the feasibility design and ultimate construction of any planned repairs, rehabilitation and/or replacement of the boardwalk. It will be imperative that the structural design and environmental approval process be tightly integrated to avoid costly delays, constraints and mitigations to the project. Key biological drivers are summarized below: ·Ridgeway’s Rail: Suitable tidal marsh habitat for the Ridgeway’s Rail begins at the toe3of3slope adjacent to the Baylands Interpretive Center and extends to the observation platform at the terminus of the boardwalk. Thus, the entire Boardwalk Project is within the habitat for the Ridgeway’s Rail. Suitable breeding habitat for Ridgeway’s Rail generally needs to be avoided during the Ridgeway’s Rail breeding season from February 1 through August 31. If breeding Ridgeway’s Rails are determined to be present during these surveys, activities will be prohibited within 700 feet. This buffer requirement during the prolonged breeding season will pose a serious constraint to the available construction window. ·Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse: Suitable tidal marsh habitat for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse extends from the Baylands Interpretive Center to the observation platform at the terminus of the boardwalk. The harvest mouse is listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a “fully protected” species. Avoidance and minimization measures will be required to avoid killing or harming a harvest mouse during construction activities conducted in the pickleweed marsh. ·Nesting Swallows: The Baylands Interpretive Center supports a fairly large population of nesting swallows. The nesting season for these birds is generally March 15 to August 30, and CDFW requests a 300 foot setback during this period. 3 5 Based on the environmental and biological sensitivity of the site, regulatory permits will be required from multiple agencies, with the exact number dependent on the extent of the proposed rehabilitation or replacement construction activities. While the structural designs can be tailored to minimize direct impacts to the sensitive environment on the site, the construction operations for these two alternatives will still be environmentally significant enough to require permits from the agencies listed below: ·US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit ·Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification ·California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement ·US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 consultation ·San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit For the Repair Option, work could potentially be performed under existing regulations that allow for basic maintenance and repair of structures, provided the work is limited in nature and that the work can be performed without the need to have equipment or personnel physically in contact with the sensitive tidal marsh habitat (i.e. boots on ground). Therefore, any repair work would need to be designed to be constructed from the existing boardwalk structure with minimal noise, vibration or other impacts to the site biology. Refer to Chapters 4, 5 & 6 for additional discussion of the environmental coordination required for each alternative. Subsurface Conditions: The project site consists of marsh land overlaying medium stiff, highly compressible, highly plastic clays typically referred to as Bay Mud. The high compressibility of the Bay Muds results in a subsurface that is settling slowly under its own weight. This settlement is anticipated to continue for hundreds of years before equilibrium is reached. Ground water within the Baylands is typically present at shallow depths. Given the close proximity to the Bay, the surrounding water and soils are anticipated to be corrosive. The underlying Bay Muds have little capacity for supporting heavy loads. Therefore boardwalk foundations will either need to be designed as deep foundations that penetrate through the low strength Bay Muds or as shallow foundations supporting a flexible structure that can accommodate the anticipated long term and differential settlements at the site. Deep foundations are generally expensive to construct and require heavy equipment that is not compatible with the surrounding sensitive wetlands environment. Therefore, shallow foundations supporting a flexible structural system will be preferred to accommodate the long term settlement of the site. Lightweight materials should be considered for the boardwalk. Two primary foundation options have been proposed: ·Timber Piles: Shallow timber piles consisting of treated timber members (similar to existing configuration) that would be pushed and3or tapped into the soft bay soils utilizing relatively small motorized equipment (such as a Bobcat) that can be staged on the existing boardwalk. Over a period of time, the pushed/tapped timbers will “set” within the soils and gain additional strength suitable for supporting the anticipated loading over the life of the structure. ·Helical Screw Anchors: Helical steel anchors consist of steel shafts with helices, similar to a large screw that provides a foundation support for various types of structures. Helical screw anchors are often used when challenging soil conditions prohibit a traditional foundation system. Helical screw anchors can be installed with hand operated equipment (consisting primarily of a hand carried motor with a torque bar that can be braced against the existing foundations) that can be staged from the existing boardwalk. Helical anchors are “screwed” into the soil and do not generate spoils. They are also commonly used to correct and support existing foundations that have settled or failed. 3 6 One key driver in the selection of the foundation system is the corrosivity of the site. The repeated wetting and drying cycle of the salt water tidal marsh can have a negative effect on the long term life cycle of the structure. One key reason the existing boardwalk was closed to the public was the failure of the existing timber support system due to slow deterioration from the constant wetting/drying cycle prevalent in the salt water tidal marsh environment. Likewise, the tidal marsh environment has been harsh on the steel components of the boardwalk with existing steel brackets and railing showing signs of deterioration. Therefore, proper treatment and coating of the foundation elements will be a critical component in the final structure Type Selection. Biggs Cardosa Associates recommends that a Corrosion Specialist be included in the Design Team for the Final Design phase of the project. Hydraulic Conditions: The generally low and flat Baylands landscape is exposed to the regular ebb and flow of the Bay tides. Based on review of the Bay tide records at the Dumbarton Bridge and Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, the mean tides (long3term average of the astronomical tides) in general have a high of roughly 43feet above mean sea level and a low of roughly 3½ 3feet below mean sea level. The highest few tides in any year are also known as “king tides.” The water surface is also subject to the effects of storm surges and riverine discharges into San Francisco Bay and coupled with high tides can result in unusually high water. Per the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor tide data these storm events can be as high as 5.9 to 6.4 feet above mean sea level (El 9.50 NAVD for 10% annual chance of exceedance and 10.00 NAVD for 1% annual chance of exceedance respectively). In general, the existing mudflats at the site have established themselves just above the mean higher high tide and generally protect the structure from the most frequent tidal effects. However, due to shadowing effects of the boardwalk structure, vegetation doesn’t grow below the structure and a drainage channel has formed that channels tidal flows back and forth below the structure during the regular ebb and flow of the tides. This regular flow of water has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. Per discussions with City of Palo Alto staff, the height of the water extends above the top of the deck of the structure (typically at sag points where the foundation system has failed in the past) during some high tide events. This is evident based on the level of water damage to the structure noted during the structural field evaluation. Additionally, the mean sea levels have been slowly rising due to greenhouse gas emissions, accelerated land ice melt patterns and other climate effect. Projected sea level rise affecting the Baylands Boardwalk project has been interpolated from the 2012 National Research Council Report, “Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon and Washington: Past Present and Future” as adopted by the City and County of San Francisco for infrastructure planning. Anticipated sea level rise is on the order of 63inches (±2 inches) by 2030, 113inches (±4 inches) by 2050 and 363 inches (±10 inches) by 2100. Year Mean Sea Level (NAVD) 10.Year Storm SWL (NAVD) 100.Year Storm SWL (NAVD) 2000 3.58 9.50 10.00 2030 4.08 10.00 10.50 2050 4.50 10.42 10.92 2100 6.58 12.50 13.00 3 7 Based on an existing average boardwalk deck elevation ranging between 9.2 and 9.9 (NAVD) and an Interpretive Center Deck elevation of 13.0 (NAVD), the existing boardwalk would be flooded by a 1003 year storm event (1% annual chance of exceedance). Given projected sea level rise, by 2030 the entire existing boardwalk would be flooded by only a 103year storm event. This is an indication that the City should consider raising the deck level of the rehabilitated/replaced boardwalk to reduce future flooding occurrences. Determining an appropriate accommodation for sea level rise will be a focal point of the design development during the Final Design phase of the project and will be a combination of design engineering, public opinion, environmental considerations, acceptable risk, and anticipated closure frequency. Refer to Attachment B for “Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center” Access and ADA Constraints: The existing Baylands Boardwalk contains a variety of access compliance issues, several of them as a result of the original and widening designs, and a number of them stem from the structural issues described previously. The key access issues evaluated for the boardwalk include the following: ·Slopes: All slopes parallel with the path of travel shall either be flatter than 5% (Section 11B3403.3 of California Building Code (CBC), 2014) if no handrail is provided or flatter than 8.33% where handrails are provided (Section 1010.3 of CBC, 2014). Per the original design and widening plans the boardwalk was designed to be level for the majority of its length with a planned rise at the observation platform at the north end and a planned rise at the connection to the Nature Center at the southern end. At the north end, the roughly 1:10 existing slope exceeds the allowable ADA ramp slope of 1:12 and vertical ramp rises without an intermediate landing. At the south end, the roughly 3’38” vertical rise exceeds the allowable ramp rise without an intermediate landing. Additionally, with in the structurally failed portions of the boardwalk near the PG&E catwalk, the boardwalk slopes spike to as high as 21% which exceeds the code allowable slopes. ·Handrails: Handrails are required at all ramps (CBC Section 11B3505). The ramps at either end each contain an existing handrail, which are non3compliant. Although the existing handrails are continuous and unobstructed on their tops and sides (CBC 11B3505.5/6) and the circular cross section appears to meet code per CBC 11B3505.7.1, the rails are only roughly 26 inches above the ramp grade. Tops of handrails are required to be between 34 and 38 inches above grade (CBC 11B3 505.4). Additionally, each handrail must extend 1’30” minimum beyond the top and bottom of the ramp (CBC 505.10.1). The existing handrails do not extend beyond the top and bottom of the ramps. ·Guardrails: Guardrails are required wherever there is a vertical change of more than 30 inches between a walking surface and an adjacent surface (Section 1013.2). The boardwalk is elevated above the adjacent grade and is also located within a sensitive wetland habitat so a continuous guardrail is required. The existing guardrails are roughly 35 inches with roughly 9 inch wide openings between pickets. The code requires guardrails to be 42 inches (Section 1013.3) high and clear openings in the guardrails should not allow the passage of a 4 inch diameter sphere. ·Cross Slopes: The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not exceed a 1:48 (2%) gradient (Section 11B403.3). The cross slopes of the existing boardwalk where designed to be flat, however due to the structural issues, the structure has sagged and settled appreciably at locations producing existing cross slopes as high as 21%. ·Walking Surface: The walking surface of a pathway should be consistent and even. There should not be openings that allow passage of a sphere more than 1/2 inch (Section 11B3302.3) and vertical changes in elevation should not exceed 1/4 inch (without an edge treatment) or 1/2 inch (with a bevel). Due to wear and tear and structural settlement and shifting of the structure, the existing deck planks often exceed the code minimums. 3 8 ·Passing Spaces: The existing 48 inch boardwalk width meets the code required minimum accessible width of 36 inches (Section 11B3403.5.1). However, an accessible route with a clear width of less than 60 inches requires passing spaces at intervals of not greater than 200 feet (Section 11B3403.5.3). Although there are two such passing spaces provided at the overlook platforms, the passing spaces are located at intervals too far apart to meet code. ·Resting Areas: The boardwalk is required to have resting areas at least 60 inches in length, with a width at least as wide as the walk, at intervals no more than 400’ apart (Section 11B3403.7). The existing boardwalk does contain these required resting areas. Refer to Attachment C for “Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk/Access Compliance Evaluation” ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT: “The Baylands Nature Preserve is a distinctive landscape notable for openness and subtlety. Because of the shallow soils, brackish water, and persistent winds, the landscape is flat and treeless, defined by the expansive horizon— a big sky, flat water, and waving grasses. The natural color palette is a study in muted tones. This simple, serene landscape is a dramatic contrast, and a welcome respite, from the more complicated landscapes found in the Peninsula: bustling cities, rolling hills, and restless beaches.” 3 SITE ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve. The project will endeavor to maintain a low unobtrusive profile while accommodating for the high tides and providing for projected sea level rise. Project aesthetics will be guided by the principles found in the Design Guidelines including the use of “muted, natural colors” and “materials and finishes that will weather without degrading.” 4 1 Chapter 4 – REPAIR OPTIONS Repair Option Descriptions General: It is our understanding that there is strong public desire to reopen the structure as soon as practical. Repair options will review the feasibility of making minimal repairs to the existing boardwalk structure suitable to allow near term reopening of the structure to the public during design and permitting of potential long term improvements. Repair Option 1: General: Repair work could potentially be performed under existing regulations that allow for basic maintenance and repair of structures, provided the work is limited in nature and that the work can be performed without the need to have equipment or personnel physically in contact with the sensitive tidal marsh habitat (i.e. boots on ground). Therefore, any repair work would need to be designed to be constructed from the existing boardwalk structure with minimal noise, vibration or other impacts to the site’s biological resources. Therefore, the amount of work that can be accomplished to restore temporary limited use of the boardwalk while final designs (Rehabilitation or Replacement) are completed is very limited. Structure Repair: For Repair Option 1, we have limited the proposed repairs to occur only within the segment between the Nature Center and the first overlook platform (Bents 69 to 87) where the existing damage/deterioration is manageable. The existing damage beyond this point is too extensive to reasonably construct without environmental permits. The proposed repairs will be limited to the following: ·Repair Damaged Posts: Existing damaged timber posts with the potential to fail prior to ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the boardwalk will be strengthened. “Sister” members or strong backs will be provided to strengthen existing deteriorated areas. Effected bents include Bent 69, 70, 71 and 72. ·Replace Missing Braces: Missing timber cross braces will be replaced. Effected bents include Bent 75, 77, and 84. ·Replace Damaged Braces: Existing damaged timber cross braces with the potential to fail prior to ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the boardwalk will be replaced in kind. Effected bents include Bent 69, 70, 71 and 86. ·Replace Damaged Deck Planks: Existing damaged and misaligned timber deck planks will be replaced as needed to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. The affected planks will be swapped with better quality existing planks from the portion of the structure to remain closed to the public. 4 2 ·Remove and Reset Deck Planks: In order to complete the substructure work described above, the existing deck planks will need to be removed to provide access to the substructure elements requiring repair. Once repairs are complete, the deck planks will be reset to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. Existing damaged planks will be replaced as noted above. Site Constraints: The repair of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic and ADA compliance issues and constraints as follows: ·Constructability: With a little creativity, the work between Bents 69 and 87 described above, can be performed by the Contractor from the existing boardwalk structure only. This option presumes that the ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the structure will occur within 1 to 2 years of the completed repair work such that anticipated additional deterioration of structural elements not proposed for repair will not significantly degrade the integrity of the structure. The proposed repairs are limited in nature and scope and the size of the tools, equipment and materials required can all be hand carried. Access for the repair work will occur along the outside decking of the existing Nature Interpretive Center. Access inside the nature Interpretive Center will not be required. ·Environmental Compliance: Since the work is proposed to be performed from the existing boardwalk structure without the need for Contractor staff or equipment to be physically staged on the marshland surface, the limited repairs recommended for Repair Option 1 could be performed under existing regulations that allow for basic maintenance and repair of structures without the need for new permits. ·Geotechnical Issues: There will be no change to the existing conditions. ·Hydraulic Issues: There will be no change to the existing conditions. The repaired structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions. The repaired structure will experience the same frequency of overtopping of the low lying portions of the boardwalk; since these areas are not typically open to the public, the impacts are expected to be negligible. The repairs will not address sea level rise, however, since the repairs are anticipated to be a short term solution to allow public access during the design of the rehabilitation or replacement structure, the potential impacts are negligible. ·ADA Compliance: This option does not address the majority of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 2, and simply restores the existing structure to safe temporary public use (in its current configuration). The one noted upgrade would be that during the removal and resetting of the existing timber deck planks, the timber planks can be adjusted and realigned such that the walking surface is consistent and even within the parameters described in Chapter 2. The existing slopes, handrail, guardrail, cross slope, passing space and resting area issues noted in Chapter 2 would not be addressed until the ultimate rehabilitation or replacement of the structure. ·Design Life: Design life of the repair is limited to only 3 to 5 years and is intended to extend the life of the existing structure sufficiently to complete the design and construction of either the full rehabilitation or replacement options. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $30,000 to $40,000 or roughly $40 to $51 per square foot of repaired structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 20% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 30% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: materials selection, finishes, construction work windows, construction access, supplemental repairs, small size of project, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include structural items of work for the repaired boardwalk structure only. Other non structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. 4 3 Repair Option 2: General: The alternative to Repair Option 1 is to do nothing and keep the boardwalk closed until it can be fully rehabilitated (see Chapter 4) or replaced (see Chapter 5). Given the significant anticipated cost and environmental clearance and permitting efforts to perform boardwalk repairs beyond what was outlined in Repair Option 1, the leading alternative to Option 1 is to stay the course and leave the boardwalk closed until the rehabilitation or replacement design can be completed and approved by the various environmental agencies. 5 1 Chapter 5 – REHABILITATION OPTIONS Rehabilitation Option Descriptions General: As noted in Chapter 3, the existing structure is in overall SERIOUS CONDITION with a variety of structural damage and deterioration throughout which requires correction. The rehabilitation work is anticipated to be labor intensive and have a design life less than that of the replacement option. Additionally, the existing boardwalk does not meet current Access and ADA requirements throughout its length. Depending on the desires of the City, the rehabilitation option can address all, some or none of the existing ADA issues with their associated risks/liabilities to the City. At a minimum, new railings are anticipated to be provided. Boardwalk walkway width will remain 4’,0”. Correcting the structural and ADA issues will represent the lion’s share of the rehabilitation costs and complexity. The Rehabilitation Options are also likely to have greater maintenance requirements than the Replacement Option. Also, the City may elect to raise the walking surface of the existing boardwalk to accommodate for King Tides and projected sea level rise further complicating the structure rehabilitation design and increasing project costs. Lastly, all proposed rehabilitations will need to be acceptable to the various regulatory agencies involved. Rehabilitation Option 1: General: This option essentially reconstructs the existing boardwalk in its existing configuration and alignment. Rehabilitation Option 1 utilizes temporary screw anchors to temporarily support the structure while failed timber posts are replaced. The structure will be leveled and plumbed during this process to provide a consistent and even walkway within the parameters described in Chapter 3. Structure Rehabilitation: The proposed structure rehabilitations will include the following: ·Temporary Supports: Temporary screw anchors, coupled with a temporary jacking beam, will be installed near the center of the existing structure at each bent to provide a jacking platform to temporarily support the existing structure while the substructure is reinforced and rehabilitated. The temporary screw anchors will also be used to level and plumb each bent to provide a consistent and even walkway surface. ·Install New Posts: A large percentage of the existing posts are either broken, buckled or have severe section loss. These posts will be reinforced with a new “sister” post that is pushed/driven into place adjacent to the existing post. The new and existing posts will be connected to act in unison to support the rehabilitated structure. ·Repair Existing Posts: Roughly 25% of the Bents have at least one post that is either split or notched. These posts will be rehabilitated with either a stich plate or strong back as applicable. ·Replace Missing and Damaged Braces: Missing timber cross braces will be replaced. Additionally, both existing braces at locations where new posts are installed will be replaced to improve the lateral support of the rehabilitated substructure. Existing damaged timber cross braces will be replaced in kind. 5 2 ·Remove and Reset Deck Planks: In order to complete the substructure work described above, the existing deck planks will need to be removed to provide access to the substructure elements being rehabilitated. Once the substructure rehabilitations are complete, the deck planks will be reset to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. Existing damaged planks will be replaced. ·Remove and Replace Guardrailing: In order to meet ADA safety requirements, the existing guardrailing and edger beams will be replaced with taller railings with tighter pickets which meet the requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Raising the structure using this system is feasible but will be labor intensive and expensive. If the structure is to be raised beyond the few inches required to level and align the structure, then every bent will need to be retrofitted. For a minor increase in structure elevation, a new deeper timber cap beam could be installed to provide a few additional inches in structure height. For more significant changes in elevation, new posts would need to be installed at all bents (not just at select bents) along with new timber cap beams and cross bracing as required. Site Constraints: The rehabilitation of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: ·Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing structure to minimize environmental impacts and facilitate the permitting process. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk rehabilitation. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. ·Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. ·Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the timber posts and temporary screw anchors. Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program. ·Hydraulic Issues: There will be no significant change to the existing conditions. The rehabilitated structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions. The rehabilitated structure will restore the existing low lying portions of the boardwalk such that the frequency of overtopping the boardwalk deck should be reduced considerably. The rehabilitated structure does not address sea level rise, therefore there is a potential for the frequency of overtopping to increase in the future with the change in sea level elevation. With significant effort and cost, the existing structure could also be raised as part of the structure rehabilitation to address future sea level rise. 5 3 ·ADA Compliance: This option addresses some, but not all, of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. Jacking and realigning of the structure with the temporary supports will eliminate the slope and cross slope issues caused by the previous structural failures. It will also accommodate adjustment and realignment of the walking surface such that it is consistent and even within the parameters described in Chapter 3. The existing guardrails and handrails will be replaced to meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 3. The existing passing space and resting area issues noted in Chapter 3 would not be addressed in the baseline rehabilitation option. Suitable passing spaces and rest areas could be retrofitted into the rehabilitated structure for additional cost if desired by the City. ·Design Life: Design life of the rehabilitated structure is anticipated to be on the order of 25 to 50 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. Maintenance requirements for the rehabilitated structure are anticipated to be roughly equivalent to that of the existing structure since many of the existing components will remain as part of the rehabilitated structure. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $860,000 to $1,030,000 or roughly $210 to $252 per square foot of rehabilitated structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 20% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, inclusion of passing zones, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include structural items of work for the rehabilitated boardwalk structure only. Other non,structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $214,000 to $257,000 Design (~25%) $129,000 to $154,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $171,000 to $205,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Rehabilitation Option 2: General: This option reconstructs the existing boardwalk in its existing configuration and alignment and provides a new vertical support system outboard of the existing walkway. New permanent screw anchors are used to provide the permanent structural support while the existing timber posts and rehabilitated cross bracing provide lateral restraint. The structure will be leveled and plumbed during this process to provide a consistent and even walkway within the parameters described in Chapter 3. 5 4 Structure Rehabilitation: The proposed structure rehabilitations will include the following: ·Install Screw Anchors: Permanent screw anchors will be installed outboard of the existing boardwalk footprint. By locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors can be installed from the existing walkway minimizing marshland disturbance. The outboard location also provides additional protection to the foundations by keeping the anchors outside of the area below the structure that is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The lack of vegetation has led to the formation of a drainage channel below the structure which allows for the regular ebb and flow of tidal water beneath the structure which has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. The permanent screw anchors will also be used to level and plumb each bent to provide a consistent and even walkway surface. ·Install New Cap Beam: Remove the existing timber cap beam and install a new timber cap beam. The new timber cap beam will be deeper than the existing beam since the span length has increased since the vertical supports have been relocated outboard of the existing structure. ·Repair Existing Bents: The existing timber bents will provide lateral resistance for the rehabilitated structure. Timber posts and braces will be rehabilitated or replaced. Roughly 25% of the Bents have at least one timber post that is either split or notched. These posts will be rehabilitated with either a stich plate or strong back as applicable. Roughly 50% of the Bents have at least one timber post that is either broken, buckled or has severe section loss. At these bents the existing timber bent will be abandoned and a new inclined steel screw anchor brace will be installed to provide the necessary lateral resistance. The existing timber braces will be removed and replaced in kind with new braces at each of the timber bents to remain (roughly 50%). ·Remove and Reset Deck Planks: In order to complete the substructure work described above, the existing deck planks will need to be removed to provide access to the substructure elements being rehabilitated. Once the substructure rehabilitations are complete, the deck planks will be reset to provide a consistent and relatively even walking surface. Existing damaged planks will be replaced. ·Remove and Replace Guardrailing: In order to meet ADA safety requirements, the existing guardrailing and edger beams will be replaced with taller railings with tighter pickets which meet the requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Raising the structure using this system is feasible but will be labor intensive and expensive. If the structure is to be raised beyond the few inches required to level and align the structure then the existing timber substructure system will be abandoned at each bent. An inclined screw anchor will be required at each bent to provide lateral stability (formerly provided by the timber substructure). Site Constraints: The rehabilitation of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: ·Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing 5 5 structure to minimize environmental impacts and aid in the permitting process. Timber piles could be installed in lieu of the screw anchors if desired for aesthetic reasons. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk rehabilitation. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. ·Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. ·Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the timber posts and temporary screw anchors. Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program. ·Hydraulic Issues: While the rehabilitated structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions, by locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors are anticipated to experience less deterioration and undermining, since the screw anchors are located outside of the drainage channel that was formed below the structure where it is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The rehabilitated structure does not address sea level rise, therefore there is a potential for the frequency of overtopping to increase in the future with the change in sea level elevation. With additional effort and cost, the existing structure could also be raised as part of the structure rehabilitation to address future sea level rise. ·ADA Compliance: This option address some, but not all, of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. Leveling and realigning of the structure with the outboard screw anchors will eliminate the slope and cross slope issues caused by the previous structural failures. It will also accommodate adjustment and realignment of the walking surface such that it is consistent and even within the parameters described in Chapter 3. The existing guardrails and handrails will be replaced to meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 3. The existing passing space and resting area issues noted in Chapter 3 would not be addressed in the baseline rehabilitation option. Suitable passing spaces and rest areas could be retrofitted into the rehabilitated structure for additional cost if desired by the City. ·Design Life: Design life of the rehabilitated structure is anticipated to be on the order of 30 to 60 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. Maintenance requirements for the rehabilitated structure are anticipated to be slightly less than that of the existing structure since the vertical supports have been shifted outboard of the existing drainage channel located below the structure, thereby reducing the frequency of wetting and drying and anticipated erosion. 5 6 Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $870,000 to $1,050,000 or roughly $214 to $256 per square foot of rehabilitated structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 20% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, inclusion of passing zones, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include structural items of work for the rehabilitated boardwalk structure only. Other non,structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Based on Caltrans estimating guidelines and practices, soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $218,000 to $261,000 Design (~25%) $131,000 to $157,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $174,000 to $209,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Summary: In general, both rehabilitation concepts discussed above rehabilitate the existing boardwalk structure along the existing alignment, and configuration, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. However, given the relatively high anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation to minimize flooding and lower design life (due to the existing elements to remain), neither Rehabilitation Option is preferred over the Replacement Options noted in Chapter 6. Criteria Rehabilitation Option 1 Rehabilitation Option 2 Superstructure Type Longitudinal Timber Deck Plank (Match existing) Longitudinal Timber Deck Plank (Match Existing) Substructure Type Timber bent caps supported on timber piles/posts (Match existing). Timber bent caps supported on steel screw anchors located outboard of the boardwalk decking to improve design life. Boardwalk Width 4’,0” (match existing) 4’,0” (match existing) Constructability Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Environmental Compliance Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Geotechnical Issues Matches existing structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement and corrosion issues. Flexible structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement. Proposed shallow steel helical anchor foundation systems 5 7 located outboard of the existing boardwalk decking for vertical support and to improve design life. Hydraulic Issues Matches existing structure type and configuration. Can only accommodate a small adjustment in deck elevation to accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. Matches existing structure type and configuration. Can only accommodate a modest adjustment in deck elevation to accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. ADA Compliance Option will mitigate many, but not all, ADA Compliance Issues Option will mitigate many, but not all, ADA Compliance Issues Anticipated Design Life 25 to 50 Years (likely governed by existing elements to remain in service) 30 to 60 Years (likely governed by existing elements to remain in service). Slightly higher than Option 1 due to moving vertical supports outboard of the existing boardwalk and away from the existing drainage channel that has formed below the existing boardwalk. Anticipated Duration 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) Anticipated Construction Costs $860,000 to $1,030,000 $870,000 to $1,050,000 Anticipated Soft Costs $214,000 to $257,000 Design (~25% Construction) $129,000 to $154,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $171,000 to $205,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) $218,000 to $261,000 Design (~25% Construction) $131,000 to $157,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $174,000 to $209,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) 6 1 Chapter 6 – REPLACEMENT OPTIONS Replacement Option Descriptions General: As noted in Chapter 3, the existing structure is in overall SERIOUS CONDITION with a variety of structural damage and deterioration throughout which requires correction. The replacement work is anticipated to provide the following benefits to the City: ·Most flexible structural system. While the structure will be limited to being replaced along the same alignment as the existing structure, the replacement structure will not be constrained to the existing span lengths, width or structural system as the existing structure. ·Corrects ADA compliance issues. The replacement structure can be readily designed to address all existing access and ADA compliance issues. ·Accommodates sea level rise. The profile of the replacement structure can be set to accommodate king tides and projected sea level rise. ·Minimize environmental impacts. The replacement structure can be designed to utilize the existing structure as a working platform for the boardwalk replacement minimizing impacts to the marshland. ·Increased design life and reduced maintenance costs. Utilizing all new components and thoughtful selection of materials and finishes will lead to a longer design life and reduced maintenance costs over the duration of that design life. Replacement Option 1: General: This option replaces the existing boardwalk along its existing alignment. The structure is proposed to be widened by 1’00” to provide a total clear walkway width of 5’00”. Permanent steel screw anchors are proposed for vertical support and lateral restraint of the structure. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. The decking is proposed to consist of longitudinal timber planks similar to the existing system. Structure Replacement: The proposed structure replacement will include the following: ·Install Screw Anchors: Permanent screw anchors will be installed outboard of the existing boardwalk footprint. By locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors can be installed from the existing walkway minimizing marshland disturbance. The outboard location also provides additional protection to the foundations by keeping the anchors outside of the area below the structure that is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The lack of vegetation has led to the formation of a drainage channel below the structure which allows for the regular ebb and flow of tidal water beneath the structure which has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. Inclined steel screw anchor braces will be installed to provide the necessary lateral stiffness to the system. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. Ultimately the final selection of the substructure system will depend on the corrosivity of the soils, the ability to effectively protect the steel or timber elements and the acceptability of the corrosion protection measures by the regulatory agencies. 6 2 ·Install New Cap Beam: Install a new timber cap beam to span between the new supports. The new timber cap beam will be deeper than the existing beam since the span length has increased since the vertical supports have been relocated outboard of the existing structure. ·Install Deck Planks: Install new longitudinal timber deck planks to span between the adjacent bents. Transverse ribbing/stiffeners will be provided in each span to tie the deck planks together so that the system deflects uniformly to maintain a consistent and even walking surface. ·Install Guardrailing: Install new timber and steel guardrailing that meets the ADA safety requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Site Constraints: The replacement of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: ·Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing structure to minimize environmental impacts and facilitate the permitting process. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk replacement. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. ·Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. ·Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the screw anchors (or timber posts). Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program to ensure appropriate corrosion protection is provided. ·Hydraulic Issues: While the replacement structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions, by locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors are anticipated to experience less deterioration and undermining, since the screw anchors are located outside of the drainage channel that was formed below the structure where it is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The replacement structure profile will be set to accommodate sea level rise. ·ADA Compliance: This option will address all of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. The new structure will be constructed so that the slope, cross slope and walking surface requirements are met. The widening of the structure to 5’00” will eliminate the need to provide passing spaces at 200 foot intervals. Resting areas will be provided at intervals of less than 400 feet. ADA appropriate guardrails and handrails will be provided. 6 3 ·Design Life: Design life of the replacement structure is anticipated to be on the order of 50 to 75 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. The maintenance requirements for the replacement structure are anticipated to be reduced from that of the existing structure (and Rehabilitation Options) since all the boardwalk elements will consist of new materials constructed to current standards. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $910,000 to $1,140,000 or roughly $183 to $229 per square foot of replacement structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 25% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, final boardwalk width, inclusion of passing zones, final observation platform/overlook size, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include removal of the existing boardwalk and structural items of work for the new boardwalk structure only. Other non0structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $227,000 to $284,000 Design (~25%) $137,000 to $171,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $182,000 to $227,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Replacement Option 2: General: This option replaces the existing boardwalk along its existing alignment. The structure is proposed to be widened by 1’00” to provide a total clear walkway width of 5’00”. Permanent steel screw anchors are proposed for vertical support and lateral restraint of the structure. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. The superstructure is proposed to consist of longitudinal stringers between bents with transverse timber decking. Structure Replacement: The proposed structure replacement will include the following: ·Install Screw Anchors: Permanent screw anchors will be installed outboard of the existing boardwalk footprint. By locating the new anchors outboard of the existing boardwalk, the screw anchors can be installed from the existing walkway minimizing marshland disturbance. The 6 4 outboard location also provides additional protection to the foundations by keeping the anchors outside of the area below the structure that is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The lack of vegetation has led to the formation of a drainage channel below the structure which allows for the regular ebb and flow of tidal water beneath the structure which has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the existing boardwalk foundation system. Inclined steel screw anchor braces will be installed to provide the necessary lateral stiffness to the system. Alternatively, timber piles/posts and timber cross bracing can be utilized in lieu of the steel screw anchors. Ultimately the final selection of the substructure system will depend on the corrosivity of the soils, the ability to effectively protect the steel or timber elements and the acceptability of the corrosion protection measures by the regulatory agencies. ·Install New Cap Beam: Install a new timber cap beam to span between the new supports. The new timber cap beam will be deeper than the existing beam since the span length has increased since the vertical supports have been relocated outboard of the existing structure. ·Install Timber Superstructure: Install new longitudinal timber stringers to span between the adjacent bents. The stringers will be capped with transverse timber decking to provide the walking surface. Since the timber decking has a much shorter span length, thinner members can be used. Also since the members are smaller than that required for longitudinal planks, a variety of timber species are available for use including engineered plastic lumber alternatives. ·Install Guardrailing: Install new timber and steel guardrailing that meets the ADA safety requirements discussed in Chapter 3. Site Constraints: The replacement of the existing structure will address the key constructability, environmental, geotechnical, hydraulic, ADA compliance and design life issues and constraints as follows: ·Constructability: The work will be limited to light weight equipment that can access the site via the existing boardwalk structure. The Contractor may need to temporarily strengthen the most deteriorated portions of the boardwalk to accommodate their equipment. Contractor personnel are assumed to be able to access the marshland within roughly the footprint of the existing structure to minimize environmental impacts and facilitate the permitting process. Access through the newly renovated Nature Center will not be practical for the boardwalk replacement. While workers and hand held tools, equipment and materials can access the construction via the outside decking of the Nature Center when not in use, larger equipment will likely be required to access the work zone via temporary marsh mats. Short term versus longer term temporary use of the marsh mats will need to be coordinated with the regulatory agencies to determine the level of constraints and mitigation that will be required for both options. Construction work windows are highly constrained due to the nesting seasons of the Ridgeway’s Rail (Feb to Aug) and Swallows (Mar to Aug) with construction durations dependent upon whether nesting pairs are identified within the project limits during the preconstruction surveys. While the Contractor will be motivated to complete the work within one construction season, the work window constraints may require two seasons to construct. ·Environmental Compliance: Early environmental compliance coordination with the various regulatory agencies will be required to gain consensus and streamline the permitting process. Permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) are anticipated to be required. ·Geotechnical Issues: A geotechnical field boring program will be required during the Design Phase of the project to confirm geotechnical design parameters and to determine the appropriate embedment of the screw anchors (or timber posts). Corrosivity sampling and testing should also be included in the field and lab program to ensure appropriate corrosion protection is provided. ·Hydraulic Issues: While the replacement structure will experience the same tides and frequency of wet and dry cycles as under the existing conditions, by locating the new anchors outboard of the 6 5 existing boardwalk, the screw anchors are anticipated to experience less deterioration and undermining, since the screw anchors are located outside of the drainage channel that was formed below the structure where it is devoid of vegetation due to shadowing effects. The replacement structure profile will be set to accommodate sea level rise. ·ADA Compliance: This option will address all of the existing ADA issues noted in Chapter 3. The new structure will be constructed so that the slope, cross slope and walking surface requirements are met. The widening of the structure to 5’00” will eliminate the need to provide passing spaces at 200 foot intervals. Resting areas will be provided at intervals of less than 400 feet. ADA appropriate guardrails and handrails will be provided. ·Design Life: Design life of the replacement structure is anticipated to be on the order of 50 to 75 years. The existing boardwalk was roughly 46 years old at the time of closure to the public. Ultimate design life will be a function of many variables including material selection, construction quality, biological impacts, hydraulic impacts and quality and frequency of regular maintenance activities. The maintenance requirements for the replacement structure are anticipated to be reduced from that of the existing structure (and Rehabilitation Options) since all the boardwalk elements will consist of new materials constructed to current standards. Anticipated Construction Costs: The preliminary estimate of probable construction costs is $890,000 to $1,110,000 or roughly $180 to $224 per square foot of replacement structure. Refer to Attachment D for preliminary cost estimates. The above costs are based on past project experience and readily available industry cost data at time of report preparation. The estimates include 10% mobilization, a 25% contingency and a 15% premium for difficult site constraints and environmental restrictions. An escalation factor of 25% has been included to reflect various factors affecting the potential final cost of the alternatives which will be further defined during Phase 2 – Final Design, including: final boardwalk height, final boardwalk width, inclusion of passing zones, final observation platform/overlook size, materials selection, finishes and aesthetic enhancements, construction work windows, construction access, etc. This escalation factor reflects the difference in the higher and lower projected cost range. Estimated costs include removal of the existing boardwalk and structural items of work for the new boardwalk structure only. Other non0structural, incidental work items, such as handrailing, signage, etc., are reflected in the noted contingency and escalation factor. Soft costs associated with the design, environmental coordination and construction management for deigns of this magnitude and complexity are anticipated as follows: $223,000 to $279,000 Design (~25%) $134,000 to $167,000 Environmental Compliance (~15%) $179,000 to $223,000 Construction Management & Support (~20%) Replacement Option 3: General: A third replacement concept was reviewed based on interest from the public during the public meeting held for the project at the Lucy Evans Nature Center on September 30, 2015. This option proposed to replace the existing boardwalk structure with a floating boardwalk that could rise and fall with the ebb and flow of the tide during high tide events. The primary benefits would be the ability to keep the structure open during all but the worst storm events. However, ultimately this concept was abandoned due to significant ADA compliance challenges associated with a segmented, flexible, moving structure as well as potentially significant objections from the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction on the project. 6 6 Summary: In general, both Replacement Options 1 and 2 are similar in alignment, configuration and substructure type, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. Replacement Option 2, consisting of transverse timber decking on longitudinal timber stringers supported by transverse timber bent caps, utilizes small superstructure elements that will be slightly easier to construct and slightly lower in cost than Replacement Option 1, which more closely mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type (longitudinal timber deck planks supported on transverse timber bent caps). Based on the findings of the Feasibility Study both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. Criteria Replacement Option 1 Replacement Option 2 Superstructure Type Longitudinal Timber Deck Plank Transverse Timber Decking on Longitudinal Timber stringers Substructure Type Timber bent caps supported on steel screw anchors or timber piles/posts located outboard of the boardwalk decking to improve design life. Timber bent caps supported on steel screw anchors or timber piles/posts located outboard of the boardwalk decking to improve design life. Boardwalk Width 5’00” assumed (subject to regulatory agency approval) 5’00” assumed (subject to regulatory agency approval) Constructability Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Use existing boardwalk as a temporary work platform. Provide equipment access via temporary marsh mats around nature center. Environmental Compliance Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Permits anticipated to be required from: USACE, RWQCB, CDFW, USFWS, BCDC Geotechnical Issues Flexible structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement. Proposed shallow pile/anchor foundation systems include: Alt 1: Steel Helical Screw Anchors Alt 2: Timber Piles/Posts Flexible structural system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement. Proposed shallow pile/anchor foundation systems include: Alt 1: Steel Helical Screw Anchors Alt 2: Timber Piles/Posts Hydraulic Issues Flexible structural system that can be raised or lowered as required to best accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. Flexible structural system that can be raised or lowered as required to best accommodate the regular ebb and flow of the tides and sea level rise. ADA Compliance Design will address all applicable ADA Compliance regulations Design will address all applicable ADA Compliance regulations Anticipated Design Life 50 to 75 Years 50 to 75 Years Anticipated Duration 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) 1 to 2 years (Design and Permitting) 1 to 2 years (Construction) Anticipated Construction Costs $910,000 to $1,140,000 $890,000 to $1,110,000 Anticipated Soft Costs $227,000 to $284,000 Design (~25% Construction) $137,000 to $171,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $182,000 to $227,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) $223,000 to $279,000 Design (~25% Construction) $134,000 to $167,000 Environmental (~15% Construction) $179,000 to $223,000 Const. Mgmt. (~20% construction) 7 1 Chapter 7 – CONCLUSIONS Short Term Repair: Prior to completion of the final Feasibility Study, the City completed maintenance repairs sufficient to reopen a portion of the structure (roughly 200 feet between the existing Nature center and the first overlook platform) based on the recommendations contained in the draft Feasibility Study Report. Long Term Rehabilitation/ Replacement: In general, both rehabilitation concepts discussed in Chapter 5 rehabilitate the existing boardwalk structure along the existing alignment, and configuration, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. However, given the relatively high anticipated costs, ADA compliance challenges, reduced flexibility to adjust boardwalk elevation and width and lower design life (due to the existing elements to remain), neither Rehabilitation Option is preferred over the Replacement Options noted in Chapter 6. In general, both replacement concepts discussed are similar in alignment, configuration and substructure type, and both options are feasible for the project site and constraints. Both replacement options have flexible structural systems which can be refined during final design to accommodate adjustments to the boardwalk, elevation, width, and anticipated long term settlement of the site. Replacement Option 2, consisting of transverse timber decking on longitudinal timber stringers supported by transverse timber bent caps, utilizes small superstructure elements that will be slightly easier to construct, maintain, and will be lower in cost than Replacement Option 1, which more closely mirrors the existing boardwalk structure type (longitudinal timber deck planks supported on transverse timber bent caps). Attachment A. Summary Plan of Structural Assessment Report Findings (2”x1’-8”)(7”x5’-0”)(2”x6”)(3”x1’-8”)(settlement along East side of boardwalk) (settlement along East side of boardwalk)(6”x4’-0”)(3”x1’-8”) (3”x2’-0”) (1’-1”x1’-6”)E LEGEND: I) SUBSTRUCTURE DAMAGE GIRDERS: SPLITS/NOTCH HOLES POSTS: BROKEN/BUCKLED POSTS: REDUCED CROSS-SECTION (SECTION LOSS) POSTS: SPLITS/NOTCH HOLES BRACES: MISSING/BROKEN BRACES: REDUCED CROSS-SECTION (SECTION LOSS)/DISCONNECTED BRACES: SPLITS/NOTCH HOLES HARDWARE CONNECTIONS:CORROSION OF STEEL CONNECTION PLATES/BOLTS/NAILS II) SUPERSTRUCTURE (DECK) DAMAGE DAMAGE OBSERVED THROUGHOUT SUPERSTRUCTURE: ƒGAPS BETWEEN DECK PLANKS EXCEEDING 1” ƒUNEVEN DECK PLANKS CREATING TRIPPING HAZARDS ƒNAILS CONNECTING DECK PLANKS TO BOARDWALK SUBSTRUCTURE EXHIBITING CORROSION ƒSTEEL RAILING PICKETS EXHIBITING CORROSION ƒBROKEN 3X10 FASCIA BEAMS AT BASE OF RAILING DUE TO CORRODED STEEL RAILING PICKETS ƒDECK PLANKS EXHIBIT DISCOLORATION AND SURFACE CRACKS DUE TO WATER DAMAGE ƒTOP OF RAILING OUT OF ALIGNMENT VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALY THROUGHOUT LENGTH OF STRUCTURE LOCALIZED DAMAGE: SETTLEMENT AND WARPING OF BOARDWALK STRUCTURE SETTLEMENT OF BOARDWALK STRUCTURE SECTIONS OF DECK PLANKS MISSING LOOSE DECK PLANKS DUE TO CORRODED NAILS GAPS BETWEEN EDGE DECK PLANKS AND RAILING EXCEEDING 3” SPLITS THROUGHOUT LENGTH OF DECK PLANKS VEGETATION PARTIALLY COVERING BOARDWALK C B A1 F E D TYPICAL BOARDWALK CROSS-SECTION (E) BOLTS (E) 1X4 BRACE 4’-0” +/- 3’- 6 ” + / - VA R I E S (E) 3X6 (E) 2” O PIPE (E) 3X12 PLANKS (E) 3X10 FASCIA (E) PLATE CONNECTION PL’s (E) 2-2X6 GIRDER (E) 4X4 POST (E) NAILSTOP OF GRADE (VARIES) E B B C C F E C E C C C C C CE E E E E EDBBBBBB A2 A2A1A1 11 Attachment B. Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center Schaaf & Wheeler Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony Notaro, P.E. Biggs Cardosa DATE: July 7, 2015 FROM: Charles D. Anderson, P.E. JOB#: BCAX.35.15 SUBJECT: Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center This memorandum documents our research into tidal hydrology at the City of Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center. The City plans to repair, rehabilitate and/or replace a boardwalk and observation platform at the Baylands Nature Interpretive Center. Site Location and Exposure to Tides The Baylands Nature Interpretive Center is located at the end of Embarcadero Road off the San Francisquito Creek Trail, as depicted in Figure 1. This area is part of the San Francisco Bay’s marsh land and as such, is directly exposed to inundation from Bay tides. Based on calculations for the relative celestial positions of the sun, moon and earth, it is possible to predict tides for any day of the year at any time of day. Astronomic tides, created by the gravitational forces of the moon and sun acting on earth’s oceans, are provided in tide prediction calendars. The mean tide cycle is simply the long-term average of astronomic tides. Observed tides, on the other hand, are the actual recorded tidal elevations and include the effects of tides, storm surges and riverine discharges into San Francisco Bay. The highest few tides in any year are also known as “king tides,” but there is no scientific basis for these. 1171 Homestead Road., Suite 255 Santa Clara, CA 95050-5485 t. 408-246-4848 f. 408-246-5624 s&w@swsv.com Figure 1. Site Location Relative to Open San Francisco Bay Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 2 Tides at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Fortunately the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains a tide gage at the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, immediately adjacent to the Baylands Interpretive Center. Tides of interest at the Yacht Harbor are indicated in Table 1 and Figure 2 for consideration in the challenges faced when planning and designing improvements in the Baylands Center. (Note that tides at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor are slightly higher than commensurate tides at Dumbarton Bridge, when adjusted for local datums.) Table 1. Tides at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Tide1 Elevation (feet MLLW) Elevation (feet NAVD) One-percent chance2 (100-year) TWL 12.19 12.00 One-percent chance2 (100-year) SWL 10.19 10.00 Ten-percent chance3 (10-year) SWL 9.69 9.50 Mean Higher High (MHHW) 7.61 7.42 Mean High (MHW) 6.99 6.80 Mean Sea Level (MSL) 3.77 3.58 Mean Low (MLW) 0.77 0.58 Mean Lower Low (MLLW) 0.00 -0.19 1. Tide levels described subsequently. Epoch data collected from NOAA website at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/Tidal_Elevation/diagram.jsp?PID=HT1274&EPOCH=1983-2001 2. Preliminary FEMA Coastal Hazard Map for Santa Clara County (2015) 3. USACE San Francisco Bay Tidal Stage vs. Frequency Study (1984); adjusted per reference (2) Figure 2. Tidal Datum at Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 3 Depth of Tidal Inundation The elevations of mean tides and extreme event tides listed in Table 2 can be related to the site as depths, by subtracting ground elevations. Based on the USGS San Francisco Coastal LiDAR data set (2010), average ground elevations at the site are roughly 7.8 feet NAVD, the average boardwalk elevation ranges from 9.2 feet NAVD to 9.9 feet NAVD and both the interpretive center building deck and observation deck elevations are roughly 13 feet NAVD. Figure 3 shows a raster image of the LiDAR data for the mud flats in the vicinity of the Baylands boardwalk. Figure 3. Rastor Image of LiDAR Data near Baylands Interpretive Center Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 4 Tide elevations from Table 1 are converted to depths above the mudflat in Table 2, using the data processed from Figure 3. Once the difference in elevation between the boardwalk in its existing condition and the mudflat are known from the recent field reconnaissance, the potential for inundation under various tides can be calculated at locations of interest. For the most part, the tidal mudflat has established itself just above the mean higher high tide (given the accuracy of the LiDAR data), which makes geomorphologic sense. The different tides are defined below. Table 2. Tidal Inundation of Mudflat near Baylands Interpretive Center Tide Elevation (feet NAVD) Depth (feet) One-percent chance (100-year) SWL 10.00 2.2 Ten-percent chance (10-year) SWL 9.50 1.7 Mean Higher High (MHHW) 7.42 no inundation Mean High (MHW) 6.80 no inundation Mean Sea Level (MSL) 3.58 no inundation Mean Low (MLW) 0.58 no inundation Mean Lower Low (MLLW) -0.19 no inundation Definition of Tides The following definitions of tides are frequently used: 100-year One percent annual chance of being equaled or exceeded. 10-year Ten percent annual chance of being equaled or exceeded. Total Water Level (TWL) Water surface elevation at any instant including local variation due to waves and wave set-up and including the effects of tides, storm surges and long period seiches. Stillwater Level (SWL) Water surface elevation at any instant, excluding local variation due to waves and wave set-up, but including the effects of tides, storm surges and long period seiches. Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) The arithmetic average of the elevations of the highest daily tide over a specific 19-year period. Mean High Water (MHW) The average elevation of all high tides over the 19-year period. Mean Sea Level (MSL) The average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide over the 19-year period, determined from hourly readings. Mean Low Water (MLW) The average height of all low waters over the 19-year period. Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) The arithmetic average of the elevations of the lowest daily tide over a specific 19-year period. Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 5 Inundation of Boardwalk Based on record drawings from 1969, the elevation of the boardwalk was originally 7.9 feet NGVD (presumed datum). This converts to 10.6 feet NAVD. Based on the LiDAR data it appears the boardwalk has settled by about a foot for most of its length. As evidenced by Figure 4, the boardwalk has not uniformly settled, however. According to the same record drawings, the observation platform was originally established at elevation 10.9 feet NGVD, or 12.6 feet NAVD, which is above the 100-year tide level. Unfortunately there is no record elevation for the interpretive center deck. Future Sea Level Rise Table 3 presents sea level rise projections from the 2012 National Research Council Report, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future as adopted by the City and County of San Francisco for infrastructure planning. The projections (for example, 36 ± 10 inches in 2100) represent the likely sea level rise values based on a moderate level of greenhouse gas emissions and extrapolation of continued accelerating land ice melt patterns, plus or minus one standard deviation. The extreme limits of the ranges (for example, 17 and 66 inches for 2100) represent unlikely but possible levels of sea level rise using both very low and very high emissions scenarios and, at the high end, including significant land ice melt that is currently not anticipated but could occur. Figure 4. Baylands Interpretive Center Boardwalk Palo Alto Baylands Tidal Hydrology July 7, 2015 Schaaf & Wheeler Page 6 Table 3. Sea Level Rise Estimates from SFPUC Time Period Projection (inches) Range (inches) 2000 – 2030 6±2 2 to 12 2000 – 2050 11±4 5 to 24 2000 – 2100 36±10 17 to 66 Table 4 reprises Table 2, but compiles possible increases in tidal inundation on the mudflat due to sea level rise. Sea level rise is generally treated as a change in datum; that is, as the mean sea level rises so do all other tidal elevations arithmetically; there is no accepted means to otherwise adjust tide elevations. This analysis also ignores any changes in elevation to the mudflat itself that might result from future sea level rise, for example due to changes in San Francisco Bay sediment accumulation. Table 4. Tidal Inundation of Mudflat near Baylands Interpretive Center with Sea Level Rise 2000 2030 2050 2100 Tide Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) Elevation (ft NAVD) Depth (feet) 100-year SWL 10.00 2.2 10.50 2.7 10.92 3.1 13.00 5.2 10-year SWL 9.50 1.7 10.00 2.2 10.42 2.6 12.50 4.7 Mean Higher High 7.42 n/a 7.92 0.1 8.36 0.6 10.42 2.6 Mean High 6.80 n/a 7.30 n/a 7.72 n/a 9.80 2.0 Mean Sea Level 3.58 n/a 4.08 n/a 4.50 n/a 5.58 n/a Mean Low 0.58 n/a 1.08 n/a 1.50 n/a 0.58 n/a Mean Lower Low -0.19 n/a 0.31 n/a 0.73 n/a -0.19 n/a .6 Attachment C. Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk/Access Compliance Evaluation SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate 311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only August 11, 2015 (408) 296-5515 x1150 anotaro@biggscardosa.com MEMO TO: Anthony Notaro, Associate, Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. FROM: Matt Gruber, Project Manager, Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/ACCESS COMPLIANCE EVALUATION The City of Palo Alto is evaluating options to repair or replace the popular Baylands Boardwalk at the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center. The evaluation includes the examination of three separate repair options from a low cost repair to total replacement. Below is the access compliance evaluation and the impact analysis for each option. Overall Access Evaluation This section addresses boardwalk components that would require repair or replacement so the boardwalk complies with California and Federal regulations. These regulations address all important areas of accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. California's Building Standards Codes are found in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), and are designed to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State statutes. This evaluation is based on CCR and ADA requirements. The code references in this document refer to the California Building Code (CBC). The Baylands Boardwalk contains a variety of access compliance issues. A number of them stem from structural issues. Repair of those structural issues are addressed under a separate section. The key access issues evaluated for the boardwalk include the following: 1. Slopes: All slopes parallel with the path of travel shall either be greater than 5% (Section 11B-403.3) if no handrail is provided and less than 8.33% where handrails are provided (Section 1010.3). The existing boardwalk has one location where the slope is as much as 21% and there is no handrail (see figure A1). Another section of the boardwalk has a ramp with a slope of 10.3%. Both these sections exceed the allowable slope per code. The height, width and length of the existing ramps do meet code, per Section 11B-405. Anthony Notaro, Biggs cardosa Associates, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/access compliance evaluation August 11, 2015 Page 2 15043 ADA Access Compliance Recommendations 2015 8-11.docx © copyrighted 2015 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 2. Handrails: Handrails are required at all ramps (CBC Section 11B-505). There are three locations where the existing boardwalk has a ramp (slope greater than 5%), but only two of the locations have a handrail and the handrails are non-compliant. Although the existing handrails are continuous and unobstructed on their tops and sides (CBC 11B-505.5/6) and the circular cross section appears to meet code per CBC 11B-505.7.1, the rails are only approximately 26 inches above the ramp grade. Tops of handrails are required to be between 34 and 38 inches above grade (CBC 11B-505.4). Additionally, handrails must extend 1’-0” beyond the top and bottom of the ramp (CBC 505.10.1) and the existing handrails do not extend beyond the top and bottom of the ramps. 3. Guardrails: Guardrails are required wherever there is a vertical change of more than 30 inches between a walking surface and an adjacent surface (Section 1013.2). The boardwalk is elevated above the adjacent grade and is also located within a sensitive wetland habitat so the guardrail is necessary. The existing guardrails are 35 inches high when code requires them to be 42 inches (Section 1013.3). Guardrails should not allow the passage of a sphere of 4 inches (Section 1013.4). The existing openings between the rebar pickets vary in width with openings a much as 10-11 inches (see figure A2). 4. Cross slopes: The cross slope of walking surfaces shall not exceed a 1:48 (2%) gradient (Section 11B- 403.3). The cross slopes of the existing boardwalk in general exceed the minimum cross slope of 2% and can be as much as 21%. 5. Ground surface: The walking surface of a pathway should be consistent and even. There should not be openings that allow passage of a sphere more than 1/2 inch (Section 11B-302.3) and vertical changes in elevation should not exceed 1/4 inch (without an edge treatment) or 1/2 inch (with a bevel). The existing planks on the boardwalk often are spaced further apart than 1/4 inch (see figure A3), there are rotted out or missing pieces of planks where holes are created, and the planks have shifted so that there is larger than a 1/2 inch vertical grade change between planks. 6. Passing spaces: The width of the boardwalk is compliant as it is 48 inches and the minimum accessible width is 36 inches (Section 11B-403.5.1). The issue with the boardwalk design is that an accessible route with a clear width of less than 60 inches requires passing spaces at intervals of 200 feet (Section 11B-403.5.3). Although there are two such passing spaces (see figure A4), the passing spaces are located at intervals too far apart to meet code. The first one is at a compliant length (approx. 180’), but the second (approx. 410’), and the third (approx. 230’) do not meet code. In addition, the passing lanes that do exist do not meet code. The requirement is either a 60 inch square passing lane or a T-shaped space that is 48 inches square. The existing passing lanes include benches that prevent the minimum clear width. 7. Resting areas: The boardwalk is required to have resting areas at least 60 inches in length, with a width at least as wide as the walk, at intervals no more than 400’ apart (Section 11B-403.7). The existing boardwalk does contain these resting areas (see figure A4), but they do not have the required width. Anthony Notaro, Biggs cardosa Associates, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/access compliance evaluation August 11, 2015 Page 3 15043 ADA Access Compliance Recommendations 2015 8-11.docx © copyrighted 2015 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Access Repair/Replacement Options Repair: Repair consists of minor improvements to make the boardwalk structurally sound and generally safe. From an access compliance perspective, repairing the boardwalk is very difficult because of the variety of access compliance issues that require significant attention and repair work. So many boardwalk components would require replacement to make the boardwalk code compliant it would not be logical from a cost benefit analysis. The non-compliant slopes would need to be adjusted and all the handrails and guardrails would need to be replaced. Significant work to, and replacement of, the planks to eliminate non-compliant cross slopes and eliminate the vertical and horizontal gaps in the walking surface would be required. More passing spaces and code compliant resting spaces would need to be added. Repair is not recommended. Rehabilitation: Rehabilitation consists of keeping the majority of the structural components that are not damaged intact. This would consist of all the repair items listed in the repair option With new guardrails, handrails and planks, replacement of the damaged structural posts and the addition of new passing spaces and resting areas rehabilitation is a sensible option that would add another 20+ years to the life of the boardwalk (at least from an access compliance standpoint). Replacement: Replacement consists of replacing the boardwalk in entirety. From an access compliance perspective this is the best option and allows for the greatest compliance to code and ability to accommodate users that have access challenges that are not strictly required by code. It would allow for more passing spaces, more comfortable boardwalk width, more resting areas (this is a long boardwalk for people with access issues), deck materials could be used that have a greater longevity, the deck at the end of the boardwalk could be designed to support a class of school children, and sea level rise issues could be addressed. Anthony Notaro, Biggs cardosa Associates, Inc. RE: PALO ALTO BAYLANDS BOARDWALK/access compliance evaluation August 11, 2015 Page 4 15043 ADA Access Compliance Recommendations 2015 8-11.docx © copyrighted 2015 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Figure A1 Figure A2 Figure A3 Figure A4 Attachment D Baylands Boardwalk As%Built Structure Plans ,..,...,.,m.,-., ~~~i'~ .. tf~~'<I~ f-~--->---+t---ih 1-W•T'o,..,.v.rocr 1::1~~01"r =K~PJC. *'flt ~eoe ,.,. ,...,...._ f:r,z~~ ...,,K.::..::-=.;:.;:_ ____ J ~->~-"'---"--'-..W------"l~rt .. -20~0" ,...,._ \4--1-----,A~,.,l.d n, 1'4:l'Va ~'t~•6,•'f.C' ,;.:ns,,f.;ffiil't)'f ~N FOfll,.C~ll'( ----11,o,n tk.l,..A:l'ftt __ _,_ __ ....JU.--.--....JLA..>:'..A..~'----.1!..._~...t...l..-...l!..--on'1>e11.., _....,1,__ _ __.__,l,o(.....,::.ii-1<.-...--'""'"'-....:,....1,..1....---- ®.....:.iY!.!l'l.,,~:c;..:,:s_; .. e,l!Cf="'OH"-'---------- 10 ),!ATC"! s.qef , ... •* ' ,... \ / ~ "'"~ = • ';I I 1!:. . ~· ,,_ ~ O.' I .. L..._ JOO-/'k>:1.-~ t•I IUOM Sllllf ,Mo AUO, CAU•Oll,IIA to•t t•lt)JU,1100 r a: < z w a: ~ 0 ... z ::; w < <) (.) z w 0 > j:: j:: <( > w 0 a: z w Q. a: a: :.: w ...J ~ <( z 3: C a: u, <( 0 Q CD z 0 <( ... ..J ...J < > g <( co < .. taa ~NOG·1'1~7 I09-f;,oq1J"\ :::}ti,., 1'160 ~N~I esieVAilON<S. <!>e&TION'9, 4 i:>eT;..IS':> --·-r---~--~-- S A N <,,II (H """*""'°~/ NU( ,,vec S<k'D CROSS·S«Tl()N .,.,,. ~ .,",,H /'' . . , ,o.o' , / , / PLAN / ~ A N , / M . ... a.. -'-.. "'-.JI. , , C I S C 0 ,., ,. A.. ... ,l.c-,,-1 ~ ,,,. a.•~ 4,./,11. IN/)£X ro Pl. Arit SHE£( N(). G,1t,r11/ Pion Oo,,:,l'(/f'NIJ C11,v/11,K/,W, tkto/t:, OMnw1/u11t l'/.dl/"orm .... f"b.51 I I I I I I ~ .... , .. , ..... J OIWJ C:,E..{Att.. 1.-···~::':-:: ... , .... ,f/1 .. _ ................. \ ........ "'". -..,..., '"·,,to• S!!"C:TrOI-J A·A C'~:1\110 • <\,, ...... t.,, ran. f.-· ... -~~-~Tl .. fd""'-~ c .. , ,. ......... ,. ... c. ('l ......... ,, J. 1., ..... ~ .. , E.l t&..\/6.J\OW •c..,.,, t",r.o• t.vt•,,•41r,u ao.t ~r,o\as (Oll'i'II. t .. tf/1 p,t&.c,c,,i.uO, IIWOIU•.J.'-0 -U,,} WII'"' """''14 w,,. ... 11. • .:,r-ctt. .;o,..,.1"·· A t·4<>·'-•....., ..... ~, ......... """u ,s cow1,.,,11•..i• •~•c. ••wt, +------...-fl.~.tJ!.~.,.~.~-=---1--IHII 1r I I I I I ,, 11 ~: ELEVA;TION -C,OAl2,Q)'{4U; .._.,., Yt.•.1\0" 4•.o" •. ~·+--+!8lf---~ :~ - ,, ,, ,, t i I I fil-n--IT HPit, FOil C,{NGM AU,. ........ U ai.\. , .. '-•4 O.f $4S •,-c:ILPf AS ~HOH'.,._ c. ... 1 ,a.o .... t's,_ µA:....J f---...... -..cr ~-:;~~ ... -:· ... ~l,S ij[fil~ 4t.()" 11 ftS BUILT :v ',,.: !J. CITY OF PALO ALTO CALIFORNIA IHdT NO. l 0, 1 SHCIEY$ e, 9 ·.i.· " •.. , . .,,.,. .. ...,._.., ~-:+"ti~---"'.:,t,r----,~i----:,;"11'i:..rr tr~~~~~" ... f awo ., •. , CAIi', t~ •• ,, • .s,• "'•-:t 1.ha ...... {, Ell.VA 'TJON ,-.. 1&•f I•.,, ·-T-#.• .. •Jl'lt&T •t •01!; .... ,1._ ~ e,,-.t-• ---....1. ... "'4 5'f',..,.,,, YIO'lt. ••'-'""·•t , --.Lt<l:!=======ITT~=:!=.' ..... = ... ==!;.ii '. ' \ , , I I' ,· ,, I , , I \ ' ,, ,, \I \\ --· .... ------· ... ·~-.... ·""''-•1'\o;' hC..• --.. .. ., ... , .. t...11.~ ~ .... •M-1' ...... .., ... -1(.-0 Hc:>tt.S t, ........ '-\l""h-'llt 1$ c.:--. ............. , • .,, N ~CII M•TU,...'-.,..,~• 1; S4C. t ""''-11,0,tOW'AltC. Tc> •1 •r 0-.f' .-a1.v4w,t.1,o, J, ~.,.!~:~ll fU&fo,1....,, .SIi .#(1&4•\. AS BU/Ll 1--"-=IJ,AII.LI IAIPll()Y£M£NT l'IU>.l~CT v,.,, J.,;1rm.~:!l!;,"'1,13,4n,,ANO$ ll./7£~PIUTNe CNITE~ :::_ /WA$£ 11 (~OAROW1•U.K) •--..--- C6$EllVATl0N PLAT/!()J/M llf'-.1 CITY OF PALO ALTO '!.., !;;ii'+t--,-.--""'"';_,A~.~~~IF~~~R~;~·A~,.--..,..-----i""4.t,u-Hs Attachment E. Preliminary Estimate of Probable Construction Cost X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REPAIR OPTION 1 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:180'WIDTH:4' 6"AREA (SF)=720 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE AND RESET TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 610 $7.50 $4,575.00 2 REPLACE TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 140 $25.00 $3,500.00 3 REPLACE TIMBER BRACE EA 11 $400.00 $4,400.00 4 REPAIR DAMAGED POSTS EA 8 $750.00 $6,000.00 SUBTOTAL $18,475 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$1,848 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $20,323 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $3,048 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $5,081 supplemental repairs, small size, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $28,452 material selection, etc.BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$28,452 ESCALATION FACTOR (@30%)(See Comment 3) $8,535 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$36,987 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $30,000 $40,000 X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REHABILITATION OPTION 1 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:4' 6"AREA (SF)=4,073 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 TEMPORARY SUPPORTS LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 2 REMOVE AND RESET TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 2,940 $7.50 $22,050.00 3 REPLACE TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 700 $25.00 $17,500.00 4 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER BRACE EA 76 $400.00 $30,400.00 5 REPAIR DAMAGED POST EA 22 $750.00 $16,500.00 6 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,759 $50.00 $87,950.00 7 REMOVE AND REPLACE GUARDRAILING FT 1,759 $45.00 $79,155.00 8 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER POST EA 76 $2,250.00 $171,000.00 9 LEVEL EXIST WALKWAY LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 SUBTOTAL $554,555 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$55,456 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $610,011 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $91,502 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $152,503 structure height, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $854,015 material selection, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$854,015 ESCALATION FACTOR (@20%)(See Comment 3) $170,803 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,024,818 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $860,000 $1,030,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 214,000 257,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 129,000 154,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 171,000 205,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 880,000 1,056,000 2 YEAR 907,000 1,088,000 3 YEAR 934,000 1,120,000 4 YEAR 962,000 1,154,000 5 YEAR 991,000 1,189,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REHABILITATION OPTION 2 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:4' 6"AREA (SF)=4,073 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE EXISTING BENT CAP LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2 REMOVE AND RESET TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 2,940 $7.50 $22,050.00 3 REPLACE TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 700 $25.00 $17,500.00 4 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER BRACE EA 76 $400.00 $30,400.00 5 REPAIR DAMAGED POST EA 22 $750.00 $16,500.00 6 REMOVE AND REPLACE TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,759 $50.00 $87,950.00 7 REMOVE AND REPLACE GUARDRAILING FT 1,759 $45.00 $79,155.00 8 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER BEAM FT 176 $450.00 $79,200.00 9 FURNISH AND INSTALL SCREW ANCHOR EA 220 $850.00 $187,000.00 10 LEVEL EXIST WALKWAY LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 SUBTOTAL $564,755 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$56,476 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $621,231 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $93,185 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $155,308 structure height, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $869,723 material selection, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$869,723 ESCALATION FACTOR (@20%)(See Comment 3) $173,945 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,043,667 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $870,000 $1,050,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 218,000 261,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 131,000 157,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 174,000 209,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 896,000 1,075,000 2 YEAR 923,000 1,108,000 3 YEAR 951,000 1,141,000 4 YEAR 979,000 1,175,000 5 YEAR 1,009,000 1,210,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REPLACEMENT OPTION 1 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:5' 6"AREA (SF)=4,958 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE EXISTING BOARDWALK SQFT 4,013 $20.00 $80,260.00 2 FURNISH AND INSTALL SCREW ANCHOR EA 230 $850.00 $195,500.00 3 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER BEAM EA 176 $450.00 $79,200.00 4 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER PLANKS SQFT 4,625 $20.00 $92,500.00 5 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 6 FURNISH AND INSTALL GUARD RAILING FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 SUBTOTAL $589,540 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$58,954 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $648,494 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $97,274 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $162,124 structure width, depth, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $907,892 overlook/observation platform size, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$907,892 ESCALATION FACTOR (@25%)(See Comment 3) $226,973 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,134,865 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $910,000 $1,140,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 227,000 284,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 137,000 171,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 182,000 227,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 936,000 1,169,000 2 YEAR 964,000 1,204,000 3 YEAR 993,000 1,241,000 4 YEAR 1,022,000 1,278,000 5 YEAR 1,053,000 1,316,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE Revised December 3, 2007 RCVD BY: IN EST: OUT EST: PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST STRUCTURAL BRIDGE: BAYLANDS BOARDWALK BR. No.:DISTRICT:04 TYPE:REPLACEMENT OPTION 2 RTE:LOCAL UNIT: CO:SCl EA: PM: LENGTH:865'WIDTH:5' 6"AREA (SF)=4,958 DESIGN SECTION:BCA # OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.15% PRICES BY :APN COST INDEX:2015 PRICES CHECKED BY :DATE: QUANTITIES BY:YFL DATE:9/9/2015 CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 1 REMOVE EXISTING BOARDWALK SQFT 4,013 $20.00 $80,260.00 2 FURNISH AND INSTALL SCREW ANCHOR EA 230 $850.00 $195,500.00 3 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER BEAM EA 176 $450.00 $79,200.00 4 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER STRINGERS SQFT 4,625 $10.00 $46,250.00 5 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER DECKING SQFT 4,625 $7.50 $34,687.50 6 FURNISH AND INSTALL TIMBER LEDGER FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 7 FURNISH AND INSTALL GUARD RAILING FT 1,776 $40.00 $71,040.00 SUBTOTAL $577,978 COMMENTS: 1. Subtotal includes structural items of work only; contingency MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$57,798 included for non structural elements, mitigations, etc. SUBTOTAL STRUCTURAL ITEMS $635,775 2. No heavy equipment in marshland, limited access, etc. CONSTRUCTION STAGING (@15%) (See Comment 2) $95,366 3. Escalation factor for project variables/unknowns such as CONTINGENCIES (@25%) (See Comment 1) $158,944 structure width, depth, passing zones, construction seasons, STRUCTURE TOTAL COST $890,085 overlook/observation platform size, etc. BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.) Included BASELINE TOTAL (LOW)$890,085 ESCALATION FACTOR (@25%)(See Comment 3) $222,521 BASELINE TOTAL (HIGH)$1,112,607 BUDGET ESTIMATE RANGE AS OF 2015 (LOW) (HIGH) $890,000 $1,110,000 SOFT COST RANGE: (LOW) (HIGH) DESIGN (25%) 223,000 279,000 ENVIRONMENTAL (15%) 134,000 167,000 CONST MGMT (20%) 179,000 223,000 Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *YEARS BEYOND MIDPOINT OF CONST: (LOW) (HIGH) Escalation Rate per Year = 3.0% 1 YEAR 917,000 1,146,000 2 YEAR 945,000 1,181,000 3 YEAR 973,000 1,216,000 4 YEAR 1,002,000 1,253,000 5 YEAR 1,032,000 1,290,000 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually. Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C17163750 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BIGGS CARDODSA ASSOCIATES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 15th day of August , 2016, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC., a California Corporation, located at 865 The Alameda, San Jose, CA 95126 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A.CITY intends to replace the existing Baylands Boardwalk (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide environmental assessment, preliminary and final design development, and bidding phase services; and if later approved by the City Council, this Agreement will be amended to include construction administration services for the Project in connection with the Project (“Services”). B.CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C.CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described at Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on- call agreements.) Services will be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A- 1. Each Task Order shall designate a CITY Project Manager and shall contain a specific scope of work, a specific schedule of performance and a specific compensation amount. The total price of all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Attachment B Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 2 performed under an authorized Task Order and CITY may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit "B" unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”), and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Three Hundred Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Three Dollars ($399,993). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Basic Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Four Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Two Dollars ($439,992). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C- 1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 3 SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 4 Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: 1. David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. - Environmental Documentation, CEQA and Permits 2. Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers - Hydrological and Hydraulic Engineer, Surveying 3. Parikh Consultants - Geotechnical Engineering 4. Callander Associates - ADA Compliance & Aesthetics 5. JDH Corrosion - Corrosion Engineering CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Anthony Notaro as the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Stephen Biggs as the project Director to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Elizabeth Ames, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-329-2502. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon receipt of payment , all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. The CITY assumes all responsibility for the use of the work product outside of its original intent. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 5 copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. In accordance with Section 2782.8 of the State of California Civil Code, the duty to indemnify, including the cost to defend is limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct caused by CONSULTANT, and only to the extent caused by the CONSULTANT. [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 6 SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 7 only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 8 State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: (a) All printed materials provided by CCONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. (b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division’s office. (c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 9 addition, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.060. SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION 25.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS 26.1 This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. CONSULTANT is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7 if the contract is not a public works contract, if the contract does not include a public works construction project of more than $25,000, or the contract does not include a public works alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) project of more than $15,000. OR 26.1 CONSULTANT is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. CONSULTANT shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONSULTANT shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. 26.2 CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit “E” for any contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance. SECTION 27. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 27.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 27.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 10 action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 27.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 27.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 27.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 27.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 27.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 27.8 In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal, the exhibits shall control. 27.9 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 27.10 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 27.11 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 27.12 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 11 representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager (Required on contracts over $85,000) APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Attorney or designee (Required on Contracts over $25,000) BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT “E”: DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Stephen Biggs President Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 12 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto (City) plans to replace the existing Baylands Nature Center Boardwalk (Boardwalk). The Boardwalk is located at 2775 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA. The boardwalk structure was constructed in 1969 and rehabilitated and widened by the City in 1980. The Boardwalk is one of the more popular trails within the City’s Baylands Nature Preserve. This ¼ mile long and four feet wide Boardwalk extends into the Baylands Nature Preserve and is connected to the Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center (Interpretive Center). The Boardwalk was closed in 2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. City staff made temporary fixes to re-open the first two hundred feet of the boardwalk to the public in 2015. The timber posts and supports are damaged due to the elements and impacts from the corrosive tidal saltwater. There are a variety of access compliance issues due to the original design and structural damage. PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK The Consultant shall provide engineering, design, environmental assessment and clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and bidding and construction support services. Prior to bidding the project, the Consultant shall prepare and obtain City and regulatory agency permits for construction by others. The City will pay for the City’s construction permit fee and reimburse the Consultant for the regulatory agencies permit fees. The Boardwalk shall be an accessible, code compliant facility compatible with the Interpretive Center architecture, meet the Baylands Master Plan guidelines, and provide a service life of 50- 75 years. The Boardwalk shall follow the existing boardwalk alignment. The boardwalk is in an environmentally sensitive area for its entire length through the marsh land. The area is home to nesting birds and several endangered species including the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and the Ridgway’s Rail (formerly California Clapper Rail). The potential environmental impacts, constraints and mitigations will be a main component in the Boardwalk design and construction approval process. The design and construction shall minimize direct impacts to the sensitive environment supporting nesting birds and endangered species, marshlands and mudflats on the site. The construction may require coordination and permits from the agencies listed below: •US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Clean Water Act Permit •Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification •California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement •US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) consultation • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 13 Based on (2012) National Resource Council Report under moderate climate change conditions, the sea level rise (SLR) predictions are 2 to 12 inches by 2030, 5 to 24 inches by 2050 and 17 to 66 inches by 2100. The Consultant shall determine the appropriate height of the Boardwalk given SLR, tidal effects and storm surges, etc. for the Boardwalks’ service life. The Consultant shall work closely with the community, City staff, boards and commissions, and Council to establish a deck elevation that accounts for the SLR and the Baylands Master Plan guidelines. The Consultant shall perform the professional services in three phases including agency coordination, reviews and approvals as follows: 1.Phase 1 – Design Development and Environmental Assessment 2.Phase 2 – Final Design, and Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) 3.Phase 3 – Bidding and Construction Support PHASE 1 – DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Task 1: Preliminary Design Task 1.1 Project Management Project Management: The CONSULTNAT shall provide project management and administration services including coordinating with City staff and subconsultants. Subconsultant Coordination: The CONSULTANT shall provide oversight of subconsultant work and coordinate with its sub-consultants. Project Schedule: The CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a Project Master Schedule in Microsoft Project to the CITY. The schedule shall be updated regularly. Progress Reports: On a monthly basis, the CONSULTANT shall issue invoices and progress reports to the CITY. Deliverables: •Project Master Schedule and updates •Invoices with Progress Reports 1.2 Project Meetings The CONSULTANT shall conduct one (1) kick-off meeting with the City to review and refine scope of work, work plan, and schedule. Identify critical milestones and establish communications protocol. Project Development Meetings: CONSULTANT shall schedule monthly project development meetings to discuss the status of the project, upcoming efforts, issues and other relevant information. An agenda and invitation shall be provided prior to each DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 14 meeting, along with minutes from the previous meeting. At the meeting, an Action Items List shall be distributed. Deliverables: Meeting agendas and minutes Action Items List 1.3 Public Outreach The CONSULTANT shall prepare presentation materials and exhibits, and attend and assist City staff with presentation at the following meetings: a.At the end of the Conceptual Development (15%) (Task 1.6) – One (1) Interagency review meeting (after the Shade Study is completed - Task 1.7), one (1) public meeting, one (1) Park and Recreation Commission (PRC) meeting, and (1) Architectural Review Board Meeting (ARB). b.At the end of Design Development (35%) – One (1) PRC meeting. Site design process meetings which include one (1) Design Review Committee (DRC), one (1) Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), one (1) ARB and one (1) City Council Meeting, as required. c.The environmental sub-consultant shall attend up to three (3) team meetings during the course of the environmental clearance process and (4) public meetings/hearings in Palo Alto, as required. 1.4 Data Collection and Review and Site Visits The CONSULTANT shall review available data and information provided by the City. Conduct up to three (3) site visits to review existing conditions and identify constraints that may affect the proposed design and environmental clearance process. Provide field notes, representative photos, and field measurements. Available data/information includes, but is not limited to the following: • Previous studies, reports and/or documents related to the project • Community input •Baylands Master Plan guidelines •As-built plans 1.5 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation General: CONSULTANT shall provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed foundation for the boardwalk. The investigation shall be developed for lightly loaded pile support system. Field Exploration: The CONSULTANT shall perform field explorations at 3 locations along the existing board walk to a depth of 30’ maximum. Portable equipment shall be used for this work. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 15 A RWQCB Section 401 Notification shall be submitted and approved prior to the field sampling program (Task 3.5) commence. The CONSULTANT shall mark and call for USA clearance and review the available utility information, and drill into the native subgrade from the existing boardwalk deck. Laboratory Testing: The CONSULTANT shall review of existing soil reports in the area and perform limited laboratory tests to verify the classification of the bay mud, strength of the subgrade materials and to validate the soil conditions. Laboratory tests on intact samples are expected to include; Index properties (Plasticity Index 1-3 tests), Pocket penetrometer or laboratory torvane tests on samples as feasible, unconfined compression or unconfined Triaxial (if sample is intact) 1-3 samples. Some samples may be too soft or disturbed for all of the anticipated tests. CONSULTANT shall also conduct visual classification. Engineering Analysis and Report Preparation: Based on the minimal field and laboratory test data, limited engineering analyses shall be conducted for the proposed boardwalk. Log of Test borings shall be prepared in gINT format (8.5”X11”). Draft and Final Foundation Reports shall be prepared summarizing the findings and the recommendations for the foundation design capacity. Soil parameters shall be provided for any proprietary design. Task 1.5 Deliverables: • Preliminary Foundation Investigation Memo (at Type Selection) • Draft Foundation Report (at 65% PS&E) • Final Foundation Report (at Final PS&E) • Log of Testing Borings (at 65%, 90% and Final PS&E) 1.6 Design Concept and Preliminary Geometric Plans (15%) Base Mapping: The CONSULTANT shall set the horizontal and vertical control points for project mapping in accordance with the CITY’s horizontal and vertical control requirements. The existing Nature Center deck shall be tied to Santa Clara Valley Water District Benchmark 1170 to serve as the project control, unless otherwise directed by the City. Available LIDAR data shall be used to prepare the base mapping. The replacement structure shall follow the same alignment as the existing boardwalk. Topographic surveys are not required. Boardwalk and Geometric Alignment Drawings: In order to support the environmental evaluation, CONSULTANT shall work closely with the City to develop a Replacement Option in accordance with City’s design criteria. Assume that the boardwalk replacement shall be constructed during closure of the existing boardwalk. Construction limits shall be defined. The plans shall show the existing water features, the existing boardwalk outline, and the proposed layout. Sections and various profiles shall also be developed. A preliminary cost estimate shall also be developed. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 16 Utility Coordination: A pair of PG&E overhead transmission lines runs roughly east to west across the marsh land. These lines are supported by a series of steel towers which dot the landscape. PG&E owns and maintains the lines and towers from a small dilapidated timber catwalk running below the lines to each tower. The catwalk intersects the Baylands Boardwalk roughly mid-length with access controlled by a pair of locked gates. The Baylands Boardwalk project shall be required to maintain permanent access to the catwalk. The CONSULTANT shall provide permanent access from the replaced boardwalk to the existing PG&E catwalk including gated access. It is assumed that access to the existing PG&E catwalk can be interrupted during construction of the replacement boardwalk. Aesthetics Coordination: The existing Lucy Evans Nature Center is undergoing renovation under a separate contract. The CONSULTANT shall coordinate the proposed interface of the new boardwalk with the Nature Center design team led by FOG Studios. It is anticipated that railings similar to those developed and selected by the Nature Center Project shall be incorporated into the Boardwalk Project. The City will provide PDF and AutoCAD files of the selected railing design to the CONSULTANT for use in the boardwalk design development. Some modification of the Nature Center railing design by the CONSULTANT is anticipated to meet the specific design needs of the Boardwalk Project. Task 1.6 Deliverables: •Draft and Final Boardwalk and Geometric Alignment Drawings •Preliminary Cost estimate Provide five (5) draft 15% design documents for City’s review. Incorporate City’s comments and submit final 15% design documents. Provide one (1) Draft Design Concept Statement with design concepts for meetings listed under Task 1.3a and incorporate comments. Provide one (1) final Design Concept Statement that incorporates all comments from these meetings. 1.7 Hydrologic Assessment and Shade Study A The CONSULTANT shall provide a technical memo to evaluate and recommend a Boardwalk height using the service life, hydrologic assessment using tidal, storm surges and sea level rise predictions and tidal water map information provided in Task 2.5. Utilize this information to gain consensus on the Boardwalk height and the development of the shade study. The shade study shall define the relative change in shading of the marsh surface due to the Boardwalk height and configuration. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a shade study to reflect the proposed Boardwalk. It is assumed that the shading effects of the new structure will be roughly equivalent to the existing shading effects. Task 2: Environmental Assessment, Clearance and Permits Task 2.1 Compliance with CEQA DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 17 The CONSULTANT shall prepare an initial study and mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) in compliance with the CEQA assumed for the Boardwalk. The primary sections of the initial study (IS) shall consist of a description of the project, a description of the environmental setting, and a description of the project’s environmental impacts, including mitigation where applicable. The impacts section shall include the standard environmental CEQA checklist used by the City. Due to the environmentally-sensitive habitat of the Palo Alto Baylands, coupled with the presence of multiple endangered species, biological impacts may occur especially during the construction phase, the IS shall focus on the existing biological environment and the effects of the project on that environment. The IS shall provide this discussion based on a biological resources report. The CONSULTANT shall submit ten (10) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy of the administrative draft IS to the City for review and comment. The IS shall be revised based on the City’s comments and an electronic screen check version shall be provided to the City for final review/approval. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall also be prepared and submitted for City’s comments. Upon City approval, the CONSULTANT shall make 50 hard copies of the IS/MND (with appendices on an USB drive inside the back cover). The CONSULTANT shall also complete the CEQA Notice of Completion form and send 15 copies of the IS/MND to the State Clearinghouse. Mailing and distribution of the IS/MND to the public and non-State agencies shall be undertaken by CITY staff. The City shall also be responsible for the preparation and publication of public/newspaper notices. The CONSULTANT shall assist the City in preparing responses to comments on the IS/MND and prepare a final IS/MND and MMRP. Upon adoption of the MND and project approval, The CONSULTANT shall prepare and file the CEQA Notice of Determination (NOD) with the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder on behalf of the City. The CONSULTANT shall pay the $2,260.25 NOD filing fee. It is assumed that technical reports for the subject areas of traffic, noise, air quality, archaeology, hazardous materials, and energy are not required and are not part of this Scope of Services. 2.2 Biological Resources Report Assuming all impacts from the project as being either less-than-significant or less-than- significant-with-mitigation, the biological resources report shall contain an existing conditions section, an impact assessment, CEQA significance assessment, and proposed mitigation measures. The report shall analyze the project in the context of the biotic resources of the site and vicinity and identify both project-specific and cumulative impacts. The CONSULTANT shall determine whether a given impact is either less-than-significant or less-than-significant- with-mitigation. All state and federal listed species, and all other special-status plants and wildlife shall be reviewed; this shall include mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and bats. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 18 The CONSULTANT shall provide two (2) focused surveys for rare plants to document existing conditions and to document potential rare plant blooming periods. The information from the two surveys and shall assist in making decisions on rare plant presence and potential impacts. Mitigation measures shall describe all potentially significant environmental impacts. Mitigation, as appropriate, may be a combination of avoidance, minimization, restoration and/or compensation measures. If wetland mitigation is required, assume that all mitigation for impacts to wetlands and other waters will be mitigated through purchase of mitigation credits from the San Francisco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank. 2.3 Regulated Habitats Report (Wetland/Other Waters/Riparian) The CONSULTANT shall conduct the field work necessary to prepare a full report representing a delineation of Waters of the U.S./State on the site, which would serve as the project’s Wetland Delineation. Data on the soils, vegetation, and hydrology within potential wetlands on the site are necessary in order to complete a formal delineation. The CONSULTANT shall delineate the boundaries of these features according to methodologies outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual and other USACE guidance. Any other potentially jurisdictional features, including “other waters” of the U.S./State, shall be delineated and described per USACE and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. In addition to Section 404 wetlands, the extent and distribution of USACE [under Section 10 (current and historical) and Section 404] and Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction in tidal waters, as defined by the mean high water, mean sea level, mean higher high tide line datums, and the high tide line as determined by field indicators, shall also be mapped from a combination of field observations and topographic data, this information shall be described within the report and presented on accompanying figures. This report is a requirement of the permit applications for each of the state and federal agencies (Task 3). The CONSULTANT shall prepare a technical report summarizing the methods and results of the field survey of regulated habitats. The report is an important permit support document that is submitted to all applicable agencies as part of the permit application materials. The report shall be prepared to report specifications developed by the USACE, RWQCB and BCDC and shall include sufficient detail for agency review and a jurisdictional determination (in the case of the USACE). It shall include a brief description of existing conditions, description of field techniques employed in the delineation, wetland data sheets, and copies of aerial photographs and maps which show the extent of regulated habitats on the project site. 2.4 Biological Assessment The proposed boardwalk improvements may affect several federally listed wildlife species. The CONSULTANT shall prepare a draft Biological Assessment (BA) report. The BA is required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the purpose of conducting a Section 7 consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 19 The overall goal is to obtain Section 7 coverage on an informal basis. Assume that one BA report can be compiled for both agencies. 2.5 Hydrology Investigation and Recommendations The replacement boardwalk deck elevation shall be determined based on a balance of the hydrologic data (tidal, storm surges and sea level rise), design engineering, public opinion, and acceptable risk by the City. If required by the regulatory agencies, provide supplemental sources, and input regarding potential magnitude of projected sea level rise, and provide Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) mapping of requested design level tidal events. 2.6 Geology Utilize the Preliminary Foundation Investigation information from Task 1.5 to complete the geological information required for environmental assessment. Task 2 Deliverables: Technical Studies/Report: •Biological Resources Report •Regulated Habitats Report •Biological Assessment •Hydrology Investigation and Recommendations (based on the “Tidal Hydrology at Palo Alto Baylands Lucy Evans Center” memorandum dated July 7, 2015 •Geology Report CEQA Documents •Administrative Draft IS/MND •Draft and Final IS/MND •Draft and Final MMRP •CEQA Notice of Completion •CEQA Notice of Determination Task 3 Project Permits Upon conclusion of the CEQA process and project approval, the permitting process shall commence. This consists of the completion and submission of applications (including required technical reports), as well as coordination and consultation with the staff of the permitting agencies during the application review process, and obtain final permits approval for construction. Provide coordination, processing and timelines to obtain the various permits. The permitting process is described below. 3.1 USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit Application Package DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 20 The CONSULTANT shall assemble a Nationwide Permit application package that includes Engineering Form 4345, a project description, summary of previous environmental studies, and an assessment of impacts and discussion of suitable mitigation measures. The CONSULTANT shall submit a first-review administrative draft USACE permit package to the City for review and comment. After incorporation of any changes, the package shall be submitted to the USACE. The CONSULTANT shall maintain regular contact with the USACE to monitor processing of the permit application. 3.2 RWQCB 401 Certification/Waste Discharge Requirement Application Package CONSULTANT shall prepare a water quality certification/waste discharge requirement application to submit to the RWQCB. The complete permit package shall include information that is submitted to the USACE as described above, but shall also include the appropriate forms and required materials. The submittal shall include all copies of the CEQA documents, all correspondence with USACE and RWQCB staff, impact assessment, proposed post-impact site monitoring plan, and project drawings. The City will pay a processing fees required by the RWQCB. The CONSULTANT shall submit a first-review administrative draft RWQCB permit package to the City for review and comment. After incorporation of any changes, the package shall be submitted to the RWQCB. The CONSULTANT shall maintain regular contact with the RWQCB to monitor processing of the permit application. 3.3 BCDC Permit The CONSULTANT shall prepare a permit application for submittal to BCDC. The application package shall include the completed Major Permit Application, sea level rise assessment, and copies of the boardwalk improvement plans. The City will pay a processing fee for handling applications. The CONSULTANT shall submit first-review administrative draft BCDC permit package to the City for review and comment. After incorporation of any changes, the packages shall be submitted to the BCDC. The CONSULTANT shall maintain regular contact with the staff of BCDC to monitor processing of the permit application. 3.4 Permit Processing, Meetings, and Coordination Related to Impacts Analysis This task shall include time for site visits with the agencies, meetings and correspondence with the project team and regulatory agencies during the permit processing phase. Time shall be included for calls with design team and agency members to coordinate initial, accurate development of the permit packages, and processing of the submitted permits and developing the impact assessment within all three responsible agency jurisdictions, including coordination with members of the engineering portion of the team. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 21 3.5 Permit Processing in Support of Geotechnical Field Investigation Program It is assumed that the geotechnical field sampling shall be Categorically Exempt under CEQA and shall be eligible for USACE Nationwide Permit #6 (Survey Activities). This USACE permit, however, requires notification to the RWQCB via their “Certified Nationwide Permit Notification Form” package. The CONSULTANT shall undertake the following activities to obtain approval for the field sampling programs from the RWQCB: •Based on information to be provided by the geotechnical testing firm, prepare a Project Description • Prepare and file the CEQA Notice of Exemption and IS • Prepare and submit the RWQCB Section 401 Notification • Serve as the City’s designated agent in the processing of the RWQCB permit • Pay the CEQA Notice of Exemption filing fee on behalf of the City • Pay the RWQCB notification fee on behalf of the City The RWQCB form shall be accompanied by a short biological memo. The equipment to be used for the field sampling programs shall operate from the deck of the existing boardwalk, shall have negligible effects on the Baylands, and shall have no effect on endangered species. Task 3 Deliverables: •BCDC Application and Permitting Coordination •USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit Application Package and Permitting Coordination •RWQCB 401 Certification/Waste Discharge Requirement Application Package and Permitting Coordination •RWQCB Section 401 Notification for field sampling program •CEQA Notice of Exemption and IS Task 4 35% Plans, Specifications and Estimate CONSULTANT shall prepare 35% Plans and Estimates based on findings of the IS/MND, input from the community, Interagency Review meeting, PRC, ARB and City staff from Task 1.3a. Task 4.1 Boardwalk Type Selection Report Type Selection Report: CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a Type Selection Report that shall include a review of the existing boardwalk for anticipated equipment staging and boardwalk foundation types being considered. This analysis shall include costs, environmental impacts, geotechnical impacts, construction impacts, shading impacts, design life of the foundation systems, hydrologic impacts, geometrics and aesthetics. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 22 The Type Selection Report shall include a discussion of the structure types considered, the reasons for selection of the proposed boardwalk structure, and the following: •Type Selection Memo •Vicinity Map •Alignment General Plans •Cost Estimates •Project Seismic Design Criteria •Preliminary Foundation Recommendations • PS&E in coordination with the Draft Environmental Assessment IS Type Selection Meeting: CONSULTANT shall meet with City to discuss the draft Type Selection Report. At the meeting CONSULTANT shall present the proposed boardwalk structure and discuss all the factors considered that led to the selected alternative. The CONSULTANT shall address all issues raised at the Type Selection Meeting in the final Type Selection Report. The City shall provide written approval of the proposed boardwalk alternative. Task 4.1 Deliverables: •Draft and Final Type Selection Report •Type Selection Meeting Agenda and Minutes Task 4.2 35% Plans and Estimate CONSULTANT shall prepare 35% PS&E based on preferred alternative selected at the Type Selection Meeting (Task 3.5), findings of the IS/MND, and input from the community and City staff. This submittal shall include the 35% Boardwalk General Plan, and preliminary construction cost estimate. Task 4.2 Deliverables: •35% PS&E •Site & Design Review application and materials correlate to Task 1.3b PHASE 2 – FINAL DESIGN AND PS&E The CONSULTANT shall complete the 65%, 90%, and 100% PS&E design for the project based on the PRC, Site & Design Review Process, and City staff from Task 1.3b. CONSULTANT shall provide final engineering design of the project, obtain City design approval, and produce high quality construction drawings, special provisions, and construction estimates for construction of the project. The PS&E shall be prepared to the most current Caltrans Standards and in accordance with the City’s policies, procedures, manuals, standards and agency permit requirements. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 23 •The CONSULTANT is fully responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the plans and related PS&E. City reviews shall not transfer the responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or details with which such designs are depicted on the plans. •The title sheet for the specifications and each sheet of the plans shall bear the professional seal, certificate number, registration and classification, expiration date, and signature of the professional engineer responsible for its preparation. Task 5 – Phase 2 Project Management and Coordination 5.1 Project Management The CONSULTANT shall provide project management and administration services including monitoring subconsultants activities, coordinating with the City and subconsultants, implementing quality control and quality assurance procedures, submitting monthly invoices and progress reports, preparing and maintaining project schedule, and developing a work plan to ensure the project remains on budget and schedule. 5.2 Project Meetings The CONSULTANT shall attend up to three (3) in-person and three (3) tele-conference progress and coordination meetings with City staff and key stakeholders. Prepare and submit agenda and meeting minutes for each meeting for City staff reviews. Task 6 – PS&E (65%) CONSULTANT shall prepare 65% PS&E. This submittal shall include the 65% plans, technical specifications and detailed construction cost estimate. The CONSULTANT shall prepare draft Technical Specifications. Technical Specifications shall follow the 2015 format of the Caltrans Standard Specifications and Standard Special Provisions (SSP’s). The CONSULTANT shall prepare an engineer’s estimate of probable construction cost for 65% design using both the Caltrans database and CONSULTANTs professional experience. Estimate shall include construction costs that reflect current market conditions, the bid items, associated environmental mitigation costs through purchasing mitigation credits associate with Task 2. and contingency costs. 6.1 Project Plans The 65% plan set shall include, but is not limited to the following drawings and documents: Title Sheet Boardwalk General Plans DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 24 Boardwalk Typical Sections Boardwalk Design Details Railing Details Demolition Plan Construction Staging 65% PS&E Submittal: The CONSULTANT shall submit the 65% PS&E package for City review, including: • Full Size 65% Plans (22x34) – five (5) sets •Technical Specifications – five (5) sets • Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Cost – two (2) sets •Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Working Day Schedule – two (2) sets • Draft Foundation Report – two (2) sets The deliverables listed above shall also be provided in electronic format in PDF format in an USB drive. Task 7 - Final PS&E (90% and 100%) Task 7.1 90% PS&E CONSULTANT shall advance the 65% PS&E to the 90% level. This submittal shall include the 90% plans, technical specifications and detailed construction cost estimate. CONSULTANT shall address any remaining review comments and finalize any outstanding design issues in the PS&E package. CONSULTANT shall combine technical special provisions with City prepared “boiler plate” to prepare final (100%) Project Specifications. All design activities shall be completed. The PS&E package shall be prepared for a final City review. CONSULTANT shall update the Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Costs. The CONSULTANT shall incorporate City and Stakeholders comments to finalize the cost estimate. Include supporting data for City use in administering construction. During the 90% design stage, CONSULTANT shall perform final check of the structural plans, calculations and quantity calculations. CONSULTANT shall also perform final check of the technical specifications and Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Cost. The City may have an independent third party verifying the plans and specifications. The CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the independent third party as part of the City review cycle. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 25 90% PS&E Submittal: The 90% PS&E submittal shall include all plans in required format, special provisions, technical specifications, and the engineer’s estimate as follows: • Full Size 90% Plans (22x34) – five (5) sets •Project Specifications (CONSULTANT prepared Technical Specifications combined with City prepared “Boiler Plate” Specifications – five (5) sets • Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Cost – two (2) sets • Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Working Day Schedule – two (2) sets • Response to City Review Comments of 65% PS&E •Stamped Structural Design Calculations – two (2) sets •Quantity Calculations – two (2) sets The deliverables listed above shall also be provided in electronic format in PDF format in an USB drive. Task 7.2 100% PS&E The CONSULTANT shall address any comments from the City’s final review and prepare Final PS&E with signed technical specifications, plans and the final estimate. CONSULTANT shall submit the final Plans to the City’s Building Department. CONSULTANT shall address City’s Building Department review comments and submit final signed plans for approval. 100% (Final) PS&E Submittal: The 100% (Final) PS&E submittal shall include all plans in required format, stamped calculations, special provisions and the engineer’s estimate as follows: •Full Size Final Plans (22x34) – eight (8) sets, including two (2) wet stamped & signed plans set for Building Department Submittal •Project Specifications (CONSULTANT prepared Technical Specifications combined with City prepared “Boiler Plate” Specifications – five (5) sets • Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Cost – two (2) sets • Engineer’s Estimate of Probable Construction Working Day Schedule – two (2) sets • Final Foundations Report – two (2) sets • Response to City Review Comments of 90% PS&E The deliverables listed above shall also be provided in electronic format in PDF format in an USB drive. The final plans shall also be submitted in AutoCAD format. PHASE 3: BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT The CONSULTANT shall provide bid and construction phase services including, but not limited to: Task 8 – Bid Phase Services 8.1 Bid Package DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 26 The CONSULTANT shall prepare bid documents including bid forms and final PS&E that can be used to solicit competitive bids for the Project. The final signed PS&E noted in Task 7.2 will serve as the Bid Package. Advertisement, reproduction and distribution will be by the City. 8.2 Pre-bid Conference and Bid Addenda CONSULTANT will attend the Pre-Bid Conference and support the City with response to questions. Pre-Bid conference will be administered by the City. 8.3 Bid Review The CONSULTANT will assist the City with review of submitted bids upon request. Task 9 – Construction Phase Services The CONSULTANT shall provide construction administration and support during the anticipate construction duration (Sept. 1st – January 31st). Construction Support Services shall be confirmed and authorized at the completion of the 90% PS&E phase and are anticipated to include, but are not limited to: 9.1 Pre-Construction Meeting The CONSULTANT shall attend one (1) pre-construction meeting. The City Construction Management Firm shall prepare agenda and minutes of the meeting. CONSULTANT shall respond to any project and construction documents related questions during the meeting. 9.2 Submittals and Request for Information (RFIs) The City Construction Management Firm shall administer the construction and provide day to day oversight of the construction. The CONSULTANT shall review and provide comments on contractor’s submittals, and respond to RFIs in a timely manner. Processing of submittals and RFIs will be routed through the City Construction Management Firm. 9.3 Design Clarifications The CONSULTANT shall provide clarifications and/or explanations of the construction documents, as requested by the City Construction Management Firm during construction. 9.4 Change Orders The CONSULTANT shall assist the City in preparing and reviewing change orders, as necessary. 9.5 Meetings and Coordination The CONSULTANT shall attend weekly progress meetings, upon request of the City Construction Management Firm, during the course of the construction. Coordinate construction DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 27 administration services with City’s construction management CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall make site visits for construction coordination as requested by the Construction Manager. 9.6 Final Review The CONSULTANT shall participate in the final project review at the site and assist the City Construction Management Firm with preparation of the final review punch list. 9.7 Record Drawings The CONSULTANT shall coordinate the preparation of record drawings with the Contractor and City’s construction Project Manager during the construction and post construction phases. CONSULTANT shall perform final review of the record drawings for “as-built” accuracy and assist the City in submitting the record drawings to review and approval. The CONSULTANT shall make any modifications to the record drawings as necessary. CITY PROVIDED DOCUMENTS 1. Previous studies, reports and/or documents related to the project 2. Community input 3.Baylands Master Plan 4.As-built plans 5.PDF & AutoCAD file of the Interpretive Center railing ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were made in generating this scope of work: •CONSULTANT scope of services is limited to the tasks and services as outlined in the preceding Scope of Services (Task 1 through Task 8). The Task 9 Construction Support Services scope of work and fee shall be submitted and negotiated with the CITY at the completion of the 90% PS&E submittal to ensure that all required services are adequately addressed. •Additional services shall be provided as outlined in Additional Services following this section. •The contract documents shall be prepared in the Imperial (English) system of measures. •Electronic submittals, if required, shall be in PDF format. •City will supply CONSULTANT with all available record information, including but not necessarily limited to as-built drawings, inspection reports, prior project development documents, traffic counts, City-owned utilities, right-of-way, and existing use or franchise agreements, at the initiation of the project. •All plan development shall be done in AutoCAD. Electronic plan submittals, if required, shall be in PDF format. The final Plans shall be submitted in both AutoCAD and PDF formats. •All reports shall be submitted as draft and final. One round of reviews of the draft reports shall be assumed. •CITY and any other commenting entities shall provide full comments at each submittal. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 28 •Plans and specifications shall be prepared following standard Caltrans format as outlined in “Ready-to-List and Construction Contract Award Guide” published by Caltrans. •The 2015 edition of the Caltrans “Standard Specifications” and Caltrans “Standard Plans” publications shall be referenced in the project plans and technical specifications. •CONSULTANT shall prepare Technical Specifications (Division II through Division X only) based on the 2015 edition of Caltrans Standard Special Provisions. City will prepare “Boiler Plate” general provisions and special provisions for compilation with Technical Specifications. CONSULTANT shall populate the “Boiler Plate” with the Pay item List upon request of the CITY. •Construction Cost Estimates shall be prepared based on readily available industry standards and past project experience. Construction Cost Estimates are the Consultant’s estimate of the probable construction costs. Actual construction costs may vary based on varying industry trends and competitive Contractor bids and understanding of the project. •Construction Working Day Schedules shall be prepared based on readily available industry standards and past project experience. Construction Working Day Schedules are the CONSULTANT’s estimate of the probable construction durations. Actual construction durations may vary based on Contractor methods and means. •Design scope and fee are based on an assumed maximum design duration of 24 months. •One geometric for the boardwalk shall be developed, ie. 5’-0” wide boardwalk full length plus 1 observation platform and 2 overlook platforms (match existing) •Boardwalk Conceptual Design shall include review of one (2) superstructure types and 2 substructure types •The 35% PS&E shall include plans and estimate based on the selected alternative from the Boardwalk Type Selection Report and draft IS/MND. •Scope does not include topographic surveys or potholing (none anticipated to be required) •Scope does not include right-of-way engineering (none anticipated to be required). •The City will be the Lead Agency under CEQA and the environmental document will be an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. •All impacts shall be mitigated by the project to a less-than-significant level •The proposed work qualifies for a USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit. •Attendance at the USACE Interagency Meeting on December 9, 2015 by BCA and HTH staff is included in Task 2. •Scope does not include a public outreach program. CONSULTANT shall attend public meetings and support City staff as outlined in the scope. ADDITIONAL SERVICES CONSULTANT has identified the following potential Additional Services that may be required depending on the actual conditions encountered and design features selected by City. The scope of services for these potential Additional Services cannot be reasonably estimated until further design development and studies are completed. The City will request for a proposal and issue additional services for the following task(s) listed below if needed: •Supplemental environmental technical studies (if required) •Supplemental meetings beyond those outlines in the scope (if required) •Public outreach services (if requested, such as writing press releases, development of an on- line survey of community preferences, advertisements, flyers and fact sheets) DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 29 •Topographic Surveys (if required) •Right-of-Way mapping (if required) •Hazardous Material (Hazmat) Investigation (if required) •Corrosion Engineering (if required) •Supplemental mitigation by regulatory agencies (if required) based on findings of shade study DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 30 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Weeks From NTP 1.Schematic Design 12 2. 35% PS&E 31 3. 65% PS&E 44 4. 90% PS&E 49 5. 100% PS&E 53 6. 1st Public Release Draft MND 40 7.Final MND 57 8.Agencies Permits 101 9. Construction Support TBD DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 31 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $108,767 (Preliminary Design) Task 2 $104,612 (Environmental Assessment, Clearance and Permits) Task 3 $54,491 (Project Permits) Task 4 $15,380 (35% Plans, Specifications and Estimate) Task 5 $7762 (Phase 2 Project Management and Coordination) Task 6 $55,920 (65% Plans, Specifications and Estimate) Task 7 $38,431 (Final PS& E – 90% & 100%) Task 8 $4,993 (Bid Phase Services) Task 9 TBD (Construction Phase Services) DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 32 Sub-total Basic Services $390,356 Reimbursable Expenses $9,637 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $399,993 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $39,999 Maximum Total Compensation $439,992 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $500 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Classification Actual Hourly Rate (Min) Actual Hourly Rate (Max) Overhead Multiplier Fee Fully Loaded Rate (Max) Fully Loaded Rate (Max) Principal III $95.00 $105.00 155.66% 10.00% $267.16 $295.29 Principal II $80.00 $95.00 155.66% 10.00% $224.98 $267.16 Principal I $75.00 $82.00 155.66% 10.00% $210.92 $230.61 Associate $55.00 $67.00 155.66% 10.00% $154.67 $188.42 Engineering Manager $50.00 $57.00 155.66% 10.00% $140.61 $160.30 Senior Engineer $42.00 $52.00 155.66% 10.00% $118.11 $146.24 Project Engineer $38.00 $48.00 155.66% 10.00% $106.87 $134.99 Staff Engineer $32.00 $40.00 155.66% 10.00% $89.99 $112.49 Assistant Engineer $28.00 $34.00 155.66% 10.00% $78.74 $95.62 Junior Engineer $17.00 $32.00 155.66% 10.00% $47.81 $89.99 Sr. Computer Drafter $30.00 $47.00 155.66% 10.00% $84.37 $132.18 Administration $11.00 $52.00 155.66%10.00%$30.93 $146.24 *Charge Rates Applicable October 1, 2015 – September 30, 2016 (Charge Rate revisions will be submitted in October of each year) BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Fee Schedule Baylands Boardwalk Replacement Project EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 33 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Ov e r h e a d Cl a s s i f i c a t i o n Mi n Ma x Mu l t i p l i e r Fe e Mi n Ma x Pr i n c i p a l P r o j e c t M a n a g e r 61 . 0 0 $ 87 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 7 4 % 10 . 0 0 % 20 1 . 8 0 $ 28 7 . 8 1 $ Se n i o r P r o j e c t M a n a g e r 50 . 0 0 $ 53 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 16 5 . 4 1 $ 17 5 . 33 $ Pr o j e c t M a n a g e r 34 . 0 0 $ 47 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 11 2 . 4 8 $ 15 5 . 48 $ As s o c i a t e P r o j e c t M a n a g e r 27 . 0 0 $ 40 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 89 . 3 2 $ 13 2 . 33 $ As s i s t a n t P r o j e c t M a n a g e r 25 . 0 0 $ 31 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 82 . 7 0 $ 10 2 . 55 $ Re s e a r c h e r 23 . 0 0 $ 26 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 76 . 0 9 $ 86 . 01 $ Gr a p h i c A r t i s t 25 . 0 0 $ 28 . 0 0 $ 20 0 . 74 % 10 . 0 0 % 82 . 7 0 $ 92 . 63 $ *C h a r g e R a t e s A p p l i c a b l e O c t o b e r 1 , 2 0 1 5 - S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 6 (C h a r g e R a t e r e v i s i o n s w i l l b e s u b m i t t e d i n O c t o b e r o f e a c h y e a r . ) Da v i d J . P o w e r s & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c Ac t u a l Ho u r l y R a t e Fu l l y B u r d e n e d Ho u r l y R a t e Fe e S c h e d u l e U. S . 1 0 1 / A d o b e C r e e k B i k e / P e d O v e r c r o s s i n g P r o j e c t EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 34 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Labor Classification Hourly Salary Overhead Multiplier Professional Fee % (Profit) Fully Loaded Hourly Rate Project Manager $71.51 186.0%10%$225.00 Project Engineer $62.00 186.0%10%$195.07 Senior Engineer $55.00 186.0%10%$173.04 Associate Engineer $44.50 186.0%10%$140.01 Assistant Engineer $40.00 186.0%10%$125.85 Designer $35.00 186.0%10%$110.12 Junior Engineer $32.50 186.0%10%$102.25 Technician $25.00 186.0%10%$78.66 Indirect Labor Percentage Calculations Employee & Fringe Benefits (1) 36.8% 11.2% 6.5% Payroll Tax 8.7% PST Contribution 9.6% Workers Comp 0.8% General Overhead Expense (2) 149.2% 24.6% Office Expenses 8.7% Supplies 2.8% Automobile 2.2% Travel 1.6% Taxes & Licenses 0.3% 2.5% 2.0% 4.5% Depreciation 6.3% 92.1% Miscellaneous 1.6% Total Indirect Cost (1)+ (2) 186.0%<-- Indirect Cost used for Multiplier Indirect % of Direct Labor Calculations* Benefit Insurance Legal & Accounting Schaaf & Wheeler Fully Loaded Hourly Rate by Classification Vacation, Sick, Holiday General Administration Corporate Insurance Rent and Maintenance Prof Dues & Training *Modified categories to match Federal DCAA Audit for Schaaf & Wheeler EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 35 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Classification/Role Labor Rate actual and/or range Loaded Rate 2.5 plus 10% (2.75) Project Manager $92.59 $254.61 Sr. Engineering Geologist $65 $178.75 Sr. Project Engineer (QA QC- Eng. Manager)$67.1 $184.53 Sr. Project Engineer $53 - $61 $145.75 - $167.75 Project Engineer $43 - $50 $118.25 - $137.5 Field Engineer $44 - $50 $ 121 - $137.5 Lab Technician/@Materials Tester $32 - $44 $88 - $121 Sr. Staff Engineer/PE $33 - $35 $90.75 - $96.25 Staff Engineer $28 - $34 $ 77 - $93.5 Draftsperson $34 - $36 $93.5 - $99 The rates may be changed based on annual escalations and are valid for the year specified. Loaded Rates are calculated based on: 42.27% Labor Fringes 107.73% Gen. Admin. & Overhead 150% Total Overhead 10% Fee 2.75 Total Multiplier @ Prevailing Wage will apply as per DIR requirements & will be calculated on a project specific basis. 2016 Billing Rate Cost Plus Fee EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 36 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Classification Actual Hourly Rate Overhead Multiplier Fee Fully Loaded Rate Principal $75.25 184.00% 10.00% $235.08 Associate $54.39 184.00% 10.00% $169.91 Project Manager 1 $45.69 184.00% 10.00% $142.74 Designer 1 $32.14 184.00% 10.00% $100.41 Construction Manager $50.26 184.00% 10.00% $157.01 Administration $21.00 184.00% 10.00% $65.60 Callander Associates Fee Schedule Baylands Boardwalk EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 37 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Protecting the infrastructure through innovative Corrosion Engineering Solutions CORROSION ENGINEERING SERVICES 2016 Fee Schedule Personnel Charges Rate Per Hour Principal Corrosion Engineer $220.00 Senior Corrosion Engineer $205.00 Corrosion Design Specialist $185.00 Corrosion Project Supervisor $175.00 Project Engineer $165.00 Corrosion Technician $135.00 Field Technician $115.00 Drafting/AutoCad $ 88.00 Word Processing/Computer $ 70.00 Litigation Depositions & Mediations (4 hour min. charge) $330.00 Court Appearance (4 hour min. charge) $395.00 Expenses Subsistence (Room and Meals) Cost Mileage Current IRS Standard Mileage Rate Travel (Airfare, etc.) Cost Reproduction, Outside Testing & Consulting Services Cost + 5% Notes: 1. Effective Date: Jan, 1, 2016 thru Dec. 31, 20162. Payment Terms: Net 30 days Office Address: 1100 Willow Pass Court, Concord, CA 94520 Tel. No.: 925.927.6630 Fax No.: 925.927.6634 EXHIBIT “C-1” SCHEDULE OF RATES 38 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 39 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II.CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III.ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A.PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 40 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED TO: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 41 EXHIBIT “E” DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS This Exhibit shall apply only to a contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Agreement with CONSULTANT without proof that CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. City requires CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. CITY provides notice to CONSULTANT of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors that CONSULTANT is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and CONSULTANT is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. CITY requires CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, respectively. At the request of CITY, acting by its project manager, CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of CITY’s request. CITY requests CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to the project manager at the end of each week during the Project. If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 Professional Services Rev. April 27, 2016 42 then CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and CITY shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to CONSULTANT. Inform the project manager of the location of CONSULTANT’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. DocuSign Envelope ID: DD219124-9C26-4F31-B9B0-61B2CAA30121 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6952) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/19/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Identify Preferred Alternative for Embarcadero Rd from El Camino Real to Emerson St Title: Discuss and Identify a Preferred Alternative for Roadway Improvements to Embarcadero Road Between El Camino Real and Emerson Street and Direct Staff to Complete the Environmental Analysis and Plans, Specifications and Estimates for Construction From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council review the two alternative concept plans for Embarcadero Road between El Camino Real and Emerson Street and identify a preferred alternative for the preparation of an environmental analysis and plans, specifications and estimates for construction. Executive Summary In October 2015, City Council authorized a contract with BKF Engineers to prepare plan line concepts, final design plans, environmental documentation, permits and construction documents for improvements to the section of Embarcadero Road between El Camino Real and Emerson Street. The objectives of the project are to improve safety, efficiency and experience for bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists and transit users. Two public meetings have been held to- date. The first meeting focused on developing project goals, identifying issues and opportunities, and presenting existing conditions, while the second included a discussion of the various alternatives for the corridor. As a result of this community-driven process, BKF Engineers has identified two alternative concept plans:  Alternative 1 includes two one-way Class IV separated bikeways along Embarcadero Road between El Camino Real and Emerson Street as well as a protected Dutch-style intersection at El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road/Galvez Street. This alternative does not add capacity for motor vehicles or improve intersection operations for motorists. This alternative was supported by the Planning and Transportation Commission on August 10, 2016. City of Palo Alto Page 2  Alternative 2 includes one two-way Class IV separated bikeway along Embarcadero Road between El Camino Real and Emerson Street, a one-way westbound Class II bicycle lane between Trader Joe’s and El Camino Real and new right-turn lanes at both the Town & Country driveway and El Camino Real. This alternative does add capacity for motor vehicles and improves intersection operations for motorists. However, bicyclists seeking a low-stress route may need to cross Embarcadero Road one or two times at signalized intersections to reach their destination. This alternative was supported by the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee on May 3, 2016. Both alternatives include pedestrian improvements at the intersections of El Camino Real, High Street, Kingsley Avenue and Emerson Street. Staff will present the two alternatives and answer questions at the Council meeting. Background The Embarcadero Road corridor provides a direct east-west connection between US 101 and Stanford University for visitors to the city and supports local travel with connections to Town & Country shopping center, Palo Alto High School, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and El Camino Real (SR 82). The segment of Embarcadero Road between Emerson Street and El Camino Real has been an area of community concern for many years—with three closely spaced traffic signals, within 750 feet of one another—at El Camino Real, the Town & Country and Palo Alto High School driveways, and the pedestrian crossing at Trader Joe’s. In 2013, the City initiated a preliminary planning study to provide near-term improvements along this section of Embarcadero Road and to set in motion a focused and community driven process for final improvements. The City recently completed phase one of this project, with the installation of a new traffic signal and signal controller cabinet at the Town & Country and Palo Alto High School driveways. This allows for this traffic signal and the one at the pedestrian crossing at Trader Joe’s to operate in coordination. The traffic signal for the right-out driveway from Trader Joe’s was also removed and replaced with STOP signs control. More recently, raised pavement markers were installed to prevent the drivers from merging directly onto westbound Embarcadero Road traffic without yielding first. On October 5, 2015, the City Council authorized a contract with BKF Engineers for the second phase of the Embarcadero Road Corridor Improvements Project, which includes preparation of concept plan lines, final design plans, environmental documentation, construction documents and required permitting from Caltrans, for intersection improvements at El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road/Galvez Street. Improvements include, but are not limited to, traffic signal modifications, sidewalk realignment, high-visibility crosswalks, signing and striping, bicycle treatments, landscaping and traffic calming elements. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Two community meetings were held on December 8, 2015 and March 15, 2016. Community members and stakeholders provided input on project goals, helped identify issues and opportunities, and refined various alternatives. Summary of the meeting notes and comments received, are included in Attachment A. In addition, staff met with Town & Country shopping center management and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) administrators to document the issues and opportunities related to their properties. Various alternatives were presented at the second public meeting, and sent to key stakeholders, including Town & Country, Palo Alto High School, PAUSD, and Stanford University. Staff received many constructive comments from the community. Most were related to specific bicycle improvements and safety and overall connectivity. With input from stakeholders and evaluation by the consulting team, two alternative concept plans were developed. The two concept plans and related image boards are included as Attachment B and Attachment C. These two alternatives are discussed in more detail below. Staff presented both alternatives at the May 3, 2016 Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting and the committee recommended Alternative 2. Minutes of the meeting are included in Attachment D. The project alternatives were also sent to Stanford University for their review. Although the university staff did not endorse a specific alternative, they provided constructive comments focusing on the pedestrian and bicycle safety along this corridor. Staff will be working closely with Stanford University staff during the design phase to address their concerns. Their comments are included as part of Attachment A. Staff presented both alternatives at the August 10, 2016 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting and the commission recommended Alternative 1. Minutes of the meeting are included in Attachment E. Discussion The following project constraints were applicable and were considered as part of the development of the two project alternatives.  No right of way to be acquired from Town & Country shopping center;  Limit the amount of right-of-way required from Palo Alto High School;  Fixed/limited right-of-way precluded opportunities for widening the roadway substantially;  Capacity constraints at the Caltrain underpass and connections limited benefits from standard roadway widening options;  Existing oak trees along Palo Alto High School property should remain, if possible; City of Palo Alto Page 4  Pedestrian crossings at El Camino Real and at the railroad overcrossing, are too far for students to walk, therefore requiring a controlled crossing in between;  Relocation of utilities in the El Camino Real intersection should be minimized;  Street fixtures such as signs, fire hydrants, street lights, and traffic signal poles need to be considered; and  Shuttle stops on both sides of Embarcadero Road near the school and shopping center driveway intersection should be maintained. Embarcadero Corridor Alternatives Analysis Staff also evaluated opportunities and constraints for improving motor vehicle capacity and adding accommodations for bicyclists. A number of alternatives were considered, and these two alternatives represent a cohesive combination of the ideas received. Alternative 1 represents a more bicyclist focused concept, while Alternative 2 provides opportunities to improve both motor vehicle capacity and bicyclist accommodations. Shared goals that are achieved with both of these two alternatives include:  Added bicyclist accommodations  Increased visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians  Safer routes for bicyclists and pedestrians  Improved motor vehicle operations  Preservation of existing trees or replacement opportunities  Limited need for additional right-of-way or easements Additional considerations such as safety, physical and right-of-way constraints, mid-block crossings, utilities and public input were also assessed and documented. Options were evaluated for Class I shared-use paths Class II bicycle lanes, and Class IV separated bikeways. These considerations are also described in detail below. Design Elements in Both Alternatives The following design elements have been proposed and included for both of the project alternatives:  Raised crosswalk in the channelized right-turn lane from El Camino Real northbound to Embarcadero Road eastbound: slows motor vehicles and increases visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians.  Modified driveway apron at Trader Joe’s driveway: more standard exit-only driveway design reduces driver confusion and increases the visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians.  Lane reconfiguration at Town & Country shopping center and Palo Alto High School driveways: restriping driveways and modifying lane assignments may increase motor vehicle capacity and improve operations.  Addition of stairs on the Town & Country shopping center side of Embarcadero Road: allows for easier pedestrian access to and from path along railroad overcrossing. City of Palo Alto Page 5  Maintain existing signalized pedestrian crossing: the shorter crossing distance and connected signal are more efficient than moving the crosswalk to the driveway intersection. The existing location with two controlled motor vehicle movements is safer than at an intersection with six motor vehicle movements.  Enhanced signage and markings for bicycles at the underpass: more clearly identifying the shared space between bicyclist and pedestrians, better utilizes the constrained pathway opening through the underpass.  Increased curb radius for right turns from eastbound Embarcadero Road into the Palo Alto High School driveway: reduces the amount of motor vehicles driving over curbs and damaging roadway elements.  Improved shuttle stops: on both sides of the street, additional space is allocated for the shuttle stops to avoid impinging on pedestrian and bicyclists’ space.  Existing trees are maintained as much as possible, and proposed to be replaced 1:1 nearby if removed.  Modified Kingsley Avenue approach to Embarcadero Road eastbound: creates a more standard 90-degree intersection with Embarcadero Road to reduce driver confusion and limit the number conflicts with bicyclists, pedestrians and other motor vehicles.  Revised High Street and Emerson Street intersections: reduces conflicts, reduces speed of turning vehicles and increases visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists. Concept plans for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are included in Attachment A of this report. The following tables summarize the key features of each alternative and list the pros and cons for each. Examples and images of the key features are shown in Attachment B of this report. Alternative 1: One-way Separated Bikeways and Protected Intersection with No Motor Vehicle Capacity Improvements (Cost: $2,451,000)* Segment Key Features Evaluation : (+) pro , (-) con El Camino Real Intersection  Protected (Dutch-style) intersection  Removal of two channelized right-turn lanes (+) Provides high visibility of bicyclists, although concerns include driver confusion regarding intent of bicyclists. (-) This would be the first protected intersection on El Camino Real which Caltrans may or may not approve. (-) Significant changes- require traffic signal pole relocations, moderate storm drain changes, and changes to the “pork chop” islands. (+) Traffic signal operation may be considered to create a leading City of Palo Alto Page 6 bicycle/pedestrian phase to give bicyclists and pedestrians a head-start. Town & Country (north) side  One-way raised Class IV separated bikeway and sidewalk (+) Raised separated bikeway provides separation from vehicles and pedestrians. (+) The separation also provides a location for street fixtures (signs, light poles, fire hydrants, etc.). (+) Consistent curb line has minimal storm drain impacts. (-) Does not improve motor vehicle capacity. Palo Alto High School (south) side  One-way raised Class IV separated bikeway and sidewalk (+) Raised separated bikeway provides separation from vehicles and pedestrians. (+) The separation also provides a location for street fixtures (signs, light poles, fire hydrants, etc.). (+) Consistent curb line has minimal storm drain impacts. (-) Does not improve motor vehicle capacity. Eastbound Embarcadero Rd - East of Undercrossing  One-way raised Class IV separated bikeway and sidewalk (+) Similar changes as noted above for separated bikeway. Westbound Embarcadero Rd - East of Undercrossing  One-way raised Class IV separated bikeway and sidewalk (+) A wider pathway with delineated spaces separates bicyclists and pedestrians. (+) Improved crossings increase visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians. Alternative 2: Two-way Separated Bikeway with New Right-turn Lanes (Cost: $2,186,000)* Segment Key Features Evaluation: (+) pro , (-) con El Camino Real Intersection  Two-way raised Class IV separated bikeway through intersection on south side  One-way westbound Class II bicycle lane (+) Improves visibility of bicyclists crossing El Camino Real, with an emphasis on the south side. (-) Requires modification of traffic signal. City of Palo Alto Page 7  Westbound right-turn lane (+) Eliminates conflict between vehicles turning right on to El Camino Real and bicyclists crossing El Camino Real to continue straight on Galvez Street. Town & Country (north) side  Westbound right-turn lane  One-way westbound Class II bicycle lane and sidewalk west of signalized pedestrian crossing  Two-way Class I shared- use path east of signalized pedestrian crossing (-) A shared sidewalk is similar to existing condition. (-) Street fixtures (signs, light poles, fire hydrants, etc.) take up space within standard sidewalk width. (+) A Class II bicycle lane provides dedicated space for vehicular cyclists. (+) Added right-turn lane improves motor vehicle capacity. Palo Alto High School (south) side  Two-way raised Class IV separated bikeway and sidewalk west of signalized pedestrian crossing (+) Two-way separated bikeway and sidewalk separates bicyclists and pedestrians. (-) Emphasis on this two-way separated bikeway suggests a preferred east-west bicycle route for off-roadway bicyclists. (-) Street fixtures (signs, light poles, fire hydrants, etc.) take up space within separated bikeway and sidewalk. Eastbound Embarcadero Rd - East of Undercrossing  No added bicycle facilities (-) With a lack of potential continuation on Embarcadero Road, eastbound bicyclists are encouraged to cross to the north side before the underpass and continue on the north side for a Kingsley Avenue connection to the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. (-) Similar to existing conditions where bicyclists may share a standard sidewalk with pedestrians. Westbound East of Undercrossing  Two-way raised Class IV separated bikeway and sidewalk west of signalized pedestrian crossing (+) Two-way separated bikeway and sidewalk separates bicyclists and pedestrians. (+) Improved crossings increase visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians. *Costs are rough order of magnitude construction cost estimates provided at a planning level, and are for comparison purposes only, appropriate for the current level of design. Actual construction costs will likely vary significantly from these estimates. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Each of the alternatives has varying levels of impact: Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Motor Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) Negligible improvement Small improvement with an average reduced delay of 2.5 seconds Right-of-way Very small encroachment at corners Slightly more encroachment at corners Trees Possibly no removals Street trees along Town & Country and Palo Alto High School to be relocated to behind sidewalk Cost Within CIP budget Within CIP budget Alternatives Eliminated Several elements were eliminated during the alternatives analysis process; however other elements have been incorporated into Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. The elements that were analyzed, but not included as part of the two alternatives are the following: • Remove existing signalized pedestrians crossing. This was not considered as part of the two alternatives because of the long distance between the crosswalk at El Camino Real and the existing path along the Caltrain tracks. It is very likely that students would cross the street regardless of the presence of a crosswalk. For safety reasons, the crosswalk is maintained in both alternatives. There is a negligible impact to traffic, as this signal is now coordinated with the signal at the nearby driveways. • Add pedestrian overcrossing (over Embarcadero Road and over El Camino Real). Due to cost and right-of-way constraints, this feature was not considered as part of the alternatives. While it could be considered as a separate project in the future, it was also recognized that the existing overcrossing over Embarcadero Road along the Caltrain tracks serves this exact same purpose. This project proposes/includes improved access to this path in both alternatives. • Add Class I shared-use paths on both sides of Embarcadero Road. Without reduction of the existing travel lanes, this was not possible due to right-of-way constraints. • Adding additional travel lanes on Embarcadero Road. Traffic counts confirmed that additional lanes are not warranted for capacity. Only westbound right-turn lanes were carried forward in Alternative 2. • Adding a second westbound left-turn lane to southbound El Camino Real. Because the existing single left-turn lane queue extended into the through-lane during peak times, adding a second left-turn lane was evaluated. But, because of the geometry of the City of Palo Alto Page 9 street, and a short distance between the two intersections, adding a second left-turn lane would not add significant capacity and would preclude adding bikeways. • Reconfiguration of the Town & Country parking lot. While the operation of the shopping center parking lot may contribute to spillover congestion on to Embarcadero Road, the City cannot make changes to private property without acquiring the property. The exit from the parking lot near Trader Joe’s would be reconfigured in both alternatives because this is within the City right-of-way. • Bikeways to and from the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard. Because of the lack of available right-of-way and the number of travel lanes required for the existing traffic volumes, adding bikeways that extend to Bryant Street was not included as part of this project. Observed Existing Traffic Conditions As part of the project concept development, Hexagon observed existing traffic conditions and collected data along the project study locations, during all AM and PM peak periods. They identified several operational issues, all of which are discussed below: • Westbound Embarcadero Road, east of the Palo Alto High School driveway, experiences queuing issues that extend past the underpass and towards Emerson Street. While the queuing appears to be a result of the signal at the shopping center/high school driveways, it is actually caused by the signal at El Camino Real. Hexagon observed times when the signal at the shopping center driveway was green for westbound Embarcadero Road, but vehicles could not proceed because of a back-up from El Camino Real. • It appears that the two signals at El Camino Real and the Palo Alto High School driveway are not coordinated. Sometimes they appeared to operate in synch, but that was probably just a coincidence. • At the signalized intersection on Embarcadero Road at Palo Alto High School driveway, Hexagon observed that the north and south legs sometimes received an extended amount of green time (approximately 30 to 35 seconds) in excess of the time needed to serve the vehicles on these legs. This could potentially be a defect in the detection system. • Approximately 200 feet east of the Palo Alto High School driveway, there is a signalized pedestrian crossing. This traffic signal rests in green for the east/west motor vehicle phases unless called by pedestrians wanting to cross the road. Once the signal receives a pedestrian call, the east/west motor vehicle phases will turn red for a fixed amount of time to allow pedestrians to safely cross. Hexagon observed that most pedestrians did not need all of the allocated time to cross. As a result, east/west vehicles were waiting for a green light while all pedestrians had already crossed. However, the crosswalk City of Palo Alto Page 10 signal appears to be coordinated with the driveway signal, so there were no instances when the signal was red at the crosswalk and green for Embarcadero Road at the driveways. Therefore, the existing pedestrian signal is not adding any delay to Embarcadero Road. Alternatives to the existing mid-block crossing were considered. The perception has been that this causes unnecessary congestion along Embarcadero Road. This signal was recently linked to the signal at the Town & Country driveway as part of the recently completed Phase 1 Embarcadero Road Signal Improvements Project. Observations were that the pedestrians cleared this crosswalk well before the given crossing time; therefore the minimum green time may be reduced. The overall minimum green time allocated to the crossing would be less at the existing location, than if the crossing were to be moved to the driveways. The current crossing distance at the shopping center and high school driveways is approximately 64 feet. If a pedestrian were to cross this intersection at a standard rate of 2.4- feet per second (slow crossers), this would require a minimum of 154 seconds (about 2.5 minutes). The distance to cross at the existing crosswalk is about 32 feet. This requires a minimum of 77 seconds (about 1.25 minutes). At half the time to cross, the existing mid-block signalized crossing is much more efficient, especially since it is now coordinated with the driveway signal. Therefore, the existing crosswalk location, which only has two controlled conflicting motor vehicle movements, is safer than at an intersection with six conflicting vehicular movements, two of which are semi-uncontrolled. • At the signalized intersection on Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real, Hexagon observed that the north and south crosswalks are also very long. During many cycles, when pedestrians were present at these crosswalks, the pedestrian clearance time forced the eastbound or westbound phase to hold a green light while there were no longer vehicles approaching in these directions. Pedestrians often do not use the entire pedestrian clearance time to cross the crosswalk. • Along both sides of Embarcadero Road, east of El Camino Real, because of the narrow curb lanes and lack of bicycle lanes, Hexagon observed that many bicyclists ride on the sidewalk. Traffic Conclusions The existing motor vehicle congestion along Embarcadero Road was found to not be solely caused by the volume of cars. The volume of cars is within the general capacity of the lane configurations in the corridor. Instead, the congestion was found to be caused more by the lack of signal coordination, signal timing, turning movement “friction”, and other similar conditions. By proposing many small changes to improve each of these conditions, vehicular operations can be improved. Therefore by adding right turn pockets on westbound Embarcadero Road (Alternative 2), to increase capacity for those turning movements, vehicular congestion can be improved. Any changes affecting /impacting operations and capacity at the El Camino Real City of Palo Alto Page 11 intersection, will need to be reviewed and approved by Caltrans before City can implement these changes. Hexagon’s full traffic report, including motor vehicle, bike and pedestrian counts, is included as Attachment F and Attachment G. Near term signal improvements Staff has recently completed (in early August) coordination of the timing program for the signalized intersections between US 101 and Bryant Street. The coordination for the AM peak period runs from approximately 6:30AM to 7:45 and 8:30 to 9:30AM. (An all-pedestrian phase is in operation at Middlefield and Newell Streets between 7:45 and 8:30 for the school inbound peak, and coordination is not as efficient). The PM peak coordination runs from approximately 4:00pm to 7:00pm. The coordinated timing programs vary to serve the peak direction of travel demand along Embarcadero Road. During these periods, the traffic signals generally run a higher cycle length provide increased benefits (less stopping) to the mainline (Embarcadero Road). During these periods, the side street approaches may experience slightly longer delays to turn onto or cross Embarcadero Road. The intersection of Embarcadero Road and Town and Country/Palo Alto High School driveways is not currently included with the coordination plan above with the rest of Embarcadero Road. Currently, this intersection operates independently and would not benefit from running the same cycle length as the rest of the corridor as it is affected directly by the traffic demands from El Camino Real, Town and Country Shopping Center, and Palo Alto High School. In addition, this intersection is not currently connected with the City’s Advance Traffic Management System. A connection to the central system is currently in progress, and, when complete, Staff will attempt to coordinate this intersection with the intersection of El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road. Due to El Camino Real being maintained by Caltrans, direct communication is not possible. However, Staff will attempt to synchronize to the same clock used by Caltrans, and run a timing program that will help reduce delay and improve coordination between the two intersections. Other Considerations Property Impacts. There are two significant property owners adjacent to this corridor: Town & Country shopping center and Palo Alto High School. Because of the physical constraints, both alternatives avoid right-of-way acquisition of the Town & Country property, although Alternative 2 includes a consideration of planting new trees behind the sidewalk on the Town & Country shopping center property. With the landscaped frontage along the high school property, there is an opportunity to include some public improvements without significantly affecting the school itself. A small amount of right-of-way or easement acquisition would be required from the PAUSD for both alternatives. Staff will be meeting with PAUSD staff to discuss next steps. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Utilities. There are significant utilities running within the corridor. Most of these utilities are underground and will not be affected by the proposed project. During detailed design development, after a preferred alternative is selected, potential conflicts will be considered and avoided as much as possible. There is also a significant storm drainage system on the northwest quadrant of the El Camino Real/Galvez Street intersection. Both alternatives will attempt to minimize the disturbance of this infrastructure. There are also significant utilities at the large channelized right-turn island on the southeast quadrant of the El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road intersection. Both alternatives require minor adjustments to these utilities. By maintaining the island, these adjustments remain relatively minor. Traffic signals at the El Camino Real intersection will need to be relocated with both alternatives due to the removal of the channelized right-turn islands. The traffic signal on Embarcadero Road at the Town & Country driveway intersection and at the pedestrian crosswalk will be maintained with little modification under both alternatives. Comments form Planning and Transportation Commission Staff presented both alternatives to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on August 10, 2016. Minutes of the meeting is included in Attachment E. Two members of the public made comments regarding the need for the project to address bicylists and pedestrain safety at both El Camino and Town & Country and at the Emerson/Embarcdero Road intersections . PTC unanimously voted for Alternative 1 and asked that staff look into/adddress the following design aspects during final design:  Modify signals to give priority to bikes and pedestrians;  New staircase/ramp should match design of the aesthetics of the exsiting staricase on the south side;  Prefer green lanes on El Camino Real;  Consider placing a ramp along the south side of Embarcadero Road, up to the Caltrain path;  Consider removing one lane beginning at the Glavez/ El Camino real intersection going eastbound along Embarcdero Road, in order to add right turn pockets on Embarcadero Road. **  Consider adding a stop sign or a flashing beacon at the High Street intersection; ** Staff has looked into this option and the traffic volumes for eastbound through from Glavez are too high to be able to reduce the eastbound lanes down to one lane. Alternative 2 accommodates right turn lanes at both the Town & Country and El Camino Real intersections. Policy Implications The Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan identifies and prioritizes the development of City of Palo Alto Page 13 bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The plan objectives that are advanced by the accommodation of bicyclists along this corridor include:  Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively).  Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020.  Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces to promote healthy, active living.  Objective 4: Plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities.  Objective 5: Promote efficient, sustainable, and creative use of limited public resources through integrated design and planning. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that support the accommodation of bicyclists on Embarcadero include: Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles. Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs the Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling. ProgramT-19: Develop, periodically update, and implement a bicycle facilities improvement program and a pedestrian facilities improvement program that identify and prioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities. Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destination, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employments district, shopping centers, and mulit modal transit stations. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Policy T-29: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the need of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Resource Impact Funds in the amount of $4,526,182 are available in the Embarcadero Road Corridor Capital Improvement Program Project (PL-15001) budget over the next five years. The existing design City of Palo Alto Page 14 contract with BKF Engineers is for $538,547. The estimated cost for construction of the two project alternatives ranges from $2.20 to $2.45 million. These are planning-level cost estimates and are for comparison purposes only. Actual construction costs will likely vary significantly from these estimates. Timeline Upon direction from Council on the preferred alternative, BKF Engineers will begin working on the environmental analysis and plans, specifications and estimates for construction. Staff will also work closely with Town & Country, PAUSD and Stanford University during the final design phase. Plans and documents will also be submitted to Caltrans for their review and approval. Design and environmental work is scheduled to be completed by summer 2017. Construction will be scheduled thereafter, pending Caltrans approval and funding. Environmental Review Given the nature of the proposed improvements for either alternative, the project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption. If federal funding is pursued, the project would likely qualify for a Categorical Exclusion under NEPA. The Class I exemption covers minor alterations to existing facilities so long as they involve no or negligible expansion of use. Although the project design would include additional turning lanes on Embarcadero Road, the overall roadway capacity increase would be negligible. Federal funding for the project may be pursued, and therefore would need to obtain environmental clearance under NEPA. It would be assumed that the federal funds and compliance process would be administered by the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance. This would occur after a final project alternative has been selected (that is, the NEPA process will not evaluate multiple alternatives). This will allow the project to be processed through the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under NEPA. Attachments:  Attachment A - Comments and meeting notes (PDF)  Attachment B - Concept Plans 1 and 2 (PDF)  Attachment C - Image Boards (PDF)  Attachment D - Minutes PABAC Meeting 2016-05-03 (PDF)  Attachment E - PTC meeting Minutes (PDF)  Attachment F -Traffic Memo Embarcadero & El Camino Real Improvement (PDF)  Attachment G - Bike.ped.traffic volumes (PDF)  Attachment X - Conflict of Interest Map (PDF) Shahla, Thank you for allowing Stanford to review the conceptual corridor and intersection improvements for Embarcadero and El Camino Real. At this time, Stanford does not endorse one particular alternative, as both versions provide more accommodations for bike/pedestrian connections and removal of the “pork chop” islands improves pedestrian safety issues. Review of the plans raised the following questions:  Galvez/El Camino Real intersection has high volumes of pedestrians and bicycles due to the school and shopping center and on event days. This intersection should be fully improved- not just the south side of the intersection like in Alternative 2.  On event days a large number of pedestrians and bikes go through this area. Little separations, islands and curbs should be avoided to limit tripping hazards and accommodate the volume of pedestrians and bikes.  Please confirm if you are proposing bulb-outs or curb extensions. It is difficult to tell from the plans. Bulb-outs to shorten the walking distance, is good for both pedestrians and vehicles since the ped timings consume less of the cycle giving more time to the vehicles.  Galvez is a major truck route to campus. Please confirm that the turning radii for large vehicles is maintained.  In Alternative 1 the bike lane on the north side of Embarcadero approaches the intersection and is protected/raised vs in Alternative 2, where the right-hand turn lane pushes the bike to queue in between vehicle lanes (which stresses the average rider). Further, Alternative 1 has the protected island in the Galvez/El Camino Real corner, which will protect cyclists and pedestrians from the southbound right hand vehicle movement.  Alternative 2 provides accommodations for bike/ped connections but it's not clear how the conflicts with users will be avoided and/or minimized.  The plans should clarify the connections to the Perimeter Trail on the Stanford side. Stanford staff is happy to meet with the City and the consultant to ensure the improvements do no conflict with the Perimeter Trail.  Are there proposed changes to the traffic signal phasing?  Are there proposed changes to the lighting?  Are there proposed changes to the street signage?  There are several Marguerite bus stops on Embarcadero. How will this construction impact the stops at Embarcadero Rd. @ N. Cal Ave. and Embarcadero Rd. @ Wildwood Ln? Thank you again, and please let me know if you need any additional information from Stanford. Sincerely, Whitney Whitney McNair, AICP | Director, Land Use Planning Stanford University 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 | Palo Alto, CA 94304 (650) 721-2749 – office | (650) 799-4380 – mobile | wmcnair@stanford.edu EMBARCADERO ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Community Meeting December 8, 2015 6 – 8 pm ALTERNATIVE #1- Protected Intersection at El Camino, Cycletracks on both sides, full improvements at Kingsley/High Street. Note Reference I love this intersection! Galvez St./El Camino Real intersection This is better for cyclists waiting to cross ECR eastbound – protects from right-turning vehicles. Galvez St./El Camino Real intersection – see directional arrows and bike path Shortening crossing distance is good Crosswalk on El Camino Real intersection at Galvez St. Visibility to RT’s? SW and NE corners of Galvez St./El Camino Real intersection Bikes turn way from RT’s Cycle track on north side of Embarcadero Rd. just east of El Camino intersection Removable bollards SE corner of Galvez St. /El Camino Real intersection (add to note re: “flush curb with protective bollards, typ.”) Nicer pedestrian experience with buffer North side of Embarcadero Rd. just west of Town & Country Village Sharper angle PHS driveway intersection on sight side of Embarcadero Check if there will be PHS path here PHS driveway intersection on sight side of Embarcadero Grade separated bike lane seems nice! I agree. North side of Embarcadero at Town & Country driveway Get rid of the light and crosswalk (either walk bridge or tunnel or nothing! Embarcadero Rd. crosswalk across from PHS Accommodate future Paly path opening Embarcadero Rd. crosswalk across from PHS Maintain ped xing from Paly to T&C @ped. signal Embarcadero Rd. crosswalk across from PHS * Quick fix: at uneven sidewalk joints, remove peak of asphalt and grind concrete for 120 psi bike tires/wheels. This is needed from El Camino to Kingsley South side of Embarcadero across from PHS Good – yes, this is needed! Re: Stairs with bike ramp oh north side of Embarcadero across from PHS Better here Re: Stairs with bike ramp oh north side of Embarcadero across from PHS – alternative a bit east of proposed stairs, closer to RR tracks Add stairs from underpass path to pedestrian bridge. South side of Embarcadero near RR tracks Congestion point of lunch hour between turn cyclists and high school students walking on shared-use path to shopping center – very true. South side of Embarcadero near RR tracks. Ped tunnel is such a dirty, dark, smelly experience. And a serious hazard when cyclists and pedestrians are in abundance. South side of Embarcadero near RR tracks. Cars drive very fast here – hard to slow down for (rt) turn. Deceleration lane for right turning cars. – I agree. South side of Embarcadero near High Street EMBARCADERO ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Community Meeting December 8, 2015 6 – 8 pm ALTERNATIVE #1- Protected Intersection at El Camino, Cycletracks on both sides, full improvements at Kingsley/High Street. Note Reference Bike (crossing) – this new xing is dangerous – not enough space for car queue South side of Embarcadero at Kingsley Avenue Consider beacon here. Kingsley Avenue south of Embarcadero Trim trees to improve signage visibility Kingsley Avenue south of Embarcadero Right pocket South side of Embarcadero east of Kingsley Avenue Enhanced signage South side of Embarcadero east of Kingsley Avenue Raised xwalk – anything to help calm turnoffs welcomed! – Good to put in jog – yes! East side of High St./Embarcadero intersection. I think right turn pocket is better for peds & cyclists: good North side of Embarcadero Rd. at High Street intersection. Hard to look back at traffic on Embarcadero East side of High Street just north of Embarcadero Rd. intersection Signage for cyclists “Watch for cars turning” East side of High Street just north of Embarcadero Rd. intersection Signage “Watch for cyclists” NE corner of High St./Embarcadero intersection. (1) Close High @ Embarcadero – Alma access node(?) East side of High Street just north of Embarcadero Rd. intersection (2) Complete grade separation for cars and bikes/pedestrians. North side of Embarcadero west of High Street (3) Better, but prefer #1 and #2. North side of Embarcadero Rd. at High Street intersection. (4) Add stop sign. North side of Embarcadero Rd. at High Street intersection. Wider sidewalk good, need street tree/protection North side of Embarcadero Rd. at Emerson St. intersection. Raised xwalk Emerson St./Embarcadero intersection Getting ?/integrative island – good! West side of Emerson St. at Embarcadero intersection ALTERNATIVE #2-Removed pork chop islands at El Camino, PALY shared use path, T&C bike lane with right turn pockets, partial improvements at Kingsley/High Street Note Reference This is not as good for cyclists as Alt. #1 General This is an improvement for W/B cyclists going to Stanford General Bike lane - Widen bike lane at corner to encourage Rt. turn cars to get to the Rt side of bike lane. (See VTA BTG on De Anza/Homestead. SW corner of Galvez St./El Camino Real intersection by Stanford campus Like the right turn space right of bike lane. Like westbound bike lane. NE corner of Galvez St./El Camino Real intersection Good bike lane, protects against right hook? Bike lane north side of Embarcadero just east of El Camino EMBARCADERO ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Community Meeting December 8, 2015 6 – 8 pm ALTERNATIVE #2-Removed pork chop islands at El Camino, PALY shared use path, T&C bike lane with right turn pockets, partial improvements at Kingsley/High Street Note Reference Will be covered by cars during peaks – I’m concerned that this merge zone will be entirely covered by cars. Alt. #1 is better. Bike lane north side of Embarcadero between El Camino and Town & Country driveway No need for wiggly/curvy sidewalk South side of Embarcadero between El Camino and Town & Country driveway This may go away (existing pedestrian path) - Cyclists do not travel E/B on South side. They use North side. Improvements to S side might be wasted. SW corner of Embarcadero/PHS driveway intersection Add driveway apron to #1 Embarcadero/ Trader Joe driveway intersection Cars might get backed up to get into crosswalk – I agree. Embarcadero/ Trader Joe driveway intersection Much better turning radius for automobiles exiting parking lot (better than Alternatives #1 or #3) Right turn lane of Embarcadero/Trader Joe driveway intersection Not sure this is a good idea. Queued cars may obstruct ped crosswalk to Paly. Modified Town and Country entry/exit Please check existing signal coordination. Is it working? South side of Embarcadero between PHS and RR tracks Path to Paly will be along this alignment South side of Embarcadero between PHS and RR tracks Please keep this crosswalk for Paly students Existing pedestrian crosswalk on Embarcadero east of Trader Joe driveway Get rid of this light and cross walk. Either bridge or tunnel or nothing! Existing pedestrian crosswalk on Embarcadero east of Trader Joe driveway (E) Student drop off - Bad North side of Embarcadero across from Paly Paly students would like this Re: Stairs with bike ramp on north side of Embarcadero across from PHS Make a sidewalk from path along the track to Trader Joe’s. Embarcadero Bike Path north of Embarcadero Rd. Have a way to access train path to T&C without climbing over planter boxes North side of Embarcadero Road, west of RR tracks. Stairs connecting path to bridge South side of Embarcadero Road, west of RR tracks. Tunnel = terrible eyesore. Embarrassing and dangerous! South side of Embarcadero Road by RR tracks. Signage on ped walk South side of Embarcadero Road west of Kingsley Avenue intersection. Deceleration lane for right turning cars SE side of Embarcadero Road/ Kingsley Avenue intersection. Remove? Conflict w/ eastbound traffic. I agree! Maintain existing xing on Kingsley. (Pedestrian crosswalk enhancements, typ.) Embarcadero Road/ Kingsley Avenue intersection. Sign somewhere – there to alert drivers of crosswalk South side of Embarcadero Road east of Kingsley Avenue intersection. EMBARCADERO ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Community Meeting December 8, 2015 6 – 8 pm ALTERNATIVE #2-Removed pork chop islands at El Camino, PALY shared use path, T&C bike lane with right turn pockets, partial improvements at Kingsley/High Street Note Reference (Raised tabletop crosswalk) with light High St./Embarcadero intersection Can we combine this with raised x-walk with turn lane concept in Alternative #1? High St./Embarcadero intersection I like squared up x-walk High St./Embarcadero intersection Install “rumble strips” to show automobiles approaching tabletop North side of Embarcadero before right turn lane onto High St. Is this a shared use path? It’s not marked as such. North side of Embarcadero between High St. and Emerson. This looks like a bike lane to danger – Embarcadero. Where does this bicyclist go? On sidewalk? North side of Embarcadero between High St. and Emerson. I like Alt. #1 better than this. Like other design better. Embarcadero/Emerson intersection ALTERNATIVE #3-Enhanced Crosswalks at El Camino, PALY shared use path, T&C right turn pockets, no improvements at Kingsley/High Street. Note Reference Needs bulbout NE corner of Embarcadero/El Camino intersection (Pedestrian path, typ.) - Reality is that there needs to be bike facility on N. side, so this is not realistic – Where does a bicyclist enter Stanford?? NE corner of Embarcadero/El Camino intersection Many bikes, pedestrians, strollers, etc. need to wait on this island to cross El Camino. It must be larger! SE corner of Embarcadero/El Camino intersection We need to make a through bike lane WB to Stanford – I don’t like making bikes cross back and forth. Need WB through bike access. North side of Embarcadero between El Camino and T&C driveway Bikes in 2 directions w/Peds is bad idea South side of Embarcadero between El Camino and T&C driveway Most bikes were north side, not path NW corner of Embarcadero/T&C Village intersection (Traffic light drawing) Center of Embarcadero/T&C Village Paly needs to provide enough free parking for their students. Palo Alto High School People will bike on this sidewalk like they do today. NW corner of Embarcadero/Trader Joe’s driveway intersection No yield sign, just a stop. Embarcadero/Trader Joe driveway intersection I like this. Modified T&C entry/exit, right turn only - Embarcadero/Trader Joe’s driveway intersection Yes! Maintain this access North end of Paly bike / ped path How do you prohibit parents dropping off kids here? North side of Embarcadero between Trader Joe’s & RR tracks Don’t eliminate this path when high speed rail comes. Embarcadero Bike Path by RR tracks. EMBARCADERO ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Community Meeting December 8, 2015 6 – 8 pm ALTERNATIVE #3-Enhanced Crosswalks at El Camino, PALY shared use path, T&C right turn pockets, no improvements at Kingsley/High Street. Note Reference Add Ped xing light Embarcadero Rd./High St. intersection EMBARCADERO ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Community Meeting December 8, 2015 6 – 8 pm PROJECT LIMIT DIAGRAM (Existing Conditions) Note Reference Cut curb back and widen roadway from just east of traffic light. New curb parallel to Embarcadero. This would allow cyclists to stay on roadway safely. No utilities affected, so I’d like to see this changed tomorrow! SE corner of Embarcadero/El Camino intersection Sign here inviting cyclists to ride on sidewalk. Embarcadero/PHS driveway intersection Must get rid of this light & crosswalk Embarcadero/T&C driveway intersection Knock curb down so bikes can enter at a diagonal Embarcadero/T&C driveway intersection Can a bridge or tunnel or nothing go here? Embarcadero/T&C driveway intersection Nobody heeds this light. NW corner of Embarcadero/T&C driveway intersection – right turn lane onto Embarcadero Bicycle ?? shopping center from Class-1 path. PLEASE REMOVE BOLLARDS!! Embarcadero Bike Path by RR tracks. Bicycle currently along class-1 path. Embarcadero Bike Path by RR tracks. What are the ped counts here? Embarcadero Bike Path by RR tracks. Very fast cars (right turn lane) Embarcadero/Emerson intersection Why doesn’t Emerson go through? Embarcadero/Emerson intersection EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 City of Palo Alto 15062 Concept Plans 11x17 Size (2016 07-21).indd 15062 Concept Plans Half Size (2016 07-22).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 City of Palo Alto CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1 LEGEND PROPOSED TREE NEW CURB EXISTING CURB RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING TREE TREE TO BE REMOVED Town & Country Village Palo Alto High SchoolStanford Campus planting area, typ. planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian markers, typ. bike and pedestrian markers, typ. flush curb with protective bollards, typ. bike and pedestrian markers speed table paly pedestrian entrance raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. existing pedestrian path., typ. existing pedestrian path., typ. pedestrian path pedestrian path, typ. pedestrian path existing planting area existing pedestrian path pedestrian path, typ. median nose reduction pedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. planting area, typ. bulb out and curb ramp existing pedestrian path modified kingsley ave. intersection bus shelter modified town and country exit. right turn only raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. bus shelter existing shared use path pedestrian path, typ. raised cycle track typ. shared use path (bike/ped) raised cycle track existing shared use path, typ. existing shared use path, typ. modified alleyway access existing shared use path, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. rolled curb, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. rolled curb and gutter rolled curb and gutter, typ. rolled curb and gutter, typ. pedestrian crosswalk enhancements high visibility crosswalk, typ. raised cycle track, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. pork chop reduction with bike and pedestrian accessutilities to be relocated protected intersection, typ. enlarged curb ramp, typ. bike lane, typ. existing pedestrian path, typ. existing pedestrian path stamped asphalt pavement, typ. median refuge island, typ. existing bike path, typ. existing bike path existing pedestrian crosswalk modified driveway alignment pedestrian path, typ. E l C a m i n o R e a l Embarcadero Rd. Embarcadero Rd.Embarcadero Rd. Galvez St. H i g h S t . A l m a S t . E m e r s o n S t . Kingsl e y A v e . Stairs with bike runnel M L E A J J J J L L A A B D D C L L H A A J J G I K D connection to kingsley ave. bike route EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL Ma t c h l i n e S e e B e l o w 15062 Concept Plans Half Size (2016 07-22).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 City of Palo Alto CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1 LEGEND PROPOSED TREE NEW CURB EXISTING CURB RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING TREE TREE TO BE REMOVED Town & Country Village Palo Alto High SchoolStanford Campus planting area, typ. planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian markers, typ. bike and pedestrian markers, typ. flush curb with protective bollards, typ. bike and pedestrian markers speed table paly pedestrian entrance raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. existing pedestrian path., typ. existing pedestrian path., typ. pedestrian path pedestrian path, typ. pedestrian path existing planting area existing pedestrian path pedestrian path, typ. median nose reduction pedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. planting area, typ. bulb out and curb ramp existing pedestrian path modified kingsley ave. intersection bus shelter modified town and country exit. right turn only raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. bus shelterexisting shared use path pedestrian path, typ. raised cycle track typ. shared use path (bike/ped) raised cycle track existing shared use path, typ. existing shared use path, typ. modified alleyway access existing shared use path, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. rolled curb, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. rolled curb and gutter rolled curb and gutter, typ. rolled curb and gutter, typ. pedestrian crosswalk enhancements high visibility crosswalk, typ. raised cycle track, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. raised cycle track and permeable paver buffer, typ. pork chop reduction with bike and pedestrian accessutilities to be relocated protected intersection, typ. enlarged curb ramp, typ. bike lane, typ. existing pedestrian path, typ. existing pedestrian path stamped asphalt pavement, typ. median refuge island, typ. existing bike path, typ. existing bike path existing pedestrian crosswalk modified driveway alignment pedestrian path, typ. E l C a m i n o R e a l Embarcadero Rd. Embarcadero Rd.Embarcadero Rd. Galvez St. H i g h S t . Al m a S t . E m e r s o n S t . Kingsl e y A v e . Stairs with bike runnel M L E A J J J J L L A A B D D C L L H A A J J G I K D connection to kingsley ave. bike route EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL Ma t c h l i n e S e e A b o v e CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1 EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 City of Palo Alto 15062 Concept Plans 11x17 Size (2016 07-21).indd 15062 Concept Plans Half Size (2016 07-22).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 City of Palo Alto Town & Country Village Palo Alto High SchoolStanford Campus E l C a m i n o R e a l Embarcadero Rd. Galvez St. Hi g h S t . E m e r s o n S t . Kingsl e y Ave. existing pedestrian path raised cycle track, two way, typ. bike and pedestrian markers bike lane, typ. pedestrian path, typ. pedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. planting area, typ. pedestrian path, typ. tree planter, typ. bike lane, typ.existing porkchop island removed bus shelter median curb existing pedestrian crosswalk existing shared use path, typ. existing pedestrian path existing bike path existing pedestrian path existing shared use path (bike/ped) Embarcadero Rd. LEGEND PROPOSED TREE NEW CURB EXISTING CURB RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TREE TREE TO BE REMOVED CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 2 planting area, typ. flush curb with protective bollards, typ. bike and pedestrian markers speed table paly pedestrian entrance pedestrian path raised cycle track, two way, typ. pork chop reduction with bike and pedestrian accessutilities to be relocated O N N F G A A J J protected intersection, typ. enlarged curb ramp, typ. existing pedestrian path existing bike path Galvez St. L stamped asphalt pavement, typ. bike ramp median refuge island, typ. C I M B BNpedestrian path, typ. existing planting area existing pedestrian path tree planter, typ. median nose reduction pedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. bus shelter bike ramp flush curb with protective bollards, typ. modified town and country exit. right turn only existing shared use path, typ. speed table F C G O Stairs with bike runnel D planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. raised cycle track, two way, typ. existing shared use path, typ. high visibility crosswalk, typ. modified driveway alignment pedestrian path, typ. connection to kingsley ave. bike route H N A J K planting area, typ. bulb out and curb ramp existing pedestrian path modified kingsley ave. intersection modified alleyway access existing shared use path, typ. E N Embarcadero Rd. A l m a S t . Ma t c h l i n e S e e B e l o w 15062 Concept Plans Half Size (2016 07-22).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 City of Palo Alto Town & Country Village Palo Alto High SchoolStanford Campus E l C a m i n o R e a l Embarcadero Rd. Galvez St. Hi g h S t . E m e r s o n S t . Kingsl e y Ave. existing pedestrian path raised cycle track, two way, typ. bike and pedestrian markers bike lane, typ. pedestrian path, typ. pedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. planting area, typ. pedestrian path, typ. tree planter, typ. bike lane, typ.existing porkchop island removed bus shelter median curb existing pedestrian crosswalk existing shared use path, typ. existing pedestrian path existing bike path existing pedestrian path existing shared use path (bike/ped) Embarcadero Rd. LEGEND PROPOSED TREE NEW CURB EXISTING CURB RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TREE TREE TO BE REMOVED CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 2 planting area, typ. flush curb with protective bollards, typ. bike and pedestrian markers speed table paly pedestrian entrance pedestrian path raised cycle track, two way, typ. pork chop reduction with bike and pedestrian accessutilities to be relocated O N NF G A A J J protected intersection, typ. enlarged curb ramp, typ. existing pedestrian path existing bike path Galvez St. L stamped asphalt pavement, typ. bike ramp median refuge island, typ. C I M B BNpedestrian path, typ. existing planting area existing pedestrian path tree planter, typ. median nose reductionpedestrian path, typ. planting area, typ. bus shelter bike ramp flush curb with protective bollards, typ. modified town and country exit. right turn only existing shared use path, typ. speed table F C G O Stairs with bike runnel D planting area, typ. bike and pedestrian marker, typ. raised cycle track, two way, typ. existing shared use path, typ. high visibility crosswalk, typ. modified driveway alignment pedestrian path, typ.connection to kingsley ave. bike route H N A J K planting area, typ. bulb out and curb ramp existing pedestrian path modified kingsley ave. intersection modified alleyway access existing shared use path, typ. E N Embarcadero Rd. A l m a S t . Ma t c h l i n e S e e A b o v e CONCEPT PLAN ALTERNATIVE 2 15062 Planning Committee Image Boards (2016 07-21).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 City of Palo Alto CONCEPT IMAGES: ALTERNATIVE 1 Bulb Out and Curb Ramp Raised Cycle Track & Permeable Paver Buffer Stamped Asphalt Pavement Planting Area Speed Table Bike and Pedestrian Markers Bus Shelter Median Refuge Island Proposed TreeHigh Visibility Crosswalk Stairs with Bike Runnel Flush Curb with Protective Bollards Protected Intersection A B C D IHGFE J K L M 15062 Planning Committee Image Boards (2016 07-21).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS August 10, 2016 City of Palo Alto CONCEPT IMAGES: ALTERNATIVE 2 Bike and Pedestrian Markers Bike Lane Bike Ramp Stairs with Bike Runnel Bulb Out and Curb Ramp Bus Shelter Flush Curb with Protective Bollards High Visibility Crosswalk Median Refuge Island Raised Cycle Track Proposed Tree Protected Intersection Stamphed Asphalt Pavement Planting Area Speed Table A B C D E JIHGF K L M N O PABAC Meeting Notes  May 3, 2016    Call to Order at 6:02pm  Approval of Action Minutes:   Unanimous vote about green signs for guidance instead of purple.   Agenda Changes  7b will be longer discussion of two‐way cycle tracks.  Park and Page Mill will be 8b  4. VTA BPAC meeting – no quorum at the April meeting. Progress report on Crossroads database  program, includes data on crashes. Palo Alto is making some progress in feeding into that database.  Police will have to do some upgrades.  Implementing new incident reporting system. This will tie into  Crossroads. Paul says we are data‐starved.    Caltrans is getting a workplan together. Approved formulas for Complete Streets project selection.  See  Paul for details.  Envision Silicon Valley update: concerns about whether money will go to South County. Bart and  electrification of Caltrain are big items.    Bay trail behind Moffett is highly improved with decomposed granite and shoulders, courtesy of Google.   Official opening on Bike to Work Day.   Page Mill/280: Productive, cordial meeting. County listened to public opinions. County is hearing that  reducing the speeds is the most important thing they can do to improve safety here. Paul sent in a  comment to ask that data collection be a part of the project.  5. SRTS Report  Sylvia recapped the council report last night and Kathy’s proclamation.  Draft operating budget has a full time position for SRTS.    Paul: Change the vision in Palo Alto that we can eliminate the driving congestion to school.    Bruce: Can the City force PAUSD to reuse their parking lots?   Robert Neff: BTWD. People haven’t heard from Jeff recently. Some PABAC members have volunteered.  6. El Camino/Embarcadero Project:   Josh: Council will need to decide if they want to adopt an option that increases auto capacity despite  what our Comp Plan policies say. The other option is a full bike/ped improvement option.   He describe  the two options in detail.  Paul: Folks don’t obey the directional signage in the Embarcadero tunnel. They are going to Trader Joes  and stay on the north side walking and biking in both directions.   Bruce: Can we widen the tunnel?  Bill Z: Concerned that bikes would be pinched off by cars queuing for the turns.   Paul: Council won’t be happy about reducing capacity at this intersection. Josh: This doesn’t change  capacity.  Rob R: How can we participate? July meeting?  Robert Neff: Yes!  Concern for folks from Stanford going to Town and Country. Protected intersection may need to be  designed for two‐way bike traffic.  Members preferred improvements on the south side of Embarcadero east of the tunnel as opposed to  the option where no improvements are done here.  Idea: Add dual left or some other lane configuration.  Josh: We can look into that.  Add wayfinding at crosswalk to downtown, include times to destinations. Josh: MUTCD does not allow  times to be on signs.  Consensus: Both are an improvement over the current situation.  Vote: Option 2 with improvements on the south side, east of the tunnel. 8 in favor and 1 against.  7. Park Blvd. Cycletrack demo recap and discussion:  Some members in favor, others against. Palo Alto Central sent feedback with concern about losing  parking on Park Blvd. Considering a path through the Caltrain parking lot.  8b.Page Mill and Park – it is extremely important that the bike lane be put in as permitted with a gutter  pan that is not too wide.  Inspectors need to be on top of this.  There is still an option to make the travel lanes narrower and widen the bike lanes.  8. Bike Blvd Update:  Consent agenda items were taken off and are on the calendar for Monday’s council meeting. Combined  with contracts for Alta and Fehr and Peers for final design.  Action Item #9.    How to change the concepts in the concept plans? Some items keep appearing even though PABAC has  been asking questions about them. Speed humps between El Verano and Meadow, traffic circles at  Loma Verde and Campesino.  If PABAC has specific concerns, PABAC should vote tonight to have featured re‐examined.   Neff: PABAC endorses the concept plans and would like staff to reconsider the traffic circle at Loma  Verde and Campesino and the speed humps between El Verano and Meadow. Otherwise, PABAC is  strongly in favor of moving the BB’s projects forward.    Vote: 6 in favor, 3 opposed, 1 abstaining.   Comments from those opposed want to keep the momentum going.  There is some concern that the bike community looks divided. Might make council decide to stop  projects.   Ken Joye: motion to endorse the plans as is.  No second.  Robert Neff will write a letter to council summarizing the vote.  9. Greenway for a Day  112 comment cards received.  Robert Neff said that this trail would give access to the Baylands.   Adobe creek Trail on July 4th – Try to make it open to peds and bikes. Talk to Robert to volunteer.  Midtown connector will go to PTC on May 25th and to Council June 20.    10. Status of 101 Bridge at Adobe Creek:   Gap in gas tax funding, MPOs were asked to cut funds in their regions. VTA nominated this project to get  cut but will replace with OBAG funds. Looks like project will be cut from STIP. Will be a bare bones  overcrossing.   11. Bike Share  Council agreed that we should transition to a smart bike system, Social Bike system. Half the cost of  Smart Dock system. Josh is meeting with a vendor to employ at 35 station 350 bike system. Roll it out  within a year. City cost would $1.9Million over 5 years.  Josh left at 7:49pm.  Jane: Thanks to Paul for suggesting calling public works to take obstructing trees out.  Paul will be absent from the next meeting.  Adjourned at 7:52pm.   1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 August 10, 2016 3 4 DRAFT EXCERPT 5 6 7 Review and Recommendation of Project Alternatives to City Council for the Embarcadero 8 Road Corridor Improvements Project 9  10 Chair Fine: Let's move on to Item Number 2.  This may be the big one for tonight.  If we need to 11 in the middle we can take a few minutes break, but it’s still early so let's get started.  So Item 12 Number 2 is review and recommendation of project alternatives to the City Council for the 13 Embarcadero Road corridor improvement project and let me just bring up my notes.  So here 14 we are looking at two concept plans for Embarcadero between El Camino and Emerson 15 essentially from Town & Country down to Castilleja.  The objectives of this project are to 16 improve safety, efficiency, and experience for all road users essentially a multi‐modal approach.  17 And I believe the staff wants to kick it off with a presentation.   18  19 Joshuah Mello, Chief Transportation Official: Alright, greetings Commissioners; I'm Josh Mello 20 the City's Chief Transportation Official.  With me this evening is Jason Mansfield to my right 21 from BKF Engineers.  Jason's going to kick it off with a presentation.  To his right is Shahla Yazdy 22 who is our Project Manager with the City.  And also in the audience is Gary Black who is with 23 Hexagon Traffic Consultants and he'll be able to answer any operational questions that you 24 have regarding the two different concepts.  So with that I'll turn it over to Jason who's going to 25 run through a quick presentation and then were available for a question and answer.   26  27 Jason Mansfield, BKF Engineers: Thanks.  [Talking off microphone to set something up] Hello, 28 Commissioners.  We also have Pierre from Callander Associates.  They're on our design team, 29 the landscape architects, down in the nitty gritty of making it look good and work well.  So they 30 can answer questions as well.   31  32 [Talking off microphone to set something up]  There we go.  All right so I'm just going to go 33 through the basic outline here of talking about the background and our process and our goals 34 and where we're at today and where we're going.  So obviously this has been a discussion for 35 quite a while is how can we fix this corridor?  It’s very congested and I'd like to say it needs to 36 be Palo Alto‐ized.  We need to get some bike facilities in there.  So there was a Phase 1 where 37 they did some improvements to the traffic signals, right?  And especially that intersection with 38 the driveways and the pedestrian crossing; and then this is the Phase 2 where we're looking at 39 some more structural changes to the overall corridor.   40  41 The previous, previous to our involvement was a study and some recommendations that really 42 defined what the corridor should be and that's what we're looking at here is from Embarcadero 43 down to Emerson.  So again the Phase 1 included some improvements to the driveway traffic 44 signal, some signal timing, and curb ramps at that intersection and coordinated pedestrian 45 2 signal as well.  I’m sorry?  That work is done, yes.  With the pedestrian signal and the driveways.  1 Not, not beyond those two signals.  Those two signals are coordinated.   2  3 Mr. Mello: So yeah.  So the last step is to actually we can answer questions at the end.  The last 4 step is to actually install a mobile communications device at the signal cabinet that controls the 5 pedestrian signal and the Town & Country driveway (interrupted)  6  7 Commissioner Waldfogel: It just diminishes the credibility of the report if you say something's 8 done when it's not, just a comment because people's experience on Embarcadero is still pretty 9 bad.   10  11 Mr. Mansfield: I think we were pretty clear that the coordination between the pedestrian signal 12 and the driveways has been completed.  That, that… those two signals (interrupted)  13  14 Mr. Mello: Yeah, the infrastructure work associated with Phase 1 is complete.  What's left to do 15 is the signal timing changes and coordinating the driveway signal with the remainder of 16 Embarcadero.  So the infrastructure work is complete; that was part of Phase 1.   17  18 Mr. Mansfield: And what we're looking at as part of Phase 2 is coordinating with say the El 19 Camino signal and I think as a separate project the City's looking at the overall corridor from 20 101, but if you look at our project area the work that has been completed is the driveways and 21 the pedestrian signal.  We've also completed already completed part of our scope which is 22 looking at all the existing information, getting the topography as part of our base drawings and 23 information utilities.  We've also done some stakeholder outreach.  We've met with Town & 24 Country owners.  We've met with the school district.  We've had a couple of community 25 meetings that were open and also gave some information to Stanford and to Palo Alto Bicycle 26 Advisory Committee (PABAC) and a couple of others that try and elicit this information and 27 we've been able to coalesce that into some alternatives.  In fact, I guess just to just to clarify 28 too on the community meetings we pretty much started with a base of nothing like let's hear 29 your concerns, your comments.  Like wait aren't, are all these signals coordinated?  Because 30 they sure don't seem to be, right?  And so this helped define what we would look at and what 31 we would address.  And then we came up with a number of different ideas that were presented 32 in say about four concepts in various different combinations and that was what was presented 33 at the second community meeting.  And so that kind of helped vet what looked good, what 34 people liked, what people didn't like and that's what we used to come up with a couple of 35 alternatives that you see today.   36  37 So what are we going to do after this?  We will take it to Council with hopefully a preferred 38 alternative that you all seem to like and get that consensus from the Council and then we 39 would start the environmental documentation for that to vet impacts and potential impacts 40 that sort of thing and incorporate that into a final design document that would then be 41 complete like mid to late 2017.  So our goals for the project were of course if we can improve 42 traffic operations.  I mean I know personally I've been stuck in that queue a couple of times and 43 I would like it to move forward.  And how many times do I have to sit through these signal 44 cycles, right?  So if we can improve the traffic operations that would be great.  Supporting mass 45 transit which also helps the traffic of course if we can get people out of their cars and there's a 46 3 couple of transit stops in this corridor or so we want to maintain that and improve bicycle 1 comfort and safety.  So right now there's basically zero bicycle infrastructure through this 2 corridor and so we really need to include that.  And that was one of the big things we heard 3 from the meetings and from the stakeholders was that there is a real need and desire for 4 improved bicycle facilities through here and also pedestrian, improved pedestrian facilities as 5 well.   6  7 So the westbound backup was one significant observation that's my personally and one that 8 I've always seen is trying to get up through the Embarcadero corridor just to make a right on El 9 Camino takes forever.  But there's also additional vehicular backup throughout the corridor and 10 we recognize that and it seems to happen any time during the day.  We look at peak hours, but 11 really it could happen at any time during the day and other times as it's just fine.  And then of 12 course there's the Trader Joe's driveway.  That's a real, been a real bone of contention over the 13 years and various iterations and versions have been altered through the years and recently.  It's 14 actually different than the picture up here.  It's been sort of modified so that it's a little more 15 perpendicular to the roadway so that people don't have to look back over their shoulder to see 16 and merge with traffic and hopefully that has helped a little bit.  And of course especially 17 through the under crossing that it's really a narrow constrained corridor through there and 18 there's really I mean unless you're going to look at the bigger picture of replacing this bridge 19 structure and abutments and everything.  That's a that's a significant [strain] that we did not 20 look at changing as part of this project.  So that it's really narrow through there.  We assume we 21 can't add bike lanes without removing a vehicular lane.  It's again it's really tight and same thing 22 with the pedestrian corridors through there.  They're very constrained.  So the bikes ride on the 23 sidewalk through that corridor, through that and under the underpass.  And actually for the 24 most part over this whole corridor they ride on the sidewalks on Town & Country frontage and 25 Palo Alto High School (Paly) frontage.   26  27 And then there's the pedestrian traffic signal.  There's obviously a lot of different public 28 perception on this pedestrian crossing and what we found was it was well coordinated with the 29 driveway, that we didn't see any time where it was not coordinated.  And so that, that was 30 good that it's a shorter crossing distance and I think we described it pretty well in the staff 31 report so hopefully you're able to read through that, but it's a reduced number of crossings, 32 potential conflicts, it's a shorter crossing distance so we really felt like that worked really well.  33 And it wasn't a constraint to vehicular capacity.  On the other hand the coordination between 34 the driveway signal and El Camino signal was erratic.  Sometimes it worked well and sometimes 35 it didn't.  And so that needs a little bit more vetting.  As you know it’s a California Department 36 of Transportation (Caltrans) signal so there's the challenge of coordinating that.  We've had 37 some communication, in fact at this point now we do have an encroachment permit as part of 38 this project so that can open the conversation with Caltrans a little bit better and we can 39 hopefully have that conversation here soon.  Particularly depending on the preferred 40 alternative that we're given then we can give Caltrans more direction as far as what our plan is 41 here.  And again the there's lack of some pedestrian facilities or identifying exactly where they 42 should be, unmarked crosswalks, a nonstandard sidewalk widths, that sort of thing.   43  44 As I mentioned we did have the community meetings.  They were largely attended by bicycle 45 advocates.  I think a number of PABAC members were at the meetings and so I think that was 46 4 partly why there was a large focus on bicycle improvements at the community meetings, but I 1 think everybody seemed to agree that a lot of those improvements made sense.   2  3 So if we want to get into the alternatives here I’ll run through, you can see down along the 4 bottom of the page are some key features that we wanted to point out and some examples of 5 what those features could look like here.  And Alternative 1 is largely the concept where we 6 have separated bike facilities and pedestrian facilities on both sides of the street as much as we 7 could and a fully protected intersection at El Camino.  So that means that the bicycles are given 8 space of their own apart from cars, apart from peds and so there's fewer, potentially fewer 9 conflicts and the expectation of where bikes and peds are supposed to be.  It introduces some 10 small islands at the corners so that they're directed in different areas and it really isolates them 11 with some pavement texture and that sort of thing crossing.  You'll see in the example that 12 there are green bike lanes in the protected intersection example and we've got grey, we 13 wanted to just that was only because we wanted to avoid the Christmas color scheme there so 14 if there's any comments on that we’re welcome to hear it.  But we wanted to incorporate sort 15 of a continuation of some of what you've already seen say at Stanford intersection, Stanford 16 and El Camino intersection with the red crosswalks there.   17  18 We've got a speed table at the northbound right turn from El Camino on to Embarcadero.  19 Between the pork chop island we keep that big pork chop island because there's a lot of utilities 20 in there, be very expensive to relocate plus the geometry of the roadway with the acute angle 21 there really says you kind of should keep that.  It also helps with the large crowds when there's 22 an event at Stanford for pedestrians to stage there.  So we've incorporated a large pedestrian 23 crossing area there that is really adds some visibility, but also some place where they can wait 24 to cross and that sort of thing.   25  26 But again the key feature here is the full protected intersection with the cycle tracks on both 27 sides.  So you can see that the bike is, the bike area is raised and separated from the vehicles 28 and then it's also separated from the pedestrians.  And there's buffer zones in there so that we 29 can fit trees and light poles and signs and fire hydrants and things like that so they're not in the 30 bike lane.   31  32 And then a couple more images just of the bollards and the white pedestrian crossings so that 33 we can avoid cars driving up onto it, that sort of thing.  And also the pedestrian refuge which 34 you can see we were able to include one on the Galvez end leg of this intersection.  Because of 35 the roadway geometry we weren’t able to really include it on all of the legs here.  We might be 36 able to add it on the northern leg of El Camino, but that and that's about the only place.  The 37 other locations with the protected intersection it just takes up a lot of space and the turning 38 movements sort of preclude sticking that nose out there.   39  40 Then as we follow along easterly towards the driveway intersection you'll see that we carry 41 those cycle tracks through.  Once you get to the Paly frontage there's not enough space.  We're 42 trying to minimize our right of way encroachment on to the Paly property and you can see that 43 there is a little bit of encroachment on this alternative at the intersection, but we were able to 44 minimize that by then combining the bikes and the peds a little bit closer so that they're not 45 5 they're still identified separate spaces.  But there's no buffer there and it's a little bit tighter I 1 would say.  We also try to keep those trees there.   2  3 Another key feature here to look at is the Trader Joe's driveway.  So we bring that 4 perpendicular.  It sort of more solidifies what's out there right now with the striping and the big 5 giant [bought dots].  And we keep the transit stops.  We'd like to improve those if possible 6 make it a little more desirable to use the transit so we looked at is there room for bus shelters.  7 And then when you go under the underpass because it is constrained we can't really separate 8 the different movements out in a standard manner so we've got some creative solutions to 9 identify as an expectation of where bikes should be, where cars, bikes should be, where peds 10 should be so that there isn't as much conflict.  And then of course we've tried to improve the 11 landscaping, have the look and feel be a little bit more improved and pedestrian friendly, just 12 more inviting.   13  14 We also included a stairway here.  That's the key feature here.  So there's like a really little 15 trough up the stair where you can drag your bicycle up it's a little easier than dragging it up the 16 stairs and that's why it's a little bit larger than you might expect.  But right now that's where a 17 bunch of people are cutting up the embankment.  So they walk up the embankment there, 18 yeah.  And we felt that that was important.  We heard that a lot of people thought that might 19 be a good idea and we’ve carried that through both alternatives.   20  21 And then on the other side you see we've made some alterations to the road way connections 22 here.  I'll start with where you're going eastbound on or westbound on Embarcadero towards 23 the underpass.  And you want to connect into Alma.  So right now that's sort of a straight shot 24 and a lot of people were concerned about the safety there because cars just drive straight 25 through at speed and it's hard for pedestrians to cross.  So we've kind of brought the curb in 26 and given them a little bit of a right turn pocket to get out of the traffic and that way they're 27 able to slow down and make an actual turn and that's a little bit safer for the pedestrians and 28 the bicyclists coming across with their… Again, a cycle track on both sides of the street here.   29  30 And carrying through on that same northern side of the roadway we eliminated one of the 31 roadway connections at Emerson so that there'd be only one crossing for peds and bikes.  And 32 it's a little more conventional.  And then that follows through eventually to the connection to 33 Bryant Street.   34  35 Then on the south side we've got the Kingsley intersection and so we've again also tried to 36 standardize it and square it up a little bit so that there's a little bit better visibility for everybody 37 and people aren’t looking back over their shoulder at cars coming and not seeing bikes and 38 peds.  So it's a little more visible.  We've separated out the bikes and peds here.  They go a little 39 bit different direction.  So you can see that the peds are encouraged across Kingsley in one 40 location and we've got a little bulb out there so that its, they don't have as far to cross.  They're 41 not in the street as far.   42  43 And that's about as far as we get.  We looked at a little bit further, but there just wasn't the 44 space in the roadway and so we felt that that should be a different project.  We had already 45 extended the limits of this project a little bit and so this is where we stopped with that.   46 6  1 So Alternative 2 is more of a focus on bikes on the Paly side of the road here.  So we've got a 2 two way cycle track coming through here for bikes and of course the sidewalk, but what we 3 heard from the community was well you still need to have some sort of bike facility on the 4 Town & Country side.  So we included a bike lane, but this was also to look at can we improve 5 the vehicular operations as well and capacity.  So we added some right turn pockets which does 6 that a little bit and I should say on both alternatives actually we've tweaked some of the turning 7 movements at the driveways and that helps improve some of the vehicular operations as well.  8 But this alternative looks at the right turn pockets as well.  So you can see it's sort of a half 9 protected intersection almost.  The southern leg of El Camino is very similar with that as that 10 protected intersection.   11  12 So then and then you move further down on Alternative 2 again the focus is putting bikes on 13 the Paly side and still having the space for more experienced and confident bicyclists on the 14 Town & Country side.  But you do see that we have a little bit more impact into the Paly 15 property.  We've also changed up the Trader Joe's driveway just a little bit so it's a much more 16 conventional driveway approach.  It's got a conventional driveway apron, a very standard 17 application there, and a median there so that you don't have left turning vehicles out of there.  18 This is at the pedestrian crossing the existing pedestrian crossing we would have the bikes cross 19 here.  So again focusing on a preferred bicycle route so that it's more expected of where they 20 would be.   21  22 Oh yeah, yeah.  And right.  Not only we had the right turn pocket on El Camino, but for El 23 Camino, but we also have a right turn pocket here for Town & Country.  So you’ll see that as 24 well.  And you might be able to see the turning movements here, changes at the driveways.  So 25 basically we're trying to add a dual left and we're not adding lanes to these driveways we're just 26 redesignating what movements can turn from which lane.  So we've got a dedicated left turn 27 lane from Town & Country with all movements from the other lane.  And then from Paly we 28 added or we switched it up so that it's just I believe it's just a dedicated right turn.  So then as I 29 mentioned we kept the staircase through both alternatives.   30  31 And then here on the other side it's a little bit different and again a little bit the same.  So the 32 similarity for is in the roadway geometry and connections so we kept most of that basically the 33 same.  What we changed is again the focus on bikes and where they're going.  So we really 34 wanted to see how can they get to the Bryant bike boulevard, right?  And that's a major 35 corridor and how can we make these connections with this project.  And really that was on the 36 north side so that's again why we focused on bikes on the north side.  On the south side they'd 37 have to if they came along that route they'd have to mix in with traffic at this point or ride on 38 the sidewalk.  We kept the pedestrian maneuvers pretty similar on the south side and on the 39 north side for both alternatives.   40  41 So again just as an overall summary of the two alternatives, Alternative 1 we've got sort of 42 similar bike facilities on both sides of the street through the whole corridor and then a full 43 protected intersection at El Camino.  And Alternative 2 we focus on a key route for bicyclists, 44 especially for kids and that sort of thing.  So they would be mostly on the Paly side and then 45 they would cross and be on the north side to be able to connect into the Bryant bike boulevard.  46 7 They're also the right turn pockets for Alternative 2.  To some extent some of these can be 1 mixed and matched and we can come up with sort of homologation of preferred alternative, 2 but there is a very constrained right of way and if you've got questions you want us to, you 3 want to see if something could be mixed and matched we can let you know if that fits or not.  4 We feel like they're both, these are both good alternatives they're just a little bit different.  5 They both incorporate what we've heard from community members in the meetings and the 6 stakeholders.  So it isn't like one excludes one over the other but, if again if there is some 7 mixing and matching just ask away and we can hopefully answer if that's even possible.   8  9 Mr. Mello: And thank you Jason.  And just to go back to Commissioner Waldfogel's earlier 10 comment about Phase 1 and to bring you up to speed on some of the things that have been 11 implemented over the last year as we move through this study.  Shahla was the project 12 manager for Phase 1 of this project which was solely comprised of traffic signal improvements.  13 So a new signal cabinet was installed and the existing pedestrian crossing that signalized and 14 the signal at the Paly/Town & Country driveway were linked to one signal cabinet and they now 15 operate in a coordinated fashion.  However that is the one signal cabinet that is not linked to 16 our new traffic signal system, our ATMS system, so we are currently in the middle of installing a 17 cellular connection from that traffic signal to our central traffic control center that will enable 18 us to coordinate all of the signals along Embarcadero between Town & Country and East 19 Bayshore.   20  21 This week we actually implemented a new traffic signal timing plan along Embarcadero 22 between [Gang Road] and the Bryant Street signal.  And you may notice that when you travel 23 during the peak hour we've actually coordinated in the peak hour direction and folks departing 24 the Middlefield intersection in the primary direction will actually get a series of green signals as 25 they move at 25 miles an hour along the corridor.   26  27 The next step as I said is to install communications equipment at the Town & Country driveway 28 signal.  And we also want to get the timing plan from Caltrans for the El Camino signal.  We 29 can't tie directly into that signal, but we can sync the clock for our larger coordination plan to 30 the Caltrans clock.  And it will operate somewhat in coordination, but we'll have to check on it 31 every once in a while to make sure.  We've also installed what are called traffic buttons at the 32 Trader Joe's driveway.  While we were conducting the study for this project we noticed that 33 people were emerging from the Trader Joe’s driveway without yielding to the traffic that was 34 already in the curb lane along Embarcadero.  So we created more of a forced yield situation by 35 pushing the cars more at a 90 degree angle and installing a yield bar which now most folks are 36 properly yielding and not blocking people in the curb lane approaching the driveway.   37  38 We’ll also be making a series of changes at the High Street ramp from Embarcadero up to Alma 39 creating a situation similar to what's shown in the concepts here just using striping and traffic 40 buttons.  And we have outreached to all of the abutting property owners and they're very 41 supportive of that.  So we're hoping to do that in the next couple weeks.   42  43 So this has been a little bit of a iterative process.  We've implemented things as we've identified 44 issues as we’ve moved through this project.  So I don't want you to think that we're not paying 45 attention to this area and that we’re just waiting for the long term project to be completed.  46 8 We are actively trying to address some of the concerns out there and we've seen a little bit of 1 progress, but I think once we get that signal linked in to the larger network and try to 2 coordinate it a little better with the Caltrans signal we’ll see some improvements out there.  3 And with that I'll open it up to questions. 4  5 Chair Fine: And so thank you very much for the thorough report.  Before I open it up to 6 questions de we have any cards from the public?  No speaker cards?  Ok, I think we should…  7 [talking off microphone] Yeah, yeah, please.  Happily.  And while you fill that out we’ll get you 8 on deck.  I just want to mention that my Commissioner, fellow Commissioners we can certainly 9 have questions, but we've got a lot bigger diagrams up there and my suggestion is we probably 10 should walk over there and just look at the boards and can we draw on them too if we need?  11 Thank you.   12  13 Commissioner Waldfogel: Can I just ask a framing question, not a specific (interrupted)  14  15 Chair Fine: Go for it (interrupted)  16  17 Commissioner Waldfogel: Sorry, yeah.  And by the way, thank you for the response.  I mean I 18 just think that we need to be very sensitive about people's experiences as they move through 19 town.  So that's just [unintelligible] the root cause.  Could you speak to constraints that you 20 faced when you were looking at this?  I want to just give you a couple of examples.  I mean I 21 don't know if you had specific budget constraints or I don't know if you specifically decided 22 ahead of time you couldn't change where the Paly driveway is or the you couldn't eliminate the 23 Trader Joe's driveway or a pedestrian overpass was just completely out of budget or I mean I 24 can imagine a lot of things that one could do that aren't part of this, but I assume that you had 25 constraints.   26  27 Mr. Mello: So very early in the process we looked at the notes from the presentation to 28 Planning and Transportation Commissioner (PTC) back in 2014.  There are a lot of good 29 comments that came out of that when my predecessor presented the traffic signal project.  We 30 also looked at right of way lines.  Early on we decided that widening underneath the tunnel was 31 infeasible so that leaves us with a three lane cross section feeding this section of roadway.  32 Early on we met with Town & Country and talked to them and their parking is already at 90 plus 33 percent capacity during some of their high traffic periods.  So taking away any of their parking 34 through right of way acquisition was seen as pretty unfeasible.  We met with the school district 35 and talked to them and they seemed relatively open to starting a discussion about right of way 36 acquisition from the school district; however, there is a line of old growth oak trees pretty close 37 to the right of way line.  So we kind of drew the line at those trees and said that we didn't want 38 to impact the school property any bit, anywhere near the area that would impact those trees.   39  40 Caltrans any kind of improvements in the Caltrans right of way would have to meet Caltrans 41 design standards.  The protected intersection when we actually began this process was not in 42 the current Caltrans design standards, but as we moved along they adopted a design 43 information bulletin is what it's called that actually includes some specifications around 44 protected intersections so then that opened up that possibility.  We did look at the pedestrian 45 over crossing pretty early on and that would pretty much blow the entire Capital Improvement 46 9 Project (CIP) budget and more.  And we didn't really see given the fact that there's an existing 1 over crossing parallel to Caltrain we didn't think that that would be a wise expenditure of funds.  2 And after we started to look at the traffic operations and Gary can talk a little bit to this if you'd 3 like him to, we determined pretty early on that the pedestrian crosswalk was actually not the 4 primary cause of the motor vehicle congestion out there.  It was the capacity at the Caltrans El 5 Camino intersection and then turning movements in and out of Town & Country that were 6 actually delaying motor vehicles more so than the cross‐walk.   7  8 And in regard to the budget we actually prepared the CIP request as we were moving through 9 this process.  So we had a pretty decent handle on what, we did not scope this project based on 10 a budget.  We kind of scope the CIP budget based on where we were at the time the budget 11 was being assembled in this project.  That's why the budget’s actually a little bit higher than the 12 planning level cost estimates if you look at the report.   13  14 Chair Fine: Alright, thank you very much.  Let's go to our public speakers and then we can ask 15 our questions or draw up on the board.   16  17 Vice‐Chair Gardias: So we have two speaker cards.  First is Tom Shannon followed by Barbara 18 Hazlett.  You have five, you have five minutes. 19  20 Tom Shannon: So good evening.  Tom Shannon, 256 Kellogg; I live across the street from 21 Castilleja, but I'm not here to talk about that.  I'm also a big bicyclist and just wanted to 22 highlight a couple of things.  Obviously as neighbors we have studied traffic studies with 23 Castilleja ad nauseam, but their traffic consultants actually say you need to plan for a 30 24 percent increase in traffic in the next ten years.  And this is mind boggling to us in the 25 neighborhood as to how that's going to impact the City.  I don't know how we deal with that 26 especially if we leave the underpass as it is in its current state.   27  28 Just moving along a couple of comments if you are a bicyclist getting from Stanford on Galvez 29 over across El Camino either onto the sidewalk or going to the Palo Alto parking lot 30 [unintelligible] is incredibly dangerous.  Those cars are on El Camino just taking that ramp and 31 so you have to negotiate where it’s non‐signalized to get your bike across that intersection.  32 Then going west bound to get onto the underpass from this, from the if you will eastbound side 33 of it so you're over on Embarcadero on the north side let's say and they have those blinking 34 pedestrian lights for you to press if you're walking across, but those cars are coming off 35 Embarcadero at like 40 miles an hour trying to get to Alma.  And you're trying to navigate your 36 bike over onto that underpass sidewalk.  Again, you don't as a bicyclist we don't take time to 37 push the button and get all the lights blinking.  So that needs to be really studied because you 38 approached that from Emerson or High and it's quite dangerous if you're not very cautious.   39  40 Then the Trader Joe’s driveway, thank you for mentioning that; those cars will just completely 41 block cyclists.  You try to get out onto Embarcadero and they're just lined up ready to plow into 42 that curb lane.  And so invariably I'm doing sort of an S‐turn into Trader Joe's parking lot and 43 coming back out to try to get on the sidewalk again.  That's another big problem.  I would really 44 support although I am sensitive to the mess at Town & Country, but if we could get rid of that 45 Trader Joe’s merge it to me it would let that curbside traffic move much more freely.   46 10  1 And then the is there any thought to a pedestrian overpass instead of that light from Paly to 2 Town & Country?  I mean it just seems if that light could go away everything would move much 3 more smoothly.  If not an overpass an underpass; I participated in the Homer underpass to Palo 4 Alto Medical Center and we all kind of just speculate, “Oh is that really…”  That thing is 5 beautiful.  I mean it really works well.   6  7 And then let’s see… oh, in terms of coming eastbound out of Stanford once I navigate through 8 Paly parking lot or I'm on the sidewalk there is no way I want to stay on Embarcadero.  I mean 9 one of the alternatives I think you said come up and you stay on Embarcadero.  I'm doing what 10 he suggested pedestrians do and I'm rushing to get on to that sidewalk on Kingsley to just get 11 out of that speeding traffic coming up through the underpass.  And actually once you're on that 12 sidewalk and you do that pedestrian cross at Kingsley it's ok because then you can sneak in on 13 the sidewalk and get on Emerson, go to Emerson and then come down Kellogg and get on to 14 Bryant and keep going your way.  So anyway that's a couple of feedback comments.  Thanks.   15  16 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you.  So we have Barbara Hazlett.  You have five minutes, Ma'am. 17  18 Barbara Hazlett: Thank you.  Good evening everybody.  Thank you for all this information, 19 Jason.  So I have lived for 35 years at the corner of Emerson and Embarcadero at 1176 Emerson.  20 And I'm and I did go to your first community meeting, but unfortunately couldn't make your 21 second one.  So I don't want to make this all about me, but looking at your concept plan 22 Alternative 2 where you look at there's some little dotted lines that talk about a modified 23 driveway.  I think one of those is mine.  What are you doing to my driveway?  Jason? 24  25 Mr. Lait: So Chair, excuse me Chair.  Do you want to have the speaker (interrupted)  26  27 Chair Fine: Please feel (interrupted)  28  29 Mr. Lait: Complete the five minutes of dialogue and then we can respond to questions? 30  31 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Yeah.  Let's, let's (interrupted)  32  33 Chair Fine: Is that fine, Ma’am?  Ask all your questions and staff will respond. 34  35 Ms. Hazlett: Ok, so that's question one.  This second one is about the right hand turn from 36 Emerson on to Embarcadero.  Is there going to be any change there?  I was a little bit confused 37 about a turn to make it safer for those cars that are going directly to Alma versus those that are 38 trying to get on Embarcadero.  So as it is now it's just kind of you stop at Emerson and Kingsley 39 basically and then you proceed on to Embarcadero.  So does that stay the same?  That's my 40 second question. 41  42 My third one is a personal recommendation.  Why don't you just close Emerson?  And then you 43 can make that bike area very safe to the Bryant to whatever this Bryant bike business is.  44 Because at this point Emerson is probably true of so many of the streets in Palo Alto, but 45 Emerson is an absolute speedway.  You know for people cutting through and trying to get down 46 11 to Whole Foods or University.  And it's very dangerous for the bicyclists.  I mean finally Palo Alto 1 put a stop sign right by our house at Emerson which we've asked them to do for decades 2 because of the bicyclists that come from Paly.  They just they don't stop right there at Emerson, 3 they charge on by in the cars.  There was no stop sign there forever.  So at least that's hopefully 4 a safety improvement, but I would recommend you closing Emerson.  That's it.  Thank you. 5  6 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you, Ma’am.  So just going to this comment the Chair said, right?  We 7 implemented the best practice that either staff or applicant responds to the public comments, 8 right?  So please also respond to Tom Shannon’s comments as well. 9  10 Mr. Mello: Sure.  In regard to question one, how will the driveway be modified; I'm assuming 11 that the speaker’s home is one of the two homes fronting Embarcadero Road between High 12 Street and Emerson Street.  If that's the case those driveways will simply be lengthened and 13 realigned to intersect Embarcadero Road at a 90 degree angle. 14  15 Chair Fine: So I think she just said that's incorrect.  I think, are you on the south side? 16  17 Ms. Hazlett: No, I’m on the north side.  I mean maybe I just don’t understand enough about the 18 geography.  I’m on the north side and as you come off Emerson to yield onto Embarcadero my 19 driveway is right there.  My home actually fronts Emerson, 11… it's Emerson and Embarcadero.  20 And then there are a couple more houses as you go toward High.  I mean you actually have a 21 picture of the sidewalk that I'm talking about in my driveway essentially somewhere.   22  23 Vice‐Chair Gardias: So that’s the building with the garage in the front, right? 24  25 Ms. Hazlett: No.  Anyway you aren't encroaching on my property, right?  Or you would have 26 contacted me? 27  28 Mr. Mello: We are within the right of way.   29  30 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Could you show us on the plan?   31  32 Man off microphone: [Unintelligible]  33  34 Ms. Hazlett: It’s where there is a sidewalk.  You see a long picture of the sidewalk, but it’s none 35 of those four.   36  37 Chair Fine: Would you just point it out to them on the plans?   38  39 Ms. Hazlett: [Unintelligible – off microphone] 40  41 Chair Fine: [Unintelligible – off microphone] 42  43 Ms. Hazlett: So what was the answer?   44  45 Mr. Mello: We've identified the house.  Would you like me to respond? 46 12  1 Chair Fine: Please. 2  3 Mr. Mello: So the speaker’s home as well as the home directly to the west because we are 4 moving the curb south to accommodate a bikeway and a and continue to maintain a sidewalk 5 the driveways will need to be lengthened and realigned to intersect Embarcadero Road at a 90 6 degree angle.  There are no impacts to the private properties.  It's all within the existing right of 7 way. 8  9 Chair Fine: Ok, thank you. 10  11 Ms. Hazlett: [Unintelligible] lengthen it? 12  13 Chair Fine: So they're shifting the sidewalk south kind of towards the inside of Embarcadero and 14 there's a bike lane and the sidewalk is remaining. 15  16 Commissioner Alcheck: The street is getting narrower.   17  18 Mr. Mello: And the stub of Kingsley is being removed and converted to a pedestrian and 19 bikeway.  And then in regard to her second question the off ramp from Embarcadero to Alma 20 Street what we're recommending so one of the biggest issues out there and the previous 21 speaker mentioned it is you're looking over your shoulder backwards at vehicles that are 22 traveling well above the speed limit typically and folks do not use their turn signals when they 23 are exiting to go to Alma Street so it's nearly impossible to tell which vehicles are turning right 24 to go up to Alma and which are continuing in the curb lane through the tunnel.  So as a 25 pedestrian and cyclist it's very hard to judge gaps in traffic in that curb lane and tell which 26 vehicles are coming off Embarcadero and which are continuing.  So what we're recommending 27 is creating a dedicated right turn lane that would pedestrians and cyclists would immediately be 28 able to tell that a vehicle was turning right and exiting because they would be in that lane.  And 29 the vehicles in that lane would be able to stop to yield to pedestrians and cyclists without 30 worrying about a rear end collision from vehicles behind them on Embarcadero because they 31 would be in their own dedicated right turn lane.   32  33 Chair Fine: Thank you.  So we're going to close the public comment for now.  Commissioners I 34 see a number of lights.  Would you all like to go through some of your questions here and then 35 go up to the board as necessary?  Ok.  Let's start with Vice‐Chair. 36  37 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you.  So first just let me thank you for nice drawings.  I don't know 38 who drew it, but I'm sure the person who does it [based on self] attention is she here on the 39 floor?  What's your name?  Pierre?  Congratulations.  I think those are very well done drawings, 40 right?  I just you should have been here speaking to us and just it could have been just a good 41 presentation as Jason did.  So thank you very much.  And I think it's very nice because I think it's 42 not the first time that you come to us.  I remember your logo from some other meeting, but it's 43 nice to have as much as we respect Alta Planning, right, it's nice to have some competition, 44 right?  Because you just provided a breath of fresh air and I hope it's going to stay this way.   45  46 13 So and you on the drawings you provide a number of interesting solutions, right?  So first of all I 1 welcome your proposal of changing this of the of change to High Street or just or redesign of 2 the turn to High and going to Alma because it's of course it's a bicyclist and cars intersection of 3 upper end collision, right?  Pretty much its cannot just guess which car is, the car is going 4 straight or the guy is going not that much straight, right?  So and they are driving at a very high 5 speed so that's, that's will be very welcome resolution.   6  7 I was wondering if maybe the stop sign would on that signaling for the cars, cars that they need 8 to stop before they make a right turn it would if it would help as opposed to just installing the 9 beacon or some other lighting, big lighting so it would maybe save dollars on some on the 10 implementation, but it would have the same effect, right?  Because at the crossing, pedestrian 11 crossing, you’re just provide the signal to traffic signals, right?   That would allow just to press 12 the button and then pedestrians or bicycles would cross, right?  But if you stopped the cars 13 then pretty much you may not need the signal.  So just, but you don't need to answer.  I think 14 it’s already it's much better than what it is, right?  So that's number one.   15  16 Number two is that I like this staircase that you propose.  It's on solution number two.  It 17 doesn't show on, no I’m sorry, just let me take it back.  It's on both attachment, it’s on both 18 proposals.  The only thing that I was going to make a comment on is that if you could just make 19 this staircase the same way as it is on the other side because you have a staircase that’s 20 designed in a specific way on the other side of the bridge.  So your plan doesn't follow this but, 21 if you just make a gesture toward this who designed this 70 years ago you're going to be a 22 bigger winner then you already are, right?  And this will make this space tasteful detail.   23  24 Then a couple of other items; so in terms of the, in terms of this what you call the Dutch 25 intersection and I'm just going looking into the intersection of El Camino or King's Highway with 26 Embarcadero.  Typically when you have dodge design, right, then the bikes they just if it’s 27 designed this way they just go in the circles, right?  It's not designed this way here and maybe 28 because you were more constrained with the existing conditions I'm guessing, but if there is a 29 possibility just to make the bikes flowing so they can seamlessly go straight and then turn right, 30 right?  And when you think about the dodge intersections, right, they are designed also 31 including the traffic lights that bikes have precedence over the cars and then at the certain light 32 conditions traffic light conditions it allows bikes just to seamlessly cross one way and then make 33 a turn, right?  And so pretty much they just go halfway and that maybe would be improvement 34 here, right?   35  36 Another question I have here is about when you look at those plans when you come from 37 Stanford on the south side the from Stanford area and towards Paly then there is the zigzag.  38 The bikes turn right and then they have to turn left.  Yeah, Eric maybe will show it on the plans.  39 So I was just wondering why is it… why is it this way?  Can’t it be redesigned so the bikes will go 40 straight as opposed to just making this zigzag?  And I’m guessing that maybe you all followed 41 that existing conditions because that's what it looks like there, but if we are already spending 42 money for just for redesigning this this area that would be possible just to have the straight 43 alley for the bikes coming on the south side from Stanford to Paly.  You can always just have the 44 argument, counter argument against my words and you can prove me wrong if you're going to 45 14 say that there is not that many bikes that take this route then I will just probably buy it up.  1 Please consider this.   2  3 So there is… one second I had one more question.  I will just prepare for it and I will just yield a 4 voice to my colleagues. Thank you. 5  6 Chair Fine: Commissioner Waldfogel I think you’re next. 7  8 Commissioner Waldfogel: Whoops, thank you.  I’m not sure I have a lot of additional comments 9 right now.  Just it looks like Alternative 2 has a slight traffic improvement.  It has a couple 10 second traffic improvement and Alternative 1 does not.  Why is that?  What's, what are the, 11 what are the parts that add to that?  Contribute to that?   12  13 Mr. Mello: So Alternative 2 includes new right turn lanes going westbound at both El Camino 14 Real and Town & Country driveway.  So those right turn lanes don't currently exist.  So there's 15 added westbound capacity.   16  17 Commissioner Waldfogel: And then what do we give up in terms of bike circulation by adding 18 those?  Can you just speak to that a little bit? 19  20 Mr. Mello: I'll let Jason get into it, but I think the sidewalks are a little bit narrower and we can't 21 fit in a maximum width cycle track on the south side.  It's a little bit tight and then we get to we 22 have only a bike lane in the westbound direction and bikes going in the eastbound direction 23 would either need to be on the raised cycle track or in the travel lane, but I'll let Jason talk 24 about the specific geometrics. 25  26 Mr. Mansfield: Yeah, I think it’s a little deceiving because it doesn't look too much different as 27 far as the bike widths and the sidewalk widths, but there are it's a foot here and a foot there 28 and that just means that then you can't have everything, right?  So the main thing is where do 29 you put the streetlights, where do you put the fire hydrants, traffic signals, street signs and 30 what by not having those right turn pockets that allows you to have those buffers that you can 31 put those things in for Alternative 1.  Once you add those right turn pockets you lose those 32 precious few feet that you need to house those items and otherwise they'll be in the middle of 33 a sidewalk or in your cycle track, that sort of thing.  So you do lose some of that cycle track and 34 that's why and but we are able to fit and that's why we're able to fit a bike lane in the street 35 because then you don't need those buffers.   36  37 Mr. Mello: Yeah, so basically Alternative 2 if you were walking or biking on the north side the 38 Town & Country side it would be less comfortable than the south side.  The south side has a 39 two way cycle track, a planning strip, a wider sidewalk, whereas Alternative 1 both sides are 40 equally as comfortable for cyclists and pedestrians.   41  42 Commissioner Waldfogel: So just to clarify in Alternative 2 there's a cycle lane that's in the road 43 at the Embarcadero/El Camino intersection? 44  45 15 Mr. Mello?  Yeah, Alternative 2?  Alternative 2 has a westbound in road bicycle lane and then it 1 has a two way raised cycle track on the south side.  And that cycle track transitions to the north 2 side at the pedestrian crossing, goes under the tunnel, and then ties in to Kingsley which leads 3 to the Bryant Street bike boulevard. 4  5 Commissioner Waldfogel: Right, so currently I mean I've ridden this hundreds of times so 6 currently typical condition westbound is just to use the sidewalk since Embarcadero is a bit 7 hazardous.   8  9 Mr. Mello: Yeah, and then a lot of the more vehicular comfortable cyclists they'll typically use 10 the ramp at the Trader Joe's driveway to enter the road and then right into Stanford where 11 there's actually a bike lane that begins on Galvez.  But a lot of the most of the cyclists actually 12 just stay on the sidewalk the whole way across the Trader Joe's driveway and all the way to 13 Stanford.   14  15 Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah.  Ok, thank you. 16  17 Chair Fine: So I actually think you just brought up a pretty interesting point that the behavior 18 we kind of see currently and maybe subpar is the cyclist using that north side sidewalk instead 19 of using the road.  And we actually haven't really talked about pedestrians yet, but that is an 20 issue folks there as well as folks getting on the bus or shuttle, things like that.  Commissioner 21 Rosenblum.   22  23 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you.  A couple of questions, so on the south side of the street 24 going towards from Stanford to Alma currently I believe and correct me if I'm wrong, I might be 25 wrong about this, if you're trying to get onto the bike path a dedicated bike path that runs 26 alongside Alma you have to cut through Paly on that side.  On the other side there's an opening 27 to Town & Country, but the Paly opening is within the Paly fence.  Is that correct?  28  29 Mr. Mello: Yeah so if you're there's two ways to access the Embarcadero path along Caltrain.  30 You can go up the ramp in front of Trader Joe's and that connects directly to the path.  You can 31 also ride through the parking lot of Paly and they have an opening in their fence that connects 32 directly to the path.  So we're not marking that as an official route in these concepts, but Paly 33 has said to us that they're going to keep that open.  So if you look at Alternative 2 if you're 34 going to Embarcadero path you don't necessarily have to go, you don't have to use the 35 pedestrian crossing and then go up the ramp in front of Trader Joe's.  You could actually take a 36 slight right and go through the Paly parking lot and use that existing, but it is on a school district 37 property.  It's not public right of way.   38  39 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, so that seems suboptimal to me.  We don't want the public 40 cutting through Paly and I'm sure Paly doesn't really want the public cutting through Paly.  At 41 the same time they obviously have to keep that open.  That's how their kids get to school.  At 42 the same time and this seems like a fairly cheap improvement to and there maybe is it a 43 question of right of away?  There's no room to put another cut that goes on the other side of 44 the street?  I guess that there's no on that side there's no way to have a public access point into 45 the bike path.  Is that correct? 46 16  1 Mr. Mello: So we would either need to acquire an easement or property from Paly and build a 2 proper shared use path through what is now the parking lot or we would need to regrade the 3 embankment and/or build a retaining wall of some type and build a similar ramp to what's on 4 the north side.   5  6 Commissioner Rosenblum: I see.  So right now I'm just asking questions.  My recommendation 7 is probably just improve signage on the existing route, but it is something where there is just 8 really odd things that happen that whole area where people just don't know what they're 9 supposed to do which is especially odd because it's off of one of major bike thoroughfares and 10 you're just left stranded. 11  12 In terms of the two alternatives I, they’re both certainly attractive compared to the current 13 status.  Particularly all of us have talked about this from the point of view of bike bicycling.  I'm 14 a little surprised by the… I know that we're not really supposed to be thinking in Level of Service 15 (LOS) terms anymore, but completely but that the reduction or the degrading of time is by a 16 couple of seconds when the difference between the two scenarios is a full car lane I believe, 17 right?  And so it is a little bit surprising to me that between scenario one and two the difference 18 at peak hour is estimated to be just a couple of seconds.  Can you talk about that a little bit?  Is 19 there a concern that reducing the total number of lanes will lead to significantly greater traffic?   20  21 Mr. Mello: So I'm going to invite Gary Black from Hexagon to come up.  He's the one who 22 performed the detailed traffic analysis related to this project.   23  24 Gary Black, Hexagon Transportation Consultants: Yes, Thank you.  Gary Black with Hexagon 25 Transportation Consultants.  So the question is why don't the right turn lanes provide more 26 benefit essentially?  Is that correct? 27  28 Commissioner Rosenblum: That’s correct. 29  30 Mr. Black: Well they provide some benefit, but it's not a massive improvement.  I think 31 probably the easiest way to characterize that is that the right turn… we speak in the terms of 32 critical movements.  So there are certain movements at an intersection that really determine 33 how it functions versus movements that really don't and the right turn there is it's not a critical 34 movement.  So it helps to get the right term cars out of the through lanes because the through 35 lanes the through traffic is the highest on Embarcadero.  So if you get some of the right turn 36 cars out of there then you get some improvement.  Also maybe not reflected in the calculations 37 because this gets real, real detailed, but sometimes you have a case where the right turns come 38 along I'm talking about at El Camino and the right turn cars and there's there are protesters 39 there and they have to stop.  And when they're stopping for the pedestrians then that blocks 40 the entire lane.  And if you had another lane for them to get over they could kind of sit there 41 and wait for the pedestrians to go by and so that would create some additional benefit.   42  43 We also did a queuing analysis and the queueing kind of shows much more improvement by 44 having the right turn lanes and that's where I'm getting at getting the right turn cars out of the 45 through lanes so that the queue doesn't extend as far on the queue lanes so on the through 46 17 lane.  So we did show that there would be a substantial reduction in that westbound queue that 1 Jason showed a picture of it at the beginning.  It goes all the way under the… well you know 2 how far it goes under the underpass and back.  You can even see the intersection or anything 3 from the end of the queue.  That would be I think substantially shortened.  So that's another 4 way to look at traffic improvements. 5  6 Mr. Mello: And I would just add that given that we're working within existing right away as 7 much as possible and we’re dealing with Caltrans and Stanford and a lot of our Comp Plan 8 policies are pretty clear about major widening projects and I think all we're going to be able to 9 do here is achieve some minor operational improvements.  We're not going to see major LOL 10 improvements at this intersection.   11  12 Commissioner Rosenblum: So given that to the extent that we're here to help give input into 13 these plans, concept one seems superior to concept two.  You have protected bike lane, you're 14 not giving up much in service or throughput according to your traffic models.  It's clear to me it 15 be a much less stressful journey.  I'm very confident cyclist, but even I stay on the sidewalk the 16 entire time currently.  And that route I don't know what the pattern is for maximum or for the 17 sort of demographics of cyclists that are going between Stanford, Town & Country, Paly, 18 etcetera, but I imagine you have families, children, you have high traffic obviously on game days 19 going to Stanford and for events, and I imagine have a mix of people many of whom are not 20 confident cyclists and having the westbound road be intertwined into three narrow lanes 21 because it looks like the lanes have gotten narrower at least this is to the extent these are 22 drawn to scale.  You have in Alternative 1 you have wider lanes going west and [unintelligible] 23 Alternative 2 you squeezed in a right lane, but it seems like you've given the other lanes a little 24 bit of a diet.  So you have a narrow bike lane surrounded by several narrow car lanes and that 25 feels like you would need a degree of confidence that is not necessarily expected for the people 26 on that particular intersection.  So to the extent giving feedback given that it doesn't seem like 27 there's a great tradeoff in terms of throughput of cars feels like scenario one is preferable to 28 me. 29  30 Mr. Black: If I could jump in since I'm standing here?  You didn't exactly ask, but we also looked 31 at the inner connecting of the signals, the synchronization of the signals.  They're not 32 synchronized now as I think has been mentioned.  Occasionally they look like they are because 33 just through random cycling they seem to work really well, but then other times they're 34 completely out of sync.  And so we did show that you would get probably as much traffic 35 improvement from synchronizing that's those signals as you would from adding the right turn 36 lanes.  So that would be something that you would see some improvement from that and you 37 would also see some improvement from real life from kind of reconfiguring the Trader Joe's 38 driveway which is another problem out there.  And so both of the alternatives we assumed 39 would reorient the Trader Joe's driveway and synchronize the signals.  So the right turn lanes 40 would be just kind of added on top of the improvement that you’d get from those other 41 measures.   42  43 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you for that.  And one more comment on something that 44 your team had brought up as something that you wanted input on and this seems very minor, 45 but color schemes.  So provided that you do have scenario one where you would be in a 46 18 protected bike lane then I and the need for green or highly visible bike striping doesn't seem 1 necessary.  The crossing with El Camino though I have noticed that since the green, the green 2 paint has come into play in Palo Alto and there's been a lot of complaints about it as a cyclist it’s 3 clearly more visible and as a driver it does remind me that this is also a cycle lane.  And so to me 4 particularly given that you're going to have cars coming at higher speeds making that right turn 5 so you're coming from a protected bike lane and if you have the correct light and I agree with 6 my colleague Commissioner Gardias [Note‐Vice‐Chair] that having good traffic signals giving 7 bikes priority to first get across perhaps is something to take seriously here, but I would 8 strongly prefer the green striping going through the intersection with El Camino.  And that's it 9 for me for now. 10  11 Chair Fine: Thank you, Commissioner Rosenblum.  So two quick things, so one I think it is 12 actually helpful if we can state our general preference about which alternative you prefer or if 13 you have a mixed plan you'd like to see go forward.  And two, just a question before we move 14 on; on this issue of the gains for cars in terms of that two and a half seconds do we know what 15 the gains for cyclists would be in the same area?  I was just thinking even though we do have to 16 move away from LOS, what about multi‐modal LOS and were there any calculations done in 17 between these two alternatives for bikers? 18  19 Mr. Mello: We have not calculated multi‐modal LOS for the two alternatives; however, both of 20 these include class four separated bike ways which have been shown throughout the United 21 States to dramatically increase the number of cyclists.  There was just a report that came out I 22 think two weeks ago.  They looked at the rate at which cities are adding separated facilities.  23 And I think it's an exponentially higher growth in the actual number of users over that.  We can 24 provide that report if you're interested.   25  26 Chair Fine: Ok, thank you.  I was just wondering.  Just so everyone knows I am collecting some 27 overall comments where hear consensus about like the lights giving precedence to cyclists, 28 suboptimal for cyclists to cut through Paly, green paint is good things, like that.  Next I believe 29 Commissioner Tanaka. 30  31 Commissioner Tanaka: A few questions; so first of all let me thank you guys for the work on this 32 project.  I think this is long overdue and it's good to see that there's some good ideas here.  So 33 my questions have to do around for these areas can you talk a bit about for today what the 34 current percentage of each modality is in terms of transportation like in terms of pedestrians, in 35 terms of biking, in terms of cars?  How does that break down?   36  37 Mr. Black: Just roughly during the peak hour is what I remember probably the best there is 38 about 800 cars.  Sorry.  That's awkward.  There's about 800 cars in the peak direction on El 39 Camino in an hour.  There's about 30 pedestrians and about 50 bikes. 40  41 Commissioner Tanaka: And if you if you have this the separate bike lanes what do you think the, 42 what does your crystal ball tell you in terms of what would the breakdown be? 43  44 19 Mr. Black: We didn't do any estimate of whether there would be any increased bicycling as a 1 result of those lanes being there so I couldn't comment on that.  Maybe Josh has some 2 experience from other City projects.   3  4 Mr. Mello: That's a very inexact science.  There are several models that have attempted to 5 calculate that, but there really is no good.  There are studies that look at the impacts of adding 6 networks of bikeways and that's the one I mentioned a little bit earlier, but as far as before and 7 after we just really haven't been building separated bike ways long enough to have that kind of 8 data. 9  10 Commissioner Tanaka: Do we have any idea of how many people actually cross Paly to Town & 11 Country? 12  13 Mr. Black: Yes, we counted the crosswalk.  In the peak hour I think the highest we got was 14 about 20.  So it's not huge.  I should point out though that the number of students that cross 15 the I’ll call it the bridge or grade separation by the railroad tracks was ten times higher than 16 that, 250 something like that that cross there by the Caltrain tracks. 17  18 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so it seems like pedestrians pretty much favor that, that way of 19 crossing versus using the light.   20  21 Mr. Black: Well certainly bikes do.  Pretty much all the bikes (interrupted)  22  23 Commissioner Tanaka: I’m talking about the pedestrians. 24  25 Mr. Black: Right.  So pedestrians I would say it would be more evenly split between the two, 26 between using the crosswalk and using the over crossing.   27  28 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. 29  30 Mr. Mello: So if I could jump in here?  The counts that were done for this were done during the 31 construction at Paly when the walkway was actually closed leading to the crosswalk, but looking 32 at the notes from the last presentation to the PTC the count that was done prior to the signal 33 project actually counted 1,500 pedestrians moving across the crosswalk during the lunch period 34 at Paly on a typical weekday.   35  36 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, I guess the reason why I'm asking this question is because I'm just 37 trying to understand the usage, right, in the different modalities.  Because I think as we think 38 about this intersection or this area we want to understand kind of how each modality is used 39 and more importantly how it would change.  So one of the one of speakers mentioned the idea 40 of having an overpass; at what point does that make sense? 41  42 Mr. Black: I can jump in and say that I think the speaker was seemed to be believing that that 43 signal was causing some congestion issues, the pedestrian signal, and therefore an overpass 44 would get the pedestrians off the street and make the road flow more smoothly.  Our study 45 showed I guess exactly the opposite.  There is no delay whatsoever because of that pedestrian 46 20 signal, no additional delay.  And in my professional opinion we need a way for pedestrians to 1 cross the street.  There are no crosswalks at the Paly driveway and the Town & Country signal 2 that does not have pedestrian crosswalks and doesn't allow pedestrians to cross there.  So the 3 pedestrians need to cross at the crosswalk signal.  Plus that's a lot shorter.  We did look through 4 the screening process what if we added crosswalks at the Paly driveway and at Town & 5 Country.  That's almost twice as wide there for pedestrians to cross.  So it took them a lot 6 longer to cross there.  There would be a substantial increase in vehicular delay if you had 7 pedestrians cross there versus where they're crossing now.  If you were to take the pedestrian 8 crosswalk away and not have pedestrians cross at all and say put in a bridge you wouldn't see 9 any change whatsoever in the vehicle flows. 10  11 Commissioner Tanaka: And so (interrupted)  12  13 Mr. Mello: If I could add even though we took the counts during the period when the traffic, 14 the pedestrian traffic was low the signals have been coordinated and whether there's 5 15 pedestrians or 50 pedestrians crossing they're still going to cross during the same signal phase 16 that is coordinated with the driveway signal.  So more pedestrians doesn't necessarily mean 17 that the signal is going to have a walk sign longer, it's still going to be the same cycle length.   18  19 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok.  And there’s only 20 people an hour passing across Embarcadero 20 from Paly to Town & Country? 21  22 Mr. Black: Well that was when we counted.  Josh pointed out the lunch time.  For this particular 23 count we didn't count on lunch time.  So I can certainly believe that that's a huge number.   24  25 Commissioner Tanaka: Really?  Well like how big? 26  27 Mr. Black: We didn't count the lunchtime.  Because that was not, that's not one of the busiest 28 times for the overall combination of traffic, pedestrians, and bicycles.  The highest combination 29 of all those is in the morning it's before school and then the typical commute time say five 30 o'clock.   31  32 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. 33  34 Mr. Mello: So the lunch time count that was done in 2014.  There were 1,500 students crossing 35 towards Town & Country and back during lunch time, so 750 in each direction.  That was before 36 the fence was opened at the back enabling students to use the over crossing along the rail 37 corridor. 38  39 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, that sounds a lot more reasonable to me because 20 didn't sound 40 right.  It seems a bit low to me, but ok, and what about El Camino and Embarcadero?  What's 41 the mix of modalities there in terms of biking, pedestrians, cars?  What’s the breakdown? 42  43 Mr. Black: As I mentioned the cars and bikes and pedestrians on Embarcadero I said about 800 44 cars, about 50 bikes, 30 pedestrians.  That's going on Embarcadero and crossing El Camino.  If 45 21 we want to talk about bikes and pedestrians on El Camino that are going north/south 1 (interrupted)  2  3 Commissioner Tanaka: Well, here’s what I’m trying to get at (interrupted)  4  5 Mr. Black: There weren’t very many. 6  7 Commissioner Tanaka: I'm just trying to understand this.  So we have one alternative which has 8 dedicated bike lanes on both sides.  The other one doesn't, but it has more stuff for cars, right?  9 And so I'm trying to understand like the mix of modalities right now because that would also 10 kind of inform the decision as to which one we want to pick.  And so that’s what I’m trying to 11 understand like so I kind of I thought I understood from you what it looks like a Town & 12 Country, between Town & Country and Paly at least at that intersection I was trying to see what 13 it looked like for El Camino.  Does anyone cross El Camino as a pedestrian? 14  15 Mr. Black: Yeah, the same pedestrian numbers that I mentioned they're basically going to 16 Stanford except for the ones that are going to the high school.  So the ones that are going up 17 and down Embarcadero in both directions they're basically going to Stanford.  So they go all the 18 way along and cross El Camino. 19  20 Mr. Mello: And I would add that it's a very uncomfortable place for pedestrians and bicyclists 21 right now.  I use that intersection quite a bit and due to the free flow right turn lanes and the 22 number of lanes and some of the poles and obstacles that are in the sidewalk area it's a very 23 uncomfortable place.  So I wouldn't use today's numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians to 24 estimate what the demand actually is. 25  26 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok.  Well I guess it would be interesting to know like what it is and then 27 what you guys think it might be if we actually corrected some of these issues.  Because I do 28 agree there's a lot of issues, but I'm just trying to understand like if we’re trying to optimize the 29 design what are the constraints?  What are the, what’s the usage right now so we make the 30 right optimization decision.   31  32 And then you mentioned that this was done with the constraint of not trying to increase the 33 right of way, like for instance taking some property from Paly.  What if you guys did?  What 34 would that, how would the picture change? 35  36 Mr. Mello: Well to go back to your earlier comment about demand something we could do 37 between now and the Council meeting is we could look at the bicycle and pedestrian traffic 38 along Palm Drive and Park Boulevard/Serra, the other entrances to Stanford and both of those 39 have very high bike/ped counts so we could kind of estimate that if Embarcadero was made 40 more comfortable we might get closer to those numbers.  That's one way to potentially 41 estimate demand.  If the Paly property was not an issue I think we may have looked at 42 additional maybe a dual left turn lane from Embarcadero onto southbound El Camino as well as 43 potentially a right turn lane because we'd be able to accommodate high quality bike and ped 44 facilities as well as additional capacity at the intersection.   45  46 22 Commissioner Tanaka: Do you think Paly would have pushed back on that? 1  2 Mr. Mello: We would most likely impact the old growth oak trees, the row of old growth oak 3 trees that front on Embarcadero. 4  5 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, thank you. 6  7 Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck. 8  9 Commissioner Alcheck: I think actually the comments that my fellow Commissioners have been 10 great.  I don't want to take up any more time.  I'll just suggest my preference.  I prefer the 11 alternative a, Alternative 1.  And I like to reiterate at junctions like this that perfect is the enemy 12 of good.  I don't think this will ever… I don't think that we’ll be able to improve an intersection 13 or a corridor like this so dramatically that everybody will suddenly go “Wow that was 14 incredible.”  But I would like to see that this effort comes to quick resolution so that we 15 actually… so that we benefit from some of these safety enhancements.  So that's how I feel. 16  17 Chair Fine: Vice‐Chair. 18  19 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  So just in terms of the preference, right, because 20 at the end of the day you going to ask us which scenario we prefer and my colleagues already 21 started speaking about this.  So my preference is definitely the option A, the first one.  And I 22 spoke about this when we talk about Arastradero corridor that pretty much bike pathways 23 should be aligned with the sidewalks on the major streets and arteries.  And I think that we 24 should have as a policy principle, doesn't have to be written, maybe best practice in Palo Alto 25 that on the major streets bikes are aligned with the sidewalks not with the streets.  I don't like 26 the solution that San Francisco has that bicyclists and cars they fight for the same space.  It's 27 not how it should be, you just have Dutch intersection here.  In Holland they pretty much 28 separate those spaces.  Bikes go their way, they are aligned with the pedestrian sidewalks, cars 29 go separate way.  Those are two different traffic strips.  So for next projects I think that we 30 should just if it was up to me, of course.  I'm just one of the many Commissioners.  I would not 31 have, not propose a solution that would just incorporate biking traffic into a major street, 32 rather I would consider another option that maybe would have different perspective, but based 33 on this assumption that as I said bikes should be aligned with the sidewalks.  So again my 34 preference is just to have Option Number A [Note‐Alternative 1]. 35  36 And then there is also one more comment that I would like to just have the answer from 37 yourself because you heard many comments from my colleagues about number of the details.  I 38 spoke about the staircase; we talked about the Dutch intersections, right, and many other 39 comments.  On many prior meetings we provided you with many comments, but unless there 40 was a Motion it wasn't clear to me what truly would be incorporated based on our reason that 41 we provided to you and what would not be.  So it maybe it's a resolution that the Commission 42 should just agree among ourselves to propose, but just for now I would like to just hear some 43 sort of declaration of the changes from yourself which would be just a checklist of this items 44 that we convince you to incorporate for the next submittal to the City of… to the Council that 45 23 would pretty much would allow us just to understand what items we convinced you to put on 1 the drawings for the next for the next draft.  Thank you. 2  3 Chair Fine: Ok, thank you all.  I'm going to make a couple small comments and a few questions.  4 So it's kind of random, but it's actually quite hard to bike from the Town & Country parking lot 5 onto the bike path.  I always find myself kind of cutting through those plants and the little 6 parking strips.  I don't know if that's part of the project, but just wanted to give that feedback.  7 And that actually relates to Commissioner Rosenblum’s point.  If you're on the south side of 8 Embarcadero and you want to get onto the bike path I actually think that's an opportunity.  You 9 mention a regrading of the embankment, I don't know how hard that is, but I think that be a big 10 win actually rather than sending people through Paly or assigning it to tell them to take another 11 route.  I think what appeals to me about Alternative 1 is that it's a simpler approach actually.  12 It's a design that as the Vice‐Chair mentioned follows the sidewalk instead of the road.  I think 13 putting the bike path marked in green down the middle of the north side is a little hectic.  And 14 to Commissioner Rosenblum’s point the green paint I agree is actually nice if I’m cyclist.  I’d 15 prefer to have a separated bike lane though actually in all cases.   16  17 One other comment you mentioned it's pretty hard to extend the network or these 18 improvements up to Bryant because of space.  We should keep that on the table or at least 19 highlight it to Council because Bryant is so important to our bike network and just having a gap 20 of two blocks or shuttling people through Kingsley or Emerson is actually is not sufficient in my 21 opinion.  I'm sure you guys saw Whitney Mcnair's letter from Stanford.  There are a couple 22 really good points in there about turning signals for trucks onto Galvez, things like that.  It 23 would be nice if you can respond to those.   24  25 One question it's kind of random.  Do you guys consider at all the Stanford Caltrain stop?  I 26 realized looking over the overview map that that's actually where the Caltrain stops for game 27 days and I think that would contribute to those connections from the path, the bike/ped path 28 onto Embarcadero, whichever side you're going on.  Were there [unintelligible] look at that? 29  30 Mr. Mello: I mean we did think about high levels of pedestrian traffic during events.  We 31 thought a little bit about that on the connection to the Stanford perimeter trail on the Stanford 32 side and, but the pedestrian space is not really increasing or decreasing in either of the 33 alternatives except for Alternative 2 there may be some need to place some poles within the 34 sidewalk and that would be the natural route coming down from the train station.   35  36 Chair Fine: Ok, thank you.  Just on Concept Plan 2 a few critiques and kind of why I’ve come 37 around to supporting Alternative 1.  The bike lane on the north side if I'm reading this correctly I 38 might be biking on the sidewalk and then I'm going to enter the green sharrow right where the 39 bus or the shuttle is turning off to pick up or drop off folks.  [Alright].  That's an issue for me.  40 Alright, any other… we have more lights already.  Commissioner Waldfogel. 41  42 Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah, I'm convinced by the arguments around Alternative 1, but I do 43 have a request for you which is when you think about Embarcadero eastbound it reduces to 44 one lane under the under Caltrain.  So given that I wonder if we could just think about the El 45 Camino to the underpass segment and maybe find a way to restripe or think about this so we 46 24 could create some right turn lanes.  I mean maybe we just think about that single lane 1 condition.  You know possibly extending all the way to El Camino.  I mean I don't want to design 2 this for you, but I mean if we come up with a hybrid where we have a separated bike lane on 3 the sidewalk and we can enable some traffic improvements particularly those right turn 4 movements which buy us something, I mean just if there's something we could explore I think 5 that would be an interesting option to look at.   6  7 Mr. Mello: We can certainly do that.  One caveat would be currently we’re showing the two 8 lanes exiting Town & Country both being able to make a left turn.  So if we were to have only 9 one receiving lane we would only be able to allow one lane to turn left out of Town & Country.   10  11 Commissioner Waldfogel: Right. 12  13 Mr. Mello: But we can look at that (interrupted)  14  15 Commissioner Waldfogel: But we do get into that merge condition after that which has gotten 16 quite exciting in the last couple of years, so (interrupted)  17  18 Mr. Mello: Yeah, and those never work very well.   19  20 Commissioner Waldfogel: Yeah, people don’t understand the zipper.   21  22 Mr. Mello: Yeah. 23  24 Commissioner Waldfogel: So anyhow it [unintelligible] I think there's an opportunity if we could 25 think about that. 26  27 Chair Fine: Vice‐Chair I think you… no?  Can you actually show me on? 28  29 Commissioner Waldfogel: We reduced one leave here already so if you could extend that one 30 lane condition possibly all the way to here that buys more width for right turn (interrupted)  31  32 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Excuse… I’m sorry, Chair.  Can we get Commissioner 33 Waldfogel’s mike on so we can…? Thank you.   34  35 Chair Fine: Sorry, I just need to see this. 36  37 Commissioner Waldfogel: I'm sorry the mike won’t, the mike won't help without a camera.  I'm 38 just saying that if we considered extending the single traveling westbound you take the single 39 lane condition at the underpass and just hypothetically extend that all the way to El Camino 40 that buys a little bit more eastbound width.  And I know that there are some things we’d have 41 to work out particularly at the El Camino intersection as we have the different turn conditions 42 from El Camino.  But maybe we could spend the money on the pork chop and relocate 43 something or I don't know.  I just think it's worth exploring.   44  45 25 Mr. Mello: We can definitely look at that and we'll include some language in the Council report 1 on our findings regarding that. 2  3 Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you. 4  5 MOTION 6  7 Chair Fine: Any other comments or questions?  Anybody else want to go up to the board and 8 look at it, draw on it, things like that?  Alright, at this point I think we are ready to have a 9 Motion if that's what you all want to do.  In general we’re trying to recommend one or two of 10 these alternatives.  I will just rehash some of the comments I've heard from a number of folks.  11 So one, lights should give precedence to bikes.  It’s suboptimal to have cyclists cut through Paly.  12 Maybe we could regrade the embankment.  Maybe improve signage.  We're interest in 13 protecting pedestrians on the north side of Embarcadero and one way to do that is pulling the 14 bike lanes separate.  Green paint is good in general, but maybe at least I prefer a separate bike 15 lane.  There was a little bit of talk about the overpass, but I appreciated the data you guys 16 brought to us about that.  And then there's a point about the staircase to aesthetically match 17 the other side.  I did notice on the islands it's got like a bike ramp on it so you put your bike in 18 then just roll it up?  Cool.  Any Motions?   19  20 All right let's turn that all into a Motion then.  So I'm going to make a Motion that we 21 recommend Alternative 1 and then some of the comments that we'd like to be transmitted with 22 that Motion are that traffic lights should give precedence and extra time to bicyclists.  It's 23 suboptimal to have cyclists cut through Paly and we may need to explore that little margin.  We 24 are interested in protecting pedestrian movements on the north side of Embarcadero.  I don't 25 know if we have to include the green paint?  We prefer green paint.  We talked about the 26 overpass.  I don't think we want to include that in this though.  And then the staircase would be 27 nice if it could match the other side.  So that's the Motion I’m making. 28  29 Mr. Mello: Could I just ask for a point of clarification on the staircase?  I assume you mean the 30 design elements of the staircase, not the actual layout? 31  32 Vice‐Chair Gardias: That's correct. 33  34 Mr. Mello: Ok. 35  36 Chair Fine: Yes, aesthetic design of the staircase.  Do I have a second? 37  38 SECOND 39  40 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Second. 41  42 Chair Fine: Seconded by the Vice‐Chair.  So I'm going to speak this quickly.  For me the biggest 43 reason I'm supporting Alternative 1 is I think we shouldn't necessarily preference one side or 44 other of the street and I really like the Vice‐Chair’s comment that we really want bike pathways 45 to be aligned with the sidewalk not the streets.  I think that's really, really important.  I also just 46 26 in general prefer the clean design of Alternative 1 and the separated nature of the bike lanes.  1 Would you like to speak to the second? 2  3 Vice‐Chair Gardias: Yes.  So yeah, I think so there is a reason behind the Option Number 1, 4 right?  There is also we mentioned a couple of other items so if Chair doesn't mind I will add to 5 the list that you are making.  Some other items we were talking about we just Commissioner 6 Rosenblum and myself we talk about specifics of the Dodge intersection that would allow bikes 7 just to pretty much go seamlessly and just maybe improve the design.  Maybe there is a 8 possibility just to make the route straight as opposed to zigzag unless there is a reason.  And I 9 think that there is a reason because you were probably considering them just to entering Paly 10 from that side or maybe just turning south, but if it's possible just please include this as a 11 straight solution.  And there were some other details that were said, right?  So I would just like 12 to have your checklist at some point of time just that would allow all the speakers to feel well 13 that their comments were included.  That’s it, thank you. 14  15 VOTE 16  17 Chair Fine: Alright, I think we're ready to vote on this one.  So all in favor?  Is that a hand?  Ok, 18 thank you.  So this one passes unanimously; thank you all very much.  And also I want to 19 commend you Pierre, these drawings were pretty excellent.  Let's take a 10 minute break and 20 then we’ll get to Item Number 3. 21  22 MOTION PASSED (6‐0) 23  24 Commission Action: Motion by Chair Fine to recommend alternative 1 with a few extra 25 comments. Second by Vice‐chair Gardias. Item passed unanimously 6‐0 26 Memorandum Date: July 21, 2016 To: Mr. Jason Mansfield, BKF Engineers From: Gary Black Subject: Transportation Analysis for the Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real Improvements Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed an analysis of traffic operations along Embarcadero Road at the intersections with El Camino Real and with the Palo Alto High School driveway. The analysis includes existing conditions and conditions with the potential roadway improvement alternatives 1 and 2 (see Figures 1 to 6). This memo documents intersection operations, and the intersection improvement conditions for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Existing Intersection Operations Hexagon conducted AM (7-9 AM), school PM (2-4 PM) and commute PM (4-6 PM) peak period traffic counts and observations in November of 2015, with follow-up observations in March and April 2016. The following intersections were observed and counted: 1. El Camino Real & Embarcadero Road 2. Palo Alto High School Driveway/ Town & Country Driveway & Embarcadero Road 3. Pedestrian Crosswalk/Town & Country Village Exit & Embarcadero Road Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Hexagon observed existing traffic conditions at the study locations during all studied peak periods. Hexagon identified several operational issues, all of which are discussed below.  Westbound Embarcadero Road east of the Palo Alto High School driveway experiences queuing issues that extend past the underpass and towards Emerson Street. While the queuing appears to be a result of the signal at the shopping center/high school driveways, it is actually caused by the signal at El Camino Real. Hexagon observed times when the signal at the shopping center driveway was green for westbound Embarcadero Road, but vehicles could not proceed because of a back-up from El Camino.  It appears that the two signals at El Camino and the high school driveway are not coordinated. Sometimes they appeared to operate in synch, but that was probably just a coincidence.  At the signalized intersection on Embarcadero Road at the school driveway, Hexagon observed that the north and south legs sometimes received an extended amount of green time (approximately 30 to 35 seconds) in excess of the time needed to serve the vehicles on these legs. This could potentially be a defect in the detection system.  Approximately 200 feet east of the school driveway is a signalized mid-segment crosswalk. This signalized crosswalk rests in green for the east/west vehicular phases unless called by pedestrians. Once the signal receives pedestrian calls, the east/west vehicular phases will turn red for a fixed amount of time to allow pedestrians to cross. Hexagon observed that most pedestrians did not need all of the allocated time to cross. As a result, east/west Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real Improvements July 21, 2016 P a g e | 2 vehicles were waiting for a green light while all pedestrians had crossed. However, the crosswalk signal appears to be coordinated with the driveway signal, so there were no instances when the signal was red at the crosswalk and green for Embarcadero at the driveways. Therefore, the pedestrian signal was not adding any delay to Embarcadero.  At the signalized intersection on Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real, Hexagon observed that the north and south crosswalks are very long. During many cycles when pedestrians were present at these crosswalks, the pedestrian clearance time forced the eastbound or westbound phase to hold a green light while there were no longer vehicles on these directions. Pedestrians often do not use the entire pedestrian clearance time to cross the crosswalk.  Along both sides of Embarcadero Road east of El Camino Real, because of the narrow curb lanes and lack of bicycle lanes, Hexagon observed that many bicyclists ride on the sidewalk. Existing Conditions Intersection Motor Vehicle Levels of Service The study intersections were evaluated for motor vehicle level of service. Motor vehicle Level of Service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. Hexagon applied the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method using the TRAFFIX software. The 2000 HCM operations method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. City of Palo Alto’s vehicle level of service threshold is LOS D, except for CMP intersections, which have a LOS E standard. The results of the level of service analysis (Table 1) show that both of the signalized study intersections currently operate within the acceptable standard. The intersection of El Camino Real and Embarcadero/Galvez is a CMP intersection with a LOS E standard. Table 1 Existing Intersection Motor Vehicle Levels of Service Summary #Intersection Peak Hour Count Date LOS Avg Delay (sec)LOS Avg Delay (sec)LOS Avg Delay (sec) AM 11/4/2015 E 64.9 D 49.7 D 47.7 MD 11/4/2015 E 59.6 D 54.2 D 46.9 PM 11/4/2015 E 58.7 E 57.6 D 48.4 2 AM 11/4/2015 C 24.3 C 27.5 C 32.1 MD 11/4/2015 B 25.1 B 19.7 C 27.8 PM 11/4/2015 C 25.4 C 21.0 C 29.2 Whole Intersection Existing Conditions El Camino Real & Embarcadero Rd PA School Driveway & Embarcadero Rd 1 Eastbound Westbound Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real Improvements July 21, 2016 P a g e | 3 Embarcadero Road Improvements Hexagon evaluated operations of the two potential roadway design plans provided by Callander Associates, dated July 18, 2016. The improvements planned in Alternative 1 consist of the addition of bicycle lane / raised cycle track in both directions (see Figures 1 to 3) along Embarcadero Road. The improvements include restriping the Palo Alto High School and Town & Country driveways to better reflect the turning movements that are occurring. The plan also includes a slight modification to the Town & Country Village exit (located approximately 150 feet east of the PA School Driveway/Embarcadero Road intersection) that will allow improved visibility for bicycles and pedestrians, and reduce speeds for vehicles merging onto Embarcadero Road. The improvements planned in Alternative 2 consist of the improvements planned in Alternative 1 along with the addition of right turn lanes on westbound Embarcadero Road at the Town & Country driveways and at El Camino Real (see Figures 4 to 6). Both alternatives include interconnecting and coordinating the signals at the driveways and El Camino Real. Motor Vehicle Levels of Service The intersection improvements with Alternatives 1 and 2 were analyzed in a similar manner to the existing conditions, and are based on the existing intersection volumes (see Table 2). These calculations assume that the signals have been coordinated. At the El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road intersection, Alternative 1 would provide some improvement to motor vehicle levels of service. Alternative 2, which would add a right turn lane, would provide a more substantial delay reduction. At the Town & Country/School driveways, Alternative 1 would result in a substantial delay reduction due to the restriping of the driveways and the signal coordination. Alternative 2, which would add a right lane, would provide a minor additional delay reduction. Table 2 Intersection Motor Vehicle Levels of Service with Improvements Bicycle and Pedestrian Operations Overall, the Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real corridor project would significantly improve the pedestrian and bicycle environment. Alternative 1 proposes to include a raised bicycle lane in the westbound direction and a buffered bike lane in the eastbound direction. Alternative 2 includes an on-street bicycle lane in the westbound direction and a buffered bike lane in the eastbound direction. Both of the alternatives include crosswalk improvements, a raised crosswalk across the existing northbound right-turn channel at El Camino Real/Embarcadero Road, and an improved bicycle/pedestrian interface with the Town & Country Village exit at Trader Joe’s. #Intersection Peak Hour LOS Avg Delay LOS Avg Delay LOS Avg Delay AM D 47.7 D 44.7 D 41.1 MD D 46.9 D 44.2 D 41.4 PM D 48.1 D 45.3 D 42.6 2 AM C 32.1 B 19.8 B 19.7 MD C 27.8 B 15.4 B 15.3 PM C 29.2 B 17.1 B 17.0 1 El Camino Real & Embarcadero Rd PA School Driveway & Embarcadero Rd Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 With Project Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real Improvements Figure 1 Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real Corridor & Intersection Improvements - Alternative 1 Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real Improvements Figure 2 Paly and Town & Country Improvements - Alternative 1 Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real Improvements Figure 3 High Street to Emerson Street Improvements - Alternative 1 Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real Improvements Figure 4 Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real Improvements - Alternative 2 Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real Improvements Figure 5 Paly and Town & Country Improvements - Alternative 2 Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real Improvements Figure 6 High Street to Emerson Street Improvements - Alternative 2 Embarcadero Road & El Camino Real Improvements July 21, 2016 P a g e | 10 Westbound Queuing An analysis was conducted of vehicle queuing in the westbound direction along Embarcadero Road. Vehicle queues by movement were calculated with the TRAFFIX software. Vehicle overflow between the two intersections and the resulting queue east of the school driveway were calculated by comparing the vehicle queues to the existing and improved roadway geometries (see Table 3). These calculations assume an industry standard average vehicle length of 25 feet. The existing westbound queues at El Camino Real overflow past the high school/shopping center driveways during all study time periods. The existing queues are calculated to extend 975 feet to the east beyond the driveways during the AM peak hour. These calculations are supported by field observations. With both of the project alternatives, the westbound queues are still expected to extend from El Camino Real beyond the high school/shopping center driveways, but the length is expected to be shorter. For Alternative 1, the queue length would extend beyond the high school/shopping center driveways by 400 feet during the AM peak hour, 200 feet during the midday peak hour, and 275 feet during the PM peak hour. For Alternative 2 the queue would be 250 feet during the AM peak hour, 50 feet during the midday peak hour, and 125 feet during the PM peak hour. These calculations assume that the signals have been interconnected. Table 3 Westbound Queuing Along Embarcadero Road Conclusions The geometry changes with Alternatives 1 and 2, along with the coordinated signals at both intersections, would decrease the average motor vehicle delay at both intersections during all time periods. Additionally, these improvements would decrease the queues in the westbound direction along Embarcadero Road during the peak hours. These improvements assume that the signals would be interconnected, which would improve the corridor efficiency and overall operations. The new bicycle and pedestrian facilities would create an improved environment for these modes. The changes would improve pedestrian and bicyclist visibility and create a safer corridor. Period Scenario El Camino Real to Driveway Westbound at Driveway AM Existing Full 975' with Improvement Alt 1 Full 400' with Improvement Alt 2 Full 250' MD Existing Full 650' with Improvement Alt 1 Full 200' with Improvement Alt 2 Full 50' PM Existing Full 700' with Improvement Alt 1 Full 275' with Improvement Alt 2 Full 125' WB Embarcadero Rd Queuing LEGEND A S P 5 53 13 6 32 8 3 6 3 A S P 1 27 0 5 1 6 A S P 5 0 27 1 1 13 1 0 3ASP 7 3 10 A S P 6 0 4 A S P 0 1 0 A S P 0 0 0 A S P 13 10 30 A S P 39 4 2 1 8 5 A S P A S P 6 20 9 A S P 20 16 23 A S P 1 5 1 1 1 1 A S P 9 1 3 1 9 A S P 0 2 0 1 3 2 9 2 1 N.T.S. E l C a m i n o R e a l Embarcadero Rd. Palo Alto High School Town & Country Village Stanford Campus Galvez St. Peak Traffic Hour (A: 8-9 AM, S: 3-4 PM, P: 5-6 PM) Pedestrian VolumesBicycle Volumes # of Bicycles Per Hour Direction of Travel A S P 7 3 10 Peak Traffic Hour (A: 8-9 AM, S: 3-4 PM, P: 5-6 PM) # of Pedestrians Per Hour Direction of Travel A S P 293354 A S P 0 6 0 1 3 0 A S P 1932 53 04 1 A S P 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 A S P 002 11735 A S P 2 0 1 A S P 2 0 22 1 1 7 1 1 2 23 16 7 1 A S P 106 4 6 0 171 13 36 4 15062 Existing Conditions and Image Boards (2015 11-16).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REALCORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS December 8, 2015 City of Palo Alto EXISTING PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE VOLUMES A S P A S P A S P Legend A: 8-9 AM Peak Traffic Hour S: 3-4 PM Peak Traffic Hour P: 5-6 PM Peak Traffic Hour 0-X Vehicles Per Hour X-X Vehicles Per Hour X-X Vehicles Per Hour 228 654 134 167 699 27 178 566 64 976 802 738 238 404 216 A S P 202 284 191 182 323 191 75 15 11 2 11 9 2 20 8 10 8 8 21 2 20 83 78 1 3 7 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 A S P 2 2 9 1 0 0 6 1 8 8 2 8 9 1 2 5 8 1 8 9 12 3 1 13 43 46 11 4 8 53 2 4 6 A S P 1 2 4 5 1 1 8 8 1 0 0 2 8 1 5 6 1 1 0 2 3 6 2 2 2 A S P A S P A S P 112ASP 829741546 24242 71 33 110 0 996 777 176 A S P 476 359 194 302 263 103 13880 A: 8-9 AM Peak Traffic Hour S: 3-4 PM Peak Traffic Hour P: 5-6 PM Peak Traffic Hour LEGEND 0-X Vehicles Per Hour X-X Vehicles Per Hour X-X Vehicles Per Hour N.T.S. E l C a m i n o R e a l Embarcadero Rd. Palo Alto High School Town & County Village Stanford Campus Galvez St. 15062 Existing Conditions and Image Boards (2015 11-16).indd EMBARCADERO ROAD & EL CAMINO REALCORRIDOR & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS December 8, 2015 City of Palo Alto EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES City of Palo Alto (ID # 7238) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/19/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Review of CAC Transportation Element Title: Review of the Draft Transportation Element Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Update Community Advisory Committee (Continued From August 15, 2016) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review and discuss the Draft Transportation Element (Attachment A) developed by the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and provide comments for incorporation into the draft Comprehensive Plan Update. Executive Summary The Transportation Element is the second element of the Comprehensive Plan that the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) has developed and transmitted to the City Council for review. This draft element is the product of hundreds of hours of work by the full CAC, the Transportation subcommittee of the CAC, the Sustainability subcommittee of the CAC, staff, and consultants. This draft element was based on the City Council’s direction regarding vision and goals, as well as input from the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the public. At this evening’s meeting, staff will summarize the CAC process, themes of the draft element, changes from the existing element, as well as next steps. Staff is seeking Council comments for incorporation into a revised draft, which the CAC will have an opportunity to review when their work on remaining elements have been completed. Background & Discussion On August 31st, 2015, the City Council reviewed the existing Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the PTC’s proposed revisions in order to provide guidance on the updated Transportation Element’s structure, vision statement, and goals. The staff report and minutes for this discussion can be found respectively at the following: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48663 (Attachments - http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48758) and City of Palo Alto Page 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48845. The Council recommended that a new Transportation Element use the structure crafted by the PTC, with some minor changes, a change to the title of one goal, and the addition of a new goal to address traffic congestion. (This goal was originally added at the end of existing goals, but, given the importance of addressing congestion, the CAC has moved this goal up to become Goal T-2.) The CAC created a Transportation subcommittee to review the Transportation Element and incorporate staff and other community feedback over the course of four meetings in spring 2016. The Sustainability subcommittee also met to suggest ways to strengthen the links between the Transportation Element and the S/CAP. The CAC reviewed a draft element in June and at their July 19th meeting voting unanimously to refer the draft element to the City Council for review, stressing that this is a draft. At the same time, individual CAC members identified additional issues that they would like to consider addressing in future revisions, such as the VTA’s current proposal to reduce service in Palo Alto. Some of the individual CAC member suggestions were for minor wording changes only and others are policy issues that will require further discussion. A summary of the policy issues and comments submitted by various CAC members are attached for Council consideration (Attachment C). The City Council’s initial review and comments will inform preparation of a revised version that will be considered further in the context of a completed draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The following is a summary of the overall organization and issues addressed in the draft element: Overall organization: The CAC identified numerous interrelationships between Goal T-2, Traffic Congestion (formerly Goal 9), and other goals related to sustainability (T-1), efficiency (T-3), and safety (T-6) and identified the most appropriate locations for policies and programs that support multiple goals. The CAC also put substantial work into streamlining the policies and programs to present a clearer, more concise message, particularly under Goal T-1 regarding Sustainable Transportation. Safe Routes to School policies are consolidated under Goal T-6, Roadway Safety. Single-Occupant Vehicle Use: The CAC tackled the issue of single-occupant vehicle use from several angles, developing a comprehensive strategy that encompasses:  making it easier and more convenient to use alternatives to the automobile  improving first/last mile connections, with an emphasis on shuttles  increasing efforts to market, promote, and educate about alternatives to the automobile  identifying funding sources for transit and alternative transportation improvements City of Palo Alto Page 3  prioritizing the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in roadway improvements. Many of these policies and programs are located under Goal T-1, Sustainable Transportation, but this key theme runs throughout the element. For example, policies and programs under Goal T-3, Efficient Roadway Network, emphasize the City's commitment to Complete Streets principles, improved connections to community gathering places, and the safety of school children. Similarly, policies under T-6, Roadway Safety, prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level- of-service at intersections and vehicle parking. Parking: The CAC arrived at a phased approach to parking supply and clarified an overall direction which provides sufficient but not excessive parking; the concept of parking pricing is introduced as well. Policy T5.1 [T107] states that all new development projects should be consistent with existing parking regulations and meet parking demand generated by the project without the use of on street parking, while programs T5.1.1 through T5.1.3 describe the phased approach to reduce parking requirements over time if TDM and technological changes demonstrate a reduction in parking demand. In addition, the topic of parking pricing has been introduced as a new program T5.2.3 [T114] which supports implementation of a comprehensive suite of parking supply and demand management strategies citywide. VMT and LOS: Goal T-2, addressing traffic congestion for all modes of transportation and transportation infrastructure improvements, is the location of the City’s level of service (LOS) policies. The CAC wanted to ensure that the City maintains a policy of using conventional vehicular LOS to evaluate the potential impacts on traffic congestion as a result of new development. Utilizing both LOS and VMT metrics provides the City with a comprehensive view to address traffic and to reflect its sustainability goals. While LOS describes local-level impacts at a specific location, VMT describes network-wide impacts by measuring the number of miles traveled by motor vehicles and reflects the length of trips as well as the number of trips. VMT is also a key factor in quantifying greenhouse gas emissions. Together, LOS and VMT measures can inform efforts to reduce commute lengths and enhance the availability of alternative transportation options. The CAC also included new multimodal and VMT standards that support both the City’s vision for sustainable transportation and Complete Streets, as well as evolving State legislation on transportation analysis (SB 743). The CAC agreed that the City should carry forward existing policies to prioritize the safety of school children and neighborhood traffic calming over the free flow of traffic. The City Council will have an upcoming opportunity to discuss VMT and LOS transportation analysis mechanisms in more depth at a City Council study session scheduled for September. Transit-dependent community: The subcommittee pointed out the need to expand the City of Palo Alto Page 4 element’s support for the transit-dependent community to address the needs of those who are dependent on transit due to economic disadvantage or choice, as well as maintaining policies and programs that improve access for seniors and those with mobility constraints. While many of the issues above involved intensive discussion and debate, CAC members grappled with them over the course of their deliberations and were able to come to consensus. As a result, there are not issues or policies within this draft element that resulted in a vote with majority/minority opinions. The CAC was also able to make use of extensive public input, which was tracked and analyzed as part of staff’s collaboration with Stanford researchers (Attachment E). Comparison to the Current Transportation Element: Many of the fundamental themes of the existing Transportation Element are carried forward, including an emphasis on alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle; prioritizing the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and children; using Level of Service (LOS) to evaluate traffic impacts; minimizing traffic impacts on neighborhoods; and ongoing regional coordination. The CAC revisions reflect evolving issues and new legislation, including SB 743, which adds vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a metric in addition to LOS; Complete Streets requirements; GHG emission reductions; a phased approach to parking supply; and increased recognition of the transit-dependent community. The disposition table in Attachment D summarizes changes from the current Transportation Element reflected in this draft. Schedule and Next Steps The CAC’s deliberations on the draft Transportation element took longer than originally anticipated, as are ongoing discussions about the Land Use element. The attached schedule for the Comprehensive Plan Update reflects this time, as well as the additional time needed to analyze Scenario 5 and 6 prior to preparation of the Final EIR. The resulting schedule shows completion of the Updated Comp Plan and the Final EIR in October, 2017, which is four months later than anticipated at the beginning of this year. Importantly, the additional time that the CAC has spent reviewing the elements is yielding results. The CAC and the Transportation and Land Use subcommittees have been very active over the past few months discussing and revising the Transportation and Land Use Elements. (For example, the Land Use Subcommittee has met 6 times to work on the Land Use Element and the CAC has discussed the Land Use Element at 4 meetings in 2016.) In this time, the CAC and the subcommittees have been able to spend the time to frame and resolve key issues and options, and on many issues, the CAC has been able to build consensus. (As noted above, the CAC voted to forward this draft Transportation Element to the Council unanimously.) On controversial land use issues, like building height and growth management, the Land Use subcommittee and the CAC have been able to identify the key policy options for City of Palo Alto Page 5 the Council’s consideration. These options are tentatively scheduled for the City Council’s initial review in mid-September. As next steps, the attached schedule (Attachment B) shows the CAC completing their review of the additional elements and sending recommended drafts of those individual elements to the City Council throughout the rest of 2016 and into early 2017. Once that review of individual elements is completed, the CAC will then have one session to review the entire draft Comprehensive Plan to identify any inconsistencies that need to be resolved. That final CAC review is currently scheduled for May 2017. That completed draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update will then be brought back for additional review and consideration by the City Council. CAC members originally expected their work to take one year. As currently scheduled, the CAC will not complete their work until May 2017. It is hard for CAC members to continue to commit this kind of time. One goal of the proposed review schedule is to establish a realistic and predictable schedule so that CAC members know how much more time they need to reserve and can continue to participate actively in the Comp Plan review until it is completed. Resource Impact Comprehensive plan updates are significant undertakings for any jurisdiction and the City of Palo Alto has invested time and resources in the project since 2008. The need to allocate multiple members of City staff, significant time on the City Council’s agenda, and financial resources for consultant assistance and event/meeting programming will continue until the adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan and its companion environmental document. Environmental Review A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the Comp Plan was published on February 5, 2016 and the public comment period closed on June 8, 2016. Council has directed staff and the consultant team to prepare a supplemental analysis of a 5th and 6th scenario, which will be circulated for public review early in 2017. A Final EIR incorporating the DEIR, the supplemental analysis, substantive comments on the DEIR and supplemental analysis, as well as written responses to those comments, and needed changes to the text and analysis of the DEIR will be proposed for adoption concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan Update as shown on the attached schedule included as Attachment B. Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft Transportation Element (PDF)  Attachment B: CAC Monthly Schedule July 2016 (PDF)  Attachment C: CAC Transportation Policy Comments 07.19.16 (PDF)  Attachment D: Disposition Table Showing Changes to Existing Transportation Element Policies & Programs (PDF)  Attachment E: Civic Crowd Analytics-Combined Document (PDF)  Attachment F: Public Comments (PDF) TRANSPORTATION TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-i 2 GOAL T-1 Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation, and other methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the use of single occupancy motor vehicles. ................................................................................................. 26 Reducing Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles ....................................26 Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................27 Increasing Transit Use ................................................................................28 Enhancing Rail and Bus Service ................................................................29 Shuttle Service, Ridesharing and First/Last Mile Connections .............30 Bicycling and Walking ................................................................................32 Monitoring Progress ...................................................................................34 Funding Improvements ..............................................................................34 GOAL T-2 Decrease congestion and vehicle miles travelled with a priority on our worst intersections and our peak commute times, including school traffic. .................................................................................. 35 Schools and Childcare Facility Congestion ..............................................36 GOAL T-3 Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users. ......... 37 Efficient Circulation ....................................................................................37 Street Design and Modification Projects ..................................................38 Rail Corridor ................................................................................................40 GOAL T-4 Protect neighborhood streets that support residential character and provide a range of local transportation options. ................ 41 GOAL T-5 Encourage attractive, convenient, efficient and innovative parking solutions for all users. ................................................... 42 Managing Parking Supply .........................................................................42 Parking Infrastructure and Design ...........................................................44 Residential Parking .....................................................................................45 Bicycle Parking ............................................................................................46 Attachment A PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS T-ii PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 GOAL T-6 Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets. .......................................... 46 GOAL T-7 Provide mobility options that allow people who are transit dependent to reach their destinations. ............................................. 49 GOAL T-8 Influence the shape and implementation of regional transportation policies and technologies to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. .................................................. 51 TRANSPORTATION PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-1 2 This preliminary draft element was prepared by City staff on the basis of input from the CAC, the transportation subcommittee and members of the public received between October 2015 and June 2016. The element will be further refined following review by the full CAC on July 21, 2016, and that refined product will be presented as a draft to Palo Alto City Council in August 2016. INTRODUCTION Meeting the transportation needs of residents, visitors, and businesses will demand innovative and forward-looking solutions. The Transportation Element provides a policy framework for these solutions, recognizing that future growth in transportation needs cannot be met by the automobile alone. Strong dependence on the automobile has resulted in air and water pollution, excess noise, increased energy use, and visual degradation in Palo Alto and throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. There have also been impacts on Palo Alto neighborhoods, as motorists have used local streets as alternatives to overcrowded arterials. This Element addresses these issues comprehensively and acknowledges that the future will be different than the present and the past. Recognizing changing demographics and travel preferences, new technologies, and new opportunities, the Element includes solutions for implementation today in order to lay the groundwork VISION: Palo Alto will build and maintain a sustainable network of safe, accessible and efficient transportation and parking solutions for all users and modes, while protecting and enhancing the quality of life in Palo Alto neighborhoods. Programs will include alternative and innovate transportation processes, and the adverse impacts of automobile traffic on the environment in general and residential streets in particular will be reduced. Streets will be safe, attractive and designed to enhance the quality and aesthetics of Palo Alto neighborhoods. Palo Alto recognizes the regional nature of our transportation system, and will be a leader in seeking regional transportation solutions, prioritizing Caltrain service improvements and railroad grade separations. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 for the future. Together with investments in infrastructure, these solutions will lead to an integrated transportation system that serves local, regional, and intercity travel. This Element meets the State requirement for a Circulation Element, addressing the various aspects of circulation, including complete streets, expressways and freeways, transit, walking, bicycling, parking, and special transportation needs. CONNECTIONS TO OTHER ELEMENTS Transportation choices and options are shaped by many factors including land use, economics, and community values. As such, the Transportation Element is strongly influenced by the Land Use Element and Housing Element because the distribution and density of residential, commercial, and office uses have a direct correlation to the type, frequency, and use of transportation options a community employs. In a jobs-rich community like Palo Alto that imports significant numbers of workers, adding housing could be one strategy to reduce the number of people who have to drive into the city each day. The Transportation Element supports the objectives of the Business and Economics Element, the Community Services and Facilities Element, and the Natural Environment Element, and the Safety and Noise Element by paving the way for a transportation system that supports economic development, helps people get to and from community gathering places, and accesses services in a manner that limits impacts to the natural environment. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION In 2014, more than 60 percent of all trips made each day in Palo Alto involved single-occupant vehicles. Although this ratio is a lower than in many other Bay Area communities, road travel to, from, and within the city is the greatest single largest source of local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As a major regional employment center, Palo Alto attracts commuters from throughout the Bay Area on a daily basis, but US Census data also show that Palo Alto residents make most of their trips by car. [additional data to come on trip origins and destinations, i.e. who is driving where] Building a more sustainable transportation system will require addressing both regional and local travel patterns, as well as trips made for work, school, errands or entertainment. The key to a sustainable transportation system lies in providing more options and more convenience so that people will more readily choose not to drive. Palo Altans recognize that, at times, driving is necessary, but to address congestion, keep 61% 23% 5% 3% 8% PALO ALTO DAILY MODE SHARE (2014) Drive Alone Carpool Transit Bike Walk PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-3 neighborhood streets safe, reduce air quality and noise impacts, lessen the effects of climate change, and improve overall quality of life, the policies and programs in this Element must focus on providing convenient, affordable alternatives to the automobile. Facilitating a shift to alternative modes of transportation will require creative collaboration among transit agencies, employers, and local jurisdictions as well as residents and commuters themselves. Technology also has a role to play, whether providing up-to-the minute information to inform choices or in delivering new and better modes of travel. Improvements to the bicycling and pedestrian environment will help encourage more people to bike and walk on a regular basis. INNOVATION AND COLLABORATION Palo Alto is currently pursuing a number of innovative tools to increase transportation options for residents and workers. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to strategies that improve transportation system efficiency and reduce congestion by shifting trips from single- occupant vehicles to collective forms of transport, including transit, carpools and shuttles. TDM programs can include a range of infrastructure investments and incentives for the use of alternatives to the automobile, as well as parking management initiatives and marketing. Employers and local governments often collaborate in developing and implementing TDM programs, and activities can be coordinated through a Transportation Management Association (TMA) made up of local businesses in a commercial district or industrial park. Stanford University operates one of the most comprehensive and successful TDM programs in the country for the University, Hospital and Research Park campuses. The program includes a commute club, the Marguerite Shuttle, EcoPass/GoPass and bicycle and vehicle rentals, among others, and encourages more efficient use of transportation infrastructure. In January 2015, the City of Palo Alto began the process to establish a TMA for the downtown area, in collaboration with local businesses and residents. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES Alternative fuel vehicles—those that run on electricity, biodiesel, compressed natural gas and other alternatives to petroleum fuels—help reduce GHG emissions by utilizing cleaner fuels or zero emission alternatives. In 2014, the City of Palo Alto adopted an ordinance that requires electric vehicle (EV) – ready infrastructure for all PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-4 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 new commercial construction to encourage the use of electric vehicles and develop the infrastructure for this growing market. As the City continues this effort, additional infrastructure may be necessary. However, while alternative fuel vehicles do reduce GHGs, they are still a contributor to congestion. MOBILITY AS A SERVICE In this context mobility refers to the options that Palo Alto residents, employees and visitors have for getting to and from their destinations. The use of transportation services is beginning to replace private vehicle ownership in the region, led by a number of prominent ride sharing and e-hailing) car services like Uber and Lyft (the process of ordering transportation services via mobile device). Originating in Europe, the concept of “Mobility as a Service” (MaaS), allows on-demand trip planning enabled by smartphones and mobile devices and provided by "pop up" bus - car- and bike-sharing services. Palo Alto is partnering with Joint Venture Silicon Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and the City of San Jose to develop a MaaS/smartphone app (Commuter Wallet) that combines access to multiple transportation modes and employer commute benefits, incentivizinge non- single-occupant vehicle travel. PUBLIC TRANSIT Residents, workers, and visitors to Palo Alto have an array of transit options within the city and to the surrounding region. Maps T-1 and T-2 show the range of I2 I2 §¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 Fo o t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford Los Altos Hills Menlo Park S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Los Altos Arastradero Preserve Baylands Preserve Byxbee Park Alm a S t r e e t El C a m i n o R e a l Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Embarcad e r o R o a d East Charleston Road Lou i s R o a d Wa v e r l y S t r e e t Seal e A v e n u e Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Chan n i n g A v e n u e East M e a d o w D r i v e San A n t o n i o R o a d Color a d o A v e n u e Willow R o a d Lin c o l n A v e n u e Hamilto n A v e n u e West C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E L E M E N T PR EL IM INA RY DR A FT M AP T- 1 R E G I O N A L T R A N S I T C O N N E C T I O N S I N P A L O A L T O 0 0.5 1 Miles Source: Palo Alto Unified School District, 2012; Santa Clara VTA, 2015; SamTrans, 2015; PlaceWorks, 2015. Caltrain Dumbarton Express Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans) I2 Caltrain Stations Employment Districts Railroads Park/Open Space Public Conservation Land City Limit 35 34 40 120 88 51 522 101 102 103 DB DB1 85 295 83 22 32 32 89 182 104 824 52 California Ave Station Palo Alto Station To S a n J o s e To S a n F r a n c i s c o Stanford Medical Center San Antonio Rd/ Bayshore Corridor Stanford Research Park East Bayshore 522 296 297 280 281 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 "X "X Terman Middle Palo Alto High Greendell School Ohlone Elementary Hoover Elementary Henry M. Gunn High Addison Elementary Duveneck Elementary Escondido Elementary Palo Verde Elementary Fairmeadow Elementary El Carmelo Elementary Walter Hays Elementary Barron Park Elementary Lucille Nixon Elementary Juana Briones Elementary David Starr Jordan Middle Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle §¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 Foo t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford Los Altos Hills Menlo Park S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Los Altos Baylands Preserve Byxbee Park California Ave Station Palo Alto Station Pag e M i l l R o a d Al m a S t r e e t El C a m i n o R e a l Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Embarcad e r o R o a d East Charleston Road Lo u i s R o a d Wa v e r l y S t r e e t Seal e A v e n u e Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Chan n i n g A v e n u e East M e a d o w D r i v e San A n t o n i o R o a d Colora d o A v e n u e Willow R o a d Lin c o l n A v e n u e Hamilto n A v e n u e West C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E L E M E N T PR EL IM INA RY DR A FT M AP T- 2 P A L O A L T O L O C A L T R A N S I T C O N N E C T I O N S Source: Palo Alto Unified School District, 2012; Santa Clara VTA, 2015; SamTrans, 2015; City of Palo Alto, 2015; Caltrain, 2015; PlaceWorks, 2015.Crosstown Shuttle Embarcadero Shuttle East Palo Alto Caltrain Shuttle Stanford Marguerite Shuttle Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans) "X Caltrain Stations 5 Schools Railroads Employment Districts Commercial Centers Park/Open Space Public Conservation Land City Limit 0 0.5 1 Miles 182 297 102 103 88 22 824 32 35 522 89 PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-7 transit services in Palo Alto. Map T-1 focuses on regional transit options, which Map T-2 illustrates local transit options. Overall, regional transit is heavily used, while public transit services serving the local area are below capacity levels. Improving local services like shuttles to better match ridership needs could be one strategy to increase ridership and make more effective use of available capacity. RAIL SERVICE Caltrain is Palo Alto’s primary regional transit service, with riders traveling between San Francisco and Gilroy. Since introduction of the baby bullet limited express trains in 2003, ridership has more than doubled and today, Palo Alto’s University Avenue station is the second largest generator of weekday Caltrain trips, behind San Francisco’s 4th and King Street station. Long-range plans for the Palo Alto Station and the adjacent University Avenue underpass area will enhance pedestrian circulation and the station’s visibility. The planned Caltrain extension to the Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco will improve regional transit connections, and Caltrain electrification will speed service and increase capacity while decreasing noise and air pollution. As of late 2015, the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) has re-initiated study of possible future rail service along the Dumbarton corridor, to link the Alameda County communities of Newark, Union City and Fremont with the San Mateo County communities of Redwood City, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto via an existing, unused rail bridge across the San Francisco Bay. The study will also evaluate connections to Palo Alto and other cities in Santa Clara County. In November 2015, Palo Alto City Council adopted a Complete Streets resolution affirming the City’s longstanding commitment to design and construction of a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that allows safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, emergency vehicles, seniors, children, youth, and families. Council also adopted National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) guidelines for bikeway and urban street design, which incorporate Complete Streets best practices. Visual simulation of BRT operating on El Camino Real Source: VTA PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-8 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 BUS SERVICE Three transit providers, VTA, SamTrans, and AC Transit, provide bus service in Palo Alto, connecting residents to both local and regional destinations. The VTA operates local bus service within the city, with 14 bus routes in Palo Alto, and also offers connections to VTA light rail, Caltrain, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) and AMTRAK Capitol Corridor. SamTrans operates bus service throughout San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara counties, helping to connect Palo Alto to other parts of the Peninsula and Silicon Valley. AC Transit’s Dumbarton Express provides express bus service between the East Bay and communities on the Peninsula. The VTA’s proposed El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project aims to improve transit operations and increase transit ridership along the El Camino Real Corridor. With curbside stations and signal priority (“queue jumping”), BRT in shared travel lanes will provide faster, more reliable service with target stops and specialized transit vehicles and facilities. The El Camino Real BRT Corridor extends from Downtown San Jose (Arena Station) to Downtown Palo Alto (Palo Alto Transit Center) passing through the cities of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Los Altos. SHUTTLE SERVICE There are four types of shuttle services operating in Palo Alto, including the Stanford University Marguerite shuttle, the VTA shuttle, the City-operated Palo Alto Shuttle, and private employee shuttles which transit through Palo Alto offering transportation for employees to other job centers on the Peninsula. The Marguerite, run by Stanford University Parking and Transportation Services, is a free public service that connects the Stanford campus to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and Downtown. The VTA provides low cost fare based service for residents of Santa Clara County. The Palo Alto Shuttle is a free wheelchair-accessible shuttle provided by the City to connect important destinations in the community, including Caltrain stations; the City is developing plans for enhanced service in response to community input. Marguerite and Palo Alto Shuttle routes are shown on Map T-1. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-9 FIRST/LAST MILE CONNECTIONS The concept of first/last mile connections refers to the level of accessibility to and from transit stations. Many people live or work within a mile from a transit station or bus stop; however, distance, perception of safety, and inconvenience may deter them from using transit. The Palo Alto shuttle also provides first/last mile connections to and from Caltrain stations, as does the provision of bike share facilities. For now, walking and biking remain the best first/last mile option for most of Palo Alto. Future improvements should focus on making walking and bicycling more efficient, comfortable and safe. In addition, improved shuttle service, ridesharing and other on-demand transportation services could be integrated into the City’s overall first/last mile connection strategy and beyond, through MaaS. BICYCLING AND WALKING California’s Complete Streets Act requires local jurisdictions to plan for land use transportation policies that reflect a “complete streets” approach to mobility. Complete streets policies and street design principles provide for the needs of all road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit operators and riders, children, the elderly, and people of all ability levels. BIKING Palo Alto dedicated its formal bikeway system—one of the nation’s first—in 1972. Bikeways have since become commonplace and considerable progress has been made in overcoming barriers to bicycle travel in and around Palo Alto. Palo Alto’s bikeway network consists of on-road bicycle lanes, bicycle boulevards and bicycle routes, off-roadway shared-use paths and bridges, and bicycle parking facilities. Fourteen underpasses and bridges span barriers such as freeways, creeks, and railroad tracks. Map T-3 shows the existing and planned bikeway network in Palo Alto. Palo Alto is in a position to build on the existing network, significantly increasing PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-10 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 its proportion of travel by bicycle. The Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, adopted in 2012 (BPTP 2012), contains a policy framework, design guidance, and specific recommendations to increase walking and biking rates over the next decade and beyond. BPTP 2012 encourages planning, construction, and maintenance of complete streets that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities, incorporating best practices from the National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) Bikeway Design Guide. Future challenges include more routes for northeast- southwest travel and overcoming physical barriers like railroads and freeways. Better provisions for bicycles on transit enables bicycles as a first/last mile option, promoting the use both modes by increasing convenience and accessibility of destinations. WALKING Mode share data indicate that walking accounts for more trips than public transit in Palo Alto each day, yet is an often overlooked means of transportation. As shown on Map T-4, Palo Alto's pedestrians are generally well served by current facilities and will benefit from the attention given to street trees, walkable neighborhoods, and pedestrian- oriented design. The most needed improvements are to fill in the gaps in the sidewalk system, make intersection crossings “friendlier,” and overcome barriers to northeast-southwest travel. "X "X|ÿ82 £¤101 Foo t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford Menlo Park Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Baylands Preserve Byxbee ParkEa s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Page M i l l R o a d Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Charle s t o n R o a d Junipe r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d Arbore t u m R d Quar r y R o a d Sa n t a C r u z A v e Alm a S t r e e t El C a m i n o R e a l Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Embarcade r o R o a d Lou i s R o a d Wa v e r l y S t r e e t Seal e A v e n u e Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Chan n i n g A v e n u e East M e a d o w D r i v e San A n t o n i o R o a d Colora d o A v e n u e Sand H i l l R o a d Lin c o l n A v e n u e Hamilto n A v e n u e Aras t r a d e r o R o a d Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E L E M E N T MA P T - 3 B I K E W A Y S I N P A L O A L T O Source: City of Palo Alto, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016. 0 0.5 1 Mile Class I Multi-Use Path Park Trails Private Pathways Across Barrier Connection (ABC) Class II Bicycle Lane One-Way Bicycle Lane Enhanced Bikeway Class III Shared Roadway Class III Shared Arterial Bicycle Boulevard "X Caltrain Stations Park/Open Space Public Conservation Land Railroads City Limit Commercial "X Downtown Inset Existing Proposed Off-Street Dedicated On-Street Shared On-Street Center Al m a S t Bry a n t S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d We b s t e r S t Univ e r s i t y A v e Ever e t t A v e Hom e r A v e PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION Source: City of Palo Alto, 2012. MAP T-4 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Downtown Inset Existing Facilities and Programs | 3-5 Alta Planning + Design Chapter 3 Map 3-2: Existing Pedestrian Conditions Existing Facilities and Programs | 3-5 Alta Planning + Design Chapter 3 Map 3-2: Existing Pedestrian Conditions Existing Facilities and Programs | 3-5 Alta Planning + Design Chapter 3 Map 3-2: Existing Pedestrian Conditions PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-13 FUNDING IMPROVEMENTS Transportation infrastructure in Palo Alto is supported through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and impact fees on new development. The CIP is approved on an annual basis by the City Council and may include projects such as roadway and other improvements to the circulation system. The Citywide Transportation Impact Fee, adopted in 2007, is designed to recover a portion of the costs associated with relieving traffic congestion associated with new development; the fee is calculated based on the number of additional vehicle trips generated. Three area-specific transportation impact fees also apply to portions of the city where high traffic volumes occur. These areas include San Antonio/West Bayshore, Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real CS Zone, and Charleston/Arastradero. A separate fee is charged in the Downtown Parking Assessment District for parking impacts. The goals, policies and programs contained in this Element seek to mitigate the impacts of future development, protect Palo Alto residents’ quality of life, and address region-wide transportation issues. In order to implement these policies and programs, the City is committed to evaluating additional funding options on a regular basis. Regular evaluation and assessment of transportation-related needs and resources can help ensure that Palo Alto achieves these goals. STREETS All modes of transportation in Palo Alto depend to some degree on the street network. The City’s street network has remained essentially unchanged since the 1960s, except for projects along the Sand Hill Road corridor, yet overall traffic volumes have increased. In the future, prioritizing multimodal transportation solutions and traffic calming can support a shift towards alternative transportation, thus increasing walking and biking on local streets. STREET CLASSIFICATIONS Palo Alto’s streets are categorized according to purpose, design and the volume of traffic they carry. This street hierarchy is defined below and is illustrated on Map T-5. Improvements to road surfaces, curbs, crossings, signage, landscaping, and sight lines must make streets safer for vehicles, but must consider the needs and safety of pedestrians and cyclists as well. "X "X §¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford Los Altos Hills Menlo Park S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y Los Altos El C a m i n o R e a l Fo o t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Embarcad e r o R o a d Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e East Charleston Road San A n t o n i o R o a d Al m a S t r e e t Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d California Ave Station Palo Alto Station Source: City of Palo Alto, 2013; PlaceWorks, 2014. P R E L I M I N A R Y D R A F T M A P T - 5 ROADWAY NETWORK P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A NT R A N S P O R T A T I O N E L E M E N T 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Local/Collector Residential Arterial Arterial Expressway Freeway Railroads "X Caltrain Stations Parks Public Conservation Land Sphere of Influence City Boundary PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-15 §¨¦280 |ÿ82 £¤101 Foo t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Mountain View East Palo Alto Stanford Menlo Park Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Baylands Preserve Byxbee Park Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Page M i l l R o a d Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Charle s t o n R o a d Junipe r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d Arbore t u m R d Quar r y R o a d Sa n t a C r u z A v e Alm a S t r e e t El C a m i n o R e a l Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Embarcade r o R o a d Lou i s R o a d Wa v e r l y S t r e e t Seal e A v e n u e Loma V e r d e A v e n u e Chan n i n g A v e n u e East M e a d o w D r i v e San A n t o n i o R o a d Colora d o A v e n u e Sand H i l l R o a d Lin c o l n A v e n u e Hamilto n A v e n u e Aras t r a d e r o R o a d Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e !6 !1 !20 !18 !15 !9 !8 !7 !5 !4 !3 !2 !19 !17 !16 !14 !13 !12 !11 !10 P A L O A L T O C O M P R E H E N S I V E P L A N T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E L E M E N T MA P T - 6 M O N I T O R E D I N T E R S E C T I O N S Source: City of Palo Alto, 2016; PlaceWorks, 2016.Park/Open Space Public Conservation Land Railroads City Limit 0 0.5 1 Mile 1. Middlefield/University2. Middlefield/Embarcadero3. Middlefield/Oregon (CMP)4. Middlefield/Colorado5. Middlefield/Charleston6. Middlefield/San Antonio (CMP)7. El Camino Real/Alma/Sand Hill (CMP)8. El Camino Real/University/Palm9. El Camino Real/Embarcadero (CMP)10. El Camino Real/Page Mill (CMP)11. El Camino Real/Arastradero/Charleston (CMP)12. El Camino Real/San Antonio (CMP) (Mountain View)13. Santa Cruz/Sand Hill Road (Menlo Park)14. Foothill/Junipero Serra/Page Mill (CMP)15. Foothill/Arastradero (CMP)16. Alma/Charleston17. Arboretum/Quarry18. San Antonio/Charleston(CMP)19. Embarcadero/East Bayshore20. University/Woodland (East Palo Alto) Palo Alto Monitored Intersections (CMP) denotes Santa Clara County VTA Congestion Management Plan intersection. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-17 ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS [To be updated when Preferred Alternative and associated roadway improvements are identified]. Efficient traffic circulation on major streets is a priority in Palo Alto, as is minimizing the diversion of through-traffic onto local residential streets. Intersections are the most constricted points on the network and tend to see the highest levels of congestion during the peak morning and afternoon commute periods. For that purpose, several key intersections and roadways segments, as shown on Map T-6, have been identified for monitoring. A challenge is to balance the free flow of traffic with the safety of pedestrians and cyclists of all abilities, as well as with residents’ desire to maintain low traffic speeds on residential arterials. Most future improvements will be made within existing rights- of-way at intersections and will provide relatively small increases in roadway capacity. Intersection improvements are planned only at the major intersections noted below. Additional turning lanes and other related changes are proposed at the following major intersections in Palo Alto: [list to be determined based on final decisions about the locations of future development] LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of Service (LOS) is a way of measuring traffic congestion based on average control delay per vehicle, and in some analyses, based on the ratio of the volume of traffic to the capacity of the road. LOS A is a free-flowing condition for cars and LOS F is an extreme congestion condition, with traffic volumes at or over capacity. LOS Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an indicator of the level of traffic on the roadway system by motor vehicles. VMT is estimated for the given period of time - for example daily or annually. The estimate is based on both traffic volume counts and roadway length. As population increases, so does VMT; however, other factors that contribute to a rise in VMT include economic growth, relatively affordable auto travel costs, tourism, low levels of public transit, and sprawl. As the amount of auto travel increases, the time wasted on congested roadways, the energy used by the vehicles and total costs of auto travel increase accordingly. PALO ALTO’S STREET HIERARCHY  Freeway: Major roadway with controlled access; devoted exclusively to traffic movement, mainly of a through or regional nature.  Expressway: Major roadway with limited access to adjacent properties; devoted almost exclusively to traffic movement, mainly serving through- traffic.  Arterial: Major roadway mainly serving through-traffic; takes traffic to and from expressways and freeways; provides access to adjacent properties.  Residential Arterial: Major roadway mainly serving through-traffic; takes traffic to and from express- ways and freeways; provides access to adjacent properties, most of which are residential properties located on both sides of the roadway with direct frontages and driveways on that roadway.  Collector: Roadway that collects and distributes local traffic to and from arterial streets, and provides access to adjacent properties.  Local: Minor roadway that provides access to adjacent properties only. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-18 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 definitions for signalized intersections are shown in Table T-1. Intersections in the city are subject to its LOS standards, and the City will continue to use vehicular LOS when evaluating development applications, including a project’s potential contribution to overall LOS. TABLE T-1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS DEFINITIONS BASED ON AVERAGE DELAY LOS Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A 10.0 or less B 10.1 to 20.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 F Greater than 80.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, D.C. 2000. VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) Transportation planning analyses used by cities to describe traffic and roadway and intersection operation, both for infrastructure planning and for new development projects, are evolving away from the traditional Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) metric towards a multi-modal perspective based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Senate Bill 743, passed in 2013, requires impacts from new development on transportation network performance to be viewed through a filter that promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. This evolution acknowledges the fact that designing roadways primarily to serve vehicle travel is not a sustainable transportation approach and can have negative consequences for those travelling by other modes. This Bill will also shift the State away from LOS as the metric for evaluating transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)., This shift recognizes that prioritizing the free flow of cars over any other roadway user contradicts State goals to reduce GHGs. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-19 Utilizing both LOS and VMT metrics provides the City with a comprehensive view to address traffic and to reflect its sustainability goals. Shorter and fewer vehicle trips to, from and within Palo Alto become an important measure in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. While LOS describes local-level impacts at a specific location, VMT describes network-wide impacts by measuring the number of miles traveled by motor vehicles within an area. VMT per capita divides the total amount of VMT by the population living and working in a community. In the Bay Area, a common pattern in jobs-rich communities like Palo Alto is that community-wide VMT is high because many workers must travel into the City from far away, and not all can meet their needs by using transit. VMT per capita is used to account for changes in population and employment over time and helps measure how far people travel to get to work, get home, and meet daily needs, while adjusting for increases in VMT due only to increased housing or employment. , In summary, VMT can help identify how new development projects may influence accessibility and emissions, while vehicle LOS can still help identify impacts on users of the local roadway network. Together, these measures can inform efforts to reduce commute lengths and enhance the availability of alternative transportation options. MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE Some communities are exploring how to apply the concept of level of service, which has focused exclusively on cars for the past several decades, to transit, bikes, and pedestrians in order to better understand and support alternative modes of transportation. Multimodal level of service (MMLOS) applies the concept of LOS to all modes of travel. Within Santa Clara County, in response to State laws that require planning for complete streets and deprioritize vehicular LOS as a metric for transportation analysis, VTA is developing guidelines for multimodal transportation planning to include in all transportation studies, and the City of Palo Alto will have an opportunity to participate in this effort. One possible outcome could be the adoption of metrics for safety, convenience, and delay for transit, bicycles, and pedestrians similar to the LOS standards the City has adopted for cars. RAIL CORRIDOR Palo Alto is bisected by the Caltrain rail corridor, which provides important connections to the wider Bay Area; however, it also creates a significant barrier to local connectivity and circulation. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-20 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 GRADE SEPARATION To enhance local connectivity, improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and increase safety, the City of Palo Alto is considering conceptual grade separation alternatives for a portion of the Caltrain right-of-way. Recent studies have focused on three existing at-grade crossings at Charleston, Meadow, and Churchill, however there is significant interest in analyzing and pursuing grade separations at Alma Street as well, in addition to possible establishment of a “quiet zone” for the near term. Trenching the Caltrain corridor from San Antonio to the Oregon Expressway is the City’s preferred option for grade separation. Although the potential cost of this option to reroute existing creeks and add infrastructure pump stations would be higher than the option of submerging the roadway at key intersections, grade separation would prevent the taking of existing homes and partial property acquisitions, elimination of turning movements, and would result in less visual impacts at each intersection than submerging the roadway at key intersections due to the large footprint of the submerged segments. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS Most Palo Alto streets are bordered by residential land uses. Citizens’ concerns reflect chronic problems like speeding, commuter shortcutting, and too much traffic. The City has designated some streets as residential arterials to recognize that they carry large volumes of through-traffic but also have residential uses on both sides of the street. The objective is to address the desires of residents of these streets who would like to have slower speeds, safer conditions for bicycles and pedestrians, and aesthetic improvements. This must be done economically and without appreciably reducing traffic capacity or diverting traffic onto other local neighborhood streets. Additionally, to address community concerns, the City has developed a Traffic Intrusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) methodology that estimates resident perception of traffic impacts based on anticipated average daily traffic growth. Although not required under the California Environmental Quality Act or pursuant to VTA guidelines, the City of Palo Alto uses the TIRE index to measure the impact of traffic on residents along a street. The Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index is a measure of the effect of traffic on the safety and comfort of human activities, such as walking, cycling, and playing on or near a street and on the freedom to maneuver vehicles in and out of residential driveways. The TIRE index scale ranges from 0 to 5 depending on daily traffic volume. An index of 0 represents the least infusion of traffic and 5 the greatest, and thereby, the poorest residential environment. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-21 TRAFFIC CALMING Traffic calming refers to projects that make permanent, physical changes to streets to slow traffic and/or reduce volumes, thus improving their safety and addressing residents’ concerns. Traffic calming measures can reduce speeds and return some through-traffic from local and collector streets to nearby arterials. Traffic calming also includes education and enforcement measures that promote changes in driver behavior. Where warranted by traffic conditions and residents’ desires, Palo Alto’s policy is to implement physical changes to local and collector streets that slow traffic close to the 25 miles per hour (mph) residential speed limit. Physical changes implemented are safe and take into account the needs of all road users. Some examples of traffic calming measures include:  Curb and Sidewalk Design. In many of the areas of Palo Alto built since World War II, an integral curb and sidewalk design was used, resulting in sidewalks immediately next to traffic lanes. Adding planting pockets and street trees would promote pedestrian use and also provide visual cues to drivers to reduce speeds.  Lane Reductions. In commercial areas, it may be feasible to reduce the number of lanes for through-traffic without losing too much traffic handling capacity. In these areas, curb lanes are often not very useful for through-traffic since they may be blocked or slowed by cars turning into and out of driveways and parking spaces.  Street Closures. Street closures are effective at eliminating through-traffic, especially when safety issues are involved. They may be a necessary design element for a bicycle boulevard or transit mall, but closures can often be controversial because they disrupt the traditional neighborhood street grid, and may shift traffic to adjacent streets. PARKING A comprehensive parking strategy is an important component of the overall effort to reduce traffic congestion, protect the livability of residential neighborhoods, and support local businesses. The overarching objective of the strategy is to provide parking as needed to sustain economic vitality in the commercial centers and employment districts, while over time implementing initiatives to reduce motor vehicle parking demand and provide new bicycle parking facilities. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-22 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING The parking strategy articulated in this plan involves a phased approach. In the near- term, the focus will be on conducting needs assessments, which establish a baseline for adequate parking in each of the city's commercial centers and employment districts under current conditions, and creating parking management strategies, which optimize the use of existing parking spaces. In the mid- to long-term, as it becomes easier and more convenient to walk, bike, rideshare and use transit, and as the effectiveness of parking management programs can be measured, the focus will shift to recalibrating parking supply. Bridging between these two phases will require identifying performance standards for transit, walking, ridesharing and bicycling that represent the thresholds at which point mechanisms to phase in updated parking requirements and reduce space allocated to parking over time should be considered. Parking management can be done in a number of ways, including optimizing use of existing spaces and incentivizing use of alternatives to the automobile. Technology is central to optimizing the use of existing spaces, and the City is already committed to installing parking guidance systems that give drivers real-time information on the number and location of available spaces, and to developing clear logos and wayfinding signage to help people access public parking efficiently. Shared parking arrangements that allow different users to use the same spaces at alternate times - for example, employees in the daytime and restaurant patrons at night - can also optimize the use of existing spaces. Improving transit service, providing safe, convenient bicycle parking and enhancing the pedestrian realm can incentivize the use of transportation modes that don't require vehicle parking, while charging for parking makes it more likely that people will carpool, take transit, walk or bike. The City has already begun to pilot new programs and gauge the effectiveness of parking management strategies in coordination with other transportation demand management initiatives. This plan seeks to set the stage for continued innovation and experimentation in both the public and private sectors to develop effective solutions. Over time, carefully managing parking supply can significantly reduce the number of parking spaces needed, moderate traffic congestion, reduce the costs of providing parking, encourage transit and sustainable transportation choices and support Palo Alto’s goals for livable neighborhoods. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-23 BICYCLE PARKING As the City continues to implement its parking strategy over the mid- to long-term of this plan, bicycle use will be promoted by increasing the number of safe, attractive, and well-designed bicycle parking spaces in Palo Alto. Priority areas of the city include heavily travelled mixed-use areas, commercial centers, employment districts, recreational/cultural facilities, multi-modal transportation facilities and ride share stops. In addition, the City will identify ways to incentivize the provision of bicycle parking near existing shops, services and places of employment in collaboration with private sector partners and in City-owned parking lots and rights of ways. Further actions will be guided through implementation of the 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. ROAD SAFETY Traffic safety will continue to be among the City’s top priorities in the future. City officials, city employees and community members are committed to working together to build better and safer streets, educate the public on traffic safety, enforce traffic laws, and adopt policy changes that save lives. The City is undertaking a comprehensive traffic safety program, and partners with Palo Alto Unified School District and the Palo Alto Parent Teacher Association (PTA) on a Safe Routes to School Program that encourages families to walk, bike, take transit and use other alternatives to driving to school more often and to reduce the risk of collisions for students. A new approach to roadway safety that has proven to be successful in substantially reducing traffic-related fatality rates without compromising mobility is the Vision Zero Initiative, developed in Sweden. At the core of this approach is the concept of shifting responsibility for safety from roadway users to the design of the roadway system. While local conditions and traffic culture in Palo Alto are different than in Sweden, the Vision Zero Initiative could potentially offer ideas and lessons for Palo Alto to draw on in pursuing the goal of roadway safety for all users. TRANSIT-DEPENDENT COMMUNITY Young people, seniors, people with low incomes, and people with limited mobility all have special transportation needs. Palo Alto is committed to providing reasonable accessibility and mobility for all members of the community, including those who depend on transit because they cannot drive or choose not to. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-24 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 SENIORS As the baby boomer generation (i.e., those born between 1946 and 1964) ages, more and more people will forego driving or become unable to drive. Without proper access to affordable transit or families, friends, and/or neighbors who can provide rides, seniors face an increased risk of social and physical isolation. VTA offers seniors 65 and over a discounted Regional Transit Connection Card. In addition, Outreach, a non-profit organization that serves seniors and people with disabilities, offers transportation services in Santa Clara County, including a subsidized transit pass and subsidized taxi rides. While Outreach provides an important service to the community, there is a daily cap on the number of rides offered so all user requests may not be accommodated. PEOPLE WITH LIMITED MOBILITY VTA’s paratransit services are also provided by Outreach. Riders may reserve paratransit trips from one to three days in advance, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for service the next day. However, paratransit services are limited to a ¾-mile corridor around the VTA bus routes and light rail stations. For travel outside of the service area, customers must arrange a transfer to the paratransit operator. UNIVERSAL DESIGN The principle of universal design for mobility is to achieve roadways and sidewalks that can accommodate people of all abilities and all users, including automobiles, pedestrians, bicyclists. Examples of universal design to support people with disabilities include placing pedestrian push buttons at wheelchair level, audible pedestrian crossing systems, sidewalk curb ramps, increasing pedestrian crossing times, sidewalk widths of 6 feet or greater, roadway and sidewalk materials that reduce slipping and add stability, minimizing driveway crossings and obstructions, and avoiding steep grades and slopes. ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE In 2012, HUD considered a household (family of four) earning $75,700 or less and living in Santa Clara County to be low-income, $52,500 or less to be very low- income, and $31,500 or less to be extremely low income. As described in the adopted Housing Element (2014-2023), approximately 21 percent of households in Palo Alto are low, very low, or extremely low income; 2 percent do not own a car.1 1 U.S Census Bureau, 2014 ACS 5-year estimate. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-25 These households rely on transit to reach work, including evening, nighttime and weekend shifts, and to meet other daily needs. Expanding access to public transportation services in Palo Alto during off-peak hours, including the Shuttle, is one strategy that can improve accessibility and mobility. REGIONAL COLLABORATION Increasing population and traffic congestion over the past 20 years have required an increased emphasis on regional solutions to transportation issues. A regional approach is needed to avoid local solutions that simply shift the problem elsewhere or produce unintended results. Transportation facilities like Caltrain or the Bayshore Freeway need to be managed on a regional basis. Palo Alto is actively participating with other communities and Caltrain on Caltrain electrification, formally known as the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP), which will replace existing diesel trains with electric ones along the 51-mile Caltrain corridor and enable Caltrain to both increase the number of trains it runs and run longer trains. While these changes offer benefits to regional commuters, they are also expected to increase crossing delays and congestion at local intersections in Palo Alto. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN Palo Alto has been an active participant in the Santa Clara County VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP). The CMP is the primary mechanism for transportation planning and funding. Palo Alto representatives also participate leadership in numerous Bay Area regional bodies affecting transportation, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). HOV LANES High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are used as a traffic management strategy to reduce congestion on freeways and improve air quality. HOV lanes are reserved at peak travel times or longer for the exclusive use of vehicles with a driver and one or more passengers; although motorcycles and some alternative fuel and transit vehicles may also use the lanes. There are about 174 miles of freeway carpool lanes in Santa Clara County, including 84 miles along US 101 between the Palo Alto and Morgan Hill. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-26 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION GOAL T-1 Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation, and other methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the use of single occupancy motor vehicles. REDUCING RELIANCE ON SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLES Policy T-1.1 Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. [NEW POLICY] [T1] Policy T-1.2 Collaborate with Palo Alto employers and business owners to develop, implement and expand comprehensive programs to reduce single- occupant vehicle commute trips, including through incentives. [(PTC Policy T1.7) (Edited) (Previous Policy T-3 & Program T-5) (Merged & Edited)]. [T2] Create a long-term education program to change Program T1.2.1 the travel habits of residents, visitors, shoppers, and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives, incentives, and impacts. Work with the Palo Alto Unified School District and with other public and private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and Commuter Wallet partners, to develop and implement this program. [Previously Program T-8]. [T3] Formalize the City’s Transportation Demand Program T1.2.2 Management (TDM) program by establishing an ordinance that outlines when TDM should be applied to employers, what performance metrics are required, and how compliance will be measured and enforced. The ordinance should also: [T4] Transportation Demand Management Strategies are also referenced under T-110, 138 and 196. Will be updated to reflect final numbers. Transporta Strategies Mobility a software-b mobility so seamless, transporta alternative The “Mob aggregat smartphon and subsc transporta strategy th parking d carbon fo various tra for residen PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-27  Establish a list of acceptable TDM measures that include transit use, prepaid transit passes, commuter checks, car sharing, carpooling, parking cash-out, bicycling, walking, and education and outreach to support the use of these modes.  Provide a system for incorporating alternative measures as new ideas for TDM are developed. [(PTC Program T.1.7.1) (Edited)]  Establish a mechanism to monitor the success of TDM measures and track the cumulative reduction of peak period motor vehicle trips through the following method: o Allow contracting between developments or organizations so that trips to/from one site can be offset by reductions on another for a net reduction within Palo Alto. Evaluate the performance of pilot programs Program T1.2.3 implemented by the Downtown Transportation Management Association and consider expanding to other areas of the city as appropriate. [T5] Review existing regulations, policies, and programs Program T1.2.4 to identify revisions that encourage telecommuting, satellite office concepts, and work-at-home options. [(PTC Program T1.7.3) (Previous Program T-12) (Edited)]. [T6] REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Policy T-1.3 Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing vehicle miles traveled and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options and through the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030. [(PTC Policy T-1.1) (Edited)] [T7] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-28 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 Develop an electric vehicle promotion program that Program T1.3.1 identifies policy and technical issues, barriers and opportunities to the expansion of electric vehicles. [NEW PROGRAM] [T8] Work with transit providers, including SamTrans Program T1.3.2 and VTA, to encourage the adoption of electric, fuel cell or other zero emission vehicles. [NEW PROGRAM] [T9] Policy T-1.4 Ensure that electric vehicle charging infrastructure is available citywide. [T10] Review the Zoning Ordinance and update as Program T1.4.1 needed to ensure compatibility with the electric vehicle infrastructure ordinance, including parking technology improvements such as vehicle lifts and electronic monitoring. [(PTC Program T4.7.1) (Edited)] [T11] Further encourage the installation of facilities that Program T1.4.2 support alternative fuel vehicles by periodically reviewing requirements for electric and plug-in vehicle infrastructure in new construction. Consider and periodically review requirements for electric and plug-in infrastructure for remodels. Consider costs to the City, including identifying payment options. [(PTC Program T1.2.1) (Edited)] [T12] INCREASING TRANSIT USE Policy T-1.5 Improve and support transit access to regional destinations, multimodal transit stations, employment centers and commercial centers, including those within Palo Alto through the use of efficient public and/or private transit options such as rideshare, local shuttles, and first/last mile connections. [(PTC Policy T1.11) (Previous Policy T- 6) (Edited)] [T13] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-29 Collaborate with transit providers, including Program T1.5.1 Caltrain, bus operators and rideshare companies, to develop first/last mile connection strategies that boost the use of transit and shuttle service for local errands and commuting. Focus on connections to/from major corridors such as East and West Bayshore Road, Alma Street, El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road, [NEW PROGRAM] [T21] and [T22] continue to work with Caltrain, Amtrak, and public bus operators to expand bicycle storage on public transit vehicles during both peak and off- peak hours. [(NEW POLICY) (Previous Program T- 27)] [T14] Policy T-1.6 Support efforts to coordinate train, bus, and shuttle schedules at multi- modal transit stations, and other transit information centers, to enable efficient transfer among public transit modes. [(PTC Policy T1.15) (Previous Policy T-11) (Edited)] [T15] Policy T-1.7 Work to ensure public and private school commute patterns are accommodated in the local transit system, including through schedule and route coordination. ([PTC Policy T1.13) (Previous Policy T-9) (Edited)] [T16] Policy T-1.8 Continue to encourage the provision of amenities such as seating, lighting, and signage, including real-time arrival information, at bus and shuttle stops and train stations to increase rider comfort, safety, and convenience. [(PTC Policy T1.14) (Previous Policy T-10) (Edited)] [T17] ENHANCING RAIL AND BUS SERVICE Policy T-1.9 Support Caltrain modernization and electrification, capacity enhancements and extension to Downtown San Francisco. [(PTC Policy T7.16) (Previous Program T-17) (Program changed to Policy) (Edited)] [T18] Policy T-1.10 Support continued enhancement of the Caltrain stations as important transportation nodes for the city. [(PTC Policy T1.10) (Previous Policy T-5) (Edited)] [T19] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-30 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 Collaborate with Caltrain and Stanford University, Program T1.10.1 per existing agreements with the City, to explore station improvements, including maintenance and circulation and access improvements for all modes. [(PTC Program T1.10.2) (Edited)] [T20] Work with Caltrain to address commuter parking Program T1.10.2 intrusion into surrounding neighborhoods. Prioritize solutions such as shuttle services, considering parking structures only as an option of last resort. [(PTC Program T1.10.3) (Edited)] [T21] In collaboration with Caltrain and Stanford Research Program T1.10.3 Park, study the feasibility of baby bullet service to the California Avenue Caltrain Station, supplemented by connections from the station to the Stanford Research Park, as a way to incentivize use of transit by employees commuting to jobs in the Research Park. Baby bullet trains stopping at California Avenue should complement baby bullets stopping at Palo Alto Station, and be connected to shuttle routes and other first-mile/last-mile solutions. [NEW PROGRAM] [T22] Policy T-1.11 Collaborate with transit agencies in planning and implementing convenient, efficient, coordinated and effective bus service in Palo Alto that addresses the needs of all segments of our population. [NEW POLICY] [T23] Policy T-1.12 Study the feasibility of, and if warranted provide, traffic signal prioritization for buses at Palo Alto intersections, focusing first on regional transit routes. Also, advocate for bus service improvements on El Camino Real such as queue jump lanes and curbside platforms. [EIR Mitigation Measure TRANS-6] [T24] SHUTTLE SERVICE, RIDESHARING AND FIRST/LAST MILE CONNECTIONS Policy T-1.13 Encourage services that complement and enhance the transportation options available to help Palo Alto residents and employees make first/last mile connections and travel within the city for daily needs without using a single occupancy vehicle, including shuttle, taxi and ridesharing services. [(PTC Policy T.17) (Previous Policy T-13)] [T25] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-31 Investigate a pilot program to subsidize a taxi, Program T1.13.1 rideshare, or transit program for Palo Altans to get to/from downtown, including offering education and incentives to encourage users. [T26] Policy T-1.14 Continue the Palo Alto Shuttle Program and work with partners to enhance service by increasing frequency and prioritizing destinations of value to the community, including health centers, parks, schools, senior centers, and shopping areas and other places where residents gather. [(PTC Policy T1.9) (Edited) (Previous Policy T-4) (Edited)] [T27] Conduct a comprehensive study of the shuttle Program T1.14.1 system in collaboration with community members, people with special needs, and PAUSD to:  Evaluate current routes and ridership;  Identify potential service improvements, including new or modified routes; expanded schedules that accommodate daytime, evening, and weekend demand; facilitating transit connections, and improvements to the safety and appearance of shuttle stops;  Explore partnerships with other services that could complement and supplement the Palo Alto Shuttle;  Develop clear and engaging materials to explain and promote shuttle use with the purpose of reducing barriers to use; and  Establish a schedule for regular evaluation and reporting to optimize shuttle system use and effectiveness. Policy T-1.15 Encourage employers to develop shared shuttle services to connect employment areas with the multi-modal transit stations and City amenities, and to offer employees education and information on how to use shuttles. [(PTC Policy T1.12) (Previous Policy T-8)] [T28] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-32 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 BICYCLING AND WALKING Policy T-1.16 Promote bicycle use as an alternative way to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops. [NEW POLICY] [T29] Allocate funding for regular surveys of bicycle use Program T1.16.1 across the city, by collecting bicycle counts on important and potential bicycle corridors. [NEW PROGRAM] [T30] Consider marketing strategies, such as a recurring Program T1.16.2 Palo Alto Sunday Streets program of events potentially in coordination with local business groups, which would include street closures and programming. [NEW PROGRAM] [T31] Encourage private schools within the community to Program T1.16.3 develop Walk and Roll Maps as part of Transportation Demand Management strategies to reduce vehicle trips. [NEW POLICY] [T32] Support local and regional encouragement events Program T1.16.4 such as Palo Alto Walks & Rolls, Bike to Work Day, and Bike Palo Alto! that encourages a culture of bicycling and walking as alternatives to single occupant vehicle trips. [NEW PROGRAM] [T33] Policy T-1.17 Require new office, commercial, and multi-family residential developments to provide improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity as called for in the 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. [(PTC Policy T1.20) (Previous Policy T-15) (Edited)] [T34] Policy T-1.18 Increase cooperation with surrounding communities and other agencies to establish and maintain off-roadway bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails that are integrated with creek, utility, railroad rights-of- way and green spaces in a manner that helps enhance and define the community and avoids environmental impacts. [(PTC Policy T1.22) (Edited) (Previous Policy T-17, L-66 & L-68) (Merged & Edited)] [T35] Policy T-1.19 Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. [NEW POLICY] [T36] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-33 Adjust the street evaluation criteria of the City's Program T1.19.1 Pavement Management Program to ensure that areas of the road used by bicyclists are maintained at the same standards as, or at standards higher than, areas used by motor vehicles. [Previously Program T-28] [T37] [Formerly Program T1.20.1] Prioritize investments for enhanced pedestrian Program T1.19.2 access and bicycle use within Palo Alto and to/from surrounding communities, including by incorporating improvements from related City Plans, for example the 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan, into the capital improvements plan. [PTC Policy T1.19] [T38] Increase the number of east-west pedestrian and Program T1.19.3 bicycle crossings along Alma Street, particularly south of Oregon Expressway. [PTC RC Policy 3.1] [T39] Encourage the use of bike sharing and support the Program T1.19.4 provision of bike share stations throughout Palo Alto, especially adjacent to transit stations and stops. [(PTC Policy T1.18) (NEW POLICY)] [T40] Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle Program T1.19.5 parking, street trees, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety. [Previously Policy T-22] [T41] Policy T-1.20 Regularly maintain off-roadway bicycle and pedestrian paths, including sweeping, weed abatement, and surface maintenance. [Previously Program T-29] [T42] Develop cooperative programs with the City and Program T1.20.1 businesses that promote good community stewardship by keeping sidewalks clean in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts, and other centers. [Previously Program T-30] [T43] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-34 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 Policy T-1.21 Maintain pedestrian- and bicycle-only use of alleyways Downtown and in the California Avenue area where appropriate. [(PTC Policy T1.26) (Edited) (Previous Policy T-21) (Edited)] [T44] MONITORING PROGRESS Policy T-1.22 Continue to measure the effectiveness of the City’s transportation network to make better decisions on transportation issues. [(PTC Policy T1.8) (Edited)] [T45] Collect, analyze and report transportation data Program T1.22.1 through surveys and other methods, to evaluate implementation of related policies on a regular basis. [NEW PROGRAM] [T46] Policy T-1.23 Monitor VMT per capita citywide as a measure of progress toward sustainability goals. [NEW POLICY] [T47] Policy T-1.24 Monitor and publicly report on the level of service at critical intersections (as shown on Map T-5) on a regular basis and consider additional intersections to add to this list to monitor the effectiveness of the City's growth management policies. [(PTC Program T2.10.2 & T2.10.3) (Merged & Edited)] [T48] FUNDING IMPROVEMENTS Policy T-1.25 Evaluate transportation funding measures periodically for ongoing transportation improvements that will help mitigate the impacts of future development and protect residents’ quality of life. [NEW POLICY] [T49] As part of the effort to reduce traffic congestion, Program T1.25.1 regularly evaluate the City’s current Transportation Impact Fee to implement transportation projects, and consider new fees that new development projects must pay to the City for use in reducing motor vehicle trips to the extent feasible through the provision of transit services, shuttles, carpool/rideshare incentives, bicycle lanes, and similar programs and improvements. [PTC Program T2.10.8] [T50] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-35 Policy T-1.26 Collaborate with adjacent communities to ensure that Palo Alto and its immediate neighbors receive their fair share of regional transportation funds, proportional to the need and demand for transportation improvements within these communities to address region-wide transportation issues. [staff suggestion] [T51] In collaboration with regional agencies and Program T1.26.1 neighboring jurisdictions, identify and pursue funding for rail corridor improvements and grade separation. [NEW PROGRAM] [T52] Policy T-1.27 Collaborate with public interest groups as well as federal, State, and local governments to study and advocate for transportation regulatory changes, such as an increase in the gasoline tax. [Previously Policy T- 50] [T53] TRAFFIC CONGESTION [Previously Goal T-9; moved to Goal T-2 based on CAC input.] GOAL T-2 Decrease congestion and vehicle miles travelled with a priority on our worst intersections and our peak commute times, including school traffic. Policy T-2.1 Working with congestion management authorities including the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), implement traffic management strategies and technologies, such as signal coordination, centralized traffic control, red-light, and speed enforcement cameras, and real-time travel information, to reduce traffic congestion in and around Palo Alto. [NEW POLICY] [T54] Implement computerized traffic management Program T2.1.1 systems to improve traffic flow when feasible. [(PTC Program 2.10.5) (Previously Program T-38)] [T55] Implement a program to monitor, coordinate, and Program T2.1.2 optimize traffic signal timing a minimum of every five years along arterial and residential arterial streets. [PTC Program T2.10.7] [T56] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-36 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 Policy T-2.2 As part of the effort to reduce traffic congestion, support the establishment and operation of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) to address transportation and parking issues as appropriate in the City’s employment districts. [NEW POLICY] [T57] Work in partnership with the Downtown TMA and Program T2.2.1 Stanford University to aggregate data and realize measurable reductions in single-occupant vehicle commuting in to and from Downtown and in the Stanford Research Park. [NEW PROGRAM] [T58] Policy T-2.3 Use vehicular Level of Service (LOS), including cumulative impacts, when evaluating development applications. [NEW POLICY] [T59] Regularly update LOS regulations [NEW PROGRAM] Program T2.3.1 [T60] Policy T-2.4 Consistent with the principles of Complete Streets adopted by the City, work to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of service for transit vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles on roads in Palo Alto. [(PTC Policy T2.10) (Previously Policy T-28)(Edited)] [T61] Establish and maintain thresholds for acceptable Program T2.4.1 multi-modal levels of service for intersections in Palo Alto. [(PTC Program T2.10.1) (Edited)] [T62] Revise protocols for office, commercial, and multi-Program T2.4.2 family residential development proposals to evaluate multimodal level of service for transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. [(PTC Program T2.10.1) (Edited)] [T63] SCHOOLS AND CHILDCARE FACILITY CONGESTION Policy T-2.5 Encourage the location of childcare facilities near major employment hubs to reduce traffic congestion associated with child pick-up and drop-off. [NEW POLICY] [T64] Policy T-2.6 Work with PAUSD to ensure that decisions regarding school assignments are analyzed to reduce peak period motor vehicle trips to and from school sites. [EIR Mitigation Measure Trans-1e] [T65] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-37 Policy T-2.7 Work with the PAUSD to resolve traffic congestion issues associated with student drop-off and pick-up. Address pedestrian and bicycle access, circulation, and related issues such as coordinating bell schedules on City rights-of-way adjacent to schools and on PAUSD property. [NEW POLICY] [T66] STREETS GOAL T-3 Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users. EFFICIENT CIRCULATION Policy T-3.1 Maintain a hierarchy of streets that includes freeways, expressways, arterials, residential arterials, collectors, and local streets, balancing the needs of all users in a safe and appropriate manner. [(Previous Policy T-24) (Edited)] [T67] Identify desired routes for transit, cycling and Program T3.1.1 regional traffic as well as priorities for study and investments. [NEW PROGRAM] [T68] Policy T-3.2 Enhance connections to, from and between parks, community centers, recreation facilities, libraries and schools for all users. [PTC RC Policy 4.1] [T69] Policy T-3.3 Avoid major increases in street capacity when constructing or modifying roadways, refer to Policy T-3.5. [T84] [(PTC Policy T2.8) (Previous Policy T-27) (No Change)] [T70] Policy T-3.4 Regulate truck movements and large commercial buses in a manner that balances the efficient movement of trucks and buses while preserving the residential character of Palo Alto's arterial street system. [(PTC Policy T2.11) (Edited) (Previous Policy T-29) (Edited)] [T71] Evaluate the feasibility of changes to Palo Alto’s Program T3.4.1 through truck routes and weight limits to consider such issues as relationship to neighboring jurisdictions, lower weight limits, increased number of routes, and economic and environmental impacts. [Previously Program T-40] [T72] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-38 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 STREET DESIGN AND MODIFICATION PROJECTS Policy T-3.5 When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway space by all users. [(PTC Policy T2.2) (Previous Policy T-25) (Edited)] [T73] Update the comprehensive roadway design Program T3.5.1 standards and criteria to be consistent with Complete Streets best practices and the Urban Forest Master Plan, focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety and multimodal uses. Consider opportunities to incorporate best practices from the National Association of City Transportation Officials guidelines for urban streets and bikeways. ([PTC Program T2.2.1) (Previous Program T-33) (Edited)] [T74] Establish procedures for considering the effects of Program T3.5.2 street design on emergency vehicle response time. [Previously Program T-34] [T75] Policy T-3.6 Consider pedestrians and bicyclists when designing road surfaces, curbs, crossings, signage, landscaping, and sight lines. [(PTC Policy T2.5)] [T76] Policy T-3.7 Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. [Previously Policy T-23] [T77] Conduct a study of Palo Alto roadways to identify Program T3.7.1 needed pedestrian improvements, including on El Camino Real, Alma Street and other locations. [NEW PROGRAM] [T78] Policy T-3.8 Add planting pockets with street trees to increase the tree canopy, provide shade, calm traffic and enhance the pedestrian realm. [Previously Policy T-37] [T79] Policy T-3.9 Identify and establish performance measures for the road network in Palo Alto to support city-wide sustainability efforts, including the street canopy. [NEW POLICY] [T80] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-39 Policy T-3.10 Participate in the design and implementation of comprehensive solutions to traffic problems near Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center. [Previously Policy T-26] [T81] Support increased public transit, traffic Program T3.10.1 management and parking solutions to ensure safe, convenient access to and from the Stanford Shopping Center/ Medical Center area. [(PTC Program T2.6.1) (Edited) (Previous Program T-35) (Edited)] [T82] Implement and monitor Development Agreement Program T3.10.2 traffic mitigations at Stanford Medical Center. [(PTC Program T2.6.2) (Edited)] [T83] Provide safe, convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and Program T3.10.3 transit connections between the Stanford Shopping Center/Medical Center areas and housing along the Sand Hill Road/Quarry Road corridors to Palo Alto Station, Downtown Palo Alto, and other primary destinations. [(PTC Program T2.6.3) (Previously Program T-37) (Edited)] [T84] Study extension of Quarry Road for transit, Program T3.10.4 pedestrians and bicyclists to access the Palo Alto Station from El Camino Real. Also study the feasibility of another Caltrain underpass at Everett. [(PTC Program T2.6.4) (Edited)] [T85] Policy T-3.11 Consider the Grand Boulevard Design Guidelines when designing roadway and pedestrian improvements along El Camino Real. [NEW POLICY] [T86] Policy T-3.12 Coordinate roadway improvements with other transportation and utility infrastructure improvements such as sewer and water. [NEW POLICY] [T87] Policy T-3.13 Work with Caltrans, Santa Clara County and VTA to improve east and west connections in Palo Alto and maintain a circulation network that binds the city together in all directions. [(PTC RC Goal 3) (Edited)] [T88] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-40 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 Policy T-3.14 Continue to prioritize the safety of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes, including during construction. [Previously Policy T-40]. [T89] RAIL CORRIDOR Policy T-3.15 Pursue grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority, including a below-grade alignment between San Antonio and the Oregon Expressway for both high speed rail and Caltrain. [NEW POLICY] [T90] Undertake studies and outreach necessary to Program T3.15.1 advance grade separation of Caltrain to become a “shovel ready” project. [NEW PROGRAM] [T91] Conduct a study to evaluate the implications of Program T3.15.2 grade separation on bicycle and pedestrian circulation. [NEW PRORGRAM] [T92] Policy T-3.16 Keep all four existing at-grade rail crossings open to vehicular traffic. [PTC RC Policy 3.2] [T93] Policy T-3.17 Until grade separation is completed, improve existing at-grade rail crossings to ensure the highest feasible level of safety along the corridor and provide additional safe, convenient crossings. [PTC RC Goal 2 edited] [T94] Commission an Alma Street crossing study to Program T3.17.1 identify potential near-term safety and accessibility improvements, including implementation of a “quiet zone.” [PTC RC Policy 2.1 and Policy 2.2 edited to reflect recommendations of Rail Corridor Study] [T95] Incorporate neighborhood input in planning and Program T3.17.2 implementation of crossing improvements. [PTC RC Policy 2.2 edited to reflect recommendations of Rail Corridor Study] [T96] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-41 Policy T-3.18 Improve safety and minimize adverse noise, vibrations and visual impacts of operations in the Caltrain rail corridor on adjoining districts, public facilities, schools and neighborhoods with or without the addition of High Speed Rail. [PTC RC Policy 2.3 edited] [T97] NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS GOAL T-4 Protect neighborhood streets that support residential character and provide a range of local transportation options. Policy T-4.1 Keep all neighborhood streets open as a general rule. [Previously Policy T-33] [T98] Policy T-4.2 Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets, and prioritize traffic calming measures for safety over congestion management. [(PTC Policy T3.4) (Previous Policy T-34) (Edited)] [T99] Identify specific improvements that can be used to Program T4.2.1 discourage drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials. [EIR Mitigation Measure TRANS-8] [(Previous Program T-43) (Edited)] [T100] Periodically review residential areas for traffic Program T4.2.2 impacts and use the results of that review to prioritize traffic calming measures. [(PTC Program T3.4.1) (Edited) (Previous Program T-43) (Previous Program T-44) (Merged) (Edited)] [T101] Policy T-4.3 Maintain the following roadways as residential arterials, treated with landscaping, medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to improve safety:  Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road)  University Avenue (between San Francisquito Creek and Middlefield Road)  Embarcadero Road (between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road) PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-42 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016  Charleston/Arastradero Roads (between Miranda Avenue and Fabian Way). [Previously Program T-41] [T102] Use landscaping and other improvements to Program T4.3.1 establish clear “gateways” at the points where the Oregon Expressway, University Avenue and Embarcadero Road transition from freeways to neighborhoods. ([PTC Program T3.2.3) (Edited) (Previous Program T-42) (Edited)] [T103] Policy T-4.4 Minimize the danger of increased commercial ingress/egress adjacent to major intersections, and noticeable increases in traffic from new development in residential neighborhoods, through traffic mitigation measures. [(PTC Policy T3.1) (Edited)] [T104] Policy T-4.5 Employ Traffic Impact on Residential Environments (TIRE) analysis to measure potential street impacts from new development of all types in residential neighborhoods. [(PTC Policy T3.1) (Edited)] [T105] Policy T-4.6 Require new residential development projects to implement best practices for street design, stormwater management and green infrastructure. [(PTC Policy T3.6) (Previous Policy T-35) (Edited)] [T106] MOTOR VEHICLE AND BICYCLE PARKING GOAL T-5 Encourage attractive, convenient, efficient and innovative parking solutions for all users. MANAGING PARKING SUPPLY Policy T-5.1 All new development projects should meet parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. . [NEW POLICY] [T107] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-43 For each commercial center and employment Program T5.1.1 district in Palo Alto, conduct a parking needs assessment in consultation with business owners, employers and local residents to establish a baseline for parking need. Evaluate the need to update parking standards in the municipal code, based on local conditions, different users’ needs and baseline parking need. [NEW PROGRAM] [T108] In parallel with each parking needs assessment, Program T5.1.2 establish performance standards which represent the conditions that must be met before parking requirements for new development can be reduced. In establishing performance standards, consider metrics such as vehicle trips, transit frequency, transit capacity and bicycle parking. [NEW PROGRAM] [T109] Work with stakeholders in each commercial center Program T5.1.3 and employment district to monitor conditions and determine the appropriate timing for revisions to parking requirements. [NEW PROGRAM] [T110] Policy T-5.2 Continue to implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies citywide to optimize the use of existing parking spaces. (Edited) Combined with previous Program T- 49) (Moved to Policy)] [T111] Use technology to help identify parking availability Program T5.2.1 and make it easy to pay any parking fees. [(PTC Program T4.11.1) (Edited)] [T112] In the Downtown TMA, implement pilot projects to Program T5.2.2 test the effectiveness of strategies such as employee transportation programs, including reduced cost transit passes and ridesharing programs.. Review pilot project results and consider expanding to other areas of the city, such as California Avenue. [NEW PROGRAM] [T113] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-44 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 Consider applying a pricing strategy to address Program T5.2.3 public parking shortages citywide that is flexible in response to demand and supply. Conduct a feasibility study that considers the potential impact of a pricing strategy for retail and commercial areas, and potential benefits for TDM. [NEW PROGRAM] [T114] Implement Council-adopted recommendations Program T5.2.4 from the parking management study for the Downtown area, which included the feasibility of removing color-coded parking zones, and ndynamic pricing and management policies to prioritize short-term parking spaces closest to the commercial core for customers, garage parking for employees, and neighborhood parking for residents. [NEW PROGRAM] [T115] Policy T-5.3 Work with merchants to designate dedicated employee parking areas. [Previously Program T-51] [T116] Policy T-5.4 Encourage shared parking where complementary demand timing is demonstrated in order to optimize parking spaces in commercial centers and employment districts. [PTC Policy T4.7 (Edited)] [T117] Explore incentives to encourage privately initiated Program T5.4.1 shared parking among individual property owners when developments have excess parking that can be available for other businesses to use. [NEW PROGRAM] [T118] Policy T-5.5 Minimize the need for employees to parking in and adjacent to commercial centers, employment districts and schools. [(Previous Policy T-46) (Edited)] [T119] PARKING INFRASTRUCTURE AND DESIGN Policy T-5.6 Strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including groundwater and landscaping where feasible. [PTC Policy T4.10] [T120] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-45 Policy T-5.7 Promote vehicle parking areas designed to reduce stormwater runoff, increase compatibility with street trees and add visual interest to streets and other public locations. Encourage the use of photovoltaic panel or tree canopies in parking lots or on top of parking structures to provide cover, consistent with the Urban Forest Master Plan. [PTC Policy T4.9 (Edited)] [T121] Study the feasibility of retrofitting City-owned Program T5.7.1 surface parking lots to implement best management practices for stormwater management and urban heat island mitigation, including green infrastructure, permeable pavement and reflective surfaces. [NEW PROGRAM] [T122] Identify incentives to encourage the retrofit of Program T5.7.2 privately owned surface parking areas to incorporate best management practices for stormwater management and urban heat island mitigation as well as incentives for the provision of publicly accessible bicycle parking in privately owned lots. [NEW PROGRAM] [T123] Policy T-5.8 Promote safety for pedestrians in City-owned parking lots by adopting standards for landscaping, signage, walkways and lighting that reduce crime and ensure a safe and orderly flow of traffic. [NEW POLICY] [T124] Policy T-5.9 Encourage the use of adaptive design strategies in new parking facilities in order to facilitate reuse in the future if and when conditions warrant. [NEW POLICY] [T125] RESIDENTIAL PARKING Policy T-5.10 In residential neighborhoods, work with neighborhood associations to prioritize residential street parking and minimize spill over parking from commercial centers and employment districts. [NEW POLICY] [T126] Coordinate with neighborhood groups to evaluate Program T5.10.1 the need for a residential parking permit program in areas outside Downtown Palo Alto and College Terrace. [NEW PROGRAM] [T127] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-46 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 BICYCLE PARKING Policy T-5.11 To promote bicycle use, increase the number of safe, attractive and well-designed bicycle parking spaces available in the city, including spots for bicycle trailers, prioritizing heavily travelled areas such as commercial and retail centers, employment districts, recreational/cultural facilities, multi-modal transit facilities and ride share stops for bicycle parking infrastructure. [(PTC Policy T4.13) (Edited)] [T128] Work with private sector partners, including Program T5.11.1 employers, merchants and community service providers, to identify ways to incentivize the provision of bicycle parking near existing shops, services and places of employment. [NEW PROGRAM] [T129] Consider installing secure electronic bike lockers Program T5.11.2 such as the BikeLink system, at high theft locations, including transit stations and parking garages. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PABAC Program T-4.14.2)] [T130] Assess the need to provide additional bicycle Program T5.11.3 parking in City-owned parking lots and rights-of- way. [NEW PROGRAM] [T131] ROAD SAFETY GOAL T-6 Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets. Policy T-6.1 Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections and vehicle parking. [Previously Policy T-39] [T132] Follow the principles of the safe routes to schools Program T6.1.1 program to implement traffic safety measures that focus on Safe Routes to work, shopping, downtown, community services, parks, and schools. [NEW PROGRAM] [T133] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-47 Develop, distribute and aggressively promote maps Program T6.1.2 of safe routes to work, shopping, community services, parks and schools within Palo Alto in collaboration with stakeholders, including PAUSD, major employers, TMAs, local businesses and community organizations. [(PTC Program T5.7.4) (Edited and enhanced)] [T134] Address pedestrian safety along Alma Street Program T6.1.3 between University Avenue and Lytton Street.[NEW PROGRAM] [T135] Address pedestrian safety on shared-use bicycle Program T6.1.4 and pedestrian trails. [NEW PROGRAM] [T136] Policy T-6.2 Pursue the goal of zero roadway fatalities in Palo Alto within 10 years. [NEW POLICY] [T137] Regularly collect severity and location data on Program T6.2.1 roadway collisions for all modes of travel, including fatalities and injuries. In collaboration with Santa Clara County, develop an up-to-date, public database for this information. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PABAC Program T-5.2.1)] [T138] Policy T-6.3 Continue to work with Caltrain to increase safety at train crossings, including improving gate technology, and signal coordination. [(PTC Policy T5.4) (Edited)] [T139] Policy T-6.4 Continue the Safe Routes to School partnership with PAUSD and the Palo Alto Council of PTAs. [NEW POLICY] [T140] Periodically update the Adopted School Commute Program T6.4.1 Corridors Network to include updated school commute routes. Ensure these routes are prioritized for safety improvements and considered in land use planning decisions. [NEW PROGRAM] [T141] Establish standards and procedures for maintaining Program T6.4.2 safe cycling routes, including signage for warnings and detours during construction projects. [NEW PROGRAM] [T142] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-48 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 Provide adult crossing guards at school crossings Program T6.4.3 that meet adopted criteria. [Previous Program T-45] [T143] Policy T-6.5 Support PAUSD adoption of standard Safe Routes to School policies and regulations that address the five E’s of education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, and evaluation. [NEW POLICY] [T144] Policy T-6.6 Use engineering, enforcement, and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways. [(PTC Program T5.1.1) (Previous Program T-47) (Edited)] [T145] Periodically evaluate safety on roadways and at Program T6.6.1 intersections and enhance conditions through the use of signal technology and physical changes. Consider the construction of traffic circles for improved intersection safety. [(PTC Program T5.2.1) (Edited)] [T146] Continue to provide educational programs for Program T6.6.2 children and adults, in partnership with community- based educational organizations, to promote the safe use of bicycles, including the City-sponsored bicycle education programs in the public schools and the bicycle traffic school program for juveniles. [(Previous Program T-46) (Edited)] [T147] Work with PAUSD and employers to promote Program T6.6.3 roadway safety for all users, including motorized alternatives to cars and bikes such as mopeds, through educational programs for children and adults. [NEW PROGRAM] [T148] Complete a mobility and safety study for downtown Program T6.6.4 Palo Alto, looking at ways to improve circulation and safety for all modes. [NEW PROGRAM] [T149] Identify and implement safety improvements for Program T6.6.5 underpasses, including on Embarcadero Road. [NEW PROGRAM] [T150] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-49 Improve pedestrian crossings by creating protected Program T6.6.6 areas and better pedestrian and traffic visibility. Use a toolbox including bulb outs, small curb radii, high visibility crosswalks, and landscaping. [Previously Program T-32] [T151] Establish standards and procedures with Utilities Program T6.6.7 and Public Works to maintain safe cycling routes and adequately and safely sign warnings and detours during construction projects. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PABAC Program T-1.34.3) (Formerly Program T5.10.1)] [T152] Establish a program to educate residents to keep Program T6.6.8 sidewalks clear of parked cars, especially on narrow local streets in neighborhoods with rolled curbs. Survey for compliance annually. [(NEW PROGRAM) (PABAC Program T-1.34.4) (Formerly Program T5.10.2)] [T153] Policy T-6.7 Use appropriate technology to monitor and improve circulation safety throughout the City. [(PTC Policy T5.2) (Edited)] [T154] Evaluate the performance of safety improvements Program T6.7.1 and identify methods to encourage alternative transportation modes. [NEW PROGRAM] [T155] Policy T-6.8 Vigorously and consistently enforce speed limits and other traffic laws, including for vehicle and bicycle traffic. [(Previous Policy T-41) (Edited)] [T156] TRANSIT – DEPENDENT COMMUNITY GOAL T-7 Provide mobility options that allow people who are transit dependent to reach their destinations. Policy T-7.1 Support mobility options for all groups in Palo Alto who require transit for their transportation. [NEW POLICY] [T157] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-50 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 Policy T-7.2 Expand transportation opportunities for transit-dependent riders by supporting a variety of methods, such as by funding discounts for taxi fares, coordinating transit systems to be shared by multiple senior housing developments, supporting a volunteer program to expand the supply of drivers, creating a database of volunteer drivers, and other transit options. [NEW PROGRAM] [T158] Policy T-7.3 Utilize the principles of Universal Design, and local and State design standards, to guide the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects to ensure the needs of community members with limited mobility, including some seniors and people with disabilities, are addressed. [(PTC Policy T6.1) (Previous Policy T- 42) (Edited)] [T159] Policy T-7.4 Coordinate with social service agencies and transit agencies to fill gaps in existing transportation routes and services accessible to transit- dependent riders no matter their means and design new bus routes that enable them to access those services. [(PTC Program 6.3.1) (Edited)] [T160] Policy T-7.5 Continue to partner with transit providers, including VTA, to support demand-responsive paratransit service for eligible participants in Palo Alto and maintain existing paratransit services, particularly where bus service is discontinued. Emphasize service quality and timeliness when contracting for paratransit services. [(PTC Policy T6.2) (Edited) (Previous Policy T-43) (Edited)] [T161] Policy T-7.6 Collaborate with transit and shuttle providers including VTA, SamTrans, Stanford Marguerite Shuttle, Palo Alto Shuttle, Dumbarton Express Bus Service and Caltrain in the provision of service that is accessible to seniors and people with disabilities. [PTC Policy T6.3] [T162] Policy T-7.7 Support transit providers in implementing or continuing reduced fare or no fare voucher systems for selected populations, including seniors and people with disabilities. [Previously Policy T-44] [T163] Policy T-7.8 Encourage transit service providers to provide subsidized transit passes for low income riders. [NEW POLICY] [T164] Policy T-7.9 Pursue expanded evening and night time bus service to enhance mobility for all users during off-peak times. [NEW POLICY] [T165] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-51 REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION GOAL T-8 Influence the shape and implementation of regional transportation policies and technologies to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Policy T-8.1 Engage in regional transportation planning and advocate for specific transit improvements and investments, such as Caltrain service enhancements and grade separations, Dumbarton Express service, enhanced bus service on El Camino Real with queue jumping and curbside platforms, HOV lanes, and additional VTA bus service. [EIR Mitigation Measure Trans-1d] [T166] Policy T-8.2 Participate in regional planning initiatives for the rail corridor and provide a strong guiding voice. [NEW POLICY][T167] Policy T-8.3 Collaborate effectively with and engage in regional partnerships and solutions with a range of stakeholders, including regional agencies, neighboring jurisdictions and major employers, on issues of regional importance such as traffic congestion, reduced reliance on single- occupant vehicles, and sustainable transportation. [(Previous Policy T- 49) (Edited)] [T168] Continue to participate in regional efforts to develop technological solutions that make alternatives to the automobile more convenient and thereby contribute to reducing congestion [NEW PROGRAM] [T169] Policy T-8.4 Coordinate with local, regional agencies, and Caltrans to support regional efforts to maintain and improve transportation infrastructure in Palo Alto, including the Multi-Modal Transit Center. [(PTC Policy T7.8) (Edited)] [T170] Policy T-8.5 Support the efforts of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to coordinate transportation planning and services for the Mid- Peninsula and the Bay Area that emphasize alternatives to the automobile. Encourage MTC to base its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) on compact land use development assumptions. [Previous Policy T-51] [T171] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT T-52 PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 Policy T-8.6 Support efforts by Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on area freeways consistent with Statewide GHG emissions reduction initiatives. [(Previous Policy T-54) (Edited)] [T172] Support provision of a new southbound entrance Program T8.6.1 ramp to Highway 101 from San Antonio Road, in conjunction with the closure of the southbound Charleston Road on-ramp at the Rengstorff Avenue interchange in Mountain View. [Previously Program T-55] [T173] Encourage VTA to improve connectivity to transit to Program T8.6.2 serve workers who live in the South Bay and work in Palo Alto. [NEW PROGRAM] [T174] Policy T-8.7 Support the application of emerging freeway information, monitoring, and control systems that provide non-intrusive driver assistance and reduce congestion. [(PTC Policy T7.13) (Previous Policy T-55) (Edited)] [T175] Policy T-8.8 Where appropriate, support the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge, and the continuation of an HOV lane from Redwood City to San Francisco.[(PTC Policy 7.14) (Edited) (Previous Policy T-52) (Edited)] [T176] Policy T-8.9 Support State and federal legislation to reduce motor vehicle emissions, noise, and fuel consumption. [Previously Policy T-56] [T178] Policy T-8.10 Support plans for intra-county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. Ensure that these systems and enhancements do not adversely impact the bay. [Previously Policy T-7] [T179] PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PRELIMINARY DRAFT – JULY 19, 2016 T-53 Work with regional transportation providers, Program T8.10.1 including BART and Caltrain, to improve connections between Palo Alto and the San Francisco International Airport and Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport. [NEW PROGRAM] [T180] Policy T-8.11 Support regional plans to complete development of the Bay Trail and Bay-to-Ridge Trail. [(PTC Program T1.22.1) (Previous Program T-25 & T-26) (Merged & edited)] [T181] Policy T-8.12 Support the development of the Santa Clara County Countywide Bicycle System, and other regional bicycle plans. [Previously Policy T-18] [T182] Identify and improve bicycle connections to/from Program T8.12.1 neighboring communities in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties to support local trips that cross city boundaries. [NEW PROGRAM] [T183] Comp Plan Monthly Schedule August 22, 2016 Draft* 1 Month Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Schedule of Meetings & Topics Schedule of Other Events Related to the Comp Plan Update City Council Schedule of Comp Plan Discussions July 2016 Recommendation on the Transportation Element and Discussion on the Land Use Element (July 19) CAC Sustainability Subcommittee reviews Land Use August Recommendation on the Land Use Element (August 16) CAC Land Use Subcommittee CAC Natural Environment/ Sustainability Subcommittees meet together to review the NE Element City Council Review of CAC recommended Transportation Element Final City Council direction on Scenarios 5 and 6 September Recommendation of the Land Use Element Background & Discussion on Natural Environment Element (September 20) CAC Land Use Subcommittee CAC Safety/Sustainability Subcommittees review of Safety Element CAC Natural Environment Subcommittee reviews revised Natural Environment Element City Council Review of CAC recommended Transportation Element (continued from August) October Discussion on Natural Environment and Safety Elements (October 18) CAC Natural Environment Subcommittee reviews revised Natural Environment Element November Discussion on Natural Environment Element ( November 15) CAC Safety Subcommittee reviews revised Safety Element City Council review of CAC work on Land Use Element December Recommendation on Natural Environment And Discussion on Safety Element (December 13) Jan 2017 Recommendation on Safety Element and Discussion on Business & Economics Element (January 17) CAC Business & Economics Subcommittee reviews the Business and Economic Element Publish 5 and 6 Scenario Supplement to the Draft EIR for 45-day public review period City Council Review of CAC recommended Natural Environment Element February Recommendation on Business & Economics Element (February 21) CAC Governance & Implementation Subcommittees review Implementation & Users Guide/Governance City Council Review of CAC recommended Safety Element March Discussion and Recommendation on the Implementation Plan (March 21) PTC Hearing on the Scenario supplement to the Draft EIR City Council Hearing on the Scenario supplement to the Draft EIR City Council Review of CAC recommendation on Comp Plan Monthly Schedule August 22, 2016 Draft* 2 Month Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Schedule of Meetings & Topics Schedule of Other Events Related to the Comp Plan Update City Council Schedule of Comp Plan Discussions Business & Economics Element April Discussion and Recommendation on the intro/users guide/governance topics ( April 18) May Final CAC Session (“Putting it all Together”) & review for Internal consistency (May 16) June Revised Draft Comp Plan Update Disseminated for Public Review July PTC Review & Recommendation to the City Council on the Draft Comp Plan Update (Multiple meetings) August Publication of the Draft Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Plan & Draft CEQA Findings PTC recommendation on the Final EIR Certification Hearing Final Review of Transportation & Land Use Elements Final Review of Natural Environment &Safety Elements September Final Review of Business & Economics, Community Services & Facilities Elements Final Review of Users Guide/Governance & Implementation Plan October City Council Final EIR Certification Hearing Review of City Council’s Changes & Errata; Adoption of the Updated Comp Plan *All dates and topics subject to change. This schedule assumes that (1) City Council comments on CAC work products will be addressed by staff and reviewed by the CAC in a final “putting it all together” session in the spring of 2017 once the Council has reviewed all of the elements; (2) the Governance Element will be combined into an introductory section/users guide and will require only one CAC session in the spring of 2017; and (3) the analysis of EIR Scenarios 5 & 6 is circulated for public review for only 45 days (the legal requirement) and preparation of the Final EIR begins immediately thereafter. Summary of CAC Transportation Policy Comments from 7/19 CAC Meeting and Associated Written Comments:  Add teeth to the policy that Stanford needs to improve the existing LOS at four intersections surrounding SRP as growth occurs.  VTA service issues are an immediate issue.  With the proposed VTA shutdown of Palo Alto routes, enhance wording about how the City is going to support routes that have been closed or how to negotiate with VTA to keep existing routes.  Address the potential elimination/reduction of paratransit services.  The Shuttle System o Although not the solution to every traffic problem, shuttles are an important part of the local transportation infrastructure. We have addressed the issue that Shuttles are for a range of “Transit-Dependent” users. But maybe we have not focused on the total goals for local shuttles. o Several things could be done to provide and encourage first/last mile use of the Shuttle but that doesn’t seem to be a focus today. Individual CAC Comments Annette Glanckopf For Transportation, I only have a few thoughts: 1) 25 pages of overview is way too many. Need to be 10 pages or less 2) Policy t-1.10 [t.19] Need to add availability of open (unlocked) bathrooms, esp. at Cal Ave station 3) Program T1.19.3 [t39] ADD "any new east west crossing must be done in concert with planning for undergrounding of rail." 4) Under street design and modification Program t3.5.2 [t75] Shouldn't planning for emergency vehicles be in zoning not in the comp plan? Any modification/"beautification" of streets should be wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles 5) For the rail corridor Policy t.3.15 [t90] add Churchill crossing. Why not all Palo Alto Crossings? 6) With the proposed VTA shutdown of Palo Alto routes, we need some enhanced wording how we are going to support the routes closed or how we can negotiate with VTA to not dump the routes. Another concern is the potential elimination/reduction of para transit services. Can we create a program under policy t 7.5 [t161] that speaks to this issue? Don McDougall First, thank you for all the effort and work to get a new Transportation Draft to us for the meeting tomorrow. The many changes in the Draft represent many of the comments of the subcommittee and the complete CAC, especially with respect to keeping both LOS and VMT as traffic measures. The draft also reflects the CAC discussion about the phased parking proposal from the subcommittee and I hope it is explicit enough. I realize this is a final draft for “Consent” but I have a few comments: General Comments I am concerned that not enough has been done to done to address the balance of Policies (and Programs) between the 8 Goals. There will be, without question, an implied priority for future readers and users of the Plan derived from the concentration of Policies in particular Goals. Sustainable (Goal 1) and Efficient (Goal 3) appear to have priority over congestion. Yet the public concern today (and tomorrow0 is Congestions. There are several Policies throughout he Element that logically fit in Goal 2 Congestion. I strongly urge that this imbalance be addressed before a presentation to Council. Specific Comments The following comments would not stop me from agreeing to a “Consent” of the draft but should be considered in any updating that is done as a result of the June meeting: Page T-2 The term “Sustainable” is frequently used in the document. “Sustainability” has come to mean not just environmental but economic and social. The plan is addressing basically “environmental sustainability” and maybe that is the term that should be used? Or do we believe it is addressing more? Page T-4 In several places we have resisted the urge to call out organizations or companies by name and it should be unnecessary to call out Uber and Lift here. Page T-4 The term “Mobility as a Service” is used in the Narrative but it is not used in the Policies and Programs and should be to ensure the connection between the narrative and the Policies and Programs. Page T- 8 The discussion of the four Shuttles systems should include a map which shows them explicitly. Page T-20 We suggest the TIRE should measure the “perceptions” of the community, should we not also measure the reality somehow? Page 26 In T1.2 it calls out employers etc. and should call out developers too. Page T32 Parking and Walking are clearly separated in the Narrative with subheads but not in the Policies and Programs. Doing so would show the lack of focus policies or program to explicitly encourage Walking, which the narrative states has the highest number of daily trips Page 40 Program3.15.2 evaluate the implication of grade level separation should not be just for bikes and pedestrians but for the safety of all modes and might be better a a Policy in Goal T-6 and be more effective as a way to promote grade separation. Page T50 Several places we say to “continue to partner with the VTA”. Recent discussions would suggest the VTA is not acting as a good partner and maybe the wording should be stronger – in the direction of “advocate” (or demand?) to reflect the current concerns. Page T46 The concept of Commuter Wallet should include bike rental. Page 43 Throughout the document there are several references to TDM and TMA. In both cases but especially the TMA these concepts or entities do not reflect the use or importance of managing parking as a Transportation management tool. I realize the power of the three-letter acronym but maybe they should be referred to as Transportation and Parking Management Assoc. to reflect a broader perspective. “Worried” Comments I am currently sufficiently concerned by the Plan’s content with respect to Shuttles that it may not allow me to support a “Consent”. The various Shuttle systems in Palo Alto and particularly the Palo Alto Free Shuttle are mentioned in several places throughout the Plan. I would like to hear other concerns or comments about the Plan’s Narrative, Policies and Programs for Shuttles in Palo Alto. Although not the solution to every traffic problem (or maybe even any traffic problem) they are an important part of the local transportation infrastructure. We have addressed the issue that Shuttles are for a range of “Transit-Dependent” users. But maybe we have not focused on the total goals for local shuttles. Page T-9, It is mentioned (assumed) that the PA Shuttle is providing first/last mile service. And it may be. But there is limited evidence in the current routes used or the marketing of the Shuttle to make one believe that is a focus. Several things could be done to provide and encourage first/last mile use of the Shuttle but that doesn’t seem to be a focus today. Page T 30 (T1.13 ), page 31 There is a program that calls for evaluating the Shuttle service but it makes no mention of the evaluation is for coverage or service or both. The measures to be used in an evaluation should be made clear. A program also calls for the use of technology but maybe innovation should be mentioned. Not all progress is technology based. Policy T1.13 suggests subsidizing taxis etc. but we should be aware of unintended consequences of spending money on things that undermine the whole shuttle effort. Policy T1.14 calls out “special needs” but we have changed that section in Goal T-7 to be “Transit Dependent” and it should be the same here. Hamilton Hitchings Transportation Element: Overall looks good with a couple of questions /comments: The language below Program 1.2.4 / T6 that SFR development should not make traffic worse was removed and I'd like to see it added back in or explained how it is covered elsewhere. Policy T-3.3 was removed which says "Require traffic impact analysis for individual office, commercial and multi-family residential development proposals to include analysis of metrics adopted as part of State CEQA Guidelines". Could staff explain why this was removed, e.g. it was moved to Land Use, etc... I want to make sure this analysis for each of these projects continues and is covered somewhere in the Comp Plan, which I suspect it might be. Program T1.10.2 states CalTrain parking garages should only be added as a last resort. I used to use CalTrain to go up to SF until the RPP was implemented and I now drive because of the lack of parking and expensive one day permits. I'd like parking garage(s) added for CalTrain commuters and thus would like to see "as a last resort" language removed from the policy with regards to building parking garage for CalTrain commuters, especially if they overall that Transportation Hub. Hamilton Ellen Uhrbrock The Consent Vote for the Transportation Draft is on our Agenda tonight.. This is a draft for the Comp Plan 2030 and the City staff and CAC sub-committee have done their best I will vote YES. It is appropriate to forward this draft to the Council for review and suggestions. It also is appropriate for the CAC and City Council to ask the TMA and public to review the draft and make suggestions. For example - Avenidas on July 8 hosted a Stanford Alumni Beyond the Farm project – SAVE A TRIP, SPARE THE AIR. The key speaker was Wendy Silvani, Consultant and Executive Secretary of the TMA.. The CAC and TMA can scale it in Palo Alto. It is an opportunity for citizens to “Connect With Their City” and use Open City Hall, the Digital Commenter, Palo Alto 311, and Next Door. Everyone can learn the options to travel and shop in Palo Alto. I am running through my options to travel and shop – from driving a SOV, to using VTA 35, Free Crosstown Shuttle, Marguerite, Caltrain, SamTrans, Bart and the Dumbarton Express – I am a fan and frequent user of Uber, Lyft and I will try the Avenidas service, Door to Door.– and I will sell my car in 2017. Unable to walk or bicycle to tonight’s meeting – I hired a driver. VTA 35 was not an option – the return stop is dark and lonely – Uber or Lyft always are options and the cost can be shared with other passengers. Uber-Pool once took me from Channing House to Stanford for $2.85. I made my living in Palo Alto planning trips for groups and individuals on ships and trains. Today I volunteer for Stanford and Avenidas and Plan Trips by Transit If members of the CAC and staff know their options and how to plan a trip by transit in Palo Alto - we will draft a good Transportation plan for 2030 to send to Council for approval. Vote yes and send the Transportation Draft to the Council tonight, and a final draft for approval to the Council in August. Jennifer Hetterly Parking (Goal T-5) Program T5.11.2 [T109] Add spillover effects to list of metrics to be considered in performance standards. ProgramT5.1.3 [T110] work with stakeholders in each commercial center and employment district, including nearby residents, to monitor conditions and determine the appropriate timing for revisions to parking requirements. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 1 This table shows the current status of each existing Transportation Element policy or program from the 1998-2010 Comp Plan. Because it is organized by existing policy or program, it does not present entirely new policies and programs that are not based on versions of existing language. Please refer to the Draft Element for a complete set of the CAC draft policies and programs. Blank cells in the CAC Draft Update columns on the right indicate that the policy or program was not carried forward. Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update GOAL T-1 Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles GOAL T-1 Create a Sustainable Transportation System, Complemented By a Mix of Land Uses, that Emphasizes Walking, Bicycling, Use of Public Transportation, and Other Methods to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Use of Single Occupancy Motor Vehicles GOAL T-2 A Convenient, Efficient Public Transit System that Provides a Viable Alternative to Driving Goal T-3 Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling Policy T-1 Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Policy L-1.2 Focus on attracting and encouraging land uses that address the needs of the community. Program T-1 Encourage infill, redevelopment, and reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels employing minimum density requirements that are appropriate to support transit, bicycling, and walking. Policy L-1.4 Promote infill development in the urban service area, compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city, on vacant and underutilized properties to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Program T-2 Promote mixed use development to provide housing and commercial services near employment centers, thereby reducing the necessity of driving. Mixed Use Land Use Definition [to promote pedestrian-oriented places]...[foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity]...[development located along transit corridors or near multi-modal centers will range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas where higher FAR would be an incentive to meet community goals such as providing affordable housing.] Program T-3 Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near multimodal transit stations. Policy L-3.5 In appropriate locations, encourage a mix of housing such as micro-units, studios, co-housing, cottage, clustered housing, and secondary dwelling units, to provide a more diverse range of housing opportunities. Policy T-2 Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. Policy L-1.18 Hold new development to the highest standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 2 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Program T-4 Consider the use of additional parking fees and tax revenues to fund alternative transportation projects. Policy T-3 Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Policy T-1.2 (PTC Policy T1.7) (Edited) (Previous Policy T-3 & Program T-5) (Merged & Edited) Collaborate with Palo Alto employers and business owners to develop, implement and expand comprehensive programs to reduce single-occupant vehicle commute trips, including through incentives Program T-5 Work with private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and major institutions, to develop and coordinate trip reduction strategies. Policy T-1.2 (PTC Policy T1.7) (Edited) (Previous Policy T-3 & Program T-5) (Merged & Edited) Collaborate with Palo Alto employers and business owners to develop, implement and expand comprehensive programs to reduce single-occupant vehicle commute trips, including through incentives Program T-6 Expand Palo Alto’s carpooling incentive programs. Program T-7 Encourage the Palo Alto Unified School District to use parking fees, regulations, and education to discourage students from driving to school. Policy T-1.16 Promote bicycle use as an alternative way to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops. Policy T-2.7 Work with the PAUSD to resolve traffic congestion issues associated with student drop-off and pick-up. Address pedestrian and bicycle access, circulation, and related issues such as coordinating bell schedules on City rights-of-way adjacent to schools and on PAUSD property. Program T-8 Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of residents, visitors, and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives, incentives, and impacts. Work with the Palo Alto Unified School District and with private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce, to develop and implement this program. Program T-1.2.1 Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of residents, visitors, shoppers, and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives, incentives, and impacts. Work with the Palo Alto Unified School District and with other public and private interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce and Commuter Wallet partners, to develop and implement this program. Program T-9 Support the development of regional on-line transportation services to provide current information on transit, parking, and roadway conditions, as well as computerized trip planning. Provide information kiosks at locations such as University and California Avenues. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 3 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Program T-10 Expand the range of City services that can be received via computers or through the mail. Program T-11 Promote private delivery services to reduce the necessity of driving. Program T-12 Encourage telecommuting, satellite office concepts, and work-at-home options. Program T1.2.4 [(PTC Program T1.7.3) (Previous Program T-12) (Edited)] Review existing regulations, policies, and programs to identify revisions that encourage telecommuting, satellite office concepts, and work-at-home options. Policy T-4 Provide local transit in Palo Alto. Policy T-1.14 [(PTC Policy T1.9) (Edited)] Continue the Palo Alto Shuttle Program and work with partners to enhance service by increasing frequency and prioritizing destinations of value to the community, including health centers, parks, schools, senior centers, and shopping areas and other places where residents gather. Program T-13 Establish a jitney bus system similar to Stanford University’s Marguerite Shuttle. Program T-1.14.1 (Edited) Conduct a comprehensive study of the shuttle system in collaboration with community members, people with special needs, and PAUSD to:  Evaluate current routes and ridership;  Identify potential service improvements, including new or modified routes; expanded schedules that accommodate daytime, evening, and weekend demand; facilitating transit connections, and improvements to the safety and appearance of shuttle stops;  Explore partnerships with other services that could complement and supplement the Palo Alto Shuttle; Develop clear and engaging materials to explain and promote shuttle use with the purpose of reducing barriers to use; and  Establish a schedule for regular evaluation and reporting to optimize shuttle system use and effectiveness. Policy T-5 Support continued development and improvement of the University Avenue and California Avenue Multi- modal Transit Stations, and the San Antonio Road Station as important transportation nodes for the City. Policy T-1.10 [(PTC Policy T1.10) (Edited)] Support continued enhancement of the Caltrain stations as important transportation nodes for the city. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 4 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Program T-14 Pursue development of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station conceptual plan based on the 1993-1994 design study. Land Use Element Policy L-4.8 Improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections to and from between the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station area, University Avenue/Downtown, and the Stanford Shopping Center. Program T-15 Improve the environment at the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station, including connecting tunnels, through short-term improvements and regular maintenance. Program T1.10.1 Collaborate with Caltrain and Stanford University, per existing agreements with the City, to explore station improvements, including maintenance and circulation and access improvements for all modes. Policy T-6 Improve public transit access to regional destinations, including those within Palo Alto. Policy T-1.5 [(PTC Policy T1.11) (Edited)] Improve and support transit access to regional destinations, multimodal transit stations, employment centers, and commercial centers, including those within Palo Alto through the use of efficient public and/or private transit options such as rideshare, local shuttles, and first/last mile connections. Policy T-7 Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra-county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. Policy T-8.10 Support plans for intra-county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. Ensure that these systems and enhancements do not adversely impact the bay. Program T-16 Evaluate the extension of a light rail line from Mountain View through Palo Alto to Menlo Park. Policy T-8.10 Support plans for intra-county and transbay transit systems that link Palo Alto to the rest of Santa Clara County and adjoining counties. Ensure that these systems and enhancements do not adversely impact the bay. Program T-17 Support Caltrain electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco. Policy T-1.9 [(PTC Policy T7.16)(Program changed to Policy) (Edited)] Support Caltrain modernization and electrification, capacity enhancements and extension to Downtown San Francisco. Policy T-8 Encourage employers to develop shuttle services connecting employment areas with the multi- modal transit stations and business districts. Policy T-1.15 [(PTC Policy T1.12)] Encourage employers to develop shared shuttle services to connect employment areas with the multi-modal transit stations and City amenities, and to offer employees education and information on how to use shuttles. Policy T-9 Work towards integrating public school commuting into the local transit system. Policy T-1.7 ([PTC Policy T1.13) (Edited)] Work to ensure public and private school commute patterns are accommodated in the local transit system, including through schedule and route coordination. Policy T-10 Encourage amenities such as seating, lighting, and signage at bus stops to increase rider comfort and safety. Policy T-1.8 [(PTC Policy T1.14) (Edited)] Continue to encourage the provision of amenities such as seating, lighting, and signage, including real-time arrival information, at bus and shuttle stops and train stations to increase rider comfort, safety, and convenience. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 5 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Policy T-11 Support efforts to integrate train, bus, and shuttle schedules at multi-modal transit stations to make public transit use more time-efficient. Policy T-1.6 [(PTC Policy T1.15) (Edited)] Support efforts to coordinate train, bus, and shuttle schedules at multi-modal transit stations, and other transit information centers, to enable efficient transfer among public transit modes. Policy T-12 Support efforts to decrease wait times for intercity transit to a maximum of 20 minutes between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Design for a maximum wait time of 12 minutes for intra-city transit, if feasible. Policy T-1.6 [(PTC Policy T1.15)(Edited)] Support efforts to coordinate train, bus, and shuttle schedules at multi-modal transit stations, and other transit information centers, to enable efficient transfer among public transit modes. Policy T-13 Encourage a responsive private sector taxi service. Policy T-1.13 [(PTC Policy T.17) (Edited)] Encourage services that complement and enhance the transportation options available to help Palo Alto residents and employees make first/last mile connections and travel within the city for daily needs without using a single occupancy vehicle, including shuttle, taxi and ridesharing services. Policy T-14 Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. Policy T-1.19 [(PTC Policy T1.19) (Edited)] Prioritize investments for enhanced pedestrian access and bicycle use within Palo Alto and to/from surrounding communities, including by incorporating improvements from related City Plans, for example the 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan, into the capital improvements plan. Program T-18 Develop and periodically update a comprehensive bicycle plan. Program T-19 Develop, periodically update, and implement a, bicycle facilities improvement program and a pedestrian facilities improvement program that identify and prioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities. Program T-20 Periodically produce a local area bicycle route map jointly with adjacent jurisdictions. Program T-6.1.2 [(PTC Program T5.7.4) (Edited and enhanced)] Develop, distribute, and aggressively promote maps of safe routes to work, shopping, community services, parks, and schools within Palo Alto in collaboration with stakeholders, including PAUSD, major employers, TMAs, local businesses, and community organizations. Program T-6.4.1 Periodically update the Adopted School Commute Corridors Network to include updated school commute routes. Ensure these routes are prioritized for safety improvements and considered in land use planning decisions. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 6 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Program T-21 Study projects to depress bikeways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks and implement if feasible. Program T3.18.1 Commission an Alma Street crossing study to identify potential near-term safety and accessibility improvements, including implementation of a “quiet zone.” Program T-22 Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard to Mountain View. Policy T-1.19 [(PTC Policy T1.19) (Edited)] Prioritize investments for enhanced pedestrian access and bicycle use within Palo Alto and to/from surrounding communities, including by incorporating improvements from related City Plans, for example the 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan, into the capital improvements plan. Program T-23 Develop public sidewalks and bicycle facilities in Stanford Research Park and other employment areas. Program T-24 Provide adequate outside through-lane widths for shared use by motorists and bicyclists when constructing or modifying roadways, where feasible. Policy T-15 Encourage the acquisition of easements for bicycle and pedestrian paths through new private developments. Policy T-1.17 [(PTC Policy T1.20) (Edited)] Require new office, commercial, and multi-family residential developments to provide improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity as called for in the 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Policy T-16 Create connecting paths for pedestrians and bicycles where dead-end streets prevent through circulation in new developments and in existing neighborhoods. Policy T-3.6 [(PTC Policy T2.5) (Edited)] Consider pedestrians and bicyclists when designing road surfaces, curbs, crossings, signage, landscaping, and sight lines. Policy T-17 Increase cooperation with surrounding communities and other agencies to establish and maintain off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails utilizing creek, utility, and railroad rights-of-way. Policy T-1.18 [(PTC Policy T1.22) (Previous Policy L- 66 & L-68) (Merged & Edited)] Increase cooperation with surrounding communities and other agencies to establish and maintain off-roadway bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails that are integrated with creek, utility, railroad rights-of-way, and green spaces in a manner that helps enhance and define the community and avoids environmental impacts. Program T-25 Evaluate the design of a Bay-to- Foothills path. Policy T-8.11 [(PTC Program T1.22.1) (Merged with Program T-26 & Edited)] Support regional plans to complete development of the Bay Trail and Bay- to-Ridge Trail. Program T-26 Complete development of the Bay Trail and Ridge Trail in Palo Alto. Policy T-8.11 [(PTC Program T1.22.1) (Merged with Program T-25 & Edited)] Support regional plans to complete development of the Bay Trail and Bay- to-Ridge Trail. Policy T-18 Support the development of the Santa Clara County Countywide Bicycle System, and other regional bicycle plans. Policy T-8.12 Support the development of the Santa Clara County Countywide Bicycle System, and other regional bicycle plans. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 7 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Policy T-19 Improve and add attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi- modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, in private developments, and at other community destinations. Policy T-5.11 [(PTC Policy T4.13) (Edited)] To promote bicycle use, increase the number of safe, attractive and well- designed bicycle parking spaces available in the city, including spots for bicycle trailers, prioritizing heavily travelled areas such as commercial and retail centers, employment districts, recreational/cultural facilities, multi- modal transit facilities, and ride share stops for bicycle parking infrastructure. Program T-27 Work with Caltrain, Amtrak, and public bus operators to expand bicycle storage on public transit vehicles during both peak and off-peak hours. Program T-1.5.1 Continue to work with Caltrain, Amtrak, and public bus operators to expand bicycle storage on public transit vehicles during both peak and off-peak hours. Policy T-20 Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Policy T-1.20 Regularly maintain off-roadway bicycle and pedestrian paths, including sweeping, weed abatement, and surface maintenance. Program T-28 Adjust the street evaluation criteria of the City's Pavement Management Program to ensure that areas of the road used by bicyclists are maintained at the same standards as, or at standards higher than, areas used by motor vehicles. Program T-1.19.1 [PTC Program T1.20.1] Adjust the street evaluation criteria of the City's Pavement Management Program to ensure that areas of the road used by bicyclists are maintained at the same standards as, or at standards higher than, areas used by motor vehicles. Program T-29 Provide regular maintenance of off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths, including sweeping, weed abatement, and pavement maintenance. Policy T-1.20 Regularly maintain off-roadway bicycle and pedestrian paths, including sweeping, weed abatement, and surface maintenance. Program T-30 Develop cooperative programs with the City and businesses to keep sidewalks clean in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts, and other centers. Program T-1.20.1 Develop cooperative programs with the City and businesses that promote good community stewardship by keeping sidewalks clean in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts, and other centers. Policy T-21 Support the use of Downtown alleyways for pedestrian- and bicycle-only use. Policy T-1.21 [(PTC Policy T1.26) (Edited)] Maintain pedestrian- and bicycle-only use of alleyways Downtown and in the California Avenue area where appropriate. Program T-31 Test the Downtown Urban Design Guide emphasis on the use of alleyways for pedestrian- and bicycle-only use. Allow controlled vehicle access for loading and unloading where no alternatives exist. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 8 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Policy T-22 Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle parking, street trees, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety. Program T-1.19.5 Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle parking, street trees, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety. Policy T-23 Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Policy T-3.7 Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Program T-32 Improve pedestrian crossings with bulbouts, small curb radii, street trees near corners, bollards, and landscaping to create protected areas. Program T-6.6.6 Improve pedestrian crossings by creating protected areas and better pedestrian and traffic visibility. Use a toolbox including bulb outs, small curb radii, high visibility crosswalks, and landscaping. GOAL T-4 An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users GOAL T-3 Maintain an Efficient Roadway Network for all Users Policy T-24 Maintain a hierarchy of streets that includes freeways, expressways, arterials, residential arterials, collectors, and local streets. Policy T-3.1 Maintain a hierarchy of streets that includes freeways, expressways, arterials, residential arterials, collectors, and local streets, balancing the needs of all users in a safe and appropriate manner. Policy T-25 When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Policy T-3.5 [(PTC Policy T2.2) (Edited)] When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway space by all users. Program T-33 Develop comprehensive roadway design standards and criteria for all types of roads. Emphasize bicycle and pedestrian safety and usability in these standards. Program T-3.5.1 ([PTC Program T2.2.1) (Edited)] Update the comprehensive roadway design standards and criteria to be consistent with Complete Streets best practices and the Urban Forest Master Plan, focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety and multimodal uses. Consider opportunities to incorporate best practices from the National Association of City Transportation Officials guidelines for urban streets and bikeways. Program T-34 Establish procedures for considering the effects of street modifications on emergency vehicle response time. Program T-3.5.2 Establish procedures for considering the effects of street design on emergency vehicle response time. Policy T-26 Participate in the design and implementation of comprehensive solutions to traffic problems near Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center. Policy T-3.10 Participate in the design and implementation of comprehensive solutions to traffic problems near Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 9 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Program T-35 Consider increased public transit, a shuttle, and other traffic and parking solutions to ensure safe, convenient access to the Stanford Shopping Center/ Medical Center area. Program T-3.10.1 [(PTC Program T2.6.1) (Edited)] Support increased public transit, traffic management, and parking solutions to ensure safe, convenient access to and from the Stanford Shopping Center/ Medical Center area. Program T-36 Extend Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real and construct related improvements consistent with neighborhood and community interests. Do not extend Sand Hill Road to Alma Street. Program T-37 Provide safe, convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and shuttle connections between the Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Center areas and future housing along the Sand Hill Road corridor, the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station, Downtown Palo Alto, and other primary destinations. Program T-3.10.3 [(PTC Program T2.6.3) (Edited)] Provide safe, convenient pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections between the Stanford Shopping Center/Medical Center areas and housing along the Sand Hill Road/Quarry Road corridors to Palo Alto Station, Downtown Palo Alto, and other primary destinations. Policy T-27 Avoid major increases in street capacity unless necessary to remedy severe traffic congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy T-3.3 [(PTC Policy T2.8)] Avoid major increases in street capacity when constructing or modifying roadways, refer to Policy T-3.5. Policy T-28 Make effective use of the traffic- carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Policy T-2.4 [(PTC Policy T2.10)(Edited)] Consistent with the principles of Complete Streets adopted by the City, work to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of service for transit vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles on roads in Palo Alto. Program T-38 Implement computerized traffic management systems to improve traffic flow when feasible. Program T-2.1.1 [(PTC Program 2.10.5)] Implement computerized traffic management systems to improve traffic flow when feasible. Program T-39 Maintain the current program of not adding traffic signals on Alma Street north of Lytton Avenue and south of Channing Avenue to Churchill Avenue; and on Middlefield Road north of Lytton Avenue and south of Channing Avenue to Embarcadero Road. Policy T-29 Regulate truck movements in a manner that balances the efficient movement of goods with the residential character of Palo Alto’s arterial street system. Policy T-3.4 [(PTC Policy T2.11)(Edited)] Regulate truck movements and large commercial buses in a manner that balances the efficient movement of trucks and buses while preserving the residential character of Palo Alto’s arterial street system. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 10 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Program T-40 Evaluate the feasibility of changes to Palo Alto’s through truck routes and weight limits to consider such issues as relationship to neighboring jurisdictions, lower weight limits, increased number of routes, and economic and environmental impacts. Program T-3.4.1 Evaluate the feasibility of changes to Palo Alto’s through truck routes and weight limits to consider such issues as relationship to neighboring jurisdictions, lower weight limits, increased number of routes, and economic and environmental impacts. GOAL T-5 A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods GOAL T-4 Protect Neighborhood Streets that Support Residential Character and Provide a Range of Local Transportation Options Policy T-30 Reduce the impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by designating certain streets as residential arterials. Policy T-4.3 Maintain the following roadways as residential arterials, treated with landscaping, medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to improve safety:  Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road)  University Avenue (between San Francisquito Creek and Middlefield Road)  Embarcadero Road (between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road)  Charleston/Arastradero Roads (between Miranda Avenue and Fabian Way). Program T-41 The following roadways are designated as residential arterials. Treat these streets with landscaping, medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to reduce traffic speeds. Program T-42 Use landscaping and other improvements to establish clear “gateways” at the points where University Avenue and Embarcadero Road transition from freeways to neighborhoods. Program T-4.3.1 [(PTC Program T3.2.3) (Edited)] Use landscaping and other improvements to establish clear “gateways” at the points where the Oregon Expressway, University Avenue, and Embarcadero Road transition from freeways to neighborhoods. Policy T-31 Evaluate smoothing and slowing traffic flow in commercial areas by reducing through-traffic lanes and trading the area for improved turning lanes, landscaping, and bicycle lanes. Policy T-32 Design and maintain the City street network to provide a variety of alternate routes, so that the traffic loads on any one street are minimized. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 11 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Policy T-33 Keep all neighborhood streets open unless there is a demonstrated safety or overwhelming through- traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives, or unless a closure would increase the use of alternative transportation modes. Policy T-4.1 Keep all neighborhood streets open as a general rule. Policy T-34 Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures. Policy T-4.2 [(PTC Policy T3.4) (Edited)] Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets, and prioritize traffic calming measures for safety over congestion management. Program T-43 Establish a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program to implement appropriate traffic calming measures. Consider using development fees as a funding source for this program. Program T-4.2.1 [(EIR Mitigation Measure TRANS- 8) (Edited)] Identify specific improvements that can be used to discourage drivers from using local, neighborhood streets to bypass traffic congestion on arterials. Program T-44 Evaluate changing Homer and Channing Avenues to two-way streets with or without redevelopment of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation campus. Program T-4.2.2 [(Merged & Edited with Program T- 43) (PTC Program T3.4.1)] Periodically review residential areas for traffic impacts and use the results of that review to prioritize traffic calming measures. Policy T-35 Reduce neighborhood street and intersection widths and widen planting strips as appropriate. Policy T-4.6 [(PTC Policy T3.6) (Edited)] Require new residential development projects to implement best practices for street design, stormwater management, and green infrastructure. Policy T-36 Make new and replacement curbs vertical where desired by neighborhood residents. Policy T-37 Where sidewalks are directly adjacent to curbs and no planting strip exists, explore ways to add planting pockets with street trees to increase shade and reduce the apparent width of wide streets. Policy T-3.8 Add planting pockets with street trees to increase the tree canopy, provide shade, calm traffic and enhance the pedestrian realm. Policy T-38 Continue the current “guard and go” system of having stop signs approximately every other block on local residential streets to discourage through-traffic. GOAL T-6 A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets GOAL T-6 Provide a Safe Environment for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets Policy T-39 To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections. Policy T-6.1 Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over vehicle level-of- service at intersections and vehicle parking. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 12 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Program T-45 Provide adult crossing guards at school crossings that meet adopted criteria. Program T-6.4.3 Provide adult crossing guards at school crossings that meet adopted criteria. Program T-46 Encourage extensive educational programs for safe use of bicycles, mopeds, and motorcycles, including the City-sponsored bicycle education programs in the public schools and the bicycle traffic school program for juveniles. Policy T-6.1.1 Follow the principles of the safe routes to schools program to implement traffic safety measures that focus on Safe Routes to work, shopping, downtown, community services, parks, and schools. Program T-6.6.2 Establish standards and procedures for maintaining safe cycling routes, including signage for warnings and detours during construction projects. Policy T-6.4 Continue the Safe Routes to School partnership with PAUSD and the Palo Alto Council of PTAs. Policy T-6.5 Support PAUSD adoption of standard Safe Routes to School policies and regulations that address the five E’s of education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, and evaluation. Program T-47 Utilize engineering, enforcement, and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways. Policy T-6.6 [(PTC Program T5.1.1)(Edited)] Use engineering, enforcement, and educational tools to improve traffic safety on City roadways. Policy T-40 Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes. Policy T-3.14 Continue to prioritize the safety of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes, including during construction. Policy T-41 Vigorously and consistently enforce speed limits and other traffic laws. Policy T-6.8 Vigorously and consistently enforce speed limits and other traffic laws, including for vehicle and bicycle traffic. GOAL T-7 Mobility for People with Special Needs GOAL T-7 Provide Mobility Options that Allow People who are Transit Dependent to Reach Their Destinations Policy T-42 Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects. Policy T-7.3 [(PTC Policy T6.1)(Edited)] Utilize the principles of Universal Design, and local and State design standards, to guide the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects to ensure the needs of community members with limited mobility, including some seniors and people with disabilities, are addressed. Policy T-43 Provide and/or promote demand- responsive paratransit service. Policy T-7.5 [(PTC Policy T6.2) (Edited)] Continue to partner with transit providers, including VTA, to support demand-responsive paratransit service for eligible participants in Palo Alto and maintain existing paratransit services, particularly where bus service is discontinued. Emphasize service quality and timeliness when contracting for paratransit services. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 13 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Program T-48 Monitor Santa Clara County’s paratransit program to assess its adequacy. Policy T-7.6 Collaborate with transit and shuttle providers including VTA, SamTrans, Stanford Marguerite Shuttle, Palo Alto Shuttle, Dumbarton Express Bus Service and Caltrain in the provision of service that is accessible to seniors and people with disabilities. Policy T-44 Support transit agencies in implementing or continuing reduced fare or no fare voucher systems for selected populations. Policy T-7.7 Support transit providers in implementing or continuing reduced fare or no fare voucher systems for selected populations, including seniors and people with disabilities. GOAL T-8 Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities GOAL T-5 Encourage Attractive, Convenient, Efficient and Innovative Parking Solutions for all Users Policy T-45 Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs. Policy T-5.1 All new development projects should meet parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. Program T5.1.1 For each commercial center and employment district in Palo Alto, conduct a parking needs assessment in consultation with business owners, employers and local residents to establish a baseline for parking need. Evaluate the need to update parking standards in the municipal code, based on local conditions, different users’ needs and baseline parking need. Program T5.1.2 In parallel with each parking needs assessment, establish performance standards which represent the conditions that must be met before parking requirements for new development can be reduced. In establishing performance standards, consider metrics such as vehicle trips, transit frequency, transit capacity and bicycle parking. Program T5.1.3 Work with stakeholders in each commercial center and employment district to monitor conditions and determine the appropriate timing for revisions to parking requirements. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 14 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Program T-49 Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto. Program T5.2.2 In the Downtown TMA, implement pilot projects to test the effectiveness of strategies such as employee transportation programs, including reduced cost transit passes and ridesharing programs. Review pilot project results and consider expanding to other areas of the city, such as California Avenue. Program T5.2.5 Implement Council-adopted recommendations from the parking management study for the Downtown area, which included the feasibility of removing color-coded parking zones, and dynamic pricing and management policies to prioritize short-term parking spaces closest to the commercial core for customers, garage parking for employees, and neighborhood parking for residents. Program T-50 Continue working with merchants, the Chamber of Commerce, neighbors, and a parking consultant to explore options for constructing new parking facilities or using existing parking more efficiently. Policy T-5.2 [(Combined with Program T-49) (Converted to Policy & Edited)] Continue to implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies citywide to optimize the use of existing parking spaces. Program T-51 Work with merchants to designate dedicated employee parking areas. Policy T-5.3 Work with merchants to designate dedicated employee parking areas. Policy T-46 Minimize the need for all-day employee parking facilities in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts and encourage short-term customer parking. Policy T-5.5 Minimize the need for employees to parking in and adjacent to commercial centers, employment districts and schools. Policy T-47 Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. Policy T-5.10 In residential neighborhoods, work with neighborhood associations to prioritize residential street parking and minimize spill over parking from commercial centers and employment districts. Program T-52 Evaluate options to ensure maximum use of the City parking structures in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue areas. Policy T-5.2 [(Combined with Program T-49) (Converted to Policy & Edited)] Continue to implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies citywide to optimize the use of existing parking spaces. Program T-53 Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Program T1.10.2 Work with Caltrain to address commuter parking intrusion into surrounding neighborhoods. Prioritize solutions such as shuttle services, considering parking structures only as an option of last resort. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 15 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Policy T-48 Encourage parking strategies in the Stanford Medical Center area that maximize the efficient use of parking and, in the long term, consider the possible use of remote parking lots with shuttle bus service. GOAL T-9 An Influential Role in Shaping and Implementing Regional Transportation Decisions GOAL T-8 Influence the Shape and Implementation of Regional Transportation Policies and Technologies to Reduce Traffic Congestion and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy T-49 Lead and participate in initiatives to manage regional traffic. Policy T-8.3 Collaborate effectively with and engage in regional partnerships and solutions with a range of stakeholders, including regional agencies, neighboring jurisdictions and major employers, on issues of regional importance such as traffic congestion, reduced reliance on single-occupant vehicles, and sustainable transportation. Policy T-50 Collaborate with public interest groups and local, state, and federal governments to study and advocate transportation regulatory changes, such as an increase in the gasoline tax and market pricing efforts. Policy T-1.27 Collaborate with public interest groups as well as federal, State, and local governments to study and advocate for transportation regulatory changes, such as an increase in the gasoline tax. Program T-54 Work regionally, and in particular with adjacent communities, to establish a system of parking fees that discourages single occupant vehicle use and encourages other transportation modes. Policy T-51 Support the efforts of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to coordinate transportation planning and services for the Mid-Peninsula and the Bay Area that emphasize alternatives to the automobile. Encourage MTC to base its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) on compact land use development assumptions. Policy T-8.5 Support the efforts of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to coordinate transportation planning and services for the Mid-Peninsula and the Bay Area that emphasize alternatives to the automobile. Encourage MTC to base its Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) on compact land use development assumptions. Policy T-52 Where appropriate, support the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge. Policy T-8.8 [(PTC Policy 7.14) (Edited)] Where appropriate, support the conversion of existing traffic lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on freeways and expressways, including the Dumbarton Bridge, and the continuation of an HOV lane from Redwood City to San Francisco. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 16 Current Comprehensive Plan CAC Draft Update Policy T-53 Participate in seeking a regional solution to improved roadway connections between Highway 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge without construction of a southern connection across environmentally sensitive baylands. Policy T-54 Support efforts by Caltrans and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on area freeways. Policy T-8.6 Support efforts by Caltrans and the Valley Transportation Authority to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on area freeways consistent with Statewide GHG emissions reduction initiatives. Program T-55 Support provision of a new southbound entrance ramp to Highway 101 from San Antonio Road, in conjunction with the closure of the southbound Charleston Road on-ramp at the Rengstorff Avenue interchange in Mountain View. Program T-8.6.1 Support provision of a new southbound entrance ramp to Highway 101 from San Antonio Road, in conjunction with the closure of the southbound Charleston Road on-ramp at the Rengstorff Avenue interchange in Mountain View. Policy T-55 Support the application of emerging freeway information, monitoring, and control systems that provide driver assistance and reduce congestion. Policy T-8.7 [(PTC Policy T7.13) (Edited)] Support the application of emerging freeway information, monitoring, and control systems that provide non- intrusive driver assistance and reduce congestion. Policy T-56 Support state and federal legislation to reduce motor vehicle emissions, noise, and fuel consumption. Policy T-8.9 Support State and federal legislation to reduce motor vehicle emissions, noise, and fuel consumption. Program T-56 Implement as appropriate the “local action list” of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and work with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's Congestion Management Program (CMP) and other jurisdictions to implement those actions that require a multi- jurisdictional effort. PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DISPOSITION TABLE Blank cells on the right side of the table mean the policy or program was not carried forward. 17 GOAL T-10 A Local Airport with Minimal Off- site Impacts GOAL L-10 (Note: Goal T-10 Moved to Land Use Element Based On CAC Input) Maintain an Economically Viable Local Airport with Minimal Environmental Impacts Policy T-57 Support the continued vitality and effectiveness of the Palo Alto Airport without significantly increasing its intensity or intruding into open space areas. The Airport should remain limited to a single runway and two fixed base operators. Policy L-10.1 Operate Palo Alto Airport (PAO) as a vital and efficient facility without significantly increasing its intensity or intruding into open space areas. PAO should remain limited to a single runway and minor expansion shall only be allowed in order to meet federal and state airport design and safety standards. Program T-57 Provide a planting strip and bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent to Embarcadero Road that is consistent with the open space character of the baylands. Program L-10.2.1 Maintain landscaping consistent with the open space character of the baylands to screen the airport along Embarcadero Road and continue to provide a bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent to Embarcadero Road, consistent with the Baylands Master Plan and open space character of the baylands subject to airport federal and state regulations. Program T-58 Encourage Santa Clara County to relocate the terminal building away from the Runway 31 clear zone, allowing for construction of a new terminal. Program L-10.1.1 Relocate the terminal building away from the Runway 31 clear zone, allowing for construction of a new terminal. GOAL T-9 (added by Council 8/31/15) Decrease congestion and improve transportation efficiency with a priority on our worst intersections, our business centers, and our peak commute times including school traffic. GOAL T-2 (Council added as Goal T-9) Decrease Congestion And Vehicle Miles Traveled With A Priority On Our Worst Intersections And Our Peak Commute Times, Including School Traffic As a Council addition, this Goal is not associated with any policies or programs in the existing Transportation Element. August 29, 2016 Civic CrowdAnalysis of Citizens Comments – Comprehensive Plan Draft Transportation Element – For Information Only For the past two years, the City has been collaborating with researchers at Stanford’s Brown Institute for Media Innovation on ways to use digital tools and crowdsourcing concepts to enhance participation in the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. One product of our work together was the development of the Digital Commenter tool that allows individuals to interact with comments and provide ideas to draft elements of the Comprehensive Plan that are posted to our Open City Hall portal. The Digital Commenter allows for many more community members to participate in the actual drafting and editing of the Comp Plan document. Each element of the plan is posted on the Digital Commenter and the feedback is looped back into the Citizen Advisory Committee that is assisting with this effort. Typically, there are more than 500 visitors and hundreds of comments and ideas each time a new element is posted on the platform. Since the beginning of the year, the portal has had more than 18,000 visitors and the tool is being considered by other cities looking to deploy similar technology. Recently, the Stanford team of Dr. Tanja Aitamurto, the Deputy Director and a Brown Fellow (post doc) at the Brown Institute and Kaiping Chen, a Stanford doctoral student, used crowdsourced data and community input on the City’s Draft Transportation Element to develop a demonstration web application called Civic CrowdAnalytics. They were among the top 10 teams of 400 applicants to enter a demonstration competition in the Living Progress Challenge, a global innovation challenge that funds new applications for improving people’s lives. The attached power point is the Stanford team’s presentation in the competition. Civic CrowdAnalytics is a web application for analyzing civic data with Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods and machine learning. Civic CrowdAnalytics analyzes datasets automatically, for example, by categorizing crowdsourced data and analyzing the participants’ sentiments about the discussed topics. While NLP technologies are becoming more common, there is far less focus on developing solutions with those technologies for civic purposes. The Stanford team’s goal is to develop a tool that helps city governments in analyzing civic data more automatically to spur civic participation, and to help manage the increased data such participation may generate. The Civic CrowdAnalytics tool reached about 80 percent accuracy rate with the automated analysis (compared with manual analysis), a good first result. The City plans to continue its partnership with The Brown Institute on enhanced civic engagement opportunities. 8/29/2016 1 Analyzing  Citizen Comments about  Transportation Element Tanja Aitamurto, Kaiping Chen Stanford University Aug. 2016 Part I:  Crowd Ideas Analysis Part II: Crowd, CAC, Policy  Comparison 8/29/2016 2 Categorization Method 1. Data Collection Method 1. Citizen ideas: from Digital Commenter,  Nextdoor, Open City Hall, Summit 2. CAC meeting transcripts, CAC comments  on the Digital Commenter 3. Latest transportation element updates (June  Version 2016) 2. Data Categorization Method 1. Open Coding (three human coders) 2. Computational Method: Automatically  Coding Ideas (use Natural Language  Processing) Main categories summary 97 43 136 37 020 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Number of ideas Number of ideas 8/29/2016 3 Analysis on Main Category 1.Public transit subcategories analysis  2.Private transit subcategories analysis  3.Non‐motor powered transit  subcategories analysis  4.Big picture infrastructure subcategories analysis Public transit subcategories 4 49 20 11 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Incentives to usepublic transit Personalizedpublic transit Public transitmodes Last mileconnection andcoordination Public shuttles Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas 8/29/2016 4 Incentives to use public transit subcategories 22 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 free public transit cheaper fares Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas Personalized Public transit subcategories 21 6 13 5 4 0 5 10 15 20 25 Personalizedtrains self-driving cars personalizedbuses on-demand publictransitpublic transit apps Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas 8/29/2016 5 Public transit modes subcategories 1 10 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Increasing public transitfrequency Expanding public transitgeographical reach Increasing frequency andexpanding geographical reach Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas Public shuttles subcategories 8 2 11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 shuttle types County-wide shuttle Promoting shuttleservices South Palo Alto shuttle Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas 8/29/2016 6 Private transit subcategories 1 15 5 17 12 2 3 024 6 8 101214 16 18 Number of ideas Number of ideas Reducing private transit subcategories 2 7 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Increasing density to reducecar trips Carpools Incentives to reduce privatetransit Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas 8/29/2016 7 Personalized private transit subcategories 1 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Zip cars More EV charging spot Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas Parking issues and solutions subcategories 8 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Reduced parking incentives Parking design Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas 8/29/2016 8 Pollution subcategories 11 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Noise pollution Cap and trade for car trips Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas Non‐motor powered transit  subcategories 72 13 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Infrastructure for non-motor powered transitImplementing existing programs and trafficassessment methods Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas 8/29/2016 9 Infrastructure for non‐motor powered transit  subcategories 63 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Bike lanes and pedestrian paths bike parking Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas More biking options subcategories 5 111 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of ideas subcategory Number of ideas 8/29/2016 10 Big picture infrastructure subcategories 29 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Roads Implementing existing programs and trafficassessment methods Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas Roads subcategories 5 3 2 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Road design Road safety Improving trafficlights Traffic calmingmeasures Number of ideas per subcategory Number of ideas 8/29/2016 11 Comparing Crowd’s input,  CAC’s input and the Policy 1.Main Category Comparison 2.Big Picture Infrastructure  Comparison 3.Non‐motor powered transit  Comparison Total Number of Ideas 184 781 194 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Crowdsourced Input CAC’sInput Revised Policy/Program Number of ideas Number of ideas 8/29/2016 12 27.07%24.26% 37.63% 15.47% 7.66% 14.95% 25.97%36.81% 21.65% 23.76%29.15%22.68% 7.73%2.13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Crowdsourced Input CAC’s Input Revised Policy/Program Special Needs to Senior citizen Private Transit Public Transit Non‐Motor Powered Transit Big Picture Infrastructure Comparing the main categories in percentages in crowdsourced input,  CAC’s transcripts/comments and the revised transportation policy.  Crowdsourced input: Big picture  infrastructure: Top subcategories 57.14% 14.29% 8.16% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Improve traffic calming (1st) Improve road design (2nd) Increase housing density to reduce car trips (3rd) Top  Subcategories TOP  Subcategories 8/29/2016 13 CAC input: Big picture infrastructure: Top  subcategories 18.29% 18.29% 17.07% 16.40% 16.60% 16.80% 17.00% 17.20% 17.40% 17.60% 17.80% 18.00% 18.20% 18.40% Improve traffic calming (1st) Improve road design (2nd) Improve road safety (3rd) Top  Subcategories TOP  Subcategories Revised policy: Big picture infrastructure:  Top subcategories 56.34% 47.89% 7.04% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Improve Road Design and Safety (1st) Implement existing programs and traffic assessment methods (2nd) Improve traffic calming Top Subcategories TOP  Subcategories 8/29/2016 14 Crowdsourced input: Non‐motor powered  transit: Top subcategories 89.71% 10.29% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Improve infrastructure (1st) More bike supply options (2nd) Top  Subcategories Improve infrastructure (1st) More bike supply options (2nd) CAC input: Non‐motor powered transit:  Top subcategories 77.78% 13.89% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% Improve infrastructure (1st) More bike options (2nd) Top  Subcategories Improve infrastructure (1st) More bike options (2nd) 8/29/2016 15 Revised Policy: Non‐motor powered transit:  Top subcategories 65.52% 27.59% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% Improve infrastructure (1st) More bike options (2nd) Top  Subcategories Improve infrastructure (1st) More bike options (2nd) From: Penny Ellson To: Council, City Subject: Transportation Element Date: Thursday, August 25, 2016 10:46:53 PM Honorable City Council Members, Here are some brief comments on the Transportation Element. 1). Congestion Management: Many of these policies and programs rely on future use of CUPs but historically systematic, timely monitoring and enforcement has been lacking. Specifically, how will the city support systematic, robust monitoring and enforcement? This is not just a matter of having the right language in a CUP. It is important to invest heavily in staff resources and tools for enforcement. TDM that works is expensive—and it requires a long-term, disciplined commitment. Is City of Palo Alto really ready to make this commitment? 2). Transit: Please consider adding language to address the specific governance problems associated with VTA transfer of Palo Alto tax dollars to south county cities (San Jose, in particular). VTA has not been a reliable partner—largely because their board is dominated by south county representatives. We need policies and programs that move Palo Alto toward a much stronger regional position. I wonder if this requires a combined legal and lobby effort. There is a lot of language in this Comp Plan about cooperation and collaboration with regional partners, but this assumes a cooperative partner—which we do not have. Could the Comp Plan address how we might work toward changes that improve our leverage with VTA—to motivate them to work cooperatively with Palo Alto? 3). Program T4.3.1—Please include the San Antonio/Charleston south Palo Alto gateway from the 101. I agree gateways are important to all parts of Palo Alto. This Element is very long and there are some redundancies, especially in the Introduction. Edit, edit, edit. Penny City of Palo Alto (ID # 7153) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 9/19/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown TMA Business Plan Title: Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) Draft Business Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Background and Discussion City Council has previously heard updates from the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) on March 14 and June 13, 2016. The City Manager Reports are included as Attachment A and Attachment B. As requested by City Council, the Palo Alto TMA Board of Directors has prepared a Business Plan, which is included as Attachment C. This plan outlines the strategies that will be implemented to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips to downtown Palo Alto by 30%. The time it takes to reach this goal will depend on available funding. The business plan identifies five key areas of focus for the TMA activities: 1. Program Development 2. Partnership 3. Advocacy 4. Information and Outreach 5. Sustainable Budget The plan identifies specific programmatic goals and strategies related to these five focus areas. Policy Implications: The support of the Palo Alto TMA is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Policies:  Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles  Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Timeline: City of Palo Alto Page 2 The TMA Board of Directors initiated the first set of pilot programs in August 2016. Other programs will be contingent on funding and the direction of the TMA Board. Pursuant to the terms of the funding agreement approved in June 2016, the Board will provide a written update to the City Council six months after the agreement is signed. Attachments:  Attachment A: Staff Report 6427 TMA Study Session (PDF)  Attachment B: Staff Report 6823 TMA Funding Agreement (PDF)  Attachment C: TMA Draft Business Plan 09-07-2016 (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 6427) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 3/14/2016 Summary Title: Downtown Transportation Management Association Study Session Title: Update on the Formation of the Downtown TMA (Transportation Management Association) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council receive and review the report on the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association. This is a study session, and no action is requested. Executive Summary Since 2013, the City has been actively engaged in developing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to encourage alternatives to solo driving to address Palo !lto’s growing traffic and parking concerns. A City Council colleagues memo dated October 3, 2013 resulted in Council direction to convene a study session and develop an initial recommendation related to goals of reducing traffic and parking demand. On December 9, 2013 Council held a study session with representatives of Google, Contra Costa Centre and Stanford University, all considered Bay Area leaders in applying TDM strategies, to better understand their respective programs and their potential application to Palo !lto’s challenges. The ity ouncil subsequently requested a staff analysis and recommendation regarding establishment of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) for Palo Alto, and on February 24, 2014, directed staff to move forward with the steps necessary to form the organization. The Transportation Management Association (TMA) Steering Committee, a consortium of local employers (including the City of Palo Alto) with resident representatives, worked through 2015 to develop the vision, mission and goals intended for a new TMA. Led by a consultant team with significant experience in developing TMAs in the bay area, the team conducted the first comprehensive commute survey for Downtown, discussed potential funding sources for City of Palo Alto Page 1 ongoing programs, the need to provide services for lower wage workers in the Downtown, a variety of rideshare pilot programs and the preferred structure for TMA formation. The group voted in November to incorporate as a 501(c)3 non-profit and will have a fiscal sponsor who will collect monies on behalf of the organization, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF). The TMA had its first official Board meeting on January 28th, and this report summarizes some of the key activities of the TM! Steering ommittee and the oard’s plan for action in 2016. As a major employer Downtown, the City is a key member of the TMA Board of Directors, and its input and participation will be critical to the TM!’s operations and success. Background & Discussion What is a TMA? A TMA is a business-member funded organization that develops, markets, manages and advocates for effective transportation programs. TMAs are formed in a variety of ways, but they generally share the common goals of reducing single-occupant vehicle trips, reducing congestion and demand for parking, and improving quality of life by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some other benefits of TMAs include: - TM!’s can provide a comprehensive approach to managing transportation needs in a particular area, and a framework for multiple constituents to work collaboratively on these solutions. -TM!’s can fund and offer branded services to both residents and commercial businesses cost-effectively and efficiently through a network of alliances and partnerships. Providing a one-stop resource with consistent messaging and promotion is a hugely important ‘customer service’ factor that affects awareness and utilization of TDM programs and services. In the larger context, having a TMA positions Palo Alto to work cooperatively with neighboring cities and other agencies in providing a flexible array of programs and services. While the Palo Alto TMA will initially be focused on the Downtown area, transportation programs are by nature connective and provide benefit to areas outside their targeted region. Because travel routes used by residents, employees and visitors typically cross neighborhood and city boundaries, having a TMA that recognizes key linkages is critical to developing quality programs and services. For example, Palo !lto’s TM! was developed with the idea of initially developing programs to support Downtown employee commutes, but this focus will also provide reciprocal benefit to Palo Alto Downtown residents who may be travelling the opposite way to work; e.g. to worksites in neighboring cities. City of Palo Alto Page 2 An effective TMA can have significant measurable benefits such as:  Reducing the number of single-occupancy-vehicle (SOV) trips made within and through Palo Alto, which reduces traffic congestion and the demand for parking;  Reducing the need to build new parking facilities;  Reducing total vehicle miles traveled (VMT);  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated both locally and at the regional level, which contributes to Palo !lto’s sustainability goals. A TMA also provides a forum for public and private entities and businesses of all sizes to work together on transportation programs. Generally, larger companies fund the majority of the cost of programs for the benefit of smaller companies. Because larger companies have more employees and hence contribute more to traffic congestion, they have more of a vested interest to work towards reducing single occupant vehicle trips. TM!’s are structured in a variety of ways. Some operate with a membership- for- services model, where a company pays membership dues based on its size and business category. Some TM!’s sell access to a collection of programs available at different levels of financial support (bus services, rideshare discounts, carshare programs, or discounted transit passes, as examples). Others receive funding from their cities, counties, and other sources and provide information and some services to all companies within the TM!’s service area. Still others are hybrids, receiving some public and some private funding- providing some ‘free’ services to everyone and charging for other programs. Some TM!’s (as well as Transportation programs such as Stanford’s) receive funding from parking fees for their TDM programs and services. Formation of the Palo Alto TMA The ity engaged a consultant group with significant experience designing ay !rea TM!’s- MIG with TMA expert Wendy Silvani. This team recommended that Palo Alto follow a standard approach of engaging a Steering Committee which would develop a work plan, mission statement for the TMA, evaluate pilots for start-up programs, and propose a structure for the TM!’s ultimate oard of Directors. !t the request of the ity, this Steering Committee, a consortium of 12+ local employers, community and residential representatives, and the City of Palo Alto, worked through 2015 to develop the vision, mission and goals for the new TMA. Last May, this team partnered with EMC research to conduct the first comprehensive commute survey for Downtown which provided the basis for the TM!’s initial priorities. The group also discussed potential funding sources for ongoing programs, the need to provide services for lower wage workers in the Downtown, and learned about a variety of rideshare pilot programs. City of Palo Alto Page 3 It determined the preferred structure for TMA formation and voted in November to incorporate as a 501(c)3 non-profit and has a fiscal sponsor who will collect monies on behalf of the organization, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF). This structure will enable the TMA to seek funding from many public and private foundations and other financial supporters; it also gives the new TMA and its supporters the assurance of professional accounting, reporting and other administrative management. The TMA officially incorporated at the start of January and had its first official Board meeting on January 28th, 2016. Structure of the Palo Alto TMA Board Based on Business Registry data, employers with 100+ employees account for over 70% of all employees who work in Downtown Palo Alto. These companies have the greatest potential to fund and adopt TDM programs that will make a difference in reducing SOV commutes and parking demand. These companies are of sufficient size to be able to take advantage of bulk transit pass programs, and have budgets to fund TDM programs for their employees. The 2015 commute survey results also indicated that employees who work for larger companies are among the ‘most likely’ to change behavior – they live in places where transit and other non- SOV commuting is an option and they work schedules conducive to using alternatives, etc. The initial structure of the Palo Alto TMA Board has 3 large companies (300+ employees based in Palo Alto) - the City, Google, and Palantir; two medium sized companies (the Garden Court hotel and IDEO), and one small company (Philz Coffee). This ratio reflects the Business Registry data; it is flexible and designed to be inclusive, but also to ensure Board members support the TMA at a level that will provide a basis for the TMA to be successful through their financial commitments. Although Google does not have employees in Downtown currently, they are an active regional partner (they have offices in Palo Alto in the Research Park) and have significant experience in developing transportation programs which achieve sizeable SOV reduction. In addition, while the focus of the TMA is initially in the Downtown areas, the Steering Committee acknowledged that regional commute factors influence the Downtown and ultimately the focus of the TMA may expand beyond these boundaries. There are also Google employees who are residents of Downtown that could use TM! services in the “empty” direction (e.g. heading out of Downtown), which makes the services more efficient and effective. Financial Contributions and Board Size The Steering ommittee’s consultant was able to provide recommendations from an attorney who has worked on establishment of many similar organizations, and that attorney ultimately City of Palo Alto Page 4 drafted the incorporation documents and bylaws. The consultant and attorney strongly recommended that all Board members be required to make a contribution to the organization to minimize risk exposure for the organization, a contribution which is separate from membership dues which would be paid by organizations who would become members of the TMA and take advantage of the services that it sells. The Steering Committee was unanimous in not wanting the TMA to spend time trying to sell and collect nominal ‘dues’ from the many small businesses, or searching for the basics – i.e., the salary of its Executive Director. Instead, they want the Director to focus on funding for programs, marketing and managing those programs. The current Board is deliberately small, with six members who are committed to the successful rollout of programs on a ‘fast track’ that will benefit the entire downtown community. As the TMA develops, it can easily increase the size of its Board to include others. Currently, the Large Employer Board contribution is $10,000 annually, the Medium-Sized Employer Board contribution is $2,500 annually, and the Small Employer Board contribution is $1,000 annually. The Board is expected to set membership dues within the next several weeks. Advisory Committee(s) The Board will encourage participation from other companies in the TMA through an Advisory Committee. The structure of how this committee would operate is yet to be determined; it could take the shape of committees for various projects (i.e., those interested in a Lyft pilot or just the transit pass program). The Steering Committee expects that the structure for the Advisory Committee will evolve over the next few months. The requirement for a financial contribution/membership fee to the TMA would not apply to an advisory committee to ensure participation by anyone who is interested. Feedback Mechanisms The TMA Board will have feedback mechanisms for all TMA-sponsored programs so anyone can provide input, suggestions, and ideas based on their experience as the Board designs, evaluates, and refines programs and services. The focus of the TM!’s initial programs will be on offering direct subsidies to many employees whose employers can’t provide commute benefits because they are ‘too small’, and encouraging the 100+ employers for whom offering transportation benefits is realistic to do so. Other Examples It is commonplace for a City to have a seat on the Board of the TMA and to provide funding. The following TMAs are Bay Area examples: 1. City of Emeryville: The City of Emeryville provided the bulk of funding for the first 3 years for the Emery-Go-Round TMA at 90%, 75%, then 50% of the total budget, and was City of Palo Alto Page 5 also on the Board. When the TMA became part of the PBID, the City became ex-officio on the Board (no vote). 2. San Mateo Corridor TMA: The City of San Mateo is on the Board and helps fund the TMA. 3. Alameda Landing TMA: The City of Alameda has 2 representatives on the Board and is providing funding for the TMA. The ity ouncil will receive an annual report on the TM!’s activities each year. The ity’s funding will be important in initial years for the launch of TMA programs, and the City Council can provide requested funding concurrent with requests for expansion of the Board, establishment of the Advisory Committee, or pilot projects, as examples. In this way the City can influence the TM!’s programs and direction. 2016 Board Workplan While the TMA is still in fledgling stage, the group agreed to continue to work with the MIG/Silvani consulting team while recruiting for an Executive Director for the organization. Top priorities for the Board include: 1. Recruitment of an Executive Director. The ED will replace the consultant team hired by the City as the leader of the organization. While the Board members are not expected to have TDM experience, this will be a key component of the employment requirements for the ED 2. Launch of a pilot program that subsidizes low-income Downtown workers with transit passes. Prior to the incorporation of the organization, the TMA Steering Committee spent several months exploring a variety of pilot programs to determine which offered the most immediate value to the Downtown, and a low-income worker transit pass subsidy program was ultimately determined to have the most immediate impact. Stanford’s Sustainable ities class has been working with the TM! to develop the parameters of a pilot transit pass program. The students speak Mandarin and Spanish and will be able to support outreach to workers who require those languages. This program could launch as early as April or May depending on the position of the Board. The Board will be discussing the details of the proposal at their meeting on March 3. SOV Trip Goal Reduction The TMA Steering Committee felt that specific numeric goals should be set for individual programs (i.e., targeting a number of employees for the low income transit subsidy; another number for another pilot program such as Lyft subsidies, etc.) This will allow the TMA to adjust/refine/create programs against specific participation, and help the City achieve its 30% reduction goal. On an annual basis, a 30% reduction from the current overall 55% SOV trip rate is 1650 people. Broken up over a 4 year period, that equates to 412 people a year; over 5 years City of Palo Alto Page 6 330 people. The TMA Board believes that achieving this type of reduction over a 4-5 year period is a reasonable target. Policy Implications Development of a TMA is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Policies:  Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles  Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Resource Impact In order to submit for IRS incorporation, the TMA developed a draft budget to guide its development. Projected expenses for 2016 are listed below. The TMA is a separate organization with its own revenues and expenses, so while the City will be asked to contribute resources to the TMA for program development, ultimately the organization will have multiple sources of revenue. The TM!’s proposed budget is shown in Table 1, below. Table 1. TMA Proposed Draft Budget* Executive Director Salary (Part-time, assumed starting in June) $40,000 Annual Commute Survey, included in existing consultant contract $33,000 SVCF processing fees, included in existing contract $11,400 Legal Fees for IRS filing, included in IRS contract $2,500 Low Income Transit Pass Program – assumes 120 passes per month @ $75 each for 6 months; program still in development $54,000 Marketing $10,000 General Office Supplies $2,500 Miscellaneous and Other Programs $28,000 TOTAL $182,000 *This budget estimate is for the independent non-profit TMA and is not meant to reflect City budgetary commitments or requests. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Staff will be making a budget request for $100,000 to City Council to support the TMA as part of the FY2017 budget process. This $100,000 includes $90,000 to cover overhead expenses and other costs noted above, and the requested $10,000 large employer contribution. Additionally, City staff are working on an agreement with the TMA to provide up to $100,000 in funds that were budgetted by the City in FY2016 for TMA pilot programs. Funded pilot programs could include the transit-pass subsidy program, a pilot with Lyft, and possibly development of a “commuter wallet” Mobility !s ! Service (MaaS) product. Several smaller employers have also made contributions amounting to $32,000 for development of a low-income transit subsidy program, and Google, Palantir and the Garden Court Hotel have pledged their Board Contributions (total $22,500). Timeline The TMA officially launched in January 2016. It is expected to roll-out a low-income transit subsidy in April or May of 2016. Other programs will be contingent on funding and the direction of the TMA Board. Attachments:  Attachment A: EMC Final Report on Downtown Survey (PDF)  Attachment B: Palo AltoTMA Board Packet Feb16th (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 8 Do w n t o w n P a l o A l t o Mo d e S p l i t S u r v e y Ma y 2 0 1 5 "UUBDINFOU" Me t h o d o l o g y ` 1, 1 7 3 s u r v e y s c o n d u c t e d w i t h e m p l o y e e s a t b u s i n e s s e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n a n a r e a o f Do w n t o w n P a l o A l t o b o u n d b y E l C a m i n o Re a l , W e b s t e r S t r e e t , E v e r e t t A v e n u e , a n d Fo r e s t A v e n u e . ` Th e s u r v e y p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e w a s 4 4 % , w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f c o m p l e t e d su r v e y s c o m p a r e d t o t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f e m pl o y e e s a t p a r t i c i p a t i n g b u s i n e s s e s . T h e ov e r a l l r e s p o n s e r a t e w a s 1 2 % , w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f c o m p l e t e d s u r v e y s co m p a r e d t o t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f e m p l o y e e s i n D o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o . ` A s t r a t i f i e d r a n d o m s a m p l e o f w o r k s i t e s w a s p u l l e d b y w o r k s i t e s i z e , i n c l u d i n g s m a l l , me d i u m a n d l a r g e b u s i n e s s e s . S a m p l e d w o r k s i t e s w e r e c o n t a c t e d d i r e c t l y t o i d e n t i f y a n d re c r u i t a n o n s i t e s u r v e y c o o r d i n a t o r w h o d i s t ri b u t e d t h e s u r v e y s t o a l l e m p l o y e e s a t t h e i r re s p e c t i v e w o r k s i t e s . ` Th e s u r v e y w a s o f f e r e d i n o n l i n e a n d p a p e r fo r m a t s f o r e m p l o y e e s o f b u s i n e s s e s w i t h 5 or m o r e e m p l o y e e s , a n d w a s c o n d u c t e d b y t e l e p h o n e w i t h e m p l o y e e s o f b u s i n e s s e s w i t h 4 o r f e w e r e m p l o y e e s . ` Da t a c o l l e c t i o n b e g a n M a y 4 th an d e n d e d t h e w e e k o f M a y 2 5 th . E a c h r e s p o n d e n t w a s as k e d c o m m u t e m o d e q u e s t i o n s f o r o n e c a l e n d a r w e e k p r e v i o u s t o t h e d a t e o n w h i c h th e y t o o k t h e s u r v e y . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 2 Do w n t o w n P a l o A l t o Fo r t h i s s t u d y , D o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o w a s d e f i n e d a s t h e a r e a b o u n d b y E l C a m i n o R e a l , We b s t e r S t r e e t , E v e r e t t A v e n u e , a n d F o r e s t A v e n u e . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 3 Mo d e s o f Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Mo d e S h a r e - O v e r a l l Mo r e t h a n h a l f ( 5 5 % ) o f t h e t r i p s t a k e n i n t o d o wn t o w n a r e s i n g l e - o c c u p a n t - v e h i c l e t r i p s . %’ s r e f l e c t t h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f t r i p s t a k e n du r i n g t h e w e e k Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k e d Ro d e a b i c y c l e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d r e m o t e l y Ot h e r 55 % 17 % SO V T o t a l : 55 % 8% In c l u d e s d r i v e a l o n e a n d m o t o r c y c l e Tr a n s i t T o t a l : 1 9 % In c l u d e s b u s a n d r a i l 7% No n - m o t o r i z e d T o t a l : 1 5 % In c l u d e s w a l k i n g a n d r i d i n g a b i c y c l e 5% 5% 3% Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , wh a t m o d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n d i d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O do w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 7 Mo d e S h a r e b y W o r k s i t e S i z e As b u s i n e s s s i z e d e c r e a s e s , t h e pe r c e n t a g e o f S O V t r i p s i n c r e a s e s . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d r e m o t e l y / O t h e r 74 % 61 % 41 % 25 % 22 % 14 % 12 % 8% 7% 7% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 1- 2 5 e m p . ( 2 4 % ) 26 - 1 0 0 e m p . ( 3 2 % ) 10 1 + e m p . ( 4 4 % ) Bu s i n e s s S i z e b y N u m b e r o f E m p l o y e e s Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e fo r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e s u b g r o u p . Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 8 Mo d e S h a r e b y S e l f - R e p o r t e d C o m m u t e D i s t a n c e As t h e d i s t a n c e f r o m D o w n t o w n i n c r e a s e s , m o d e s h i f t s t o w a r d t r a n s i t . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 69 % 52 % 40 % 38 % 30 % 19 % 11 % 7% 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% 4% 1% <1 t o 1 0 ( 4 5 % ) 10 t o 5 0 ( 3 5 % ) 50 + ( 2 0 % ) Di s t a n c e T r a v e l e d i n M i l e s (s e l f - r e p o r t e d ) Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e fo r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e s u b g r o u p . Av e r a g e D i s t a n c e T r a v e l e d : Ov e r a l l = 1 5 . 8 m i l e s | S O V = 1 5 . 9 m i l e s | T r a n s i t = 2 3 . 5 m i l e s Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 9 Mo d e S h a r e b y H o m e G e o g r a p h y Co m m u t e r s f r o m S a n F r a n c i s c o a r e t h e l e a s t l i k e l y t o d r i v e . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 76 % 70 % 65 % 63 % 48 % 41 % 20 % 18 % 16 % 12 % 12 % 10 % 9% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% Sa n F r a n c i s c o ( 1 0 % ) P e n i n s u l a ( 2 0 % ) S o u t h B a y ( 3 3 % ) P a l o A l t o ( 2 2 % ) E a s t B a y ( 7 % ) Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c en t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e f o r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e su b g r o u p . Re f u s e d t o r e p o r t = 8 % Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 10 Mo d e S h a r e b y A g e a n d P a r e n t a l S t a t u s Ol d e r c o m m u t e r s a n d P a r e n t s a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o d r i v e a l o n e t o w o r k . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 70 % 51 % 20 % 18 % 9% 9% 7% 7% 5% 5% 18 - 4 9 ( 6 6 % ) 50 + ( 1 9 % ) Ag e Re f u s e d t o r e p o r t = 1 5 % 66 % 50 % 20 % 19 % 11 % 8% 8% 7% 7% 4% Pa r e n t ( 2 8 % ) N o n P a r e n t ( 6 8 % ) Pa r e n t a l S t a t u s Re f u s e d t o r e p o r t = 4 % Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e fo r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e s u b g r o u p . Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 11 Mo d e S h a r e b y W o r k S t a r t T i m e Co m m u t e r s w i t h f l e x i b l e s c h e d u l e s a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o d r i v e . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 64 % 63 % 49 % 20 % 19 % 15 % 14 % 11 % 8% 9% 8% 7% 5% 5% 2% St a r t a t a s p e c i f i c t i m e ( 3 3 % ) S c h e d u l e is f l e x i b l e ( 5 5 % ) S c h e d u l e v a r i e s ( 1 1 % ) Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c en t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e f o r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e su b g r o u p . Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 12 Mo d e S h a r e b y J o b S t a t u s Pa r t - t i m e e m p l o y e e s a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o d r i v e . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 75 % 66 % 53 % 19 % 16 % 14 % 11 % 8% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% On e f u l l - t i m e j o b ( 8 4 % ) O n e p a r t - t i m e j o b ( 8 % ) M o r e t h a n o n e j o b ( 6 % ) Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c en t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e f o r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e su b g r o u p . Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 13 Mo d e S h a r e b y B u s i n e s s T y p e Em p l o y e e s i n R e t a i l , R e s t a u r a n t , a n d H o s p i t a li t y c o m p a n i e s a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o d r i v e . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 78 % 72 % 73 % 67 % 59 % 33 % 31 % 26 % 20 % 14 % 13 % 10 % 9% 10 % 10 % 10 % 7% 7% 7% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% Re t a i l ( 7 % ) G o v e r n m e n t ( 9 % ) T e c h n o l o g y ( 3 9 % ) R e s t a u ra n t ( 1 2 % ) H o s p i t a l i t y ( 1 6% ) L i g h t O f f i c e ( 1 1 % ) Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c en t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e f o r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e su b g r o u p . Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 14 Dr i v e A l o n e M o d e R a n k e d Re s p o n d e n t s w h o l i v e i n t h e E a s t B a y , a r e e m p l o y e d p a r t t i m e , a n d w o r k a t a s m a l l co m p a n y a n d r e t a i l c o m p a n y a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o d r i v e a l o n e . 73 % 72 % 70 % 67 % 66 % 66 % 65 % 64 % 63 % 63 % 61 % 59 % 55 % 53 % 51 % 50 % 49 % 41 % 41 % 33 % 18 % Re t a i l Ea s t B a y On e p a r t - t i m e j o b 1- 2 5 e m p . Ho s p i t a l i t y Re s t a u r a n t Ag e 5 0 + Li g h t o f f i c e Pa r e n t Mo r e t h a n o n e j o b So u t h B a y St a r t a t s p e c i f i c t i m e Sc h e d u l e v a r i e s Pe n i n s u l a 26 - 1 0 0 e m p . Go v e r n m e n t Ov e r a l l On e f u l l - t i m e j o b A g e 1 8 - 4 9 No n P a r e n t Sc h e d u l e i s f l e x i b l e 10 1 + e m p . Pa l o A l t o Te c h n o l o g y Sa n F r a n c i s c o 78 % 76 % 75 % 74 % Pe r c e n t a g e o f S O V tr i p s b y e m p l o y e e de m o g r a p h i c s 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 15 Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n At t i t u d e s Dr i v i n g A t t i t u d e s Tw o - t h i r d s ( 6 7 % ) o f d r i v e r s s a y t h e y p r e f e r t o d r i v e a n d p l a n o n co n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . Am o n g S O V D r i v e r s , 7 7 2 n St r o n g l y So m e w h a t To t a l ag r e e a g r e e Ag r e e I p r e f e r t o d r i v e t o w o r k a n d p l a n o n co n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . I n e e d t o d r i v e t o w o r k b e c a u s e I m a k e o t h e r st o p s , s u c h a s f o r s c h o o l , k i d s , o r o t h e r er r a n d s , b e f o r e o r a f t e r w o r k . I w o u l d r a t h e r n o t d r i v e t o w o r k , b u t I h a v e n o ot h e r g o o d o p t i o n s . I n e e d t o d r i v e t o w o r k b e c a u s e I u s e m y c a r fo r m e e t i n g s , d e l i v e r i e s , o r o t h e r w o r k - r e l a t e d ta s k s . I w o u l d t a k e a c a r p o o l o r v a n p o o l t o w o r k i f i t wa s c o n v e n i e n t , s a f e , a n d e a s y t o f i n d . 42 % 35 % 27 % 23 % 13 % 24 % 25 % 23 % 20 % 22 % 67 % 60 % 50 % 44 % 35 % Q1 0 - Q 2 0 . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y a g r e e , s o m e w h a t a g r e e , s o m e w h a t di s a g r e e , o r s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e w i t h e a ch o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 17 Tr a n s i t A t t i t u d e s Sc h e d u l e , f r e q u e n c y , a n d c o n v e n i e n c e a p p e a r t o be s l i g h t l y l a r g e r o b s t a c l e s t o i n c r e a s i n g tr a n s i t r i d e r s h i p t h a n c o s t . Am o n g S O V D r i v e r s , 7 7 2 n St r o n g l y So m e w h a t To t a l ag r e e a g r e e Ag r e e I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t t o w o r k i f t h e s e r v i c e wa s f a s t e r o r m o r e f r e q u e n t . I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t t o w o r k i f t h e s c h e d u l e wa s b e t t e r a n d i t r a n w h e n I n e e d e d i t . I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t t o w o r k i f i t w a s e a s i e r to g e t t o a t r a n s i t s t o p . I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t t o w o r k i f i t w a s l e s s ex p e n s i v e o r I w a s g i v e n a d i s c o u n t e d tr a n s i t p a s s . 47 % 46 % 26 % 25 % 24 % 22 % 21 % 20 % 19 % 16 % 43 % 38 % Q1 0 - Q 2 0 . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y a g r e e , s o m e w h a t a g r e e , s o m e w h a t di s a g r e e , o r s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e w i t h e a ch o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 18 Ag r e e : W o u l d R a t h e r N o t D r i v e Dr i v e r s w h o f e e l t h e y h a v e n o o t h e r g o o d o p t i on s b e l i e v e t r a n s i t w i l l n o t f i t t h e i r s c h e d u l e or i s n o t c o n v e n i e n t f o r t h e m . Am o n g t h e 5 0 % o f S O V D r i v e r s w h o w o u l d p r e f e r n o t t o dr i v e b u t f e e l t h e y h a v e n o o t h e r g o o d o p t i o n s . Ag r e e I wo u l d t a k e t r a n s i t i f s e r v i c e w a s f a s t e r / m o r e f r e q u e n t 63 % I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t if t h e s c h e d u l e w a s b e t t e r / i t r a n w h e n I n e e d i t 61 % I wo u l d t a k e t r a n s i t i f i t w a s e a s i e r t o g e t t o a s t o p 59 % I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t i f i t w a s l e s s ex p e n s i v e o r I r e c e i v e d a d i s c o u n t e d p a s s 47 % Q1 0 - Q 2 0 . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y a g r e e , s o m e w h a t a g r e e , s o m e w h a t di s a g r e e , o r s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e w i t h e a ch o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 19 Re a s o n s f o r N O T T a k i n g T r a n s i t Ne e d o f a c a r , p e r s o n a l p r e f e r e n c e , a n d l a ck o f c o n v e n i e n c e a r e t h e p r i m a r y r e a s o n s dr i v e r s d o n o t t a k e t r a n s i t m o r e o f t e n . Am o n g S O V D r i v e r s , 7 7 2 n Ne e d c a r f o r e r r a n d s / m e e t i n g s I p r e f e r t o d r i v e Sc h e d u l e i s n o t c o n v e n i e n t Ro u t e s n o t w h e r e n e e d e d St o p s n o t c o n v e n i e n t Ta k e t r a n s i t a s n e e d e d To o e x p e n s i v e Un r e l i a b l e It w o u l d t a k e l o n g e r Ot h e r / D o n ' t k n o w 21 % 17 % 16 % 12 % 12 % 5% 5% 4% 2% 6% 21 . W h a t i s t h e m a i n r e a s o n y o u do n o t t a k e t r a n s i t m o r e o f t e n ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 20 Bi k i n g a n d W a l k i n g A t t i t u d e s Be t t e r r o u t e s a n d b e t t e r p a r k i n g / s t o r a g e op t i o n s a p p e a r t o b e a f a c t o r f o r s o m e co m m u t e r s w h o p o t e n t i a l l y l i v e c l o s e en o u g h t o w a l k o r b i k e t o w o r k . %’ s r e f l e c t t h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f t r i p s t a k e n du r i n g t h e we e k a m o n g t h o s e w h o l i v e w i t h i n a 3 m i l e r a d i u s Dr o v e a l o n e 43 % Wa l k e d 26 % Ro d e a b i c y c l e 19 % Ca r p o o l e d 5% Wo r k e d r e m o t e l y 3% Ot h e r 3% Ca l t r a i n 1% Am o n g r e s p o n d e n t s w h o l i v e w i t h i n a 3 mi l e r a d i u s o f D o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o , 3 2 6 n St r o n g l y So m e w h a t To t a l ag r e e a g r e e Ag r e e I w o u l d w a l k o r b i k e t o wo r k i f t h e r e w e r e b e t t e r 23 % 17 % 40 % pa t h s , t r a i l s , a n d si d e w a l k s . I w o u l d b i k e t o w o r k i f th e r e w a s b e t t e r p a r k i n g 16 % 16 % 32 % or s t o r a g e o p t i o n s f o r m y bi k e a t m y w o r k l o c a t i o n . Q1 0 - Q 2 0 . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y a g r e e , s o m e w h a t a g r e e , s o m e w h a t di s a g r e e , o r s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e w i t h e a ch o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 21 Pa r k i n g Pa r k i n g Mo r e t h a n h a l f o f c o m m u t e r s p a r k i n pu b l i c o r p r i v a t e g a r a g e s o r l o t s ; fi f t e e n p e r c e n t p a r k on n e i g h b o r h o o d s t r e e t s . 30 % 21 % 15 % 4% 3% 2% 24 % Pu b l i c g a r a g e Pr i v a t e / e m p l o y e r Ne i g h b o r h o o d It v a r i e s I n a 2 - o r 3 - h o u r Ca l t r a i n p a r k i n g l o t O t h e r / D K / or p a r k i n g l o t ga r a g e o r p a r k i n g st r e e t s on - s t r e e t p a r k i n g Do n ’ t d r i v e lo t zo n e Wh e r e d o y o u t y p i c a l l y p a r k w h e n y o u d r i v e t o w o r k ? 4. 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 23 Pa r k i n g b y W o r k s i t e S i z e Co m m u t e r s w h o p a r k o n n e i g h b o r h o o d s t r ee t s a r e m o s t l i k e l y t o w o r k f o r a me d i u m - s i z e d b u s i n e s s . Bu s i n e s s S i z e b y N u mb e r o f E m p l o y e e s 1- 2 5 26 - 1 0 0 10 1 + 63 % 26 % 46 % 12 % 34 % 7% 41 % 47 % 25 % Pu b l i c g a r a g e o r Pr i v a t e / e m p l o y e r Ne i g h b o r h o o d pa r k i n g l o t ga r a g e o r p a r k i n g l o t st r e e t s (3 0 % ) (2 1 % ) (1 5 % ) Wh e r e d o y o u t y p i c a l l y p a r k w h e n y o u d r i v e t o w o r k ? 4. 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 24 Pa r k i n g b y B u s i n e s s T y p e Co m m u t e r s w h o u s e p u b l i c g a r a g e s a n d l o t s a r e mo r e l i k e l y t o b e G o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s . Re t a i l Go v ' t Te c h Re s t a u r a n t Ho s p i t a l i t y Li g h t O f f i c e 55 % 28 % 10 % 31 % 29 % 2% 22 % 19 % 12 % 17 % 33 % 18 % 36 % 5% 28 % 35 % 37 % 8% Pu b l i c g a r a g e o r Pr i v a t e / e m p l o y e r Ne i g h b o r h o o d pa r k i n g l o t ga r a g e o r p a r k i n g l o t st r e e t s (3 0 % ) (2 1 % ) (1 5 % ) Wh e r e d o y o u t y p i c a l l y p a r k w h e n y o u d r i v e t o w o r k ? 4. 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 25 Co m m u t e r Se g m e n t a t i o n s Dr i v e r S e g m e n t a t i o n Ab o u t h a l f ( 4 9 % ) o f d r i v e r s a r e o p e n t o a l t e r n a t i v e s t o d r i v i n g . Am o n g S O V D r i v e r s , 7 7 2 n Dr i v e a l o n e a n d Dr i v e a l o n e a n d a r e Dr i v e a l o n e b u t El s e al w a y s w i l l op e n t o o t h e r o p t i o n s w o u l d p r e f e r n o t t o 49 % 42 % 24 % 25 % 9% Dr i v e a l o n e a n d a l w a y s w i l l : Dr i v e a l o n e a t l e a s t o n c e a w e e k a n d s t r o n g l y a g r e e t h a t t h e y pr e f e r t o d r i v e a n d p l a n o n c o n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . Dr i v e a l o n e a n d a r e o p e n t o o t h e r o p t i o n s : Dr i v e a l o n e a t l e a s t o n c e a w e e k a n d s o m e w h a t ag r e e t h a t t h e y p r e f e r t o d r i v e a n d p l a n o n c o n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . Dr i v e a l o n e b u t w o u l d p r e f e r n o t t o : Dr i v e a l o n e a t l e a s t o n c e a w e e k a n d d i s a g r e e t h a t t h e y pr e f e r t o d r i v e a n d p l a n o n c o n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . El s e : Dr i v e a l o n e a t l e a s t o n c e a w e e k a n d d i d n o t a n s w e r t h a t t h e y pr e f e r t o d r i v e a n d p l a n o n co n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 27 De m o g r a p h i c s T h a t A r e M o s t L i k e l y t o C h a n g e H a b i t s Dr i v e r s i n S a n F r a n c i s c o , w h o w o r k f o r a l a rg e o r T e c h c o m p a n y , h a v e f l e x i b l e w o r k sc h e d u l e s a n d a r e y o u n g e r a r e m o r e l i k e l y to c o n s i d e r o t h e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o p t i o n s . 72 % 66 % 62 % 60 % 57 % 53 % 53 % 52 % 52 % 51 % 51 % 51 % 50 % 49 % 49 % 48 % 48 % 47 % 44 % 44 % 43 % 43 % 41 % 41 % 41 % 35 % 32 % 31 % Te c h n o l o g y Sa n F r a n c i s c o 10 1 + e m p . Go v e r n m e n t Wo r k s c h e d u l e i s f l e x i b l e Li g h t o f f i c e Ag e 1 8 - 4 9 Pe a k h o u r c o m m u t e r So u t h B a y Fu l l t i m e w o r k e r Co m m u t e 1 0 t o 5 0 m i l e s No n - P a r e n t Pa l o A l t o Co m m u t e 5 0 + m i l e s Ov e r a l l Ea s t B a y Co m m u t e 1 - 1 0 m i l e s Pa r e n t Re t a i l 26 - 1 0 0 e m p . No n p e a k h o u r c o m m u t e r Pa r t t i m e w o r k e r Pe n i n s u l a St a r t w o r k a t a s p e c i f i c t i m e 1- 2 5 e m p . Ho s p i t a l i t y Ag e 5 0 + Re s t a u r a n t % o f S O V d r i v e r s w h o wo u l d p r e f e r n o t t o dr i v e , b y d e m o s 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 28 Ov e r a l l E m p l o y e e L o c a t i o n Th e m a p r e p r e s e n t s t h e pe r c e n t a g e o f d o w n t o w n em p l o y e e s b y h o m e z i p c o d e . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 29 Te c h n o l o g y W o r k e r C o m m u t e r L o c a t i o n Th e m a p r e p r e s e n t s t h e pe r c e n t a g e o f T a r g e t D r i v e r s wh o w o r k f o r t e c h c o m p a n i e s , by h o m e z i p c o d e . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 36 Go v e r n m e n t W o r k e r s C o m m u t e r L o c a t i o n Th e m a p r e p r e s e n t s t h e pe r c e n t a g e o f T a r g e t D r i v e r s wh o w o r k f o r t h e G o v e r n m e n t , by h o m e z i p c o d e . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 37 Co n c l u s i o n s Co n c l u s i o n s ` Cu r r e n t l y j u s t m o r e t h a n h a l f ( 5 5 % ) o f e m p l o y e e t r i p s in t o D o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o a r e S O V t r i p s . – Ne a r l y h a l f ( 4 9 % ) o f t h e s e S O V d r i v e r s e x p r e s s e d a n in t e r e s t i n s e e k i n g a l t e r n a t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o p t i o n s . – Th o s e m o s t l i k e l y t o s e e k a l t e r n a t i v e o p t i o n s a r e m o r e li k e l y t o w o r k f o r t e c h c o m p a n i e s a n d / o r l a r g e e m p l o y e r s , be y o u n g e r , l i v e m o r e t h a n 1 0 m i l e s f r o m P a l o A l t o , a n d ha v e a f l e x i b l e w o r k s c h e d u l e . – Th e y h a v e c o n c e r n s a b o u t t r a n s i t a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e , w i t h pr i m a r y c o n c e r n s b e i n g a r e a l o r p e r c e i v e d l a c k o f co n v e n i e n c e f o r r o u t e s , s c h e d u l e s , a n d l o c a t i o n s o f s t o p s . Co s t i s a l s o a c o n c e r n f o r s o m e . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 39 Co n t a c t I n f o r m a t i o n To m P a t r a s to m @ e m c r e s e a r c h . c o m 61 4 . 8 2 7 . 9 6 7 7 Sa r a L a B a t t sa r a @ e m c r e s e a r c h . c o m 51 0 . 5 5 0 . 8 9 2 4 Do u g M a c D o w e l l do u g @ e m c r e s e a r c h . c o m 61 4 . 8 2 7 . 9 6 7 3 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 40 Attachment B - City of Palo Alto (ID # 6823) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/13/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: TMA Funding Agreement Title: Approval of Funding Agreement with the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA) and Silicon Valley Community Foundation in the Amount of $100,000 for Fiscal Year 2017 for Pilot Programs and Discussion of the PATMA Draft Strategic Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the funding agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (Attachment A). Executive Summary With initial direction from City Council in 2013, staff has been actively working on developing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to encourage alternatives to solo driving as part of a multi-faceted effort to address traffic and parking concerns. The development of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) for Palo Alto was seen as a key component of this approach, and staff began work with a consultant team on the development of the organization in 2014. The City of Palo Alto also programmed $100,000 in pilot funding for TMA programs in Fiscal Year 2016. The Palo Alto TMA incorporated as a non- profit in January 2016, and is seeking 501 (c)(3) status. To address concerns expressed by the City Council regarding the TMA’s structure and transparency, and to define an oversight role for the City, a funding agreement has been created to formalize the provision of the City funding for TMA programs. This report summarizes the attached funding agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA), including the use and restrictions of City funds, and provides an overview of the TMA’s draft City of Palo Alto Page 2 business plan, which is being created to govern the activities of the TMA in the first two years of its operation. Background & Discussion City Council heard an update on the formation of the TMA at the March 14, 2016 meeting (Attachment B). The staff report for that update contains detailed information on the background and formation of the TMA to date. As a non-profit, the TMA has entered into a Customized Philanthropy Services Agreement with the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF). This agreement stipulates that the SVCF holds an account for the TMA that serves to accept donations that are solely for the use of TMA activities. As the holder of the account, the SVCF has legal discretion and control over the account. Donations to SVCF are tax deductible. The City of Palo Alto has programmed $100,000 in FY2016 funding for the TMA to fund initial pilot programs and to supplement start-up costs for the organization provided through the City’s contract with its consultants. Given the nature of the agreement with the SVCF, these funds will be deposited into the account held by the SVCF for the TMA. The SVCF will grant these funds to the TMA. At the March 14 City Council study session, several Councilmembers expressed concern regarding the use of the funding and transparency from the TMA, and expressed a desire for the City to maintain an oversight role in the use of the funding. To address these concerns, a funding agreement was created between the City, the TMA, and the SVCF. That funding agreement is presented for approval tonight (Attachment A). Once in place, the agreement would be valid through July 1, 2017, and would govern the $100,000 identified by the City of Palo Alto for use by the TMA and included in the Fiscal Year 2016 Adopted Operating Budget. The agreement limits the use of the City-provided funds to “pilot projects” conducted by the TMA with the intent to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips by downtown commuters. To address Council concerns, the agreement makes funding for pilot programs contingent on the TMA providing reports twice annually to the City Council with updates on the implementation and effectiveness of the pilot programs, conducting open meetings, and providing documents created by the TMA to the public. At this time, the TMA Board of Directors has, at City Council request, developed a draft two- year business plan that identifies the resources required to fund activities (Attachment C). The draft business plan outlines the key objectives identified by the TMA to guide the organization in meeting the City’s goal of reducing single occupant vehicle (SOV) commutes to downtown by City of Palo Alto Page 3 30%. The objectives address topics including program development, partnership, advocacy, information and outreach, and achieving a sustainable budget. Notably, the business plan identifies the top priorities for TMA pilot programs for the first several years of operation:  Transit subsidies: With a goal of reaching 1,000 employees, this program would provide employees with a full transit subsidy for an introductory period and reduce to a lesser subsidy on an on-going basis.  Carpool subsidies: Targeting a goal of 300 employees, the carpool program would subsidize carpools to and from Downtown Palo Alto.  Low-Income programs: The goal of these programs is to make sustainable transportation options more affordable and available for low-wage workers in Downtown Palo Alto. As part of the draft business plan, and in response to City Council input at the March 14 study session, the Board has identified several budget scenarios that would achieve trip reduction in Downtown Palo Alto through various levels of funding. The draft budget proposals and draft operating budget for the TMA, contained in Attachments D and E, detail estimated program costs to achieve the 30% reduction in trips in 3 years through an aggressive budget and timeline, and over 5 years in a more conservative budget and timeline. The budget also includes a baseline scenario denoting potential achievements with a minimum of continued funding of $100,000 annually. Policy Implication The support of the Palo Alto TMA is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Policies:  Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles  Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Resource Impact The Fiscal Year 2016 Operating Budget contains $100,000 for TMA pilot programs. No additional funding resources are required at this time. Since the end of the fiscal year is quickly approaching, staff will request reappropriation of this funding, making it available once the agreement is in place. Any additional funds made available in the FY17 budget would require an amendment to the agreement or a separate agreement. Timeline City of Palo Alto Page 4 The TMA Board of Directors expects to roll-out the first pilot programs in the summer of 2016. Other programs will be contingent on funding and the direction of the TMA Board. Pursuant to the terms of the funding agreement, the Board will provide a written update to the City Council six months after the agreement is signed. Attachments:  Attachment A: TMA Funding Agreement (PDF)  Attachment B: March 14, 2016 TMA Update to Council (PDF)  Attachment C: Draft TMA Business Plan (PDF)  Attachment D: Draft TMA Budget Scenarios (PDF)  Attachment E: Draft TMA Operating Budget (PDF) AGREEMENT AMONG CITY OF PALO ALTO,SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION AND THE PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION This Agreement to provide funding for transportation demand management services (this " Agreement")is made effective as ofJune ,2016 ("Effective Date"),by and between theCity of Palo Alto,a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"),the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association,a California nonprofit public benefitcorporation ("PATMA"),and Silicon Valley Community Foundation,a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("SVCF"),on the following terms and conditions. RECITALS 1.Since 2013, the City hasbeen actively engaged in developing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategiesto encouragealternativesto solo driving to address Palo Alto's growing traffic and parkingconcerns. 2. The City engaged Moore Iacofano Goltsman,Incorporated ("MIG"),a consultant groupwith significantexperiencedesigning Bay Area Transportation Management Associations (TMA's),to assistin forminga TMA.The Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA)was incorporated on January 1,2016. 3.The Cityhasan interest inthe success ofthePATMA,and hasmade funding available for technical support during the start-up phase ofthe organization usingthe funds set aside for the MIG contract.The City hasalso provided funding for asurvey of Downtownemployee commute patterns,and seeks to support pilot programs ofthePATMA through thisagreement. 4. SVCF hasenteredintothat certain Customized Philanthropy ServicesAgreement with PATMA (the "CPS Agreement"),pursuant to which SVCF holds and administers a fund restricted to specific charitable purposes set forth in such agreement ("Restricted Account"). SVCFhas legal discretion and control overthe Restricted Account. 5.The PATMA intends to seek funding from publicandprivate foundations,private businesses,public agencies andother financial supporters. 6. The mission statementofthe PATMA isto reduceSingle OccupancyVehicle (SOV) trips,traffic congestion and demand for parking bydelivering targeted transportation solutions to the Downtown area's diverse range ofemployers,employees,visitors and residents.It also serves as a one-stop transportation information resource for the broader community,provides a forum for community dialogue,and isan active voicein local and regional transportation issues. While the primary focus of the PATMA isthe Downtown population whose travel choices have the highest impacts,its programs and services mayextend beyond these constituents. 160517jb 0131512 Attachment A 7.The Parties agree to enter into this Funding Agreement to facilitate the immediate implementation of pilot programs to reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV)trips by downtown workers in Palo Alto. AGREEMENT NOW,THEREFORE,forgood and valuable consideration,thereceipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged,the Parties hereby agreeas follows: 1.Recitals.The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Agreementintheir entirety. 2.Term.Thetermofthis Agreement shallbefromthe Effective Date through July 1,2017. 3.City Deposit.TheCityshalltransferthesumof$100,000 ("CityFunds")to SVCF,to be depositedintothe Restricted Accountfor useforthe purposesdescribed inthis Agreement. 4. Use ofCity Funds.SVCFshall holdand administerthe City Fundspursuantto the terms of the Restricted Account. SVCF and PATMA shall use the City Funds for the general purposes of the Restricted Account, as defined in the CPS Agreement, as further restricted for "pilot projects" intended to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips by downtown workers, as mutually agreed upon by the City Manager and PATMA. SVCF shall track the City Funds separately from other amounts held in the Restricted Account. 5.Strategic Planand Budget.Within 90 days ofthe EffectiveDate,PATMA shallprovidea detailedstrategic planand budgettothe City.Thestrategicplanmayutilizescenariosto illustratethe returnon investmentassociatedwithdifferent funding levels. 6.Reporting Requirement.PATMAshall providethe CityCouncilwith bi-annualwritten reports ontheimplementation and effectiveness ofpilot programs funded bythe City,including quantitative measures and cost per employee mode shift. 7.Public Meeting Requirement.The funding isexpressly contingent on PATMA's agreement toprovide 72 hours written advance notice tothe public ofallBoard of Director meetings and to allow members ofthe public to attend all such Board of Director meetings. 8.Work Product.PATMA,shall ensure any written document orother work product developed with funds received through this Agreement ismade available tothe public to the extent not otherwise prohibited by law. 9.Audits.PATMA and SVCF will make available all financial records related to the funds and the use of the funds during the term ofthis Agreement and for three (3)years thereafter.PATMA and SVCF further agreeto maintain and retain such records forat leastthree (3)years aftertheexpiration or earlier termination ofthis Agreement. 160517jb0l3I512 10.Indemnity.To the fullest extent permitted by law,PATMA shall protect,indemnify,defend and hold harmless CITY and itsCouncil members,SVCF,and each of the City'sand SVCF's officers,employees and agents (each an"Indemnified Party")from and against any and all demands,claims,or liability ofany nature,including death orinjury to any person,property damage oranyother loss,including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorney's fees,experts fees,court costs and disbursements ("Claims")resulting from,arising out ofor inany mannerrelated to performance or nonperformance by PATMA,itsofficers, employees,agentsor contractorsunderthis Agreement,regardless ofwhetheror not it iscaused in part by an Indemnified Party. Notwithstandingthe above,nothing inthis section shall beconstruedto require PATMAto indemnifyan Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct ofan Indemnified Party. The provisions ofthis section shall survive the expiration or early termination ofthis Agreement. 11.Insurance.PATMA, at itssole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effectduringtheterm ofthis Agreement,the insurance coveragedescribed inExhibit "A". PATMA and its contractors,ifany, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additionalinsuredunderanygeneral liabilityor automobilepolicyor policies. All insurance coverage required hereunder shallbe provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance businessinthe State ofCalifornia.Anyandall contractors ofPATMA retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain,in full force and effect during the term ofthis Agreement,identical insurance coverage,naming CITY asanadditional insured under such policiesas requiredabove. 12.Other Requirements: (a)Strategic Planning Session.PATMA shall conduct astrategic planning session within 90 days ofthe date ofthis Agreement,producing 3-year goals and objectives and funding requirements, and a budget with projected metrics (cost per mode shift,ROI,etc.). (b)Business Registry Data.The City may elect to share certain data from its Business Registry with PATMA for PATMA's exclusive use inprogram development and marketing.PATMA agrees not to share any non-public data with others and will take steps to ensure the continued confidentiality ofanysuch non-public data. (c)Performance Monitoring.The City may implement its own performance monitoring ofCity funded programs to determine effectiveness of provided funds. (d)Additional Use Restrictions.The City Funds will not be used for anything other than project management and program costs ofthe agreed to projects until the funds are expired. 160517jb 0131512 (e)Board Members.The City may request that the PATMA Board be expanded to include additional members,possibly including residents and additional City representation. 13.Notices. All notices hereunder willbegivenin writing and mailed,postage prepaid,by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office ofthe City Clerk City ofPalo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto,CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To PATMA: Palo Alto Transportation Management Association c/o Wendy Silvani 791 MandanaBlvd. Oakland,CA 94610 To SVCF: Silicon ValleyCommunityFoundation Attn:Michelle Fries on behalfofPATMA,Fund #5495 2440 West El Camino Real,Suite 300 Mountain View,CA 94040 14.AuthoritytoBind.The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf oftheir respective legal entities. 15.Counterpart Signatures.This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts,which shall,when executed by all the parties,constitute asingle binding agreement. 16.Applicable Law.This Agreement will begoverned by the laws ofthe State of California. 17.Venue.In the event that an action isbrought,the parties agree that trial ofsuch action will be vested exclusively in the state courts ofCalifornia in the County ofSanta Clara,State of California. 18.Amendments.This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations,representations,and contracts,either written ororal. This document may be amended only by awritten instrument,which is signed by the parties. 160517jb0131512 19.Severability.Ifacourt ofcompetent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision ofthis Agreement or any amendment thereto isvoid or unenforceable,the unaffected provisions ofthis Agreement and anyamendments thereto will remain in full force andeffect IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed tins Agreement as ofthe Effective Date. PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION: Jjtks^r Title:gJlACr fcJc*\b TftAr 'T SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: Name:Mari HIen L^008 r^(^Bustno^r^eiopmentandBn^O^ CITY OF PALO ALTO: James Keene APPROVED ASTO FORM: CoraSilver Senior Asst City Attorney 19.Severability.Ifa court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement oranyamendment thereto is void or unenforceable,the unaffected provisions ofthis Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESSWHEREOF,the Partieshaveexecutedthis Agreementas ofthe EffectiveDate. PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION: Name: Title: SILICON VALLEY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: fj Xl Mari Ellen LoijensName:J „., Chief Business,Development and Brand OfficerTitle: CITY OF PALO ALTO: James Keene City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cara Silver Senior Asst. City Attorney 160517jb 0131512 EXHIBIT "A" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORSTO THE CITY OFPALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIRSOLE EXPENSE,SHALL FORTHETERM OFTHE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII,OR HIGHER,LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THESTATE OFCALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENTON COMPLIANCEWITH CITY'S INSURANCEREQUIREMENTS.AS SPECIFIED,BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER'SCOMPENSATION EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY.INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY,BROADFORM PROPERTY DAMAGEBLANKET CONTRACTUAL,AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY &PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY,INCLUDING ALLOWNED,HIRED,NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY EACH PERSON EACHOCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILYINJURYANDPROPERTY DAMAGE,COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Sl.000.000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY,INCLUDING, ERRORS ANDOMISSIONS. MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), ANDNEGLIGENTPERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED:CONTRACTOR.AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE.SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN,IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT,THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED,INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS,IFANY,BUT ALSO.WITH THE EXCEPTION OFWORKERS'COMPENSATION,EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE,NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY,ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS,OFFICERS,AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. II. III. INSURANCECOVERAGE MUST INCLUDE; A. B. A PROVISIONFOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICETO CITY OFCHANGE IN COVERAGEOR OFCOVERAGECANCELLATION;AND A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENTTO INDEMNIFY CITY. C.DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'SPRIOR APPROVAL. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S)OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS,WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A.PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED,INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO ORCONTRIBUTING WITH ANYOTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY ORFOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS 160517jb 0131512 B.CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALLNOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE.EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER. BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDERTHIS POLICY. C.NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM,THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATEOF CANCELLATION. 2.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON PAYMENT OF PREMIUM,THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10)DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING ANDCONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALOALTO P.O.BOX 10250 PALO ALTO,CA 94303 160517jb0131512 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6427) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 3/14/2016 Summary Title: Downtown Transportation Management Association Study Session Title: Update on the Formation of the Downtown TMA (Transportation Management Association) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council receive and review the report on the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association. This is a study session, and no action is requested. Executive Summary Since 2013, the City has been actively engaged in developing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to encourage alternatives to solo driving to address Palo !lto’s growing traffic and parking concerns. A City Council colleagues memo dated October 3, 2013 resulted in Council direction to convene a study session and develop an initial recommendation related to goals of reducing traffic and parking demand. On December 9, 2013 Council held a study session with representatives of Google, Contra Costa Centre and Stanford University, all considered Bay Area leaders in applying TDM strategies, to better understand their respective programs and their potential application to Palo !lto’s challenges. The ity ouncil subsequently requested a staff analysis and recommendation regarding establishment of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) for Palo Alto, and on February 24, 2014, directed staff to move forward with the steps necessary to form the organization. The Transportation Management Association (TMA) Steering Committee, a consortium of local employers (including the City of Palo Alto) with resident representatives, worked through 2015 to develop the vision, mission and goals intended for a new TMA. Led by a consultant team with significant experience in developing TMAs in the bay area, the team conducted the first comprehensive commute survey for Downtown, discussed potential funding sources for City of Palo Alto Page 1 Attachment B ongoing programs, the need to provide services for lower wage workers in the Downtown, a variety of rideshare pilot programs and the preferred structure for TMA formation. The group voted in November to incorporate as a 501(c)3 non-profit and will have a fiscal sponsor who will collect monies on behalf of the organization, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF). The TMA had its first official Board meeting on January 28th, and this report summarizes some of the key activities of the TM! Steering ommittee and the oard’s plan for action in 2016. As a major employer Downtown, the City is a key member of the TMA Board of Directors, and its input and participation will be critical to the TM!’s operations and success. Background & Discussion What is a TMA? A TMA is a business-member funded organization that develops, markets, manages and advocates for effective transportation programs. TMAs are formed in a variety of ways, but they generally share the common goals of reducing single-occupant vehicle trips, reducing congestion and demand for parking, and improving quality of life by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some other benefits of TMAs include: - TM!’s can provide a comprehensive approach to managing transportation needs in a particular area, and a framework for multiple constituents to work collaboratively on these solutions. -TM!’s can fund and offer branded services to both residents and commercial businesses cost-effectively and efficiently through a network of alliances and partnerships. Providing a one-stop resource with consistent messaging and promotion is a hugely important ‘customer service’ factor that affects awareness and utilization of TDM programs and services. In the larger context, having a TMA positions Palo Alto to work cooperatively with neighboring cities and other agencies in providing a flexible array of programs and services. While the Palo Alto TMA will initially be focused on the Downtown area, transportation programs are by nature connective and provide benefit to areas outside their targeted region. Because travel routes used by residents, employees and visitors typically cross neighborhood and city boundaries, having a TMA that recognizes key linkages is critical to developing quality programs and services. For example, Palo !lto’s TM! was developed with the idea of initially developing programs to support Downtown employee commutes, but this focus will also provide reciprocal benefit to Palo Alto Downtown residents who may be travelling the opposite way to work; e.g. to worksites in neighboring cities. City of Palo Alto Page 2 An effective TMA can have significant measurable benefits such as:  Reducing the number of single-occupancy-vehicle (SOV) trips made within and through Palo Alto, which reduces traffic congestion and the demand for parking;  Reducing the need to build new parking facilities;  Reducing total vehicle miles traveled (VMT);  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated both locally and at the regional level, which contributes to Palo !lto’s sustainability goals. A TMA also provides a forum for public and private entities and businesses of all sizes to work together on transportation programs. Generally, larger companies fund the majority of the cost of programs for the benefit of smaller companies. Because larger companies have more employees and hence contribute more to traffic congestion, they have more of a vested interest to work towards reducing single occupant vehicle trips. TM!’s are structured in a variety of ways. Some operate with a membership- for- services model, where a company pays membership dues based on its size and business category. Some TM!’s sell access to a collection of programs available at different levels of financial support (bus services, rideshare discounts, carshare programs, or discounted transit passes, as examples). Others receive funding from their cities, counties, and other sources and provide information and some services to all companies within the TM!’s service area. Still others are hybrids, receiving some public and some private funding- providing some ‘free’ services to everyone and charging for other programs. Some TM!’s (as well as Transportation programs such as Stanford’s) receive funding from parking fees for their TDM programs and services. Formation of the Palo Alto TMA The ity engaged a consultant group with significant experience designing ay !rea TM!’s- MIG with TMA expert Wendy Silvani. This team recommended that Palo Alto follow a standard approach of engaging a Steering Committee which would develop a work plan, mission statement for the TMA, evaluate pilots for start-up programs, and propose a structure for the TM!’s ultimate oard of Directors. !t the request of the ity, this Steering Committee, a consortium of 12+ local employers, community and residential representatives, and the City of Palo Alto, worked through 2015 to develop the vision, mission and goals for the new TMA. Last May, this team partnered with EMC research to conduct the first comprehensive commute survey for Downtown which provided the basis for the TM!’s initial priorities. The group also discussed potential funding sources for ongoing programs, the need to provide services for lower wage workers in the Downtown, and learned about a variety of rideshare pilot programs. City of Palo Alto Page 3 It determined the preferred structure for TMA formation and voted in November to incorporate as a 501(c)3 non-profit and has a fiscal sponsor who will collect monies on behalf of the organization, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF). This structure will enable the TMA to seek funding from many public and private foundations and other financial supporters; it also gives the new TMA and its supporters the assurance of professional accounting, reporting and other administrative management. The TMA officially incorporated at the start of January and had its first official Board meeting on January 28th, 2016. Structure of the Palo Alto TMA Board Based on Business Registry data, employers with 100+ employees account for over 70% of all employees who work in Downtown Palo Alto. These companies have the greatest potential to fund and adopt TDM programs that will make a difference in reducing SOV commutes and parking demand. These companies are of sufficient size to be able to take advantage of bulk transit pass programs, and have budgets to fund TDM programs for their employees. The 2015 commute survey results also indicated that employees who work for larger companies are among the ‘most likely’ to change behavior – they live in places where transit and other non- SOV commuting is an option and they work schedules conducive to using alternatives, etc. The initial structure of the Palo Alto TMA Board has 3 large companies (300+ employees based in Palo Alto) - the City, Google, and Palantir; two medium sized companies (the Garden Court hotel and IDEO), and one small company (Philz Coffee). This ratio reflects the Business Registry data; it is flexible and designed to be inclusive, but also to ensure Board members support the TMA at a level that will provide a basis for the TMA to be successful through their financial commitments. Although Google does not have employees in Downtown currently, they are an active regional partner (they have offices in Palo Alto in the Research Park) and have significant experience in developing transportation programs which achieve sizeable SOV reduction. In addition, while the focus of the TMA is initially in the Downtown areas, the Steering Committee acknowledged that regional commute factors influence the Downtown and ultimately the focus of the TMA may expand beyond these boundaries. There are also Google employees who are residents of Downtown that could use TM! services in the “empty” direction (e.g. heading out of Downtown), which makes the services more efficient and effective. Financial Contributions and Board Size The Steering ommittee’s consultant was able to provide recommendations from an attorney who has worked on establishment of many similar organizations, and that attorney ultimately City of Palo Alto Page 4 drafted the incorporation documents and bylaws. The consultant and attorney strongly recommended that all Board members be required to make a contribution to the organization to minimize risk exposure for the organization, a contribution which is separate from membership dues which would be paid by organizations who would become members of the TMA and take advantage of the services that it sells. The Steering Committee was unanimous in not wanting the TMA to spend time trying to sell and collect nominal ‘dues’ from the many small businesses, or searching for the basics – i.e., the salary of its Executive Director. Instead, they want the Director to focus on funding for programs, marketing and managing those programs. The current Board is deliberately small, with six members who are committed to the successful rollout of programs on a ‘fast track’ that will benefit the entire downtown community. As the TMA develops, it can easily increase the size of its Board to include others. Currently, the Large Employer Board contribution is $10,000 annually, the Medium-Sized Employer Board contribution is $2,500 annually, and the Small Employer Board contribution is $1,000 annually. The Board is expected to set membership dues within the next several weeks. Advisory Committee(s) The Board will encourage participation from other companies in the TMA through an Advisory Committee. The structure of how this committee would operate is yet to be determined; it could take the shape of committees for various projects (i.e., those interested in a Lyft pilot or just the transit pass program). The Steering Committee expects that the structure for the Advisory Committee will evolve over the next few months. The requirement for a financial contribution/membership fee to the TMA would not apply to an advisory committee to ensure participation by anyone who is interested. Feedback Mechanisms The TMA Board will have feedback mechanisms for all TMA-sponsored programs so anyone can provide input, suggestions, and ideas based on their experience as the Board designs, evaluates, and refines programs and services. The focus of the TM!’s initial programs will be on offering direct subsidies to many employees whose employers can’t provide commute benefits because they are ‘too small’, and encouraging the 100+ employers for whom offering transportation benefits is realistic to do so. Other Examples It is commonplace for a City to have a seat on the Board of the TMA and to provide funding. The following TMAs are Bay Area examples: 1. City of Emeryville: The City of Emeryville provided the bulk of funding for the first 3 years for the Emery-Go-Round TMA at 90%, 75%, then 50% of the total budget, and was City of Palo Alto Page 5 also on the Board. When the TMA became part of the PBID, the City became ex-officio on the Board (no vote). 2. San Mateo Corridor TMA: The City of San Mateo is on the Board and helps fund the TMA. 3. Alameda Landing TMA: The City of Alameda has 2 representatives on the Board and is providing funding for the TMA. The ity ouncil will receive an annual report on the TM!’s activities each year. The ity’s funding will be important in initial years for the launch of TMA programs, and the City Council can provide requested funding concurrent with requests for expansion of the Board, establishment of the Advisory Committee, or pilot projects, as examples. In this way the City can influence the TM!’s programs and direction. 2016 Board Workplan While the TMA is still in fledgling stage, the group agreed to continue to work with the MIG/Silvani consulting team while recruiting for an Executive Director for the organization. Top priorities for the Board include: 1. Recruitment of an Executive Director. The ED will replace the consultant team hired by the City as the leader of the organization. While the Board members are not expected to have TDM experience, this will be a key component of the employment requirements for the ED 2. Launch of a pilot program that subsidizes low-income Downtown workers with transit passes. Prior to the incorporation of the organization, the TMA Steering Committee spent several months exploring a variety of pilot programs to determine which offered the most immediate value to the Downtown, and a low-income worker transit pass subsidy program was ultimately determined to have the most immediate impact. Stanford’s Sustainable ities class has been working with the TM! to develop the parameters of a pilot transit pass program. The students speak Mandarin and Spanish and will be able to support outreach to workers who require those languages. This program could launch as early as April or May depending on the position of the Board. The Board will be discussing the details of the proposal at their meeting on March 3. SOV Trip Goal Reduction The TMA Steering Committee felt that specific numeric goals should be set for individual programs (i.e., targeting a number of employees for the low income transit subsidy; another number for another pilot program such as Lyft subsidies, etc.) This will allow the TMA to adjust/refine/create programs against specific participation, and help the City achieve its 30% reduction goal. On an annual basis, a 30% reduction from the current overall 55% SOV trip rate is 1650 people. Broken up over a 4 year period, that equates to 412 people a year; over 5 years City of Palo Alto Page 6 330 people. The TMA Board believes that achieving this type of reduction over a 4-5 year period is a reasonable target. Policy Implications Development of a TMA is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Policies:  Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles  Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. Resource Impact In order to submit for IRS incorporation, the TMA developed a draft budget to guide its development. Projected expenses for 2016 are listed below. The TMA is a separate organization with its own revenues and expenses, so while the City will be asked to contribute resources to the TMA for program development, ultimately the organization will have multiple sources of revenue. The TM!’s proposed budget is shown in Table 1, below. Table 1. TMA Proposed Draft Budget* Executive Director Salary (Part-time, assumed starting in June) $40,000 Annual Commute Survey, included in existing consultant contract $33,000 SVCF processing fees, included in existing contract $11,400 Legal Fees for IRS filing, included in IRS contract $2,500 Low Income Transit Pass Program – assumes 120 passes per month @ $75 each for 6 months; program still in development $54,000 Marketing $10,000 General Office Supplies $2,500 Miscellaneous and Other Programs $28,000 TOTAL $182,000 *This budget estimate is for the independent non-profit TMA and is not meant to reflect City budgetary commitments or requests. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Staff will be making a budget request for $100,000 to City Council to support the TMA as part of the FY2017 budget process. This $100,000 includes $90,000 to cover overhead expenses and other costs noted above, and the requested $10,000 large employer contribution. Additionally, City staff are working on an agreement with the TMA to provide up to $100,000 in funds that were budgetted by the City in FY2016 for TMA pilot programs. Funded pilot programs could include the transit-pass subsidy program, a pilot with Lyft, and possibly development of a “commuter wallet” Mobility !s ! Service (MaaS) product. Several smaller employers have also made contributions amounting to $32,000 for development of a low-income transit subsidy program, and Google, Palantir and the Garden Court Hotel have pledged their Board Contributions (total $22,500). Timeline The TMA officially launched in January 2016. It is expected to roll-out a low-income transit subsidy in April or May of 2016. Other programs will be contingent on funding and the direction of the TMA Board. Attachments:  Attachment A: EMC Final Report on Downtown Survey (PDF)  Attachment B: Palo AltoTMA Board Packet Feb16th (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 8 Do w n t o w n P a l o A l t o Mo d e S p l i t S u r v e y Ma y 2 0 1 5 "UUBDINFOU" Me t h o d o l o g y ` 1, 1 7 3 s u r v e y s c o n d u c t e d w i t h e m p l o y e e s a t b u s i n e s s e s l o c a t e d w i t h i n a n a r e a o f Do w n t o w n P a l o A l t o b o u n d b y E l C a m i n o Re a l , W e b s t e r S t r e e t , E v e r e t t A v e n u e , a n d Fo r e s t A v e n u e . ` Th e s u r v e y p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e w a s 4 4 % , w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f c o m p l e t e d su r v e y s c o m p a r e d t o t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f e m pl o y e e s a t p a r t i c i p a t i n g b u s i n e s s e s . T h e ov e r a l l r e s p o n s e r a t e w a s 1 2 % , w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f c o m p l e t e d s u r v e y s co m p a r e d t o t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f e m p l o y e e s i n D o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o . ` A s t r a t i f i e d r a n d o m s a m p l e o f w o r k s i t e s w a s p u l l e d b y w o r k s i t e s i z e , i n c l u d i n g s m a l l , me d i u m a n d l a r g e b u s i n e s s e s . S a m p l e d w o r k s i t e s w e r e c o n t a c t e d d i r e c t l y t o i d e n t i f y a n d re c r u i t a n o n s i t e s u r v e y c o o r d i n a t o r w h o d i s t ri b u t e d t h e s u r v e y s t o a l l e m p l o y e e s a t t h e i r re s p e c t i v e w o r k s i t e s . ` Th e s u r v e y w a s o f f e r e d i n o n l i n e a n d p a p e r fo r m a t s f o r e m p l o y e e s o f b u s i n e s s e s w i t h 5 or m o r e e m p l o y e e s , a n d w a s c o n d u c t e d b y t e l e p h o n e w i t h e m p l o y e e s o f b u s i n e s s e s w i t h 4 o r f e w e r e m p l o y e e s . ` Da t a c o l l e c t i o n b e g a n M a y 4 th an d e n d e d t h e w e e k o f M a y 2 5 th . E a c h r e s p o n d e n t w a s as k e d c o m m u t e m o d e q u e s t i o n s f o r o n e c a l e n d a r w e e k p r e v i o u s t o t h e d a t e o n w h i c h th e y t o o k t h e s u r v e y . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 2 Do w n t o w n P a l o A l t o Fo r t h i s s t u d y , D o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o w a s d e f i n e d a s t h e a r e a b o u n d b y E l C a m i n o R e a l , We b s t e r S t r e e t , E v e r e t t A v e n u e , a n d F o r e s t A v e n u e . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 3 Mo d e s o f Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Mo d e S h a r e - O v e r a l l Mo r e t h a n h a l f ( 5 5 % ) o f t h e t r i p s t a k e n i n t o d o wn t o w n a r e s i n g l e - o c c u p a n t - v e h i c l e t r i p s . %’ s r e f l e c t t h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f t r i p s t a k e n du r i n g t h e w e e k Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k e d Ro d e a b i c y c l e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d r e m o t e l y Ot h e r 55 % 17 % SO V T o t a l : 55 % 8% In c l u d e s d r i v e a l o n e a n d m o t o r c y c l e Tr a n s i t T o t a l : 1 9 % In c l u d e s b u s a n d r a i l 7% No n - m o t o r i z e d T o t a l : 1 5 % In c l u d e s w a l k i n g a n d r i d i n g a b i c y c l e 5% 5% 3% Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , wh a t m o d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n d i d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O do w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 7 Mo d e S h a r e b y W o r k s i t e S i z e As b u s i n e s s s i z e d e c r e a s e s , t h e pe r c e n t a g e o f S O V t r i p s i n c r e a s e s . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d r e m o t e l y / O t h e r 74 % 61 % 41 % 25 % 22 % 14 % 12 % 8% 7% 7% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 1- 2 5 e m p . ( 2 4 % ) 26 - 1 0 0 e m p . ( 3 2 % ) 10 1 + e m p . ( 4 4 % ) Bu s i n e s s S i z e b y N u m b e r o f E m p l o y e e s Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e fo r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e s u b g r o u p . Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 8 Mo d e S h a r e b y S e l f - R e p o r t e d C o m m u t e D i s t a n c e As t h e d i s t a n c e f r o m D o w n t o w n i n c r e a s e s , m o d e s h i f t s t o w a r d t r a n s i t . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 69 % 52 % 40 % 38 % 30 % 19 % 11 % 7% 6% 5% 6% 5% 5% 4% 1% <1 t o 1 0 ( 4 5 % ) 10 t o 5 0 ( 3 5 % ) 50 + ( 2 0 % ) Di s t a n c e T r a v e l e d i n M i l e s (s e l f - r e p o r t e d ) Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e fo r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e s u b g r o u p . Av e r a g e D i s t a n c e T r a v e l e d : Ov e r a l l = 1 5 . 8 m i l e s | S O V = 1 5 . 9 m i l e s | T r a n s i t = 2 3 . 5 m i l e s Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 9 Mo d e S h a r e b y H o m e G e o g r a p h y Co m m u t e r s f r o m S a n F r a n c i s c o a r e t h e l e a s t l i k e l y t o d r i v e . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 76 % 70 % 65 % 63 % 48 % 41 % 20 % 18 % 16 % 12 % 12 % 10 % 9% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% 0% Sa n F r a n c i s c o ( 1 0 % ) P e n i n s u l a ( 2 0 % ) S o u t h B a y ( 3 3 % ) P a l o A l t o ( 2 2 % ) E a s t B a y ( 7 % ) Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c en t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e f o r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e su b g r o u p . Re f u s e d t o r e p o r t = 8 % Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 10 Mo d e S h a r e b y A g e a n d P a r e n t a l S t a t u s Ol d e r c o m m u t e r s a n d P a r e n t s a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o d r i v e a l o n e t o w o r k . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 70 % 51 % 20 % 18 % 9% 9% 7% 7% 5% 5% 18 - 4 9 ( 6 6 % ) 50 + ( 1 9 % ) Ag e Re f u s e d t o r e p o r t = 1 5 % 66 % 50 % 20 % 19 % 11 % 8% 8% 7% 7% 4% Pa r e n t ( 2 8 % ) N o n P a r e n t ( 6 8 % ) Pa r e n t a l S t a t u s Re f u s e d t o r e p o r t = 4 % Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e fo r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e s u b g r o u p . Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 11 Mo d e S h a r e b y W o r k S t a r t T i m e Co m m u t e r s w i t h f l e x i b l e s c h e d u l e s a r e l e s s l i k e l y t o d r i v e . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 64 % 63 % 49 % 20 % 19 % 15 % 14 % 11 % 8% 9% 8% 7% 5% 5% 2% St a r t a t a s p e c i f i c t i m e ( 3 3 % ) S c h e d u l e is f l e x i b l e ( 5 5 % ) S c h e d u l e v a r i e s ( 1 1 % ) Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c en t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e f o r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e su b g r o u p . Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 12 Mo d e S h a r e b y J o b S t a t u s Pa r t - t i m e e m p l o y e e s a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o d r i v e . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 75 % 66 % 53 % 19 % 16 % 14 % 11 % 8% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% On e f u l l - t i m e j o b ( 8 4 % ) O n e p a r t - t i m e j o b ( 8 % ) M o r e t h a n o n e j o b ( 6 % ) Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c en t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e f o r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e su b g r o u p . Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 13 Mo d e S h a r e b y B u s i n e s s T y p e Em p l o y e e s i n R e t a i l , R e s t a u r a n t , a n d H o s p i t a li t y c o m p a n i e s a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o d r i v e . Dr o v e a l o n e Ca l t r a i n Wa l k / B i k e Ca r p o o l e d Wo r k e d R e m o t e l y / O t h e r 78 % 72 % 73 % 67 % 59 % 33 % 31 % 26 % 20 % 14 % 13 % 10 % 9% 10 % 10 % 10 % 7% 7% 7% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% Re t a i l ( 7 % ) G o v e r n m e n t ( 9 % ) T e c h n o l o g y ( 3 9 % ) R e s t a u ra n t ( 1 2 % ) H o s p i t a l i t y ( 1 6% ) L i g h t O f f i c e ( 1 1 % ) Nu m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p e r c en t a g e o f t h e s a m p l e f o r e a c h r e s p e c t i v e su b g r o u p . Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 14 Dr i v e A l o n e M o d e R a n k e d Re s p o n d e n t s w h o l i v e i n t h e E a s t B a y , a r e e m p l o y e d p a r t t i m e , a n d w o r k a t a s m a l l co m p a n y a n d r e t a i l c o m p a n y a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o d r i v e a l o n e . 73 % 72 % 70 % 67 % 66 % 66 % 65 % 64 % 63 % 63 % 61 % 59 % 55 % 53 % 51 % 50 % 49 % 41 % 41 % 33 % 18 % Re t a i l Ea s t B a y On e p a r t - t i m e j o b 1- 2 5 e m p . Ho s p i t a l i t y Re s t a u r a n t Ag e 5 0 + Li g h t o f f i c e Pa r e n t Mo r e t h a n o n e j o b So u t h B a y St a r t a t s p e c i f i c t i m e Sc h e d u l e v a r i e s Pe n i n s u l a 26 - 1 0 0 e m p . Go v e r n m e n t Ov e r a l l On e f u l l - t i m e j o b A g e 1 8 - 4 9 No n P a r e n t Sc h e d u l e i s f l e x i b l e 10 1 + e m p . Pa l o A l t o Te c h n o l o g y Sa n F r a n c i s c o 78 % 76 % 75 % 74 % Pe r c e n t a g e o f S O V tr i p s b y e m p l o y e e de m o g r a p h i c s 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 15 Q1 . T h i n k i n g b a c k t o l a s t w e e k , w h a t mo d e o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n di d y o u u s e t o c o m m u t e T O d o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o ? Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n At t i t u d e s Dr i v i n g A t t i t u d e s Tw o - t h i r d s ( 6 7 % ) o f d r i v e r s s a y t h e y p r e f e r t o d r i v e a n d p l a n o n co n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . Am o n g S O V D r i v e r s , 7 7 2 n St r o n g l y So m e w h a t To t a l ag r e e a g r e e Ag r e e I p r e f e r t o d r i v e t o w o r k a n d p l a n o n co n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . I n e e d t o d r i v e t o w o r k b e c a u s e I m a k e o t h e r st o p s , s u c h a s f o r s c h o o l , k i d s , o r o t h e r er r a n d s , b e f o r e o r a f t e r w o r k . I w o u l d r a t h e r n o t d r i v e t o w o r k , b u t I h a v e n o ot h e r g o o d o p t i o n s . I n e e d t o d r i v e t o w o r k b e c a u s e I u s e m y c a r fo r m e e t i n g s , d e l i v e r i e s , o r o t h e r w o r k - r e l a t e d ta s k s . I w o u l d t a k e a c a r p o o l o r v a n p o o l t o w o r k i f i t wa s c o n v e n i e n t , s a f e , a n d e a s y t o f i n d . 42 % 35 % 27 % 23 % 13 % 24 % 25 % 23 % 20 % 22 % 67 % 60 % 50 % 44 % 35 % Q1 0 - Q 2 0 . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y a g r e e , s o m e w h a t a g r e e , s o m e w h a t di s a g r e e , o r s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e w i t h e a ch o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 17 Tr a n s i t A t t i t u d e s Sc h e d u l e , f r e q u e n c y , a n d c o n v e n i e n c e a p p e a r t o be s l i g h t l y l a r g e r o b s t a c l e s t o i n c r e a s i n g tr a n s i t r i d e r s h i p t h a n c o s t . Am o n g S O V D r i v e r s , 7 7 2 n St r o n g l y So m e w h a t To t a l ag r e e a g r e e Ag r e e I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t t o w o r k i f t h e s e r v i c e wa s f a s t e r o r m o r e f r e q u e n t . I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t t o w o r k i f t h e s c h e d u l e wa s b e t t e r a n d i t r a n w h e n I n e e d e d i t . I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t t o w o r k i f i t w a s e a s i e r to g e t t o a t r a n s i t s t o p . I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t t o w o r k i f i t w a s l e s s ex p e n s i v e o r I w a s g i v e n a d i s c o u n t e d tr a n s i t p a s s . 47 % 46 % 26 % 25 % 24 % 22 % 21 % 20 % 19 % 16 % 43 % 38 % Q1 0 - Q 2 0 . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y a g r e e , s o m e w h a t a g r e e , s o m e w h a t di s a g r e e , o r s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e w i t h e a ch o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 18 Ag r e e : W o u l d R a t h e r N o t D r i v e Dr i v e r s w h o f e e l t h e y h a v e n o o t h e r g o o d o p t i on s b e l i e v e t r a n s i t w i l l n o t f i t t h e i r s c h e d u l e or i s n o t c o n v e n i e n t f o r t h e m . Am o n g t h e 5 0 % o f S O V D r i v e r s w h o w o u l d p r e f e r n o t t o dr i v e b u t f e e l t h e y h a v e n o o t h e r g o o d o p t i o n s . Ag r e e I wo u l d t a k e t r a n s i t i f s e r v i c e w a s f a s t e r / m o r e f r e q u e n t 63 % I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t if t h e s c h e d u l e w a s b e t t e r / i t r a n w h e n I n e e d i t 61 % I wo u l d t a k e t r a n s i t i f i t w a s e a s i e r t o g e t t o a s t o p 59 % I w o u l d t a k e t r a n s i t i f i t w a s l e s s ex p e n s i v e o r I r e c e i v e d a d i s c o u n t e d p a s s 47 % Q1 0 - Q 2 0 . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y a g r e e , s o m e w h a t a g r e e , s o m e w h a t di s a g r e e , o r s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e w i t h e a ch o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 19 Re a s o n s f o r N O T T a k i n g T r a n s i t Ne e d o f a c a r , p e r s o n a l p r e f e r e n c e , a n d l a ck o f c o n v e n i e n c e a r e t h e p r i m a r y r e a s o n s dr i v e r s d o n o t t a k e t r a n s i t m o r e o f t e n . Am o n g S O V D r i v e r s , 7 7 2 n Ne e d c a r f o r e r r a n d s / m e e t i n g s I p r e f e r t o d r i v e Sc h e d u l e i s n o t c o n v e n i e n t Ro u t e s n o t w h e r e n e e d e d St o p s n o t c o n v e n i e n t Ta k e t r a n s i t a s n e e d e d To o e x p e n s i v e Un r e l i a b l e It w o u l d t a k e l o n g e r Ot h e r / D o n ' t k n o w 21 % 17 % 16 % 12 % 12 % 5% 5% 4% 2% 6% 21 . W h a t i s t h e m a i n r e a s o n y o u do n o t t a k e t r a n s i t m o r e o f t e n ? 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 20 Bi k i n g a n d W a l k i n g A t t i t u d e s Be t t e r r o u t e s a n d b e t t e r p a r k i n g / s t o r a g e op t i o n s a p p e a r t o b e a f a c t o r f o r s o m e co m m u t e r s w h o p o t e n t i a l l y l i v e c l o s e en o u g h t o w a l k o r b i k e t o w o r k . %’ s r e f l e c t t h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f t r i p s t a k e n du r i n g t h e we e k a m o n g t h o s e w h o l i v e w i t h i n a 3 m i l e r a d i u s Dr o v e a l o n e 43 % Wa l k e d 26 % Ro d e a b i c y c l e 19 % Ca r p o o l e d 5% Wo r k e d r e m o t e l y 3% Ot h e r 3% Ca l t r a i n 1% Am o n g r e s p o n d e n t s w h o l i v e w i t h i n a 3 mi l e r a d i u s o f D o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o , 3 2 6 n St r o n g l y So m e w h a t To t a l ag r e e a g r e e Ag r e e I w o u l d w a l k o r b i k e t o wo r k i f t h e r e w e r e b e t t e r 23 % 17 % 40 % pa t h s , t r a i l s , a n d si d e w a l k s . I w o u l d b i k e t o w o r k i f th e r e w a s b e t t e r p a r k i n g 16 % 16 % 32 % or s t o r a g e o p t i o n s f o r m y bi k e a t m y w o r k l o c a t i o n . Q1 0 - Q 2 0 . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r y o u s t r o n g l y a g r e e , s o m e w h a t a g r e e , s o m e w h a t di s a g r e e , o r s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e w i t h e a ch o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 21 Pa r k i n g Pa r k i n g Mo r e t h a n h a l f o f c o m m u t e r s p a r k i n pu b l i c o r p r i v a t e g a r a g e s o r l o t s ; fi f t e e n p e r c e n t p a r k on n e i g h b o r h o o d s t r e e t s . 30 % 21 % 15 % 4% 3% 2% 24 % Pu b l i c g a r a g e Pr i v a t e / e m p l o y e r Ne i g h b o r h o o d It v a r i e s I n a 2 - o r 3 - h o u r Ca l t r a i n p a r k i n g l o t O t h e r / D K / or p a r k i n g l o t ga r a g e o r p a r k i n g st r e e t s on - s t r e e t p a r k i n g Do n ’ t d r i v e lo t zo n e Wh e r e d o y o u t y p i c a l l y p a r k w h e n y o u d r i v e t o w o r k ? 4. 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 23 Pa r k i n g b y W o r k s i t e S i z e Co m m u t e r s w h o p a r k o n n e i g h b o r h o o d s t r ee t s a r e m o s t l i k e l y t o w o r k f o r a me d i u m - s i z e d b u s i n e s s . Bu s i n e s s S i z e b y N u mb e r o f E m p l o y e e s 1- 2 5 26 - 1 0 0 10 1 + 63 % 26 % 46 % 12 % 34 % 7% 41 % 47 % 25 % Pu b l i c g a r a g e o r Pr i v a t e / e m p l o y e r Ne i g h b o r h o o d pa r k i n g l o t ga r a g e o r p a r k i n g l o t st r e e t s (3 0 % ) (2 1 % ) (1 5 % ) Wh e r e d o y o u t y p i c a l l y p a r k w h e n y o u d r i v e t o w o r k ? 4. 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 24 Pa r k i n g b y B u s i n e s s T y p e Co m m u t e r s w h o u s e p u b l i c g a r a g e s a n d l o t s a r e mo r e l i k e l y t o b e G o v e r n m e n t w o r k e r s . Re t a i l Go v ' t Te c h Re s t a u r a n t Ho s p i t a l i t y Li g h t O f f i c e 55 % 28 % 10 % 31 % 29 % 2% 22 % 19 % 12 % 17 % 33 % 18 % 36 % 5% 28 % 35 % 37 % 8% Pu b l i c g a r a g e o r Pr i v a t e / e m p l o y e r Ne i g h b o r h o o d pa r k i n g l o t ga r a g e o r p a r k i n g l o t st r e e t s (3 0 % ) (2 1 % ) (1 5 % ) Wh e r e d o y o u t y p i c a l l y p a r k w h e n y o u d r i v e t o w o r k ? 4. 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 25 Co m m u t e r Se g m e n t a t i o n s Dr i v e r S e g m e n t a t i o n Ab o u t h a l f ( 4 9 % ) o f d r i v e r s a r e o p e n t o a l t e r n a t i v e s t o d r i v i n g . Am o n g S O V D r i v e r s , 7 7 2 n Dr i v e a l o n e a n d Dr i v e a l o n e a n d a r e Dr i v e a l o n e b u t El s e al w a y s w i l l op e n t o o t h e r o p t i o n s w o u l d p r e f e r n o t t o 49 % 42 % 24 % 25 % 9% Dr i v e a l o n e a n d a l w a y s w i l l : Dr i v e a l o n e a t l e a s t o n c e a w e e k a n d s t r o n g l y a g r e e t h a t t h e y pr e f e r t o d r i v e a n d p l a n o n c o n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . Dr i v e a l o n e a n d a r e o p e n t o o t h e r o p t i o n s : Dr i v e a l o n e a t l e a s t o n c e a w e e k a n d s o m e w h a t ag r e e t h a t t h e y p r e f e r t o d r i v e a n d p l a n o n c o n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . Dr i v e a l o n e b u t w o u l d p r e f e r n o t t o : Dr i v e a l o n e a t l e a s t o n c e a w e e k a n d d i s a g r e e t h a t t h e y pr e f e r t o d r i v e a n d p l a n o n c o n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . El s e : Dr i v e a l o n e a t l e a s t o n c e a w e e k a n d d i d n o t a n s w e r t h a t t h e y pr e f e r t o d r i v e a n d p l a n o n co n t i n u i n g t o d o s o . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 27 De m o g r a p h i c s T h a t A r e M o s t L i k e l y t o C h a n g e H a b i t s Dr i v e r s i n S a n F r a n c i s c o , w h o w o r k f o r a l a rg e o r T e c h c o m p a n y , h a v e f l e x i b l e w o r k sc h e d u l e s a n d a r e y o u n g e r a r e m o r e l i k e l y to c o n s i d e r o t h e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o p t i o n s . 72 % 66 % 62 % 60 % 57 % 53 % 53 % 52 % 52 % 51 % 51 % 51 % 50 % 49 % 49 % 48 % 48 % 47 % 44 % 44 % 43 % 43 % 41 % 41 % 41 % 35 % 32 % 31 % Te c h n o l o g y Sa n F r a n c i s c o 10 1 + e m p . Go v e r n m e n t Wo r k s c h e d u l e i s f l e x i b l e Li g h t o f f i c e Ag e 1 8 - 4 9 Pe a k h o u r c o m m u t e r So u t h B a y Fu l l t i m e w o r k e r Co m m u t e 1 0 t o 5 0 m i l e s No n - P a r e n t Pa l o A l t o Co m m u t e 5 0 + m i l e s Ov e r a l l Ea s t B a y Co m m u t e 1 - 1 0 m i l e s Pa r e n t Re t a i l 26 - 1 0 0 e m p . No n p e a k h o u r c o m m u t e r Pa r t t i m e w o r k e r Pe n i n s u l a St a r t w o r k a t a s p e c i f i c t i m e 1- 2 5 e m p . Ho s p i t a l i t y Ag e 5 0 + Re s t a u r a n t % o f S O V d r i v e r s w h o wo u l d p r e f e r n o t t o dr i v e , b y d e m o s 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 28 Ov e r a l l E m p l o y e e L o c a t i o n Th e m a p r e p r e s e n t s t h e pe r c e n t a g e o f d o w n t o w n em p l o y e e s b y h o m e z i p c o d e . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 29 Te c h n o l o g y W o r k e r C o m m u t e r L o c a t i o n Th e m a p r e p r e s e n t s t h e pe r c e n t a g e o f T a r g e t D r i v e r s wh o w o r k f o r t e c h c o m p a n i e s , by h o m e z i p c o d e . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 36 Go v e r n m e n t W o r k e r s C o m m u t e r L o c a t i o n Th e m a p r e p r e s e n t s t h e pe r c e n t a g e o f T a r g e t D r i v e r s wh o w o r k f o r t h e G o v e r n m e n t , by h o m e z i p c o d e . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 37 Co n c l u s i o n s Co n c l u s i o n s ` Cu r r e n t l y j u s t m o r e t h a n h a l f ( 5 5 % ) o f e m p l o y e e t r i p s in t o D o w n t o w n P a l o A l t o a r e S O V t r i p s . – Ne a r l y h a l f ( 4 9 % ) o f t h e s e S O V d r i v e r s e x p r e s s e d a n in t e r e s t i n s e e k i n g a l t e r n a t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o p t i o n s . – Th o s e m o s t l i k e l y t o s e e k a l t e r n a t i v e o p t i o n s a r e m o r e li k e l y t o w o r k f o r t e c h c o m p a n i e s a n d / o r l a r g e e m p l o y e r s , be y o u n g e r , l i v e m o r e t h a n 1 0 m i l e s f r o m P a l o A l t o , a n d ha v e a f l e x i b l e w o r k s c h e d u l e . – Th e y h a v e c o n c e r n s a b o u t t r a n s i t a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e , w i t h pr i m a r y c o n c e r n s b e i n g a r e a l o r p e r c e i v e d l a c k o f co n v e n i e n c e f o r r o u t e s , s c h e d u l e s , a n d l o c a t i o n s o f s t o p s . Co s t i s a l s o a c o n c e r n f o r s o m e . 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 39 Co n t a c t I n f o r m a t i o n To m P a t r a s to m @ e m c r e s e a r c h . c o m 61 4 . 8 2 7 . 9 6 7 7 Sa r a L a B a t t sa r a @ e m c r e s e a r c h . c o m 51 0 . 5 5 0 . 8 9 2 4 Do u g M a c D o w e l l do u g @ e m c r e s e a r c h . c o m 61 4 . 8 2 7 . 9 6 7 3 15 - 5 5 9 1 P a l o A l t o T M A | 40 Attachment B - Draft Business Plan PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION MAY, 2016 Attachment C Draft Business Plan Pg. 1 Executive Summary (to come) Mission & Purpose (to come) Market Analysis The City’s new Business Registry and data from the TMA’s 2016 Downtown Employee Commute Survey confirm that the population of Downtown employees is approximately 10,000. The 2015 single occupant vehicle (SOV) trip rate is 55% (5,500 employees drive alone to work). Of these, the 2015 commute survey revealed that 49% of these drive-alone employees are willing to try an alternative. The TMA’s initial target markets and initial programs are informed by these facts and the following data points: Data Points Relevance to TMA Programs Industry Research  Restricting and pricing parking can result in up to 28% reductions in driving  Transit subsidies result in 5% to 20% reductions  Shuttles result in 7% to 22% reductions  Information and marketing result in 4% reductions Palo Alto is well served by Caltrain for traditional commuters; other carpool and first/last mile programs (including the shuttle system), plus supportive parking management will maximize the investment in and effectiveness of each strategy. 2015 Employee Survey Identified target markets: workers along the Caltrain corridor; within Palo Alto; and in specific zip codes where transit and other modes already do or can work well. Almost 50% of drive-alones are willing to try an alternative. Our job is to give them options that work and provide incentives that encourage long-term behavior change. Business Registry 854 listings for Downtown:  88 eating and lodging  81 retail  392 office  91 service/communications  758 have 0-25 employees  76 have 26-100 employees  16 have 101-to 500 employees  2 have 501+ employees Only a handful of employers, including the City, are large enough to be able to offer robust TDM programs on their own; nearly two-thirds of downtown workers and their employers need assistance. Ancillary programs (i.e., first/last mile solutions) can help larger companies increase effectiveness of existing programs such as GoPass. Draft Business Plan Pg. 2 Residential Parking Permit Data The number of workers who live in specific zip codes within East Palo Alto, Redwood City, Mountain View, San Jose, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale 2015 Commute Survey identified these zip codes as having good transit and other alternative mode utilization and/or potential Strategic Opportunities and Challenges Opportunities  There is a growing interest and desire to use alternatives by employees to use other transportation modes as well as interest by employers as transportation becomes an important employee recruitment and retention tool  Policy changes will make transit, biking, walking, and carpooling more attractive and affordable than driving and parking  The planned reduction in Residential Parking Permits for employee use will increase demand for alternatives  Paid parking and increased monthly parking fees can support the TMA’s efforts  It is becoming increasingly faster and easier to use sustainable transportation modes to commute to work  Downtown Palo Alto has very good transit service options (Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans) for many workers  New technologies and ‘first mile’ services will make core transit more accessible for more employees Challenges  Fare inequalities can make using transit far more expensive than driving and parking  First mile problems – getting to transit and parking availability at transit can be a barrier  Free or inexpensive parking near work still makes driving more attractive  High turnover in retail, food service, other businesses will require consistent and ongoing marketing and information. Language may also be a barrier among some workers.  Understanding options is difficult – there is no single, ‘easy’ resource available to employees or employers Current Objectives The City has established a goal of reducing SOV commutes by 30% over the next several years. The TMA’s work plan is designed to move the needle towards this goal while building a strong organizational foundation for long-term sustainability and results-oriented programs. We are starting with a benchmark of some 5,500 downtown employees who current drive alone to get to and from work. A 30% reduction would change the commute patterns of some 1,650 employees. TMA Board has identified five key areas of focus for the next 24 months. These align with the TMA’s Mission, Values and goals, as well as to helping the City meet its SOV reduction and other environmental goals. The key areas are: Draft Business Plan Pg. 3 1. Program Development 2. Partnership 3. Advocacy 4. Information & Outreach 5. Sustainable Budget These objectives are important individually and collectively, as part of how the TMA will influence and directly enable aggressive reductions in SOV commute patterns. The TMA has further quantified behavior changes by setting specific mode shift goals: Number of Commuters Mode Shift To 1,000 Transit (Caltrain, VTA, Samtrans, Dumbarton Exp) 300 Carpooling and other first/last mile shared ride services 100-150 City, Stanford, other shuttle systems 100-150 94303 and other low income zip codes with peak/non-peak schedules 50 Other (Walk, Bike, Telecommute) The ability to reach these aggressive goals depends on wide variety of factors, many some of which are beyond the TMA’s control. They include:  The overall state of the economy, downtown business climate and ‘mix’ of businesses  The evolution of ‘personal mobility’ options and technology  The integration of modes and ease of use by commuters (i.e., coordinated transfers)  The availability and capacity of alternative modes (i.e., Caltrain at capacity)  The cost of using alternative modes  The availability of funds to support TMA activities and programs, including the level of short- term investment for incentivizing and then sustaining behavior change  Parking management policy: availability and pricing of downtown parking facilities Draft Business Plan Pg. 4 Summary of Objectives Objective: Programs and Services. Provide access to, subsidies, and other incentives to use public transit, ridesharing, and non- vehicular modes (walking and biking) for downtown employees who currently drive alone. Highest Priority: Provide Caltrain and VTA passes for employees who work for companies not eligible for transit bulk pass programs, who live in targeted areas where transit availability is good, and for whom the cost of taking transit far exceeds the cost of driving and parking. Secondary: Employees for whom taking public transit is not a viable option but carpooling or other programs are a viable alternative. How success will be measured: End Achievement: Reduction in SOV rate and an increase in use of public transit, carpooling and other first/last mile solutions. Until policy and pricing changes are implemented that make taking transit affordable for workers at small companies, other incentives are needed to make transit competitive with the cost of driving and parking. The TMA’s advocacy objective addresses policy. Action: Transit Subsidy Goal: 700-1,000 employees Target: Employees in areas where access to and availability of frequent transit is good; where travel times and the cost of driving is competitive with transit. These employees will be given a full transit subsidy for an introductory period; a lesser subsidy for continued transit use and not buying parking permits after a specified period of time. Ultimately, the cost of an annual or monthly pass will eliminate the need for TMA-sponsored subsidies for all but ‘new’ users (i.e., new employees). This program reduces SOV trips, congestion, VMT, and demand for parking. Action: Carpool Subsidies Goal: 300-600 employees Target: Employees for whom taking transit is not an option who live within a 40-mile radius of downtown. Subsidize carpool rides taken to and from downtown during peak commute hours to incentivize both drivers and riders. Subsidies may gradually be reduced as flat rates are established by carpool vendors. This program reduces SOV trips, congestion, VMT and demand for parking. Action: 94303 and Other Low Income Zipcodes Goal: 100-150 employees Target: Employees who work a combination of peak and ‘non- peak’ hours in the hospitality industry who live in targeted zip codes lacking transit availability and other alternatives. These employees often speak Spanish and other languages; they may be able to use transit in one direction, but not in both. Work with IDEO to further research barriers and needs; work with rideshare vendors to develop a pilot (i.e., specialized hours carpooling/GRH) as well as the City’s shuttle network regarding hours and routes. Ultimately, the cost and availability of these Draft Business Plan Pg. 5 services will make using alternatives affordable and viable for this market niche. This program will reduce SOV trips, VMT, congestion and parking demand. Action: Other First/Last Mile Solutions (targeted zip codes) Goal: 100 employees Target: Employees working for companies who do provide GoPass or VTA but for whom getting to (and lack of parking at) a Caltrain or VTA station is a barrier. Work with Lyft and other rideshare and TNC vendors to develop a first/last mile subsidy to and from targeted Caltrain/VTA stations. Ultimately, as density builds (and expands beyond Palo Alto employees), rideshare services will provide ‘Lyft Line’ type flat pricing that will be self-sustainable for these users. This program will reduce SOV trips, congestion and parking demand. It will also increase the ROI on the GoPass investment for employers, making this program more sustainable. Action: City Shuttles Goal: 100-150 employees Target: Employees who live and work in Palo Alto who live along an existing or potential shuttle route. Also employees who live in Palo Alto who are outbound via Caltrain. Work with the City in evaluating and reconfiguring the shuttle network to be more effective in addressing commute needs for Palo Alto residents working in downtown or using Caltrain. Routes, hours of operation, frequency of service and travel times to and from downtown and other hubs will be reviewed. Ultimately, this program will help increase ridership and increase the ROI the City already makes in the shuttle system, decreasing per-mile and per-passenger costs and serving a wider market. This program will reduce SOV trips, congestion, and parking demand. Draft Business Plan Pg. 6 Objective: Advocacy The TMA will focus on two major policy areas which are inextricably linked to the effectiveness and cost of TDM measures: 1. Collaborate with Caltrain and VTA to create a new pricing policy and structure which allows smaller employers to participate in a discount transit pass program 2. Right pricing and sizing of parking for Downtown employees Both of these will require building consensus and coalitions of support; as well as developing ‘win- win’ solutions for all stakeholders, and are anticipated to take 1 to 3 or more years. Highest Priority: Working with the community to build support for the creation of a new pricing structure for small employers and using data from the TMA’s initial subsidy programs to inform policy. Working with the City’s Downtown Parking Management Study and participate in the Downtown Parking Committee, to develop parking management policies and new revenue streams. Secondary: Advocate to preserve and build existing services such as VTA Route 35; AC Transit Dumbarton Express and support other local, regional and national policies and measures which align with the TMA’s purpose and goals. How success will be measured: The adoption of a new fare structure/policy at Caltrain and VTA that creates parity and availability on a per-cost-per-pass basis for small employers with existing large employer bulk pass programs. Parking pricing, siting and availability in downtown Palo Alto which supports TDM measures, avoids the need to build new parking facilities, and ensures parking availability for shoppers and other visitors while minimizing the impacts of commuter parking on nearby residential streets. Availability, affordability, levels of service and the number of transportation mode options for downtown employees and residents; and programs and policies that support TDM downtown and beyond. Action: Advocate for a new fare policy/structure at Caltrain Process: Build a coalition of support (locally and regionally) for Caltrain to provide a new fare policy/structure that enables small employers to purchase discount annual or monthly passes either directly and/or through authorized ‘resellers’ such as TMA’s. Meet with Caltrain staff and elected officials to develop such policy recommendations; publicize and build public support for efforts. Ultimately, passage of a new fare structure will enable thousands of ‘new’ riders to utilize the Caltrain and VTA systems. ‘Fare parity’ for those working for small employers and in low wage positions, also addresses an important social equity issue. The end result will be the cost for the TMA to subsidize passes will be greatly reduced long term. Action: Process: Work with the City to explore the right mix of pricing, availability, location, structure and other components of an effective employee parking program. The TMA will participate Draft Business Plan Pg. 7 Advocate for ‘right pricing’ and ‘right sizing’ of parking for downtown employees on two City-sponsored committees: the Downtown Parking Management Parking Study (ad hoc) and Downtown Parking Committee (permanent). It will also work with the Chamber, BID and other organizations, inform through the TMA’s website and other communications means to get feedback and build support for new policies and programs which holistically address parking issues. Ultimately, parking is priced to discourage SOV commute trips yet provides for ‘occasional’ needs; demand for Residential Parking Permits by employees is reduced (and therefore the use of residential streets) and employee parking is accommodated in existing downtown parking facilities (both public and private). Paid, on-street parking is available for shoppers and visitors. A holistic parking management approach may also provide a source of ongoing and stable funding for the TMA. Action: Measure and Monitor Parking Process: Work with VIMOC to implement a pilot program which builds on the existing City pilot to measure parking utilization. This program will identify utilization patterns (and availability) in existing facilities that may be ‘repurposed’ for occasional parking, low income permit parking, etc. Ultimately, it is likely that more efficient utilization of existing parking resources, coupled with providing viable alternatives to driving alone, and pricing will eliminate the need to construct new parking facilities. Action: Advocate for the preservation of existing transit services; removing barriers to existing services (such as parking at Dumbarton Express hubs); funding for and expansion and better utilization of key services (i.e., electrification of Caltrain) and new pilots to test new technologies and modes. Advocate for TDM support policies such as tax-deductible subsidies, etc. Process: Work with local and regional transit providers in support of preserving key services; expanding services to better suit the needs of downtown employees and residents; and foster innovative pilots that test both new modes, technologies, and approaches to alternatives. This program is dynamic and will include a range of activities from participating on planning and advisory committees at transit agencies to ongoing education/information to the business community and showing support (or opposition) through letter-writing, presentations to elected officials and other means. It will respond to short term issues (such as potential service cutbacks and solving parking issues that impact the use of Dumbarton Express service) as well as play a proactive role in long term projects. Draft Business Plan Pg. 8 Objective: Build Strong Partnerships with the City and Downtown Employer and Residential Communities The community will understand how the TMA and its programs support important priorities such as decreasing congestion, reducing parking demand on residential streets, and supporting downtown merchants. The community will have ample opportunities to interact with the TMA: to learn about programs and services; provide feedback on an ongoing basis; and participate in the development of new activities. How success will be measured: Downtown neighborhood and business associations, committees and stakeholders will be knowledgeable and supportive of the TMA and its work and the TMA will receive positive press coverage. The TMA website will be a well-utilized resource for the community at large; the feedback mechanisms from this and other public-facing activities will be positive. While the primary focus will be the downtown area, the TMA will extend these efforts, as resources allow, to other parts of the City. Action: Form an Advisory Group by July, 2016 Purpose: The purpose of the Advisory Group is to be engaged in TMA discussions at Board meetings, help to reach out and inform the local residential communities of what the TMA is doing and achieving; provide feedback, support and advocacy. Advisors will be a small group of five representing a variety of downtown stakeholders: a resident who is an outbound commuter; a resident who works downtown; one representative each from Professorville and a North neighborhood and one non-downtown resident who either works downtown or is an outbound Caltrain commuter. The TMA will publicize an application and process; Advisors will be selected by the TMA Board from this process. Action: Meet with the BID, Chamber and others on a regular basis to keep them informed about TMA programs and results. Purpose: To keep the community informed about what the TMA is doing; results of our programs; discuss new challenges and opportunities and provide another mechanism for feedback and participation. The TMA will meet with the BID at least twice a year; it will make presentations to the Chamber membership twice a year and attend and participate in Chamber and/or community events at least quarterly. Action: Participate in local events when requested; representation on transportation-related committees (City and/or other) Purpose: In keeping with the TMA’s goal of being a transportation resource for the community, it will participate in special events and serve on issues-related committees. Stanford Alumni Association’s annual “Beyond the Farm” event focused on the transportation needs of seniors in Palo Alto. Draft Business Plan Pg. 9 The TMA facilitated. The City has also requested the TMA’s participation in its Downtown Parking Management Study. Action: Request a Council Liaison to the TMA and Two Council Workshops Purpose: Keeping City Council apprised of the TMA’s progress and supportive of our efforts is key to the TMA’s success. The TMA will request a Council liaison who can attend Board meetings and/or meet with the TMA on a quarterly basis. The TMA will give the Council updates twice a year, through a “Workshop” format and attend Council meetings as they relate to TMA programs, funding, or other matters throughout the year. Action: Public Relations Purpose: The TMA will develop a relationship with local reporters as well as the City’s public information officer to make sure that these two conduits are well-informed and have accurate information. Draft Business Plan Pg. 10 Objective: Outreach. Provide high quality information to those who need it. TMA programs and services are creatively branded. Highest Priority: Downtown Employers and employees; visitors and residents Secondary: Other downtown stakeholders; transit agencies and other transportation providers, and the general public How success will be measured: Growth in the number of visits to the TMA website; time spent and number of pages visited Requests for more information or assistance At least x% of all downtown employers aware of the TMA and what services it provides within 2 years. At least xx% of downtown employers with 50+ employees agree that the TMA provides valuable information and services to them within two years Number of employers taking action as a result of interaction with the TMA Number of employees helped through information and trip planning assistance Positive publicity in local papers, social media, business newsletters, etc. Action: Website Purpose: Create an online resource to provide news and information; ‘how to’s’; and calculators to easily illustrate transportation choices and costs for employees and residents. An employer section outlining employer programs will complement the ‘general public’ site. Action: Transit Screens: Purpose: Transportation choices and accessibility in real time are ‘ubiquitous’ throughout Downtown and reinforce other marketing efforts. Placement of 2-3 transit screens in high foot traffic areas showing real-time transit information; bike-share availability, shuttle and other mode options will build awareness of multiple modes and choices; special incentive programs, etc. Action: Outreach to Large Employers Purpose: Encourage 16-20 ‘large’ employers to offer bulk transit passes to their employees; pre-tax transit payroll deductions and other programs. Work to develop and refine other programs in response to specific needs and interests by this market niche, which represents those most likely to affect and support behavior changes. Action: Publish a monthly e-newsletter Purpose: Keep employers well informed about transportation issues and TMA programs and services. Create awareness and establish TMA as a valuable resource. Promote specific programs (i.e., the City’s bike rack program) both TMA and non-TMA; inform and provide opportunities for input on issues and programs (local, regional). Action: Develop Print Material for Employers Purpose: Educate employers of all sizes what they can do; illustrate “ROI” and motivate to participate in a range of programs appropriate to their business. This collateral can be sent to employers; used by TMA staff in meetings with employers; as part of public presentations, etc. Draft Business Plan Pg. 11 Action: Develop Print Material for Employees on Current Programs Purpose: To reach every type of employee from service to tech worker; educate about the range and cost of various commute options; how to get help and promote specific ‘offers’. This piece will be updated regularly and published in at least two languages (English/Spanish); and distributed to all downtown employers. Action: Hospitality and Restaurant Worker Outreach Purpose: Reach service workers who commute at least in one direction in non-peak times (i.e., arrive in PM peak but leave late night) and who live in specific areas of density (i.e., 94303). The size of this market warrants specific outreach and program development. Action: Advertising in local newspapers Purpose: To reach residents and others beyond the downtown community to promote programs available to the general public; inform, etc. Objective: Budget. Establish a realistic two-year start-up budget. Identify stable, permanent sources of funding for ongoing operations and incentive programs post-start up. How success will be measured: TMA Board adoption of a Two Year Business Plan and budget with City support by July, 2016. TMA obtain long-term, ongoing funding agreements and other commitments within two years. Action: Develop Two Year Business Plan Purpose: Provide a roadmap for TMA’s first two years of operation with mutually agreed upon goals, strategies, evaluation metrics, and public participation levels and funding. This will enable the TMA to launch programs, begin to show results, and work towards long-term, sustainable programs and funding solutions with the City and other partners. Action: Research and meet with Foundations, other potential funders Purpose: Gain long term financial support for key elements of interest to the private sector: social equity; environmental sustainability; health; economic resiliency and changing modes, technology, and demographics. This will enable the TMA to diversify funding streams; to develop programs and test outcomes for specific niche markets, and provide for long-term planning and relevance. Action: Pursue management agreements Purpose: TMA’s typically market and manage programs on behalf of cities and other public entities: shuttles, parking, and public information are examples. This provides an ongoing and stable level of financial support for TMA overhead and other ongoing expenses that ensures the quality of program delivery. Draft Business Plan Pg. 12 Budget Planning Background and Rationale Downtown Palo Alto is at a critical juncture. Because the cost of driving and parking is by far the most ‘affordable’ as well as convenient option for many employees, significant incentives – or ‘carrots’ – are needed to change behavior. The vast majority of the 854 downtown employers are small and cannot afford additional costs of doing business such as subsidizing employees’ commutes, whether by transit or other means. The nature of retail and service businesses precludes alternatives such as telecommuting, and hours of operation require many employees to commute in peak periods in at least one direction. The TMA is optimistic that longer term, we will effect a change in policy regarding discount fare structures from transit providers such as Caltrain which will make transit affordable with little or no subsidy from the TMA. Once we have attained the initial reductions in SOV commutes, full subsidy programs can be limited to ‘new’ employees (and at a greatly reduced cost from today’s pricing). In the interim, however, significant investments must be made to bring about parity, while at the same time, realigning parking availability, location, and pricing and creating more holistic home-to-work options. The table below illustrates the disparities in the current pricing structure for Caltrain and VTA. Caltrain Individual Monthly Individual Annual Go Pass Annual Proposed Bulk Annual Proposed Bulk Monthly Zone 1 $84.80 $1,017.60 $190.00 $600.00 $50.00 Zone 2 $137.80 $1,653.60 $190.00 $600.00 $50.00 Zone 3 $190.80 $2,289.60 $190.00 $600.00 $50.00 VTA Individual Monthly Individual Annual 1-99 Employees Annual 100-2999 Employees Annual 3000+ Employees Annual Eco Pass $70.00 $770.00 $72.00 $36.00 $32.40 Eco Pass Plus $140.00 $1,680.00 $93.60 $54.00 $32.40 The TMA’s 2015 downtown employee survey revealed that a good portion of workers who drive alone are open to using an alternative. Providing the financial incentive to use transit is a key step, but it is not a ‘silver bullet.’ Even with free or heavily subsidized transit fares, using transit can be a complex undertaking. The lack of parking at many Caltrain stations presents a major barrier. The lack of coordination (poor frequency, total travel time required and cost) with other systems (i.e., taking a VTA local bus to a Caltrain station) is another obstacle. VTA is piloting new programs that address some of these issues that the TMA will explore as part of its transit and ‘first mile’ solutions. We will also develop other ‘first’ mile solutions with other rideshare services to eliminate barriers and make using alternatives more appealing. The investment to incentivize and enable behavior shift that reaches the 30% goal in the short term is costly in the early year(s) until changes in fare policy and our initial goals are met. It will cost between $1 million and $1.5 million annually. At the low end, we are investing approximately $606 annually ($50 Draft Business Plan Pg. 13 per month) per person; at the high end, $909 per person (about $75/month) to reach a goal of reducing SOV trips by 30%. It should be noted that investment is far less expensive and solves today’s problems much more quickly when compared with the cost to construct a new parking space – estimated at $60,000 per space in a structured facility. Over 30 years, the annual costs of each space is approximately $2,000 excluding financing, operations and maintenance. It already costs $462 per space to maintain existing parking spaces. Of equal importance is that building more parking capacity is antithetical to the City’s sustainability goals and desire to retain its small town ambience. Building satellite parking will require more transportation services (and costs) to link parking with end-destinations. Even with frequent connections, satellite parking adds significantly to the ‘total commute time’ for many employees and may therefore, not be highly utilized. Long-term, if transit pricing structures change, the need for fully subsidized transit and other modes from the TMA will be greatly reduced, and with those reductions, the TMA can invest in expansion and/or new modes of transportation, technology and other activities that continue to make using alternative forms of transportation the preferred way to get around Palo Alto. The budgets outlined on the following pages offer several scenarios which illustrate how various levels of investment affect the ability to reach the end goal of reducing 1650 drive alone commuters. Option 1 uses current transit pricing available to us (no discounted rates) and represents a full- on campaign for incentivizing 100% of our targeted 1,650 employees annually. Option 2 reaches the same 1,650 employees, using a proposed new bulk discount rate, which saves over 50%. Option 3 reaches half of our targeted transit employees using current transit pricing (no discounted rates), with the same budget for subsidies as Option 2. Option 4 also uses current transit pricing and reaches 20% of our targeted transit employees. While the ratios of investment in various transit types may change depending on demand and other factors, the draft budgets provide a framework from which to plan sustainable budgets and performance expectations. They also provide a basis for evaluating a range of potential funding strategies that can generate the necessary revenues for transportation demand management to be successful both short term and the long term. DRAFT Budget Scenarios Palo Alto TMA Revised5/23/2016 Reaches 30% SOV Reduction in 3 or 5 Years (5 years is slower ramp up)A 30% reduction = 1,650 Commuters Three Years to Reach Goal # Empees in Progs Cost of Subsidies # Empees in Progs Cost # Empees in Progs Cost Cost Detail: 2016 pro-rated for 6 mths Carpooling 100 6,000$ 300 10,000$ 800 15,000$ Transit/Person/Yr @ $140/mo 1,680$ Transit 50 42,000$ 350 588,000$ 500 840,000$ $3.50/trip based on 20 days/mo First Mile 50 40,600$ 150 243,600$ 150 243,600$ First Mile/Person/Yr 1,624$ Other (walk, bike, shuttle)0 25 200 $3.38/trip based on 20 days/mo Total Subsidies 200 88,600$ 825 841,600$ 1650 1,098,600$ Subsidies 2,028,800$ TMA Operations Budget 31,600$ 159,000$ 199,800$ Operations 390,400$ Total TMA Expenses/ Yr 120,200$ 1,000,600$ 1,298,400$ Total 2,419,200$ Five Years to Reach Goal # Empees in Progs Cost of Subsidies # Empees in Progs Cost # Empees in Progs Cost # Empees in Progs Cost # Empees in Progs Cost Carpooling 100 6,000$ 250 10,000$ 500 15,000$ 650 15,000$ 800 15,000$ Transit 50 42,000$ 100 168,000$ 200 336,000$ 250 420,000$ 350 588,000$ First Mile 50 40,600$ 75 121,800$ 100 162,400$ 125 203,000$ 350 568,400$ Other (walk, bike,shuttle)0 25 200 200 200 5 Yr Totals Total Subsidies 200 88,600$ 450 299,800$ 1000 513,400$ 1225 638,000$ 1700 1,171,400$ 2,711,200$ TMA Operations Budget 31,600$ 159,000$ 199,800$ 210,730$ 210,491$ 811,621$ Total TMA Expenses Per Yr 120,200$ 458,800$ 713,200$ 848,730$ 1,381,891$ 3,522,821$ Key Elements and Assumptions: 1. Carpooling incentive is $1 per ride. TMA subsidizes actual costs above that. 2. Transit budget covers 100% of a 2-Zone Caltrain or Dumbarton Express monthly pass. Based on current 'retail' pricing (no discounts) 3. First Mile budget covers $3.38 per 1-way trip to or from selected Caltrain stations for GoPass holders or workers from East Palo Alto 4. Assumes shuttle service reconfiguration will serve workers from East Palo Alto and other areas of Palo Alto by 2018 plus gains in walking and biking Based on $100,000 Annually for Programs -- Does not reach 30% SOV Reduction Three Years # Empees in Progs Cost of Subsidies # Empees in Progs Cost # Empees in Progs Cost Carpooling 100 6,000$ 300 10,000$ 800 15,000$ Cost Detail: 2016 costs pro-rated for 6 mos Transit 100 42,000$ 15 12,600$ -$ Transit//Person/Yr @ $70/mo 840$ First Mile 50 40,600$ 0 -$ 0 -$ $1.75/trip based on 20 days/mo Other (walk, bike, shuttle)0 -$ 25 -$ 200 -$ Transit subsidy for VTA, SamTrans, 1-ZoneCaltrain Total Subsidies 250 88,600$ 340 22,600$ 1000 15,000$ Subsidies 126,200$ First Mile/Person/Yr 1,624$ TMA Operations Budget 31,600$ 159,000$ 199,800$ Operations 390,400$ $3.38/trip based on 20 days/mo Total TMA Expenses/ Yr 120,200$ 181,600$ 214,800$ Total 516,600$ 3 Year Totals 2019 - 22% SOV Reduction 2016 - 3% SOV Reduction 2017 - 6% SOV Reduction 2018 - 18% SOV Reduction 2020 - 30 % SOV Reduction 2016 -3% SOV Reduction 2017 - 15% SOV Reduction 2018 - 30% SOV Reduction 2016 - 3% SOV Reduction 2017 - 8% SOV Reduction 2018 - 18% SOV Reduction 3 Yr Totals Attachment D DRAFT Operations and Revenues Projections Palo Alto TMA 6/2/2016 Line Item 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Notes Management*‐$             110,000$       113,300$      117,000$      120,000$      Hires ED in 2017.  3% increases annually after Office Rent ‐$             12,000$         12,600$        13,230$        13,891$        Assumes 5% increase annually Office Supplies 2,000$         2,000$           2,000$          2,000$          2,000$           Insurance 5,600$         6,000$           6,400$          6,500$          6,600$           Legal Fees*‐$             ‐$               ‐$              ‐$              ‐$              Fees to file with IRS for 501C3 status Fiscal sponsor fees 16,500$      16,500$         16,500$        16,500$        16,500$        SVCF fees based on current contracts Employee Survey*‐$             ‐$               36,000$        37,000$        38,000$        Annual survey; may be replaced with other data  Website design and logo*‐$             ‐$               ‐$              5,000$          ‐$              Assumes website redesign (slight) in 2019 Website hosting and maintenance*‐$             2,500$           2,500$          2,500$          2,500$           Graphics and printing*‐$             2,500$           2,500$          2,500$          2,500$          Employer, employee branding collateral in 2016 Transit Screens (2)7,000$         7,000$           7,500$          8,000$          8,000$          2 locations Misc.500$            500$              500$              500$              500$               *Costs in 2016, part of 2017 thru existing contract Total TMA Operations 31,600$      159,000$      199,800$      210,730$      210,491$       Revenue Projections 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Notes Directors' contributions 35,050$      37,550$         37,600$        40,150$        40,200$        Adds med Dir in 17 & 19;  1 small in 18 & 20 Private contributions 30,000$      ‐$               ‐$              ‐$              ‐$               City Funding Agreement (2016, 2017) 100,000$    100,000$       ‐$              ‐$              ‐$               Other Total Revenues 165,050$    137,550$      37,600$        40,150$        40,200$         TMA Operations Only Surplus (Deficit)133,450$    (21,450)$       (162,200)$    (170,580)$    (170,291)$     Potential Revenue Sources: Grant funding from government/public agencies (i.e., BAAQMD, VTA, City, County, federal/state) Parking revenues (i.e., $1/day from existing garage parking permits, other potential new parking fees) Service contracts (many TMA's have service contracts with cities and others to market and/or manage TDM programs) Private donations  Business tax or other Downtown assessment  Participant fees (i.e., nominal charge emloyees pay to receive benefits) Attachment E DRAFT Operations and Revenues Projections Palo Alto TMA 6/2/2016 Palo Alto TMA Business Plan PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION AUGUST, 2016 Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 1 Executive Summary This Business Plan outlines strategies that will facilitate changing the commute behavior of some 1600+ employees who work in Downtown Palo Alto over the next few years. If successful, this will effectively reduce Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) trips into the Downtown area by a very impressive 30%, bringing Palo Alto’s drive-alone rate to less than 40%. Reducing SOV trips by 30% is an ambitious goal even with significant resources and incentives to subsidize commuters, and will take several years to achieve. Downtown Palo Alto already has an SOV rate of 57%, which is significantly less than the 75%+ norm in both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. This relatively low rate can be traced to several employers, particularly those in the technology sector, who already have aggressive and well-funded TDM programs which have collectively achieved SOV rates of under 30%. Other business categories such as service workers and light office, have SOV rates of 70% and higher -- far above the downtown-wide average. Reaching employees working in these sectors must therefore be the Palo Alto TMA’s priority if we’re to achieve our goals. In August, 2016, we began a pilot program targeted to low income service workers who currently drive alone. We’re offering up to 40 employees a free monthly transit pass (either Caltrain, VTA or Samtrans) or a subsidy to get to a Caltrain station for up to six months (continued eligibility each month is contingent on utilization). A private foundation provided funding for this first group of low income workers. This program will expand in October, when funding from the City begins. Each transportation measure outlined in this Plan is informed by three data points: national data about the relative effectiveness of that particular TDM strategy at varying levels of support; what can be expected from these strategies based on their utilization within the Bay Area and by our immediate neighbors; and finally these measures are informed by the results of surveys with our specific Downtown population in both 2015 and 2016. While the Palo Alto TMA is optimistic that we can effectively start to change commute attitudes and behavior, how much we can move the needle and how quickly will largely depend on the availability and consistency of adequate financial resources and staffing capacity. Our job is multi-faceted. It involves educating employees (and their employers) about their transportation options, providing incentives and subsidies to try them and overcoming ‘first’ mile barriers that prevent many from using existing public transit services. It also entails working with transit providers to make sure services are offered at times and frequencies needed and at a cost which is affordable, and safe. At the same time, we must work in partnership with the City and others on issues such as parking supply and cost in ways that support our common goals and maintain a visible profile in the community. Helping employees find better ways to get to work is a labor intensive process. It requires one-on-one planning and usually some degree of ‘travel training’ and hand-holding. Even for transit-savvy users, starting to use a Clipper Card train pass has a learning curve that requires support service. Making sure there is ongoing funding for TMA staff person(s) for the foreseeable future is paramount to education, marketing, program implementation, customer service and support, and monitoring. Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 2 Providing employees with incentives and subsidies to make using transit and other alternatives viable financially is another critical component of this Plan. Why would a low income worker spend $84 or more on a monthly train pass plus pay an additional fee for parking at a Caltrain station when they can drive and park Downtown for free – or for a nominal fee? However, when presented with free or low cost transit passes – interest in taking transit is much higher at all income levels. As the downtown parking supply decreases and becomes more inconvenient and expensive, these alternatives have greater relevance and value. Until such time that an ‘affordable’ monthly pass is available from transit agencies for these employees, we will realistically need to subsidize the ‘retail price’ in order to change behavior. Again, how effective we can be will be in the short term is contingent on the resources for these subsidizes and incentives. Behavior change requires a combination of incentives and customer service and ongoing marketing/education. As the City has learned, providing transit passes alone has not been sufficient to significantly change behavior among its 500 downtown employees. Despite offering the Caltrain GoPass, the City’s own SOV rate only declined by 2%. We must better understand the multitude and complexity of commuters and have a spectrum of tools and resources in order to overcome barriers. Last but not least, we need to build strong partnerships as the community looks to the TMA as a ‘one- stop’ resource transportation matters. Participation on committees, in community events; working with neighborhoods and civic leaders and others such as senior groups, are all part of this effort. Mission & Purpose The Palo Alto TMA’s mission is to reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle trips, traffic congestion and parking demand by delivering targeted transportation solutions to the Downtown community. We envision a place where people prefer to travel to and within the Downtown area via non-SOV modes and can rely on a network of safe, seamless, affordable and easy to use programs and services for those trips. Another important function of PATMA is to serve as a one-stop information resource for both the downtown and broader community and to provide a forum for community dialogue and be an active voice in local and regional transportation issues. Market Analysis The City’s new Business Registry and data from the TMA’s 2016 Downtown Employee Commute Survey confirm that the population of Downtown employees is approximately 10,000. This population is projected to remain fairly stable for planning purposes. The 2016 single occupant vehicle (SOV) trip rate is 57% (5,700 employees drive alone to work). Of these, the 2016 commute survey revealed that 46% of these drive-alone employees are willing to try an alternative. The TMA’s initial target markets and programs are informed by these facts and the following data points: Data Points Relevance to TMA Programs Industry Research  Restricting and pricing parking can result in up to 28% reductions in driving  Transit subsidies result in 5% to 20% reductions  Shuttles result in 7% to 22% Palo Alto is well served by Caltrain for traditional commuters; other carpool and first/last mile programs (including the shuttle system), plus supportive parking Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 3 reductions  Information and marketing result in 4% reductions management will maximize the investment in and effectiveness of each strategy. 2015 Employee Survey Identified target markets: workers along the Caltrain corridor; within Palo Alto; in specific zip codes (i.e., 94303) where transit and other modes already or can work well. Almost 50% of drive-alones are willing to try an alternative. Our job is to give them options that work and provide incentives that encourage long-term behavior change. Business Registry 854 listings for Downtown:  88 eating and lodging  81 retail  392 office  91 service/communications  758 have 0-25 employees  76 have 26-100 employees  16 have 101-to 500 employees  2 have 501+ employees Only a handful of employers, including the City, are large enough to be able to offer robust TDM programs on their own; nearly two-thirds of downtown workers and their employers need assistance. Ancillary programs (i.e., first/last mile solutions) can help larger companies increase effectiveness of existing programs such as GoPass. Residential Parking Permit Data The number of workers who live in specific zip codes within East Palo Alto, Redwood City, Mountain View, San Jose, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale 2015 and 2016 Commute Survey identified these zip codes as having good transit and other alternative mode utilization and/or potential Strategic Opportunities and Challenges Opportunities  There is a growing interest and desire from employees to use other transportation modes as well as interest by employers as transportation becomes an important employee recruitment and retention tool  Policy changes will make transit, biking, walking, and carpooling more attractive and affordable than the cost of driving and parking  It is becoming increasingly faster and easier to use sustainable transportation modes to commute to work. The reliability of travel time and convenience of using alternatives is also increasing  Downtown Palo Alto already has very good transit service options (Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans)  New technologies and ‘first mile’ services will make core transit services more accessible for more employees Challenges Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 4  Fare inequalities can make using transit far more expensive than driving and parking  First mile problems – getting to transit and parking availability at transit can be a barrier  Free or inexpensive parking near work still makes driving more attractive  High employee turnover in retail, food service, and other businesses will require consistent and ongoing marketing and information. Language may also be a barrier for some non-English- speaking workers in these sectors. High turnover also makes the provision of an ‘annual’ pass impractical.  Understanding transportation options and how to use them is difficult – there is no single, ‘easy’ resource available to employees or employers Current Objectives The City has established a goal of reducing SOV commutes by 30% over the next several years. The TMA’s work plan is designed to move the needle towards this goal while building a strong organizational foundation for long-term sustainability and results-oriented programs. We are starting with a benchmark of some 5,500 downtown employees who current drive alone to get to and from work. A 30% reduction would change the commute patterns of some 1,650 employees. TMA Board has identified five key areas of focus for the next 24 months. These objectives align with the TMA’s Mission, Values and Goals, as well as to helping the City meet its SOV reduction and other environmental goals. The key areas are: 1. Program Development 2. Partnership 3. Advocacy 4. Information & Outreach 5. Sustainable Budget These objectives are important individually and collectively, as part of how the TMA will influence and directly enable aggressive reductions in SOV commute patterns. The TMA has further quantified behavior changes by setting specific mode shift goals: Number of Commuters Mode Shift To 700 to 1,000 Transit (Caltrain, VTA, Samtrans, Dumbarton Exp) 300 to 600 Carpooling and other first/last mile shared ride services 100-150 City, Stanford, other shuttle systems 100-150 94303 and other low income zip codes with peak/non-peak schedules 50 Other (Walk, Bike, Telecommute) The ability to reach these aggressive goals depends on wide variety of factors, some of which are beyond the TMA’s control. They include:  The overall state of the economy, downtown business climate and ‘mix’ of businesses  The evolution of ‘personal mobility’ options and technology  The integration of modes and ease of use by commuters (i.e., coordinated transfers)  The availability and capacity of alternative modes (i.e., Caltrain is at capacity) Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 5  The cost of using alternative modes  The level of investment for incentivizing and then sustaining alternative mode use and to support general TMA educational, marketing and customer support services  Parking management policy: availability, convenience and pricing of downtown parking Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 6 Summary of Objectives Objective: Programs and Services. Provide access to, subsidies and other incentives to use public transit, ridesharing, and non- vehicular modes (walking and biking) for downtown employees who currently drive alone. Highest Priority: Provide Caltrain and VTA passes for employees living in targeted areas where transit availability is good who work for companies not eligible for transit bulk pass programs and for whom the cost of taking transit far exceeds the cost of driving and parking. Secondary: Employees for whom taking public transit is not a viable option but for whom carpooling or other programs are a viable alternative. How success will be measured: End Achievement: Reduction in SOV rate and an increase in use of public transit, carpooling and other first/last mile solutions. Until policy and pricing changes are implemented that make taking transit affordable for workers at small companies, other incentives are needed to make taking transit competitive with the cost of driving and parking. The TMA’s advocacy objective addresses policy. Action: Transit Subsidy Goal: 700 to 1,000 employees Target: Employees in areas where access to and availability of frequent transit is good; where travel times and the cost of driving is competitive with transit. These employees will be given a full transit subsidy for an introductory period; a lesser subsidy for continued transit use and not buying parking permits after a specified period of time. Ultimately, the cost of an annual or monthly pass will eliminate the need for TMA-sponsored subsidies for all but ‘new’ users (i.e., new employees). This program reduces SOV trips, congestion, VMT, and demand for parking. Action: Carpool Subsidies Goal: 300-600 employees Target: Employees for whom taking transit is not an option who live within a 40-mile radius of downtown. Subsidize carpool rides taken to and from downtown during peak commute hours to incentivize both drivers and riders. Subsidies may gradually be reduced as flat rates are established by carpool vendors. This program reduces SOV trips, congestion, VMT and demand for parking. Action: 94303 and Other Low Income Zipcodes Goal: 100-150 employees Target: Employees who work a combination of peak and ‘non- peak’ hours in the hospitality industry who live in targeted zip codes lacking transit availability and other alternatives. These employees often speak Spanish and other languages; they may be able to use transit in one direction, but not in both. Work with IDEO to further research barriers and needs; work with rideshare vendors to develop a pilot (i.e., specialized hours carpooling/GRH) as well as the City’s shuttle network regarding hours and routes. Ultimately, the cost and availability of these Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 7 services will make using alternatives affordable and viable for this market niche. This program will reduce SOV trips, VMT, congestion and parking demand. Action: Other First/Last Mile Solutions (targeted zip codes) Goal: 100 employees Target: Employees working for companies who do provide GoPass or VTA but for whom getting to (and lack of parking at) a Caltrain or VTA station is a barrier. Work with Lyft and other rideshare and TNC vendors to develop a first/last mile subsidy to and from targeted Caltrain/VTA stations. Ultimately, as density builds (and expands beyond Palo Alto employees), rideshare services will provide ‘Lyft Line’ type flat pricing that will be self-sustainable for these users. This program will reduce SOV trips, congestion and parking demand. It will also increase the ROI on the GoPass investment for employers, making this program more sustainable. Action: City Shuttles Goal: 100-150 employees Target: Employees who live and work in Palo Alto who live along an existing or potential shuttle route. Also employees who live in Palo Alto who are outbound via Caltrain. Work with the City in evaluating and reconfiguring the shuttle network to be more effective in addressing commute needs for Palo Alto residents working in downtown or using Caltrain. Routes, hours of operation, frequency of service and travel times to and from downtown and other hubs will be reviewed. Ultimately, this program will help increase ridership and increase the ROI the City already makes in the shuttle system, decreasing per-mile and per-passenger costs and serving a wider market. This program will reduce SOV trips, congestion, and parking demand. Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 8 Objective: Advocacy The TMA will focus on two major policy areas which are inextricably linked to the effectiveness and cost of TDM measures: 1. Collaborate with Caltrain and VTA to create a new pricing policy and structure which allows smaller employers to participate in a discount transit pass program 2. Right pricing and sizing of parking for Downtown employees Both of these will require building consensus and coalitions of support; as well as developing ‘win- win’ solutions for all stakeholders, and are anticipated to take 1 to 3 or more years. Highest Priority: Working with the community to build support for the creation of a new pricing structure for small employers and using data from the TMA’s initial subsidy programs to inform policy. Working with the City’s Downtown Parking Management Study project and participating in the Downtown Parking Committee to develop parking management policies and permanent revenue streams. Secondary: Advocate to preserve and build existing services such as VTA Route 35; AC Transit Dumbarton Express and support other local, regional and national policies and measures which align with the TMA’s purpose and goals. How success will be measured: The adoption of a new fare structure/policy at Caltrain and VTA that creates parity and availability on a per-cost-per-pass basis for small employers with existing large employer bulk pass programs. Parking pricing, siting and availability in downtown Palo Alto which supports TDM measures, avoids the need to build new parking facilities, and ensures parking availability for shoppers and other visitors while minimizing the impacts of commuter parking on nearby residential streets. Availability, affordability, levels of service and the number of transportation mode options for downtown employees and residents; and programs and policies that support TDM downtown and beyond. Action: Advocate for a new fare policy/structure at Caltrain Process: Build a coalition of support (locally and regionally) for Caltrain to provide a new fare policy/structure that enables small employers to purchase discount annual or monthly passes either directly and/or through authorized ‘resellers’ such as TMA’s. Meet with Caltrain staff and elected officials to develop such policy recommendations; publicize and build public support for efforts. Ultimately, passage of a new fare structure will enable thousands of ‘new’ riders to utilize the Caltrain and VTA systems. ‘Fare parity’ for those working for small employers and in low wage positions, also addresses an important social equity issue. The end result will be the cost for the TMA to subsidize passes will be greatly reduced long term. Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 9 Action: Advocate for ‘right pricing’ and ‘right sizing’ of parking for downtown employees Process: Work with the City to explore the right mix of pricing, availability, location, structure and other components of an effective employee parking program. The TMA will participate on two City-sponsored committees: the Downtown Parking Management Parking Study (ad hoc) and Downtown Parking Committee (permanent). It will also work with the Chamber, BID and other organizations, inform through the TMA’s website and other communications means to get feedback and build support for new policies and programs which holistically address parking issues. Ultimately, parking is priced to discourage SOV commute trips yet provides for ‘occasional’ needs; demand for Residential Parking Permits by employees is reduced (and therefore the use of residential streets) and employee parking is accommodated in existing downtown parking facilities (both public and private). Paid, on-street parking is available for shoppers and visitors. A holistic parking management approach may also provide a source of ongoing and stable funding for the TMA. Action: Measure and Monitor Parking Process: Work with VIMOC to implement a pilot program which builds on the existing City pilot to measure what we want to better manage – parking utilization. This program will identify utilization patterns (and availability) in existing facilities that may be ‘repurposed’ for occasional parking, low income permit parking, etc. Ultimately, it is likely that more efficient utilization of existing parking resources, coupled with providing viable alternatives to driving alone, and pricing will eliminate the need to construct new parking facilities. Action: Advocate for the preservation of existing transit services; funding for and expansion and better utilization of key services (i.e., electrification of Caltrain) and new pilots to test new technologies and modes. Advocate for TDM support policies such as tax- deductible subsidies, etc. Process: Work with local and regional transit providers in support of preserving key services; expanding services to better suit the needs of downtown employees and residents; and foster innovative pilots that test both new modes, technologies, and approaches to alternatives. This program is dynamic and will include a range of activities from participating on planning and advisory committees at transit agencies to ongoing education/information to the business community and showing support (or opposition) through letter-writing, presentations to elected officials and other means. It will respond to short term issues (such as potential service cutbacks) as well as play a proactive role in long term projects. Action: Advocate for the preservation and enhancement of the Dumbarton Express Process: Work with AC Transit and its partners to explore creative ways of solving the parking problems at pick-up locations in the East Bay in order to allow more workers from the East Bay to take advantage of this service. Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 10 Objective: Build Strong Partnerships with the City and Downtown Employer and Residential Communities The community will understand how the TMA and its programs support important priorities such as decreasing congestion, reducing parking demand on residential streets, and supporting downtown merchants. The community will have ample opportunities to interact with the TMA: to learn about programs and services; provide feedback on an ongoing basis; and participate in the development of new activities. How success will be measured: Downtown neighborhood and business associations, committees and stakeholders will be knowledgeable and supportive of the TMA and its work and the TMA will receive positive press coverage. The TMA website will be a well-utilized resource for the community at large; the feedback mechanisms from this and other public-facing activities will be positive. While the primary focus will be the downtown area, the TMA will extend these efforts, as resources allow, to other parts of the City. Action: Form an Advisory Group by October, 2016 Purpose: The purpose of the Advisory Group is to be engaged in TMA discussions at Board meetings, help to reach out and inform the local residential communities of what the TMA is doing and achieving; provide feedback, support and advocacy. Advisors will be a small group of five representing a variety of downtown stakeholders: a resident who is an outbound commuter; a resident who works downtown; one representative each from Professorville and a North neighborhood and one non-downtown resident who either works downtown or is an outbound Caltrain commuter. The TMA will publicize an application and process; Advisors will be selected by the TMA Board from this process. Action: Meet with the BID, Chamber and others on a regular basis to keep them informed about TMA programs and results. Purpose: To keep the community informed about what the TMA is doing; results of our programs; discuss new challenges and opportunities and provide another mechanism for feedback and participation. The TMA will meet with the BID at least twice a year; it will make presentations to the Chamber membership twice a year and attend and participate in Chamber and/or community events at least quarterly. Action: Participate in local events when requested; representation on transportation-related committees (City and/or other) Purpose: In keeping with the TMA’s goal of being a transportation resource for the community, it will participate in special events and serve on issues-related committees. Stanford Alumni Association’s annual “Beyond the Farm” event focused on the transportation needs of seniors in Palo Alto. The TMA facilitated. The City has also requested the TMA’s Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 11 participation in its Downtown Parking Management Study. Action: Request a Council Liaison to the TMA and Two Council Workshops Purpose: Keeping City Council apprised of the TMA’s progress and supportive of our efforts is key to the TMA’s success. The TMA will request a Council liaison who can attend Board meetings and/or meet with the TMA on a quarterly basis. The TMA will give the Council updates twice a year, through a “Workshop” format and attend Council meetings as they relate to TMA programs, funding, or other matters throughout the year. Action: Public Relations Purpose: The TMA will develop a relationship with local reporters as well as the City’s public information officer to make sure that these two conduits are well-informed and have accurate information. Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 12 Objective: Outreach. Provide high quality information to those who need it. TMA programs and services are creatively branded. Highest Priority: Downtown Employers and employees; visitors and residents Secondary: Other downtown stakeholders; transit agencies and other transportation providers, and the general public How success will be measured: Growth in the number of visits to the TMA website; time spent and number of pages visited Requests for more information or assistance At least 50% of all downtown employers aware of the TMA and what services it provides within 2 years. At least 75% of downtown employers with 50+ employees agree that the TMA provides valuable information and services to them within two years Number of employers taking action as a result of interaction with the TMA Number of employees helped through information and trip planning assistance Positive publicity in local papers, social media, business newsletters, etc. Action: Website Purpose: Create an online resource to provide news and information; ‘how to’s’; and calculators to easily illustrate transportation choices and costs for employees and residents. An employer section outlining employer programs will complement the ‘general public’ site. Action: Transit Screens: Purpose: Transportation choices and accessibility in real time are ‘ubiquitous’ throughout Downtown and reinforce other marketing efforts. Placement of 2-3 transit screens in high foot traffic areas showing real-time transit information; bike-share availability, shuttle and other mode options will build awareness of multiple modes and choices; special incentive programs, etc. Action: Outreach to Large Employers Purpose: Encourage 16-20 ‘large’ employers to offer bulk transit passes to their employees; pre-tax transit payroll deductions and other programs. Work to develop and refine other programs in response to specific needs and interests by this market niche, which represents those most likely to affect and support behavior changes. Action: Publish a quarterly e-newsletter Purpose: Keep employers well informed about transportation issues and TMA programs and services. Create awareness and establish TMA as a valuable resource. Promote specific programs (i.e., the City’s bike rack program) both TMA and non-TMA; inform and provide opportunities for input on issues and programs (local, regional). Action: Develop Print Material for Employers Purpose: Educate employers of all sizes what they can do; illustrate “ROI” and motivate to participate in a range of programs appropriate to their business. This collateral can be sent to employers; used by TMA staff in meetings with employers; as part of public presentations, etc. Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 13 Action: Develop Print Material for Employees on Current Programs Purpose: To reach every type of employee from service to tech worker; educate about the range and cost of various commute options; how to get help and promote specific ‘offers’. This piece will be updated regularly and published in at least two languages (English/Spanish); and distributed to all downtown employers. Action: Hospitality and Restaurant Worker Outreach Purpose: Reach service workers who commute at least in one direction in non-peak times (i.e., arrive in PM peak but leave late night) and who live in specific areas of density (i.e., 94303). The size of this market warrants specific outreach and program development. Action: Advertising in local newspapers Purpose: To reach residents and others beyond the downtown community to promote programs available to the general public; inform, etc. Objective: Budget. Establish a realistic two-year start-up budget. Identify stable, permanent sources of funding for ongoing operations and incentive programs post-start up. How success will be measured: TMA Board and Palo Alto City Council adoption of a Two Year Business Plan and budget with City support by July, 2016. TMA obtain long-term, ongoing funding agreements and other commitments within two years. Action: Develop Two Year Business Plan Purpose: Provide a roadmap for TMA’s first two years of operation with mutually agreed upon goals, strategies, evaluation metrics, public participation levels and funding. This will enable the TMA to launch programs, begin to show results, and work towards long-term, sustainable programs and funding solutions with the City and other partners. Action: Research and meet with Foundations, other potential funders Purpose: Gain long term financial support for key elements of interest to the private sector: social equity; environmental sustainability; health; economic resiliency and changing modes, technology, and demographics. This will enable the TMA to diversify funding streams; to develop programs and test outcomes for specific niche markets, and provide for long-term planning and relevance. Action: Pursue management agreements Purpose: TMA’s typically market and manage programs on behalf of cities and other public entities: shuttles, parking, and public information are examples. This provides an ongoing and stable level of financial support for TMA overhead and other ongoing expenses that ensures the quality of program delivery. Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 14 Budget Planning Background and Rationale Downtown Palo Alto is at a critical juncture. Because the cost of driving and parking is by far the most ‘affordable’ as well as convenient option for many employees, significant incentives – or ‘carrots’ – are needed to change behavior. The vast majority of the 854 downtown employers are small and cannot afford additional costs of doing business such as subsidizing employees’ commutes, whether by transit or other means. The nature of retail and service businesses precludes alternatives such as telecommuting, and hours of operation require many employees to commute in peak periods in at least one direction. The TMA is optimistic that longer term, we will influence a change in policy regarding discount fare structures from transit providers such as Caltrain which will make transit affordable with little or no subsidy from the TMA. Once we have attained the initial reductions in SOV commutes, full subsidy programs can be limited to ‘new’ employees (and at a greatly reduced cost from today’s pricing). In the interim, however, significant investments must be made to bring about parity, while at the same time, realigning parking availability, location, and pricing and creating more holistic home-to-work options. The table below illustrates the disparities in the current pricing structure for Caltrain and VTA. Caltrain Individual Monthly Individual Annual Go Pass Annual Proposed Bulk Annual Proposed Bulk Monthly Zone 1 $84.80 $1,017.60 $190.00 $600.00 $50.00 Zone 2 $137.80 $1,653.60 $190.00 $600.00 $50.00 Zone 3 $190.80 $2,289.60 $190.00 $600.00 $50.00 VTA Individual Monthly Individual Annual 1-99 Employees Annual 100-2999 Employees Annual 3000+ Employees Annual Eco Pass $70.00 $770.00 $72.00 $36.00 $32.40 Eco Pass Plus $140.00 $1,680.00 $93.60 $54.00 $32.40 The TMA’s 2015 and 2016 downtown employee surveys revealed that a good portion of workers who drive alone are open to using an alternative. Providing the financial incentive to use transit is a key step, but it is not a ‘silver bullet.’ Even with free or heavily subsidized transit fares, using transit can be a complex undertaking. The lack of parking at many Caltrain stations presents a major barrier. The lack of coordination (poor frequency, total travel time required and cost) with other systems (i.e., taking a VTA local bus to a Caltrain station) is another obstacle. VTA is piloting new programs that address some of these issues that the TMA will explore as part of its transit and ‘first mile’ solutions. We will also develop other ‘first’ mile solutions with other rideshare services to eliminate barriers and make using alternatives more appealing. The investment to incentivize and enable behavior shift that reaches the 30% goal in the short term is costly in the early year(s) until changes in fare policy and our initial goals are met. It will cost between $1 million and $1.5 million annually. At the low end, we are investing approximately $606 annually ($50 Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 15 per month) per person; at the high end, $909 per person (about $75/month) to reach a goal of reducing SOV trips by 30%. It should be noted that investment in TDM is far less expensive and solves today’s problems much more quickly when compared with the cost to construct a new parking space – estimated at $60,000 per space in a structured facility. Over 30 years, the annual costs of each space is approximately $2,000 excluding financing, operations and maintenance. This translates to a monthly subsidy of $167, by comparison. It also costs $462 per space to maintain existing parking spaces. Of equal importance is that building more parking capacity is antithetical to the City’s sustainability goals and desire to retain its small town ambience. Building satellite parking would require even more transportation services (and costs) to link parking with end-destinations with frequent and continuous service. Even with frequent connections, satellite parking adds significantly to the ‘total commute time’ for many employees and may therefore, not be highly utilized. Long-term, if transit pricing structures change, the need for fully subsidized transit and other modes from the TMA will be greatly reduced, and with those reductions, the TMA can invest in expansion and/or new modes of transportation, technology and other activities that will contribute to making alternative forms of transportation the preferred way to get around Palo Alto. The budgets outlined on the following pages offer three scenarios which illustrate how various levels of investment affect the ability and length of time to reach the end goal of reducing ,1650 drive alone commuters.  Option 1 uses current transit pricing available to us (no discounted rates) and reaches our 30% goal in three years at a cost of approximately $2.5 million.  Option 2 reaches the same 1,650 employees, over a five-year period at a cost of $3.5 million.  Option 3 assumes only ‘base’ funding available at a level of $100,000 annually plus over three years, which will only cover the cost of TMA staffing and operations and very limited transit subsidies. This Option achieves an 18% SOV in three years. While the specific level of investment in various transit genres will be fluid depending on demand and other factors, these draft budgets provide a framework from which to plan sustainable budgets and set performance expectations. They also provide a basis for evaluating a range of potential funding strategies that can generate the necessary revenues for transportation demand management to be successful both short term and the long term. It is worth noting that as parking supply and demand evolves, some employers may also be more willing to partially subsidize the cost of transit passes in the interest of employee recruitment and retention. This is much more likely if a new transit product – a monthly pass – tailored to service workers, becomes available and is affordably priced. Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 16 Option 1: Achieves 30% SOV reduction over 3 years with significant subsidies. Option 2: Achieves 30% SOV reduction over 5 years with significant subsidies. Palo Alto TMA Business Plan Pg. 17 Option 3: Achieves 6% SOV reduction over 2 years with limited subsidies. TMA Operations Projections (excluding the cost of transit/first mile/other subsidies and incentives) Line Item 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Notes & Assumptions Management -- 110,000 113,300 117,000 120,000 ED hired in 2017. 3% increases Office rent -- 12,000 12,600 13,230 13,891 Assumes 5% increases Office supplies 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Insurance 5,600 6,000 6,400 6,500 6,600 Legal fees* -- Fees for 501C filing in 2016 Fiscal sponsor fees 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500 SVCF, based on current contract Employee survey* -- -- 36,000 37,000 38,000 Annual; may be replaced w/ other Website, logo* -- -- -- 5,000 -- Assumes site redesign in 2019 Graphics, printing* -- 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Branding developed in 2016 Transit Screens (2) 7,000 7,000 7,500 7,500 7,500 In 2 central downtown locations Misc. 500 500 500 500 500 Total Operating Costs 31,600 159,000 199,800 210,730 210,491 *Costs in 2016, 2016 are covered through existing contract TMA Operations Revenues Projections Line Item 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Notes Directors’ contributions 35,050 37,550 37,600 40,150 40,200 Expands Board (small & medium) Private contributions 30,000 -- -- -- -- City Funding Agreement 100,000 100,000 Total Revenues 165,050 137,550 37,600 40,150 40,200 Potential Revenue Sources (to be developed in 2016/2017):  Parking revenues (i.e., $1/day from existing permits; other potential new parking fees)  Grant funding from public agencies (i.e., BAAQMD, VTA, City, County)  Service contracts (i.e., TMA service contract with city, County to market and/or manage programs)  Private donations  Business tax or other Downtown assessment