Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-04-09 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Chambers April 9, 2012 5:30 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 April 9, 2012 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. Call to Order Closed Session Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray) Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) 2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY - EXISTING LITIGATION Subject: City of Palo Alto et al. v. California High-Speed Rail Authority Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento Case No. 34-2010-80000679 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Special Orders of the Day 3. Proclamation for National Library Week, April 8-14, 2012. 4. Community Partnership Presentation - Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and Whole Foods Market 2 April 9, 2012 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. City Manager Comments Minutes Approval December 5, 2011 December 12, 2011 Oral Communications Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 5. Approval of Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Ranger Pipelines Incorporated in an Amount of $4,220,699 for Water Main Replacement Capital Improvement Program WS-09001 Project 23 and WS-10001 Project 24 in Crescent Park, Duveneck/St. Francis, Old Palo Alto, University Park, and Ventura Subdivisions 6. Approval of a Contract Modification for $10,510 for Alta Planning and Design to Complete the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update 7. Approval of a Construction Contract with Republic Intelligent Transportation Services Inc. in the Amount of $924,740 to Supply & Install New Energy Efficient Light Emitting Diode (LED) Street Lighting Luminaires 8. Approval of Permanent Traffic Calming Plan for College Terrace Neighborhood 9. Approval of Two Contract Amendments with Baker & Taylor to; (1) Add $300,000 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $1,250,000 for Additional Library Collection Materials, and (2) Add $100,000 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $189,000 for Additional Library Collection Services Associated With the Mitchell Park Library Opening 3 April 9, 2012 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. 10. Approval of a Contract with Vellutini Corp., dba Royal Electric, in the Amount of $865,393 for the Replacement of an Electric Power Transformer at Hanover Substation 11. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $179,000 to CIP Project PE-12011, Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement, Approval of a Contract with Nolte Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $519,177 for Design Services for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Capital Improvement Program Project PE-12011, Approval of the Inclusion of Public Art in the Design and Construction of the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Replacement Bridge, and Approval of a Cost Share Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District Providing for Contribution of Local Matching Funds for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Replacement Bridge Project 12. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract C11135684 with Pacific Technologies, Inc. to Extend Term Through June 30, 2012. 13. Recommendation from Policy & Services Committee to Approve Labor Guiding Principles 14. 2nd Reading: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) from Planned Community (PC 1643) to PC Planned Community Zone (PC_______) for the Renovation of Three Existing Eichler Retail Structures, On-Site Relocation of One of the Retail Structures, Construction of Ten New Single-Family Homes, And Creation Of A 0.20 Acre Park. (First reading March 19, 2012 – Passed 8-1) 15. Approval of Amendment No. 1 in the Amount of $31,460 to Contract No. C09129898 with Golder Associates, Inc. for a Total Contract Amount of $150,460 for Development of Alternate LFG Flare Stack Design on Water Quality Control Plant Premises - Refuse Fund Capital Improvement Program Project RF-10002 4 April 9, 2012 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. 16. Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Contract with the Law Firm of Stubbs & Leone by an Additional $200,000 For a Total Contract Not to Exceed Amount of $385,000 17. Submittal of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Monthly Construction Contract Report and Council Direction to Staff to Continue Construction Contract Monthly Reports Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 18. Recommendation that Council Adopt the Draft Cubberley Guiding Principles, Confirm the City Manager’s Appointments to the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and Review the Conceptual Site Plans Prepared Jointly by the Staff of the PAUSD and City of Palo Alto 19. Public Hearing: Approval of a Site and Design Review Application and a Record of Land Use Action for a Change in Use from Office to Day Care Center at 2585 East Bayshore Road. *Quasi Judicial Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) 5 April 9, 2012 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. 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. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee 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/Committee, but it is very helpful. 6 April 9, 2012 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 Supplemental Information Action Minutes Action Agenda March 19, 2012 March 26, 2012 Standing Committee Meetings Policy and Services Committee Packet Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda P&S Tentative Agenda Informational Report Contracts Awarded by the City Manager from July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 Utilities Resource Management Operating Policies and Plans Update on 27 University Avenue Independent Police Auditor Report for 2011 Public Letters to Council Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION National Library Week, April 8-14, 2012 WHEREAS, libraries have historically served as our nation’s great equalizers of knowledge by providing free access to all; and WHEREAS, libraries work to meet the changing needs of their users, including building collections, expanding outreach services and increasing programming; and WHEREAS, our nation’s libraries provide a forum for diverse ideas and points of view that help us better understand each other and ourselves; and WHEREAS, librarians are trained professionals, helping people of all ages and backgrounds find and interpret the information they need to live, learn and work in a challenging economy; and WHEREAS, librarians design and offer programs to meet their community’s economic needs, providing residents with resume writing classes, interviewing workshops and job seeking resources; and WHEREAS, libraries are part of the American dream, places for education, opportunity and lifelong learning; and WHEREAS, libraries, librarians, library workers and supporters across America are celebrating National Library Week. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Yiaway Yeh, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim National Library Week, April 8-14, 2012. I encourage all residents to visit the library this week to take advantage of the wonderful library resources available at your library. You belong at your library. Presented: April 09, 2012 ______________________________ Yiaway Yeh, Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 2734) City Council Informational Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 1 (ID # 2734) Title: Community Partnership Presentation Subject: Community Partnership Presentation - Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and Whole Foods Market From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Attachments: : Whole Foods Market Fact Sheet (DOCX) Prepared By: Greg Betts, Director, Community Services Department Head: Greg Betts, Director, Community Services City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager History of Whole Foods Market in Palo Alto Whole Foods Market Palo Alto was the first market to open outside of Texas in 1989. Since then, we have contributed to the community by donating to local non-profits, sponsoring annual activities and hosting our own events on site to create a greater sense of community. We have become a staple on the corner of Emerson and Homer for both residents and professionals alike to satisfy their whole food cravings. Whole Foods Market in Palo Alto looks forward to continuing to develop long lasting community partnerships well into the future Mission of Whole Foods Market Palo Alto Whole Foods — We search for the highest quality, least processed, most flavorful and natural foods possible because we believe that food in its purest state — unadulterated by artificial additives, sweeteners, colorings and preservatives — is the best tasting and most nutritious food there is. Whole People — Our people are our company. They are passionate about healthy food and a healthy planet. They take full advantage of our decentralized, self-directed team culture and create a respectful workplace where people are treated fairly and are highly motivated to succeed. Whole Planet — We are committed to helping take care of the world around us, and our active support of organic farming and sustainable agriculture helps protect our planet. And while we assist our global neighbors through our Whole Planet Foundation’s micro-lending operations, we also step out the back door of each of our stores to support food banks, sponsor neighborhood events and donate to local non-profit groups. Community Giving Programs Our Community 5% Days are one meaningful way we give back to our community. On designated days throughout the year a total of 5% of the day’s net sales are donated to local non-profit organizations. Customers help support our selected organizations just by shopping on these 5% Days. Our most Recent 5% Day on March 28th, 2012 raised over $5,000 for the Whole Planet Foundation and Comfort the Children Our Nickels for Nonprofits program is a community giving program which features a local nonprofit for three months. During these three months, signage explaining the mission of the organization is posted throughout the store and each time a customer reuses a grocery bag five cents is donated to the featured nonprofit. It is the goal of the program to reduce our use of new bags while increasing funding for a local non-profit. Every month we work to support our local community with donations. In most cases, we prefer to support events or organizations that contribute to one or more of the following: Environmental Preservation Preventative Health Care Hunger Relief Organic Farming/Sustainable Food Resources Arts and Education Because Whole Foods Market Palo Alto believes in being an active community member, requests from other civic and charitable groups will also be considered if the organization is in the immediate vicinity of our store location, meets our core values, and funding is available. Non-Profits we have donated to: American Youth Soccer Organization Acterra Downtown Streets Team InnVision Breast Cancer Connections Environmental Volunteers Woodside Parents Nursery School Boys and Girls Club of Peninsula Adolescent Counseling Services Tom Kitayama Elementary School Ronald McDonald House at Stanford Ecumenical Hunger Program The Christmas Bureau Lytton Gardens Inc. Oshman Family JCC A Foundation Building Strength Gunn High School Palo Alto Housing Corp Ravenswood Family Health Center Solider's Angels for Veteran hospital in Menlo Park Break through the Static Palo Alto Humane Society Face AIDS National Programs: 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating System: We've chosen to partner with Global Animal Partnership to certify our producers' animal welfare practices. Global Animal Partnership is a non-profit organization dedicated to continually improving the lives of farm animals. They have developed the 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards that rate how pigs, chickens and cattle are raised for meat. Standards for other species (turkey, lamb and others) are in development, so stay tuned and be sure to look for Global Animal Partnership 5-Step ratings the next time you stop by our meat department. Our Whole Trade® Guarantee- A Commitment to Ethical Trade, the Environment and Quality Products. At Whole Foods Market, we believe we have a responsibility toward all entities involved in our business: our customers, shareholders, Team Members, suppliers, the environment and, not least of all, our community. To us, community transcends the boundaries of our cities to the places from which we source our products, many of which are in developing countries. As a result, we have created the Whole Trade Guarantee, an extension of our values that lets you rest assured that you are buying the best for you, for your community, and your world. Whole Trade Guarantee products must: Meet our high Quality Standards Provide more money to producers Ensure better wages and working conditions for workers Utilize sound environmental practices Whole Foods Market Eco-Scale™ Rating System for Household Cleaning Products At Whole Foods Market® we believe it's important that consumers are able to make informed decisions about the products they buy. We also believe in doing our part to encourage a more eco-friendly household products industry. The Eco-Scale™ rating system we have developed is the first cleaning-products standards of any retailer and the most comprehensive standards of any "green cleaners" standards-setting group. Based on audits conducted by a third-party audit agency, household cleaning products are rated red, orange, yellow or green on our Eco-Scale™. Team Member Happiness Our company has been recognized by FORTUNE magazine as one of the "100 Best Companies to Work For" in America — every year since the list began in 1998. There are lots of benefits to working at Whole Foods Market — including an open and empowering work environment, work-life balance, paid training, and our great company culture. Whole Foods Market is unique in that our team members have the opportunity to tell us what benefits are important to them. Team members vote every three years to help determine the benefits package we offer. Benefits include health insurance, paid time off, retirement savings and our generous store discount. Team Member Discount 20% off of all purchases made at any Whole Foods Market location Team Members can elect to have a health screening, and based on the result, can get up to a grand total of 30% off! Whole Foods Market also gives their team members the opportunity to apply for one of their many healthy immersion programs. These programs take place around the country on an annual basis, and are extremely beneficial and life changing. Team Members are educated about healthy eating habits, along with learning the benefits of daily exercise. Hundreds of Team Members have benefited from this program and have changed their lives for the better in the process! City of Palo Alto (ID # 2317) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2317) Summary Title: Water Main Replacement Project 23/24 Title: Approval of Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Ranger Pipelnes Incorporated in an Amount of $4,220,699 for Water Main Replacement Capital Improvement Program WS-09001 Project 23 and WS-10001 Project 24 in Crescent Park, Duveneck/St. Francis, Old Palo Alto, University Park, and Ventura Subdivisions From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Ranger Pipelines Incorporated (Attachment A) in a not to exceed amount of $4,220,699 for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) WS-09001 (Water Main Replacement (WMR) Project 23) and WS-10001 (Water Main Replacement (WMR) Project 24). Staff also recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Ranger Pipelines Incorporated for related additional but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $422,070. Background The project continues a 26-year replacement program for cast iron pipe (CIP) portion of the City’s water distribution system and other failing mains. As the City’s water distribution system ages, existing CIP water mains begin to show signs of extensive corrosion or become subject to recurring breaks. These mains are also inadequate in size to maintain the required flow and pressure for fire protection. April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2317) Discussion The work to be performed under the contract is for installation of approximately 19,463 linear feet of new high density polyethylene (HDPE) water mains, 289 new HDPE water services, 33 new fire hydrants, and reconnection of 15 existing fire services within the City limits of Palo Alto. The project will replace mains on Alma Street (El Carmelo to Charleston), Dana Avenue (Newell to Alester), Edgewood Drive (Newell to Jefferson), Florence Street (Lytton to University), Forest Avenue (Ramona to Hale), Gilman Street (Hamilton to Forest), Jefferson Drive (Hamilton to Edgewood), Madison Way (Hamilton to Jefferson), Martin Avenue (Lincoln to Center), Phillips Road (Edgewood to Madison), Portage Avenue (Ash to Park), and Webster Street (Santa Rita to Oregon), project locations are shown on Attachment C. Replacing the water distribution system mains with High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe will eliminate leaks in the project area, increase the reliability of the water distribution system, reduce maintenance costs, improve the quality of supplied water, and facilitate improvement of the required flow and pressure for fire protection. The work is being performed by contract because the project resource requirements are beyond the City’s personnel and equipment capacity. Bid Summary Bid Name/Number Water Main Replacement Project 23, CIP WS- 09001 and Water Main Replacement Project 24, CIP WS-10001, IFB Number 144360 Proposed Length of Project 200 calendar days Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 20 Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 13 Total Days to Respond to Bid 21 April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2317) Pre-Bid Meeting?Yes (Mandatory) Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 15 Number of Bids Received:2 Bid Price Range From a low of $4,220,699 to a high of $4,876,832 *Bid summary provided in Attachment B. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $4,220,699 submitted by Ranger Pipelines Incorporated be accepted and that Ranger Pipelines Incorporated be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is approximately 8 percent below the staff engineer's estimate of $4,602,425. The change order amount of $422,070, which equals 10 percent of the total contract, is requested for additional unforeseen work that may develop during the project. Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed and found no significant complaints. Resource Impact Funds for this capital project are available in the Water Capital Improvement Program budgets WS-09001 (Project 23) and WS-10001 (Project 24). This project includes funding transfers of $73,354 to the General Fund for Street Cut Fees. Policy Implications The approval of this contract is consistent with existing City policies including the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan-Strategic Objectives: BP1. Ensure a reliable supply of utility resources, BP2. Operate the utility systems safely, BP3. Replace infrastructure before the end of its useful life, and PT.4 Investigate and adopt innovative technologies. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelnes 15301 (b) repair, maintenance of existing facilities and 15302 (c) replacement or reconstruction of existing facilites. April 09, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2317) Attachments: Attachment A: Contract - Ranger Piepline Incorporated (PDF) Attachment B: Bid Summary (PDF) Attachment C: WMR_23_24_Location_Map (PDF) Prepared By:Aleksandr Pishchik, Sr. Project Engineer Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Rev. August 3, 2010 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C12144360 City of Palo Alto and Ranger Pipeline Incorporated PROJECT “Water Main Replacement Projects 23/24” Rev. August 3, 2010 FILENAME C12144360.DOC i CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS....................................1 1.1 Recitals................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Definitions ...........................................................................................................................1 SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ...................................................................................................1 SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS........................................................................1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................................................1 3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ...............................................................................2 SECTION 4. THE WORK.........................................................................................................2 SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................2 SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION.....................................................................................2 6.1 Time Is of Essence .............................................................................................................3 6.2 Commencement of Work ...................................................................................................3 6.3 Contract Time......................................................................................................................3 6.4 Liquidated Damages...........................................................................................................3 6.4.1 Entitlement...................................................................................................................3 6.4.2 Daily Amount................................................................................................................3 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy........................................................................................................3 6.4.4 Other Remedies...........................................................................................................3 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ..........................................................................................3 SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR ..............................................................3 7.1 Contract Sum ......................................................................................................................3 7.2 Full Compensation..............................................................................................................4 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................4 7.3.1 Self Performed Work....................................................................................................4 7.3.2 Subcontractors.............................................................................................................4 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC ii SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE.......................................................................................4 SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ............................................................................................4 9.1 Hold Harmless.....................................................................................................................4 9.2 Survival................................................................................................................................5 SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ......................................................................................5 SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS................................................................................5 SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.............................................................5 SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................6 13.1 Method of Notice.................................................................................................................6 13.2 Notice Recipients................................................................................................................6 13.3 Change of Address.............................................................................................................6 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................7 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes............................................................................................7 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.................................................................................................7 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.................................................................................................7 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.......................................................................................7 14.3.1 By Contractor...............................................................................................................7 14.3.2 By City..........................................................................................................................8 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process ..............................................................................8 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.......................................................................................................8 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................8 14.4.3 Mediation......................................................................................................................8 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration........................................................................................................9 14.5 Non-Waiver........................................................................................................................10 SECTION 15. DEFAULT..........................................................................................................10 15.1 Notice of Default ...............................................................................................................10 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.............................................................................................10 SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES....................................................................10 16.1 Remedies Upon Default ...................................................................................................10 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services .............................................................................................11 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................11 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC iii 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract..........................................................................11 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default........................................................11 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond....................................................................................11 16.1.6 Additional Provisions..................................................................................................11 16.2 Delays by Sureties............................................................................................................11 16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................................12 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.............................................................................................12 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ..........................................................................................12 16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .............................................................................12 16.6 Termination Without Cause.............................................................................................12 16.6.1 Compensation............................................................................................................12 16.6.2 Subcontractors...........................................................................................................13 16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination...........................................................................13 SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ..................................................13 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies ....................................................................................................13 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage....................................................................................................13 17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment.............................................................................................13 17.2 Damages to Contractor....................................................................................................14 SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS...............................................................................14 18.1 Financial Management and City Access.........................................................................14 18.2 Compliance with City Requests ......................................................................................14 SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES................................................................................14 SECTION 20. NUISANCE........................................................................................................14 SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES...............................................................................14 SECTION 22. WAIVER............................................................................................................14 SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ...........................................................................................15 SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT ..............................................................................15 SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.............................................................................15 SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES......................................................................................15 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC iv SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION ...................................................................................15 SECTION 28 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS...........................................................................15 SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................15 SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................15 1 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on April 9, 2012 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and RANGER PIPELINES INC. ("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 General Engineer duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number417996. 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 February 7, 2012, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Water Main Replacement Project 23/24 (“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 Bid 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 construction of the Water Main Replacement Project 23/24 ("Project"). 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 Change Orders 3) Contract 4) Project Plans and Drawings 5) Technical Specifications Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 2 6) Special Provisions 7) Notice Inviting Bids 8) Instructions to Bidders 9) General Conditions 10) Bidding Addenda 11) Invitation for Bids 12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents 14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and updated from time to time 15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005 and updated from time to time 16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 19) Performance and Payment Bonds 20) Insurance Forms 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. SECTION 4 THE WORK. The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable Code Requirements. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 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 Project 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 3 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 within two hundred calendar days (200) after the commencement date specified in City’sNotice to Proceed. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. 6.4.1 Entitlement. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to: (i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants. (ii) Loss of public use of public facilities. (iii) Extended disruption to public. 6.4.2 Daily Amount. City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.4.4 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 agreed to by Change Order executed by City and Contractor 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 Four Million Two Hundred Twenty Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Nine Dollars ($4,220,699). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates.] 4 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 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. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work. The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by City: 1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor, which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section. 2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance with this Section. 3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section. Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be computed as follows: 7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work. 10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by Contractor with its own forces. 7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors. 15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by a first Tier Subcontractor. SECTION 8 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. 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 collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to any of, the following: (i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier; Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 5 (ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents; (iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties; (iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and (v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of the Work. However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. 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. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. 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. On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract. SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. City is entering into this Construction Contract based 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. 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 6 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 (iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, 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: Or City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Aleksandr Pishchik 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: Aleksandr Pishchik 13.3 Change of Address. In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 7 SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes. 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes. 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following: (i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a governmental agency; (ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier; (iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.; (iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to Contractor; (v) Stop notices; or (vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel performance of any provision of the Contract Documents. 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election. Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work. 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute. 14.3.1 By Contractor. Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the following: (i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the Contract Time and (ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 8 Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following: (a) A detailed cost breakdown and (b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for submission of Change Order Requests and Claims. 14.3.2 By City. City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events. 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the process. 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations. Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass-Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes. Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion. 14.4.3 Mediation. If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph 14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before a mutually acceptable third party mediator. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 9 .1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in mediation skills. .2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules. .3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration. If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following: .1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5. .2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein. .3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or continuance. .4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good cause shown. .5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 10 .6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following: (i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per party. Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as evidence. .7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards. .8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4. Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors who provide any portion of the Work. 14.5 Non-Waiver. Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims. SECTION 15 DEFAULT. 15.1 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. 15.2 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. SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 11 16.1.1 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. 16.1.2 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. 16.1.3 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. 16.1.4 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 15. 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. 16.1.5 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. 16.1.6 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. 16.2 Delays by Sureties. Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following: (i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time; (ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work; (iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably delaying the Work; (iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract; (v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or (vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the Contract Time. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 12 16.3 Damages to City. 16.3.1 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. 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default, then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 16.4 Suspension by City 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. 16.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 16.5 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. 16.5.1 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 16.5, 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 and Sub-subcontractors for: (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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 13 .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. 16.5.2 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. 16.6 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. SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 17.1.1 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. 17.1.2 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 14 17.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 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 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 18.1 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. 18.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 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 18.1 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 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers 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 20 NUISANCE. 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 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 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 22 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 15 SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 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 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 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 26 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION. 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 28 AUTHORITY. 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 29 ATTORNEY FEES. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2, the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorney’s 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 attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties. SECTION 30 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144360.DOC 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney RANGER PIPELINES, INC. By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ CITY OF PALO ALTO BID SUMMARY Attachment B WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT 23; CIP WS-09001 & PROJECT 24; CIP WS-10001 Bid Date: 2/28/12 Item Quantity Description Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended No. (ft/each)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($) Price ($) Price ($) Price ($) A: BASE BID 1 1,335 Install 16" HDPE pipe by open trench method $230.00 $307,050.00 $170.00 $226,950.00 $263.00 $351,105.00 2 4,005 Install 16" HDPE pipe by directional boring method $220.00 $881,100.00 $160.00 $640,800.00 $256.00 $1,025,280.00 3 100 Install 14" HDPE pipe by open trench method $210.00 $21,000.00 $140.00 $14,000.00 $285.00 $28,500.00 4 100 Install 12" HDPE pipe by open trench method $200.00 $20,000.00 $140.00 $14,000.00 $280.00 $28,000.00 5 343 Install 10" HDPE pipe by open trench method $180.00 $61,740.00 $135.00 $46,305.00 $410.00 $140,630.00 6 1,029 Install 10" HDPE pipe by directional boring method $150.00 $154,350.00 $125.00 $128,625.00 $120.00 $123,480.00 7 2,262 Install 8" HDPE pipe by open trench method $120.00 $271,440.00 $130.00 $294,060.00 $171.00 $386,802.00 8 6,785 Install 8" HDPE pipe by directional boring method $100.00 $678,500.00 $125.00 $848,125.00 $90.00 $610,650.00 9 200 Install 1-1/4" HDPE services $1,500.00 $300,000.00 $2,000.00 $400,000.00 $2,000.00 $400,000.00 10 30 Install 2" HDPE services $1,900.00 $57,000.00 $2,000.00 $60,000.00 $2,700.00 $81,000.00 11 27 Install 6" fire hydrant assembly lines $5,300.00 $143,100.00 $7,000.00 $189,000.00 $8,250.00 $222,750.00 12 27 Abandon existing fire hydrants $500.00 $13,500.00 $500.00 $13,500.00 $1,500.00 $40,500.00 13 5 Reconnect existing 4" PVC/DIP fire service at the main $4,000.00 $20,000.00 $5,000.00 $25,000.00 $5,000.00 $25,000.00 14 7 Reconnect existing 4" ACP/CIP fire service at P/L $5,000.00 $35,000.00 $5,000.00 $35,000.00 $5,000.00 $35,000.00 15 3 Reconnect existing 6" ACP/CIP fire service at P/L $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $6,000.00 $18,000.00 $5,500.00 $16,500.00 16 18 Perform new 6" water main tie-ins/existing water main abandonments $6,000.00 $108,000.00 $3,000.00 $54,000.00 $2,400.00 $43,200.00 17 23 Perform new 8" water main tie-ins/existing water main abandonments $7,000.00 $161,000.00 $6,000.00 $138,000.00 $3,200.00 $73,600.00 18 2 Perform new 10" water main tie-in/existing water main abandonment $9,000.00 $18,000.00 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 19 6 Perform new 12" water main tie-ins/existing water main abandonments $10,000.00 $60,000.00 $7,000.00 $42,000.00 $12,000.00 $72,000.00 20 13 Install 6" linestoppers $8,500.00 $110,500.00 $7,000.00 $91,000.00 $8,000.00 $104,000.00 21 14 Install 8" linestoppers $9,500.00 $133,000.00 $8,000.00 $112,000.00 $9,500.00 $133,000.00 22 4 Install 12 linestoppers $14,000.00 $56,000.00 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 $12,500.00 $50,000.00 23 580 Perform removal of the existing water mains $10.00 $5,800.00 $20.00 $11,600.00 $40.00 $23,200.00 Total of Base Bid (items 01 through 23 only, with all applicable taxes included)$3,631,080.00 $3,453,965.00 $4,022,197.00 B: ADD ALTERNATE BID 24 876 Install 8" HDPE pipe by open trench method $120.00 $105,120.00 $130.00 $113,880.00 $145.00 $127,020.00 25 2,628 Install 8" HDPE pipe by directional boring method $100.00 $262,800.00 $125.00 $328,500.00 $80.00 $210,240.00 26 59 Install 1-1/4" HDPE services $1,500.00 $88,500.00 $2,000.00 $118,000.00 $2,000.00 $118,000.00 27 6 Install 6" fire hydrant assembly lines $5,300.00 $31,800.00 $7,000.00 $42,000.00 $8,250.00 $49,500.00 28 6 Abandon existing fire hydrants $500.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $9,000.00 29 2 Perform new 6" water main tie-in/existing water main abandonment $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,400.00 $4,800.00 30 4 Perform new 8" water main tie-ins/existing water main abandonments $7,000.00 $28,000.00 $6,000.00 $24,000.00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 31 1 Install 6" linestoppers $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 32 2 Install 8" linestoppers $9,500.00 $19,000.00 $8,000.00 $16,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 33 25 Replace water meter boxes for 5/8" meters with Christy B-9 $75.00 $1,875.00 $50.00 $1,250.00 $175.00 $4,375.00 34 25 Replace water meter boxes for 1" meters with Christy B-16 $100.00 $2,500.00 $50.00 $1,250.00 $180.00 $4,500.00 35 10 Replace water meter boxes for 1-1/2" meters with Christy B-30 $200.00 $2,000.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 $235.00 $2,350.00 36 10 Replace water meter boxes for 2" meters with Christy B-36 $250.00 $2,500.00 $120.00 $1,200.00 $280.00 $2,800.00 37 25 Install air release valves $3,000.00 $75,000.00 $2,000.00 $50,000.00 $2,700.00 $67,500.00 38 100 Install additional pavement (Concrete)$20.00 $2,000.00 $7.00 $700.00 $25.00 $2,500.00 39 100 Install additional pavement (Asphalt Concrete)$15.00 $1,500.00 $6.00 $600.00 $20.00 $2,000.00 40 100 Install curb $50.00 $5,000.00 $10.00 $1,000.00 $35.00 $3,500.00 41 100 Install gutter $50.00 $5,000.00 $10.00 $1,000.00 $50.00 $5,000.00 42 100 Install sidewalk $25.00 $2,500.00 $5.00 $500.00 $15.00 $1,500.00 43 75,000 Install additional pavement (thickness)$2.00 $150,000.00 $0.05 $3,750.00 $0.85 $63,750.00 44 50,000 Saw cut additional pavement (thickness)$0.50 $25,000.00 $0.01 $500.00 $0.12 $6,000.00 45 100 Perform additional sawcutting $5.00 $500.00 $0.04 $4.00 $0.50 $50.00 46 1,000 Install slurry seal $3.00 $3,000.00 $0.10 $100.00 $5.00 $5,000.00 47 100 Abandon old valves and anode boxes $100.00 $10,000.00 $50.00 $5,000.00 $375.00 $37,500.00 48 25 Exchange 5/8" or 1" water meters $250.00 $6,250.00 $100.00 $2,500.00 $350.00 $8,750.00 49 10 Exchange 1-1/2" or 2" water meters $400.00 $4,000.00 $200.00 $2,000.00 $1,250.00 $12,500.00 50 300 Perform GPS survey $350.00 $105,000.00 $100.00 $30,000.00 $170.00 $51,000.00 51 300 Recycle asphalt w/ Petro Mat $30.00 $9,000.00 $20.00 $6,000.00 $25.00 $7,500.00 Total of Add Alternate Bid (Items 24 through 51 only, with all applicable taxes included)$971,345.00 $766,734.00 $854,635.00 Grand Total - Base Bid and Add Alternate Bid (items 01 through 51, with all applicable taxes included)$4,602,425.00 $4,220,699.00 $4,876,832.00 BID SUMMARY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE RANGER PIPELINES, INC. MOUNTAIN CASCADE, INC. Coastland Dr Mariposa Avenue Castilleja Avenue nte Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Alma Street Tennyson Avenue n AvePark Blvd Nogal Lane Rinconada Avenue Santa Rita Avenue Park Boulevard Seale Avenue Washington Ave Santa Rita Avenue Bryant Street High Street Emerson Street Colorado AveStreet Alma Street HighStreet Emerson Wa v e r l e y O a k s ( P r i v a t e ) Washington Avenue Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson StNevada Ave N Calif Ave Ramona St High Street North California Av enue Oregon Expwy Marion Avenue Ramona Street South Court Cowper Street Anton Ct Nevada Avenue Tasso StreetTasso Street Oregon Avenue Marion Place Middlefield Road Ross Roa Tennyson Avenue Cowper Street Tasso Street Webster Street Byron Street North California Coleridge Avenue Street Emerson Street et Portal Place Ross Road Oregon Avenue Garland Driv Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Tennyson Avenue Northampton Drive West Greenwich Pl Newell Road Guinda Street East Gr Southam n u e Embarcadero Road Tennyson Avenue Seale Avenue Middlefield Road Byron Street Webster Street Marion Avenue Green Court Oregon Expressway O re g o n E x p w y CalTrain ROW Waverley Street Alma Street Middlefield Road Webster Street Webster Street Newell Road Fulton Street Coastland Dr Guinda Street North This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 600' ATTACHMENT C Water Main ReplacementProject 23 & 24 LOCATION MAP Sheet 1 of 4 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto ale, 2011-11-28 15:25:07 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\ale.mdb) e A d diso n A v e n u e R e g e nt Pl F ore st A v e n u e S o m erset Pl Pitm a n A v e n u e Fife A v e n u e F ore st A v e n u e D a n a A v e n u e Lin c oln A v e n u e Kirb y Pl K e nt Pla c e Te vis Pl M artin A v e n u e C e nter D riv e C e d ar Stre et H ark e r A v e n u eGreenwood A v e n u e H utc hin s o n A v e C h a n nin g A ve n u e As h b y D r i v e D a n a A v e n u e H a mil t o n A v e n u e Pit m a n A v e n u e South wood D rive West Crescent Driv e C r escent Drive University Avenue Center Drive East Crescen A r c a d i a Pla c e L o u is a C o u rt N e w ell Pl S h aro n Ct E rstw ild C o urt W alter H a y s D riv e W aln ut D rive N e w ell R o a d P arkin s o n A v e n u e Pin e Street J o rd a n Pl L ois L a Stanley W a y D e S oto Driv e De Soto Drive Alester Avenue W alter H a ys D C h a n nin g A ve n tDrive Dana Avenue H a mil t on Av e n ue Newell Road Kin g s L a n e Edgewood Dr i v e Is land Drive Jefferson Drive J ackson D r i v e P a t r i c i a La n e M a d is o n Way Edgewood D r i v e u nity L a n e Phillips Roa d Lin c oln A v e n u e H utc hin s o n A v e N e w ell R o a d De Soto Drive e n u e Lin c oln A v e n u e This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 600' ATTACHMENT C Water Main ReplacementProject 23 & 24 LOCATION MAP Sheet 2 of 4 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto ale, 2011-11-28 15:27:28WMR23 24 CMR MAPS 2 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\ale.mdb) Encina Grande Drive reza Drive Los Robles Ave Villa Vera Verdosa Drive Campana Drive Solana Drive Florales Drive Georgia AvenueBaker Avenue Vista AvenueWisteria Lane Pena Ct Abel Avenue Villa Real Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Maclane Emerson Street Ventura Court Park Boulevard Magnolia Drive South Cypress Lane (Private) Arastradero Road Irven Court Maybell Avenue Alta Mesa Ave Kelly Way SuzanneD Suzan n El Camino Real McKellar Lane El Camino Way James Road Maclane Second Street Wilkie Way Camino Court West Meadow Drive Thain Way Barclay Ct Victoria Pl Interdale Way (Pvt) West Charleston Road Tennessee Lane Wilkie Way Carolina Lane Tennessee Lane Park BoulevardWilkie Court Davenport Way Alma Street Roosev DuluthCircle Ruthelma Aven Darlington Court Charleston Rd Lundy Lane George Hood Lane Alma Stree elt Circle LinderoDrive Wright Place Starr King Circle Dixo Ely Pl Carlson Cou Mumford Pl East Meadow Drive Emerson Street Court Bry a n t St r ee t Roosevelt Ci rcle RamonaStreet Carlson Circle Redwo o d C i rcle South Loma Verde Avenue St Gary CtWaverley Street South Court Bryant Street Ramona Street Alma Street El Carmelo Avenue Campesino Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Ramona Street Bryant Street Wellsbu Mackall Way Cowper Street South Court Waverley Street El Verano Avenue Alger Drive St Michael Drive Maureen Ave Cowper Court Rambow Drive East Meadow Drive Cow p e r St reet on Ave Josina Ave ndall Ave Tippawingo StJulie Ct Matadero Avenue Chimalus Drive Paul Avenue Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Cass Way Magnolia Drive North La Donna Avenue San Jude Ave Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch St Ash Street El Dorado Avenue t Driscoll Place Madeline Court Jacob's Ct (Pvt) CalTrain ROW Lane 66 West Charleston Road Lane 66 La Selva Drive El Dorado Avenue Kipling St Kipling Street Margarita Avenue Lambert Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue El Camino Real Alma Street Maybell Avenue Los Robles Ave This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 800' ATTACHMENT C Water Main ReplacementProject 23 & 24 LOCATION MAP Sheet 3 of 4 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto ale, 2011-11-28 15:28:30WMR23 24 CMR MAPS 3 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\ale.mdb) Homer Avenue Lane 8 West ndation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East mbarcaEncina AvenueUrban Lane Wells Avenue Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Ave Alma Street El Camino Real Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Lane 33 Palo Alto Av en u e Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Byron Street Fulton Street Middlef iel d Roa d Lane A West Lane B Lane B Lane D W Addison Ave. Downing Lane Homer Avenue Lane D E Lane 39 Lane 56(Pvt.) Hamilton Avenue Webster Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Scott Street Byron Street Palo Hale Street Seneca Street Lytton Avenue P a lo AltoAvenue Fulton Street Middlefie Cowper Street Addison Avenue B o yc e A v e n u e Hamilton Avenue Homer Avenue Guinda Street Middlefield Road Channing Avenue Univer A d dis o n A ve n u e R e g F F orest S o m erset Pl Fife A v en u e Ramona Street Addison Avenue Channing Avenue Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Lane 20 WLane 20 E University Avenue CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Lane 12 W Lane 5 E he Place Everett Avenue Bryant Street Emerson St Alma Street Webster Street Fulton Street Seneca Street Linc oln A v e University Avenue Hamilton Avenue Forest Avenue Forest Avenue Lytton Avenue University Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Pa l o A l t o A v e n u e Pa l o A l t o A v e n u e Channing Avenue Addison Avenue Homer Ave Homer Avenue C h a n nin g A v e Lin c oln A ve n u e This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 700' ATTACHMENT C Water Main ReplacementProject 23 & 24 LOCATION MAP Sheet 4 of 4 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2010 City of Palo Alto ale, 2011-11-28 15:29:33WMR23 24 CMR MAPS 4 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\ale.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 2485) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2485) Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Contract Modification Title: Approval of a Contract Modification for $10,510 for Alta Planning and Design to Complete the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment Number One (Attachment A) with Alta Planning + Design for an additional amount not to exceed $10,510.00 for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update project to provide Support Services including Document revisions and Community Outreach. Background In December, 2009, City Council directed staff to proceed with the update to the 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan with an added pedestrian element. In September 2010, Alta Planning + Design was awarded a contract through an open bidding process to update the 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan. The original contract was for the amount of $77,830.00 with an additional $4,490 approved for contingencies, for a total of $82,320. Throughout 2011, staff initiated outreach to the community and coordinated with other City departments to develop the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and released the document for public comment on July 26, 2011. The public comment period on the Draft Report was open from July 26, 2011 through September 7, 2011. On September 14, 2011, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) discussed and voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the Draft Plan. The PTC also recommended that staff provide additional information related to the policy April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2485) language in relation to the Comprehensive Plan Update and provide additional criteria to further rank priority projects identified within the Plan. The Draft Report was updated to incorporate comments from the PTC as well as other changes based on input during the comment period. On November 7, 2011, the City Council considered the adoption of the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. City Council requested additional modifications to the plan to address comments from the Parks & Recreation Commission and to allow for additional community input from residents of South Palo Alto. Discussion The City held a South Palo Alto focused meeting to solicit input on the bike plan on January 12th, at which the City received comments and support for the Plan. A focused subcommittee of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) has also provided additional review. The Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan will be considered by the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning & Transportation Commission on February 28th and February 29th respectively. This Contract Amendment Number One, for Alta Planning + Design provides for expenditures realized as part of the additional plan modifications, community meeting participation, and other support services in the development of the revised Draft Plan. Staff is requesting the approval of a $10,510 amendment bringing the contract value from $82,320 ($77,830 Base Contract + $4,490 Contingencies) to a total of $92,830. The original contract was not brought to City Council for approval because it was for an amount less than $85,000 requiring only City Manager Authorization. City Staff and Alta Planning + Design worked together to develop an amendment to the original project scope based on the recommendations and findings from the November 2011 City Council Meeting. The additional tasks identified include two (2) additional revisions to the Plan, attendance at one additional community workshop and four (4) additional community meeting s/public hearings. Timeline The Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning and Transportation Commissions discussed the revised Draft Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2485) on February 28th and March 28th respectively. The City Council will consider the plan in May. Policy Implications The update to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is being implemented at the direction of the City Council and will follow policies consistent with the most current Comprehensive Plan and/or update the policies identified in the 2003 Bicycle Transportation Plan. The Plan specifically implements Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goals: T-1, Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles; T-3, Facilities, Services and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling; T-6, a High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians and Bicyclists on Palo Alto streets. Resource Impact The update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is funded in part through a grant from the the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - Transportation Development Act (TDA) program in the amount of $80,000. The remainder of the project is funded by the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the amount of $12,830. Attachments: Attachment A: Contract Amendment with Alta Planning and Design (PDF) Prepared By: Rafael Rius, Traffic Engineer Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. Sl0136649A BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND ALTA PLANNING AND DESIGN This Amen dment No. 1 to Contract No. S10136649A ("ContractN ) is entered into April ,2012 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITyN), and ALTA PLANNING AND DESIGN, a California Corporation, located at 2560 9th Street, Suite 212, Berkley, California 94710, Telephone Number (510) 540-5008 ("CONTRACTOR N) . R E CIT A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into parties for the provision of Bicycle Transportation evaluation and consulting services and between the plan review, WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW , THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SECTION 2. TERM. "The tenn of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through October 31,2012, unless tenninated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement." SECTION 2. section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: "SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for perfonnance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", Tasks I through 18, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred Forty Dollars ($93,340.00), and compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the "optional" Tasks 10 through 14, if authorized, shall not exceed Sixteen Thousand One Hundred Eighty Dollars ($] 6, 180.00). Total compensation to be paid CONSUTANT for perfonnance of ALL Tasks, including Tasks I through] 8, shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Dollars ($]09,520.00). In the event Additional Services a~ authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exc ed One Hundred {ho.usand Five Hundred Twenty Dollars ($109,520.00). N' ....1\ \. N It'\ <-~ tnt-V\k I ProJessional Serviees Rev. June 2. 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICiTA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM FOLDERS\OTHERS· ADRIAN\('ontrael Amendmcnls\SIOIJ6649A Aila Planning & Design\S IOI )6649A Amendmenl No.1 Rev 03192012.doc 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"." SECTION 3. The following exhibit (s) to the Contract i s/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) t o this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this refe r en ce: a. Exhibit "A" entitled "Scope of Services ". b. Exhibit "B" entitled "Schedule of Performance". c. Exhibit "e" entitled "Compensation". SECTION 4. 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. APPROVED: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst . City Attorney Dated : Attachments: ALTA PLANNING AND DESIGN Nam e : 1)y e \:: \; /-lllY\dov I? Ti tle: Z r~Y\c.A.?o..l EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": SCOPE OF SERVICES SCHEDULE Of PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION 2 120319smOlO EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES Work Scope (Basic Tasks 1-9, Optional Tasks 10-14, Additional Tasks 15 - 18) Task 1. Prepare Detailed Work Plan and Strategy The Alta Team will meet with the City of Palo Alto Project Manager to refine the work plan. Key topics to be covered at this initial meeting include the following: Review project and task objectives Determine approach to updating the Bicycle Transportation Plan component Determine elements and outline for Pedestrian Plan component Review scope of services and data collection methodology Collect available data and published materials Establish meeting and presentation schedule Establish communication channels with other departments Review and list all applicable design and planning standards Changes to the Scope of Work will be made if necessary at the conclusion of this effort, and an amended Scope of Work and Schedule will be published. Task 1 Deliverables Final project scope Detailed meeting schedule ● Documentation of the meetings, findings, written comments Task 2. Review Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy and Program Documents Task 2.1 Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan Framework Alta will review the Bicycle Transportation Plan and prepare a framework memorandum presenting how the 2003 Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan will be updated. The memorandum will include a strategy to update bicycle related elements and to incorporate pedestrian elements. Alta assumes the following general approach: 2003 BTP Chapter Name Data Sources Strategy 1. Introduction and Background Task 2; Background planning documents and public outreach Rewrite in response to new information since 2003 Include review of pedestrian background planning documents 2. Existing Conditions Task 3; U.S. Census, American Community Survey, Historical Bicycle Counts, SWITRS, City information on programs, City GIS Data Insert new data/information into existing chapter structure/outline Insert pedestrian existing conditions information into existing structure/outline 3. Needs Assessment and Analysis Task 3; Task 5; Field work, Public outreach, Alta demand model(s) Insert new data/information into existing chapter structure/outline Insert pedestrian data and information into existing chapter structure/outline 4. Recommended Bicycle Network Task 6; Task 7; Existing recommended facilities not yet constructed, Public input, Field work, Prioritization matrix Insert new recommendations and revisions into existing chapter structure/outline Recommended Pedestrian Improvements Task 6; Task 7; Public input, Field work, Prioritization matrix Insert pedestrian recommendations into new chapter 5. Bicycle Support Facilities and Programs Task 3; Palo Alto Municipal Code, Caltrain, VTA, MTC, Palo Alto PTA, Palo Alto Unified School District, Field work Revise title to Support Facilities and Programs Insert new bicycle and pedestrian recommendations and revisions into existing chapter structure/outline 6. Implementation Plan Task 8; Grant program descriptions/current cycle information, Existing secured/programmed funding, Documentation of city resources Rewrite in response to new information since 2003 and inclusion of pedestrian improvements 7. Appendices Task 2; Task 7; Public input, Background planning documents, Field work, Rewrite in response to new information since 2003 and inclusion of pedestrian improvements Task 2.2 Review Existing Bicycle & Pedestrian Policy and Program Documents Alta will review the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (CP) with specific emphasis on the Transportation Element, Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling. Alta will identify where the identified Policies and Programs have been implemented since 2007, are consistent with the existing 2003 BTP, and where Policies and Programs need to be carried forward into in this Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan. Alta will also review Chapter 2: Land Use and Design and identify where specific Policies and Programs need to be carried forward into the Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan. Alta will review conduct a strategic review of the City of Palo Alto Zoning Code in order to identify specific standards influencing pedestrian and bicycle accommodations at the site and building level including but not limited bicycle end of trip facilities, bicycle parking, bicycle site access, pedestrian site access, pedestrian amenities in private property setbacks and other elements. Alta will rely on Planning and Community Environment Staff to direct this review. Alta will not conduct a review of individual Area Plans, community planning programs, or other City of Palo Alto detailed background information influencing other aspects of community planning. Any review individual Area Plan will be conducted by City of Palo Alto Community Development in order to identify specific standards and relevant policies directly influencing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Such Plans are not limited to but include: 1. Baylands Master Plan 2. Alma Street Mixed Use Project Draft EIR 3. South Forest Area Coordinated Plan 4. Stanford Medical Building Project EIR Task 2.3 Regional and Countywide Plan and Policy Review Alta will review the MTC Regional Bicycle Plan, VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan and supporting technical program documents, and adjacent city bicycle plans including Los Altos, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and Mountain View. Alta will identify Regional Bicycle Network, Countywide Bicycle Network and connecting community facilities in order to aid in prioritization of recommended facilities. Alta will also review the Bay Trail and Ridge Trail Master Plans, Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan, High Speed Rail documents, and Caltrain documents. Alta will review related project environmental documents provided by City Staff. Alta will also review regional best practices documents from VTA, MTC and ITE regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Task 2 Deliverables Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan Framework Memorandum (electronic copy) Plan and Policy Review Memorandum including review of the Comprehensive, Regional and Countywide Plans (electronic copy) Task 3. Inventory Existing Bicycle Facility Conditions Task 3.1. Bicycle Existing Conditions Alta will update the inventory of existing and proposed facilities and programs identified in the current Bicycle Transportation Plan. Alta will rely on existing data provided by the City of Palo Alto and partner agencies to document existing bicycle facilities (Class I, II and III), bicycle support facilities, and bicycle parking locations. Alta will work with the City project manager and PABAC to identify areas where existing bicycle facilities are substandard and require modification to meet current standards. Alta will develop comprehensive existing bikeway and support facilities in a GIS and database format. Task 3.2. Pedestrian Existing Conditions Alta will identify deficiencies in unique or major pedestrian facilities based on guidance from City staff, the PABAC and CSTSC. Alta will review existing City of Palo Alto crossings, sidewalk and curb ramp inventory data and prepare a GIS map illustrating existing deficiencies and gaps, based on existing data. The inventory of existing conditions will note major geographical and infrastructure barriers and will identify Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complaints relative to bicycle and pedestrian issues. Task 3.3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs Inventory Alta will work with Planning and Community Environment staff, Palo Alto Police Department staff, Palo Alto PTA, Palo Alto Unified School District, and VTA to document existing bicycle and pedestrian programs information. Alta will prepare program documentation including lead agency or organization, target audience, staffing and budget information (where available), program resources including websites and published materials, and long-term program sustainability. Based on this compilation and review of information, Alta will be prepared to recommend continuation of existing programs and initiation of new programs where required to address unmet education, enforcement, and evaluation needs. Task 3 Deliverables ● Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Conditions Memorandum including existing facility inventory maps and tables and programs inventory (electronic copy) Task 4 Assessment of Needs Task 4.1. Collision and Safety Analysis The Alta team will review pedestrian and bicycle collision data compiled by Palo Alto or California Highway Patrol (from the SWITRS database) for the most recent available five years. Alta will review collision volume and location. Information derived from this analysis will be used to identify specific locations for field review that require improvement, and possible enhancements in motorist and bicyclist awareness and educational programs. Alta will prepare separate thematic maps, as available data allows, illustrating bicycle collision history and pedestrian collision history. Task 4.2. Future Activity Levels and Benefits Analysis Alta will project existing and future bicycle commuter volumes based on our National Bicycle & Pedestrian Documentation Project Bicycle Demand Model methodology that has been accepted nationally. Alta will incorporate the pedestrian and bicycle count data from Task 4 (Optional) and other existing available count data provided by the City of Palo Alto. Using local, regional and national data, Alta will estimate the number of people bicycling in Palo Alto, the bicycle commute mode share, and describe any trends. Data sources may include: 2000 Census American Community Survey National Household Travel Survey (2008) for California Freiker/Boltage bike to school data Any additional local bicycle counts Using data from the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project, and experience from other communities that have implemented bicycle projects and programs, we will estimate the potential future activity levels. These future activity levels will be used to estimate future benefits of investments in bicycle facilities, including economic, environmental, and health benefits. We will estimate the reductions in air pollutants resulting from increased bicycling, including avoided greenhouse gas equivalents. Task 4.3. Field Review of Barriers, Constraints and Site Specific Hazards Alta will follow up with targeted field work to verify existing conditions and to analyze key barriers and gaps in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network. Alta will document significant barriers using a combination of base mapping, digital photography, site measurements and important safety characteristics/criteria in order to aid in later prioritization for improvement. Task 4 Deliverables Assessment of Needs Memorandum (electronic copy) including: ● Bicycle and pedestrian collision history maps ● Existing and future demand model outputs and narrative ● Field review data Task 5. Community Outreach The following staff meetings, community meetings and presentations provide for staff-consultant team interaction, structured community input, and formal adoption of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan. Task 5.1. City Staff Meetings Alta will conduct stand alone meeting with City staff at the City of Palo Alto offices up to three (3) times in order to review key deliverables, conduct project management strategy sessions, and in order to prepare for PABAC, CSTSC, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council meetings as required. In addition to these in person meetings, Alta will conduct weekly or biweekly (as desired by the City project manager) scheduled conference calls as described under the project management task. Task 5.2. Bicycle Advisory Committee and City School Traffic Safety Committee Alta will attend up to three (3) joint meetings of the Bicycle Advisory Committee and City School Traffic Safety Committee. Alta assumes that CSTSC members will be appointed to attend up to three PABAC meetings. These meetings will facilitate structured input from these two groups at the following key junctures in the project: existing conditions and needs, candidate project list, and prioritized project list and program recommendations. Task 5.3. Public Meeting Materials, Agendas, Summaries Alta will prepare the public meeting presentations, display boards, maps, and other materials such as agendas, handouts, questionnaires, sign-in sheets, and comment cards. We will provide these materials prior to the workshops for City review and input. Alta will also prepare written bullet point summaries of each public meeting. Alta will invite members of the area advocacy and bicycling groups including Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition and other recommended organizations. Task 5.4. Community Meetings and Notification Alta will collaborate with City staff on a press release advertising the Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan process and inviting public participation. One press release will be prepared for each public outreach event. Palo Alto may choose to notify the community in other manners, such as with sandwich boards located at key destinations around the city. Community Meeting #1 Community Meeting #1 will occur early in the planning process and will focus on describing the project purpose, goals, scope, schedule, bicycle/pedestrian planning and design concepts; and identifying strengths/weaknesses of the current bicycling and walking network, and opportunities for system improvements. Alta will prepare meeting materials including PowerPoint and poster presentations, prepare the meeting format and agenda, provide two (2) staff for the meeting, lead and facilitate the meeting, and provide meeting summary and documentation. Community Meeting #2 Community Meeting #2 will occur following development of the Draft Plan(s), and will provide an opportunity for public review and comment. This meeting will include a presentation summarizing Plan recommendations, with supporting maps and display boards highlighting infrastructure and programmatic recommendations. Alta will prepare meeting materials including Powerpoint and poster presentations, prepare the meeting format and agenda, provide two (2) staff for the meeting, lead and facilitate the meeting, and provide meeting summary and documentation. Planning and Transportation Commission Alta will present to the Planning and Transportation Commission at two (2) meetings. Meeting #1 will be a kickoff meeting to introduce the project, project goals and the approach. Meeting #2 will follow development of the Draft Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan. This meeting will include a brief presentation summarizing Plan recommendations, with supporting maps and display boards highlighting infrastructure and programmatic recommendations. If feasible in the context of the overall meeting agenda, public attendees will have the opportunity to walk around the meeting space in an open house format to view boards with the Plan’s infrastructure and programmatic recommendations. Alta will support City staff in preparation of a staff report prior to this meeting. City Council Meeting Draft Plan Alta will present to the City Council at one (1) meeting following development of the Draft Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan. This meeting will include a brief presentation summarizing Plan recommendations, with supporting maps and display boards highlighting infrastructure and programmatic recommendations. City Council Meeting Final Draft Plan Alta will present the Final Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan to City Council at one (1) meeting for adoption. Task 5 Deliverables • Attendance at up to three (3) City staff meetings and preparation of agendas and minutes • Attendance at up to three (3) PABAC/CSTSC meeting agendas and minutes • Press release for each community workshop (electronic copy) • Community workshop agendas, sign-in sheets, handouts, presentations, maps, display boards, comment cards (electronic copies) • Attendance at Community Meeting #1 and preparation, attendance, and facilitation • Attendance at Community Meeting #2 and preparation, attendance, and facilitation • Community workshop written bullet point summaries (electronic copy) • Memorandum summarizing stakeholder community input (electronic copy) • Project kickoff at one (1) Planning and Transportation Commission • Presentation of the Draft Plan at one (1) Planning and Transportation Commission • Presentation of the Draft Plan at one (1) City Council meeting • Presentation of the Final Draft Plan at one (1) City Council Meeting Task 6 Develop Pedestrian Network and Bicycle Network Enhancements Alta will develop a recommended citywide bicycle and pedestrian network based on selection criteria generally consisting of needs, connectivity, safety, and meeting the objectives as outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and directed by City Council. The criteria will consist of a list of metrics recommended by Alta and finalized by City Staff. The following subtasks outline the required steps to arrive at the recommended network. Task 6.1. Recommended Polices and Best Practices Alta will develop a set of recommended policies supportive of an enhanced bicycling and pedestrian friendly environment. Alta will incorporate a review of design best practices for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The best practices will include specific technologies including detection at signalized intersections and pedestrian crossing signals. Task 6.2. Bikeway System Development Alta will develop a bikeway system designed to move Palo Alto from its status as a Gold Level Bicycle Friendly Community to a Platinum Bicycle Friendly Community as designated by the League of American Bicyclists (LAB). Alta will assist the City of Palo Alto in specifically responding to the criteria outlined by the LAB for Platinum ranked communities. The existing bikeway conditions evaluation, PABAC and CSTSC meetings, public meeting events and user needs assessment will inform development of the proposed Palo Alto bikeway network. The recommended system will also be based on a comprehensive review and analysis of available infrastructure data provided by City staff and the roadway corridor concepts. Network development will also take into account issues such as directness of route, barriers, and system connectivity. The network will include a variety of bikeways for various skill levels and ages, sidewalk improvement projects, and other bicycle capital improvement projects (e.g., traffic calming, bicycle parking, etc.). The network will incorporate previously proposed and planned facilities and residential neighborhoods and bicycle and pedestrian attractors. Task 6.3. Pedestrian Guidelines Alta will define representative pedestrian districts with City Staff, PABAC, CSTSC and community input. Alta will identify and map Pedestrian districts areas based on a combination of inputs including: Specific Plan and other area plan definitions, neighborhood boundaries, and based on specific input provided during the development of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Pedestrian improvement zones may be defined as prototype corridors, locations (such as intersections), or districts (such as Downtown or Neighborhood improvement projects). Typical pedestrian district types include: Downtown Palo Alto Commercial/Corridor Area Neighborhood Area Safe Routes to School Area For each pedestrian district Alta will develop a design guideline incorporating a range of pedestrian infrastructure improvements and pedestrian environment enhancements. Based on our findings from the existing conditions analysis and needs analysis, Alta will develop specific infrastructure and amenities to improve and enhance the representative pedestrian environments in Palo Alto. Recommendations may include such intersection enhancements as, but not limited to: New crosswalks ● Enhanced crosswalks Refuge islands ● Accessible signals Improved signage or pavement markings ● Curb extensions In-pavement flashing markers ● Countdown signals Changes to sidewalk width, zones and amenities ● ADA curb ramps standards Pedestrian wayfinding Task 6.4. Bikeway System Map Alta will develop a map depicting Palo Alto’s existing and recommended bikeway network. The network will be classified by Caltrans facility types (shared use paths, bike lanes, and bike routes) as well as by bicycle boulevards. Task 6.5. Project List and Cost Opinions Alta will develop a project list with planning-level cost opinions for the recommended bikeway system and for typical pedestrian improvements. The bikeway cost opinions will include estimated construction costs, planning, design, engineering and contingency costs (typically reflected as a proportion of the original project cost). Alta will use the latest unit costs available from Palo Alto together with the most recent figures from comparable communities in California. Each bikeway project segment will be evaluated according to an estimated cost-per-mile and estimated ongoing maintenance and operation costs by implementation phase based on comparable experiences. Alta will present cost data for pedestrian and infrastructure and amenities in a cost table format, providing current cost data for key infrastructure items identified as priorities for the pedestrian districts and associated guidelines under Task 5.2. Alta will not provide cost estimates for specific pedestrian improvement projects. Task 6.6 Bikeway Project Evaluation/Prioritization Criteria Alta will rank the recommended bicycle improvements according to the criteria and developed in conjunction with City staff. Alta will provide the draft prioritization criteria to the PABAC and CSTSC as directed by City staff. City staff will review any comments on criteria selection, criteria definition, and criteria methodology generated by the PABAC and CSTSC and provide Alta with specific guidance on response in order to finalize the project prioritization methodology. Alta will weight criteria as required in order to establish priority of the most important considerations for Palo Alto. Criteria may consist of those listed below and others developed with City staff, the PABAC, and CSTSC. • Closure of critical gap • Improvement that addresses an existing safety concern/need • Destinations served • Geographic distribution of City coverage • Estimated use • Provides a safe route to school • Connects to areas of regional significance • Current availability and/or suitability of right-of-way • Interface with transit • Local political and community support Alta will provide the draft project ranking for joint review by PABAC, CSTSC and City staff. City staff will provide a single set of consolidated internally consistent comments to Alta for incorporation into the Draft plan. Additional revisions to the project prioritization or restructuring of the project prioritization methodology will require a contract modification and will be billed on a time and materials basis. Task 6.7. Support Facility Recommendations Alta will develop recommendations for bicycle support facilities. Support facilities for non- motorized systems include signal detection, lighting, signing, bicycle racks and lockers, bike racks on buses, shower facilities, and staging areas at trailheads. Support facility types will be described and classified whenever possible. Our recommendations will also include actions such as improved access to transit, bike racks on buses, bike storage areas in parking lots, and recommended designs for bike racks and lockers. Task 6.8. Education, Encouragement, and Outreach Programs Alta’s Programs Team will recommend changes to improve bicycle education, encouragement, enforcement and public outreach efforts. These recommendations will be based both on results of the previous tasks that identified problem areas plus experience gained in communities around the United States. Task 6 Deliverables Recommended Policies and Best Practices Memorandum (electronic copy) Recommendations Memorandum (electronic copy) including: o Bikeway/walkway system development o Bikeway/walkway system mapping o Support facility recommendations o Program recommendations Implementation Memorandum (electronic copy) including o Project list with planning-level cost opinions o Project evaluation criteria and decision matrix Task 7 Implementation and Funding Strategies Alta will rank and phase the recommendations and include provisions for costs, monitoring, maintenance and security. Alta will prepare a discussion of financial constraints and implementation challenges such as completion of environmental review, project construction, and retrofitting infrastructure should be included. Alta will work with the City to develop materials and needed data to meet pertinent funding related requirements and provide information regarding the applicability of relevant funding sources and programs. Task 7.1. Implementation Phasing of Recommended Projects Alta will work with City staff to identify local funding mechanisms and applicability to specific projects such as site specific development agreements and mitigations, the Charleston- Arastradero Corridor Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Impact Fee, and other applicable impact fees in place in Palo Alto. Alta will prepare a memorandum identifying potential matching and major funding sources, associated criteria and requirements. Costs of the phased improvements will be compared with funding needs, so that long term programming for local matching funds can be accomplished. Task 7 Deliverables Memorandum describing project ranking, phased system, potential funding sources and opportunities (electronic copy) Task 8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Document The Plan will be developed such that it meets the requirements put forth by the VTA, Caltrans, and MTC, in order to qualify for grant funding. Task 8.1. Administrative Draft Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan Alta will prepare an Administrative Draft Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan composed of tasks and deliverables completed up to this point, including review of existing plans and legislation, existing conditions inventory and assessment, user needs assessment, recommended walkway and bikeway network, project development and prioritization, cost opinions, and implementation plan. This plan will enable the City to apply for BTA, TDA and other funds. Alta will submit an electronic copy of the Administrative Draft Plan to City staff. City staff will provide a consolidated list of internally consistent comments to be integrated into the Draft Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan. Alta will revise the Administrative Draft based on the single set of consolidated, internally consistent comments and produce a Draft Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan. Task 8.2. Draft Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan Alta will prepare and submit one electronic copy, up to six (6) bound hard copies and one (1) unbound hard copy of the Draft Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan for review by City staff, the PABAC, CSTSC, the Planning and Transportation Commission, City Council and the public. City staff will provide a consolidated list of internally consistent comments to be integrated in Final Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan. Alta will revise the Draft Plan based on the single set of consolidated internally consistent comments and produce a Final Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan. Task 8.3. Final Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan Following the City’s review and approval of the Draft Plan, Alta will make revisions and prepare the final version of the Plan to be presented to elected officials and to be made available to the public. Alta will provide up to 6 hard copies of the plans, including 1 unbound reproducible copy; an electronic copy (MS Word and PDF) for future duplicating needs and all related electronic files (graphics, excel files and GIS files). Final revision cycle based on a single, consolidated set of internally consistent comments from review meetings, a public workshop, and comments received from public hearings. Task 8 Deliverables • Administrative Draft Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Master Plan (electronic copy) • Draft Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Master Plan (electronic copy, up to six (6) bound hard copies, and one (1) unbound hard copy) • Final Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Master Plan (MS Word and PDF electronic copies, related graphic, excel and GIS electronic files, up to six (6) bound hard copies and one (1) unbound hard copy) Task 9 Project Management and Oversight Alta will provide expert staff to work with the City and stakeholder groups in managing this project and will follow the project management and communication protocols outlined below in order to guarantee client satisfaction. Project Management Procedures Alta will manage the development of the Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan effectively so that each team member has a common expectation of the project outcome. The following outlines Alta’s procedures for managing a project. This task is to provide additional weekly check-ins and up to one additional meeting with City staff to coordinate on-going revisions to the updated Report. Communicate Effectively Alta’s project manager will be in regular contact with City staff through in-person meetings, e- mails, telephone calls, and written documents. We will produce monthly reports summarizing tasks completed. At the completion of each major task, Alta will produce a working paper with maps and graphics. These working papers will serve as the basis for the final plan. Quality Control Alta employs a three-tier quality control system that includes (1) a professional editor, (2) review by principals, and (3) in-house scheduling and management tools. Technical Knowledge Alta is familiar with Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Caltrans Local Assistance, and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) approval processes and CEQA compliance requirements. In addition, Alta possesses market leading expertise in bicycle and pedestrian facility planning, design, program development, funding, operations and maintenance, geographic information systems, and related traffic safety engineering. Task 9 Deliverables Weekly project manager communications Monthly task summary reports Schedule updates, as required Technical communications/consultations, as required Task 10 Manual Counts (Optional Task) Alta will work with the City of Palo Alto Project Manager to develop a manual count methodology. The methodology will include manual count locations, count times, data collected and count recording methodology. Additional data including observed trip purpose, gender, helmet use, or wrong way riding will be discussed in the memorandum. Alta will develop the proposed methodology based on the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project and the MTC standards for data collection. Alta will assist the City in review of current Stanford University and MTC count data and planned count data acquisition for 2010/11 in order to determine appropriate locations for City of Palo Alto counts. The City of Palo Alto has the option of using a volunteer count data collection team or contracting with a traffic data firm. In the event that the City elects to use volunteers it will be the City’s responsibility to identify and coordinate the volunteers. Alta will provide training of City coordinated volunteers based on an existing count training methodology developed for Marin County. The site, equipment and other arrangements for the training will be coordinated by the City of Palo Alto. In the event that the City elects to use a professional contract traffic data collection firm, Alta will assist with scope development and review. The estimate hours for either option are equal. Alta assumes that counts at up to 20 locations will be conducted as per the approved methodology. Task 10 Deliverables Data collection Recommendations Memorandum (electronic copy) Manual count volunteer team training; or, Traffic data firm scope and contract review Task 11 Conduct Automatic Counts (Optional Task) Alta will provide the City of Palo Alto with guidance on selection, purchase and location/placement of automatic counters for the purpose of counting bicycle and pedestrians. Alta will review a list of potential locations with City staff, provide recommendation on appropriate technology and placement for specific locations, and assist in identification or appropriate vendors. Acquisition (purchase or lease) and installation of the automatic count technology will be completed by the City of Palo Alto from an appropriate vendor. Task 11 Deliverables Automatic Count Technology Communications and Memorandum Task 12 Count Data Analysis and Summary Memorandum (Optional Task) Alta will analyze the pedestrian and bicycle count data developed under Task 10 and/or 11. The memorandum will include the summary count data by location, count totals, and analysis. The analysis will include discussions of observational data including observed trip purpose (recreation or transportation), gender, helmet use or wrong-way riding. Alta requires that all count data provided be in an electronic format usable in MS Excel. Task 12 Deliverables: Data Collection Results and Summary Memorandum (electronic copy) Task 13 Community Survey (Optional Task) Alta will develop a survey (with City review) to determine the community’s general needs and concerns surrounding walking and bicycling. Alta will provide the City with a copy of the survey so that it may be sent out to residents via the project website, electric bills or other citywide mailings. Alta will make copies of the survey available for posting at all workshops, in civic locations, and in local bicycle shops and public spaces by City staff. The expected results of this component of the project are an understanding of specific community needs. This survey will ask specific questions such as how often do you/would you bike and/or walk, what are your chief concerns, and what types of improvements would you like to see in the community. The survey will also ask for current areas of deficiency; public awareness of bicycle and pedestrian safety issues; knowledge and opinion of existing conditions for bicycle and pedestrian travel; and self categorization of bicycling confidence and ability levels. Alta will use several survey methods including email tree surveys, intercept surveys, mail out surveys, bike shop surveys, and on-line surveys. A less costly alternative to creation of a new detailed survey is to actively direct participants in the planning process to Palo Alto’s existing Bicycle Improvement Request form on the City’s website. A simple flier prepared as a part of the Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan effort and strategically distributed could result in an increased volume of input. A similar form could be structured to solicit input on pedestrian specific improvements. Task 13 Deliverables: Community survey, respondent data and summary of responses memorandum (electronic copy, optional deliverable) Task 14 Prepare Environmental Document (Optional Task) This task will include assistance to City of Palo Alto staff who will lead preparation of an appropriate environmental document under the California Environmental Quality Act for the Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan. Using the CEQA Appendix G (2010) Alta will provide discussion for the City staff prepared Initial Study. Alta assumes that no “Potentially Significant Impacts” will be identified and that a Negative Declaration will be the appropriate environmental document. If specific project recommendations require new traffic analysis in order to determine potential environmental impacts under the City of Palo Alto’s existing Level of Service (LOS) policies, a contract amendment will be required to accommodate this work. Any requirement to prepare more intensive environmental documentation, inclusive of specific technical analysis and formulation of any unique mitigation strategies, will require a contract amendment. Task 14 Deliverables: Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan Initial Study Checklist, Appendix G 2010 (electronic copy) Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Plan Negative Declaration (electronic copy) Task 15 Draft Final Report Revisions (#2): Additional report revision cycle based on existing City Council feedback from the November 7, 2011 hearing (as outlined in Attachment A) and reasonable additions from Tasks 16 and 17 below. This report will then be distributed to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Transportation Commission, and City Council for additional review and commenting. Note: this Task was previously approved under “Task 10 – Contingencies” of the original contract, not exceeding the total value of $85,000. Task 16 Additional Meetings Attend, prepare materials for, present at, and incorporate findings from four additional review meetings: One (1) PABAC meeting One (1) Planning and Transportation Commission One (1) Parks and Recreation Commission One (1) City Council Task 17 South Palo Alto Community Workshop Alta will attend, help facilitate, prepare materials, and document latest findings for one (1) additional community workshop. The workshop will focus on South Palo Alto neighborhoods and connections to neighboring jurisdictions. Task 18 Additional Contingencies: Complete additional, ad hoc tasks, as requested by the City. EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete the required Services according to the following schedule: :l~' ~:::,:;~:~": and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Oelilln Team Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 18 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\OTHERS - ADRIAN\Contract Amendments\S10136649A Alta Planning & Design\S10136649A Exhibits A - C Amend No 1 FINAL.doc 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 completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the CITY. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Dollars ($109,520.00). CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. 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. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2564) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2564) Summary Title: LED Street Light Supply & Installation Title: Approval of a Construction Contract with Republic Intelligent Transportation Services Inc. in the Amount of $924,740 to Supply & Install New Energy Efficient Light Emitting Diode (LED) Street Lighting Luminaires From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation 1.Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Republic Intelligent Transportation Services Inc. in the Amount of $924,740 for removing existing High Pressure Sodium (HPS) street lighting luminaires and for supply/installation of new energy efficient Light Emitting Diode (LED) street lighting luminaires, (Capital Improvement Project EL-10009). 2. Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Republic Intelligent Transportation Services Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total of which shall not exceed $93,000. Background The City has approximately 6700 street lighting luminaires in the system. The City has already replaced close to 600 luminaires with LEOTEK product on Alma Street and El Camino Real with Energy Efficiency and Community Block Grant Money (EECBG). This will be the second phase in a multiyear CIP project, EL-10009, which will replace all the HPS fixtures with LED fixtures. Discussion The work to be performed under this contract includes: removal of existing cobra head type HPS luminaires from our street lighting system and the installation of 2655 new LEOTEK LED street lighting luminaires. LED street lighting luminaires have a longer life (15-18 years) compared to traditional HPS luminaires (5-6 years), lower ongoing maintenance cost, and will provide a better lighting distribution pattern on the streets. The average power demand of the LED luminaires is lower than the average power demand of HPS street lights. Energy savings from replacing the HPS luminaires is in the range of 40-45 percent. LEOTEK luminaires are manufactured to comply with City of Palo Alto specifications and industry standards. April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2564) The LEOTEK LED street lighting luminaires will be supplied and installed by Republic Intelligent Transportation Services Inc. on the existing street lighting, utility or traffic signal poles in residential and commercial areas. This phase of the project `will cover Central and North Palo Alto as indicated on attachment “A” (Areas A2 & A3). Utility engineering has plans to replace the remaining street lighting fixtures (approximately 3500 fixtures) with energy efficient LED luminaires within the next five years. An Invitation for Bids (IFB) for removal of existing luminaires and supply/ installation of new LED luminaires was issued. The following table is a summary of the bid process: Bid Name / Number Supply & Installation of LED Street Lighting Fixtures IFB No. 143538 Proposed Length of Project 6 months Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 21 Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 6 Total Calendar Days to Respond to Bid 28 Pre-Bid Meeting Yes, January 5, 2012 Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 18 Number of Bids Received 4 Bid Price Range From $913,030 to $1,343,025. * Bid summary provided as attachment “B”. As shown in the bid summary, Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $924,740 submitted by Republic Intelligent Transportation Services Inc. be accepted and that Republic Intelligent Transportation Services Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder by Council. The lowest bid was disqualified for failing to meet the specification and also has limited resources to execute the project of this magnitude. The recommended base bid is 15 percent below the staff engineer’s estimate of $1,200,000. The contingency amount of $93,000 which equals approximately 10% of the total contract is requested for additional but unforeseen work that may develop during execution of the project. Staff verified with the California Contractors State Licensing Board that the contractor has an active license on file and is in good standing. Staff also checked the references provided by the contractor and received positive responses. Timeline This project will be completed within 180 working days after the contract is awarded. Resource Impact April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2564) Funds for this project are included in FY 2011-12 Utilities Department Electric Capital Improvement Program budget (EL-10009). Policy Implications The approval of this contract is consistent with existing City policies. This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key Strategy No. 1, Objective No. 2, “to invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service”. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15302 of CEQA Guidelines (repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing facilities). Attachments: Attachment A: Contract C12143538 (PDF) Attachment B: LED Street Lighting Conversion Project (CIP) 2010-15 (PDF) Attachment C: Bid Summary Sheet (PDF) Prepared By:Gopal Jagannath, Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Rev. August 3, 2010 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C12143538 City of Palo Alto and Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc. PROJECT “Supply & Installation of LED Street Lighting Fixtures” Rev. August 3, 2010 FILENAME C12143538.DOC i CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS....................................1 1.1 Recitals................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Definitions ...........................................................................................................................1 SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ...................................................................................................1 SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS........................................................................1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................................................1 3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ...............................................................................2 SECTION 4. THE WORK.........................................................................................................2 SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................2 SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION.....................................................................................3 6.1 Time Is of Essence .............................................................................................................3 6.2 Commencement of Work ...................................................................................................3 6.3 Contract Time......................................................................................................................3 6.4 Liquidated Damages...........................................................................................................3 6.4.1 Entitlement...................................................................................................................3 6.4.2 Daily Amount................................................................................................................3 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy........................................................................................................3 6.4.4 Other Remedies...........................................................................................................3 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ..........................................................................................3 SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR ..............................................................3 7.1 Contract Sum ......................................................................................................................3 7.2 Full Compensation..............................................................................................................4 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................4 7.3.1 Self Performed Work....................................................................................................4 7.3.2 Subcontractors.............................................................................................................4 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12143538.DOC ii SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE.......................................................................................4 SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ............................................................................................4 9.1 Hold Harmless.....................................................................................................................4 9.2 Survival................................................................................................................................5 SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ......................................................................................5 SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS................................................................................5 SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.............................................................5 SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................6 13.1 Method of Notice.................................................................................................................6 13.2 Notice Recipients................................................................................................................6 13.3 Change of Address.............................................................................................................6 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................7 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes............................................................................................7 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.................................................................................................7 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.................................................................................................7 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.......................................................................................7 14.3.1 By Contractor...............................................................................................................7 14.3.2 By City..........................................................................................................................8 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process ..............................................................................8 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.......................................................................................................8 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................8 14.4.3 Mediation......................................................................................................................9 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration........................................................................................................9 14.5 Non-Waiver........................................................................................................................10 SECTION 15. DEFAULT..........................................................................................................10 15.1 Notice of Default ...............................................................................................................10 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.............................................................................................10 SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES....................................................................11 16.1 Remedies Upon Default ...................................................................................................11 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services .............................................................................................11 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................11 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12143538.DOC iii 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract..........................................................................11 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default........................................................11 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond....................................................................................11 16.1.6 Additional Provisions..................................................................................................11 16.2 Delays by Sureties............................................................................................................12 16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................................12 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.............................................................................................12 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ..........................................................................................12 16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .............................................................................12 16.6 Termination Without Cause.............................................................................................12 16.6.1 Compensation............................................................................................................12 16.6.2 Subcontractors...........................................................................................................13 16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination...........................................................................13 SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ..................................................13 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies ....................................................................................................13 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage....................................................................................................14 17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment.............................................................................................14 17.2 Damages to Contractor....................................................................................................14 SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS...............................................................................14 18.1 Financial Management and City Access.........................................................................14 18.2 Compliance with City Requests ......................................................................................14 SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES................................................................................14 SECTION 20. NUISANCE........................................................................................................14 SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES...............................................................................15 SECTION 22. WAIVER............................................................................................................15 SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ...........................................................................................15 SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT ..............................................................................15 SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.............................................................................15 SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES......................................................................................15 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12143538.DOC iv SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION ...................................................................................15 SECTION 28 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS...........................................................................15 SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................15 SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................16 1 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12143538.DOC CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on March 19, 2012 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc. ("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 General Engineering firm duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 647154. 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 December 19, 2011, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the “Supply & Installation of LED Street Lighting Fixtures” (“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 Bid 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 construction of the Supply & Installation of LED Street Lighting Fixtures ("Project"). 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 Change Orders 3) Contract 4) Project Plans and Drawings Rev. August 3, 2010 2 5) Technical Specifications 6) Special Provisions 7) Notice Inviting Bids 8) Instructions to Bidders 9) General Conditions 10) Bidding Addenda 11) Invitation for Bids 12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents 14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and updated from time to time 15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005 and updated from time to time 16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 19) Performance and Payment Bonds 20) Insurance Forms 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. SECTION 4 THE WORK. The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable Code Requirements. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 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 Project 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 3 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 within One Hundred Eighty calendar days (180) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. 6.4.1 Entitlement. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to: (i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants. (ii) Loss of public use of public facilities. (iii) Extended disruption to public. 6.4.2 Daily Amount. City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.4.4 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 agreed to by Change Order executed by City and Contractor 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 Nine Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Dollars ($924,740). 4 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12143538.DOC 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. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work. The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by City: 1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor, which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section. 2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance with this Section. 3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section. Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be computed as follows: 7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work. 10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by Contractor with its own forces. 7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors. 15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by a first Tier Subcontractor. SECTION 8 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. 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 collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to any of, the following: (i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier; Rev. August 3, 2010 5 (ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents; (iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties; (iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and (v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of the Work. However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. 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. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. 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. On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract. SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. City is entering into this Construction Contract based 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. 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 6 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 (iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, 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: Or City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attn: Gopal Jagannath 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: Gopal Jagannath 13.3 Change of Address. In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 7 SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes. 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes. 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following: (i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a governmental agency; (ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier; (iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.; (iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to Contractor; (v) Stop notices; or (vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel performance of any provision of the Contract Documents. 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election. Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work. 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute. 14.3.1 By Contractor. Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the following: (i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the Contract Time and (ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Rev. August 3, 2010 8 Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following: (a) A detailed cost breakdown and (b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for submission of Change Order Requests and Claims. 14.3.2 By City. City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events. 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the process. 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations. Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass-Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes. Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion. 14.4.3 Mediation. If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph 14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before a mutually acceptable third party mediator. Rev. August 3, 2010 9 .1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in mediation skills. .2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules. .3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration. If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following: .1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5. .2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein. .3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or continuance. .4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good cause shown. .5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award. Rev. August 3, 2010 10 .6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following: (i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per party. Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as evidence. .7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards. .8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4. Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors who provide any portion of the Work. 14.5 Non-Waiver. Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims. SECTION 15 DEFAULT. 15.1 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. 15.2 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. SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: Rev. August 3, 2010 11 16.1.1 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. 16.1.2 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. 16.1.3 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. 16.1.4 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 15. 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. 16.1.5 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. 16.1.6 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. 16.2 Delays by Sureties. Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following: (i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time; (ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work; (iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably delaying the Work; (iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract; (v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or (vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the Contract Time. Rev. August 3, 2010 12 16.3 Damages to City. 16.3.1 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. 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default, then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 16.4 Suspension by City 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. 16.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 16.5 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. 16.5.1 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 16.5, 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 and Sub-subcontractors for: (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. Rev. August 3, 2010 13 .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. 16.5.2 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. 16.6 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. SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 17.1.1 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. 17.1.2 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 14 17.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 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 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 18.1 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. 18.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 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 18.1 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 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers 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 20 NUISANCE. 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 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 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 22 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 15 SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 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 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 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 26 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION. 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 28 AUTHORITY. 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 29 ATTORNEY FEES. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2, the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorney’s 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 attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties. SECTION 30 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ___________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney REPUBLIC INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ 24NO$ 1,000 Nos 102 No; 21>101 J:H10I 21 NOl 12N()S A2 . 1,220 Exisllng Street lights fluore'Cdnl ."......... 15 No! High Preuu'e Soqi .... m ..... 94lHIm Mercury Vcpor 7 NO~ IrICOl1deKenl 196 NOt Slate or County OWned-· CPA Moinlolned· Not specil1ed .. CITY BOUNDARY LINE =","",":::1_ ' ,~., '.' '1 < ,'e ~':~l ' J L __ l~i..J .,,~ -'_ '"" ~-' SOLID AREAS COMMERCIAL AREAS PROPOSED LED STREET LIGHTING CONVERSION PROJECTS Al III A3 A4 • AS • UEGIEND El CMt.iI-/O '<EAt & ALMA !torn VI-lIVE.'UHY 10 SAN MlfOHIO ___ 2010·2011 MIQ IOTAl AREA 6ETWEEfl El CAMINO & ALMA (tSI. 116ttiOll CEnH~"\1. PALO AUO FRO ... 1 EMSARCADERO RO 10 " ___ ." __ "_" __ .. _ 201l·W12 LOMA VERDE AvE AREA lESt t220tJ~1 nORfH PALOAlfO FROMCny BOUNDARY Al PAlOAlfOAVE TO EMBARCADERO RO INCLUDING DomltO'll;.! IE$l 17<6<'10\:) 2012·2013 PAlQA110EAHOF HIGHWAI' 101 B!;fWEHi ClIY BOUr·IDARIES. ___ 2014·2015 WESt PA~O ALTOfR0\1 EL CAMJNO REAL 10 FOOfHlll EXPY e. ALEXIS Of? AREA IN THE FOOTH!I.lS (EST. 128INoll iHOI 1,43B}!OS Vopo< ............ ~" 140 NOI State or County Owned" CPA Mc;nloined -.' HoI 5pec~'ed .. 151 NO. A4 ·1,131 ExistingSlreelllghts } Nos 1.l1H.fo. ,HIOI 0;10;1 State or County Owned .. 1 Not CPA Mo'oloined·· 7 NOi- i·lo! tpecilled·.. 0 No~ AS . 1,281 Existing Street Lights fk;ore~cenl " , . High PreS'H"Ila SOd: ..... m ••. " MerCI.,J£,/ Vapor •• " •. lw.:ondlHcenl .• A,;pcrl .... •· .. · .... · ...... ···• .. ·• floOdJighl !SHos 1098 Nos 32'No~ 2<!N~ 13 Ho~ 2l'jo~ Slate orCoontyOwned·"' 94N1;n CPA Moiflto:ned" 67 Nm 1'101 soecij:ed '.. 27Nm -INSTALLATION OF LED STREET LIGHTING FIXTURES DESCRIPTION ITEM Manufacturer ED streetlight luminaire equivalent to a 100 Watt HPS luminaire to operate at 120-277V HPS luminaire to operate at 120-277V HPS luminaire to operate at 480V HPS luminaire to operate at 460V S luminaire to operate at 480V 2.655 EA Republic ITS Enllght (LEOTEKI (LEOTEKI $320 $318.00 $461,100 $565.00 $500 $324,875.00 $287,362 $380 $356.00 I $570.001 $610 $68,400 $64,080.00 I $102,600.001 $109,807 $729,880 I $1,195.9751 $1,010.012 $369.0011 $575.001 ..... __ .. _ ..... _ .. _ ..... _._ .. _. =============~~39~.4~009F====================================~~~~=============== ============~$~38~01~======~~====================~~~1~~======~~~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~_ $51,300 $49,815.00 $77,625.00 $420 $407.00 $539 $115.500 $111.925.00 $148.313 $407.00 $650 $5.100 $6.496 $6251 $800.00 $735 $18.750 $24,000.00 $22,058 $239.264 $0 Yes Not SpeCified in the Yes Since 2005 ==========================================L=im=it=e~dr-~--·············--~~~1F============9 No r------------~F========9 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2587) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 2587) Summary Title: College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan Approval Title: Approval of Permanent Traffic Calming Plan for College Terrace Neighborhood From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the permanent installation of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan in College Terrace, as shown on Attachment A. Background College Terrace is a predominantly residential area bound by El Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side, and Stanford Avenue on the north side with a small amount of commercial uses along El Camino Real. Surrounding land uses adjacent to College Terrace include Stanford University and the Stanford Research Park to the north and south respectively. In 2003, the City began a traffic calming program in College Terrace in response to traffic intrusion and speeding concerns of the community. In 2006 following City Council approval, a series of trial traffic calming treatments were implemented including: traffic circles, speed tables and other traffic management measures were installed along the border and interior streets of the College Terrace neighborhood. In 2008, the traffic calming trial was completed and a follow up evaluation was initiated by the City. Although the traffic calming measures performed as generally expected, there was still mixed support for some of the features. April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 2587) Following a Planning & Transportation Commission recommendation in July 2009 a Modified Traffic Calming Plan was implemented for another trial. Discussion The final trial of the traffic calming plan in College Terrace Plan is now complete. An evaluation that assesses the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures, both in terms of traffic management as well as meeting neighborhood expectations has been completed with input by the College Terrace residents. To measure the effectiveness of the modified traffic calming plan before and after speed and volume data was obtained and compared. Critical vehicle speeds (85-percential speeds) in nearly all of the project locations were reduced to as little as 23 MPH in the interior streets such as on College Avenue and to 26-31 MPH on peripheral streets such as California Avenue. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the motorists drive on a given road unaffected by slower traffic or poor weather. This speed indicates the speed that most motorists on the road consider safe and reasonable under ideal conditions. In summary, the number of vehicles traveling over 25 MPH on nearly all streets within College Terrace has decreased along with vehicle volumes, based on available before and after data. Neighborhood Survey Process In March, 2011, a detailed letter and a neighborhood survey postcard were mailed to the all households in College Terrace. Out of the 900 postcards sent, approximately 27% (243) of the survey postcards were returned. Based on the replies received, a workable community consensus (estimated 80% of responses) has been reached in favor of the permanent retention of the current plan. College Terrace Community Input A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) made up of 8 residents appointed by the College Terrace Resident’s Association (CTRA) Board and City staff began meeting in September 2010 to review the effectiveness of the traffic calming plan. The PAC participated in analyzing data, reviewing survey forms, and in helping to ensure neighborhood participation in the review of the project so that final recommendations for retention of the project could be made. Overall, the College Terrace neighborhood has noted a positive impact as a result of the traffic calming plan and there is concurrence that the traffic calming improvements are effective and should be maintained permanently. Like all April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 2587) traffic calming studies though, there remains additional input and concerns outside of the scope of the original study. Some of the additional comments and concerns heard from the PAC included the request for additional traffic calming measures in upper College Avenue near Bowdoin Street to address cars travelling in the eastbound direction because of the number of pedestrian activity in that area and the request for landscaping of traffic circle facilities. In response to these concerns, additional pedestrian warning signs will be installed in April 2012. An effective traffic calming plan does not provide measure on every block segment of a neighborhood but instead helps to reduce overall vehicle speeds and volumes within a community to help preserve quality of life. The pedestrian warning signs to be installed near the intersections of College Avenue & Columbia Street and College Avenue & Oberlin Street, and College & Bowdoin in response to the final concerns will be helpful in providing awareness of pedestrian activity without creating additional restrictions within the neighborhood. “Cross Traffic Does Not Stop” placards are also being installed at intersections where only two of four approaches of an intersection are STOP-controlled. These signs should help the unfamiliar driver in College-Terrace to recognize driving patterns in the neighborhood. Lastly, paint along the curbs of the traffic calming improvements and roadway markings within College Terrace will be updated as needed. The CTRA Board had requested that the two traffic circles on Yale Avenue at College Avenue and Cambridge Avenue be landscaped. The City no longer provides landscaping for traffic circles due to operations and maintenance impacts and high initial capital improvement costs. The City had initially proposed that the traffic circles be hardscaped and filled in with colored/stamped concrete or other decorative finishes. In response to the College-Terrace request, the City has agreed to leave the circles in place as is and to pursue public-private partnership opportunities for potential landscape improvements. The City has also with worked with the College Terrace working group to allow residents to landscape and maintain the curb extensions installed as part of the project. The curb extensions are located close to the sidewalk and do not require residents to be in the roadway to plant and water the landscaping. The College Terrace Board has expressed its complete support for the plan. With the support of the College Terrace PAC, staff recommends Council approve the permanent retention of the following traffic calming treatments as noted on Attachment A: All existing speed tables on Stanford Avenue and California Avenue. April 09, 2012 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 2587) Small center median islands with stop signs on College Avenue at Columbia Street, Hanover Street and Oberlin Street. Four (4) speed humps on College Avenue Two (2) traffic circles on Yale Street at College Avenue and Cambridge Avenue and curb extensions Commission Review and Recommendations Staff presented the proposal for the permanent installation of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan to the Planning & Transportation Commission on October 12, 2011. Three residents attended the Planning Commission meeting and expressed their support for the permanent retention of the current traffic calming measures placed in the neighborhood. At this meeting, the residents requested that staff not move forward with the hardscaping of the two traffic circles on Yale and that they remain unfilled to anticipate potential private/public funding opportunities for landscaping. The Commission concurred with the staff recommendation and residents’ request, and agreed that staff should work with the residents to develop and recommend suitable planting materials for the bulbouts. With the exception of Commission member, Greg Tanaka, who recused himself from this item because he lives in College Terrace, and Commission member Lippert, who abstained, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended the permanent retention of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan. The Staff Report and minutes of the Commission’s meeting are provided under Attachments B and C. Timeline The College-Terrace Traffic Calming project is complete with the exception of final pedestrian warning signs to be installed in April. Resource Impact Funds for the additional signing and striping required for the traffic calming measures are available in CIP project PL-05003, College Terrace Traffic Calming Project. Policy Implications April 09, 2012 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 2587) The proposed traffic calming plan is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan T-34: “Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures.” In general, the initiation, planning and recommendation of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan are consistent with the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program that addresses spot treatment on a residential street. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. Environmental Review The permanent retention of the Current traffic calming plan complies with all the requirements and mitigations stated in the project’s original Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in September 2004. Attachments: Attachment A: College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan (PDF) Attachment B: P&TC Staff Report and Attachments dated October 12, 2011 (PDF) Attachment C: P&TC Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2011 (PDF) Prepared By: Shahla Yazdy, Traffic Engineer Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager College Terrace Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Stanford Oxford College Cambridge California El Camino Real Legend Yale Exst. Stop Sign Driveway Traffic Circle Williams Center Island Driveway Speed Table Wellesley Speed Hump Curb Extension Cornell Princeton Driveway Oberlin Harvard Driveway Escondido Hanover Hanover Dartmouth Columbia Driveway Bowdoin Bowdoin Amherst Escondido School Library TO: FROM: PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Shahla Yazdy DEPARTMENT: Planning and Commnnity Environment AGENDA DATE: October 12,2011 SUBJECT: COLLEGE TERRACE TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the permanent installation of the Traffic Calming Plan in College TelTace as shown in Attachment A. BACKGROUND College Terrace is a predominantly residential area bound by El Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side, and Stanford A venue on the north side with a small amount of commercial uses along El Camino Real.. Surrounding land uses adjacent to College Terrace include Stanford University and the Stanford Research Park to the n011h and south respectively. In 2003, the City began a traffic calming program in College Terrace in response to traffic intrusion and speeding concerns of the community. With consultant help the City initiated the College Terrace Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. In 2006 following City Council approval, a series of trial traffic calming treatments were implemented including: traffic circles, speed tables and other traffic management measures were installed along the border and interior streets of the College Terrace neighborhood. In 2008, the traffic calming trail was completed and a follow up evaluation was initiated by the City. Although the traffic calming measures performed as generally expected, there was still mixed support for some of the features. Following a Planning & Transpo11ation Commission City of Palo Alto Page 1 recommendation in July 2009 a Modified Traffic Calming Plan was implemented that includes (see map on Attachment A for locations): • Installation of Speed Table on upper California Avenue. • Removal of traffic circles at Columbia Street and Oberlin Street. • Installation of small center median islands with stop signs on College Avenue at Columbia Street, Hanover Street and Oberlin Street. • Installation of 4 speed humps on College Avenue • Addition of Curb Extensions to traffic circles on Yale Street at College Avenue and Yale Street at Cambridge Avenue The curb extensions are semi-circular in shape and extend from the curb roughly the width of a parked car. DISCUSSION College Terrace Project Trial Evaluation The final trial of the modified traffic calming plan in College Terrace Plan is now complete. An evaluation that assesses the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures, both in terms of traffic management as well as meeting neighborhood expectations is also complete and has been completed with input by the College Terrace residents. In summaty, the number of vehicles traveling over 25 MPH on nearly all streets within College Terrace has decreased along with vehicle volumes, based on available before and after data. ANALYSIS To measure the effectiveness of the modified traffic calming plan before and after speed and volume data was obtained and compared. Attachments B shows the speed and volume data obtained in 2010 compared against data from 2007. Critical vehicle speeds (85-percential speeds) in nearly all of the project locations were reduced to as little as 23 MPH in the interior streets such as on College Avenue and to 26-31 MPH on peripheral streets such as California Avenue. The only streets that showed a minor increase in vehicle speeds are Princeton Street and Columbia Street with critical speeds of 26 MPH and 27 MPH respectively; these speeds are still considered reasonable for the neighborhood. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the motorists drive on a given road unaffected by slower traffic or poor weather. This speed indicates the speed that most motorists on the road consider safe and reasonable under ideal conditions. Neighborhood Survey Process On March 16, 2011, a detailed letter and a neighborhood survey postcard (Attachment C) was mailed to the approximate 900 households in College Terrace The survey letter included a description of the modified traffic calming plan and the results of the speed and volume results of the traffic calming elements that were proposed as part of the plan. Three (3) speed tables on Stanford Avenue and two (2) on California Avenue were previously approved for pelmanent retention in 2009 and were not included in the current vote. The survey asked residents to vote on whether they support: (1) permanent retention of the Cily of Palo Alia Page 2 "Current Plan" or (2) removal of the "Current Plan" and return to original conditions. Residents were given 3 Yz weeks to respond and send back their postcards. Out of the 900 postcards sent, approximately 27 % (243) of the survey postcards were returned. Based on the replies received and as shown in Table I below, a workable community consensus (estimated 80% of responses) has been reached in favor of the pernlanent retention of the current plan. T bl 1 S a e : urvey R IIf thCn esu s or e o ege T errace T ff C I ra IC ammg PI an Replies '. . ..... . ... SupportPermanent Retention on~e Current Plan .. ' ... ' ........ % of I % of # Houses # Yes Responses #No % of Responses ,243 27 195 80 48 20 College Terrace Review Board A Project Ad visory Committee (PAC) made up of 8 residents appointed by the College Terrace Resident's Assoeiation (CTRA) Board and City began meeting in September 2010 to review the effectiveness of the modified traffic calming plan. Staff met regularly with the PAC and CTRA to evaluate the modified traftic c.alming plan and establish evaluation thresholds. The PAC participated in analyzing data, reviewing survey fonns, and in helping to ensure neighborhood pmticipation in the review orthe project so that final recommendations for retention of the project could be made. College Terrance Community Input Overall, the College Terrace neighborhood has noted a positive impact as a result of the modified traffic calming plan and there is c.oncurrence that the traffic caIming improvements are eiTective and should be maintained pennanently. Like all traffic calming studies though, there remains additional input 3lld concerns outside ofthe scope ofthe original study. Some of the additional comments and concerns heard from the PAC include: • Additional traffic calming measures arc still required in upper College Avenue near Bowdoin Street to address cars travelling in the eastbound direction because ofthe number of pedestrian activity in that area. • Rcquest lur landscaping oftraflic circle facilities The concern was raised by newer residents along the western periphery of College Terrace (Attachment D). In response to the concern, additional pedestrian warning signs are being installed. An effective traffic calming plan does not provide measure on every bloc.k segment of a neighborhood but instead helps to reduce overall vehicle speeds and volumes within a community to help preserve quality oflife. Pedestrian warning signs are also being installed ncar the intersections of Columbia Street & College Avenue and Oberlin Street & College Avenue. "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" placards are also being installed at intersections where only two of four approaches of an intersection are STOP-controlled. These signs should help the unfamiliar driver in College-Terrace to recognizing driving patterns ill the neighborhood. Lastly, paint along the curbs ofthe traffic calming improvements and roadway markings within College Terrace will be updated as needed this Fall. DIy of Polo Alia PagoJ A letter from the CTRA Board (Attachment E) was received in July 19, 2011 requesting that the two traffic circles on Yale Avenue at College A venue and Cambridge Avenue be landscaped. The City is no longer landscaping traffic circles due to operations & maintenance impacts and high initial capital improvement costs. The City is proposing that the traffic circles be hardscaped, filled in with colored/stamped concrete or other decorative finishes. The cost for landscaping of the traftlc circles would cost up to $25,000 to accommodate concrete work and irrigation with an additional $4,500 recurring annual maintenance costs versus hardscapc treatments that cost $10,000 with no recurring maintenance costs. StafT explored the option of allowing residents to maintain traffic circles but recommended against this practice to protect city liability. The City has agreed though to allow residents to landscape and maintain curb extensions. The curb extensions are located close to the sidewalk and do not require for residents to be in the roadway to plant and water the landscaping. Hardscape treatments at traffic circles is proposed for installation as part of the 2011-12 Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Rehabilitation project. Traffic Calming Plan recommendation for permanent retention: Staff and the PAC feel that the current modified traffic calming plan option addresses the majority of the neighborhood concerns. The College Terrace Board has also expressed its complete suppOli for the plan. With the support ofthe College Terrace PAC, staff recommends retention of the following traffic calming treatments as noted on Attac!mlent A: • All existing speed tables on Stanford Avenue and California Avenue. • Small center median islands with stop signs on College Avemle at Columbia Street, Hanover Street and Oberlin Street. • Four (4) speed humps on College A venue • Two (2) traffic circles on Yale Street at College A venue and Cambridge A venue and curb extensions Department Comments Fire Station 2 is located in close proximity of the College Terrace area. The Fire department was consulted with regard to thc proposed traffic calming features as recommended in the Current Plan. In February 2009, a field test was scheduled with the Fire Department's apparatus (truck and engine) to drive through and around the proposed median islands and curb extensions. Staff modified the design of the features to address the fire departments comments. Response times of emergency services would not be compromised by the College Terrace TraffIc Calming Plan. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The proposed traffic calming plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan T-34: "Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures." City of Palo Alto Page 4 In general, the initiation, planning and recommendation ofthe College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan are consistent with the City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program that addresses spot treatment on a residential street. Staffbe.lieves there are no other substantive policy implications. RESOURCE IMPACT: Funds for the. additional signing and striping required for the traffic calming measures are· available in the CIP project PL-05003, College Terrace Traffic Calming Project. TIMELINE Next Steps The Commission's recommendations will be considered by City Council as a Consent Calendar item. Once Council approves permanent installation of the plan, the additional modifications will be completed in the Fall 2011 and the traffic circles would be hardscaped in early 2012. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The pemlanent retention of the Current traffic calming plan complies ",ith all the requirements and mitigations stated in the project's original Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in September 2004 and included as an attachment in the July 22,2009 Staff Report (Attachment F). ATTACHMENTS: A. College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan B. Before! After Speed and Volume Results C. Letter to Residents, March 16,2011 D. Letter from CTRA E. Landscaping letter from CTRA Board F. July 22,2009 Planning and Transportation Commission StaffRepOli and Minutes COURTESY COPIES: College Terrace Residents Association Board College Terrace Project Advisory Committee PREPARED BY: Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer REVIEWED BY: Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official (\1 ~ DEPARTMENTfDlVISION HEAD APPROVAL: ___ \;N\Jii:lJ __ --: _________ _ Curtis Williams, Director City of Pil/o Ano Page 5 I ] C $ en I College Terra"ce Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan CURRENT PLAN ~ u ~ ~ ao -" 8 0 ao "~ u "C E '" ,g E c'l Zl If I I n EI Camino Real n n ~D D~ ~:Ia=:::::: Cornell Princeton L j -• Oberlin • L Harvard Escondido r Hanover EJ Sd>ooI Dartmouth COlumbia ~ • • 1t Bowdoin Bowdoin .. Amherst IAttachment A • EulStQPSlgt> Trame Circle • C&n!er ISland • ,-Speed Hump _ ClKtl ExlenslOf"l Hanover IAttachment B-1 I College Terrace Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan CHANGE IN SPEED -85% (2007/2010) " ~ " u " '" u ·c D E ~ ro E 0 '= iij u __ ---'I ,--I ___ --'-I 1 I I I n EI Camino Rea n n ~DD ] Williams IC m t:=::::a=~ " EscondIdo BowdDin r -... ..... _-'W""iel'asp'e"-_-' Cornell m PrInceton mp mp OriveWl'l)' Oberlin mp 32 mph! 31 mph Harvar" ~ ____________ _"_: ~==~H~a~nO~v~.~':J ..... _"D~artmOru"'th'---' r: 28 mph/28mph -r-~C~o~lu~m~b~la,-~. • mp mp 23 mph! 23mph Bowdoin Amherst l IAttachment B-2 1 • U lt Slop SIgn Trv«l<: CI<dG • Cenl.el leland • ...-.,Splltdrl blll ..-a SplltdHump -CIJIb Ex1e1'lS1on Hanovel Attachment C March 16,2011 SUBJECT: COLLEGE TERRACE TRAFFIC CALMING -NEIGHBORHOOD VOTE Dear Resident, Siaffhas been working closely with the College Terrace Resident's Association Board and a committee consisting of College Terrace residents, to evaluate the existing plan 10 make sure that it has "ehieved the goals for traffic safety and speed and traffic volume reductions while addressing neighborhood concems, In 2009, three (3) speed tables on Stanford Avenue and two (2) on Cahiomia Avenue were approved for permanent retention and are not included in this current vote. Before and ailer data taken on May and September 2010 has shown thai overall speeds and traffic volumes in the neighborhood have been noticeably reduced. A summary of the completed technical evaluation, speed and volume data and description of the traftic calming mc"slU'CS is posted on the project website (see website addre" below). This vote is for the permanent retellt\on of tbe Current Plan (Exhibit A) wbich includes the following elements: CURRE~T PLAN ": • 3 pairs (6) small center median islands with stop signs on College at Columbia, Hanover and Oberlin, • 4 speed humps to control speeds on College (see map on Exhibit A for locations) • 2 traffic circles on Yale at College and Cambridge and the 3 curb extensions to approaches. • I speed table on upper California Avenue (between Columbia and Dartmouth) ** If approved, staff will be updating the paint/striping/signing to enhance the tramc calming features, Postcard Vote: Enclosed is a postcard to vote on whether you (1) support the permanent retention of the Current Plan, or (2) support the removal of the Current Plan, Pleasefi" Ollt t/le enclosed survey card amI mail it 110 later tflall April 8, 2011. Please note that only Olle survey card per household is permitted. In order for the "Current Plan" option to be approved lor permanent retention, it must receive a vote from a majority (50+) percent of survey respondents, If supported by the neighborhood survev~Jhiu)lan will be recommended to the Planning and Transportation Commission al)(t(:j.tY..~ouncil for final approval Additional detailed information on the history and background of the project can be found at the project website: http://www.cirvofpaloalto.org/knowzone/city proj ects/transpOIiation/college terrace.asp, If you have any questions please email Shahla,yazdy@cityofpaloalto,org or call (650) 617-315 L Shahla Yazdy Transpoltation Engineer To: From: Subject: Dear Shahla: College Terrace Residents' Association 2331 Amherst Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 June 27, 2011 Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer, City of Palo Alto Brent Barker, President, CTRA Board of Directors Traffic Calming Measure at Bowdoin and College Attachment oj Now that the traffic calming trials have come to a close, we would like to express our appreciation to you and other members of the city staff for your patie nce, thoughtfulness, and engagement with the residents of College Terrace over many years and through numeroUs trials. The recent city-conducted neighborhood vote showed overwhelming support for installation of the latest round of calming measures. We are writing specifically to request an additional traffic calming measure, one that would mean a great deal to our neighbors with very young children in the vicinity of College and Bowdoin, and one that we believe would take little additional time, effort, and expense on the part of the city when implementation begins. Bowdoin is the only interior street crossing College that has no calming measure in place or planned - a stop sign, speed bump, or something comparable. We would like to see a speed warning sign of some type that asks the drivers on the downhill side to slow down, pay attention, or conform to a designated speed. The particular problem with that corner is that cars turning down the hill from Amherst street (one block up) invariably accelerate because of the grade. The city took measurements of both volume and speed and found that less than 15% go above the speed limit, which is the cutoff criteria for whether a calming measure is warranted. We believe the statistics fail to captu re the nature of the problem, or the anxiety felt by parents who fear their child will be struck by a driver coming out of blind turn from Amherst onto College and accelerating downhill without sufficient time to see or react to a slow moving child crossing the street. Given the high level of concern with that particular intersection, and the relatively easy and inexpensive installation of a measure that would help remedy the problem, the College Terrace Board of Directors has voted unanimously to support our neighbors efforts to have such a sign installed. For us, it is a critical matter of safety because of the inordinate number of small children we have in the vicinity of Bowdoin and College. There are 15 children in that immediate area who are continuously running to each others' houses across the street. We thank you for your consideration. We would be pleased to discuss this at greater length. We have additional information and background to support our position. Sincerely Brent Barker, president r""''': 0"~'_0~_'_'0 :;\thJchninnt ~-~---~--~"--- College Terrace Residents' Association 2331 Amherst Street, Palo Alto, CaHiornia 94.306 July 19,2011 Dear City Council, The residents ofCollcge Terrace have approved the traffic-calming plan, which will be coming before you in the ncar future_ When it does, we urge the City Council to stipulate Ihli_Lthe two traffic circles in College Terrace be landscaped rather than hardseapell_ We appreciate the city's current financial hardships, and yet strongly support this expenditure, for the following reasons: I. Landscaping was ]lart of the originailraffic calming plan presented by the city and agreed to by a vote of College Terrace residents. According to Joe Kolt, "Should residenls wish 10 make the traffic circles proposed in Plan A permanent, Ihe J;'allsporlatioll Division is commilted to working with other ci~y departmenls alld residents 10 ensure thai they are landscaped in an allractive vet affordable manner. (p. 31 hUp:iiwww_cilyoi'paIQ"lto.orgicivicaitileballkiblobdload.aSJ27Ill()lJJD~7454) 2. Whereas the original proposal budgeted for five traffic circles, only two traffic circles remain, resulting in a significant reduction in costs. 3. According to city website, the cost difference between hardscaping with concrete ($25,000) and landscaping ($30,000) is only 20%, or $5000 per circle. The cos! differential. has been more than offset by the $70-90k savings from eliminating three of the fLve original circles_ bUll :liwww.citvofpaIoalto.orgtcivlcaifilciJ"nklblobdlo.d,a>p? BIo bID~7 45 0 4, The aesthetic advantage oflandscaping over hardscaping is extremely important to muny residents of College Tcnaee. The circles reside at the "entrance" into the residential areas of College Terrace from El Camino, and thus provide a visual bridge and statement. 5. The aesthetics of Ihe circles would reflect in spirit and principle the future streets cape upgrades on California Avenue, contributing to a sense of "place making" and community_ 6. Resideuts of College Terrace would be delighted to work together with city workers 011 planting and maintenance in relum for the benefits provided by "greener" circles. Thank you for considering our request. Brent Barker, President CTRA Board of Directors Attachment F I Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 .July 22, 2009 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan Trial Evaluation -Recommendation 10 Cily Council 8 Regarding the trial evaluation of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan. 9 10 Ms. Caporgno: Thank you Vice-Chair Tuma. This is a recommendation to Staff primarily. Just II to give you a little bit of how we got here. The City has established guidelines for traffic 12 calming process for the trials on traffic calming. What they entail is that the trials arc referred to 13 the Planning and Transportation Commission for major collectors, and for local streets Staff can 14 just initiate the traffic calming projects. In this particular case because even though these streets 15 are local they were referred to the Planning Commission because of the significance ofthis area. 16 The Plannillg Commission had origillally referred the trial itself to Staff to undertake aIld it was 17 ulldertaken. Now we are back to readjusting the trial in particular on College Avenue. So that is 18 why we brought it back to the Planning Commission for that refcrral. We also wanted you to be 19 aware of where we were with this process so you had a better understallding. We are 20 anticipating coming back to you shortly after the beginning of the year, after this six-month 21 extension occurs, to recommend approval on the entire traffic calming program. Then that 22 would go to Council. So Shahla Yazdy, our Transportation Ellgilleer, has worked on the tramc 23 calming trial and she is here to introduce our consultant, Jim West from Kimley-Horn who 24 prepared the analysis. The two of them will give you a presentation. Thank you. 25 26 Ms. Shahin Yazdy, Transportatio[lEngincer: Thank you. Good evenillg Commissioners. r will 27 be going over the College Terrace Traflic Calming Plan Trial Evaluation. As Julie had 28 mentioned the one-year trial is now complete alld Staff with consultants has put together or 29 conducted over a year long process with project advisory committee and the College Terrace 30 Board along with the consultants. Tonight we are recommending that Ihc Planning and 31 Transportation Commission implement and recommend the traffic calming features as shown on 32 the modified plan to extend the trial for allother six months, and also to request Staff to report on 33 the effectiveness of the modified pJan trial within six months of implementation. 34 35 I would like to introduce our consultallt Jim West and he will be contilluing with the 36 presentation. 37 38 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. Welcome Mr. West. 39 40 41 Mr. Jim West, Kimley-Horn and Associates: thank you very much. I am very happy to be here 42 to talk about the College Terrace plan. Because some of you and some in the audience may not 43 have participated in the earlier traffic calming work I wanted to take just a moment to talk about 44 a little of the history of the tramc calming plan, then present some information on the before and 45 after results, discuss briefly some of the comments that we got from residents of the Page I I neighborhood, discuss some of the alternatives that are being proposed and how we want to 2 move forward, and then next steps ofthe project. 3 4 As you know the College Terrace is in the green overlay area located between Stanford 5 University and the Stanford Research Park. Many, many years ago several of the streets were 6 closed to try to help protect the neighborhood from traffic cutting through the neighborhood. 7 However, over that period of time those volumes have grown which prompted the traffic calming 8 plan, which we worked on a few years back. That plan was worked in development with a 9 project advisory committee, the neighborhood leadership, residents, and the City. That plan was 10 supported by a survey in which 71 percent of the respondents supported that plan. It was II approved by the Council in November of2004 and following design those features were installed 12 on a trial basis in 2006. This figure shows those improvemt'nts which were implemented that 13 included four speed tables on Stanford Avenue, two speed tables on California, four traffic 14 circles on College, another traffic circle at the intersection of Cambridge and Yale, and then 15 there were a couple of minor stop sign changes. 16 17 In order to be able to assess the eiTect of that traffic calming plan data was collected before the 18 implementation of those features and then it was collected a couple of times after. The results of 19 that are summarized in this slide. Basically the number of speeders over 25 miles per hour, 20 which is the posted speed limit on all the streets in College Terrace, went down based on the 21 available data that we had. The number of speeders over 35 miles per hour went down on 22 Stanford and California. We had mixed results interior to the neighborhood. 'Inat was really a 23 result of the fact that people in the neighborhood generally travel between 25 and 30 so we really 24 didn't have very much data over 35 or above. So therefore it is kind of inconclusive what 25 happened with those. We had a volume drop on all but two streets. The exceptions were 26 California where traffiC was actually diverted out of the neighborhood and pushed out onto 27 California where it is more appropriately located. So we saw a segment of California go up. 28 Then there was a one-block segment of Princeton that went up by about 17 cars, so not much of a 29 change on that. All the other streets saw a volume drop. In total we saw a drop of about 1,1 00 30 vehicles cutting through the north-south streets of the neighborhood. So we felt like the program 31 was effective of what we were trying to do which was to really reduce both speeding and volume 32 in the neighborhood. 33 34 In summary, we had general support particularly for the speed tables on California and Stanford. 35 I think people really felt they did the job they were intended to do addressing speed and volume 36 as well as making it easier to cross the street, particular for Stanford, which is very difficult to 37 cross at the un-signalized locations. There were mixed opinions on the traffic circles along 38 College. Even though they did reduce volume and speed there were concerns that were raised 39 aner the implementation regarding safety for pedestrians and bicyc1istsjust because of the way 40 the vehicles have to drive around the circle. There was some confilsion as to who had the right- 41 of-way when they approached the circle. As a result of that there was a petition circulated 42 through the neighborhood where a number of or quite a few people signed that petition to ask for 43 the removal of the circles. 44 45 In response the City removed the traffic circle at College and Hanover and restored the stop signs 46 as they were previously to the implementation. That was the location that people seemed to Page 2 j comment on the most Stop signed were reversed back to the original conditions at College and 2 Columbia. In the meantime process was initiated to work with a project advisory committee to 3 take a look at what else could be done to enhance the traffic calming program. Tbe objectives of 4 that plan were to retain the speed and volume benefits that we had already achieved and then try 5 to enhance those if possible, then also to focus on improved mobility and safety for the 6 pedestrians and bicyclists. One of the first comments that we got was can't we just use stop 7 signs to address all of our traffic calming needs? Stop signs are a regulatory device and are not 8 intended for traffic calming. lbere are certain thresholds that need to be followed before those 9 are implemented. Within Palo Alto these are the thresholds that the City follows. It could be 10 used as a precursor to a traffic signal or if you have a very high accident location, the number of 11 accidents in a 12 month period, or if you have very high volumes or delays at a particular 12 intersection. In each of those locations where we had traffic circles it didn't meet any of these, 13 did really even come close to any of these, to be able to justify the use of adding more stop signs 14 in the neighborhood. 15 16 So we looked at other alternatives of what could be done. Working with the project advisory 17 committee a~ well as the leadership of the neighborhood this was the plan that was developed. It 18 went throUgll a number of different iterations on this but the recommendation was to retain the 19 speed tables on Stanford and California, and then add an additional speed table on upper 20 California, to remove the traffic circles at Columbia and Oberlin recognizing that the Hanover 21 one had previously been removed, install median island and speed humps on College. Let me 22 comment just briefly on that. The median islands would be located basically where the traffic 23 circles were removed. The purpose of those islands would be twofold. One is to provide a 24 refuge for pedestrians who are crossing Colkge, and the second is that on some of those side 25 street traffic does not have to stop. In the past one of the comments we got was if there is no 26 stop sign for that particular movement drivers tend to cut the corner, not slow down, and kind of 27 fly through there at risk to the pedestrians. So this feature actually requires the vehicles to slow 28 down and go around it so that they have to go very slow, and again provides a refuge for 29 pedestrians. The speed humps would be located as close as possible to halfway between the stop 30 signs on College. Those would help slow traffic and minimize and reduce some of the cut- 31 through traffic in the neighborhood. The last one would be to add curb extensions to the 32 remaining two traffic circles on Yale. What Wt' found was that when there are not parked cars 33 near the circles vehiclcs can actually kind of run in the gutter and zip around those. So the effect 34 is not as great as intended. When cars are parked there they basically work as expected but this 35 would make them work 24 hours a day regardless of whether or not there were any parked cars 36 in the vicinity. 37 38 There was a survey sent out to the neighborhood to gauge interest both in retaining the tables on 39 Stanford and California as well as whether or not the ncighborhood wanted to pursue a modified 40 plan or perhaps just keep it a<; it is, or perhaps just take off all the traffic circles all together. The 41 results are shown here. Surveys were sent out to all the household in the neighborhood, 274 42 r('sponded which is 30 percent of the neigilbors. Eighty-three percent of thost, who responded 43 wanted to retain the speed tables. So there was very wide support for that. for the modified plan 44 we had two-thirds of the neighborhood supporting that. A much smaller number said let's keep 45 it as it or let's just take those circles back out completely. 46 Page 3 I So the recommendation based on tbe neighborhood sUlvey would be to modify Ihe plan and go 2 back out for another six months. Then at the conclusion of the trial period would be to collect 3 some additional after data to see how those modifications performed and then come back to yon 4 and the City Conncil with those results. That concludes my presentation and I would happy to 5 answer any questions I can. 6 7 Ms. Caporgno: I just wanted 10 correct something I said.' I had mentioned Ihat we don't have to 8 come to Planning Commission for local streets and [ implied that all three streets are local. The 9 only local street of these three is College and that is where tbe modified extension or trial is 10 going to be taken. So that is why we were saying that there isn't we came to the Commission II anyway because we wanted to get your input. 12 13 I wanted to also let you know that at the conclusion of the six-month trial we will go back out to 14 the College residents and they will have an opportunity to vote on whether or not they felt that 15 the extension and the modified plan work. Then with that information we will be bringing back 16 the entire plan to the Planning CommIssion and Council. 17 18 The final comment I wanted to make is we did receive queslions from Commissioner Keller and 19 we responded to those and they were provided at places. [don't know if yon want us to walk 20 through those or if you have had an opportunity to review them but we could go through them if 21 that is the Commission's desire. 22 23 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioners, my sense is that the questions here and the answers are very 24 short. I think we can digesl them. I do know that Commissioner Keller had a follow up question 25 to one of tbose answers. So in the absence of hearing any desire to have each of these gone 26 through maybe we will just have that one follow up question and then we will go to the public. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. With wspect to question two regarding cnrb extensions [ am 29 not sure I understand the answer about street sweeping because according to Attachment 0, page 30 2, it says tbe curb extensions are separated from the gutter. So I am not sure how street sweepers 31 would sweep the section between the curb extension and the gutter, which might well get 32 clogged with leaves in the season when leaves fnll. So I am not sure that that response actually 33 responded to the queslion as I intended it. 34 35 Mr. West: You are correct because it does not connect to the curb the sweeper can't get in that 36 one small area to sweep behind the curb extension. The sweeper can sweep out in front of it but 37 you are correct that there may be occasions where the leaves will collect in there. One of the 38 reasons that this particular style of curb extension was recommended is just simply a budgetary 39 issue. If they are connected to the curb Ihe cosl of that extension grows significantly because 40 often times you have to modify the curb to connect it, then you end up with a drainage issue and 41 a lot of times you have to install a drainage inlet, and obviously that is a lot more money. 42 Because of the budget Ihat the neighborhood had available for the program that is why we have 43 that recommendation. You are correct there may be a collection of leaves there. 44 45 Commissioner Kell~r: The other half of that question which I am not sure I underslood the 46 answer was the issue of bicyclists. It was mentioned that if there are no cars parked on the ~-Ihen Page 4 I the idea was to diven cars so that they don't go straight through they have to go into the middle 2 of the street and sort of zigzag back and forth. However, if there are no cars there bicyclists also 3 have to be diverted and I am wondering if that poses a threat to bicyclists or whether it - I am not 4 sure whether this makes sense or not but if the distance between the curb extension and the curb 5 were slightly wider so that the bicyclist can go through then they wouldn't have to zigzag and be 6 exposed to traffic in that direction causing a narrowing. I am not sure whether that makes sense. 7 It might be worthwhile considering for that. I am not sure that means that drivers might try to go 8 in between. I have seen that happen on various speed bumps and speed humps too. Do you have 9 any comments on that? 10 II Ms. Yazdy: Well, the curb extensions would be as wide as if a ear would be parked along the 12 curb. So basically my comment or my response about the curb extensions not impacting the 13 traveled ways, as bicyclist would pretty much share the road with the cars traveling in whatever 14 direction. So the curb extensions wouldn't corne out any further than a parked car would. 15 16 As far as whether a bicyclist would want to go around between the gutter and the edge of the 17 sidewalk that is something I am sure you could do but that is something that we can't controL 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Okay, I just want that considered because one of the issues is that if there 20 are no cars parked there then the bicyclists is usually going to be on the far extreme of the road 21 and you are asking for the bicycles and the cars to merge in order to go past the curb extension 22 into that. So 1 don't know whether you would consider that causes a hazard for bicyclists or not. 23 24 Mr. West: We can cenainly take a look at it. Because they only stick out about seven feet from 25 the curb, which means that the extension is probably about six feet wide, and then there is about 26 a foot or so between the end of the feature and the face of the curb. If we were to make that 27 opening larger essentially that curb extension would become fairly narrow which can actually 28 create a safety hazard for vehicles in that it becomes very hard to see at night because it just 29 doesn't really have enough target value as the drivers drive down the street. They don't see any 30 parked cars, sees the circle, starts to kind of head for the guUer, and then oh my gosh there is 31 something in the road. So there is a trade<)ifwe have to deal with. Ifit were a much larger 32 feature, maybe stuck out about ten feet or something like that, if the road was wider and we 33 could get a ten footer and then we shaved four feet off of that we certainly could accommodate 34 that. It becomes a little trickier when it is a much smaller feature like we are talking about. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Perhaps reflective paint might be helpful here but thank you 37 for your comments. 38 39 Vice-Chair Tuma: We are going to go to members of the public. I have five cards. Each 40 speaker will have three minutes. The first speaker is Greg Tanaka followed by Andrew Feiter. 41 Welcome. 42 43 Mr. Greg Tanaka, Palo Alto: Thank you. Dear Commissioners, good evening, I am President of 44 the College Terrace Residents Association speaking on behalf ofthe CTRA Board of Directors 45 and the CTRA Traffic Calming Implementation Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to 46 speak. Page 5 I 2 Some o[you may not have been here when the initial traffic calming efforts were first started. 3 The neighborhood effort started ten years ago to this month to consider alternative solutions to 4 the speeding, safety, and cut-through traffic that affected our neighborhood during the height of 5 the dot.com boom. Cut-through traffic was especially heavy because the neighborhood is in 6 between Stanford University on one side, the Stanford Research Park on another, and the EI 7 Camino Real on yet another. 8 9 We are submitting this to encourage implementation. There are several reasons for 10 this request. Quantitatively as indicated by the Staff Report the College Terrace voted in a II neighborhood-wide City run survey by over a two to one margin for implementation of this 12 modified plan. This was based on a relatively high survey postcard return rate. While the initial 13 traffic calming trial helped as expected especially on California and Stanford Avenue, on College 14 Avenue some of the traffic circles were not as effective and seemed to cause safety issues. The 15 modified plan will address these issues. Qualitatively based on many neighborhood meetings 16 and numerous resident feedbacks both in person and by email the overall College Terrace 17 opinion closely aligns with the quantitative survey results to be working. Only minor tuning is 18 needed which the modified plan will be implementing. 19 20 Finally, CTRA Traffic Calming Advisory Committee spend numerous meetings over the course 21 of many months brainstorming, evaluating, and debating the calL',es of the issues with the 22 original trial and possible new solutions with City Staff and the Traffic Engineer. Nearly half a 23 dozen plans were developed and debated before the modified plan was finally unanimously 24 agreed upon by the committee. The committee members represented a diverse group of residents 25 throughout College Terrace who are interested and committed to finding a solution. While the 26 modified plan is unlikely to be cOlllpletely flawless the plan does _ and implement the 27 modified plan. Thank you for your time. 28 29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. Andrew Feiter followed by Jeff Justice. 30 31 Mr. Andrew Feiter, Palo Alto: Good evening. As a College Terrace resident and member of the 32 traffic calming committee with four children, two currently at the elementary school at 33 Escondido, and two more on their way, [ encourage you to approve the modified plan trial that 34 was before you today in the slideshow. 35 36 From the slides you saw that the CTRA Board, which Greg repre.sents, the CTRA Committee, 37 which I am a member of, and there are other members here, and two-thirds majority of the 38 residents who returned their survey voted for the modified plan ill spite of the fact that there were 39 three choices all the ballot. We still got two-thirds vote even though there were three choices. 40 We have City Staff and hired consultant also supports the modified plan. Through numerous 41 meetings, input, and feedback we have come to the compromise of the modified plan. Although 42 I would prefer more extreme traffic calming measures [ think the modified plan is a reasonable 43 plan worthy of implementation to make our neighborhood a safer place. Thank you. 44 45 Vice:Chair TUllia: Thank you. Jeff Justice followed by Don Fidler. 46 Page 6 I Mr. Jeff Justice, 'palo Alto: I live in College Terrace. The problem is that we are a residential 2 neighborhood sandwiched between a very large university and a very large industrial park. To 3 keep our neighborhood walkable we put a lot of effort on traffic calming. When the plan that is 4 currently in place went into effect we were really happy that it did reduce speeds on Stanford and 5 California but we were upset that we actually got a reduction in safety on College with cars 6 swinging into the pedestrian lanes. So for almost a year now we have been talking about ways to 7 Hx that. We carne up with the modified plan. There were a million other ways to do it but that is 8 the one that we came up with. It may have a few problems like the bulb outs but there are a 9 million plans we went through and that is the one that we have right now. Thank you. 10 II Vice-Chair Tuma: 'Ibank you. Don Fidler followed by Steven Woodward. 12 13 Mr. Don Fidler, Stanford: Thank you. I brought some handouts. I brought ten copies if 14 someone could pass them around so I can refer to a couple of attachments. I think it would be 15 helpful if you saw those. 16 17 Thank you for having me here. I live on Cottrell Way, which is 0 ff of Raimundo, which is off of 18 Stanford Avenue. I Jive in the Stanford Faculty Staff Housing section. The goal of traffic 19 calming is to reduce injury accidents and yet there is no information in this report coming before 20 you on what the before and after accident rate has been. In addition traffic calming has a 21 negative aspect and that is that it increases emergency response times, which is another public 22 safety issue. Emergency vehicles are most aflected when they have to cross over multiple traffic 23 calming devices to get to their destination. If you look on Attachment I, which is just the 24 original map, you see that from Fire Station 2, which I wrote on there almost anywhere you go to 25 get across or through Stanford College Terrace one has to cross in many cases multiple traffic 26 calming. Yet in tonight's report and in the report before you there is no mention of traffic 27 calming, there is no before or after statistics about response time, and there is no before and after 28 statistics about what has changed with response time. As you mentioned earlier Stanford 29 Avenue itself is a collector road and many cities ban traffic calming on collector roads because 30 they serve other communities. So look at the map on page 2, which is just a Google map of our 31 area, and yes indeed our Stanford residential community lives right up the road off of Stanford 32 Avenue. Stanford Avenue is our principle avenue for coming and going into this community, 33 which we also live and work. I pointed this out to Gayle Likens two and a half years ago and 34 strongly recommended that our residential homeowners association, the Stanford Campus 35 Residential Leaseholders Association, be included in tonight's report with input as to how this 36 traffic calming is going. I had hoped that we would see some response time data but our 37 Director told me that there ha5 been no contact at all whatsoever. 38 39 Our fire department serves both of our communities. In fact you probably know that we at 40 Stanford pay extra through our ground rent for fire department services. I would hope that we 41 would have a say in response time as it affects us. 42 43 On Attachment 3 you see the mitigation that was offered at the beginning yet that hasn't been 44 followed up. What is a substantial increase? What is within and near? If they can get there in 45 four minutes is that good enough? It doesn't seem like it if you live down the street. 46 Page 7 I I knew I wouldn't quite get through all of this. The next attachment is very important to you 2 because it shows that response times citywide have gone up by a minute over the past year. One 3 of the reasons for this is traffic calming devices. I thank you for the volunteer work you do in 4 our community. You are needed to look into this more carefully and get a balanced viewpoint 5 from police and fire so that we make the right balance between traffic calming and response 6 times. I am sorry I couldn't quite hit the highlights I wanted to. 7 8 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. The final speaker will be Steven Woodward. 9 10 Mr. Steven Woodward, Palo Alto: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I got involved in this II issue after watching my daughter try to cross Stanford Avenue to attend Escondido School, 12 something she had to do approximately 200 days a year. She is now a sophomore at Paly and I 13 am gratified that we are getting to this point before she actually graduates out the Palo Alto 14 schools. I think I am very comfortable saying that it is a safer situation for children crossing 15 Stanford Avenue in particular and that the extension of this work to the internal streets of 16 College Terrace will benefit students in the interior of the community as well. Thank you. 17 18 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thank you. I want to ask Staff if they have any responses to the materials 19 from the previous speaker but before we do that Commissioner Keller had a follow up question 20 for Mr. Fidler if you could possibly come back up to the microphone. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: Thank you Mr. Fidler. You said that you live on Cottrell Way I believe. 23 24 Mr. Fidler: Yes. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: Thank you for the map here. Do you know whether Cottrell Way is 27 served by the station on Hanover or served by the station off of Campus Drive on Bonaire 28 Siding? 29 30 Mr. Fidler: I was told by the people at the Hanover Station that they serve my neighborhood. I 31 am told that Page Mill Road is the obvious quicker way to get to my neighborhood but we all 32 know that at rush hour every evening Page Mill Road is impassible and therefore going through 33 College Terrace to Stanford Avenue is the shortest way to get to my neighborhood. However, I 34 must say it is the fire department that needs to say what they really do not me. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I know that on Peter Coots Road which presumably would 37 be the route the fire department would take from Hanover Station along Page Mill Road I am 38 wondering if you are aware of the intersection of Peter Coots Road and Stanford Avenue? 39 40 Mr. Fidler: Of course. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Approximately ten or 15 years ago Stanford University created a traffic 43 calming measure to prevent free right turns at that intersection from Peter Coots Road onto 44 Stanford Avenue. 45 46 Mr. Fidler: I remember they were there. Page 8 2 Commissioner Keller: Yes, did you have a say about that traffic calming measure being done on 3 Peter Coots Road right tum onto Stanford Avenue? 4 5 Mr. Fidler: No I did not. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: Do think any of the College Terrace neighbors had any say on that right 8 turn? 9 10 Mr. Fidler: I have no idea. II 12 Commissioner Keller: So I just think that in some sense we are giving you a lot more input into 13 this process ofthe trartic calming for the City of Palo Alto measures than was aJ1(lrded by 14 Stanford University to even their own residents nearby that were impacted by that traffic 15 calming. Thank you sir. 16 17 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, Julie do you have some comments on the issues that were raised by 18 Mr. Fidler'! 19 20 Ms. Caporgno: Yes. During the six-month period as we extend this trial we would have an 21 opportunity to discuss further with police and fire any of the issues that were raised. I don't 22 know if Shahla or Jim have anything to add to that. This would give us an opportunity and when 23 we come back for approval ofthe permanent traffic calming program then you would have that 24 information. 25 26 Ms. Yazdy: I did want to make one comment. The fire department was involved in 27 implementation of each of these devices including the circles that are currently out there right 28 now, and also the design of the median islands and the curb extensions. So we actually did a run 29 through with their devices lor the placement of these measures. 30 31 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Thanks very much. So with that we \\'ill bring it back to 32 Commissioners for questions. Just to remind ourselves about what we are looking at here there 33 are sort of three directions we could go. One is to recommend that the measures that are 34 currently in place stay in place. Number two would be to take out what is there. Number three 35 would be to implement the modined plan as proposed. So with that as a backdrop let's go to 36 Commissioners. The nrst light I have is from Commissioner Fineberg followed by 37 Commissioner Lippert. 38 39 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start by saying that I appreciate that Staff has brought 40 this to the Commission. If I could follow up a little bit more on why it is coming back to the 41 Commission. I am still confused about the action we are being asked to take. In the 42 recommendation in the Staff Report it says Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 43 implement the measures and evaluate and request Staff to report on the effectiveness. I was 44 under the impression that we can't ask Staff or direct Staff to do anything that takes more than an 45 hour. So how can we actually implement the Staff recommendation? Is this just courtesy 46 feedback and so it is a two-way courtesy'? What is our action'? Page 9 I 2 Ms. Caporgno: The two of you may want to correct me on this but my understanding is that we 3 have traffic calming trial guidelines and the guidelines indicate that we bring to the Commission 4 initiation of these trank calming measures to the Commission, and you authorize them, and then 5 they are implemented. So this is not something that would take us more than the hour. It is a 6 process in order to enable the puhlic to provide feedback too. So it is coming to you, you 7 authorize it, then the program will be implemented for six months, and then it comes back to for 8 a recommendation to Council. So that is really what we are asking you to do tonight. 9 10 Vice-Chair Tuma: [just want to clari fy that. We did talk about this is pre-Commission and I I really the function here tonight primarily is to have a public hearing to give the public an 12 opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. I think Staff had also encouraged comments from 13 Commission. Theoretically if we had a real problem with this we would recommend that they 14 not move forward and go with one of the other alternatives. So those are on the table. Primarily 15 this is to give the public an opportunity to have a hearing on these modifications that are going to 16 go fOIward. That was the explanation that we talked about the other day. 17 18 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. I absolutely value that opportunity for the public to have input 19 and have a place where their voice can be heard and heard openly. Julie, you mentioned that 20 there are traffic calming guidelines. I have been on the Commission for a year so 1 am still very 21 much learning. Are those something that arc publicly available? Is that something that was in 22 our Staff Report and 1 missed it? Where might T get them? 23 24 Ms. Yazdy: The traffic calming program guideline was developed in 2001 and Council did 25 approve the program, which are the guidelines that we use to apply traffic calming measures in 26 our neighborhood streets. This is available onl.ine for anyone including the public. This was the 27 group -we did look at this. It is more like a procedural step-by-step and what the options for the 28 traffic calming features are. it is available on the City website. 29 30 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, because I would have preferred if that exists that I read that 31 before this meeting but I can go catch up on this now. Okay. 32 33 I am hearing terms like speed humps, speed bumps, speed tables and T can't say that I understand 34 all the subtle differences, and frankly I am not sure if I want to. The impression that I am getting 35 is that a lot of this is an art and not a science and as we do experiments we learn from what we 36 do what works, what doesn't work, and then you have to kind oflayer into it the fact that people 37 are not predictable, and people that drive or ride bicycles may not follow all the rules so they 38 won't behave predictably. 39 40 So I am wondering if the results of other experiments with humps and bumps and lumps and 41 tables are available to Staff and our consultant. Specifically I am thinking about some of the 42 trials that were done on Louis Road. The first implementation part of it was a failure. It created 43 more dangerous considerations and I can't tell you whether they went from lumps to humps or 44 what they were but they caused people to veer into the gaps for the fire truck wheels. They 45 caused drivers that were normal law-abiding citizens to drive up on the sidewalks. There were 46 numerous people including myself who were calling the police saying this is a crazy situation, Page 10 I fix something. So are the results of those trials, are the learnings [rom those trials available to 2 you? Are those lessons being applied in what we are doing in College Terrace? 3 4 Ms. Yazdy: Well, I am not really familiar with what specifically was placed on Louis Road but I 5 know that each one of our traffic calming features we do collect before/after data and all that is 6 available and we do consult. I personally as far as speed tables and speed humps and the 7 et1Cctiveness and the before and the safety features but a lot of these measures like you said is 8 really on a trial basis. Traffic circles that were placed in this neighborhood we realized that they 9 are not working. We heard from the residents, we removed one of the features and then we kept lOon trying to come up with altemative measures. So data is available and I think there is more I I technical information as far as what would be best suited for what kind of neighborhood. Some 12 features would address cut-through traffic. Some features are specifically for reducing speeds 13 and volumes so all that is taken into consideration when we do propose a tramc calming plan for 14 a neighborhood. 15 16 (;ommissioner Fineberg: Thank you. So I guess from what you are saying I would encourage 17 some mechanism that there be retention of institutional knowledge. On Louis specifically, I may 18 not have the right technical word, but they were wide really harsh bumps and then there were 19 gaps for the fire truck wheels. So what was happening is if you went over it at anything over 20 five or ten miles an hour it was so harsh that you slowed down way below what the rate of travel 21 on the road was. I don't mean a five or ten percent decrease but people were slowing down to 22 five and ten miles an h~ur :;0 as not to have these bone jarring crashes over the humps or tables. 23 What was happening is cars behind them were slamming on brakes. tailgating, road raging, 24 passing in the other direction of travel, driving onto the sidewalk. It was creating dangerous 25 situations. Peop1e were driving with their left wheel in the gap and the right wheel up on the 26 sidewalk. I know that is aJJ documented. I know it is on a different trial but if those learnings 27 could be applied so as you are doing subsequent trials we retain that institutional knowledge I 28 think that would be valuable. 29 30 Then onto some of the questions that Mr. Fidler raist,d. The modified proposal, has there been 31 any comment from police or fire on that or that comment will be solicited as you go into the 32 modilied program? 33 34 Ms. Yazdy: Well we did consult them as far as tht' design of the new features for the program. 35 Also, once we have finalized or at least recommendation for a pemlOnent installation is where we 36 are going to get the data as far as the delay in response times. 37 38 Commissioner Fineberg: Can you characterize the nHture of their preliminary comments? 39 40 Ms. Yazdy: I will have Jim respond to that since he was part of the first installation of the traffic 41 circles. 42 43 Mr. West: We actually had police and lire attend several of the neighborhood meetings when the 44 initial plan was being developed. Obviously emergency response is their big item. The response 45 we got back was there are some features that are very difficult for us to deal with and they 46 actually were, if you can be supportive ofa traffic calming feature, they actually were happy that Page II I we were recommending these speed tables which are a lot gentler for a fire truck to travel over. 2 The typical increase in response time for traffic calming features is commonly between five and 3 ten seconds. I will point out that although there are several features within the neighborhood and 4 some of the streets are actually closed the height of the fire truck actually allows them to drive 5 through the diverters whereas everybody else would have to go around. So when making an 6 emergency response they don't necessarily have to go through all those features they can cut 7 right through the closure and perhaps hit one or two or maybe less depending on which way they 8 are traveling. That is a litlle bit more information on that. 9 10 Commissi()IleLIiIl~b~!g: Okay. My last question. Are there any before and after the trial II accident statistics'! Do we have any way of knowing whether the trial that has finished has 12 worsened the accident rate or improved it'! 13 14 Mr. West: We don't have that data and tbe reason it wasn't collected is tbat typically on very 15 low volume residential streets tbe number of accidents or collisions is so low that you can't 16 really tell a trend. So you might have one one-year and then not another one for another three 17 years or something like that. So it is very difficult to even come to any kind of conclusion. So 18 we had to rely more on the speed and volume data, which was sufficient to be able to draw some 19 conclusions. 20 21 Commissioner Fineberg: Is there any expectation that with new development in the area the 22 volume will change dramatically or the accident rate out of total trips will still be statistically 23 insignificant? 24 25 MI'. West: 1 don't believe that the volume would go up particularly in the neighborhood 26 sufficiently to change that. 27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. 29 30 Vice-Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert followed by Commissioner Holman. 31 32 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make a couple of comments and then I think I am going to 33 make a motion on this. 34 35 First of all, on the original plan I was not a big proponent of the traffic circles to begin with. I 36 think I asked a lot of questions about them. I have them in my neighborhood and I don't think 37 they work particularly well. In Jac!, maybe it is just centrifugal force but I feel as though pC()ple 38 speed up when they get to a curve. Maybe it is just something that is more in the mind than in 39 reality but I don't think that they work particularly well at intersedions. I have had a couple of 40 close calls where people have pulled up to a stop sign where we have a traffic circle and in some 41 respects we have to yield to them and let those people go through the stop sign because they are 42 blocking the intersection, and they don't want back up at the stop sign. So I think in terms of 43 facilitating traffic through the neighborhood at a slower speed that what is being proposed here 44 in the modified plan is a lot better solution tban what was proposed originally with the traffic 45 circles. 46 Page 12 I MOTION 2 3 So with that I will make a motion that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend 4 the Staff recommendations [0 implement the traffic calming measures as shown in the modified 5 plan, Figure 4, and extend tht' trial for another six months. I think the six-month timeline is great 6 in terms ofbeing able to gauge and see how well these measures work. Evaluate and request 7 Staff to report on the effectiveness of the modified plan within six months of its implementation. 8 I just want to add one other thing there. I think perhaps we should add to that Mr. Fidler's 9 concerns and maybe have some data also presented at the same time on emergency response 10 times and see if that has been alTected at all by these new measures. II 12 Vice-Chair Tuma: That last section, are YOIl making it a formal part of the motion? 13 14 SECOl'lD 15 16 Commissioner Keller: Second. 17 18 Commissioner Lippert: Yes 1 will make it part of the motion. 19 20 Vice-Chair Tuma: WOllld the maker ofthe motion like to speak any more to it? 21 22 Commissioner Lippert: Recently [ retllrned from Gllatemala and the one thing that rally stood 23 Ollt in my mind is that there are lots of stone streets, and where there aren't stone streets there are 24 lots of pot holes, and where there aren't pot holes and calm traffic the other alternative of course 25 is to pllt in cobblestone streets and lots of pot holes. 26 27 Vice-Chair Tllma: Commissioner Keller, as the seconder would YOlllike to speak to your 28 second? 29 30 CommissioIlcr](eller: Yes thank you. First I wOllld like to offer some friendly amendments to 31 the maker of the motion. First I would like part of the motion to involve a reconsideration of 32 speed tables verSIlS speed hllmps. 33 34 Before I get there let me first give some nomenclature. Speed tables are gradual traffic calming 35 measures that essentially involve a rise, a flat area, and a decent in shape and are much more 36 narrow, What were originally placed on Louis Road were speed bumps however, rather than 37 being the speed bumps placed in terms of asphalt on the road there were actually some mbber 38 kind of thing that was actually screwed into the pavement. They didn't extend fllll width of the 39 pavement they was stuff' on the sides. I believe that was not for jire trucks I believe that wa, for 40 bicycles. Because the speed bumps were so severe in their height.. .. 41 42 Vicc:Chair Tllma: Commissioner Keller, if! may, it might be helpfhl if yo II cOllld run throllgh 43 YOllr proposed friendly amendments f1rsl. It might be easier for the rest of us to just track what 44 those are and then YOII can speak to each of those, It might be easier just to have that list first. 45 Page 13 I Commissioner Keller: The reason I went through this nomenclature first is so that I could 2 explain my amendment. My first amendment is to reconsider speed tables versus speed humps 3 as part of the traffic calming measure. I can go into more reasons why but that is my first 4 amendment. 5 6 Commission~LipPert: Do you have multiple amendments? 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Yes I do. 9 10 Commissioner Lippert: Why don't you make them aiL II 12 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so the first amendment is to reeonsider speed tables as opposed to 1 J speed humps on College Avenue. The second amendment is to consider the curb extensions and 14 the impacts on street sweepers and bicyclists. It is not clear to me that that analysis is complete. 15 The third amendment is to have the street resurfacing follow the finalization of the traftic 16 calming plan and not occur in the middle of the traffic calming plan in case we make a third 17 iteration to it there are negative impacts on street resurfacing done as with what happened on 18 Louis Road. They put the rubber things down, they put the street resurfacing in, they removed 19 the rubber things, and now what you have are gaps in the surface. So that's why my third 20 amendment is to request the street resurfacing follow the finalization of the traffic calming plan. 21 22 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept the third amendment. All that this is is a modified plan and 23 it is not meant to be f1nalized. It is only a we are basically testing it out and seeing if it works. 24 So your third amendment there makes a lot of sense not to resurface the street until after we have 25 gone through the trial and we have evaluated it. 26 27 The other two, 1 think that they have a plan here, I am supporting the plan. If they want to use 28 speed humps and they say that speed humps are going to work let's do the speed humps, and see 29 if they work or not, and if they don't then go to the speed tables. There is a very specific 30 rationale and reasoning behind what is being proposed here. So I anl not inclined to accept the 3 I first two amendments. 32 33 Vice,C1wirIljma: Staff, do you have some comments on these? 34 35 Ms. Caporgno: Ijust wanted to clarify one thing. As far as a resurfacing ofthe street it is my 36 understanding that if we don't resurface the street now we lose the funding. So that is why the 37 street was going to be resurfaced in the next few months. Given what is out there right now no 38 changes to the program have to be made in order to resurface the street. On the two streets, 39 Stanford and California, the neighborhood seems to be satistied with that. In fact, we consider 40 that to be the permanent plan it just needs to come to you for recommendation and Council for 41 approval. The area in question still is the College portion of it where this modified trial will take 42 place. I think that if the Commission recommends against resurfacing now we are just not going 43 to be able to resurface now or in the future, but it is not going to be that we will have funding 44 available in the future. 45 Page 14 I Vice-Chair Tuma: Did you want to make any comments on the other two recommendations that 2 Commissioner Keller had put forth? Those were to reconsider speed tables versus humps and to 3 consider curb extensions and the impacts on bicycles and pedestrians. 4 5 Ms. Caporgno: As far as to consider the impacts of the curb extensions that would be something 6 we could come back with at the conclusion of the trial if the two of you agree to that. I would 7 defer to you as far as the difference between the tables and humps and what the implications of 8 that would be. 9 10 Mr. West: If we were to do speed tables they would be just like the ones on California and on II Stanford which are 22 feet across. Speed humps are typically 12 feet across so about half that 12 distance. Certainly we could interchange those the only possible problem that might crop up is 13 just trying to locate the larger feature without interfering with drivers. We try to kind of put 14 them in between where people are not backing out of their driveway right on the feature. It is not 15 a really big deal but it is preferable. So sometimes it is a little trickier to miss all the manhole 16 covers, and water valve covers, and things like that on the street if you have a bigger feature. 17 18 f,;:gmmissioner Keller: Excuse me do you mean 22 feet or 22 inches in width in terms of front to 19 back as opposed to the width across the street? I am confused. 20 21 Mr. West: From front to back 22 feet on a speed table, 12 feet on a speed hump. 22 23 Twenty-two feet? 24 25 Mr. West: Yes, they are pretty big. 26 27 Commissioller Fineberg: Two car lenl,rths? 28 29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Excuse me Commissioners. If we could let's take this in order and please ask 30 to be recognized. 31 32 Commissioner Keller: Looking at the ones on Stanford Avenue and California Avenue I am 33 confused as to really whether 22 feet, wbich would be essentially a car length or so, that these 34 things don't appear to be that wide but I am surprised. 35 36 I am not suggesting that we are directing, in terms of my amendments, Staff to make /hese 37 changes. I am suggesting that Staff consider these changes particularly in light of what 38 Commissioner Fineberg mentioned of the lessons learned from Louis Road where speed humps 39 where put in and because those were unsatisfactory those had to replaced by speed tables. 40 Essentially they were unworkable. My intent in having these two amendments to the motion is 41 for that Staff consideration. It is not a direction to make a change it is a direction to actually do a 42 consideration and evaluate that prior to implementation. That is entirely for Staff's discretion in 43 working with the consultant. 44 45 So I will offer my first and second amendments again with respect to the street resurfacing I 46 guess we should withdraw that. I am not sure why the street resurfacing money goes away that Page 15 I is kind of weird. It must be some money from somewhere else I am not sure why it has a limited 2 life. 3 4 Ms. Yazdy: I would like to just comment. Public Works is actually the department that is 5 actually working on the street resurfacing project for College Terrace area. We were actually 6 very lucky to kind of put these elements of this project as part of their bid package where they 7 gave us an estimate of how much it would cost. So if we were to go back -well basically they 8 are paving the project and we incorporating whatever elements that we agree upon after tonight's 9 meeting as part of that project. So I am afraid that they have funding that they need to use up for 10 the project and I think the resurfacing project would move forward with or without these traffic II calming measures. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: Based on my hearing from Staff I withdraw my comment about street 14 resurfacing following finalization for this particular project. However, I do think it is bad 15 practice in the future. So make a note for the future that don't bid out street resurfacing while 16 traffic calming is in process until the traffic calming program is completed because you are going 17 to have to extra rework. 18 19 Vice-Chair Tuma: There are some Commissioners that have not had an opportunity to speak yet 20 SO if we could move on to. 21 22 Commissioner Keller: I would like to offer my amendments and if the maker ofthe motion 23 doesn't accept them as a friendly amendment I will offer them as a formal amendment for 24 seconding. 25 26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Maker? 27 28 Commissioner Lippert: No, I don't accept any of the amendments. 29 30 AMENDMENT 31 32 Commissioner Keller: In that case I offer these amendments as formal amendments to the 33 motion. 34 35 SECOND 36 37 Commissioner Fineberg: I will second it for discussion purposes. 38 39 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Next to speak will be Commissioner Holman. Sorry, one second. 40 City Attorney, with the amendments that have been offered do we now need to have the maker 41 and seconder speak to those before we continue on with discussion? 42 43 Mr. Larkin: That has been the Commission's practice but it is the discretion of the Chair. 44 45 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Ifwe could be brief. 46 Page 16 I Commissioner Keller: I have already spoken to the rationale for my motion but I would suggest 2 that the discussion that happens be particular to the amendment and then we come back to the 3 discussion in general. 4 5 Vice-Chair Tuma: Seconder. 6 7 Commissioner Fineberg: 1 seconded this because I don't know enough right now to know 8 whether StaIThas firm reasons to believe that the humps are better than the tables. They might 9 know that but it has not been articulated. So if we can allow, if the Chair would recognize Staff 10 so they can comment. In my mind if Staff has analysis, has reasons that the humps are better that II they put that torward, then I would defer to thaI. The second reason I seconded the motion is 12 what happens ""ith our recommendation to Staff if partway through the trial they figure out the 13 humps are a horrible trial? Do they need to come back to us or can you pull the humps and 14 change to tables mid stream? Is OUT recommendation binding or can you do what is best on the 15 fly? 16 17 Ms. Yazdy: I will go ahead and respond to yOUT questions. I just want to clarify your concerns 18 about the speed humps on Louis they were different kinds of speed humps. I am sorry I can't 19 recall the name right now, but there are two speed humps placed side by side with a gap in the 20 middle. I can easily say that we no longer recommend or use those speed humps. The speed 21 humps that we are proposing for College are actually used in a lot of OUT neighboring streets, 22 local streets, in the city and residents have been very happy with them. We recently put some in 23 on Lincoln Avenue and the trial is almost over and I have only been hearing positive comments. 24 We have speed humps on Indian and Moreno and that is already made permanent. So the speed 25 humps that we have recommended have a positive reception from the residents in the area and 26 they have been very effective. 27 28 Ms. <::aporgno: I want to say about the process, ifin fact these didn't work and we wanted to 29 modifY them during this trial as I mentioned before since this is a local street our guidelines 30 don't require we come back 10 the Planning Commission. So we would be able to make those 31 changes. We just came for this extension and modified version because we wanted to bring you 32 up to speed as to where we were and we wanted public input. 33 34 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Commission~r HoJman. 35 36 Commissioner Holman: Also I want to thank Staff and the neighborhood for all the due 37 diligence and for bringing this to the Commission. 38 39 If wishes were horses, I am not trying to design this, but the reason College Avenue is so 40 diftiwIt with speeding is because it is so wide. So I was just wondering iflhere was any 41 consideration of -well, two questions. Is there any maximum dimension for parking strips? 42 Was there any consideration of increasing the dimension of the parking strips so there would be 43 room to plant more trees and to narrow the street? Was that given any consideration at all? If 44 so, was that a cost consideration that kicked it out or what? 45 Page 17 I Mr. West: We did look at a number of things including bringing the curbs out farther into the 2 street and narrowing the street. That in itself really got kicked out pretty early just based on cost. 3 There was a budget established that we were instructed to work within and we could tell that you 4 might be able to do a block or so of that but you would probably spend all of your budget. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: That is really a shame, really a shame, but appreciate your looking at it. 7 8 I have concerns that I have raised before but just to kind of get them back on the table too for the 9 traffic circles that are remaining how to make them vegetated, whether it is native plantings that 10 are water sensitive or what. My uneducated just intuitive and experiential opinion is that some II of the traftlc circles that don't work they don't work because they are so ugly people don't 12 consider them and they just run over them. So there is that aspect of it. Then the other aspect of 13 it, understanding that these are temporary one, but if they are not vegetated or not well designed 14 in some fashion or other they are just almost a visual blight as they remain. So what is going to IS happen in the long-term about getting traffic circles vegetated? I am going to ask two things at 16 once. Also, the medians, it is a little bit hard to tell from the description if they are raised or if 17 they are painted at grade. It is a little bit hard to tell from what is written in here what the 18 description is. If they are raised what about the vegetation aspect of those? So if you would 19 address both at once I would appreciate it. 20 21 Mr. West: As far as the medians the raised part is about five feet by five feet. That particular 22 style is used in other locations around the city. Then there is some striping that goes with it to 23 help direct cars to go around it and not run into it. Because it is pretty small generally those have 24 not been I don't believe that any of those have typically been landscaped in the city. With 25 regard to the circles themselves I know that the neighborhood from the very beginning has said 26 that it would be their desire to have those landscaped at some point in time and we have 27 encouraged the same thing. I agree with your point that sometimes people's objections to the 28 traffic circle are as much aesthetic as it is functional, so rather than having it be perhaps 29 something unsightly for the neighborhood it could really become a real neighborhood asset. So 30 we would certainly recommend that if it is possible to do that some time in the future. 31 32 Commissioner Holman: Would you be able to comment on tae effectiveness oftraftic circles, of 33 whether they are something to behold as opposed to just a thing plopped on the pavement? What 34 I am looking for is if there is a way to get stronger argument to get some additional funding to 35 make them more effective by getting them landscaped. 36 37 Mr. West: It depends on a bit on the community. I will say Seattle is probably the best example 38 of a lot of traffic circles and the style that we have in College Terrace is the Seattle style circle. 39 They are fairly low cost to implement but they can be landscaped. In Seattle a large share of 40 those are landscaped. The policy that they have in that city is they allow the neighbors 41 essentially to care for the landscaping. The neighbors basically get a permit to go out there and 42 water them and weed them on low volume streets. If for some reason the neighbors fail to 43 maintain it and it turns out to be a weed collection location then the agreement with the 44 neighborhood is that the city will come back and essentially fill it in with hardscape, some sort of 45 concrete or stamped concrete or something like that. So there is a fairly good motivation for 46 people to take care of it. I know in previous discussions with the neighborhood they have Page 18 I expressed interest that they would be happy to walk out there and water those and maintain 2 those. That is just an example of how one community deals with it and again I think Seattle 3 probably has somewhere in the neighborhood of several thousand traffic circles in their 4 community. 5 6 Commissioner Holman: Probably if this community, not this neighborhood, but this community 7 can care for a couple of donkeys on an ongoing basis we can care for some traffic circles. I am 8 not sure what the agreement is or ifthere is one or ifthe City maintains the traffic circles south 9 of Castro, but south of Castro in Mountain View there are some really beautiful traffic circles. 10 II The medians, is there any opportunity for those to be large enough to be planting opportunities? 12 13 Mr. West: I don't believe so unless we removed quite a bit of on street parking. When we 14 brought the fire trucks out the fire department brought there -get around them at a reasonable 15 speed. So we had to keep those basically as I described otherwise we would have to pull a lot of 16 on street parking. Because parking is a premium in the neighborhood as you know we didn't 17 necessarily want to go in that direction either. 18 19 Commissioner Holman: Probably my last question. Well, one comment, I appreciate that not 20 only that you couldn't but you didn't go with stop signs. I am not a fan of stop signs. They are 21 not good traffic calming measures plus environmentally they have implications to air quality that 22 is not very positive. 23 24 There was another question here. Is there any longer-term vision or opportunity that can just be 25 kept kind of as a record that narrowing the street would be a good traffic calming measure 26 understanding there is not funding to do it now? Is there any way to kind of keep track ofthat as 27 a possibility going forward? Was it presented to the neighborhood that should they -sometimes 28 there are improvements to neighborhoods that the neighbors are willing to kick in to implement. 29 So was that considered? 30 31 Ms. Yazdy: Certainly narrowing of the roads is part of the traffic calming measures and options 32 that any neighborhood would have. I think as Jim mentioned the cost is really a big factor, but 33 that is certainly something that we could look into in the future iffunding does become available. 34 35 Commissioner Holman: Also, I don't know if this was part of your discussion or not but if the 36 neighbors would be interested in potentially raising their own funds to help implement some of 37 this. It would probably be a property value enhancement. Those are all of my questions. 38 39 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, I have just a couple of comments. First, thanks to Staff for bringing 40 this to us. I know it is not something that had to happen but I think having the opportunity 41 particularly for the public to participate is terrific. Also, thanks to the members of the 42 neighborhood who have participated not only in the initial trial but in developing the proposed 43 modifications. I am quite pleased to hear that on two of the three streets we have kind of gotten 44 it right and now we have the opportunity to tweak things a bit and see if we can get the third one 45 right. So it sounds like the process has gone well and I am glad that we were able to look at 46 things that didn't go well and take a shot at adjusting those. Page 19 I 2 As far as the proposed amendments go I am not going to be able to support those. I believe that 3 we need to leave this to the experts. I am perfectly comfortable with us making comments and 4 throwing out ideas, should you look at the speed tables versus the humps, should you consider 5 these sorts of things as comments or ideas but to make them as direction or part of the motion I 6 am uncomfortable with. I don't think we should be getting into micromanaging the professionals 7 on these types of issues. So I am not going to be supporting the amendments however I am very 8 supportive of the underlying motion. So I do not have any additionaljights at this point. 9 10 AMENDME!'.'T FAILS (1-4-2-0, Commissioner Keller for, Commissioners Tuma, Lippert, II Holman, and Fineberg against, Commissioners Garber and Rosati absent) 12 13 As I understand it there were two amendments that were being offered which were to reconsider 14 speed bump tables versus humps and also to consider curh extensions and how they impact 15 bicyclists and street cleaners. So all those in favor of those two items being added as a formal 16 amendment say aye. (aye) All those opposed? (nays) That fails on a vote offour to one, 17 Commissioner Keller in support and Commissioners Lippert, Fineberg, Holman, and Tuma not. 18 19 So with that we are back to the original motion, which was essentially the Staff recommendation 20 modified with an accepted amendment dealing -sorry, that was withdrawn about the 21 resurfacing. So essentially the motion that is before us now is the Staff recommendation. 22 Commissioner Keller, did you have one comment before we vote on that? 23 24 Commissioner Keller: I actually spent most of my time on the primary comments basically 25 talking about the amendments as a midcourse correction to it as opposed to directing Staffto 26 spend lots of time on a task. So I think that is an important distinction. 27 28 Secondly, with respect to the comment that was made on one of the slides with respect to the 29 speeds over 35 miles an hour which are interior to the neighborhood my understanding with 30 respect to interior to the neighborhood the amount of speeds over 35 miles an hour were 31 relatively negligible and therefore essentially the changes there were in the range of relative error 32 so were not significant. So they are saying that they are mixed really is not meaningful. 33 34 The third thing is I think that one thing to consider is the greenhouse gas impacts of speed humps 35 versus speed tables. Considering that speed humps require slowing down and then speeding up 36 while speed tables essentially don't require that much slowing down so people can go at a 37 constant specd. That slowing down and speeding up is an interesting effect as to the implication 38 of that for greenhouse gases and there is also implication of that for the fact that people tend to 39 speed up more between features that cause them to stop or slow down dramatically than they do 40 when something allows them to go at a constant speed. I am not sure that was thought of clearly. 41 42 It is also ironic that we have warrants that essentially mean that we cannot create stop signs 43 except for very stringent warrants and yet we have even though you can't put a stop sign in 44 which seems to be a scalpel we have the ability to put traffic calm ing guidelines which 45 essentially is more like a bludgeon, a big heavy thing that you are putting in, very large measures Page 20 I that we are putting in and the warrants for those exist while the warrants for stop signs don't. I 2 find that very ironic. 3 4 So the final thing is with respect to the raised medians at the College A venue intersections please 5 reflect the lessons learned from the raised median on Maybell and I believe it was Coulombe 6 where essentially cars were running over that raised median when they were making left turns. 7 So I would suggest that the shape of that raised median be adjusted to reflect to the ones on 8 Maybell and Coulombe where they were rounded in order to avoid cars running over them. 9 There were various other considerations that actually were a lesson learned from that. So I will 10 support the motion. I would encourage Staff to consider those issues independent of whether 11 they are made a formal part of the motion or not. Thank you. 12 13 Vice-Chair Tuma: A brief comment from Commissioner Holman and then we will vote. 14 15 Commissioner Holman: I am certainly not going to try this as a friendly amendment but I just 16 can't overstress the importance of the vegetation. Again, with College Avenue being this wide I 17 guess one suggestion with the proposed modification visually there is going to be an impact that 18 won't be the most pleasant, it won't be awful, but it won't be the most pleasant. So the 19 vegetation of the two remaining traffic circles is going to be really, really important going 20 forward. I don't want the neighborhood to lose sight of that or Staff to lose sight of that. Even 21 as a possibility if the neighborhood would take this on perhaps to vegetate the three traffic circles 22 that are being proposed to take out before being taken out and see if there is any difference in 23 result or response by traffic. That is for you all to decide. 24 25 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Garber and Rosati absent) 26 27 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. With that I think we are ready to vote. All those in favor of the 28 motion, which was essentially the Staff recommendation, say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes 29 unanimously. 30 31 With that we will close item two. 32 Page 21 TO: .«,ROM: IAttachrnent F I PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Shahla Yazdy DEPARTMENT: Plannmg and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: July 22, 2009 SUBJECT: College Terrace Traffic Calming Plun Trial Evalnation RECOMMENDATION: Staffrccommcnds that the Planning and Transportation Commission: L Implement the traffic calming measures as shown on the Modified Plan (Figure 4) and extend the trial for another six months. 2. Evaluate and request staff to report on thc effectiveness of the Modified Plan within six months of its implementation. BACKGROUND College Terrace arcais bounded by El Camino Real on the cast side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side, and Stanford Avenue on the north side. The area predominantly contains single-family residences except for a small amount of commercial uses along El-Camino ReaL Main land uses surrounding College Terrace area consist of Stanford University on the north and west sides, and Stanford Research Park on the south side. The project study area, along with the existing traffic control devices and street closures are shown on Attachment A. The College Terrace neighborhood has historically been affected by cut-through traffic and speeding for more than 20 years. In an effort to request assistance from the City to address speeding and traffic volume concerns, over 225 College Terrace residents signed a petition to the City Council in September 1999. College Terrace residents identified improved traffic management and mitigation as important neighborhood issues. Preparation of a traffic management study was also part of the mitigation requested by the City and ultimately included in Santa Clara County's list of mitigations required of Stanford University for its December 2000 General Use Permit. In 2003, Consultant Kimley-Horn was retained by the City of Palo Alto to undertake the College Terrace Neighborhood TraffiC Management Plan (NTMP). The plan was to identify solutions for Cily 01 Palo Alia Pogo 1 the traffic impacts using traffic data collection in the neighborhood as well as the residents' experience. The rel:>idents of College Terrace were surveyed on their approvaL of the preferred Traffic CaLming PLan option (Soo Figure J) which had a response rate of 41 %, with more than 71 % of those respondents accepting the preferred plan. Following Council approval, traffic circles, speed tables and other traffic calming measures were installed in late 2006 on the border and interior streets oftha College Terrace neighborhood. A description of the traffic calming mealiures placed is listed below: Stanford Avenue: Four (4) speed tables placed west of Wellesley Street, Oberlin Street. Amherst Street and Dartmouth Street. College Avenue: Four (4) traffic circles were placed at the intersections of College Avenue with Yale Street, Oberlin Street, Hanover Street, and Columbia Street. Cambridge Avenue: A traffic circle was placed at the intersection of Cambridge AvenuefYale Street. California Avenue: Two (2) speed tables were placed at the west side of Wellesley Street and west of Princeton Street. Cilyof Palo Alto PallO 2 Figure l' Approved (2006 Colle e Terrace Traffic Calmin Plan 1l, ,!!! 'E! 'C Q) 'C E .l2 ~ go '" .l2 " E l!I 5 'is .. ~ '" u u I I !IJ I I I I I I EI Camino Real I I CD l Legend \I • ~e .. ,. i-I ~ I ~ E.s.I. Trame SIgI"IiiII .. I" • Williams .. ---• B:sl StCiP. Sign G,,-~[ 0 Tmffle CIrcle .. Welleslev ~ Spend Table I I '!i • '" J I' '1 i Corne!! I ~ j 1-Princeton Drivewa .. .. III Oberlin .,j .. ~ I [ .. III HalVard ~ Escondido .. i II I L .. Hanover I-Hanover Escoodldo IL School ., l .. II Dartmouth '" ... Columbia .. I 0;:;;;;- "': .. Bowdoin \I Bowdoin i • .. " .. I J Amherst .. I n-... Source: College Terrace Traffic Call1ung After Study, Kunley Hom -Apnll008 Clly of Palo Mo Page 3 College Terrace Project Trial Evaluation The initial trial of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan was completed in 2008, including assessing the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures, both in terms of traffic management as well as meeting neighborhood expectations. The evaluation ofthe traffic calming measures compared before and after data, observed field observations, included a survey and analysis of all households to ascertain the level of support for the traffic calming plan and preparation ofa final project reconunendations report (see Attachment B). The goal ofthe second phase of this project is to conduct a follow up evaluation of the original traffic calming measures. Staff has worked closely with the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and College Terrace Residents' Association (CTRA) to evaluate the existing plan and to-develop the modifications to the project that would achieve the same goals for traffic safety and speed and traffic volume reductions, while addressing neighborhood concerns about the original plan. As a result of the evaluation, the traffic calming measures were modified along College Avenue. Data Collection To establish before and after speed data for the neighborhood, vehicular traffic speeds (and volumes) were collected in May 2005 and May 2006 for the traffic calming installation, and then in May 2007 and October 2007 after the features were installed. The 2005 and 2006 data was combined to represent a larger number oflocations where changes may occur after the installation of the traffic calming features. Traffic Specd and Volume Results The results ofthe before and after speed and volume data arc shown in Figures I and 2 in Attachment C and in Table B below. Results of the speed data were evaluated using the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the motorists drive on a given road. This speed indicates that most motorists on the road consider safe and reasonable under ideal conditions. Table B: i I Cily of Palo Allo Page 4 Summary of SpeedIV olum~Data: • Number of speeders over 25 mph down on all streets. • Volume drops on nearly all streets except for segment of California and Princeton. • More than 1100 fewer vehicles cutting thru N/S streets. Before and after data has shown that overall speeds in the neighborhood have been reduced by 10% and cut through traffic has been reduced by more than 1100 vehicles/day. Resident Input: Resident input on the traffic calming measures has been collected by both the PAC and the CTRA. Although the traffic calming measures Perfonned as generally expected, there was still mixed support for some oftbe features. Overall feedback on (he speed tables on Stanford Avenue and California Avenue has been very positive and these measures are recommended for pennanent retention. The City has also become aware that there are neighborhood-wide reservations about the design and effectiveness of the traffic circles on College Avenue. Some of the concerns with the circles are the reduced visibility at night, unsafe vehicle speeds and cars taking short-cuts by using the wrong lane of traffic. In March 2008, staff received a petition that was prepared by one of the PAC members that conducted an independent survey of resident's opinions regarding whether or not the traffic circles should be made permanent (See Attachment D). Over 200 residents signed the petition to express their concerns over the safety of the traffic circles and to encourage staff to work with the PAC and CTRA to develop a modified traffic calming plan to rep lace the circles on College and Yale. Some of the concerns stated were the ambiguity ofthe circles, unsafe vehicle speeds around the circle, vehicles taking shortcuts through the circles and encroaching into the pedestrian crosswalks as they try to maneuver around the circle, reduced visibility, pedcslrianlbicycle safety, lost parking spaces, and aesthetics. In August 2008, because the intersection of Hanover and College is used by many children who cross this intersection to go to Escondido School, the PAC and CTRA requested that the City to remove the traffic circle at Hanover/College and restore the original 4-way stop sign and also to reverse the stop signs at Columbia/College Avenue to their original locations. This interim measure was to provide a short tenn solution while the PAC continued to work with staff to develop a feasible alternative for College Avenue. A letter was sent out to the residents (see Attachment E) informing them of this change while staff continued to work with the PAC to develop alternatives for College Terrace. This work was done during the week of August 18th , 2008 prior to the start of school. Project Advisory Committee (PAC) Project Evaluation Staff worked extensively with the PAC and Consultants to review the before and after data collected and to corne up with an alternative plan for College Avenue that would satisfy the goal of the project without sacrificing the safety of the pedestrians and drivers. City of Palo Alto PBiJS 5 During the evaluation of the project, there were many inquiries/requests about placing 4-way stop signs at all of the intersections on College Avenue. Intersections on College do not qualify for 4- way stop signs. In order for an intersection to qualify for a 4-way stop sign, it would have to satisfy the requirements of a Multiway ( 4-way) Stop Sign Evaluation (see Attachment F) that lists the criteria/warrants required in order for a 4-way stop signs to be placed at intersections. The speed tables on Stanford and California Avenue have been very successful in reducing vehicle speeds in the neighborhood. Overall consensus from the PAC was to move forward with a neighborhood vote to make the three (3) speed tables on Stanford Avenue and the two (2) speed tables on California Avenue a permanent traffic calming feature, Staff also reconunended permanent retention of the speed tables on Stanford and California. The two traffic circles on Yale (at College and Cambridge) have also been very successful in reducing speed by 4% and volume by 60%. Residents in this area have been very supportive of keeping these circles as part of the plan and they were therefore included in the additional options that were developed. Additional Alternatives Considered Staff continued to work with the PAC to study additional options/alternatives for a traffic calming plan on College Avenue that would achieve the same goals for traffic safety and speed and traffic volume reductions, while addressing neighborhood concerns about the existing plan. After reviewing a variety of traffic calming options on College, two options were recommended by the PAC for further study and development and to present at the neighborhood meeting. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held on November 19, 2008 to discuss the traffic calming plan. Conunents received at the meeting included support for the two traffic circles on Yale, request to add stops signs on all intersections of College and support to remove the existing traffic circles on upper College Avenue. Staff also clearly explained the next steps for the completion of the current traffic calming trail: I) Remove features and go back to previous conditions; 2) Keep the current plan and make all the features permanent and 3) Modify the plan and start 2"0 trial. Modified Plan After hearing all the comments and concerns from the neighborhood about the traffic calming measures in the interior of the neighborhood, City staff, Proj ect Advisory Committee, CTRA and the engineering consultants proposed a combination ofthe two options that were presented at the neighborhood meeting and referred to it as the ''Modified Plan". This alternative would address most ofthe neighborhood's concern about the current plan while achieving the same traffic safety and traffic calming goals of the trial project. The elements of the Modified Plan (as depicted on Figure 4) are: • Retain existing speed tables on Stanford Avenue and CalifomiaAvenue. City of Palo AJleJ Page 6 • Add a new speed table. on upper CalifomiaAvenue. • Remove existing traffic circles at Columbia and Oberlin. • Install small center median islands with stop signs on College at Columbia, Hanover and Oberlin. • Install 4 speed hwnps to control speeds on College (see map on Figure 4 for general locations). Keep the traffic circles on Yale at College and Cambridge and add curb extensions to approaches. Detailed descriptions and figures of all proposed traffic cahningmeasures are included in Attachment G. ,--_______ ---=Fic:·"'gu=re=--:.4_-..:P:.:r()posed "Modified PlOD" Add curb extensions to EB and we approaches on College. ESOClnl:2l1jo SchooJ Columbia Bowdoin I ...---, ,-----. Install Speed table. Cily of Paio Allo Add curb extensions to S8 approach on Yale. Legend o 'Tr61Ie COmic. ....-.. Sj)!Iiod Tl1blo RlI!!move circle. Add cE'ntcr Islands. P/1(/87 Neighborhood Survey Process Tn May 2009, a detailed letter and a neighborhood survey postcard (see Attachment II) were mailed to about 900 households in College Terraee. The survey leiter included a description of the Modified Plan and a detailed description of the proposed traffic calming elements that were proposed as part ofthe Modified Plan. Ifthe neighborhood supported the Modified Plan with the new traffic calming features, staff would then work with the neighborhood after the 6 month trial is over, to expeditiously evaluate the results ofthe trial. Residents were given 3 ~ weeks to send back their postcards. During this time the CTRA also circulated a newsletter (See Attachment l) expressing their recommendation and support for the six-month trial of the Modified Plan. Tn order for the "Modified Plan" option to be approved for a short 6-month trial, the vote required a (50+) percent majority of survey respondents to vote in support (yes) for the plan. If supported by the neighborhood survey, this plan would be implemented in conjunction with Public Work's street resurfacing project later this summer and the trial would end in Spring 2010. Survey Results Out of the 900 postcards sent, approximately 30 % (274) of the survey postcards were returned. Based on the replies received and as shown in the table below, a workable community consensus (estimated 67% of responses) has been reached in favor of the trial ex tension with the "Modified Plan". Also, as shown below, 83% of the total responses received voted in support for the pennanent installation of the speed tables on Stanford and College Avenue. Table C: Survey Results for College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan # %of # %of Houses Yes Responses 274 30 228 83 POLICY IMPLICATIONS: # % of # No Responses Yes 36 13 183 % of Responses 67 # 38 % of Responses 14 # %of Responses 27 The proposed traffic calming plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan T-34: "Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures." In general, the initiation, planning and recommendation of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan are consistent with the City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (NTCP) that addresses spot treatment on a residential street Cily of Palo Allo PBfIO 8 StaffbeIieves there are no other substantive policy implications. RESOURCE IMPACT: Installation/removal of the traffic calming measures will takepJace as partofPubJic Work's College Terrace Resurfacing Project. The cost oftms project is estimated at approximately $35,000 and is available as part of the CIP project PL-05003, College Terrace Traffic Calming Project. TIMELINE: Next Steps Continuation of the project and approval process involves the following steps: 1. Review ofthe Planning and Transportation Commission and recommendation of trial plan implementation of the recommended "Modified Plan" for 6 months. 2. Conduct trail evaluation of the "Modified Plan" and work with neighborhood to evaluate the results of the trial and seek resident input with regard to the pennanent retention of the new traffic calming measures. 3. Planning and Transportation Corrunission and City Council review ofthe results of trial plan, including community input and decision on the permanent installation of the plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The extension of a six month trial of the Modified Plan complies with all the requirements and mitigations stated in the project's original Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment J), prepared in September 2004: 'The action of removal of one or more traffic calming devices, replacement with alternative devices, and installation of additional traffic calming elements will not alter the environmental analysis contained in the initial study nor cause additional significant impact." ATI ACHMENTS: A. Existing Traffic Control Devices -Project Area Map B. Traffic Calming Before and After Study Report and Recorrunendations C. Before/After Speed and Volume Results D. College Terrace Traffic Circles Petition E. Letter to Residents, August 18, 2008 F. Multi Way Stop Sign Evaluation Form G. Description of Modified Plan H. Letter to Residenls-Postcard Survey I. CTRA Newsletter J. Mitigated Negative Declaration, September 2004 K. Public Correspondence COURTESY COPIES: College Terrace Residents Association Board College Terrace Proj ect Advisory Committee City 01 Palo Alia Page 9 Prepared by: Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer Reviewed by: Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Commission DepartmentlDivision Head. Approval: Q~~~ Curtis Williams, Interim Director Cily of Palo Alto Page 10 ATTACHMENT A College Terrace Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan Existing Traffic Calming Measures ~ '" .el! u l' '" -" E 0> <l g 0 .!!! E g " '" ~ 0 () .: I I EI Camino Real a a • .. c-m ••••••••• II mill !II ~ -----• ------' ~ ~:::--• Esoondldo Escondido School n Cornell • I Pr;nC€t_Q~ t,_~ :s.;:m ~ .... -----' ~ ~ Dartmouth I .. Columbia .. I .. .. I .. • I Pags e Orl'#aw~ I i It fi ono •• ' I i I .. ~ .. .. , .. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Memorandum To: l'rom: Date: Re: Shahla Yazdy Transportation Engineer City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue POBox 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Jim West 6 July 2009 College Terrace Before and After Study Report and Recommendations BACKGROUND ATTACHMENT B Suite 410 2000 Crow Canyon Place San Ramon, Callfomla 9451)3 Ph. 925-543-0840 Fax 925-543.0839 The College Terrace neighborhood, located between Stanford University and Stanford Research Park, has historically been affected by cut-through traffic and speeding for more than 20 years. The area consists primarily of residential housing except for a small amount of commercial uses bordering El Camino Real. Unlike neighboring streets with curvilinear alignments or discormected superblocks, College Terrace has a grid street layout with long straight roadways interrupted by stop signs. Consequently, many drivers use the neighborhood as a cut-through route, and residents and non-residents exceed the posted speed limits. Past efforts to manage traffic included street closures that were effective for the treated streets, but resulted in traffic shifts and additional impacts on adjacent routes. Over the years, particularly after 1999, traffic has increased noticeably, thus placing further pressures on the remaining streets open to traffic. In an effort to request ass.istance from the City to address speeding and traffic volume concerns, over 225 College Terrace residents signed a petition to the City Council in September J 999. College Terrace residents identified improved traffic management and mitigation as important neighborhood issues. Preparation of a traffic management study was also part of the mitigation requested by the City and ultimately included in ......-!_" Kimley-Horn -......J_U and Associates, Inc. College Terrace Before and After Study. page 2 Santa Clara County's list of mitigations required of Stanford University for its December 2000 General Use Permit. In 2003, Kimley-Horn was retained by the City of Palo Alto to undertake the College Terrace Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) to identify solutions for the traffic impacts identified through traffic data collection in the neighborhood as well as the residents' experience. Improvements were focused on enhancing traffic safety, fostering travel within, and to/from the neighborhood by bicycle and on foot, and reducing excessive motor vehicle speeds, cut through motor vehicle travel, and traffic noise. The intent of the College Terrace Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan was to tai/or solutions to specific locations and to help residents and non-residents recognize that a comprehensive traffic management plan can benefit everybody through improved safety and livability. Throughout the development of the NTMP, meetings were held at critical project stages with a Project Advisory Committee. Three public meetings were held at Escondido Elementary School with the neighborhood to develop a preferred NTMP. The residents of College Terrace were surveyed on their approval ofthe preferred NTMP option and 71 % ofthose respondents supported the preferred plan. Figure 1 illustrates the approved NTMP program for the College Terrace neighborhood. Following Council approval, traffic circles, speed tables and other traffic management measures were installed in late 2006 on the border and interior streets of the College Terrace neighborhood. The one-year trial of the College Terrace Plan is complete, and this "after" study was commissioned by the City to assess the effectiveness of the measures, both in terms of traffic management as well as meeting neighborhood expectations. c:\documcn(i ilmlleltirrgl\syudyliocal ~eUingS\lemporary inlemet Iile.l\olkl76b\coliegeleluceaftel1l\udyI2 finalmemo (5)_doc Klmley-Horn College Tenace Befure and After Smdy. P"1!e 3 and Associates, Inc. Figure 1 -Approved NTMP for College Terrace Escondido escondido SChOO< I El Camjno Real I DC l U!j: • • III 11 •• " ---E= Legend • Eut. Sr~ Sign o Tra'lt C\rC;, =s ................ . -.. ~ r -CHanave, II' 11""'1_" Klmley-Horn ~_U and Associates, Inc. College Terrace Before aud After Study, page 4 BEFORE AND AFTER STUDY DATA A key element of assessing the effectiveness of the measures is the evaluation of "before" and "after" traffic data. Kimley-Horn received before study and after study vehicle speed and volume information from the City of Palo Alto for u.~e in this evaluation. The data utilized for this analysis were collected at the following locations, which are also shown in F1gure 2. • Stanford between EI Camino Real and Yale • Stanford between Wellesley and Oberlin • Stanford between Dartmouth and Bowdoin • College between Yale and Williams • College between Princeton and Harvard • Cambridge between EI Camino Real and Yale • California between EI Camino Real and Yale • California between Dartmouth and Columbia • Yale between Cambridge and California • Princeton between College and California • Oberlin between Stanford and College • Harvard between Stanford and College • Hanover between Stanford and College • Columbia between College and California • Bowdoin between College and California • Amherst between L-Ollege and California Kimiey·Hom College Terracc Before and An"f Study, page 5 and Associates, Inc. Figure 2 -Location of Traffic Before and After Counts f • i II • f \ l>j!'" I F:a& r"'lk~ • 1,,'011' ,." f\'P7I 0 lllftltCfNlorl ~$jlIJdT/IbIII • '1lOJ lJ::!oll\Dl • ~iIOO tt'ltlW'lo 1/11 201(X:1111lt\ ~ MilrJllO, lur::lll/m 1/11 ~?1IJ'IllX'l8Jn Klmley-Horn College Terrace Before and After Study, page 6 and Associates, Inc. TRAFFIC SPEED RESULTS AJI streets within College Terrace are posted at 25 miles per hour. To establish before and after speed data for the neighborhood, vehicular traffic speeds (and volumes) were collected in May 2005 and May 2006 for the traffic calming installation, and then in May 2007 and October 2007 after the features were installed. The 2005 and 2006 data was combined to represent a larger number of locations where changes may occur after the installation of the traffic calming features. The locations were selected to provide the best layout of mechanical tubes 10 permit vehicles to travel over the tubes at a consistent and moderale speed. This methodology was used to minimize the errors in the data collection by mechanical tubes which increase when vehicles are accelerating, decelerating, or traveling at a slow travel speed over the tubes. Results of the speed data were evaluated three ways: • Vehic!.es exceeding the 25 mph speed limit • Vehicles traveling 10 mph or more over the speed limit (Le. over 35 mph) • 85'h percentile speed I The percentages ofvehicles exceeding 25 mph (\he posted speed limit through College Terrace) and 35 mph were calculated for each of the locations shown in Figure 3. As noted in the figure, the greatest reduction in vehicles exceeding the 25 mph or 35 mph thresholds was on the streets bordering the neighborhood (Le. Stanford and California). Reduction in speeds interior to the neighborhood was less, principally because drivers generally did not drive more than 3 to 4 miles per hour over the speed limit even before the traffic calming measures were installed. _ ... _ .. _----- 1 The 85th percentile 'peed is the speed.1 or below which 85 pt:Jcenl oflhe motorists drive on a given road unaffected by slower lratlie Dr poor weather. This speed indicales the speed that most motorists on the road consider safe and reasonable WIder ideal conditions. JI"'l_n Kimley-Horn ~_U and Associates, Inc. College Terr""" Defore aud After Study, page '1 Figure 3 -Before and After Speed Results CQllege Terrace· Excessive Speeding Summary Bi:lSed en 5105,5/06 and 10/01 Studies 35% 11 % 1=~;t==~=::J 32% 1% i 29% I 0% 26% 11% L.¥ ... ¥~ .. 173%15% i 48% 1% '%10% 12% I 0% '%fQ%Ij 10'% iJl%/l1 i Logend I E'Jo;Jlt TteIIIc Slgl'Ji!ll • 8o:&t Slop Slg ... 0 Tide; tArc.!e • ""'"S. O..nmw; bin~ OIl perce\~~ 01 oUllck!: __ :Mlfl'l'lt!>!pQ1w ~,"Il2<l ~~n:ld Kimley-Horn College Terrace Before and After Study, page 8 and Associates, Inc. Table 1 summarizes the results of the 85th percentile speed before and after the traffic calming installation. Table 1 -85th Percentile Before and After Speed Results As noted in the table, all but one street segment surveyed showed a reduction in the 85th percentile speed following the installation of the traffic calming measures. The greatest reduction in the 85th percentile speed was on the streets bordering the neighborhood. At the time the project was approved by City Council, speed reductions were projected for College Terrace including 7-[6 percent reductions for Stanford, 6-[0 percent reduction for California, 3-5 percent reductions for College, and 4-7 percent reduction for other open streets interior to the neighborhood. Actual traffic speed reductions are generally within the ranges proj ected. TRAFFIC VOLUME RESULTS Average daily volumes for each direction in 2007 were compared to the data collected in 2005 and 2006. The volumes observed at the study locations are listed in Table 2. JII"'l_" Klmley-Horn III.....I_U and Associates, Inc. College Terrace Before and After Study, page 9 Table 2 -Before and After Volume Results Ro",w'Y S •• m.nt Limit 1 limit 2 """ ~ i OJ",'on ""'" •• '"'""''' ~2001 ~2 "" i ~ On nearly all roadway segments surveyed, the volume of traffic dropped following illstallatioll of the traffic calming measures. The largest change ill total volume was 011 Stanford Avenue where volume dropped by more than I, III vehicles. Cambridge and Yale also experienced significant reductions as traffic patterns changed and cut through traffic rerouted to El Camino Real and California Avenue. Princeton experienced a minor increase of 17 vehicles and a segment of California increased as a result ofthc rerouting of cut through traffic. At the time the project was approved by City Council, volume reductions were projected for College Terrace including 8 percent reductions for Stanford and California, and 5 percent reductions for College and other open streets interior to the neighborhood. Actual traffic volume reductions are generally within or exceed the ranges projected. There was concem that traffic reductions in College Terrace may have been associated with an overall reduction in backgrOlUld traffic ollllearby arterial streets. Therefore, traffic volume data was collected on Oregoll Expressway and El Camino Real from the County and Caltrans, respectively, to identify any overall trends of increased or decreased volumes within the study area. As seen in Table 3, traffic volumes at these nearby locations show limited variation, meaning that changes in volumes " Klmley-Horn College Terrace Before and After Study, page 10 [_~ and Associates, Inc. traveling through the College Terrace neighborhood were not appreciably affected by changes in background traffic conditions. Rather they were likely the result of the traffic calming measures. Table 3 -Background Traffic Levels on Nearby Major Streets Roadway Limit 1 Limit 2 Year • AADT Oregon Expwy Cowper Middlefield 2004 . 34133. .. ... Oregon Expwy Cowper Middlefield 2008. 35041 . EI Camino Page Mill 2002 46000. EI Camino Page Mill 2003 43500 .. ~ ... EICamino Page Mill 2004 43000 EICamino Page Mill 2005 44000 .. ~ ... EI Camino Page Mill 2006 43000 RESIDENT FEEDBACK ON TRAFFIC CALMING FEATURES Although the traffic calming measures performed as generally expected, there was still mixed support for some of the features. The traffic circles on College at Oberlin, Hanover, and Columbia were of particular concern by many residents. As a result, a petition drive was initiated in late 2007 to ask that the traffic circles be removed. Reasons for requesting removal included ambiguity of driver rights of way; lack of vehicle speed reduction; improper turning in front of circles; impeded visibility between motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians; potential vehicle encroachment into the pedestrian and bicycle travel paths; lost parking spaces at intersections; false sense of security; cost; and aesthetics. Most other features were generally supported during PAC meetings and at neighborhood meetings. PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PAC) In response to neighborhood concerns, a project Advisory Committee (PAC) was formed to help refine the traffic calming solutions. The PAC was comprised of nine College Terrace residents who met with City staff Klmley-Horn College Tenace Before and After Study, page 11 and Associates, Inc. and Kimley-Horn on multiple occasions to discuss potential modifications to the NTMP. Concepts and issues were also discussed at two neighborhood meetings to gauge support for specific modifications to the plan. RECOMMENDED MODII'ICA nONS After hearing the conunents and concerns by residents about the traffic calming measures in the interior of the neighborhood, a modification to the current NTMP was developed by the PAC, City, and Kimley-Hom. The plan addressed (to the extent possible) concerns about the current plan while achieving the same traffic safety and traffic calming goals of the initial trial installation. The principal elements of the modified plan include: • Retain speed tables on Stanford Avenue and California Avenue. • Retain traffic circles on Yale at College and Cambridge, and add curb extensions to approaches. • Remove existing traffic circles on College Terrace at Oberlin, Hanover, and Columbia. (The circle has already been removed at Hanover). • Install small center median islands with stop signs on College Terrace at Oberlin, Hanover, and Columbia. • Install four speed humps to control speeds on College, • Install a speed table on Upper California, The following text and illustrations provides additional explanation of the proposed plan modifications. Curb Extensions at Circles -Rather than remove the two traffic circles on Yale Street, it was proposed that curb extensions be added to the features. The extensions would be located on the free flow approaches to the circles in what is currently striped as a no-parking zone. The features would be semi-circular in shape and extend from the curb roughly the width of a parked car. Tllis physically prevents vehicles from parking too close to the circle where they may interfere with sight distances or the movement of large trucks and emergency vehicles through the intersection, They also KimJey-Hom College Terrace Before and Aller Study, poge 12 and Associates, Jnc. keep vehicles from driving along the gutter to avoid having to slow down around the traffic circle. It should be noted that the at the Yale/Cambridge circle, a curb extension is only needed in the southbound direction. Northbound traffic is unable to drive in the gutter to avoid slowing in this direction, Median Islands -Median islands are proposed to be located on College Avenue at the intersections at Oberlin, Hanover, and Columbia. The islands would be installed along the centerline ofthe street behind the striped (or implied) cross walk. Two islands would be installed at each location. They would be roughly 5 feet square with striping to direct traffic to drive around the feature and would be small enough to avoid interfering with access to residential driveways. The medians will reinforce to traffic on College A venue that they must stop at the intersection, as well as provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing the street. At these locations, not all side street traffic is required to stop and frequently traffic speeds from the cross street onto College Avenue while cutting the comer and sometimes temporarily traveling in the opposing travel Jane. The islands will cause traffic to slow down as they make the tum and keep them in the correct travel lane. This will specifically improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the street. It will also act as an additional deterrent to cut through traffic. Speed Humps -Speed humps are r">lOP SIGtl proposed along College Avenue (0 replace (he circles at Oberlin, Hanover, and Columbia, The humps would primarily be installed to create a 111""1_" Kimley-Hom IIIrrI.....I_U and Associates, Inc. deterrent to cut through traffic since most drivers travel at or near the posted speed limit in this area. Four humps would replace three circles and would be located on College Avenue just west of Wellesley, Princeton, Harvard, and Dartmouth. These locations represent roughly half the distancc betwcen the adjaccnt stop signs on College A venue. Speed humps are not the same as speed tables. They are 12 College Terrace Before and After Study, page 13 !. ! I " . feet across and 3 inches tall. Their design is slightly more abrupt than a speed lable and therefore vehicles mllst slow down more when traveling over the feature. Speed Table·-A speed tahle is " i' -<."'. tAA"...o,!"["I ST'-f£ET ;. IL j' -b~~:~ ;~~~~~hm;tvenue : ii' :~-===-~~--~--;;o~ ___ ;~o!~, ~:I i;-·-------- Columhia, The table would be , 'Tfl t",' the same design as the speed'-------I; llil :i ;: tables previously inslalled on [] I: ,1,' !~-~---------- Slanford and California .,., ~)iri :i :! Avenues. The table would he :: ;1 1 11 "" •. , 'I' +- 22 feet across the crown ofthe :'1111 ""U'\ :, :: I _,II II 1, feature and 3 inches talL The -------. -1: ~,:~" .. ..,.-i]'fLi:: I, I r _y~ __ : _ ., tab Ie is intended to help slow 'i : :~-:-:~:':'I hi traffic that is traveling to and I: : ::--.LI""-jiJ I: from the Upper Terrace of the ',' I, . 'I neighborhood and discourage cut through traffic, A schematic of the entire modified plan is shown in Figure 4, 111"'1_" Kimley-Horn III....I_U and Associates, Inc. College Terrace Before and After Study, page 14 Figure 4 -Proposed Modified Plan Add curb extensions to EB and we approaches on College. t u i u Add curb extel1SiO~"O SB approach on Yale. ~.~------, ~" Legend hot T"'fllc Slg~al E.gl. Stop Sign o TrslllcCilcle ...-... Speod Tabl. ~======:;; L center islands. IJJI-~~m-::~-;'''.-. Add 1 ~ ~~'===~---~~Fr .-:1 Add center isla~~ Escondido School Bowdoin Bo'Ndoin c,\document! and Iwings\syaroy\local scltings\lcmporlll"Y internet filcs\olk276b\collcgclen-aceaacllludyI2 finalmeJOO (5)_doc 111"'1_" Kimley-Horri JII.....J_rJ and Associates, Inc. NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY College Torrace Before and After Study, page 15 In May 2009, the City mailed to College Terrace residents a survey to determine support for modifying the NTMP and extending the trial period for another six months or taking another course of action. The survey included background information, description of the proposed modified plan, and a postcard survey. Residents were asked to vote on several questions including whether they support the permanent retention of speed tables on Stanford and Columbia. They were then asked if they support the modified plan, or retaining the current traffic calming features on CollegelY ale, or removing all traffic calming features on College/Yale and returning to original conditions. Surveys were sent to all residential addresses in College Terrace. The City received 274 completed postcard surveys. • 228 supported (voted yes) for the retention of the speed tables OIl Stanford and California. • 36 voted IlO to the retention of the speed tables on Stanford and California. • 183 voted for support ofthe modified plan and to extend the trial period for another 6 months. • 38 voted for retaining the existing measures OIl CollegelY ale. • 49 voted for removal of measures on College/Y ale. Tn summary, 86 percent of residents voted to retain the speed tables on Stanford and California and 68 percent voted to implement the modified plan and to extend the trial period for another 6 months. This information is being presented to the City Planning Commission and City Council this summer. J Figure 1: After study Vehicle Speed Summary . ~ . ~. , . , -, . College Terrace· Ellee •• ille Speeding Summary Bas.d on SlOS, 5106 ~nd 11107 Sludi •• y,. Legend a UlIl, nllf\!; S1Q»al • [ •• tS~ ~ 0 hoff'!t Cln:1Q .-z.".ad 11':1t:t{o Ob'i'H'1!n NOTES, a~(Il»I!lry btI~1C'I UI! p"lCllntau~ .. l'lI'wflitl&$ mill 3~ mph 1IIINll\OO during 2'4 hour polled Hamlrd ()~t~ nnlltvuilabt9 on all m.nts. JIiIfI"------• :1::. , ''';;;::4 i~ll% ~---. Summary of Speed Dala: ATTACHMENT C The percentages ofvehieles exceeding 25 mph (the posted speed limit through College Terrace) and 35 mph Were calculated for eacb ofthe laeations shown, The 2002 result~ are shown onlhe lap, while 2007 resnlts are shown in the bottom, The greale." l'ldnct.km in vebicl .. , exceeding the 25 mph or 35 mph thresholds was On the streets bordering lhe neigbbomood (i.e, StlInford and California), Reduction in speed, interior to the neighborhood Was less, principally beca\l3e drivets gcnerdlly did not drive more Ihan 3 to 4 mJles per hour over the speed limit even before the traffic calming meB51lrC5 were installed. Figure 2: After Study -Change in Volume Summary Escondido SdlOOl 4!l " S ~ a i'~ Sowdolt'. ~ " " '" li " = x 0 0 (J 61 Camino Reel [J ~ ... , I .. c=p~ri~nc~.=to=n=~1 L Bowdoin ................. ~ Amlwro! : .~-.-.-...................• Summary of Volume nata; M '" .!! ." 'r: E .0 E ~ " (J (J a \ , j ! Legend I .. ~ T'''''''"",' • E.u4_ S'~(lli SlgII o Trlifflr.r.I(~1to OberJin "" On nearly all road ..... y segments surveyed, the v01ume of tr.ffic dropped following installation of the traffic .alming mcasu:res. Tile lilrgest change in total volume was iOn Stanford Avenue .... here volume dropped by more Ihan l, III vehicles, Cambridge and Y.le alsu ."perienced significant reductions as traffic patterns changed and cut through. traffic rerouted to El Camino Real and Califurnia Avenue. Princeton ra<perienced a minor increase of 17 vehlelas !l1ld. segment uf Califurnia increased as a result afthe rerouting of cut through traffic, ATTACHMENT 0 Summary of College Terrace Traffic Circles Petition Drive Submitted by Ronda Rosner, 1235 College Ave, 858-1655, rondarosner@gmaiLcom Tuesday, March 11,2008 Summary statement: The one-year trial of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan is nearing completion. I have captured the opinions of many residents regarding whether the traffic circles should be made permanent Of those who affirmed the unacceptability of making the traffic circles permanent, 211 residents have signed a petition to that effect Overview: I began the petition drive in November after reading about the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan status on the city's website. The one-year mark had passed and at that time there was no city resource assigned to evaluate the success or failure of the project My focus was strictly on the traffic circles component of the project, not on the Califomia Ave/Stanford Ave speed tables. I was curious whether a substantive number of other residents held a similar opinion to mine - that the circles did not reduce the volume of traffic, nor did they significantly reduce the speed of traffic, but they did generate incremental safety issues for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. I also believe that the evaluation of the success or failure of the circles must no.! be based solely on the data generated by the city's traffic measuring devices. Therefore, the petition drive enabled me to collect candid opinions and thoughtful suggestions from our residents to supplement data provided by the city's measurements. The wording of the petition is very clear, in order to send a strong message to the city: "We, the undersigned residents of College Terrace, consider Ihe Traffic Circle component of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan to be an unacceptable long-term solution 10 any perceived traffic problem in Col/ege Terrace." This project was executed over six weekends in the period of November 10th , 2007 to March 9th, 2008. I worked'alone on the project For the gathering of petition signatures, I concentrated mostly on College Avenue, where four of the five traffic circles are located. I collected a total of 211 signatures from residents, all of whom are 18 years of age or older, I gathered signatures of spouses/roommates at the same address, which was consistent with the method used to collect the signatures of the 272 residents who were originally in favor of moving forward with the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan. About 40% of residents were not at home during the canvassing periods, Of those who were available, approxima'tely 75% signed the petition. The 25% of residents who were contacted and did not sign the petition either held favorable or neutral opinions about the traffic circles. Resident's responses ran the full gamut of ''I'm so glad you are doing this petition!" to "I like the traffic circles because they make me drive slower." Petition Statistics by Address: College Avenue -77 Signatures Hanover Street -21 signatures Harvard Street -18 signatures Princeton Street -16 signatures Oberlin Street -15 signatures Williams Street -13 signatures Columbia Street -12 signatures Dartmouth Street -9 signatures Amherst Street -7 signatures California Avenue -6 signatures Bowdoin Street -5 signatures Wellesley Street -5 Signatures Cornell Street -4 signatures Stanford AvelStaunton Ct -3 signatUres Reasons for unfavorable opinions of Traffic Circles: • Ambiguity -Drivers do not know who has the right of way or which direction an approaching vehicle will go at the traffic circles. Drivers signal their intention far less at the traffic circles than they do at an intersection with two-way or four-way stop signs. Two traffic engineers (who live in the Terrace) said, in essence, "Any time ambiguity is introduced to a traffic situation, the probability for an accident to occur increases significanlly". Many residents were dismayed that the circles did not work like true roundabouts, but instead relied on a combination of stop signs - a kind of "belt and suspenders" approach to handling traffic. • Vehicle speed -Residents, particularly those who live on College Ave, observed that vehicle speed had not decreased significantly during the trial. In the upper Terrace, where two stop signs were removed at the time of the traffic circle installations (at Columbia and at Hanover), vehicles can travel six blockS on College Ave without stopping. Many of the upper Terrace residents are convinced that speeds have actually increased since the circles were installed. Younger drivers view the upper Terrace circles as a "slalom course" challenge and attempt to maneuver around them as fast as possible. Residents told me the upper Terrace had become, in their words, a "speedway" and they were concerned for the safety of their children. In the vicinity of the Oberlin circle, where the bulk of daily traffic is composed of cut-through activity, the residents observed that drivers noticeably speed up upon navigating the circle, basically to "make up the time lost from having to drive around the circle". This practice is really basic to human nature. Unfortunately, because there are only two-way stops at each circle the drivers who navigate the circle in the direction without a stop sign tend to increase their speed to an even higher level in the next block than if they had been required to stop. • "Short-cuts' -I've coined the term "short-cut" to describe the act of turning illegally at a traffic circle, ie: driver intends to make a left turn at a circle, but instead of driving around it to enter the cross street, he/she turns left onto the cross street into the lane of oncoming traffic to cut the turn short. This is a very common practice. It is not practical to police this activity, just as it is not practical to police compliance with the stop signs. On numerous occasions residents noted that large delivery trucks and emergency vehicles regularly short-cut the traffic circles -most often at Hanover Street and at the small circle at Yale}Cambridge. Once the driver has committed to the illegal turn, there is no room to veer aside jf another car or pedestrian or bicyclist is present, unless the driver steers into the circle or up onto the sidewalk. There have been two accidents at the Yale/Cambridge circle where the driver drove into the circle. • Visibililv -Where drivers are required to stop at a traffic circle, they must align their direction of travel towards the right, in order to prepare to drive around the circle, This positioning means the drivers must crane their necks to look to the left for oncoming traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. They may not look as carefully through the circle .towards the opposing direction of traffic, as it requires more diligence and patience to look right and left at the cross street. At night, headlights are pointed off to the right and as the driver navigates the circle an oncoming pedestrian or bicyclist may not be seen until the vehicle is almost upon them. At a regular intersection, the headlights point straight ahead and it is much more likely that a pedestrian or bicyclist would be seen in the headlights in time for the driver to either stop, slow their turn or veer to avoid collision. • Pedestrian/Bicyclist safety -The pedestrian crossing areas at the traffic circle intersections are, depending on the size of the vehicle and driver's skill/attention, the exact same area the vehicle must use to navigate the circle! Many residents have stories of close calls with vehicles while crossing at the traffic circle intersections. The sidewalk corner ramps for baby strollers, tricycles, scooters, skaters, and wheelchairs point directly into the path of traffic at the circles. Residents with young children told me they do not allow their children to cross the street on their own at these intersections. For bicyclists, the risk of having an accident at a traffic circle intersection is higher due to: a) increased vehicle speeds combined with reduced ability to veer away to avoid, b) reduced visibility at night via headlights, c) fewer drivers use turn signals to indicate direction of travel (ambiguity), and d) short-cuts place vehicles in the wrong lane of traffic. The College Ave/Hanover St intersection was the only four-way stop in the Terrace for at least the last 25 years. This was likely due to the fact that Hanover St is a primary bicycle commute artery through the Terrace between Stanford and the industrial park. Bicyclists commented that the removal of the stop sign in the College direction and the placement of the Hanover traffic circle increased the chance of accidents between bicycles and vehicles. An incident took place last summer at the College/Hanover intersection where a vehicle hit a bicyclist, resulting in a dislocated shoulder and a trip to the hospital for the victim. The Jordan middle-school students who commute by bicycle travel down College to avoid the higher traffic routes (California Ave and Stanford Ave). They must now deal with the hazards presented at the traffic circle intersections, including the small circle at Yale/Cambridge where the stUdents ride to cross EI Camino at Cambridge. • Lost parking spaces -Parking spaces have been lost at the corners of each traffic circle intersection, as well as two additional spaces at College Ave/Yale and three additional spaces at Yale/Cambridge. • False sense of security -Drivers frequently do not make a full stop at traffic circle intersections where there is a stop sign, particularly at Oberlin and College tuming right onto Oberlin towards Stanford Ave. This is a route that cut-through traffic takes through the Terrace. They do slow down, but are lulled into a false sense of security that the presence of the traffic circle lessens the chance they will be involved in an accident or be cited for non- compliance. This increases the hazard for pedestrians, many of whom walk their children to Escondido School every morning. • Cost -Some residents felt it was not cost-effective for the city to expend $25K per circle ($30K if landscaped) to install permanent circles in College Terrace. • Aesthetics -This is mentioned only as a lesser point, though it was on the minds of a number residents. They thought the circles would be more attractive with plantings, though the maintenance of plantings brings an additional cost burden. The signage would still need to be clearly visible, and the signage is the non-aesthetic element. Encroaching vegetation, though it is attractive, would present incremental visibility issues for pedestrians. Some residents mentioned that although they were originally in favor of the circles, they'd reversed their opinion about them after their installation. About 2.0% of those who signed the petition felt there was never a traffic problem in the Terrace that required resolution. Suggestions on how to deal with College Terrace traffic and Improve safety: • Stop signs -The vast majority of residents, including those Who did not sign the petition, felt that stop signs are the most effective way of slowing vehicle speeds through the Terrace, and potentially the best way to reduce the volume of cut-through traffic. The desire was nearly unanimous to replace the two stop signs that were removed on College Ave at Columbia and at Hanover -particularly in light of the fact that the traffic circles will be removed when the roads are resurfaced. A majority also felt that four-way stops should be implemented at the traffic circle intersections -on College Ave at Columbia, at Hanover, and at Oberlin. Columbia is the key intersection used by upper Terrace cut-through traffic and Oberlin is the key intersection used by mid-Terrace cut-through traffic. Residents of Yale and Cambridge suggested a three-way stop at that intersection -in part to improve the safety of middle-school bicycle commuters. Another approach was voiced with regularity: put stop signs at every side street where it crosses College. This would result in four-way stops on College at Columbia, at Hanover, at Oberlin, at Cornell and at Williams. Several residents felt the current pattern of two-way stops going down College was unclear and presented hazards, This would be corrected with the proposal of stops at every side street, combined with stops every other block on College. In fact, the primary omissions of stops on side streets entering College are at Williams and at Cornell, where there is a large volume of cut-through traffic, In the past, Columbia did not have a stop at College but this was changed when the circle was installed, The side streets are only one block long and drivers are not likely to accelerate excessively if they are required to stop at College Ave, the main interior street of the Terrace, Another important point is that drivers entering College from the side streets have a fairly clear view of cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians before proceeding through an intersection, ,as College is a very wide street. However, the view from College looking down the side streets is not nearly as clear and drivers often must creep out slightly into the intersection to check the view before proceeding. Some residents felt there would be increased noise and pollution with the placement of new stop signs, but I would urge the city to take a long-term view on this issue. As gas prices increase and technology eVOlves, more vehicular traffic will be composed of qUieter, low- polluting vehicles. Also, as public transportation becomes more prevalent, there will be a reduction in cut-through traffic (and an increase in pedestrians walking to connect to public transportation). There will be an increase in bicycle commuters as well. In the end, it is many of our own residents who are speeding down our streets and making illegal short-cuts at the circles. Residents want to create a traffic flow in the Terrace that will change/control this behavior more effectively than the traffiC circles. • Barriers -In the interest of being complete, I report that one resident suggested a barrier could be installed at California and Yale to reduce cut-through traffic. The businesses across from the Yale St residences have parking lots that are accessible via California and via Cambridge. Other residents complained that they must take a convoluted and troublesome route to get out of the Terrace from their location due to barrier placements, August 13, 2008 Dear Resident, ATTACHMENT E COLLEGE TERRACE TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY PROJECT UPDATE The City of Palo Alto staff has been working closely with the residents of the College Terrace neighborhood and the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) members beginning in 2003, when the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan was initiated. The intent of the plan was to develop solutions for the traffic impacts identified through traffic data collection and residents' experience. Proposed improvements were focused on enhancing traffic safety while reducing excessive motor vehicle speeds, cut through motor vehicle travel, and traffic noise. The goal of the College Terrace Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan was to tailor solutions to specific locations and to help residents and non-residents recognize that a comprehensive traffic management plan can benefit everybody through improved safety and livability. Following Council approval, traffic circles, speed tables and other traffic calming measures were installed in late 2006 on the border and interior streets of the College Terrace neighborhood. The one-year trial of the College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan is now complete, and an after study has been commissioned by the City to assess the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures, both in terms of traffic safety as well as meeting neighborhood expectations. The goal of the second phase of this project is to conduct a follow up evaluation of the traffic calming measures. A new Project Advisory Committee (PAC) made up of 11 residents appointed by the College Terrace Resident's Association (CTRA) Board, City staff and consultants was formed in January 2008. Before and after data has been collected for both speeds and traffic volumes. Results are shown in the attached table for the before and after volumes and the 85 (%) percentile speeds (speed at which 85% of the drivers are driving). Overall numbers show that there have been significant decreases in both speed and volume, with some increases at various locations throughout the neighborhood The results in the table will be discussed in more detail at the first neighborhood meeting to be scheduled in late fall 2008. Resident input on the traffic calming measures has been collected by the PAC and the CTRA. Overall feedback on the speed tables on Stanford and California Avenue has been positive The City has also become aware that there are neighborhood-wide reservations about the design and effectiveness of the traffic circles on College Avenue. The traffic circles are generating incremental safety issues for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. One of the major concerns being the ambiguity of the circles, where drivers approaching the circle don't know who has the right-of-way or which direction an approaching vehicle intends to go. Another concern expressed is that cars are· encroaching into the pedestrian crosswalks as they try to maneuver around the circle. Some of the other concerns with the circles are reduced visibility at night, unsafe vehicle speeds and cars taking short-cuts by using the wrong lane of traffic. The next steps in this project are for the PAC and the City to develop another viable alternative for traffic calming measures to be implemented on College Avenue. The City would then present this plan to the residents at the next neighborhood meeting, after which a neighborhood survey on the permanent retention of the existing traffic calming devices and/or a new traffic calming trial with the new traffic calming features would be circulated for a neighborhood vote. In the meantime, the PAC has requested that the City implement the following two measures below, as an interim solution while the PAC continues to work with the City to develop a feasible alternative for College Avenue. The City has met with the CTRA Board and they are in support of this interim change until the PAC and the City work to find another viable alternative on College Avenue. 1. Remove the traffic circle at Hanover/College and restore the original4-way stop. 2. Reverse the stop signs to their original locations at Columbia/College Avenue. The City plans to have this work done prior to the start of school. We have tentatively scheduled this work for the weeks of August 18th and the 25th If you have any questions please email me at Shahla.yazdY@cityofpaloalto.org or call me at (650) 617-3151. Information on the project will also be posted as it becomes available at the following website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/city projects/transportation/college terrace.aso. Sincerely, Shahla Yazdy Transportation Engineer Enclosure ATTACHMENT F MULTIWAY STOP Sign Evaluation Form Traffic Operations Section CALTRANS WARRANTS USED FOR MULTIWAY STOP SlGN ANALYSIS Major Sireel, __ -------------_ Minor Street'--_______ ~ ______ _ Page 1 of 2 A MULTIWAY STOP installation should ordinarily be used only where the volume of traffic on Ihe intersecting roads is approximately equal. A traffic signal is more appropriate for an intersection with a heavy volume of traffic. Any of the following conditions may warrant a MULTIWAY STOP installation: 1. 2. 3. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed" the MULTIWAY STOP may be an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installations. An accident problem, as indicated by Ror more reported accidents within a 12 month period of a type susceptible to correction by a MULTIWAY STOP installation, Such aCCidents include righi-turn and left-tum collisions as well as right-angle collisions. (If met, see, collision diagram, attached). ' Collision History:,_------__________ _ MINIMUM TRAFFIC VOLUMES (a) The total vehicular volume entering the inlersection from all approacfJes must average at least !'JOO vehicles p.gr llQur for any'S hours of an average day, and ................ _,- SATISFIED o Yes 0 No SATISFIED DYes C No SATISFIED C Yes 0 No i Maier Sb'eel I, Approach Volume NlA N/A i To(al Minor Street Approach Vo:ume 200 140 Total T ota( Volume 500 350 N/A (b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volumes from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same a hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but Minor Street (cl 200 14() TelA! 30 sec;_ per veh;cl .. When the a5-percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour,the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent 01 the above requirements. Maler StISO! Analysis By Page 2 of 2 SATISFIED DYes 0 No SATISFIED o Yas 0 No Date Description of "Modified Plan" Speed Table The Modified Plan will keep the well received speed tables on Stanford and California and will add another table on California between Columbia and Dartmouth. 'I1Ie speed table would be the same design as the speed tables previously installed on Stanford Avenue. The table would be 22 feet across the crown ofthe feature and 3 inches tall. The table is intended to help slow traffic that is traveling to and from the upper Terrace of the neighborhood and discourage cut . through tTaffic. Curb Extensions at Circles The two traffic circles on Yale (at College and Cambridge) have been very successful in reducing speed by 4% and volume by 60%. Residents in this area have been very supportive of keeping these circles as part of the plan. The Modified Plan retains the two traffic circles on Yale. In order to enhance the effectiveness, rather than removing the two traffic circles, it is proposed that curb extensions be added to the features on the east and westbound approaches. The curb extensions would slow down cars as they maneuver around the circle and will also prevent cars from driving straight through. ATTACHMENT G 'The extensions will be located on the free flow approaches to the circles in what is currently striped as a no-parking zone; therefore no additional parking spaces will be removed. 'The features will be semI-circular in shape and extend from the curb roughly the width of a parked car. 'This physically prevents vehicles from parking too close to the circle where they may interfere with sight distances or the movement of large trucks and emergency vehicles through the intersection. They also keep vehicles from driving along the gutter to avoid having to slow down around the traffic circle. It should be noted that the at the YalclCambridge circle, a curb extension is only needed in the southbound direction. Northbound traffic is unable to drive in the gutter to avoid slowing in this direction. Curb extensions are not attached to the curb, a gap remains between the curb line and the new island in order to maintain gutter flow. The curbs are also mountable by fire !lUCks. Median Islands Median islands are proposed on College Avenue at the intersections at Oberlin, Hanover (where the traffic circle was removed and replaced with a 4-way stop sign in August 2008), and Columbia. The islands would be installed along the centerline ofthe street behind the striped (or implied) cross walk. Two islands would be installed at each location. They would be roughly 5 feet square with striping (0 direct traffic to drive around the feature and would be small enough to avoid interfering with access to residential driveways. TIle medians will reinforce drivers on College Avenue that they must stop at the intersection; they will also enhance the visibility of the stop signs on College Avenue as well as provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing the street. At these locations, not all side street traffic is required to stop and frequently speeds from the cross street onto College Avenue while cutting the comer and sometimes temporarily traveling in the opposing travel lane. The islands will cause traffic to slow down as they make the tum and keep them in the correct travel lane. This will particularly improve the safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the street. It will also act as an additional deterrent to cut through traffic. Speed Humps Four new speed humps will be placed roughly half way between stop signs on College Avenue in areas that affect the greatest volume of cut-through traffic. Speed humps are proposed along College Avenue to replace the circles at Oberlin, Hanover, and Columbia. They would be placed near the intersections but not at the corners; similar to the placement of some speed tables on Stanford Avenue. The humps would primarily be installed to create a deterrent to cui through traffic since most drivers travel at or near the posted speed limit in this area. Four humps would replace three circles and would be located on College Avenue just west of Wellesley, Princeton, Harvard, and Dartmouth. These locations represent roughly half the distance between the adjacent stop signs on College Avenue. Speed humps are not the same as speed tables. Their design is slightly more abrupt than a speed tab Ie and therefore vehi.cles must slow down more when traveling over the feature. The primary plllpose of speed humps is to reduce travel &peeds to approximately 25 mph between the humps and 15 mph at the humps, which is posted as the advisory speed. Speed humps are formed by a gradual rise and fall in the pavement surface, usually with a parabolic profile, to a maximum height of three inches and extend over a distance of 12 feet in the direction of travel. The speed humps will not be placed directly in front of driveways and they do not affect parking spaces ATTACHMENT H May 5,2009 SUBJECT: COLLEGE TERRACE TRAFl<'JC CALMING PROJECT -NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY Dear Resident, The evaluation of the trial of the College TelTace Traffic Calming project, including assessment of the effectiveness of the traffic calming measures, in terms oftrnffic safety as well as meeting neighborhood expectations, is now complete. The purpose of this letter is to summarize the results of the trial, present options for moving forward, including a Modified Traffic Calming Plan, and to request your response to a project survey. Staffhas been working closely with the City's transportation consultants, College Terrace Residents' Association CCTRA) Board and the nine member Project Advisory Committee (PAC) of neighborhood residents, to evaluate the existing plan and develop an alternative to the current project that would achieve the same goals for traffic safety and speed and traftic volume reductions, while addressing neighborhood concerns about the existing plan. Trial Project Evaluation: Overall feedback on the speed tables on Stanford Avenue and California Avenue has been very positive. These measures are recommended for pelmanent retention. The speeds and traffic volumes have been lowered in the interior/exterior of the neighborhood. Before and after data has shown that overall speeds in the neighborhood have been reduced by 10% and cut through traffic has been reduced by more than 1100 vehicles/day. However, the two traffic circles on upper College Avenue are generating incremental safely issues for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. The most common concerns expressed by residents are the uncertainty about right-of-way for vehicles traveling around the circles and cars encroaching into the pedestrian crosswalks as they try to maneuver around the circle. Other concerns wilh the circles are reduced visibility at night, unsafe vehicle speeds and cars taking short-cuts by using the wrong lane oftraffic. A summary of the completed technical evaluation and speed and volume data is posted on the project website (see website address on reverse side). . "Modified Plan" endorsed by the PAC and CTRA Board: After hearing all the comments and concerns from the neighborhood about the traffic calming measures in the interior of the neighborhood, City 'taff, Project Advisory Committee and the engineering cOllSultants have developed 11 modification to the current pion that we feel will address most of the neighborhood's concern about the current plan while achieving the same traffic safely and traffic calming goals of the trial project. The elements of the Modified Plan (as depicted on Exhibit A) are: • Relain existing speed tables on Stanford Avenue and California Avenue. • Remove exi''1ing traffic circles at Columbia and Oberlin. • Install small center medilln islands with stop signs on College at Columbia, Hanover and Oberlin. • lnsta1l4 speed humps to control speeds on College (see map on Exhibit A for general locations) • Keep the traffic circles on Yale at College and Cambridge and add curb extensions to approaches. • Add a new speed table on upper California Avenue. Description of "Modified Plan": The traffic circles on College at Columbia and Oberlin will be removed and replaced with center median islands. These islands will be placed at the intersections of Oberlin, Columbia and Hanover (where the traffic circle was removed and replaced with a 4-way stop sign last August) and will help to slow down cars that are turning left onto Col lege and keep vehicles in the correct lane. The median islands will also enhance the visibility of the slop signs on College Avenue, as well as provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing the street. Page 1 Four new speed humps will be placed roughly halfway between stop signs on College Avenue in areas that affect the greatest volume of cut-through traffic, The primary purpose of speod humps is to reduce travel speeds to approximately 25 mph between the humps and 15 mph at the humps, The Modified Plan retains the two traffic circles on Yale at Cambridge and College. These circles have resulted in a significant decrease in both speed and volumes and the residents in this area have been very supportive of keeping these circles as part of the plan. These circles would be further enhanced by adding curb extensions on the east and westbound approaches, The curb extensions would slow down cars as they lIIaneuver around the circle and will also prevent cars frolll driving straight through. The Modified Plan will keep the well received speed tables on Stanford and California and will add another table on California between Columbia and Dartmouth, The additional table will help slow traffic that is traveling to and from the upper Terrace neighborhood and will also discourage cut through traffic, In order for the "Modified Plan" option to be approved for a short 6-month trial, itmust receive a "yes" vote from a majority (50+) percent of survey respondents. Ifsupported by the neighborhood survey, this plan ><Quid be implemented in conjunction with the street resurfacing prQject later this summer. The trial would end in the first quarter of2010, Postcard Survey: Enclosed with this letter is a postcard survey for each resident to vote on whether they (I) support the pennanent retention of the speed tables on Stanford Avenue and California Avenlle, (2) support the Modified Plan for a new 6-month trial, or (3) support complete retention Or removal of the existing traffic calming measures in the interior of the neighborhood, If the neighborhood supports the Modified Plan with the new traffic calming fealures, staff will work with the neighborhood to expeditiously evaluate the results of the trial after 6 months, Residents will also be asked to vote for the pennanent retention or permanent removal of the Modified Plan existing traffic calming devices at that time. Please take some time to read the enclosed materials andjill out Ihe enclosed survey card and mail if no later than May 29, 2009. Please note that only one survey card per household is permitted, It is very important that as many College Terrace Neighborhood households lIS possible participate in the survey, Next Steps: Transportation staff will present ballot results and staff recommendation at a public hearing by the Planning and Transportation Commission, The Commission's recommendations will be considered by City Council (date to be determined). If Co unci! approves, installation/removal of the approved trial measures would take place late summer 2009 as part of Public Work's College Terrace paving project. Additional detailed infonnation on the history and background of the project can be found at the project website: http://www.cityofpaloalto,org!knowzone/city projects/transportation/college terrace,asp. rfyou have any questions please email me at Shahla,yazdy@cityofpaloalto,org or call me at (650) 617-315 L Shahla Yazdy Transportation Engineer Page 2 College Terrace Traffic C:oJlming Project NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY P!el'!.c cfleck only one. bo~, flrint your adore" CLEARLY 0'1 the ;t\i.r.rse side and mail it bac.k by May 29, 2009, STEP I: Do you ~l'ppOf{ the pcrmallent retention of the sfleed tables on Stanford and California Avenues? __ YES _ .. ~NU STEP 2: Do !lQtl s\lp-pOrl Ihe "Modified PI\lfl" and e:ttend t(ial (or ancThet 6: mooths? Ml)dill~d Pt~n; Remove name; circks on Collt'.ge al Columbia and OberllrL ., lm,laB mEdian i51B-nd~ a\ Hanover, Oberlin and Colombia. Mmlirylrarflc t.lrdes on VtM: 10 ~dd cnrb extem!on:~. *' Jnslai! 4 speed hutllp~ nn College, • InSt311 i speed table on \IDPCf California. _3F.5 __ NO If NO on STEP 1, Ihtlt no you ,'>UflPi1fl (please check Que) __ Retaining. Ihc ex isUng lra{fk calming measures Qn College/Yale OR _ •• _RemovlIl Qf a!llraffic c .. lmil1g: mea,!;\lreli ou CQllege/Yale Imd relHming 10 original eoodltioo:;. l ATTACHMENT I PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN THE TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT SURVEY City Survey and Background were mailed to your home May 6th Mall or Deliver Postcard to the City with Your Return Address DEADLINE is MAY 29th ISSUE 1 -Retention of Speed Tables on Stanford and California Avenues • This is a vote to make all 6 speed tables installed in 2007 permanent • Your neighbors on the CTRA Board and on the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) support this proposal, and resident feedback on the tables has been favorable. • lIVhy? City measurements show the tables have reduced excessive speeds along these busy collector streets (85th percentile speeds down by 8-10%). Drivers report safer gaps merging onto Stanford and California Avenues near the speed tables. ISSUE 2 -Six Month Trial of the "Modified Plan" for College Avenue and Yale • This is a vote for a trial of the hybrid plan described in detail in the city's mailing, with a clear six month time limit • The existing circles at Columbia and Oberlin would be removed and replaced by median islands with stop signs plus strategically placed speed humps on College Avenue near Wellesley, Princeton, Harvard and Dartmouth. • lIVhere speed humps with the same gradual rise were installed in other Palo Alto neighborhoods, residents have found them helpful in deterring non-resident traffic without causing issues with safety or noise often found with the older "bump" design. • The median islands along College are expected to increase compliance with stop signs, reduce the speed of left-tuming traffiC, and make crossing the street safer during the school commute rush. • This plan includes keeping the two circles along Yale, while adding curb extensions to slow the flow of traffic around the orcles. Many residents living nearby like these circles. Volumes and speeds have both declined near these circles. • A new speed table would be added on upper California Avenue, to address speed and cut-through concerns related to coming development in this area. • The City has committed to surveying residents on whether to permanently retain or remove the modifications six months after the trial period begins. • The CTRA Board and your neighbors on the Project AdviSOry Committee support this six month trial. The PAC helped create the Modified Plan after exploring dozens of options. ISSUE 3 -Alternatives to the Trial of the Recommended "Modified Plan" • For anyone voting NO on Issue 2, this offers a choice between making all 4 existing traffic circles on College and on Yale permanent, or removing all of them and returning to 2007 conditions. • Neither the CTRA Board nor the PAC support these op~ons, because they do not meet the original project goals of improving safety and reducing cut-through traffic. For maps, data, background and links to the city's project website, see www.cttcJnfo. Questions or comments? Email board@ctra.org or contact Andrew Fetter at 843-0131. ATTACHMENT J City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION College Terrace Traffic Calming Project NOTK'E IS HEREBY GIVEN that a MitigOlled Negative Declaration has been prepared by th •. Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project listed below. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, this document is available for review and comment during a minimum 20-d.y inspection period beginning September 3, 2004 and ending on September 22, 2004. Written comments may be submitted to the Department of Planning and Conununity Environment during rhe hours of 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM in the Transportation Division, Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, (fifth floor), or 8:00 AM to 4 PM at the Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California or FAX 650-617-3108 The Initial Study prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration may also be reviewed at the Department o[Planning and Conununity Environment, I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Dale: September 3, 2004 Application Nos.: Not Applicable Project Location: College Terrace Area, City of Palo Alto The College Terrace area is bounded by El Camino Real on the east side, California Avenue on the south side, Amherst Street on the west side, and Stanford Avenue on the north side. The area predominantly contains single-family residences except for a small amount of commercial uses along EI Camino ReaL The main land uses surrounding the College Terrace area consist of Stanford University on the north and west sides, and Stanford Research Park on the south side. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Description: City of Palo Alto Transportation Division P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto CA 94303 Heba El-Guendy (650) 329-2552 heba.elguendy@cityofpaloalto.org The attached Plan A illustrates the type and location of physical 1rafiic calming devices recommended for trial implementation in the College Terrace area. The plan contains a total of six speed tables and raised crosswalks (similar design), and five traffic circles as listed below. Stanford Avenue: From east to west along Stanford Avenue, Plan A recommends a speed table west of Wellesley Street, and a raised crosswalk just west of Oberlin Street. The plan also reconullends speed tables west of Amherst Street and Dartmouth Street. College Avenue: Four traffic circles at the intersections of College Avenue with Yale Street, Oberlin Street, Hanover Slreet, and Columbia Street Cambridge Avenue: A traffic circle at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue/Yale Street. California Avenue: A raised crosswalk at the west side of its intersection with Wellesley Street, and a speed table west of Princeton Street. A workable community majority has been reached in favor of the trial implementation of Plan A. The project's Mitigated Negative Declaration provides the foundation under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the City Council's approval of the trial implementation of the traffic calming devices in College Terrace. The recommended plan also includes performance mea,ures to meet city goals established for the plan. These measures include reducing cut-through traffic, limiting diverted trallic, reducing vehicular speeding, monitoring intersection delayslLOS, monitoring vehicular accidents following plan installation, monitoring police and fire responses to the neighborhood, and tracking comments from other agencies (USPS, transit operators, PASCO) regarding the plan elements. Some of these performance measures also act as mitigation measures in the form of "perfomlance standards" under CEQA and are further discussed in the traffic and public service sections below. The other performance measures are in place to meet project goals. The recol1Unendcd trial period is one year following the project's construction. This will allow detailed monitoring of the project and detemlination of whether the resulting conditions satisfy the periormance measures. If they are met, the plan will be considered for permanent establishment. In the event that the pcrfoffilance measures are not being met, the Director of Planning will authorize corrective (improvement) actions based on recommendations of the Transportation Division, to modify the traffic calming devices so that the performance measures are met. Tbese improvement actions could include the removal of one or more of the traffic calming devices, changes to the device(s) design, installation of other traffic calming elements to streets with greater than anticipated diverted traffic, etc. II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed College Terrace Traffic Calming Project may have a significant effect on the environment. On tbe hasis of that study, the City makes the following determination: x The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The initial study, described in following pages, incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. The Initial Study includes some project performance measures and corrective actions that are included as part of the traffic calming project. College rurace Traffic Calmirrg Project MND September 2004 2 AIR QUALITY Mitigation AQ-L lmpl.ement Best Management Practices to Reduce Air Emissions DIU'ing Construction, The City shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: a, Cover aJl truck hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; b. If there are exposed or disturbed soil surfaces, water them at least twice daily; c. Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; d, If there are exposed or disturbed soil surfaces, sweep daily (with water sweepers); e, Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets; f Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and g. Replant any vegetation that is disturbed as quickly as possible. NOISE Mitigation NOISE-l: Construction hours would be limited to Monday through Friday 8:00 a,m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a,m, to 6:00 p,m., as per the City Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 requirements, All construction truck traffic shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Trucks and Traffic Ordinance (10.48) that details city truck routes. Following construction of the plan, it is not expected that the traffic calming devices will cause significant noise impacts. The following bar chart illustrates noise levels in the vicinity of an uncontrolled location, a four-way stop controlled intersection, a traffic circle and a raised crosswalk. ---_ .............. _ .. .. ~-------.............. ~- Traffic Noise Levels Near Feature . " ~04 o 02 6" S6 "I-Way St(]~ TtefJIC C1rde Relaed Croa~ng PUBLIC SERVICES Mitigation FIRE-I; As additioIlll.! assurance against any substantial increase in response travel times, the recommended trial implementation of the traffic calming plan provides for monitoring of response times for one year succeeding the plan's installation to ensUre that there is compliance with the following performance measures. Performance Measure: The travel times for Fire Department calls within and near the College Terrace neighborhood will not exceed the department's mission goals for travel time of 4 Colleee Terrace: Traffic Calming Project MND Septem bcr 2004 3 minutes for 90% of fire and basic medical responses, and 6 minutes for 90% of advanced medical responses (paramedics) attributable to implementation of the traffic calming plan. Performance Measure: There will be no serious impedimdnts in any emergency activities, including identifiable trends in increases in travel times during the trial period, of the Fire Department within and near the College Terrace neighborhood attributable to the ttafiie calming plan. In the event that monitoring shows a pattern of substantial increases in response travel times, further actions will be taken to eliminate any such increa<;es. Improvement actions for the two aforementioned performance measures could include moving or removing one or more of the traffic calming devices recommended in the plan to address the specific problem, and considering installation of an alternative device(s). Mitigation POLICE-I: As noted earlier, the recommended traffic calming Plan A provides for monitoring of response times for one year succeeding the plan's construction to ensure that there is compliance with the following performance measures. Perfornlance Measure: The travel times for Police Department calls within and near the College Terrace neighborhood will not exceed the department's mission goals for travel time of 3 minutes attributable to implementation of the traffic calming plan. Perfornlance Measure: There will be no serious impediments in any emergency activities, including identifiable trends in increases in travel times during the trial period, of the Police Department within and near the neighborhood attributable to the traffic calming plan. In the event that monitoring shows unanticipated increases in response times, further actions will be taken to eliminate any such increases. Improvement actions for the performance measurcs associated with Police service could include moving or removing one or more of the traffic calming devices to address the specific problem, and considering installation of an alternative device(s). TRANSPORTA nONrrRAFF1C Mitigation TRANSPORTA nON-I: As additional assurance against significant traffic diversion to local and collector streets, the proposed traffic calming plan provides for mitigation of traffic diversion through required compliance with the following perfonnance measures. Performance Measure: On local and collector streets with "before" counts of less than 2500 vehicles per day (vpd), no average daily vehicle count at a peripheral or internal location will increase by more than 25% of the "before" count. On local streets, the addition will not cause the volume to exceed 2500 vpd ±10%. Performance Measure: On local streets with a "before" count of 2500 vpd or greater, no average daily traffic COlmt at a pcripheral or internal location will increase by more than 10% of the "before" count. In the event that monitoring shows a pattern of substantial traffic diversions, further actions will be taken to meet goals of the perfomlance measures. The improvement actions for the performance measures include: (a) install additional traffic calming measures on street segments or at ends of street segments where the diversion standard is exceeded (such measures could include center medians, speed tables, and/or ejectronic speed limit signs); (b) move or remove College Terrace Tram!; Calming Project !'vfNf) 4 September 2004 one or more of the constructed devices to address the specific problem; and, (e) replace one or more of the eonstructed devices with alternatives, Mitigation TRANSPORT A TION-2: AI; an additional assurance against significant level of service changes at intersections, the proposed traffic calming plan provides for monitoring to aSsure eompliance with the following performance measure. Performance Measure: The AM or PM peak hour Level of Service (LOS) at the signalized intersections in College Terrace (Stanford Avenue at Escondido Road and Hanover Street) will not degrade'to qnacceptable levels,' , ", ", , ',',. ,,-, ,-,', , In the even! that monitoring shows intersections worsen beyond LOS D, further actions will be taken to meet tile performance measure gonL ,For example, signal improvement could be achieved through a change in signal phasing and/or timing, This action can be used to fine tl!lle the allotment of green time; thus increasing signal efficiency and improving LOS, = ~~--~~ Heba El-Gucnd gineer C(}ilege Tertl!l,~ Traffic Cihmng Pmjru:l MND Seplt!Jnber 2004 - So (H:~~~~2<>'O~ Date 5 , , , Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: andrew fetter [andrewfetter@yahoo.com] Tuesday, July 14,200911:10 AM Planning Commission; Council, City andrew fetter College Terrace Traffic Calming Modified Trial opinion Dear Planning Commission and City Council, ATTACHMENT K As a College Terrace resident, I encourage you to approve the proposed Modified Traffic Calming Trial at your upcoming meetings:PT&C (7/22) and Council (8/3). The College Terrace Residents Board and their Traffic Calming Committee, as well as a large majority (of those who voted) of residents support the plan. Out of 274 surveys received by the city ,183 voted in for support of the Modified Plan. In addition the city staff and hired traffic consultant, as a result of numerous committee meetings and neighborhood meetings, agree that the modified trial is a worthy of implementation. Although there is a wide range of opinion on the value of traffic calming, I think the suggested modified plan is a reasonable attempt to make the neighborhood a safer place for all. Regards, Andrew Fetter, member of Traffic Calming Committee 2255 Wellesley St 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes October 12, 2011 EXCERPT 7 8 9 College Terrace Traffic Calming Project: Review and Recommendation to the City Council to Approve the College Terrace Traffic Calming Project 10 11 12 13 Chair Martinez: We’ll begin on Item number two which is a recommendation to City Council on the final College Terrace Traffic Calming Project. We’ll open the Public Hearing and start with a brief staff presentation. We rehearsed this too. 14 15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: I have to recues myself on this item because I live in College Terrace so I’ll step down for this item but then I’ll return for the minutes and other great stuff. 17 18 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Okay, Jaime. 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Jaime Rodriguez Chief Transportation Official from the City of Palo Alto. Shahla Yazdy from our transportation team will give you the presentation on the College Terrace Traffic Calming Project as having been the Project Manager for the last few years. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer: Good evening Commissioners. I’m Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer. The College Terrace Traffic Calming Plan, shall we start off with a project area map where you see Stanford Avenue to the North and California Avenue on the South bordered by Amherst Street and El Camino Real. Stanford University is on the North and the research park is on the South. Brief project background. The neighborhood has suffered through twenty years of cut through traffic and speeding throughout the whole neighborhood. In 2003 the city with the help of consultants, the policy advisory committee, the College Terrace Residents Association and the city began a Traffic Calming Management Program for this neighborhood. First round of traffic calming features were installed in 2006 on a trial basis. After the trial was completed the plan was modified and approved for trial in 2009 which we also came to the Planning Commission for. This modified plan, the trial is complete and that is what we are here to discuss this evening. The current plan that is existing on College Terrace is four speed tables on Stanford Avenue. It might be hard to see but there are maps in your hand outs, three speed tables on California Avenue, four speed humps on College and center median islands with stop signs on Columbia, Hanover and Oakland, and also two traffic circles on Yale at College and Cambridge with curve extensions around the perimeters. So pretty much before and after data, what was taken only in the vicinity of new traffic calming measures. They were compared to the 2007 data so the number of speeders going over 25 mph Page 1 which was the 85th percentile was down on all the streets. Also, we saw volumes drop on pretty much all the streets except for Columbia and Princeton. We actually got a little increase in volumes on those streets. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 In March of 2011 letters were sent out to the neighborhood, approximately 900 residents live there and they were asked whether or not they supported the permanent retention of the current plan. We received 243 postcards which represented 27% of the number of houses, 195 residents responded yes and 48 no and that gives us about 80% positive response which is over and above the 50% that we require. Comments that we’ve received for this latest plan is pretty much positive support for all the traffic calming measures. In addition we have received requests for landscaping of the two traffic circles on Yale. Staff is recommending that rather than fill the circles as noted in the staff report to pursue other alternatives to improve the circle so that could be a private public partnership of sorts or even considered as a future CIP to be able to fund them. The next steps that we are asking is for the Commission to recommend that Council approve the permanent installation of the traffic calming plan in College Terrace. So we are ready for questions. 21 22 23 Chair Martinez: Again, I would like to defer our questions until we have a chance to hear from our public visitors tonight. Are there any cards? You’ll each have three minutes to speak. 24 25 Vice Chair Fineberg: First speaker is Fred Balin followed by John Agosta. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Fred Balin: Good evening. So we’ve had a good process. It’s been a lengthy one. We started in 1999 with a petition that came to the Council followed up by some traffic studies. We got $50,000 as a CIP mitigation. We then got another $150,000 from a project on Hanover and California back in 2002. In 2004 it came to the Commission the first time and then went to the Council for the initial plan. The trial didn’t start until 2006. There was a little delay there. We had five circles for the very first trial that went down College Avenue. After a year we had a big discussion about the circles and there was a woman, Rhonda Ross and she actually went around to every home in the Terrace and her letter is in one of the packets here. Based on that staff removed one of the circles and then we had a subsequent trial in which two more circles were removed so we were left with just two and another speed table was added as well. That was approved in the latest one and we are working on additional signage that staff has agreed to put in and the issue of the landscaping. I’m encouraged that staff will not be filling in the traffic circles which gives us the opportunity to move forward and landscape them because they really should be and for downtown north there are three barren circles there and we need to find a way to prevent putting up calming measures and stark concrete structures that really aren’t very inviting so I hope we can move forward in all the neighborhoods as well. So I would ask that in the Motion and recommendation from staff is to approve the permanent installation of the traffic calming planning for College Terrace in Attachment A and that there be some mention that that means there is no permanent filling with concrete for the traffic circles that exist now, that they stay in their temporary state. Then as far as the three ball bouts that are Page 2 1 2 3 4 adjacent to the traffic circles that staff has permitted us to landscape because they are right near the curb, our intention, at least my intention is to begin the process of filling those in with landscaping as soon as we can get approval from the Council so thank you very much. 5 6 Chair Martinez: Thank you for hanging in there all these years. 7 8 Vice Chair Fineberg: John Agosta to be followed by Brent Barker. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Mr. John Agosta: Thank you Commissioners for letting us speak. My name is John Lark Agosta, I live at 1648 California Avenue adjacent to Facebook. I’ve been part of their resident’s association activities and traffic calming for a decade. I did find in the files the 1999 petition signed by 25 resident members of College Terrace asking for action taken because of deep concern about nature of traffic, speed and cut through. An interesting fact is that in 2002 the Resident’s Association organized with the city a cut through survey measuring from license plate matching the number of cars that were entering and leaving College Terrace by each ingress and egress and there were several streets where the cut through traffic was greater than 50% and I am happy to say if you look now at the traffic levels and speeds there has been a significant reduction. I think we can thank the process for working successfully. I think we also have to look at the secular decline in traffic over the last ten years. I think we can also look at as the Mayfield redevelopment is being redone there is a possibility for revisiting the traffic levels of the past and we should go ahead and continue to monitor, anticipate and possibly to examine the measures as we’ve had in the past so I’m here to support the process and say that this proposal is a solid one and we should go ahead with it. In fact, the discussion about landscaping has been interwoven and intermingled in this process from the beginning and cooperation with the residents association which has been very strong hopefully will lead to a successful collaboration there and we do continue with this discussion and possibly think about where, now that this funding is complete, if there are opportunities and places in the budget for further activities of this sort. Thank you very much. 31 32 Vice Chair Fineberg: Final speaker, Brent Barker and last call for cards. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Brent Barker; Thank you Commissioners. I appreciate the time you’re taking listening to us and contiguity is a word, we looked it up on Wikipedia. My name is Brent Barker, I live at 2331 Amherst Street and I’m the President of the CTRA Board of Directors. I want to focus my remarks on the landscaping but I want to take the opportunity first to thank you and the city and the staff for hanging in there for so many years. The patience, perseverance and professionalism has really been outstanding and we truly do appreciate it. We’ve ended up with a very good and effective system and process. The landscaping, I want to lay out sort of a four point case for landscaping. I know that we’re looking now at probably leaving them in place but I just want to say that it was the understanding of the residents through a proposal by the city and voted on by the residents that somewhere it was between a covenant and a contract that the city would in fact landscape those traffic circles and that continues to this day. Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Secondly, as the trials went on over the years we dropped from five circles down to two and the reduction of three circles did in fact save the city we would estimate between $75,000 and $90,000 so there has been a considerable savings as a result of this long trial. The long trial has in fact postponed if possibly precluding the landscaping service. The cost differential between hardscaping and landscaping we see as relatively minor. There are two different sets of numbers on the website and the cost differential is about $5,000 at 20%. The new figures we’ve seen the differential has grown to about $15,000 so for two circles it would be either a $10,000 with installation or $30,000 cost. Relative to the savings we feel that’s a good bargain. The last point I want to make is just the esthetics of having those circles. The traffic circles are situated such that the commercial district is in a transition into the neighborhood so they become a gateway into College Terrace. College Terrace is a very proud historical neighborhood whose life actually exceeds that of Palo Alto Proper. In fact, if my sources are correct, College Terrace was the original Palo Alto and then I think Stanford bought the name and University Park became College, became Palo Alto, College Terrace became part of Mayfield and that was kind of the role of things but this neighborhood is proud historically and this would be a nice way to set it off. Esthetically it would tie in very strongly with the beautification efforts that are going on on California Avenue so I thank you. 20 21 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Questions from Commissioners? 22 23 24 25 Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions for staff. Haven’t there been studies done where landscaping and trees located in medians are actually not esthetic considerations but actual traffic calming measures as well? 26 27 28 29 Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, extensive landscaping with large trees can be a very successful traffic calming measure. There actually is one on the other side of El Camino within Stanford Avenue there is a large traffic circle with several trees and it is extremely beautiful. 30 31 32 33 34 Commissioner Lippert: I’ve probably been involved in this project as long if not longer than you have in terms of traffic calming and every proposal that’s come forward has always had some sort of landscaping as part of the description of the permanent plan. Why is this all of a sudden being removed? 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Rodriguez: We began looking at landscaping versus hardscaping circles that were pending improvements about a year ago and it strictly was just a cost savings issue for the city. The circles that remain in place today all need landscaping so we made a decision about a year ago to not pursue future landscaping. We did consider a lot of other opportunities such as granting maintenance to residents, survey cities all around California and figure out what would be the best opportunity. We lean towards hardscaping initially but as we started hearing more community concerns about the circles we thought it would be a better recommendation to try to find future funding or work with the community, College Terrace specifically to try to identify landscaping in the future. Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Commissioner Lippert: Every year we review the CIP which is the Capital Improvement Program for the city and the traffic calming measures are part of that CIP. They are included in there in terms of accepting as a capital improvement in the city so integral in that budget for those numbers are the landscaping numbers and our job or our purview here is to look at consistency in land use with the capital improvement budget. Why would we approve something that is inconsistent with what our job is in terms of capital improvement program? 8 9 10 11 12 Mr. Rodriguez: The CIP, specifically the transportation purpose projects, the only traffic calming focus in CIP is the San Francisco program and the description limits to traffic tables, speed humps, those types of improvements. There is no active CIP that does landscaping. They are usually project specific. Commissioner Lippert: I want to follow up on that. There are other neighborhoods in the city besides College Terrace that have been given the circles with the proviso that they be landscaped and they haven’t either. I think Fred Balin specifically named downtown north. There is also 13 14 15 several in the [SOFA] area as well. Are there any plans to landscape those or have those been in the CIP? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Rodriguez: There is no immediate plan to landscape the circles that are immediately pending. That is something we are looking at through the Blue Ribbon Infrastructure Task Force. That discussion has come up and as the future CIP s are developed that may be something that is prioritized in the future but that process is yet to be seen. 24 25 26 Chair Martinez: Commissioner, it seems to me that they are plain that they are looking for a way to landscape it. I didn’t understand your line of questioning. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Commissioner Lippert: My line of questioning is that a trial is just that, a trial. It is meant to have certain metrics and measurements and they are supposed to be fine tuning in terms of what the final plan is supposed to be but implied in the final plan is standard that needs to be followed. Our job in looking at the CIP is to assure that what is being proposed from public works in terms of their capital improvements throughout the city are consistent with the land use designations in our review as a body here and what I see in essence is that because of budget considerations when something is being made permanent and in fact is saying well, you can either take what you currently have or you can take half a loaf and in some ways the residents are I think willing to take that half a loaf rather than saying we really need to have this plan fulfilled in its entirety and done right. The visual esthetics are not the consideration here. What’s important is that there is a plan and there are certain standards and implied in that planting area is also a traffic calming measure in the way of plantings and public right of way. It has been documented in many city’s that having plantings in a median actually reduces traffic speeds and it is an integral tool for this design. 42 43 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First, if you would indulge me by educating me on the difference between traffic table, the term we used, speed hump and speed bump. I don’t know the differences between them and I’m not sure if anyone else does. Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mr. Rodriguez: A speed bump is what you would find in a parking lot, a foot to 8 inches high, very abrupt, typically parking lots. Speed humps or undulators which is another common term are longer speed humps, usually elongated out to 8 feet wise and varying about three inches in height. A speed table is the equivalent of a 17 to 18 feet wide and usually serves as a crosswalk table as well and so each has a different effect on the street and a different application. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Is there a difference in how deep or how thick or how far they extend? 10 11 Mr. Rodriguez: The typical distance between each is… 12 13 Commissioner Keller: I mean the height and the width if you will. 14 15 16 17 Mr. Rodriguez: So the speed table, the width and travel of the roadways are about 17 to 18 feet and usually about 3 to 4 inches in height. An undulator is about 8 feet wide. We are thinking about an average of three inches in height. 18 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Is there money left over in the current CIP under which, I assume there is a CIP for the traffic calming project, this particular project right? 21 22 23 24 Ms. Yazdy: We have a little over $30,000 left and that would be to kind of add the signs and do some painting, restriping and adding reflectors to the current traffic calming measures. I’m afraid that’s not enough to provide landscaping for both circles. 25 26 27 28 Commissioner Keller: So the issue is if one wanted to do the landscaping one would have to find an additional source of money but there is an advantage to declaring victory and saying when this trial is done we are going to make it permanent. Is that reasonable to say? 29 30 31 32 Ms. Yazdy: Yes. MOTION 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Commissioner Keller: So if I could make a motion? So I move staff’s recommendation with the following provisos: One is that we do not fill in the traffic circles. Second we allow resident landscaping of the curb extensions and third staff evaluate for future of new traffic circles how to handle them in particular the potential for public private partnerships or future CIP for landscaping for future traffic circles including the ones that are in College Terrace as well as the other ones mentioned that are not landscaped that are relatively newer in progress. Thank you. 40 41 Chair Martinez: Is there a second? Do you want to speak to your motion? 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Keller: I think this is a good job that people have worked on diligently. I think here we have a good work by city staff in moving this forward. It’s unfortunate that we can’t address the landscaping issue now but that’s why I put in there that it needs to be dealt with in the future in an appropriate manner and staff to evaluate how to handle that and I think it’s a Page 6 1 2 3 situation where we have a successful traffic calming measure and we should agree to the success and make it permanent. Thank you. 4 5 Commissioner Garber: No comments. 6 7 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tuma. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Commissioner Tuma: I support the motion as stated. The one thing I would say, well a couple things with respect to landscaping, one is that I think there are a growing number of alternatives to, there is a lot of distance between a fully landscaped circle and an ugly concrete thing. There is stamped concrete, ornamentals, a lot of other things that I would encourage staff to look more at the long term fiscal sort of being fiscally responsible with these types of things where you can make something attractive, you can make it effective but you can also make it self-sustaining and not deal with issues like do you let the residents go out into the middle of the circle and the liability issues you get with that or the infrastructure you get with landscaping and then water use is something, water becoming more precious and more important with time so can we accomplish some of the same esthetic desires while keeping the city attractive but doing it in a way that doesn’t require water, landscaping or ongoing maintenance. I think we can and there are lots and lots of different materials and techniques that are being used so whether that winds up being the end result for this particular project or not, the way the motion is framed leaves it in your hands to figure out but the direction towards water and other types of materials with an eye towards esthetic makes sense to me so that’s the only comment I would make. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice Chair Fineberg: I support the motion and I would like to thank members of the public who have stayed with us to be here tonight and provide input. I am pleased that we are proposing that it be recommended to Council that it be made permanent. I am a little concerned that the reason we’re kind of only giving half the loaf is because the CIP project ran out of money. If that’s been the same scenario on our other circles then we need to somehow revise the process where we don’t run out of money and we know what things will cost and we budget our CIPs properly so that next year when the budget comes up and the other proposed circles don’t get half baked. I like the idea that it goes forward with the idea that somewhere the money will be found and hopefully the staff and the residents can work together to find whose budget it comes out of. I agree with comments made by Commissioner Lippert that the raised elevation of the planting doesn’t necessarily need to be gargantuan trees but having that line of sight broken with the visual plants between the drivers’ line of sight and somewhere down the block is just a natural barrier to thinking that the road is a highway. There is something there blocking your line of sight and you are going to drive slower so I understand there is a capacity to have decorative pavers but if we are getting creative with things that don’t require water they need to have that visual block and not just be an engineering project. The other issue and I need to ask staff a question and I would like to propose a friendly amendment with the residences that will landscape the ball bouts I can imagine that there has to be some kind of a plan so we get the right kind of plants in those ball bouts and not, for instance, bamboo forest which block the line of sight and I exaggerate by saying that but we don’t want the wrong plants there to block the line of sight as people make their turns so is there some way Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 to implement a casual process where there is a review and it doesn’t create a burden or a quick set of guidelines that residences can use so they do go off on the right path, not to create burdens, not to create bureaucratic nightmares but something to keep it so we get the right plants in the right places? 6 7 8 9 10 Mr. Rodriguez; Definitely we can look internally at trying to propose some type of process and get a hold of the College Terrace Association and discuss some alternatives for developing a process or a staff level review for things that might come together in the future for a nice landscape. 11 12 13 14 15 Vice Chair Fineberg: I’m not even thinking it rising to the level of a staff level review but would it be appropriate to simply communicate the planting plan with XYZ staff person? I don’t want to add a bureaucratic review process that requires staff time and impediments but how does one create a casual check? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Mr. Rodriguez: Definitely we can do that. We can go ahead and propose and leave Shahla in charge as a good staff contact and we have a landscape architect on staff with the city, Peter Jensen and he would actually be a really good person that we can run this type of a recommendation by and we do so on all of our projects as well. AMENDMENT TO MOTION 23 24 25 26 Vice Chair Fineberg: So if I could propose a friendly amendment, or improve wording, that for the resident landscaping of the ball bouts that the residents work with either the traffic engineer or the landscape architect to confirm suitability of plan. 27 28 29 Commissioner Tuma: Or perhaps more simply just staff to work with the neighborhood association to define the landscaping of the ball bouts. 30 31 Vice Chair Fineberg: That’s great, thank you. 32 33 34 Commissioner Keller: I’ll accept that if the word neighborhood association is replaced by the College Terrace Resident Association, I think that’s the name. 35 36 Commissioner Tuma: Let me think. Sure. 37 38 39 40 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Lippert. AMENDMENT TO MOTION 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: I’m going to get a clicker I think. I’d like to offer a friendly amendment and the friendly amendment is that we recommend to City Council that within the next two CIPs they find monies to landscape the traffic circles and part of my reason for adding this friendly amendment is here we are, a community and we are doing an incredible amount of improvements within the city. We just started work on putting in the reservoir, underground reservoir project in a park. We are building a brand new library in Mitchell Park. We are about Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ready to build or renovate the existing main library and we’ve started work on the art center in a park. We are about to do a whole bunch of road improvements along Charleston again significant landscaping is involved in that. I don’t understand why we can’t find the money to landscape a couple of traffic circles and maybe several traffic circles throughout the city that residents drive down these streets every single day and its integral to the design of these traffic circles and getting them to work properly. In my own neighborhood, it’s anecdotal but it’s true. Somebody came down Hawthorne Avenue, didn’t see the traffic circle because it was just a low white ring of concrete, saw it at the last minute, veered off and plowed into the house on the other side of the traffic circle. This is right at the corner of Hawthorne and Cowper, you can check the police reports, and it’s true. So without these properly being landscaped it’s just an obstacle course is all that it is. The friendly amendment is that within the next two annual CIPs the city find the money to landscape the traffic circles. 18 19 Chair Martinez: Okay, the Maker. 20 21 22 23 Commissioner Keller: I am going to deal with that in this way. That is I already have a thing in there about staff evaluating the landscaping and how to do that and I’m going to add the words, within two years of the completion of this project at the end of that proviso. 24 25 Chair Martinez: So is that a no? 26 27 28 29 Commissioner Keller: I’m doing it a different way so instead of accepting his amendment as is, I am taking the spirit of action required in two years by adding within two years to the end of what I earlier stated. 30 31 32 33 Commissioner Garber: I accept. Okay, procedurally he is not accepting it but he is offering a second friendly amendment to his own motion which is embodying the spirit of the proposed amendment that was turned down and in so doing I am accepting his rewording of it, okay? 34 35 Chair Martinez: Thank you. 36 37 38 39 40 Mr. Rodriguez: If I could just add in a suggestion. Usually the development and approval of the CIP is at the City Council level as a dedication of funds but I’m wondering, and I want to understand it myself, that this recommendation to try to work and find funding within two years or actually create a CIP to get it done in two years. I am just throwing it out there. 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Keller: I believe the wording I said was for staff to evaluate the future of these and so that evaluation and a plan on how to do that would occur in two years and if that would also assuming the evaluation is that you could move forward with it in the process so it isn’t telling you what to do exactly but it puts a time constraint that it be done in a timeline manner. 46 Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. Page 9 Page 10 1 Vice Chair Fineberg: I’d like to say that I agree with both Commissioner Lippert’s proposal and Commissioner Keller’s proposal. That said, I think Commissioner Lippert is absolutely right that we ought to be landscaping all of our circles but the only circle that is on the agenda for discussion tonight are the ones in College Terrace, not noticed to talk about circles in the rest of the city or propose new CIP projects in other parts of the city so I think it’s a wonderful compromise that we take care of the circles as best we can and its possible for the College Terrace circles that staff may be able to come up with funding mechanisms that aren’t CIPs so for tonight’s action we can take care of getting those and then when we have it back on our docket to recommend new CIP projects when the CIP comes before us, that’s when we introduce something that is in our purview, we can recommend new CIPs and we get it and that’s when we lock down all the circles throughout the city so maybe that kind of answers everything. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Commissioner Tuma: It really doesn’t answer it and the reason is that staff can always come back and say we looked at it and we can’t do it. The issue is that what I’m saying is put this on the plate of the City Council and let them make the determination based on our recommendation that those circles really need to be landscaped. They can always say, no, we don’t have the money and for whatever reasons we are not going to look at it but the idea is if you put it in front of the City Council as part of the recommendation they can either take it or leave it. The citizens have an opportunity to speak to it and plead their case and when the CIP comes up, I’m saying the CIP within two years it at least gives the City Council and the citizens the time to address it as well as ourselves. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Chair Martinez: Two things. I really appreciate the working relationship and trust that staff has developed with College Terrace community because when our public speakers stepped up they didn’t say we demand this should be done within two years. They didn’t lecture us about how the city needs to fulfill its promise. They stepped up and said we’ll look for public and private partnership to get this done and that speaks a lot to the way in which you two have worked with the community in which the community itself really wants to get that done and I think enough has been said about encouraging the city to also support this effort to get the landscaping done and the policy that we want traffic circles to be landscaped and I think enough has been said about that and we should go forward on our vote. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 So Commissioners, all in favor of the Motion say I. No opposed. Wait Lee is opposed. You are abstaining. Commissioner Tanaka is absent so that is Commissioner Keller, Garber, Martinez, Fineberg, Tuma voting in support, one abstention Commissioner Lippert and one absent Commissioner Tanaka. The Motion passes and thank you all very much. MOTION PASSED City of Palo Alto (ID # 2555) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2555) Summary Title: Amendment to Contract for Library Materials Title: Approval of Two Contract Amendments with Baker & Taylor to (1) Add $300,000 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $1,250,000 for Additional Library Collection Materials and (2) Add $100,000 for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $189,000 for Additional Library Collection Services Associated with the Mitchell Park Library Opening From: City Manager Lead Department: Library RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve Amendment One to Contract C11137900A with Baker & Taylor to increase the contractual compensation from $950,000.00 to an amount not to exceed $1,250,000.00 for library collections and approve Amendment One to Contract C11137900D with Baker & Taylor to increase the contractual compensation from $89,000.00 to an amount not to exceed $189,000.00 for library collection services. DISCUSSION The Library Department recently received a donation in the amount of $500,000 and will apply a portion of these funds to the above referenced contracts. The work to be performed under these amended contracts is for purchasing Mitchell Park Library opening day collections: new library books, media, and other materials for the public, and the services needed to prepare the materials for circulation. The Library Department has been purchasing materials and services from Baker & Taylor under contracts C11137900A and C11137900D. Baker & Taylor has been able to meet the Library’s expectations in both quality and quantity for providing collections to support regular library services. With a donation from the Palo Alto Library Foundation for the Mitchell Park Library opening day collection, new books and library media will be acquired. The contract amendments enable the April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2555) Library to continue working with Baker & Taylor as a vendor to deliver expected services in a timely manner. RESOURCE IMPACT The compensation increase for each of the above referenced contracts will have no direct fiscal impact to the City’s budget or to the Library Department’s budget, as each increase is covered by the amount received by the $500,000 donation given to the Library Department. The Budget Amendment Ordinance to appropriate these funds was adopted by Council on December 19, 2011 (CMR 2258). POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Approval of contracts to purchase library books and materials does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, no environmental assessment is needed. Attachments: Attachment A: Baker & Taylor Contract Amendment for Books and Related Services (PDF) Attachment B: Baker & Taylor Contract Amendment for Cataloging and Processing Services (PDF) Prepared By: Diane Lai, Division Head Department Head: Monique le Conge, Library Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 2377) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2377) Summary Title: Power Transformer Replacement at Hanover Sub Title: Approval of a Contract with Vellutini Corp., dba Royal Electric, in the Amount of $865,393 for the Replacement of an Electric Power Transformer at Hanover Substation From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Vellutini Corp., in the amount of $865,393 for the Power Transformer Replacement at Hanover Substation, Capital Improvement Project (CIP EL-12002). Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Vellutini Corp., for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project; the total of which shall not exceed $86,539. Background There are two transformers at the Hanover Substation, identified as XF-22 and XF- 23. This project will replace the older of the two, a 60/12kV, 20MVA transformer (XF-22) with a new larger 60/12kV, 28MVA transformer. The existing transformer is near the end of its useful life and is now also undersized. The new transformer will be installed in the same location as the existing transformer. Discussion The Hanover XF-22 and XF-23 transformers serve more than 45 key customers in the Stanford Research Park including VMWare, EPRI, Xerox, SAP, Tesla Motors, Hewlett Packard and the VA Hospital. The existing XF-22 transformer was installed in 1976 and its performance has degraded. The adjacent XF-23 transformer was replaced in 1998. XF-22 also has a history of equipment failure and requires April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2377) major repairs every 2 to 3 years at a cost of approximately $50,000 per event Over time, the load on the Hanover Electric Substation in the Stanford Research Park area has grown. The existing XF-22 transformer has a rated capacity of 20 MVA, which is insufficient to carry the entire peak load if the adjacent 28 MVA XF- 23 transformer fails. This project will replace the existing transformer with a new 28 MVA 60- 12kV transformer that matches the adjacent XF-23 and provides full backup capability in the event of the loss of XF-23. Since the Hanover Substation is located on Stanford University-owned land, the City has obtained Stanford’s approval to complete this work. The transformer’s technical specification has been completed by in-house City staff. Executive Summary The work to be performed under this contract is to manufacture a power transformer that meets the engineered specifications, and then to deliver, assemble, and connect the transformer in the substation in coordination with the City’s Electric Operation’s staff. Construction activities necessary to remove the existing transformer and replace the existing transformer concrete pad will be performed under a separate contract. The following table summarizes the bid process and bids received:* Bid Name / Number Power Transformer Replacement at Hanover Substation Proposed Length of Project 9 months Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 32 Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 13 Total Days to Respond to Bid 28 Pre-Bid Meeting Yes Dec. 19, 2011 Number of Company Attendees at Pre- Bid Meeting 11 Number of Bids Received 4 Base Bid Price Range From $772,629 to $815,772 Base Bid Plus Optional Items Price Range From $883,664 to $894,770 April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2377) * Bid summary provided in Attachment B. Staff reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid, including optional bid items 3 through 10, of $865,393 submitted by Vellutini Corp., be accepted and that Vellutini Corp., be declared the lowest responsible bidder by Council. Vellutini Corporation’s base bid is $772,629 and is the lowest base bid received. The recommended base bid is 1 percent below the staff engineer’s estimate of $800,000. The contingency amount of $86,539, which equals 10% of the total contract, is requested for additional unforeseen work that may develop during the project. Staff confirmed with the Contractor’s State License Board that the contractor has an active license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed and found no significant complaints. Staff also checked references on Virginia Transformer Corporation, the manufacturer of the bid transformer, and received only positive feedback. Timeline Lead-time on the delivery of the power transformer is 32 weeks after the receipt of the order. Delivery, assembly, and connection will commence immediately after the transformer is delivered. Resource Impact Funds for this capital improvement project are available in FY2011 – 2012 Electric System Improvement Capital Improvement Program (EL-12002) budget. Policy Implications The approval of this contract is consistent with existing City policies. This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plans, “… to replace infrastructure before the end of its useful life” and “…to ensure a reliable supply of utility resources”. This project is not subject to the payment of prevailing wages since it is a local municipal utilities project funded entirely by City funds. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act April 09, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2377) (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15302 (replacement or reconstruction of existing utility facilities). Attachments: Attachment A: Contract (PDF) Attachment B: Bid Summary (PDF) Prepared By:Jim Bujtor, Manager Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Rev. August 3, 2010 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C12144218 City of Palo Alto and Vellutini Corporation dba Royal Electric PROJECT Power Transformer Replacement-Hanover Substation Rev. August 3, 2010 FILENAME C12144218.DOC i CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS....................................1 1.1 Recitals................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Definitions ...........................................................................................................................1 SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ...................................................................................................1 SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS........................................................................1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................................................1 3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ...............................................................................2 SECTION 4. THE WORK.........................................................................................................2 SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................2 SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION.....................................................................................3 6.1 Time Is of Essence .............................................................................................................3 6.2 Commencement of Work ...................................................................................................3 6.3 Contract Time......................................................................................................................3 6.4 Liquidated Damages...........................................................................................................3 6.4.1 Entitlement...................................................................................................................3 6.4.2 Daily Amount................................................................................................................3 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy........................................................................................................3 6.4.4 Other Remedies...........................................................................................................3 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ..........................................................................................3 SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR ..............................................................3 7.1 Contract Sum ......................................................................................................................3 7.2 Full Compensation..............................................................................................................4 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................4 7.3.1 Self Performed Work....................................................................................................4 7.3.2 Subcontractors.............................................................................................................4 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC ii SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE.......................................................................................4 SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ............................................................................................4 9.1 Hold Harmless.....................................................................................................................4 9.2 Survival................................................................................................................................5 SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ......................................................................................5 SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS................................................................................5 SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.............................................................5 SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................6 13.1 Method of Notice.................................................................................................................6 13.2 Notice Recipients................................................................................................................6 13.3 Change of Address.............................................................................................................6 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................7 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes............................................................................................7 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.................................................................................................7 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.................................................................................................7 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.......................................................................................7 14.3.1 By Contractor...............................................................................................................7 14.3.2 By City..........................................................................................................................8 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process ..............................................................................8 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.......................................................................................................8 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................8 14.4.3 Mediation......................................................................................................................9 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration........................................................................................................9 14.5 Non-Waiver........................................................................................................................10 SECTION 15. DEFAULT..........................................................................................................10 15.1 Notice of Default ...............................................................................................................10 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.............................................................................................10 SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES....................................................................11 16.1 Remedies Upon Default ...................................................................................................11 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services .............................................................................................11 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................11 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC iii 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract..........................................................................11 16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default........................................................11 16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond....................................................................................11 16.1.6 Additional Provisions..................................................................................................11 16.2 Delays by Sureties............................................................................................................12 16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................................12 16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.............................................................................................12 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ..........................................................................................12 16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .............................................................................12 16.6 Termination Without Cause.............................................................................................12 16.6.1 Compensation............................................................................................................12 16.6.2 Subcontractors...........................................................................................................13 16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination...........................................................................13 SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ..................................................13 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies ....................................................................................................13 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage....................................................................................................14 17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment.............................................................................................14 17.2 Damages to Contractor....................................................................................................14 SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS...............................................................................14 18.1 Financial Management and City Access.........................................................................14 18.2 Compliance with City Requests ......................................................................................14 SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES................................................................................14 SECTION 20. NUISANCE........................................................................................................14 SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES...............................................................................15 SECTION 22. WAIVER............................................................................................................15 SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ...........................................................................................15 SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT ..............................................................................15 SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.............................................................................15 SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES......................................................................................15 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC iv SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION ...................................................................................15 SECTION 28 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS...........................................................................15 SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................15 SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................16 1 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on February 21, 2012 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and VELLUTINI CORPORATION dba ROYAL ELECTRIC ("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 General Engineer duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 357377. 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 December 8, 2011, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Power Transformer Replacement-Hanover Substation (“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 Bid 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 construction of the Power Transformer Replacement-Hanover Substation ("Project"). 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 Change Orders 3) Contract 4) Project Plans and Drawings Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 2 5) Technical Specifications 6) Special Provisions 7) Notice Inviting Bids 8) Instructions to Bidders 9) General Conditions 10) Bidding Addenda 11) Invitation for Bids 12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents 14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and updated from time to time 15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005 and updated from time to time 16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 19) Performance and Payment Bonds 20) Insurance Forms 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. SECTION 4 THE WORK. The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable Code Requirements. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 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 Project 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 3 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 within three hundred sixty five calendar days (365) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. 6.4.1 Entitlement. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to: (i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants. (ii) Loss of public use of public facilities. (iii) Extended disruption to public. 6.4.2 Daily Amount. City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.4.4 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 agreed to by Change Order executed by City and Contractor 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 Eight Hundred Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three Dollars ($865,393). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates.] 4 Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 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. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work. The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by City: 1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor, which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section. 2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance with this Section. 3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section. Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be computed as follows: 7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work. 10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by Contractor with its own forces. 7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors. 15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by a first Tier Subcontractor. SECTION 8 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. 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 collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to any of, the following: (i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier; Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 5 (ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents; (iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties; (iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and (v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of the Work. However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. 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. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. 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. On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract. SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. City is entering into this Construction Contract based 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. 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 6 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 (iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, 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: Or City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attn: Jim Bujtor 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: Jim Bujtor 13.3 Change of Address. In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 7 SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes. 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes. 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following: (i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a governmental agency; (ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier; (iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.; (iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to Contractor; (v) Stop notices; or (vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel performance of any provision of the Contract Documents. 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election. Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work. 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute. 14.3.1 By Contractor. Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the following: (i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the Contract Time and (ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 8 Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following: (a) A detailed cost breakdown and (b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for submission of Change Order Requests and Claims. 14.3.2 By City. City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events. 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the process. 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations. Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass-Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes. Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion. 14.4.3 Mediation. If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph 14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before a mutually acceptable third party mediator. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 9 .1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in mediation skills. .2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules. .3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration. If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following: .1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5. .2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein. .3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or continuance. .4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good cause shown. .5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 10 .6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following: (i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per party. Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as evidence. .7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards. .8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4. Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors who provide any portion of the Work. 14.5 Non-Waiver. Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims. SECTION 15 DEFAULT. 15.1 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. 15.2 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. SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 11 16.1.1 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. 16.1.2 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. 16.1.3 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. 16.1.4 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 15. 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. 16.1.5 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. 16.1.6 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. 16.2 Delays by Sureties. Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following: (i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time; (ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work; (iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably delaying the Work; (iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract; (v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or (vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the Contract Time. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 12 16.3 Damages to City. 16.3.1 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. 16.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default, then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 16.4 Suspension by City 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. 16.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 16.5 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. 16.5.1 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 16.5, 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 and Sub-subcontractors for: (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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 13 .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. 16.5.2 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. 16.6 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. SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 17.1.1 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. 17.1.2 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 14 17.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 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 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 18.1 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. 18.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 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 18.1 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 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint venturers 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 20 NUISANCE. 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 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 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 22 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 15 SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 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 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 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 26 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION. 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 28 AUTHORITY. 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 29 ATTORNEY FEES. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2, the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorney’s 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 attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties. SECTION 30 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. Rev. August 3, 2010 C12144218.DOC 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney VELLUTINI CORPORATION dba ROYAL ELECTRIC By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ City of Palo Alto, Utilities Operations - January 17, 2012 IFB # 144218 Power Transformer Replacement Hanover Substation Bid Item Qty. Unit 1 2 3 4 ABB / Pacific Vellutini / Royal CAL ELECTRO SIEMENS 1 1 LS $753,600 $790,900 $796,000 $727,640 $18,271 TAX (8.25%) $62,172 tax included tax included $60,030 TOTAL $815,772 $772,629 $796,000 $787,670 OPTIONAL 2 1 LS $85,500 $34,500 $72,000 NOT QUOTED 3 1 LS $48,000 $58,400 $25,000 $78,200 4 1 EA $1,700 $3,500 $1,800 $1,700 5 1 EA $4,000 $4,800 $12,700 $2,500 6 1 EA $500 $1,200 $3,000 $600 7 1 EA $800 $1,700 $4,200 $1,400 8 1 EA $0 $0 $0 $0 9 1 EA $3,000 $600 $3,000 $700 10 1 EA $16,000 $22,564 $30,000 $19,700 11 1 EA NOT QUOTED NOT QUOTED $18,000 $2,300 12 1 EA NOT QUOTED NOT QUOTED $30,000 NOT QUOTED City of Palo Alto (ID # 2501) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 6 (ID # 2501) Summary Title: BAO/Design Contract Newell Road Bridge Replacement Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $179,000 to CIP Project PE-12011, Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement, Approval of a Contract with Nolte Associates, Inc. in the Amount of $519,177 for Design Services for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Capital Improvement Program Project PE-12011, Approval of the Inclusion of Public Art in the Design and Construction of the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Replacement Bridge, and Approval of a Cost Share Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District Providing for Contribution of Local Matching Funds for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Replacement Bridge Project From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $179,000 (Attachment A) to provide an additional appropriation for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Capital Improvement Program Project PE-12011; 2.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Nolte Associates, Inc. (Attachment B) in a not-to-exceed amount of $519,177 for engineering design services for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project (PE-12011), including $471,977 for basic services and $47,200 for additional services; 3.Approve the inclusion of public art in the design and construction of the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek replacement bridge; and 4.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign the attached cost share agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) (Attachment C) providing that the District will contribute the local funds matching the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant for the design of the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 6 (ID # 2501) replacement bridge. Background The existing Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek was constructed in 1911 and is considered functionally obsolete. The traffic lanes are substandard, and the bridge has no provision for bicycle or pedestrian traffic. In addition, the sight distances from the bridge are poor, and the bridge alignment creates an undesirable offset in the horizontal alignment of Newell Road. Furthermore, the existing bridge abutments are located within the creek bed, causing a flow constriction in the channel that prevents it from accommodating the estimated 1% (100-year) flow event. The Newell Road Bridge is one of the bridges under study by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that needs to be replaced in order to provide 1% flood conveyance capacity in the creek and increased flood protection to area residents and businesses. On July 11, 2011, Council approved a budget appropriation for a new capital improvement project to replace the Newell Road Bridge and authorized staff to accept Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant funds and local matching funds from JPA to pay for the design and environmental assessment of the replacement bridge. The initial amount appropriated for the design/environmental assessment phase of the bridge replacement project was $360,000. The City of Palo Alto (City) was to be fully reimbursed for this initial phase of the project, with the Highway Bridge Program grant providing 88.53% of the funding and the 11.47% local match being provided by the JPA. Discussion Based on the scope of work approved by Council, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a qualified engineering firm to perform the bridge design and environmental assessment work. The scope of work to be performed under the contract is for complete engineering, architectural and landscape design services, including preliminary design, design development, and preparation of construction documents, regulatory permitting, environmental assessment, public outreach and bid assistance. The new bridge will be designed to allow passage of the 1% San Francisquito Creek flow event, accommodate vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic in as compact a width as is feasible and create a modified horizontal alignment and vertical profile that will improve traffic safety and sight distances. In light of the bridge replacement project’s regional benefits and impacts, staff from the City of East Palo Alto and the JPA will participate in the public outreach, technical design, and environmental assessment elements of the project. The design of the replacement Newell Road Bridge will be subject to review by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board and Planning & Transportation Commission and the City of East Palo Alto Public Works & Transportation Commission and Planning Commission. The Newell Road Bridge serves as one of the gateways between the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. As a community gateway, this location provides a unique opportunity to include an element of public art in the bridge design. The City’s Art in City Capital Improvement Projects Policy, however, does not require the typical 1% budget allocation towards public art for projects that are funded with outside grant monies. Furthermore, in preliminary discussion with Caltrans representatives, staff has determined that it is uncertain whether Highway Bridge April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 6 (ID # 2501) Program grant funds may be used to reimburse applicants for the cost of public art. In spite of these potential reasons to omit public art from the project scope, staff from the Public Works Engineering Services and Community Services Arts Divisions jointly recommends that the Public Art Commission should follow the typical practice of retaining an artist to work jointly with the engineering consultant to incorporate art into the bridge design. Based upon the $1 million estimated cost of the replacement bridge structure, the 1% allocation for public art would be $10,000. The $10,000 public art allocation would need to be funded by the City and may not qualify for reimbursement from the Highway Bridge Program grant. Coordination with an artist to be selected by the Public Art Commission is already included in the scope of work described in the attached contract with the design consultant. The $10,000 allocation for the art element is included in the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance. An RFP for the project was sent to prospective consultants and posted on the City web site on September 12, 2011. The following table summarizes the results of the RFP solicitation: Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Description/Number Design Services for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project Proposed Length of Project 365 Calendar Days Number of Proposals Mailed 6 Total Working Days to Respond to Proposal 21 Working Days Number of Proposals Received 6 Company Name Location (City, State) Selected for Oral Interview? 1. Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc San Francisco, CA Yes 2. Nolte Associates, Inc.San Jose, CA Yes 3. Quincy Engineering, Inc.Sacramento, CA Yes 4. BKF Engineers, Inc.San Jose, CA Yes 5. Jet Engineering, Inc.Pleasanton, CA No 6. Creegan + D’ Angelo, Inc.San Francisco, CA No Range of Proposal Amounts Submitted Per Caltrans Highway Bridge Program requirements, cost information was not included with the proposals. An evaluation committee consisting of representatives from the Public Works Engineering April 09, 2012 Page 4 of 6 (ID # 2501) Services Division, San Francisquito Creek JPA, and the City of East Palo Alto reviewed the proposals. Four firms were invited to participate in oral interviews on October 27, 2011. The committee carefully reviewed each firm’s qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the RFP. The committee reviewed each firm’s qualifications relative to its experience in designing reinforced concrete bridges, the quality of its proposed project approach, performance on past projects, the qualifications of the specific staff to be assigned to the project, understanding of the project goals, and familiarity with the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program. Nolte Associates, Inc. was selected because of the depth and quality of its experience with the design of bridges, especially projects funded through the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program, the exceptional qualifications of its proposed project design team, and the strength of its proposed project design approach. In compliance with the requirements of the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program, the proposers did not include cost information with their proposals. The consultant selection process was based completely upon the relative qualifications of the design teams with no consideration given to cost. Following selection of Nolte Associates, Inc. as the selection committee’s preferred design consultant, staff began negotiations with them on a detailed scope of services to be provided along with the associated costs.Following several compromises and revisions to the proposed scope of work, it became evident that the available budget would not be adequate to complete the project design all the way through preparation of construction bidding documents. Staff reviewed the scope of work provided by the consultant and confirmed that it correlates closely with the specific services requested in the RFP. Staff also reviewed the hourly rates charged by Nolte Associates, Inc. and their subcontractors and finds them to be reasonable and comparable to the rates charged by other Bay Area design firms. The primary factors that have caused the consultant fee to exceed the existing budget are the City’s expectation for high aesthetic standards (which have led to the inclusion of a bridge architect on the design team) and the requirement for review of design submittals by multiple advisory boards and commissions in Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance in order to increase the project budget to cover the consultant’s proposed cost for the project design. Staff submitted a request to Caltrans to increase the amount of expenses eligible for reimbursement through the Highway Bridge Program grant to $522,143 in order to cover the cost of the design contract. Caltrans approved the City’s request to increase the grant amount on March 22, 2012. The amount of local matching funds required by the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program has risen proportionately with the increased project budget. Based upon the local match requirement of 11.43%, as much as $59,890 in local matching funds may be needed to complete the project design and environmental assessment. Recent discussions between representatives of the City, the JPA, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) have resulted in a mutual agreement that the District will provide the local matching funds for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Replacement Bridge Project rather than the JPA in order to relieve the financial pressure on the JPA’s limited operating budget. The attached cost share agreement documents the April 09, 2012 Page 5 of 6 (ID # 2501) terms under which the District will contribute the matching funds. Timeline The design, environmental assessment, and regulatory permitting of the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek replacement bridge are expected to be completed by late Spring 2013. Construction of the new bridge should take place during FY2014, subject to the approval of additional grant funding from the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program. Resource Impact A portion of the funds required for the design of the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek replacement bridge is currently available in Capital Improvement Program Project PE-12011. The remaining funds will be added to the project budget via the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO). The additional funds from the BAO will cover the cost of the design contract with Nolte Associates, Inc., the cost of public art to be incorporated into the project, and other miscellaneous project-related expenses, such as permit fees, printing charges, and public outreach expenses. Design contract expenditures and a portion of the miscellaneous project expenses will be reimbursed through the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program and the District. The Caltrans Highway Bridge Program will provide 88.53% of the reimbursement, and the remaining 11.47% of the funds will be provided by the District. Since the proposed project budget exceeds the Highway Bridge Program grant amount, up to $16,857 in project expenses (i.e. the public art element of the project and a portion of the miscellaneous project-related expenditures) will not qualify for reimbursement from the Highway Bridge Program grant and will need to be funded through the Infrastructure Reserve. As a result, the Infrastructure Reserve balance will decrease to $3,038,710. Proposed expenditures and revenues are summarized in the table below. Project Revenues Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant $462,253 Grant matching funds (from Santa Clara Valley Water District)$ 59,890 Infrastructure Reserve $ 16,857 TOTAL $539,000 Project Expenditures Contract with Nolte Associates, Inc.$519,177 Public Art element $ 10,000 Miscellaneous project-related expenses (e.g. permits, printing, outreach)$ 9,823 TOTAL $539,000 Environmental Review Because the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant funds originate from the federal government, the environmental assessment of the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project must be conducted to comply with both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Nolte Associates, Inc. April 09, 2012 Page 6 of 6 (ID # 2501) will assist staff with the preparation of the required environmental documents. In support of the environmental analysis, the consultant will conduct the special technical studies specified by Caltrans Environmental Planning staff during the grant review process. The appropriate environmental review document will be brought to Council for consideration at the time of award of the construction contract for the project. cc:Kamal Fallaha, City of East Palo Alto Public Works Department Brent Butler, City of East Palo Alto Planning Department Len Materman, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Chris Elias, Santa Clara Valley Water District Norman Beamer, Crescent Park Neighborhood Association Karen White, Duveneck/St. Francis Neighborhood Association Attachments: ·A -Budget Amendment Ordinance (PDF) ·B -Contract with Nolte Associates, Inc.(PDF) ·C -Cost Share Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District (PDF) Prepared By:Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Attachment A ORDINANCE NO.xxxx ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF $179,000 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER PE-12011, NEWELL ROAD/SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 20, 2011 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2012; and B. On July 11, 2011, the Council did adopt Budget Amendment Ordinance Number 5122 in the amount of $360,000 to establish CIP Project PE-12011, Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement. The Council also authorized staff to accept Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant funds and local matching funds from the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to pay for the design of the replacement bridge; and C. Recent discussions among representatives of the City of Palo Alto, the JPA, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) have resulted in a mutual agreement that the District will provide the local matching funds for CIP Project PE-12011, Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement, rather than the JPA in order to relieve the financial pressure on the JPA’s limited operating budget. D. A Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit services for the bridge design and environmental assessment of CIP Project PE-12011 was sent to prospective consultants and posted on the City’s website on September 12, 2011. Proposals were received from six firms. Nolte Associates, Inc. was selected based on the depth and quality of its experience with the design of bridges at a cost of $519,177; and E. An additional $10,000 is needed to incorporate public art into the bridge design. Funding for public art will be provided by the Capital Projects Fund Infrastructure Reserve. Miscellaneous project-related expenditures of $9,823 are also needed for permits, printing services, and outreach. Total project expenditures are summarized in the following table; and Project Expenditures Amount Contract with Nolte Associates, Inc. $519,177 Public art element $10,000 Miscellaneous project- related expenses (e.g. permits, printing, outreach) $9,823 Total $539,000 F. The initial appropriation of $360,000 for CIP Project PE-12011, Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement, is not adequate to cover the cost of the project primarily due to the City’s high aesthetic standards and the requirement for review of design submittals by multiple advisory boards and commissions. An additional appropriation of $179,000 is needed to cover the full design cost which totals $539,000; and G. The additional appropriation of $179,000 will be funded by $162,143 from both the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and $16,857 from the Capital Projects Fund Infrastructure Reserve. Funding sources for the full design cost of $539,000 are summarized in the following table; and Funding Sources Amount Caltrans Highway Bridge Program $462,253 Santa Clara Valley Water District $59,890 Capital Projects Infrastructure Reserve $16,857 Total $539,000 H. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2012 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. The sum of One Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand Dollars ($179,000) is hereby appropriated to CIP Project PE- 12011, Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement. SECTION 3. The sum of One Hundred Seventy-Nine Thousand Dollars ($179,000) is hereby transferred from the Capital Project Fund Infrastructure Reserve. SECTION 4. The Infrastructure Reserve will later be reimbursed by grant funding from the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program and the Santa Clara Valley Water District in the amount of One Hundred Sixty-Two Thousand One Hundred Forty- Three Dollars ($162,143). SECTION 5. The transactions above will result in a net decrease of Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Seven Dollars ($16,857) to the Capital Projects Fund Infrastructure Reserve. The balance of the Capital Projects Fund Infrastructure Reserve will be reduced to Three Million Thirty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Ten Dollars($3,038,710). SECTION 6. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 7. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 8. Because the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program grant funds originate from the federal government, the environmental assessment of the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project must be conducted to comply with both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Nolte Associates, Inc. will assist staff with the preparation of the required environmental documents. The appropriate environmental review document will be brought to Council for consideration at the time of the awarding of the construction contract for the project. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works Director of Administrative Services Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C12142825 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 5th day of March, 2012, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and NOLTE ASSOCIATES, INC., a California corporation, located at 2025 Gateway Place, Suite 156, San Jose, CA 95110 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to implement the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide professional engineering services, including feasibility analysis, preliminary design, design development, construction document preparation, bid assistance, and construction services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. D. The Services under this Agreement will be funded through a federal grant administered by the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program (HBP). CITY and CONSULTANT certify that the Agreement was procured in accordance with Exhibits E and F, respectively. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit “B” unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 2 SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Four Hundred Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars ($471,977). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Five Hundred Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars ($519,177). 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”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 3 SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. 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 the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the 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 the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: ICF International – Environmental & Public Outreach MacDonald Architects – Bridge Architects Parikh Consultants, Inc. – Geotechnical TJKM Transportation Consultants - Traffic 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. Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 4 SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Michael Pugh as the project director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services, and Raul Laborin as the project coordinator 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. The City’s project manager is Joe Teresi, Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Telephone (650) 329-2129. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the 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. Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 5 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification, CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. 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. Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 6 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above 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 Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 7 or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the 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 the 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: All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the 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. Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the 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 Office. Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the 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. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. 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 Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 8 precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. 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. 25.4. 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. 25.5. 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. 25.6. 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. 25.7. 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. 25.8 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. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 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. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 9 executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement SECTION 26. FEDERAL GRANT REQUIREMENTS. The Services under this Agreement are partially funded with Federal-aid Highway funds administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Bridge Program (HBP). Consultant shall comply with the grant funding requirements set forth in Exhibit G which is hereby incorporated into this Agreement. 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 (Required on contracts over $85,000) Purchasing Manager (Required on contracts over $25,000) Contracts Administrator (Required on contracts under $25,000) APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney (Required on Contracts over $25,000) CONSULTANT By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT “E”: CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL AGENCY EXHIBIT “F”: CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTANT EXHIBIT “G”: FEDERAL GRANT REQUIREMENTS Bud Mullanix Regional Managing Director Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 10 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES Nolte Associates, Inc. (NV5) agrees to perform the following Scope of Services: The NV5 scope outlined below specifically adheres to the tasks requested by the City within your request for proposals. To assist in your review of our proposed scope, where appropriate, we have included for cross reference the task numbers and descriptions presented in your request for proposals. We have developed our scope based upon our knowledge and experience gained for providing similar engineering services for HBP funded bridge projects throughout California. Phase 1- Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Clearance (RFP Task A, B, C, F, G) Task 1 - Project Implementation Task 1.1 - Project Management NV5 will provide uninterrupted communication with the City and the project stakeholders to provide for a complete and successful project. NV5 views the daily coordination and continuous management activity from scoping though final design as a primary project goal and objective. Therefore, our team will be focused on providing the City uninterrupted communication thought out the project. Task 1.2 - Meetings (RFP Task F) NV5 will facilitate and attend a project kick off meeting (1) and five (5) additional project progress as required. The kickoff meeting will be conducted with key City personnel and the team to thoroughly discuss the project objectives, scope, design criteria and management process. In addition NV5 will prepare presentation materials for and attend the following meetings: City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board (2 total) City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission (2 total) City of Palo Alto Public Arts Commission (2 total) City of East Palo Alto Public Works and Transportation Commission (2 total) City of East Palo Alto Planning Commission (2 total) SFCJPA (1 total) Task 1.2 Deliverables: 17 meetings Task 1.3 - Quality Assurance/Quality Control Throughout the project, NV5 will ensure project quality at all levels of design by incorporating our standardized Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan. We have referenced the various steps of our Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan throughout our proposed project scope of work. Task 1.4 - Project Schedule NV5 will prepare a comprehensive project schedule and submit it to the City for review and approval. The schedule will be updated on a monthly basis to reflect any changes and will be submitted to the City for review. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 11 Task 1.5 - Public Outreach (RFP Task A) NV5 with assistance from our outreach subconsultant, ICF, will create and implement a multi- faceted public communication and outreach plan in order to assist City staff with the solicitation of input from members of the public regarding the replacement of Newell Road Bridge. ICF will establish and implement a basic outreach protocol to ensure accurate, timely and consistent information is available and shared with all interested parties in the affected communities. Karen Molinari, the ICF Outreach/Communications task lead, will develop an outreach protocol memorandum outlining how, what, and by whom, project information will be shared at key milestones. The plan will facilitate a focused approach to public outreach: Up to two informal meetings with property owners and residents adjacent to the project in both Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. Formation of an ad hoc Community Advisory Committee for this project. The committee should be made up of members of the consultant team, representatives from each of the project stakeholders (including various Boards and Departments as appropriate), and residents from Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. The goal of the committee is to provide opportunities for affected agencies and citizens to provide their input, concerns, and perspective as they relate to alternatives and features being considered for the project. It also serves as an education to the stakeholders who may be unaware of some of the constraints and challenges particular to this project. ICF will assist the City by providing current project information, decisions, and anticipated schedule and other project outreach materials for the City’s website. Summaries of meeting minutes and links to Council and Commission meeting information should also be provided. Per the RFP, we assume that the City will host and maintain the project webpage. Two public meetings during preliminary design. One public meeting would occur at the outset of the project to solicit input on project design and stakeholder concerns and a second meeting towards the end of preliminary design to solicit comments regarding the initial bridge design. While the City will remain the face of the project, the NV5 team will be available to present project information, answer questions, and prepare exhibits, power point presentations, and other handout information about the project. Per the RFP, our team assumes the City will be responsible for mailing list and the cost of mailing any outreach materials. Task 2 - Existing Document Review NV5 will review all available documents regarding the project. This includes any existing road plans, utility drawings, San Francisquito Creek studies and improvement plans, HBP programming documents, bridge inspection reports, etc. Information determined in our research will assist us in pursuing the best project alternative for bridge reconstruction. Task 3 - Utility Coordination NV5 will provide utility coordination services with the objective to obtain all data on the various utility encroachments within the project limits. From our field reconnaissance and research, there are utility poles, water, sewer and storm drain facilities within the project site. Further Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 12 investigations will continue, however, to assure that all possible utilities have been accounted for in a manner that accounts for both the present conditions and potential future facilities. Based on the final alignment selected for the new bridge at least one of the utility poles along the southern edge of Woodland Avenue is expected to be relocated. Early coordination with PG&E will occur once the preliminary bridge design is complete. In addition, following Caltrans utility procedures standard A, B, and C letters of utility notification will be prepared by NV5 for signature and submission by City of Palo Alto. NV5 anticipates contacting the following utilities: Pacific Gas & Electric CATV AT&T Task 3 Deliverables: Utility A, B, and C letters; PG&E contact and application process for pole relocation Task 4 - Environmental Studies (RFP Task C) As a subconsultant to NV5, ICF International (ICF) will take the lead on preparing the necessary environmental technical studies and developing the project CEQA and NEPA documents. Task 4.1 - Prepare Purpose and Need Statement and Project Description Based on an engineering description of the proposed bridge design and associated construction activities to be provided by the designers, ICF will prepare a project description that includes the purpose of and need for the project. ICF will submit the project description to the City for approval before beginning work on the impact analyses for the draft technical studies. Our team’s scope assumes that one alignment will be evaluated in the technical studies/memos and Initial Study. Task 4.2 - Prepare Administrative Draft and Draft Initial Study Following receipt of Caltrans comments on all technical studies, an administrative draft Initial Study will be prepared and submitted for City review. This document will include a summary of earth resources and flooding impacts and mitigation measures based on technical reports prepared by other team members. This report (or the final Initial Study) will include a draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan, as required by CEQA. ICF will incorporate up to two rounds of comments on the administrative draft Initial Study. This task includes production of 10 copies of review drafts and 25 copies of the public review draft Initial Study for City distribution. We will also provide electronic versions of the report for review. Task 4.3 - Prepare Administrative Final and Final Initial Study At the close of the public comment period for the Draft Initial Study, ICF will review and respond to all comments received. It is assumed that a reasonable number of comments based on the magnitude of this project will be received and that no comments requiring new or extensive analyses will be received. The administrative final Initial Study will be prepared and submitted for City review. ICF will incorporate up to two rounds of comments. This task includes production of 10 copies of review drafts and 25 copies of the public review final Initial Study for City distribution. ICF will also provide electronic versions of the report for review. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 13 Task 4.4 - Prepare Categorical Exclusion for NEPA ICF will list environmental commitments on the CE continuation sheet and submit the CE form for City and Caltrans review and Caltrans signature. Task 4.5 - Prepare Draft and Final Technical Studies/Memoranda ICF will conduct field investigations and prepare technical studies/memos following the assumptions and methodologies specified below. These studies/memos will follow local, state, and federal environmental guidelines. All draft technical studies/memos will be submitted to the City and to Caltrans electronically for review (based on the City’s preference, these reviews will be concurrent or sequential).ICF assumes incorporation of up to two rounds of comments and duplication of 8 copies of the final studies/memos. ICF’s scope assumes that there are no Section 4(f) resources (defined as historic sites that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or publicly owned parks, recreation areas, or wildlife/waterfowl refuges) that will be affected by the project. Section 106 Documentation (Cultural Resources) ICF’s cultural resource specialists will be led by Steve Mikesell, formerly Deputy Director of the State Historic Preservation Office. ICF will conduct a records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park and local and state repositories; initiate Native American consultation through the Native American Heritage Commission; and contact any additional museums, historical societies, and interested persons to request information regarding the types of potential cultural resources in the project area. An Area of Potential Effects (APE) map will be prepared and field surveys for archaeological and architectural resources will be conducted by a qualified archeologist and architectural historian. The Newell Road Bridge is classified as a Category 5 bridge and was previously evaluated in 1986 and 2009 and found not to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); therefore, ICF’s scope assumes that the bridge will not need to be evaluated for eligibility. The properties surrounding the bridge all appear to be less than 45 years old, and therefore, an HRER will not need to be prepared for this project. ICF will prepare a Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) and Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) that meet Caltrans’ requirements both of which we assume will be “negative reports”. Biological Resources Sensitive resources in the project area include San Francisquito Creek and associated riparian habitat, as well as special-status species that may occur in these areas. Special-status wildlife species that may occur in these areas include California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, and nesting birds. Bats may also occur within the riparian zone or on the bridge structure. Special- status Central California Coast steelhead also has the potential to occur in San Francisquito Creek. ICF will prepare the following technical studies: Natural Environment Study (NES) and California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment: ICF will prepare the NES using the guidelines from Caltrans’ Guidance for Consultants Procedures for Completing the Natural Environmental Study and Related Biological Reports (1997) and Caltrans’ April 30, 2002 memorandum. ICF’s effort will include coordinating with Caltrans’ biologists to discuss project effects and needed mitigation for impacts on sensitive biological resources. With input from Caltrans’ biologists, ICF will Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 14 also gather technical information as deemed necessary from biologists at USFWS, NMFS, Caltrans, and DFG. ICF’s biologists will conduct reconnaissance-level field surveys to update our existing knowledge of the biological communities, including those needed for a California red-legged frog site assessment; delineate waters of the United States that are subject to regulation by the Corps under Clean Water Act Section 404; and identify and map suitable habitat for special-status plant, wildlife, and fish species that have the potential to occur in the project area. ICF will also conduct a qualitative special- status fish habitat assessment based on a reconnaissance-level survey of the project area and information obtained from agency biologists and existing reports on fish species and habitat occurrence in the project area. The results of the reconnaissance-level, habitat- based assessment will identify whether or not additional biological studies (e.g., botanical surveys for special-status plants during appropriate times of year and protocol-level surveys for specific animal species) are needed. Because the necessity to conduct protocol-level surveys for listed wildlife species would be determined through discussions with USFWS and DFG, and the number and type of protocol-level surveys are not known at this time, these surveys are not included as part of this scope of work. Delineation of Other Waters under Corps’ Jurisdiction: The NES will include a delineation of other waters based on the methods and reporting standards acceptable to the Corps. The wetland map will contain the boundaries of other waters and an estimate of those areas that will be temporarily and permanently impacted by the project. Biological Assessment: ICF will prepare a biological assessment (BA) addressing listed fish species and designated critical habitat for National Marine Fisheries Service in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Caltrans standards and guidance. The BA will provide technical information and supporting analyses of project effects on listed species and designated critical habitat, including proposed avoidance and minimization measures. The BA will be prepared for submittal to NMFS in support of the request for formal consultation and preparation of a biological opinion and incidental take statement. It is also unknown if a USFWS BA covering wildlife species will be needed for this project until after the surveys are conducted. ICF will prepare a separate scope for a USFWS BA if it is needed. Based on ICF’s previous work in the area, ICF assumes that only a BA for NMFS will be required. This scope of work assumes that replacement of the Newell Road Bridge would not require pile- driving. Potential impacts related to pile driving would be a primary concern for this project if pile driving is necessary, and, if required, we would prepare a separate scope of work and cost estimate for an assessment of underwater sound levels based on proposed pile installation materials, methods, and noise attenuation methods. Water Quality Assessment An ICF water quality specialist will prepare a Water Quality Assessment to be included in the NES that will fully comply with the Caltrans District 12 April 2010 Water Quality Assessment Report and Technical Memorandum Guidance for Local Agencies, as recommended by Caltrans District 4. The assessment will document the regulatory framework for water quality protection and describes water quality, erosion risk, and surface/groundwater hydrology in San Francisquito Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 15 Creek. The report will include a preliminary analysis of potential project impacts and recommendations for Best Management Practices. Construction Noise Memorandum ICF’s acoustical engineer assisted Caltrans in updating the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol that became effective in July 2011. He will evaluate noise impacts associated with the proposed alignment in accordance with the requirements of 23 CFR 772, Caltrans Protocol. Because the replacement project will not increase the capacity of the bridge, no change in operational noise is anticipated. Accordingly, the noise study report will focus on construction noise only using methods recommended by the Federal Highway Administration. Traffic Technical Memorandum ICF will prepare a brief memorandum documenting construction period impacts to traffic flow in the vicinity of the project and to identify preferred detour routes while the crossing is out of commission. The detour routes will be identified and evaluated with available traffic operation data provided by the City. The memorandum will include qualitative assessments of travel time impacts related to detour paths and impacts to traffic operation along each proposed detour route. Land Use and Community Impact Assessment Technical Memorandum ICF will prepare a brief memo documenting impacts to land uses adjacent to the project and land acquisitions Hazardous Materials Technical Report To evaluate potential hazardous materials issues for the bridge replacement project, Baseline Environmental Consulting would prepare a Phase I/Initial Site Assessment (ISA) in accordance with guidance from the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference, the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard E1527-05 for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 312). The ISA would include a review of available regulatory and site history information, interviews with City staff, and a site reconnaissance. The scope would also include a pre- demolition survey of lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials by a Certified Asbestos Consultant/Certified Lead Assessor. Samples of traffic striping paint and suspected asbestos- containing materials at the bridge site would be collected and analyzed. The ISA report would provide recommendations for additional action, as warranted, which could include provisions for management, additional investigation, and/or abatement of lead-based paint, asbestos-containing materials, and soils affected by aerially-deposited lead. Task 4.6 - Project Management and Meetings The ICF project manager shall attend up to 4 team meetings in Palo Alto to coordinate technical studies and the preparation of the Initial Study. It is also assumed that a team member (project manager, deputy project manager, or technical specialist) may be required to attend up to 6 additional four-hour meetings, as defined in the RFP. This task also includes the coordination and management efforts by the ICF Project Management Team. Task 5 - Survey NV5 will provide the project base mapping in AutoCAD. The base mapping will include: Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 16 Existing Topography Design Survey Control Existing and Proposed Right of Way Limits Task 5.1 - Topographic Survey The Topographic Survey will be prepared at a scale of 1”=20’. The limits of the survey will extend approximately fifty feet (50’) each side of the existing bridge and will extend 200 feet north and south of the existing bridge. This survey will be performed using conventional survey techniques and will show the location of existing trees (over 6” in diameter), existing bridge and support foundations, top and toe of slopes, edge of water and current water elevation, existing fences, adjacent structures, adjacent roadways, and utility information within the project area. Cross-sections of San Francisquito Creek will be taken at 50 foot interval, 200 feet upstream and downstream of the existing bridge and at the proposed bridge location. The location of visible utility vaults, manholes, catch basins and invert information of Storm and Sanitary Sewers will be shown based upon a field survey. The location of underground utilities lines such as: gas, water, electric, telephone, and any on-site utilities will be shown based upon available agency records. Mechanical detection of existing utilities is specifically excluded. Contours will be shown at one (1) foot intervals or as appropriate to clearly define the slopes. Task 5.2 - Right of Way Constraints Map Research and review existing title reports (provide by client), deeds, maps, easements and other pertinent information. Perform filed reconnaissance to recover existing property corners and monumentation called for by record maps and deeds. Perform a field survey to locate existing monumentation and physical features necessary for the resolution of the existing right of way of Newell Road/Woodland Avenue Intersection within the project area. Perform right of way analysis. Prepare a Right of Way Constraint Exhibit after the preferred alternative has been determined and the project limits set. This exhibit will show the project footprint superimposed on the existing right of way to help determine the location of the revised right of way limits. (Property Corners will not be established as a part of this scope of work. If required a Record of Survey or Corner Record may be required in accordance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act). Task 5.3 - Acquisition Plats and Legal Descriptions Based on new right of way alignment, NV5 will prepare a Plat and Legal Description for a maximum of five (5) Acquisition Parcels or Temporary Construction Easements. Task 5 deliverables (RFP Task G): Site Topographic and Boundary Survey; Plats and Legal Descriptions, (if required) Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 17 Task 6 - Location Hydraulic Study/Bridge Hydraulic Report (RFP Task B) Task 6.1 - Preliminary Design/Hydraulics Analysis In the area of the Newel Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek, there is the potential for significant flooding during the 100-year flood event. As shown on the effective FEMA flood mapping dated 2009, a portion (5900 cfs) of the total 100-year flow (9200 cfs) is contained within the banks of the active, and a significant portion of the flood (3300 cfs) follows a separate flow path parallel to and south of the creek. Ongoing flood improvement planning by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) has identified the need to ultimately contain the entire 100-year flood event within the active San Francisquito Creek. Therefore the new Newell Road Bridge will be designed to safely convey the full 100-year flood event, with proper freeboard requirements. The preliminary hydraulic analysis of the bridge, will include obtaining the current HEC-RAS hydraulic model for both the current condition of the creek and the planned condition of the creek from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and confirm with both the SFCJPA and SCVWD the ultimate hydraulic condition for the creek. Each of these models will be modified to include the alternative bridge configurations. The hydraulic model results will provide feedback to the bridge designers to adjust the bridge designs. The technical product will include hydraulic models for each alternative configuration that will confirm compliance with the regulatory requirements. Task 6.2 - Location Hydraulics Study As one of the technical studies required for the environmental document, NV5 will prepare the Location Hydraulics Study. The Location Hydraulics Study (LHS) is intended to identify the existing floodplain conditions, the potential hydraulic impacts of the proposed project, and the resultant impacts if the project is constructed with any necessary mitigation. For the Newell Street Bridge over San Francisquito Creek project there are significant related issues beyond the direct potential impacts. As shown on the effective FEMA flood mapping dated 2009, a portion (5900 cfs) of the total 100-year flow (9200 cfs) is contained within the banks of the active, and a significant portion of the flood (3300 cfs) follows a separate flow path parallel to and south of the creek. Ongoing flood improvement planning by the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) has identified the need to ultimately contain the entire 100-year flood event within the active San Francisquito Creek. Therefore the new Newell Road Bridge will be designed to safely convey the full 100-year flood event, with proper freeboard requirements. Project hydrology and the current hydraulic model are established by the SCVWD and will be used as the basis of the detailed studies. Because the new bridge will be constructed prior to the completion of the regional flood control project, the bridge site will see lower design flows for a number of years. These reduced peak flows will be considered in the design of transition structures (those facilities that connect the new bridge to the existing stream configuration). The product of this effort is the preparation and submittal of a Location Hydraulics Study formatted in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance guidelines. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 18 Task 6.3 - Bridge Hydraulic Report In the design phase of the project, the information and models developed during the Preliminary Design and Environmental Phases will be updated and used as the basis for the preparation of the project Bridge Hydraulic Report. This report will include the appropriate items identified in the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual, Section 11, Exhibit 11-E, Checklist for Drainage Studies and Report. The Bridge Hydraulic Report will evaluate the Design Flood (Q50), Base Flood (Q100) and Overtopping Flood (or Flood of Record). For each flow condition the following flow characteristics will be investigated and defined: Design Flows Water Surface Elevations Water Surface Profiles Freeboard Flooding Limits Flow Velocities Scour potential The proposed bridge is understood to be a clear span structure from top of bank on each side, replacing the existing closed abutment bridge with footings within the creek banks that constrict flow in the creek. In addition to the main requirement to convey the 100-year flood, freeboard requirements of 3 feet for normal creek sections and 4 feet adjacent to bridges will be observed. Hydraulic design will be compatible with the regional planning for the ultimate configuration and capacity (Q100 of 9200 cfs) of the creek. Task 6 Deliverable (RFP Task G): Preliminary Design – Hydraulics; Location Hydraulics Study; Bridge Hydraulic Report Task 7 - Geotechnical Investigations As a subconsultant to NV5, Parikh Consultants Inc. (PCI) will take the lead on performing the geotechnical investigations and preparing the geotechnical reports. The intent of the geotechnical investigations will be to provide the City of Palo Alto and NV5 with a foundation report and develop bridge foundation design and roadway structural section parameters. PCI’s approach to preparing the geotechnical studies is based on Caltrans’ guidelines for the preparation of Bridge Foundation Reports. As a general guideline the field exploration program is based on drilling two new borings consisting of one boring at each abutment of the bridge structure. In addition two shallow borings (5’) are proposed for the roadway pavement design. In order to be cost effective, PCI will use any existing available borings/data for the structure. Task 7.1 - Research and Data Collection PCI will review available geologic and soil literature in the vicinity of the site including the review of any as-built drawings and existing LOTB, if any. Task 7.2 - Field Explorations For the bridge structure, PCI will drill two borings up to 80’ in depth. Hollow stem auger drilling is proposed. These explorations will provide an evaluation of subsurface soils/rock conditions for the proposed structure. Two bulk samples will be collected from the roadway subgrade to evaluate the R-value for pavement design. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 19 The boring locations will depend upon the available access and the boring data from previous studies. PCI anticipates using a truck mounted drill rig and drilling in the general area of the proposed abutment locations. Traffic control is anticipated at this time for one day. PCI will classify and continuously log subsurface soil conditions encountered in each test boring at the time of drilling. PCI will also obtain “relatively undisturbed” and bulk samples of substrata from the test borings. The borings will be drilled and capped in accordance with the permit requirements. PCI will comply with the Agency Permit requirements. Task 7.3 - Laboratory Testing PCI will perform laboratory tests on representative soil samples such as moisture density, unconfined compression, R-values, gradation analyses, corrosion tests and Plasticity Index test, as necessary. Task 7.4 - Soils Analysis/Evaluation PCI will perform engineering analyses and develop design recommendations for the proposed foundations. Drilled concrete piles are expected for the bridge supports. Pavement design will be based on the Traffic Index value (provided by the City) and the R-value. Task 7.5 - Draft Foundation Report PCI will prepare preliminary recommendations for foundations. PCI will prepare a Foundation Type Selection Report with the LOTB for the structure. PCI will also attend a Type Selection meeting as necessary in Sacramento. In addition, PCI will develop pavement design recommendations. Task 7.6 - Final Foundation Report PCI will prepare a detailed final Foundation Report. This report will include: Design recommendations for the foundation type Footing elevations Lateral design information Soil scour potential discussions Evaluations of slope stability as necessary The report will also discuss seismic considerations, evaluate the liquefaction potential and comment on the site soil conditions from this standpoint. Information related to Caltrans Seismic design criteria (SDC v 1.6) and 2010 updates will be provided. Information related to the recently revised Seismic design guidelines and the ARS curves (2009) will also be provided. As part of this task, PCI will also develop the Log of Test Borings sheet for inclusion in the construction documents. Task 7 Deliverables (RFP Task G): Geotechnical Reports; Draft and Final; Log of Test Borings Sheet Task 8 - Preliminary Engineering & Type Selection (RFP Task B) NV5 will plan, design, and coordinate the required preliminary engineering documents needed to define the scope of the project. This task will include the analysis of two bridge replacement Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 20 alternatives and two roadway alignment alternatives, the preparation of a Bridge Type Selection Report, and the preparation of a 30% plan set and estimate of the preferred project alternative. Portions of the 30% plans will be used as figures in the project environmental clearance documents to describe the proposed project. Task 8.1 - Bridge Type Selection Report Information taken from our research conducted in Task 2 will be used to assist us in determining the best project alternative for replacing the existing bridge. In Coordination with the City, NV5 will provide the necessary alternative analyses and type selection services necessary to select the most appropriate road alignment and bridge replacement type and prepare the Bridge Type Selection Report. Upon completion of our analysis, we will produce and submit a report recommending the preferred roadway alignment and bridge replacement type to City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for review and selection. A General Plan Sheet will be prepared to convey each bridge alternative. A conceptual plan and profile for each of the roadway alignment alternatives will also be prepared. The vertical profile for each alignment alternative will be based upon the San Francisquito Creek hydraulic information obtained from SCVWD and preliminary roadway geometries developed by NV5. A narrative description addressing pertinent information about each bridge and road alignment alternative will be provided in the type selection report. A preliminary planning study cost estimate for each alternative will also be prepared. Costs will be preliminary and will be prepared in accordance with Caltrans Standard Planning Study Cost Estimating practices. Upon completion of our alternative analysis, NV5 will summarize the findings of our analyses in a Bridge Type Selection Report. This report will identify the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative analyzed, and recommend a preferred alternative. NV5 will prepare final PS&E project plans based on the selection of a preferred alternative by the City and the approval of the Bridge Type Selection Report. A draft version of the Bridge Type Selection Report will be submitted to the City and Caltrans for review and comment. Upon receipt of the comments of the draft report, NV5 will prepare a final Bridge Type Selection Report. Task 8.1 Deliverable (RFP, Task G): Bridge Type Selection Report (RFP Item Technical Memorandum -Design Parameters) Task 8.2 – Traffic Analysis Task 8.2.1 - Existing Traffic Condition TJKM will collect the a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement volumes for three intersections: Newell Road/Woodland Avenue (North leg) Newell Road /Woodland Avenue (South/Bridge leg) Newell Road /Edgewood Drive We are also planning to collect any bike or pedestrian volumes at the same time. In addition, 48- hour ADT tube volumes will be collected on Newell Road (2 locations) and Woodland Avenue. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 21 Task 8.2.2: - Determine Potential Impact of Future Alternatives Currently the two study intersections of Newell Road and Woodland Avenue are slightly offset. Due to the offset and sight distance issue, both offset T-intersections are stop control on the mainline and side streets. The two potential future alternatives for the intersections are: Alternative 1: Existing Roadway Alignment Alternative 2: Re-Alignment of Newell Road Corner Sight Distance at a Controlled Intersection For both alternatives, intersections should be planned and located to provide as much sight distance as possible. A substantially clear line of sight should be maintained between the driver of a vehicle waiting to cross the road and the driver of an approaching vehicle in the right lane of the main highway. As a minimum, there should be sufficient sight distance for the driver on the minor street to cross the major street without requiring approaching traffic to reduce speed. TJKM will provide sight distance visibility evaluation that is consistent with Caltrans guidelines. All-Way or 2-Way Stop Warrants For Alternative 2, with the re-alignment, TJKM needs to determine controls such as All-Way or 2-Way Stop based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) California Edition that provides the following warrants for all-way stop control: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. A crash problem, as indicated by 5 or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation. Such crashes include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but 3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the above values. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Option: Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 22 C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) street of similar design and operating characteristics where multiway stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. TJKM will conduct All-Way Stop analysis for the intersection based on the MUTCD criteria. This will include collision analysis based on a review of the most current 5-year SWITRS collision database. Signal Warrants For Alternative 2, if an All-Way Stop warrant is met, then TJKM will proceed to determine whether the intersection also meets signal warrants. The warrant for a traffic control signal are based on applicable factors contained in the MUTCD and other factors related to existing operation and safety at the study location: Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume. Warrant 3, Peak Hour. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume. Warrant 5, School Crossing. Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System. Warrant 7, Crash Experience. Warrant 8, Roadway Network. If an All-Way Stop warrant is not met, a signal warrant is not required since that means the traffic volume does not exist to warrant that consideration. Task 8.2.3: - Assess Potential Traffic Diversion and Impact of Non-Auto Model of Travel Residents might be concerned that a widened (two 11’ lanes and bike lanes and sidewalk) and aligned bridge (Alternative 2) could attract more diverted traffic from other locations. In order to determine the potential for traffic to be diverted to the improved and widened bridge, TJKM will use the collected traffic counts at the three key locations in Simtraffic micro simulation to determine the potential future traffic on the bridge. TJKM will also review the design and signing and striping plan to ensure that it will provide safe travel for pedestrians and bikes. Task 8.2.4 - Report TJKM will prepare a letter traffic report summarizing the methodology, findings and recommendations of the study. A draft report (complete with tables, figures and appendices) will be provided for review. The report’s appendices will contain detailed calculations, count data and other information used in the study. TJKM will respond to one set of comments and finalize the report. Task 8.2.5 - Meetings/Coordination TJKM will meet or communicate with the City during preparation of the study. These meetings or communication will include review, meetings to discuss the study. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 23 TJKM will attend two community outreach meetings. Additional attendance in public meetings could be provided based on time and materials. Task 8.3 - 35 % Preliminary Plans and Estimate Upon receipt of written documentation from City of Palo Alto identifying the preferred bridge type and road alignment for the project and the approval of the Bridge Type Selection Report, NV5 will prepare preliminary roadway and bridge plans for the selected project alternative (one alternative). The preliminary plans will consist of: Title Sheet Preliminary Typical Sections Preliminary Roadway Plan and Profile Sheet Right of Way Constraint Exhibit Preliminary Bridge General Plan Sheet These preliminary plans will provide enough data to convey a complete scope of the project. All of the plans will be prepared in accordance with the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Concurrent with the development of the 35% plans, NV5 will prepare a preliminary construction cost estimate. Costs will be estimated for approximate quantities of roadway materials and structural bridge items. The cost estimate spreadsheet will be developed using Microsoft Excel. Task 8.2 Deliverables: 10 half-size plans sheets, plus digital file on compact disc Phase 2 - Final Design & Permitting Task 9 - Final Design & PS&E Development (RFP Task D, E, H) After the environmental documents have been approved and acceptance has been given on the 35% Preliminary Plans, NV5 will begin the design work and preparation of the PS&E. This phase will include the development of the bridge and roadway plans which will be prepared in accordance with the Bridge Design Details Manual and the Highway Design Manual as published by Caltrans. This phase will also include the preparation of Special Provisions to accompany the State of California Standard Specifications. The initial step of the final design phase will be the development of the intermediate (65%) submittal of the plans, special provisions, and estimate (PS&E). Task 9.1 - 65% Bridge/Structural Design NV5 will prepare a full structural design on the selected bridge alternative identified in the Bridge Type Selection Report. The design will be conducted in accordance with: Caltrans Bridge Design Manuals AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications with 2006 Interims and Caltrans Addenda (Blue Sheets) Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria A detailed description of NV5’s bridge design subtasks follows: Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 24 Superstructure Design The superstructure will be designed to meet LRFD requirements specified by Caltrans. Vertical loads will include HL-93, Permit, and Alternative Vehicle live loads as well as prescribed dead loads. The seismic design will adhere to the requirements specified in the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and the Caltrans Memo to Designers Manual. The analysis of the bridge superstructure will utilize the CT Bridge computer program for live loads, used by Caltrans. Substructure Design The support reactions from the superstructure will be used to design the substructure components. The substructure system will incorporate structure movement, drainage, structure approach, and seismic requirements. The substructure items will be designed in accordance with the Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications Manual for vertical loading and lateral loading. Seismic Design After member sizes have been determined during the Superstructure and Substructure designs, NV5 will analyze the bridge for seismic loading. Information that will be used to determine the design seismic loads includes the maximum ground acceleration, and depth to bedrock. Once NV5 has obtained the site parameters, this information will be coupled with the structural parameters of the bridge to determine seismic loads and reactions. . Requirements in the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria and the Caltrans Memo to Designers Manual will be used to determine the loading. Task 9.2 - Roadway Design NV5 will refine the selected horizontal and vertical roadway alignment developed in our 35% plan submittal. NV5 will design roadway cross sections and construction details as part of this task. Detailed earthwork calculations will be performed as well. Drainage systems and construction staging requirements also be developed. Task 9.3 - Traffic Control/Construction Staging Plans NV5 will develop traffic control and construction staging plans that will allow for the construction of the project while limiting the inconvenience and impact to the local community. Task 9.4 - 65% Preliminary Plans, Special Provisions & Estimate Concurrently with the design efforts for your project, NV5 will prepare the 65% PS&E. This phase will include the development of the bridge and roadway plans, including roadway layout, drainage, signing and striping. These plans will be prepared in accordance with the Bridge Design Details Manual and the Highway Design Manual as published by Caltrans. This task will also include the preparation of Special Provisions to accompany the State of California Standard Specifications. Environmental mitigation measures, if required, will be incorporated into the development of these documents. Plans The plan sheets will be prepared in English units. NV5 intends to use AutoCAD Civil 3D. We will develop our drawing files using City of Palo Alto’s standard sheet format. We anticipate roadway layout plans to be at a scale of 1”=40’ or 1”=20’, and roadway construction details to be at a scale of 1”=10’ unless otherwise requested by the City. Bridge plans will be at the required feet and inch scales. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 25 Plans for all submittals will include the following: Title Sheet & Key Map Roadway Typical Cross Section Sheet Roadway Plan and Profile Sheets Construction Detail Sheets Temporary Erosion/Pollution Control Sheets Roadway Drainage Plan Utility Plan Signing and Striping Plan Traffic Control Plan Construction Staging Plan Bridge General Plan Bridge Foundation Plan Abutment Detail Sheets Bridge Typical Section Sheet Bridge Girder Layout Sheet Bridge Railing Plan Log of Test Borings Sheet Special Provisions NV5 will use the most current version of the Standard Special Provisions available from Caltrans and will revise the Standard Special Provisions to meet the requirements for this specific project. The special provisions document will be developed using Microsoft Word. Cost Estimate (RFP Task E) Along with the plans and special provisions, a detailed construction cost will be developed. A Marginal Estimate will be prepared as an estimate of probable construction cost for the project. This estimate will be based on quantity take-off calculations performed and checked by the designer and unit cost information for each of the items listed. The unit cost data will be based on past relevant experience with similar projects; including any City of Palo Alto construction cost data, and the latest version of Contract Cost Data as prepared by Caltrans. Task 9.5 - First (65%) PS&E Submittal (RFP Task G) Upon completion of this portion of work and after the environmental documents have been approved for your project, NV5 will submit for review and comment the 65% PS&E package. Submittal will include 10 half-size plan sets, 10 technical specification sets (Caltrans Standard Specifications format), 10 copies of an opinion of probable construction cost, plus digital files of all documents on compact disc. Task 9.6 - Independent Design Check At the 65% complete stage of the project, a comprehensive Quality Control Review of the Plans, Specifications, and Construction Cost Estimate will be performed by our QC manager, Jack Abcarius. In addition, an independent bridge design check will be conducted. The independent design check will be performed on the 65% plan set by an engineer not involved in the initial design of the project. It will consist of a thorough review of the Bridge Plans and Draft Special Provisions. The design checker for action or response will prepare a list of issues to be addressed by the designer and a set of independent check calculations. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 26 Task 9.7 - Response to Review Comments/90% PS&E Revisions Upon receipt of the City, State, and other review agency comments on the 65% complete project documents, revisions will be made to the Plans, Specifications and Special Provisions in preparation for the 90% submittal package. A written response will be prepared by the designer addressing any reviewer or checker comments, suggestions or proposed revisions. The project Special Provisions will also be finalized in Caltrans’ standard format for inclusion in the Bid Documents along with the boilerplate portion provided by City of Palo Alto. Task 9.8 - Second (90%) PS&E Submittal (RFP Task D, G) A complete set of checked Plans, Specifications, and Construction Cost Estimate will be submitted to City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for final review and approval. Submittal will include 10 half-size plan sets, 10 technical specification sets (Caltrans Standard Specifications format), 10 copies of an opinion of probable construction cost, plus digital files of all documents on compact disc. Task 9.9 - Third (100%) PS&E Submittal (RFP Task G, H) Design comments on the 90% PS&E submittal made by City of Palo Alto and Caltrans will be incorporated into the Final Plans Special Provisions and Estimates, as appropriate. The 100% PS&E will include the following items: Checked Structural Bridge Plans Final Roadway Plans Special Provisions for Construction Engineer’s Estimate Resident Engineer’s Files These final drawings, special provisions, and estimates will be prepared in accordance with the Local Programs Manual and presented to City of Palo Alto at the completion of the design phase of the project. All documents will be stamped and signed by a licensed civil or structural engineer registered in California. Project drawings will be prepared using the City standard 24” by 36” drawing sheet size and layout (to be provided by the City). NV5 will also utilize City standard AutoCAD layer names, symbols and line types. Task 10 - Regulatory Agency Permitting Replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek will require permits from the Corps, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and DFG. ICF will prepare the following permit applications and shepherd them through the regulatory agencies (It is assumed that the application fees for these permits will be provided by the City.) Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 for Linear Crossings: ICF will prepare a preconstruction notification (PCN) for submittal to the Corps to request authorization for the project under NWP 14. A draft and final version of the PCN package will be submitted to the City prior to submitting the package to the Corps. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 27 Clean Water Act, Section 401 Water Quality Certification Support: ICF will compile the necessary information and submit a complete application package to the RWQCB. Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement: ICF will prepare the required SAA notification package to be filed with DFG. Bay Conservation and Development Commission Development Permit: The San Francisco BCDC’s jurisdiction includes San Francisco Bay, a 100 foot shoreline band that extends 100 feet inland from the upland edge of the BCDC’s Bay jurisdiction and certain named waterways that drain into the Bay. ICF will contact BCDC to determine if it has jurisdiction. If BCDC has jurisdiction, ICF will complete the application for a development permit and provide the required supporting documentation. ICF assumes that appropriate, approved banks are available in the area and have the necessary number of credits available for purchase to achieve the compensation that will be required by the permitting agencies. ICF also assumes that habitat mitigation and monitoring plan will not be required for this project. Task 11 Deliverables (RFP Task G): NEPA/CEQA Documentation in format acceptable to Caltrans and the City of Palo Alto Planning Division; Completed regulatory permit applications and supporting materials. Phase 3 - Bidding & Construction Support Task 11 - Post Design Services (RFP Task I) Task 11.1 - Bidding Assistance Upon completion of the final design phase of your project, NV5 will provide Bidding Assistance. NV5 will assist the City in answering technical questions relative to the plans, special provisions, and quantity estimates, and the preparation of required PS&E addendums. Task 11.2 - Construction Support Services NV5 will provide construction support services for the project. The services for this task include: Making field visits to the construction site Attending weekly construction meetings and prepare weekly meeting agendas and minutes Responding to contractors’ requests for information (RFI’s) Reviewing contractor submittals and shop drawings. Reviewing and addressing contractor requested change orders Inspecting the project to determine whether the work is substantially complete and preparing a punch list of items to be completed prior to final acceptance. Confirming completion of contractor’s punch list items prior to final payment. Preparing as-built drawings based on Resident Engineer red lines at the completion of the project. Files will be delivered in AutoCAD format. Each document file will be accompanied by a metadata text file, including the date of the file, the company name, contract information, and the name of the technician who prepared the document. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 28 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. Project Management 67 2. Existing Document Review 2 3. Utility Coordination 44 4. Environmental Studies 44 5. Survey 10 6. Bridge Hydraulic Report 18 7. Geotechnical Investigations 20 8. Preliminary Engineering and Type Selection 28 9. Final Design 63 10. Regulatory Agency Permitting 63 11. Bidding & Construction Support 67 Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 29 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. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $471,977. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $519,177. 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. 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, does not exceed $ 471,977 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $ 47,200. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $69,927 (Project Management) Task 2 $7,024 (Existing Document Review) Task 3 $9,538 (Utility Coordination) Task 4 $94,985 (Environmental Clearance Documents) Task 5 $24,076 (Survey & Base Mapping) Task 6 $31,650 (Location Hydraulic Study/Bridge Hydraulic Report) Task 7 $35,903 (Geotechnical Investigations) Task 8 $56,356 (Preliminary Engineering & Type Selection) Task 9 $118,405 (Final Design & Permitting) Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 30 Task 10 $13,232 (Regulatory Agency Permitting) Task 11 $10,880 (Construction Bid Assistance) Sub-total Basic Services $471,977 Reimbursable Expenses (included in total above) Total Basic Services & Reimbursable expenses $471,977 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $ 47,200 Maximum Total Compensation $519,177 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. Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 31 Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 32 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 33 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: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT 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 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 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 35 Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 36 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 ISSUING COMPANY 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 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 AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 !"#$ % & '( "))# #****$ + *'% , + * ! " # $ % &' ( ! %)+ + -'' + ' '# '#( ' " ./ 0 12. 3.4 '/ 5 0631 7./ 85 $ ' * '% *%)+ *"))# #****$ *-"))# #****$ )' ) ! **! ** ** ( (" ' +# %,- % ./ - 0 / 12 ").2 . 192 $ 00 ("3 : ;' )' ) *'< + **# % ) + + * ) ! ! ) .- 4 $ % .- 4 .- 4 ! 0 !! 0 )!' ! '0! * ) ! 5 , 0 ! ) !)! !! 0 ,! 00 ! ! !, " 0! * !) !' * ' :( '%+ # ''''% ') ) * ' , '% ' ' )( * ,( * ) 0 - (, +* ' + : ' '% ' '% +: ''%, '%"'$0 % & '( %0 ) = 6 / 6/. 1 .2 '% 0 71/9" $35 > 2 1 6'%+ , ':( 0 5>? / 1 3 .2 /12 12 16 71/90/ .271/ 3.9 85 .2 2 1 3 2 . 3 2 12 / 6/. 1 21 /126 1 / 6/. 1 2 516 5/ 2 1 3 2 " $ 2.3 .2 11. 3.4 16 (,' %)+= (' %)+= '% "#010@ $= % % %' ) A= ''=) -"#01$= )= A '%= '%+= '%= '% = '%= '%= '%"'$ , (, ' % * + ( '+ '+ + - 0 : + ( : * (' ' X 4027186653 5/1/2011 4027186569 5/1/2011 X X $5,000,000 $10,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 Certificate Department Ea Claim Aggregate X 1,000,000 Stop Gap Liability B 100,000 1,000,000 Nolte Associates, Inc. 2495 Natomas Park Drive, Fourth Floor Sacramento, CA 95833 United States Re: City of Palo Alto Newell Road Bridge. Additional Insured coverage applies to General and Automobile Liability for City of Palo Alto, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES per policy form. Primary coverage applies to General and Automobile Liability per policy form. Prof. Liab. - Claims made, defense costs included within limit. Cavignac & Associates will provide 30 days notice of cancellation to the Certificate Holder in the event of policy cancellation. Jeffrey W. Cavignac B 619-234-8601 1,000,000 5/1/2012 2/22/2012 X X 4027186605 Cavignac & Associates 450 B Street, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101-8005 License No. OA99520 City of Palo Alto P.O. BOX 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 United States A X C CONTINENTAL INS CO 35289 VALLEY FORGE INS CO 20508 HUDSON INS CO 25054 5,000 1,000,000 5/1/2012 5/1/2012 Cross Liab/Sev of Int 1,000,000 X X AEE7260500 174640 5/1/2011 Professional Liability certificates@cavignac.com 1,000,000 5/1/20125/1/2011 619-234-6848 NOLTE-1 EXIGIS - CAVIGNAC & ASSOCIATES 174640 Page 2 of 5 POLICY #: COMMERCIAL AUTOCA 20 48 02 99 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. DESIGNATED INSURED This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM GARAGE COVERAGE FORM MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM TRUCKERS COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions of the Coverage Form apply unless modi-fied by this endorsement. This endorsement identifies person(s) or organization(s) who are “insureds” under the Who Is An Insured Provi-sion of the Coverage Form. This endorsement does not alter coverage provided in the Coverage Form. This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated below. Endorsement Effective: Countersigned By: Named Insured: (Authorized Representative) SCHEDULE Name of Person(s) or Organization(s): (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to the endorsement.) Each person or organization shown in the Schedule is an “insured” for Liability Coverage, but only to the extent that person or organization qualifies as an “insured” under the Who Is An Insured Provision contained in Section II of the Coverage Form. CA 20 48 02 99 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1998 5/1/2011 4027186605 Nolte Associates, Inc. 2495 Natomas Park Drive, Fourth Floor Sacramento, CA 95833 United States Jeffrey W. Cavignac Blanket as required by written Contract Page 3 of 5 G-140331-C (Ed. 10/10) Policy No. 4027186653 G-140331-C Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission Page 1 of 2 (Ed. 10/10) THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED - OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS - WITH PRODUCTS-COMPLETED OPERATIONS COVERAGE This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE (OPTIONAL) Name of Additional Insured Persons Or Organizations (As required by "written contract" per Paragraph A. below.) Locations of Covered Operations (As per the "written contract," provided the location is within the "coverage territory" of this Coverage Part.) A. Section II - Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured: 1. Any person or organization whom you are required by "written contract" to add as an additional insured on this Coverage Part; and 2. The particular person or organization, if any, scheduled above. B. The insurance provided to the additional insured is limited as follows: 1. The person or organization is an additional insured only with respect to liability for "bodily injury," "property damage," or "personal and advertising injury" caused in whole or in part by: a. Your acts or omissions; or b. The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf in the performance of your ongoing operations specified in the "written contract"; or c. "Your work" that is specified in the "written contract" but only for "bodily injury" or "property damage" included in the "products-completed operations hazard," and only if: (1) The "written contract" requires you to provide the additional insured such coverage; and (2) This Coverage Part provides such coverage. 2. We will not provide the additional insured any broader coverage or any higher limit of insurance than the least that is: a. Required by the "written contract"; b. Described in B.1. above; or c. Afforded to you under this policy. 3. This insurance is excess of all other insurance available to the additional insured whether on a primary, excess, contingent or any other basis. But if required by the "written contract," this insurance will be primary and non-contributory relative to insurance on which the additional insured is a Named Insured. 4. The insurance provided to the additional insured does not apply to "bodily injury," "property damage," or "personal and advertising injury arising out of: a. The rendering of, or the failure to render, any professional architectural, engineering, or surveying services, including: (1) The preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders or drawings and specifications; and (2) Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities; or b. Any premises or work for which the additional insured is specifically listed as an Page 4 of 5 G-140331-C (Ed. 10/10) Policy No. 4027186653 G-140331-C Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission Page 2 of 2 (Ed. 10/10) additional insured on another endorsement attached to this Coverage Part. C. SECTION IV – COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS is amended as follows: 1. The Duties In The Event of Occurrence, Offense, Claim or Suit condition is amended to add the following additional conditions applicable to the additional insured: An additional insured under this endorsement will as soon as practicable: (1) Give us written notice of an "occurrence" or an offense which may result in a claim or "suit" under this insurance, and of any claim or "suit" that does result; (2) Except as provided in Paragraph B.3 of this endorsement, agree to make available any other insurance the additional insured has for a loss we cover under this Coverage Part; (3) Send us copies of all legal papers received, and otherwise cooperate with us in the investigation, defense, or settlement of the claim or "suit"; and (4) Tender the defense and indemnity of any claim or "suit" to any other insurer or self insurer whose policy or program applies to a loss we cover under this Coverage Part. But if the "written contract" requires this insurance to be primary and non- contributory, this provision (4) does not apply to insurance on which the additional insured is a Named Insured. We have no duty to defend or indemnify an additional insured under this endorsement until we receive from the additional insured written notice of a claim or "suit." 2. With respect only to the insurance provided by this endorsement, the first sentence of Paragraph 4.a. of the Other Insurance Condition is deleted and replaced with the following: 4. Other Insurance a. Primary Insurance This insurance is primary and non- contributory except when rendered excess by endorsement G-140331-C, or when Paragraph b. below applies. D. Only for the purpose of the insurance provided by this endorsement, SECTION V – DEFINITIONS is amended to add the following definition: "Written contract" means a written contract or written agreement that requires you to make a person or organization an additional insured on this Coverage Part, provided the contract or agreement: 1. Is currently in effect or becomes effective during the term of this policy; and 2. Was executed prior to: a. The "bodily injury" or "property damage"; or b The offense that caused the "personal and advertising injury" for which the additional insured seeks coverage under this Coverage Part. Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT “E” CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL AGENCY Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT E Certification of Local Agency CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL AGENCY I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the Director of Public Works of the City of Palo Alto (local agency), and that the consulting firm of Nolte Associates, Inc. or its representative has not been required (except as herein expressly stated), directly or indirectly, as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this Agreement to: (a) employ, retain, agree to employ or retain, any firm or person, or (b) pay or agree to pay, to any firm, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind. I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this Agreement involving participation of federal-aid highway funds, and is subject to applicable state and federal laws, both criminal and civil. ____________________________ ________________________________ (Date) (Signature) LPP 06-02 Page 10-45 May 1, 2006 Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 37 Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 39 EXHIBIT “G” FEDERAL GRANT REQUIREMENTS Subcontractors A. Nothing contained in this Agreement or otherwise, shall create any contractual relation between the City and any subcontractors, and no subcontract shall relieve the Consultant of his/her responsibilities and obligations hereunder. The Consultant agrees to be as fully responsible to the City for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by any of them as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by the Consultant. The Consultant's obligation to pay its subcontractors is an independent obligation from the City's obligation to make payments to the Consultant. B. Any subcontract in excess of $25,000, entered into as a result of this Agreement, shall contain all the provisions stipulated in this Agreement to be applicable to subcontractors. C. Consultant shall pay its subcontractors within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of each payment made to the Consultant by the City. D. Any substitution of subcontractors must be approved in writing by the City’s Contract Manager in advance of assigning work to a substitute subcontractor. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Participation A. This Agreement is subject to 49 CFR, Part 26 entitled “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs.” Proposers who obtain DBE participation on this contract will assist Caltrans in meeting its federally mandated statewide overall DBE goal. B. The City has set an underutilized DBE (UDBE) goal of 5% for this Project. The Consultant must meet the UDBE goal by committing UDBE participation or document a good faith effort to meet the goal. If a UDBE subconsultant is unable to perform, the Consultant must make a good faith effort to replace him/her with another UDBE subconsultant, if the goal is not otherwise met. A UDBE is a firm meeting the definition of a DBE as specified in 49 CFR and is one of the following groups: African Americans, Native Americans, Asian- Pacific Americans, or Women. C. DBEs and other small businesses, as defined in 49 CFR, Part 26 are encouraged to participate in the performance of agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds. The Consultant, sub-recipient or subconsultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26 in the award and administration of US DOT- assisted agreements. Failure by the Consultant to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the termination of this Agreement or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate. D. Any subcontract entered into as a result of this Agreement shall contain all of the provisions Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 40 of this section. Performance of DBE Consultant and other DBE Subconsultants/Suppliers A. A DBE performs a commercially useful function when it is responsible for execution of the work of the Agreement and is carrying out its responsibilities by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. To perform a commercially useful function, the DBE must also be responsible with respect to materials and supplies used on the Agreement, for negotiating price, determining quality and quantity, ordering the material, and installing (where applicable) and paying for the material itself. To determine whether a DBE is performing a commercially useful function, evaluate the amount of work subcontracted, industry practices; whether the amount the firm is to be paid under the Agreement is commensurate with the work it is actually performing; and other relevant factors. B. A DBE does not perform a commercially useful function if its role is limited to that of an extra participant in a transaction, Agreement, or project through which funds are passed in order to obtain the appearance of DBE participation. In determining whether a DBE is such an extra participant, examine similar transactions, particularly those in which DBEs do not participate. C. If a DBE does not perform or exercise responsibility for at least 30 percent of the total cost of its Agreement with its own work force, or the DBE subcontracts a greater portion of the work of the Agreement than would be expected on the basis of normal industry practice for the type of work involved, it will be presumed that it is not performing a commercially useful function. Prompt Payment of Funds Withheld to Subcontractors A. No retainage will be withheld by the City from progress payments due the prime Consultant. Retainage by the prime consultant or subconsultants is prohibited, and no retainage will be held by the prime Consultant from progress due subcontractors. Any violation of this provision shall subject the violating prime consultant or subconsultants to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 7108.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies, otherwise available to the prime consultant or subconsultant in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by the prime consultant or deficient subconsultant performance, or noncompliance by a subconsultant. This provision applies to both DBE and non-DBE prime consultants and subconsultants. DBE Records A. The Consultant shall maintain records of materials purchased and/or supplied from all subcontracts entered into with certified DBEs. The records shall show the name and business address of each DBE or vendor and the total dollar amount actually paid each DBE or vendor, regardless of tier. The records shall show the date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to all firms. DBE prime consultants shall also show the date of work performed Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 41 by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work. B. Upon completion of the Agreement, a summary of these records shall be prepared and submitted on the form entitled, “Final Report-Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), First-Tier Subcontractors,” CEM-2402F (Exhibit 17-F, Chapter 17, of the Caltrans Local Agency Procedures Manual), certified correct by the Consultant or the Consultant’s authorized representative and shall be furnished to the City’s Contract Manager with the final invoice. Failure to provide the summary of DBE payments with the final invoice will result in 25% of the dollar value of the invoice being withheld from payment until the form is submitted. The amount will be returned to the Consultant when a satisfactory “Final Report-Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), First- Tier Subcontractors” is submitted to the City’s Contract Manager. DBE Certification and Decertification Status A. If a DBE subconsultant is decertified during the life of the Agreement, the decertified subconsultant shall notify the Consultant in writing with the date of decertification. If a subconsultant becomes a certified DBE during the life of the Agreement, the subconsultant shall notify the Consultant in writing with the date of certification. Any changes should be reported to the City’s Contract Manager within 30 days. Prevailing Wages A. Any inspection and land surveying work performed by Consultant or its subconsultants under this Agreement is subject to the Prevailing Wage law. To the extent any Services covered under this Agreement are covered by the Prevailing Wage law, the following requirements shall apply. 1. 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. Copies of these rates may be obtained at cost at the Purchasing office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall post a copy of applicable exhibits/wage rates at each Site. Contractor to whom the Construction Contract is awarded and any Subcontractor agree to pay wages and benefits not less than said specified rates to all workers employed by them in the execution of the Construction Contract. 2. In accordance with the Labor Code, prevailing wage rate determinations for the work to be done on this Project are maintained at the City’s Purchasing office. Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 42 3. A person or concern who fails to do so shall be subject to the penalties provided for in Section 1775 of the Labor Code. In addition, pursuant to Labor Code Section 1775 (a)(2)(E), if a penalty is assessed against a Contractor or subcontractor for violation of the prevailing wage law, the Contractor or subcontractor must pay to each worker the difference between the wages paid to that worker and the prevailing wage required by law. 4. In the event there is a determination that Contractor is in violation of prevailing wage requirements, Contractor shall reimburse City for all investigative costs incurred. 5. Contractor and all Subcontractors shall keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, job classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journey worker, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed in connection with the Work. All payroll records shall be certified in accordance with Labor Code Section 1776 by Contractor or Subcontractors keeping such records on forms satisfactory and in accordance with instructions to be furnished by City. 6. Contractor shall submit certified payrolls to the City on a weekly basis, or as otherwise requested by the Construction Manager. The Contractor shall be responsible for also submitting to the City certified payrolls of all subcontractors. 7. Contractor and each Subcontractor shall preserve their payroll records for a period of 3 years from the date of completion of the Work. 8. Special Access Inspection. Certified payroll records shall be available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor to the following categories of people as follows: 8.1 A certified copy of an employee's payroll record shall be made available for inspection or furnished to such employee or the employee's authorized representative upon request. 8.2 A certified copy of all Contractor and Subcontractor payroll records shall be made available for inspection upon request to City, the State of California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the State of California Division of Industrial Relations. A certified copy of all payroll records shall be furnished to City or its representatives upon request. 9. Public Inspection. A certified copy of all payroll records shall be made available upon request by the public for inspection or copies thereof made; provided, however, that the request by the public shall be made to either City, the Division of Apprenticeship Standards, or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. The public shall not be given access to such records at the principal offices of Contractor or Subcontractors. Any copy of the records made available for inspection as copies and furnished upon request to the public or any public entity by City shall be marked or Professional Services Rev. Nov.7, 2011 43 obliterated in such a manner as to prevent disclosure of an individual's name, address, and social security number. The name and address of Contractor awarded the Construction Contract or performing the Construction Contract shall not be marked or obliterated. 10. Contractor shall file a certified copy of the payroll records with the entity that requested the records within ten (10) Days after receipt of a written request. Contractor shall inform City of the location of such payroll records for the Project, including the street address, city, and county; and Contractor shall, within five (5) days, provide notice of change of location of such records. In the event the Contractor or subcontractor fails to comply within the 10-day period, he or she shall, as a penalty to the City forfeit twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, until strict compliance is effectuated. Such forfeiture amounts may be deducted from the Contract Sum. A Contractor is not subject to a penalty pursuant to this section due to the failure of a subcontractor to comply with this section. 11. Attention is directed to Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 of the State of California Labor Code and Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 200, and the applicable sections that follow. To ensure compliance and complete understanding of the law requiring apprentices, and specifically the required ratio thereunder, Contractor or Subcontractors should, where some question exists, contact the Division of Apprenticeship Standards, 525 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, or one of its branch offices prior to commencement of the Work. Responsibility for compliance with these requirements lies with Contractor. 081007 jb 0130377 1 Attachment C COST SHARE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT REGARDING NEWELL ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT This Cost Share Agreement (this “Agreement,”) dated ____________, 2012, is between the City of Palo Alto, a chartered municipal corporation (“City,”) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, a state of California Special District (“District”). RECITALS THIS AGREEMENT is made with reference to the following: A. In 1999, the Cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, along with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Mateo County Flood Control District created the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (“JPA”). The JPA’s purpose is to plan, control and enhance flood control measures for the San Francisquito Creek watershed. B. The JPA is exploring several projects that will assist in flood protection. One of the projects identified by the JPA is the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek. C. The District has determined a number of feasible alternatives to provide 1-percent flood protection and environmental benefits between the San Francisco Bay and Searsville Dam. Each of these alternatives identifies the Newell Road Bridge as undersized to convey the project’s 1-percent design flow. D. It is in the best interest of the District and the City to explore replacing the existing Newell Road Bridge with a new bridge with 1-percent capacity. Because this project provides natural flood protection for residents, businesses, and visitors, preserves flood capacity and reduces flood risks in flood prone areas as set out in District Governance Policies 1.4 and E-3, this agreement is in the District’s best interest. E. In 2010, at the request of the JPA, the City applied for a grant from the Caltrans Highway Bridge Program for preliminary engineering, including engineering design and environmental assessment, for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek. As part of the grant program, Caltrans requires that a local match of 11.47% of the cost of the work be paid by the agency receiving the grant. In consideration of the City applying for the grant, the JPA offered to pay the local match. F. Caltrans awarded a Highway Bridge Program grant to the City allowing a maximum expenditure of $360,000 for preliminary engineering for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project. The City has requested that Caltrans modify the grant award to increase the allowed expenditure amount to $522,143. If the modified grant is approved, Caltrans will reimburse Palo Alto for 88.53% of the cost of the work ($462,253). The remaining 11.47% of the cost of the work ($59,890) must be provided by the grant recipient, as local matching funds. 081007 jb 0130377 2 G. The District owns an easement along a portion of San Francisquito Creek adjacent to the Newell Road Bridge and flood facilities in the vicinity downstream from the Newell Road Bridge. Funding provided under this Agreement will not adversely affect existing District property or ongoing projects. H. Contributing to the City of Palo Alto via this agreement effectively implements the District’s Clean Safe Creeks program, which provides for planning and design work for the San Francisquito Creek Project, as described in Table 1 of the Clean Safe Creeks 2000 Ballot Measure. I. Funding provided under this agreement does not include construction work tasks and is for planning and design purposes only. The purpose of this agreement is to memorialize the District’s agreement to pay the local matching funds associated with project planning and design to the City and the City’s agreement to manage the engineering and environmental assessment phase of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Water District hereby agree as follows: SECTION I SCOPE OF WORK 1.1 The City will obtain a consultant to prepare preliminary engineering design and environmental assessment for the replacement of the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek to convey 1-percent design flow . 1.2 The District will provide review and technical support to the City which will prepare preliminary design and environmental assessment for the Newell Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek. SECTION II DUTIES 2.1 If the modified Caltrans grant is awarded to the City, the District agrees to pay the local matching portion in an amount not to exceed $59,890 as invoiced by the City. .2.2 The District and City (hereafter referred to as “Parties”) shall follow the following procedures for invoicing and paying of the local match: a. City of Palo Alto agrees to send an invoice to the Santa Clara Valley Water District at the end of each month seeking reimbursement for the project costs incurred during the month. 081007 jb 0130377 3 b. The Santa Clara Valley Water District agrees to review the project invoice, determine if the project design is adequate for Santa Clara Valley Water District purposes, and provide input to the project design as necessary. Pending acceptance of the project, the Santa Clara Valley Water District agrees to pay to Palo Alto the amount stated in the invoice within a month from the date on which the invoice was received. c. If the Santa Clara Valley Water District determines it will be late with a payment, it shall notify the City’s Director of Public Works in writing at least two business days before the regularly scheduled payment date of its intent to make a late payment, including the date of when the payment will be made. SECTION III INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE 3.1 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, District and City agree that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, each of the Parties hereto shall fully indemnify and hold each of the other parties, its officers, board members, employees, and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party, its officers, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to such party under this AGREEMENT. No party, nor any officer, board member, or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the other party hereto, its officers, board members, employees, or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other party under this AGREEMENT. 3.2 District and the City shall each require any consultant, contractor, or any other person or entity performing any part of the work set forth in Section 1 to secure and maintain in full force and effect at all times while undertaking the work and until the work is accepted by District and City, public liability and property damage insurance in forms and limits of liability acceptable to both City and District, naming City and District and their respective officers, employees and agents as additional insured from and against all damages and claims, loss, liability, cost or expense arising out of or in any way connected with undertaking the work. SECTION IV ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 4.1 A party’s waiver of any term, condition or covenant, or breach of any term, condition, or covenant shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term, condition or covenant or breach of any other term, condition or covenant. 4.2 This AGREEMENT contains the entire AGREEMENT between DISTRICT and CITY relating to work effort. Any prior agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this AGREEMENT are of no force or effect. 081007 jb 0130377 4 4.3 If any term, condition or covenant of this AGREEMENT is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this AGREEMENT shall be valid and binding on DISTRICT and CITY. 4.4 This AGREEMENT shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 4.5 This AGREEMENT may be executed in counterparts and will be binding as executed. 4.6 The term of this AGREEMENT will commence upon execution of the AGREEMENT by both parties and terminate upon work effort acceptance by City and District and receipt by City of payment in full by District. 4.7 All changes or extensions to this AGREEMENT must be in writing in the form of an amendment approved by both parties. 4.8 This AGREEMENT is entered into only for the benefit of the parties executing this AGREEMENT and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity, or person. 4.9 Either District or City may terminate the AGREEMENT at any time prior to award of the consultant contract/s for the work effort upon a thirty (30) day written notice. Once the consultant contract(s) for the work effort has been awarded, the AGREEMENT can be terminated only upon the mutual written consent and terms acceptable to both parties. SECTION V NOTICES Notices given under this AGREEMENT may be delivered by first class mail addressed to the appropriate party at the following addresses: TO DISTRICT: Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 Attn: Saeid Hosseini, Senior Project Manager TO CITY: City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer 081007 jb 0130377 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. CITY OF PALO ALTO By: ____________________________ SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT By:__________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Chief Executive Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ Senior Assistant District Counsel APPROVED: _______________________________ Director of Public Works City of Palo Alto (ID # 2661) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2661) Summary Title: Extension of Pacific Technologies contract term Title: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract C11135684 with Pacific Technologies, Inc. to extend term through June 30, 2012. From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to extend the term of the contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Technologies, Inc., contract number C11135684, from December 31, 2011 to June 30, 2012 to complete the Information Technology (IT) Strategic Plan. 2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee, the Purchasing Manager to extend the contract term further, if necessary, in order to complete the plan. Executive Summary This is a service contract for the IT Strategic Plan. This plan will lay the foundation for the City’s IT structure for years to come. Background The City of Palo Alto hired a new Chief Information Officer (CIO) in December 2011. The City was already in process of being developed by Pacific Technologies, Inc. (PTI). Upon hiring the new CIO it was determined that changes to the draft plan were needed to ensure alignment with the new direction for the newly developed IT Department. Discussion The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 30, 2012, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. The contract started on November 9 2010 and was due to expire on April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2661) June 30th, 2011, but was informally extended one time under PAMC 2.30.290 (b),(1) to December 31, 2011 to give Consultant additional time to complete the work requested by the City. This contract extension is being requested because the Consultant needs additional time to complete the work as it now has to integrate some of the changes that the CIO has requested to the plan. Resource Impact Funds for this amendment are included in the existing contract C11135684. Environmental Assessment Approval of this contract amendment does not constitute a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required. Attachments: Attachment A - Amendment One (PDF) Attachment B - Contract C11135684 (PDF) Prepared By: Jonathan Reichental, Chief Information Officer Department Head: Jonathan Reichental, Chief Information Officer City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 2716) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2716) Summary Title: Labor Guiding Principles Title: Recommendation from Policy & Services Committee to Approve Labor Guiding Principles From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommendation Staff and the Policy and Services Committee recommend that the Council approve the attached Labor Guiding principles. Background The concept of Labor Guiding Principles arose when the City modified its Impasse procedure last year to incorporate a new state law allowing employee organizations to request nonbinding fact finding after impasse is declared. Staff originally proposed incorporating key principles as a reference for City in making employee compensation decisions into the Impasse procedure, requiring the fact- finder to consider these principles when making a recommendation. However, after several discussions staff decided that the concept of guiding principles applied to many labor related issues and should not be limited to impasse. Thus, Staff proposed draft Labor Guiding Principles as a stand-alone document to the Policy & Services Committee on February 14, and after review and discussion brought a second draft with revisions on March 13 to provide for public, employee and labor input to Council before adoption of the Principles. The Committee recommends Council consideration and adoption of the attached Labor Guiding Principles. Discussion April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2716) One purpose of Labor Guiding Principles is to establish a transparent policy framework to guide labor relations. The City has 7 recognized bargaining units and one unrepresented group of managers and professionals. The contract terms and specific issues vary from unit to unit. While the City is required to meet and confer in good faith to set compensation and terms and conditions of work with each bargaining unit, the City values labor’s input and strives to work collaboratively with all employees and labor to solve problems and develop creative solutions to meet bargaining objectives. The Labor Guiding Principles may also help all bargaining teams by providing a common understanding between all the parties involved in labor negotiations; allowing them to look at how specific proposals fit with overall Council objectives. Given that the City continues to face budget challenges driven in part by significantly rising employee benefit costs, the Principles support a balance between the need for strong financial stewardship and maintenance of a productive and positive work environment. While each of the Labor Guiding Principles are important, Principle #3, Timing of Negotiations, was the focus of much discussion at the Committee level. Labor expressed some concern that to achieve this goal bargaining time would be limited. Committee members expressed strong desire to complete bargaining for a successor contract by the time the current contract expires yet not truncate the process. Language was added by the Committee stating the parties should work together to begin negotiations at such time that allows for sufficient bargaining in good faith in order to reach agreement by the time the current contract expires. That will require, at a minimum, starting formal negotiations earlier than in the past. The Council is not required to adopt guiding principles for labor negotiations. However as the challenging fiscal environment continues at the City, State and national levels, it is important for City staff and labor to partner to explore and find solutions to these challenges, at the same time enhancing collaboration and communication. Guiding Labor Principles can help create a uniform, clear framework to guide labor relations and the efforts of staff and labor. The Committee unanimously recommended the attached Labor Guiding Principles for consideration and adoption by the Council. April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2716) Environmental Review This is not a project under the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: : Revised Labor Principles 3-26-12 (PDF) : 03-13-12 LABOR GUIDING PRINC EXCERPT (PDF) : CMR ID#2643 3-13-12 (PDF) : CMR ID#2550 2-14-12 (PDF) Prepared By: Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources Department Department Head: Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources Department City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Revised 3/26/12 Labor Guiding Principles Palo Alto City Council Adopted _____ To help maintain and support stronger working relationships between the City and Labor that are grounded in the standards of good faith bargaining, transparency, open communication and mutual respect, the Council hereby adopts the following principles to provide Labor, employees and the public with a policy framework of principles intended to guide the City’s labor relations policies and priorities: 1. City Services/Programs/Activities: The City’s core mission is to provide services, programs, and activities that align with the priorities of the public and the City Council; levels of employee compensation should support the City’s long-term ability to continue providing those services. 2. City Finances: The City should be able to meet the cost of any compensation commitment from current and projected on-going City revenues. 3. Timing of Negotiations: The City shall, to the maximum extent possible, reach agreement on the successor MOA with recognized employee organizations on matters within the scope of representation prior to expiration of their existing MOA. The City will work with employee groups to set an appropriate starting time for negotiations. 4. Total Compensation: In making compensation decisions, the City shall consider the total costs of a position including salary, pension, and all other benefits and shall communicate such information to all employees, labor and the public. 5. Equity Across Employee Groups: The City should strive to set and make similar structural changes to compensation and benefits for all employee groups, while recognizing that some flexibility may be required to fairly address issues specific to individual units and/or achieve the objectives of other guiding principles. 6. Recruitment & Retention: When economically feasible, the City’s compensation should be set at levels sufficient to recruit, train and retain qualified employees who are committed to the City’s goals, programs and delivery of high quality services. The City should pursue hiring and training strategies that further the City’s goal of finding and growing staff that are critical to maintaining its goals, programs, and services. 7. Transparency: The structure and components of compensation of City employees should be easy for Councilmembers, employees, labor and the public to understand, and as efficient as possible for staff to administer. 8. Management of Increasing Benefit Costs: The City should pursue short term and long term strategies to curtail increasing employee benefit costs. It should move away from providing benefits that place the burden on the City to pay the cost of automatic Revised 3/26/12 increases and toward benefit structures that require negotiations to determine how much and who will pay for such costs. 9. Innovation in Employment and Compensation: Providing broader and more creative choices regarding benefits may further the concepts set forth in Guiding Principles 1-8. The City should consider innovative alternatives to traditional models of public employment and public employee benefits such as Governor Brown’s 2011- 2012 public employee pension proposal and other innovative alternatives including, for example, but not limited to hybrid pension plans, cafeteria plans, scaled compensation in lieu of guaranteed benefits, benefit buyout options, and similar ideas. POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE Regular Meeting March 13, 2012 Chairperson Holman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Holman (Chair), Espinosa, Klein, Schmid Absent: 2. Recommendation Regarding Approval of Labor Guiding Principles. Sheila Tucker, Assistant to the City Manager, reminded Committee Members this item was heard in February. She indicated Staff was directed to make revisions to the Principles. She stated Marci Scott would present the suggested changes. Marci Scott, Acting Assistant Human Resources Director, had two areas of comment: 1) an overview of the main changes made since the last meeting; and 2) feedback from one labor group. She reported the introductory paragraph had been changed to provide an overview of the purpose of the Guidelines, and to state the goal of maintaining positive and strong relationships with labor. She indicated Staff and labor had maintained open communication and continued to work together to solve problems over the last few years. She stated there were minor changes, but she would focus on four areas of major adjustment. She said Guiding Principle No. 3 was probably the most important discussion item at the last meeting. She indicated the new language was clear and direct in stating that successor contracts would be finalized by the expiration of the current contract. She stated this would not necessarily mean a shorter process, but rather earlier start times. She reported Staff was re-evaluating resource needs to make this happen, and proposed that this Guiding Principle become effective for contracts expiring in Fiscal Year 2013 and beyond. She indicated Guiding Principle No. 5 was newly added regarding equity across employee groups. She noted Guiding Principle No. 6 was recruitment and retention, which had a few changes focusing on recruiting, training and retaining qualified employees committed to the City's goals and delivery of services. She said this would be an increasingly important element to discuss in the future. She reported Guiding Principle No. 9, innovation in employment and compensation, now contained a reference to Governor Brown's Public Employee Pension proposal as an example of an innovative reform of the City's pension plan. She stated she sent a copy of the packet to Labor prior to the February 14 meeting, and sent a communication to all labor groups last Thursday. She received feedback from one labor group, and was in a discussion today with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) representatives in the monthly labor management meeting. She indicated the group's main concern was their belief that the City conveyed a disinterest in the bargaining process, specifically in Guiding Principle No. 3. She reported they discussed the City's commitment to the meet-and-confer process, the City's proposal to phase in this provision, and the City's intention not to shorten or limit the bargaining process. Council Member Espinosa asked if the labor group suggested language for changing Item No. 3. Ms. Scott stated they did not. Brian Ward, SEIU Representative, questioned why the City would need these Guiding Principles, when they had worked well together and the Guiding Principles did not contain any objectionable ideas. Regarding Item 3, protracted negotiations, he felt the City was saying it did not want protracted negotiations. He asked how they were to work collaboratively. He explained interest-based bargaining. He indicated SEIU wanted to understand the purpose of the Guiding Principles in order to report to its members. Council Member Klein stated the general idea of the Guiding Principles was to express the general principles to which everyone could agree. He supported No. 3 whether it was a Guiding Principle or policy, because the current system was in the union's favor. He explained the lack of savings to the City due to the recent negotiations with the Public Safety unions. He thought both sides should have an incentive to complete negotiations by the date of the contract expiration. Mr. Ward agreed. He thought they were in agreement with all of the Principles. He asked if the Guiding Principles needed to be exerted and drawn out. He felt it was a valid point that the City did not realize a savings in extended negotiations. He asked what would happen if negotiations extended past the contract expiration date. He indicated union members wanted to know if there was a "stick" coming. Council Member Klein indicated there would be further changes if the economic situation continued and referred to Governor Brown's 12 principles. Mr. Ward stated lobbying efforts should be concentrated on the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) to effect changes. Council Member Schmid stated the term "protracted negotiations" implied an emotional content, which was not true. He noted Molly Stumps' statement at the prior meeting that it was difficult to begin serious negotiations until the budget process began with the long- range financial forecast. He said waiting until the budget process began would provide approximately four months for negotiations, which would not be enough time for serious negotiations. He asked if it was possible to begin bargaining earlier, and if some issues could be dealt with prior to the budget process. He suggested that Guiding Principle No. 3 not start with the term protracted, but contain language acknowledging the fact that negotiations involve important long-term issues for both sides and could take some time to resolve. He thought the ending time was important. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Espinosa to Change Labor Guiding Principle No. 3; 1) by removing the first sentence, Protracted negotiations creates uncertainty for the City and employees, and 2) make the beginning sentence: The City shall to the maximum extent possible reach agreement on the… Council Member Klein thought this was an important policy as he noted earlier. He believed the City could begin negotiations earlier and disagreed with the idea of needing the long-range forecast to begin bargaining. He noted historically not all labor contracts ended on June 30, and there was no legal requirement for union contracts to end on June 30. Council Member Espinosa noted that Guiding Principle No. 1 and No. 3 did not begin with "the City shall" as the other Principles did. He pointed out there had been broad support for formalizing guiding principles. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER TO include in Labor Guiding Principle No. 3; The City will work with the employee groups to set the appropriate starting time for negotiations. Council Member Espinosa thought people supported this type of language, because it provided a clear understanding that the City was not attempting to truncate in any way the amount of time for negotiations. Ms. Scott explained that the City was preparing for negotiations with SEIU, and SEIU was open to the City's goal of starting negotiations earlier. She said Staff planned to discuss the budget and financials, and set a foundation for moving forward. She indicated discussions thus far had been positive. Chair Holman supported the Motion and appreciated the Amendment. She felt the Amendment highlighted the importance of having a fair and collaborative process. Council Member Klein expressed concerns over Principle No. 4 and Principle No. 7. He noted his conversation with a City employee regarding increased compensation. He referenced Council Member Shepherd's suggestion of publicizing true compensation costs. He referenced the language in Principle No. 4. He suggested the City needed to publicize more or in a better way. He felt the average employee did not view the City's increased payments to health insurance and pension as being increases in compensation. Ms. Scott reported Staff had discussed this issue and was reviewing a means to produce an annual compensation statement. She thought employees did not understand the City's contribution to pension She said Staff was interested in providing a statement which would list each benefit. Council Member Klein recalled discussions during negotiations with Public Safety people and SEIU concerning listing all benefits. He asked if Staff could suggest language for the Principle, whether it was a combination of their discussions or language contained in Principle No. 7 and Principle No. 4. Council Member Espinosa inquired if Council Member Klein's goal was to share total compensation information with employees in a way that they could understand. Council Member Klein stated his goal was for employees to understand their true compensation. He suggested adding language regarding publicizing compensation information, so that union members and the general public had an understanding of these costs. Ms. Scott said this language would provide compensation costs to all bargaining-unit members and all employees, and indicated Staff could do this. Council Member Espinosa expressed concern over using the word "publicize." He suggested "share" or "communicate." INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the last sentence of Labor Guiding Principle No. 4; and shall communicate information so the public and employees understand the costs. Chair Holman indicated these language revisions were for Guiding Principle No. 4, and asked if there was a revision to Guiding Principle No. 7. Council Member Klein did not have any revisions to No. 7. Chair Holman agreed with Guiding Principle No. 7, but felt they needed to understand compensation costs as well. Council Member Espinosa asked if, by "they", Chair Holman meant the City Council. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the first sentence of Labor Guiding Principle No.7 to; compensation of City Employees should be easy for Council Members, employees, and the public. Council Member Espinosa stated this expressed the idea of the Council also needing to understand the costs. Chair Holman agreed, and felt this language was inclusive. Council Member Klein thought No. 7 was slightly different from No. 4 in that No. 7 discussed pay grades. Council Member Schmid suggested clarifying the language in No. 5 regarding changes in benefits at similar levels to focus on structural change. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the first sentence Guiding Principle No. 5 to; The City should strive to set and make similar structural changes to compensation and benefits for all employee groups. Council Member Schmid referenced data stating the City had 50 percent of employees within ten years of retirement. He noted the City had to search for employees to fill senior positions. He thought the City should hire young people and grow them to fill senior positions. He suggested a revision to No. 6 to place emphasis on hiring and training young people with talent. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change the last sentence Guiding Principle No. 6 to; that further the City’s goal of finding and growing Staff that are critical to maintaining. Molly Stump, City Attorney, thought his point was hiring people earlier in their career irrespective of chronological age. Ms. Scott reported Staff was reviewing apprenticeship programs in order to build and train employees. Council Member Espinosa was not opposed to the proposed revision to No. 6, but did not agree with the reasons for the revision. Council Member Schmid said the City would be filling many retirement positions. He recalled the previous City Manager stating the biggest problem was Staff retirements and the City needed to be ready. He noted the City was in the same position eight years later. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 4-0 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2643) Policy and Services Committee Staff Report Report Type:Meeting Date: 3/13/2012 March 13, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2643) Summary Title: Labor Guiding Principles Title: Recommendation Regarding Approval of Labor Guiding Principles From:City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommendation Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee review and recommend that Council approve guiding principles for labor negotiations. Background City staff presented a first draft of proposed labor guiding principles on February 14th. These principles are intended to express the main values that guide bargaining with all 7 bargaining units, which vary in terms of timing of negotiation schedules and specific issues addressed. Discussion Committee members provided feedback at the February 14th meeting, requesting changes to the language in the principles on Timing of Negotiations, Recruitment & Retention and Innovation in Employment and Compensation. The Committee also requested a new principle to incorporate the concept of equity across bargaining groups. Staff has edited the proposed guiding principles based on Committee feedback. A new introductory statement was added as well as minor changes to Guiding Principle 6 (Recruitment & Retention) and Guiding Principle 9 (Innovation in Employment and Compensation). Most significantly, Committee members requested specific changes to Guiding Principle 3, Timing of Negotiations. Committee members asked that the language be clearer and more direct to indicate that successor agreements should be reached with Labor before expiration of the current Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). However, given the current workload, staffing levels and active bargaining 2 Packet Pg. 80 March 13, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2643) tables, a transition period is necessary in order to ensure that the City can implement this principle. Staff requires additional time to evaluate the resources needed to effectively meet this expectation and is developing a strategy to satisfy this guideline. Therefore, staff recommends that Guiding Principle 3 (Timing of Negotiations) be implemented beginning with MOAs that expire in FY 13. Conclusion The Council is not required to adopt guiding principles for labor negotiations. However as the City continues to face a challenging fiscal environment in the current and future years, it is important for City staff and Labor to partner to explore and find solutions to these challenges, at the same time enhancing collaboration and communication. Guiding principles can help create a transparent policy framework to guide labor relations and the efforts of staff and Labor. Attachments: ·-:Labor Guiding Principles 3-13-12 (PDF) ·-:ID#2550 Recommendation Re Approval of Labor Guiding Principles 2-14-12 (PDF) ·-:2-14-12 PS Item 2 Labor Excerpt (PDF) Prepared By:Elizabeth Egli, Administrative Assistant Department Head:Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources Department City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager 2 Packet Pg. 81 Revised 3/13/12 Labor Guiding Principles Palo Alto City Council Adopted _____ To help maintain and support stronger working relationships between the City and Labor that are grounded in the standards of good faith bargaining, transparency, open communication and mutual respect, the Council hereby adopts the following principles to provide Labor, employees and the public with a policy framework of principles intended to guide the City’s labor relations policies and priorities: 1. City Services/Programs/Activities: The City’s core mission is to provide services, programs, and activities that align with the priorities of the public and the City Council; levels of employee compensation should support the City’s long-term ability to continue providing those services. 2. City Finances: The City should be able to meet the cost of any compensation commitment from current and projected on-going City revenues. 3. Timing of Negotiations: Protracted negotiations create uncertainty for the City and employees; the City shall reach agreement on the successor MOA with recognized employee organizations on matters within the scope of representation prior to expiration of their existing MOA. 4. Total Compensation: In making compensation decisions, the City shall consider the total costs of a position including salary, pension, and all other benefits. 5. Equity Across Employee Groups: The City should strive to set and make changes to compensation and benefits at similar levels for all employee groups, while recognizing that some flexibility may be required to fairly address issues specific to individual units and/or achieve the objectives of other guiding principles. 6. Recruitment & Retention: When economically feasible, the City’s compensation should be set at levels sufficient to recruit, train and retain qualified employees who are committed to the City’s goals, programs and delivery of high quality services. The City should pursue hiring and training strategies that further the City’s goal of filling positions that are critical to maintaining its goals, programs, and services. 7. Transparency: The structure and components of compensation of City employees should be easy for employees and the public to understand, and as efficient as possible for staff to administer. 8. Management of Increasing Benefit Costs: The City should pursue short term and long term strategies to curtail increasing employee benefit costs. It should move away from providing benefits that place the burden on the City to pay the cost of automatic increases and toward benefit structures that require negotiations to determine how much and who will pay for such costs. 2.a Packet Pg. 82 -: L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s 3 - 1 3 - 1 2 ( 2 6 4 3 : L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s ) Revised 3/13/12 9. Innovation in Employment and Compensation: Providing broader and more creative choices regarding benefits may further the concepts set forth in Guiding Principles 1-8. The City should consider innovative alternatives to traditional models of public employment and public employee benefits such as Governor Brown’s 2011- 12 public employee pension proposal and other innovative alternatives including, for example, but not limited to hybrid pension plans, cafeteria plans, scaled compensation in lieu of guaranteed benefits, benefit buyout options, and similar ideas. 2.a Packet Pg. 83 -: L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s 3 - 1 3 - 1 2 ( 2 6 4 3 : L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s ) ATTACHMENT B ID# 2550 Recommendation Regarding Approval of Labor Guiding Principles 2‐14‐12 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee review and recommend that the Council approve guiding principles for labor negotiations. Background The concept of guiding principles for labor negotiations arose in Palo Alto in late 2011 when the City amended its local impasse resolution rules to address the new Meyers‐ Milias Brown Act rule which allows employee organizations to request nonbinding fact‐ finding after impasse is declared and before a local agency may implement the terms of its last, best and final offer. Staff originally proposed including decision “factors” describing key considerations for labor negotiations that the fact‐finder would be required to consider in making recommendations. However, in refining those factors and discussing the issue with labor, staff ultimately determined that such considerations are not and should not be limited to impasse resolution. More importantly, approval of stand‐alone guiding principles gives the Council and the public the opportunity to have a broader discussion about main values that it wants to guide the City’s approach to labor issues. Discussion The City currently has 7 recognized bargaining units and one unrepresented group of managers and professionals. While the City is required to engage in the bargaining process to set compensation and terms and conditions of work with each bargaining unit, the City’s goal is to work collaboratively with all employees and labor to solve problems and develop creative solutions to meet bargaining objectives. Goals for bargaining units and managers have much in common and labor and management have engaged together effectively in the past. The focus of collaboration should continue to be on ways to contribute positively to the organization and maintain effective services for the community. Developing and communicating Guiding Principles will inform on‐ going, meaningful dialogue between managers and bargaining units at all levels. At the same time the City is partnering with labor in a collaborative manner, the City must properly distribute responsibility and accountability to ensure management and delivery of services consistent with Council and community expectations. In order to 2.b Packet Pg. 84 -: I D # 2 5 5 0 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n R e A p p r o v a l o f L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s 2 - 1 4 - 1 2 ( 2 6 4 3 : L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s ) meet these expectations the City must maintain management rights and direct operational decision‐making. Analysis A. Current challenges to City budget and rising employee costs have been and will continue to be key issues in labor negotiations for the foreseeable future. The City exists to provide a forum for governance and to effectively and efficiently deliver services to the community. A substantial portion of the general fund operating budgets for those services, approximately 66%, goes to fund salaries and benefits for the staff necessary to deliver services. As the City heads into its fourth consecutive year of budget shortfalls, it must continue examining the cost of employee salaries and benefits and their impacts to the budget. Recent negotiations with employee groups have helped to address some of the budget shortfalls. For example, where the City once paid the entire amount of the employee PERS contribution (in addition to the Employer contribution) and the full amount of health care premiums, most groups now pay at least a portion of the employee PERS contribution and up to 10% of the medical premium. However, even with these and other cost‐saving measures, personnel costs associated with pension, health, and retiree medical have continued to increase at rates that exceed revenue growth. The average budgeted cost for an employee position has increased 20% since 2009, and the benefit portion of salary and benefits has increased approximately 12% in just the past two years. Continued increases in costs for employee salaries and benefits are projected, driven primarily by health and pension costs. Additionally, the valuation of the liability for post‐employment health care is growing and has grown from $105 million to $133 million in the last 2 years. The fact that on‐ going revenues have not been able to cover expenditure growth over the past few years and into the projected future years indicates a fundamental structural imbalance that needs long‐term solutions to restore balance and provide a sustainable means to deliver services to the community. This is due to more than the recent economic crisis in the United States. Past local government decisions in California over the past 10‐15 years granted significant benefit increases that would not be granted today. Yet those decisions have cost implications that will last for years many years into the future. Additionally, the local government tax structure is increasingly disconnected from the economy itself, so that even improvements in today’s economy do not translate into commensurate increases in 2.b Packet Pg. 85 -: I D # 2 5 5 0 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n R e A p p r o v a l o f L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s 2 - 1 4 - 1 2 ( 2 6 4 3 : L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s ) local government revenue. In short, the slope of increase for expenses can be expected to rise more sharply than revenues going forward, without continued expense reductions. Because personnel costs are such a large part of operating expenditures, and salaries and benefits are determined through the labor negotiations process, it is important for the City to address these issues in current and future labor negotiations. Guiding principles for those negotiations can help the City, including managers, employees and labor, remain mindful of the fiscal challenges and service needs of the City, align the bargaining process with the City’s primary function of providing services to the community, and establish transparent principles to guide the City in making decisions about employee salaries and benefits. B. Proposed Guiding Principles. Based on the issues identified above, staff has identified the following key principles to guide adoption of labor agreements and compensation plans: 1. City Services/Programs/Activities: The City’s core mission is to provide services, programs, and activities that align with the priorities of the public and the City Council; levels of employee compensation should support the City’s long‐term ability to continue providing those services. 2. City Finances: The City should be able to meet the cost of any compensation commitment from current and projected on‐going City revenues. 3. Timing of Negotiations: Protracted negotiations create uncertainty for the City and employees; the City should endeavor to reach agreement with recognized employee organizations on matters within the scope of representation prior to adoption of the City’s budget for the ensuing fiscal year. 4. Total Compensation: In making compensation decisions, the City should consider the total costs of a position including salary, pension, healthcare and all other benefits. 5. Recruitment & Retention: The City’s compensation should be set at levels sufficient to attract and retain qualified employees who are committed to the City’s goals, programs and delivery of high quality services, understanding that those levels must be economically feasible. 2.b Packet Pg. 86 -: I D # 2 5 5 0 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n R e A p p r o v a l o f L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s 2 - 1 4 - 1 2 ( 2 6 4 3 : L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s ) 6. Transparency: The structure and components of compensation of City employees should be easy for employees and the public to understand, and as efficient as possible for staff to administer. 7. Management of Increasing Benefit Costs: The City should pursue short term and long term strategies to curtail increasing employee benefit costs. It should move away from providing benefits that place the burden on the City to pay the cost of automatic increases and toward benefit structures that require negotiations to determine how much and who will pay for such costs. 8. Innovation in Employment and Compensation: Providing broader and more creative choices regarding benefits may further the concepts set forth in Guiding Principles 1‐7. The City should consider innovative alternatives to traditional models of public employment and public employee benefits including, for example, hybrid pension plans, cafeteria plans, scaled compensation in lieu of guaranteed benefits, benefit buyout options, and similar ideas. In addition, staff recommends that the Council consider reviewing the Principles annually to ensure that they remain relevant and accurately convey the City’s priorities. Policy Impacts The Council is not required to adopt guiding principles for labor negotiations. However, Guiding Principles can help establish a transparent policy framework to guide the City’s labor relations and clearly communicate City priorities regarding labor issues to employees, labor, and the community. The Principles can also assist the negotiating team by establishing overall objectives against which it can measure specific proposals, as well as enhance accountability by providing a more concrete way to measure or evaluate the outcome of negotiations. The City’s bargaining team will continue to meet and confer in good faith with flexibility to partner with labor to craft solutions to individual unit issues that also meet the uniform policy framework provided by these Guiding Principles. 2.b Packet Pg. 87 -: I D # 2 5 5 0 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n R e A p p r o v a l o f L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s 2 - 1 4 - 1 2 ( 2 6 4 3 : L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s ) ATTACHMENT C 2-14-12 P&S ITEM 2 LABOR EXCERPT P&S 1 POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE DRAFT EXCERPT Regular Meeting February 14, 2012 Labor Guiding Principles Marcie Scott, Acting Assistant Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation. The concepts being presented rose in discussion in May of 2011 with the changes to the Binding Interest Arbitration provision. The Governor approved a new law, AB646, which implemented a fact finding process in the impasse procedure for labor disputes. Palo Alto had decided to modify the impasse procedures to incorporate the fact finding process. Through the course of discussions with the labor groups it was agreed the Guiding Principles were not in the appropriate location. Staff felt the Guiding Principles should not be limited to impasses but could serve a broader purpose which was open for Council discussion. The concepts in the Guiding Principles were not new to labor discussions in Palo Alto and some had been specifically negotiated at the table. The City currently did not have a document that described the Council’s goals and vision on priority issues such as managing pension costs. Staff believed there was value in having a written document expressing what the Council would be looking for in terms of labor principles. Written principles would be a useful communication tool for employees and for the public. Staff believed the employee groups and the City had common interests in addressing and resolving issues and having a written guiding policy would make the negotiations more efficient. The City needed to maintain management rights and directed operational decision making as the labor processes were in motion. Council Member Espinosa asked Staff to focus on the Guiding Principles and allow time for questions if they arose. Ms. Scott stated there were eight Guiding Principles that should support the City’s delivery of services to the community. The bargaining efforts should result in efficiencies, improved services, and quality of life. Additionally; technology use should be reviewed, approaches to working smarter, and the primary focus should be on City services. City Finances were the second principle and Staff had taken Council direction to locate structural long term changes in the budget 2.c Packet Pg. 88 -: 2 - 1 4 - 1 2 P S I t e m 2 L a b o r E x c e r p t ( 2 6 4 3 : L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s ) ATTACHMENT C 2-14-12 P&S ITEM 2 LABOR EXCERPT P&S 2 process. It was important to discuss City finances at the negotiation table and inform the employees so there was a common understanding. The third principle was the timing of the negotiations which was not intended as a hard and fast timeline but a goal statement to help communicate to all parties involved to avoid long periods of limbo. Total compensation was the fourth principle focusing on the full cost of City benefits including base salary, City paid pension, City paid healthcare, workers compensation costs, unemployment insurance, special pay such as K-9 and bilingual Recommended principle number five was recruitment and retention which was challenging because it required trade offs between the budget status and attracting and retaining skilled personnel. Proposed principle six was transparency which was more important now than previously determined because of public expectations with regard to understanding public sector salary and compensation, sharing information at the bargaining table to ensure both sides were equally familiar, and a goal was to make compensation easily understood for the employee and the public. Management of increasing benefits costs was principle number seven; an example would be the 90/10 percent medical cost sharing program so as healthcare premiums rose the employees would be contributing different amounts while maintaining the 10 percent cost share. The final proposed principle was innovation in employment and compensation. The function of the principle was for the City to look for ways to provide flexibility for employees within compensation. She noted there were other public agencies exploring new approaches such as an incentive for employees to opt out of their retiree medical program. Council Member Klein had a concern with principle number three. He felt the timing and negotiation should be a hard and fast deadline and not a goal statement. His understanding was Staff was bringing a standardized guideline with each contract so the City could reach the goal of having a resolution by the budget discussion time. The past few years the goals had not been met and the end result had been a higher cost for the City. Ms. Scott said the challenge Staff faced was there was an obligation to meet and confer in good faith; although, there was no clear definition on the number of meetings or a specific amount of type of discussion. She understood the concern. Council Member Klein said in order to make the budget deadline the schedule to meet and confer may need to be moved back. At the present time there was no incentive or reason for the union to live within the goals set by Staff. He had an issue with the verbiage between should and shall; he was comfortable with should in most cases. In principle number four he preferred “shall” since he did not see the argument for not considering total compensation. He felt there 2.c Packet Pg. 89 -: 2 - 1 4 - 1 2 P S I t e m 2 L a b o r E x c e r p t ( 2 6 4 3 : L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s ) ATTACHMENT C 2-14-12 P&S ITEM 2 LABOR EXCERPT P&S 3 should be a paragraph added that reflected the idea in conducting the negotiations, the City was respectful of the unions’ positions and their legal rights, and the City wanted to hear their views on how to improve the organization. He saw the aspiration of having a good ongoing relationship with the unions as one of the Guiding Principles. He requested the equality across the bargaining units be incorporated. Ms. Scott noted the equality had been a driving principle but not without challenges. Council Member Klein said Staff recommended reviewing the Guiding Principles on an annual basis; he was not in favor of the recommendation. Council Member Schmid endorsed the deadline of having the agreements needing negotiations end with appropriate time to have resolved for the budget cycle. Under total compensation he felt it was important to make a distinction between the current obligations and an honest assessment of future obligations. With regard to recruitment and retention; Staff had a remarkable number of the eligible retirement populations, he suggested verbiage be added to note hiring and training employees to fill the positions rather than merely filling the retirement gaps. He felt strongly about identifying Governor Brown’s proposed Pension and Benefits Reform Plan into principles seven and eight. Council Member Espinosa had concern with the lack of a timeline for principle three since the matter had been discussed in previous conversations and was an important element. In order to have a goal it was a necessity to have a specific start time, milestones that needed to be reached by a certain point so when the budget time was reached the resolution was accomplished. He stated he wanted verbiage of mutual respect incorporated. Ms. Scott said Staff could take the concept of building and maintaining a relationship with labor and incorporate it into the Guiding Principles. She confirmed the verbiage with respect to the timeline was a critical piece and the language could be stronger, acknowledging the obligation to meet and confer and yet incorporating a strong statement of the intended accomplishment. Council Member Espinosa understood there were parameters out of the City’s control; he merely was surprised to not see the information included after the discussions. Council Member Klein reiterated his concern was not to have the deadlines met 2.c Packet Pg. 90 -: 2 - 1 4 - 1 2 P S I t e m 2 L a b o r E x c e r p t ( 2 6 4 3 : L a b o r G u i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s ) City of Palo Alto (ID # 2550) Policy and Services Committee Staff Report Report Type:Meeting Date: 2/14/2012 February 14, 2012 Page 1 of 6 (ID # 2550) Summary Title: Labor Guiding Principles Title: Recommendation Regarding Approval of Labor Guiding Principles From:City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommendation Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee review and recommend that the Council approve guiding principles for labor negotiations. Background The concept of guiding principles for labor negotiations arose in Palo Alto in late 2011 when the City amended its local impasse resolution rules to address the new Meyers-Milias Brown Act rule which allows employee organizations to request nonbinding fact-finding after impasse is declared and before a local agency may implement the terms of its last, best and final offer. Staff originally proposed including decision “factors” describing key considerations for labor negotiations that the fact-finder would be required to consider in making recommendations. However, in refining those factors and discussing the issue with labor, staff ultimately determined that such considerations are not and should not be limited to impasse resolution. More importantly, approval of stand- alone guiding principles gives the Council and the public the opportunity to have a broader discussion about main values that it wants to guide the City’s approach to labor issues. February 14, 2012 Page 2 of 6 (ID # 2550) Discussion The City currently has 7 recognized bargaining units and one unrepresented group of managers and professionals. While the City is required to engage in the bargaining process to set compensation and terms and conditions of work with each bargaining unit, the City’s goal is to work collaboratively with all employees and labor to solve problems and develop creative solutions to meet bargaining objectives. Goals for bargaining units and managers have much in common and labor and management have engaged together effectively in the past. The focus of collaboration should continue to be on ways to contribute positively to the organization and maintain effective services for the community. Developing and communicating Guiding Principles will inform on-going, meaningful dialogue between managers and bargaining units at all levels. At the same time the City is partnering with labor in a collaborative manner, the City must properly distribute responsibility and accountability to ensure management and delivery of services consistent with Council and community expectations. In order to meet these expectations the City must maintain management rights and direct operational decision-making. Analysis A.Current challenges to City budget and rising employee costs have been and will continue to be key issues in labor negotiations for the foreseeable future. The City exists to provide a forum for governance and to effectively and efficiently deliver services to the community. A substantial portion of the general fund operating budgets for those services, approximately 66%, goes to fund salaries and benefits for the staff necessary to deliver services. As the City heads into its fourth consecutive year of budget shortfalls, it must continue examining the cost of employee salaries and benefits and their impacts to the budget. February 14, 2012 Page 3 of 6 (ID # 2550) Recent negotiations with employee groups have helped to address some of the budget shortfalls. For example, where the City once paid the entire amount of the employee PERS contribution (in addition to the Employer contribution) and the full amount of health care premiums, most groups now pay at least a portion of the employee PERS contribution and up to 10% of the medical premium. However, even with these and other cost-saving measures, personnel costs associated with pension, health, and retiree medical have continued to increase at rates that exceed revenue growth. The average budgeted cost for an employee position has increased 20% since 2009, and the benefit portion of salary and benefits has increased approximately 12% in just the past two years. Continued increases in costs for employee salaries and benefits are projected, driven primarily by health and pension costs. Additionally, the valuation of the liability for post-employment health care is growing and has grown from $105 million to $133 million in the last 2 years. The fact that on-going revenues have not been able to cover expenditure growth over the past few years and into the projected future years indicates a fundamental structural imbalance that needs long-term solutions to restore balance and provide a sustainable means to deliver services to the community. This is due to more than the recent economic crisis in the United States. Past local government decisions in California over the past 10-15 years granted significant benefit increases that would not be granted today. Yet those decisions have cost implications that will last for years many years into the future. Additionally, the local government tax structure is increasingly disconnected from the economy itself, so that even improvements in today’s economy do not translate into commensurate increases in local government revenue. In short, the slope of increase for expenses can be expected to rise more sharply than revenues going forward, without continued expense reductions. Because personnel costs are such a large part of operating expenditures, and salaries and benefits are determined through the labor negotiations process, it is February 14, 2012 Page 4 of 6 (ID # 2550) important for the City to address these issues in current and future labor negotiations. Guiding principles for those negotiations can help the City, including managers, employees and labor, remain mindful of the fiscal challenges and service needs of the City, align the bargaining process with the City’s primary function of providing services to the community, and establish transparent principles to guide the City in making decisions about employee salaries and benefits. B.Proposed Guiding Principles. Based on the issues identified above, staff has identified the following key principles to guide adoption of labor agreements and compensation plans: 1.City Services/Programs/Activities: The City’s core mission is to provide services, programs, and activities that align with the priorities of the public and the City Council; levels of employee compensation should support the City’s long-term ability to continue providing those services. 2.City Finances: The City should be able to meet the cost of any compensation commitment from current and projected on-going City revenues. 3.Timing of Negotiations: Protracted negotiations create uncertainty for the City and employees; the City should endeavor to reach agreement with recognized employee organizations on matters within the scope of representation prior to adoption of the City’s budget for the ensuing fiscal year. 4.Total Compensation: In making compensation decisions, the City should consider the total costs of a position including salary, pension, healthcare and all other benefits. February 14, 2012 Page 5 of 6 (ID # 2550) 5.Recruitment & Retention: The City’s compensation should be set at levels sufficient to attract and retain qualified employees who are committed to the City’s goals, programs and delivery of high quality services, understanding that those levels must be economically feasible. 6.Transparency: The structure and components of compensation of City employees should be easy for employees and the public to understand, and as efficient as possible for staff to administer. 7.Management of Increasing Benefit Costs: The City should pursue short term and long term strategies to curtail increasing employee benefit costs. It should move away from providing benefits that place the burden on the City to pay the cost of automatic increases and toward benefit structures that require negotiations to determine how much and who will pay for such costs. 8.Innovation in Employment and Compensation:Providing broader and more creative choices regarding benefits may further the concepts set forth in Guiding Principles 1-7. The City should consider innovative alternatives to traditional models of public employment and public employee benefits including, for example, hybrid pension plans, cafeteria plans, scaled compensation in lieu of guaranteed benefits, benefit buyout options, and similar ideas. In addition, staff recommends that the Council consider reviewing the Principles annually to ensure that they remain relevant and accurately convey the City’s priorities. Policy Impacts The Council is not required to adopt guiding principles for labor negotiations. However, Guiding Principles can help establish a transparent policy framework to guide the City’s labor relations and clearly communicate City priorities regarding February 14, 2012 Page 6 of 6 (ID # 2550) labor issues to employees, labor, and the community. The Principles can also assist the negotiating team by establishing overall objectives against which it can measure specific proposals, as well as enhance accountability by providing a more concrete way to measure or evaluate the outcome of negotiations. The City’s bargaining team will continue to meet and confer in good faith with flexibility to partner with labor to craft solutions to individual unit issues that also meet the uniform policy framework provided by these Guiding Principles. Prepared By:Elizabeth Egli, Administrative Assistant Department Head:Sandra Blanch, Interim Director, Human Resources Department City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 2707) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 2707) Summary Title: Second Reading for Edgewood Plaza PC Zone Request Title: 2nd Reading: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) from Planned Community (PC 1643) to PC Planned Community Zone (PC_______) tor the Renovation of Three Existing Eichler Retail Structures, On-Site Relocation of One of the Retail Structures, Construction of Ten New Single-Family Homes, And Creation Of A 0.20 Acre Park. (First reading March 19, 2012 – Passed 8-1) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Attached is the Planned Community ordinance for the Edgewood Plaza site, reflecting the changes made by Council on March 19, 2012. The Council also certified the Environmental Impact Report for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and approved the request for the zone change and tentative map. The Council action on March 19, 2012, added two conditions of approval to (1) facilitate traffic movements with a left turn signal from eastbound Embarcadero Road onto Saint Francis Drive, and (2) retain the vehicle connection from the gas station site to the shopping center site while preserving the overall number of retail parking spaces. The wording of the conditions has been reviewed and revised by planning and transportation staff, as follows: 42. Modify the traffic signal on Embarcadero Road at Saint Francis Drive to provide left turn signal phasing from Embarcadero Road to Saint Francis Drive. 43. Preserve the vehicular access between the project site and the adjacent gas station site at the existing site connection, with no net loss of vehicle parking spaces on the shopping center site. These approval conditions have been incorporated into Exhibit B (Conditions of Approval), attached to the ordinance. The ordinance, Exhibit B, and Exhibit A (Location Map) are attached April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 2707) to this report. The Council is requested to approve the ordinance including attachments on second reading. Attachments: Attachment A: Planned Community Ordinance (PDF) Attachment B: Exhibit A - Location Map (PDF) Attachment C: Exhibit B - Recommended Draft Conditions of Approval (PDF) Prepared By: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager *NOT YET APPROVED* ORDINANCE NO.________ Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) from Planned Community (PC 1643) to PC Planned Community Zone (PC_______) for the Renovation of the Three Existing Eichler Retail Structures, On-Site Relocation of One of the Retail Structures, Construction of Ten New Single- Family Homes, And Creation Of A 0.20 Acre Park The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. (a) Sand Hill Property Company, (“the Applicant”) applied on June 1, 2010 to the City for approval of (1) a rezoning application (the “Project”) for a new Planned Community (PC) district for a property located at 2080 Channing Avenue (the “Subject Property”) to accommodate the uses set forth below and (2) a Tentative Map to subdivide the 3.58 site into one commercial lot, including a 0.20 acre park, dedicated to the City with public access easements and maintained by the commercial property owner, and ten single family residential lots. (b) The Tentative Map plan set, dated February 15, 2012, and last revised on March 19, 2012 includes information on the existing parcels, onsite conditions, and the layout of the proposed new lots. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City‟s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). (c) The Planning and Transportation Commission, at its meeting of April 27, 2011, acted favorably on the applicant‟s request for initiation of the Planned Community Zone process for the establishment of Planned Community Zone District No. xxxx. (d) The Architectural Review Board, at its meeting of February 2, 2012, reviewed the Project design and recommended the City Council approve the project with associated draft conditions of approval „Exhibit B.‟ (e) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held February 29, 2012, reviewed, considered, and recommended 120313 dm 0120529 1 *NOT YET APPROVED* certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, then reviewed the Planned Community and Tentative Map and this ordinance, and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to a new Planned Community zone for the proposed project depicted on „Exhibit A,‟ (the “Project”), consistent with conditions included in the Planned Community zone related to allowable land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the public benefits outlined in this ordinance and recommended approval of the Tentative Map. Draft conditions of project approval “Exhibit B” attached to this document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for review and comments. (f) The Palo Alto City Council, after due consideration of the proposed Project, the analysis of the City staff, and the conditions recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program, concurred with the recommendations from the PTC and the ARB, and found that the proposed project and this Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. (g) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the Project; (2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, as set forth in Section (4)(c) hereof; and (3) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Policies, and proposed designation of Mixed Use for the Subject Property) and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from Planned Community (PC- 1643) to “PC Planned Community ”. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that the project (the “Project”) comprises the following uses included in this ordinance and a mixed use development, depicted on the Development Plans dated February 2, 2012, incorporated by reference, including the following components: (a) Renovation of an existing 37,965 sq. ft. shopping center, including relocation and renovation of the 10,000 sq. ft. retail building, renovation of the 7,800 sq. ft. retail building in place, and renovation of the 20,600 sq. ft. building in place for use as a 120313 dm 0120529 2 *NOT YET APPROVED* grocery store, deletion of the outer parking lots and expansion of the remaining parking lot, and associated site improvements (b) Construction of ten detached residential units on fee simple lots along Channing Avenue, including five surface parking stalls and ten two-car garages. (c) Construction of a 0.20 acre park at the corner of Channing Avenue and St. Francis Drive. The park shall include public access easement so that it would be a public park to be maintained by the commercial property owner in perpetuity. There shall not be any use of the park for the purposes of the retail tenants. (d) A Tentative Map to subdivide the 3.58 acre site into eleven parcels. The first parcel (2.73 acres) would contain the existing grocery building, the other two retail buildings (“Buildings 1 and 2”) and the new 0.20 acre park. The park would include a public access easement allowing use as a public park, and would be maintained by the owner of the commercial parcel. The remaining ten parcels (ranging from 3,376 to 4,026 sq. ft.) would be created for the ten residences. Private easements would be provided for the driveways and walkways. SECTION 4. The Development Plan for the Subject Property dated February 29, 2012, and any approved supplemental materials for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC §18.38.090), shall be subject to the following permitted and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses, development standards, parking and loading requirements, modifications to the development plans and provisions of public benefits outlined below, and conditions of project approval, attached and incorporated as “Exhibit B”. (a) Permitted, Conditionally Permitted land uses shall be allowed and limited as follows: Permitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b)): (1) Ten residential units; (2) Retail Services (excluding liquor stores); (3) Eating and Drinking Services (excluding drive-in services); (4) Personal Services; (5) Neighborhood Business Services; (6) Financial Services (excluding drive-up services); (7) A 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements; 120313 dm 0120529 3 *NOT YET APPROVED* (8) Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal use. Conditionally Permitted Uses: (1) Small tutoring center or afterschool program center; (2) Limited commercial recreation; (3) Farmer‟s Markets or similar. (b) Special limitations on land uses include the following: (1) The 20,600 sq. ft. building shall be primarily used for grocery uses only; (2) No medical office shall be permitted within the development; (3) No administrative office use shall be permitted within the development; (4) The “Retail” space as identified on the Development Plan shall be occupied by retail uses, personal service uses, eating and drinking services or customer serving financial services only, except where a conditional use permit is required in accordance with 4(a). (c) Development Standards: Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards prescribed for the Planned Community (PC) Zone District (PAMC Chapter 18.38) and as described in Section Three and Section Four herein and in the Approved Development Plans. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements: In addition to the parking and loading requirements specified in PAMC §§18.52 and 18.54, a Transportation Demand Management Plan (“TDM”) Program shall be developed for the Project in accordance with PAMC §18.52.050(d) for employees of the Project. The TDM plan shall include bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation functions. The TDM plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to issuance of building permits for the site and shall include, at a minimum, offer for parking cash out, bike facilities, transportation information kiosks, and the designation of a transportation demand coordinator for the building. The TDM program will include monitoring reports, which shall be submitted to the Director not later than two years after building occupancy and again not later than five years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the 120313 dm 0120529 4 *NOT YET APPROVED* initial performance targets, and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require further program modifications. (e) Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development Regulations: Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in Section 4 (a) - (c) above shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone, unless the modification is a minor change as described in PAMC §18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case the modification may be approved through the minor Architectural Review process. Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance. (f) Public Benefits: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts. (1) Preservation and renovation of an existing historically significant shopping center developed by Eichler Homes, eligible for federal, state and local historic registries; (2) Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building; (3) Provision of a 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements, in perpetuity. (Land is dedicated for the ten units, plus an additional 5,000 sq. ft., where an in-lieu fee could also be proposed. The park would be maintained by the commercial property owner.) The park shall not be used for seating/activities associated with the retail uses. (4) Provision of three (3) electrical vehicle (EV) charging stations installed onsite, subject to final City approval. The applicant shall incur all costs of the installation. 120313 dm 0120529 5 *NOT YET APPROVED* (g) Development Schedule: The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC §18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: Construction of the Project shall commence immediately following the adoption of the PC zone, unless a change in the development schedule is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, not to exceed a one year extension in time and only one such extension without a hearing, pursuant to PAMC §18.38.130. The total time for the project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be 24 months following adoption of the PC zone, or by March 2014, unless extended by the Director for up to one additional year. (h) No building permit shall be approved (other than for model homes with no more than one model home per plan type) for residential development prior to submittal to the Director of a lease agreement or other legally binding commitment from a grocery operator to occupy 20,600 square feet in the Grocery Building. The Lease Agreement shall require that Occupancy of the grocery store shall occur not later than 15 months after the issuance of the first building permit for the Grocery Building or 15 months after issuance of the first building permit for the residential development (other than a model home). Final inspection and occupancy shall be allowed for not more than 5 homes (including model homes) prior to final inspection and occupancy approval for the grocery store. Bonding or other financial security may be considered in lieu of these requirements only upon review and approval by the City Council as an amendment to this PC ordinance. SECTION 4. Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Neighborhood Commercial and the zoning designation is Planned Community (PC) District. The proposed development of the commercial and residential mixed use development is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site. 120313 dm 0120529 6 *NOT YET APPROVED* 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The map is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, particularly including: (1) Policy L-1 - Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area; (2) Policy L-4 - Maintain Palo Alto‟s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto‟s desirable qualities; (3) Policy L-9 - Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development; and (4) Policy B-27 - Support the upgrading and revitalization of Palo Alto‟s four Neighborhood Commercial Centers. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site can accommodate the proposed subdivision, as it is currently vacant, flat, and absent any significant vegetation. The lots conform to the width, depth, and area requirements of this Planned Community Zoning District. The design of the mixed use, commercial and residential buildings require Architectural Review approval. The proposed development was recommended for approval by the City Council from the Architectural Review Board on February 2, 2012. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would be consistent with the site development regulations of this Planned Community Zoning District and would not affect the location of the existing property lines at the perimeter of the site. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, as the site is currently fully developed with a vacant commercial development. An Environmental Impact Report was adopted certifying that there will be no significant unmitigated environmental impacts. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: 120313 dm 0120529 7 *NOT YET APPROVED* This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel for a commercial and residential mixed use development will not cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type, in that the subdivision is compatible with adequate emergency vehicle access and any utility easements that would be required to serve the proposed developments. SECTION 5. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice SECTION 6. Monitoring of Conditions and Public Benefits. Not later than three (3) years following the approval of building occupancy by the City and every three (3) years thereafter, the applicant shall request that the City review the project to assure that conditions of approval and public benefits remain in effect as provided in the original approval. The applicant shall provide adequate funding to reimburse the City for these costs. If conditions or benefits are found deficient by staff, the applicant shall correct such conditions in not more than 90 days from notice by the City. If correction is not made within the prescribed timeframe, the Director of Planning and Community Environment will schedule review of the project before the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to determine appropriate remedies, fines or other actions. 120313 dm 0120529 8 *NOT YET APPROVED* SECTION 7. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council certified the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and adopted a resolution at its meeting of March 19, 2012. SECTION 8. The plans referenced consist of plans titled “Edgewood Shopping Center” prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Burton Architecture, Sandis and the Guzzardo Partnership, dated February 29, 2012, including the Tentative Map for Edgewood Plaza, prepared by Sandis, dated February 15, 2012. SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Assistant City Attorney __________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 120313 dm 0120529 APPROVED: _________________________ Mayor _________________________ City Manager 9 Exhibit B RECOMMENDED DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2080 Channing Avenue – Edgewood Plaza/ File No. 10PLN-00198 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Planning and Transportation Divisions 1. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspection Division shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans, project details and materials received on March 22, 2012, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted to obtain any permit through the Building Inspection Division. 3. Construction details, colors, materials, and placement of the shopping center signs and roof mounted equipment shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to submittal of the building permit. 4. A subsequent Architectural Review Permit shall be required for the relocated sign and other new signs related to this project. 5. The project shall be subject to applicable Development Impact Fees, which would be due prior to issuance of the building permit. The applicable impact fees would be calculated based upon the fee structure in place at the time of building permit submittal. 6. The developer shall submit and implement a Transportation Demand Management program to the satisfaction of the Planning and Community Environment Director. 7. Sheet T-1_Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan (http://www.city.palo- alto.ca.us/arb/planning_forms.html). Complete the Tree Disclosure Statement and Inspection(s) #1-6 shall be checked. 8. Applicant shall file a tree removal permit for the trees planned for removal. 9. The entire Tree Preservation Report approved by staff, shall be printed on Sheet T-1 and/or T-2 (all sheets). A note shall be applied to the site plan stating, “All measures identified in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved plans shall be implemented, including inspections and required watering of trees. 10. Maintenance: All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a final detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval, specifying exact species, numbers and location of all plant materials. 12. The planting palette shall be modified as follows: Specify Elegant Tristania, replacing the Tristaniopis laurina. Do not use Liquidambars in small areas or planters. The species forms multiple leaders and hardscape damaging root system. Replace with other fall color species such as, Sour Gum, Shumard Oak or similar. All trees should be 24” box size as a minimum. Justify the use of century plant, in both large spatial area needed and safety from the potentially lethal spear-like foliage. Or, select another species better suited for these populated areas. 13. All parking lot median islands that are occupied with trees, shrubs and ground covers and surrounded by raised curb shall specify: Materials, concrete or asphalt on grade Specify discontinuous curb (planned breaks in the curb every 3 vehicle spaces) in all formed curb lengths. Intent to drain or capture water runoff, allow capacity spillover and plant/soil filtration of water runoff. 14. Screening of all above ground utilities is required, especially around water check valves and backflow preventers near the sidewalks and property lines. Creative use of shrubbery and species encouraged. 15. Other conditions of approval that are site and landscape related will be provided for submittal of the building permits. 16. The parking lot median islands shall incorporate discontinuous curbs (planned eight inch breaks in the curb every three vehicle spaces) to allow for filtration of water runoff. 17. Prior to the submittal of a building permit, the applicant shall submit documentation demonstrating that all noise producing equipment proposed for the project shall meet the City‟s Noise Ordinance requirement. 18. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the ten single-family residences shall include a provision that requires all future owners to maintain the private garages so that two cars may be parked inside at all times. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed by the Planning Director and City Attorney for approval prior to approval of the Final Map. 19. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties) from against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 20. Lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle as measured at the abutting residential property line. Lighting fixtures shall not exceed a height of 15 feet in the parking lot. 21. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit application, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee and obtain feedback and/or approval on the following items: Final landscaping plan Street furniture Trellis details 22. All property line fences shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code 23. Integral color shall be used for the stucco. 24. The lighting shall be corrected so that the photometric plans show that light will not spill beyond the residential property line 25. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the ten single-family residences shall include a provision that requires all future owners to maintain the private garages so that two cars may be parked inside at all times. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed by the Planning Director and City Attorney for approval prior to approval of the Final Map. 26. No restrictions shall be placed on the commercial or residential surface parking spaces that will prevent park users from using those spaces. 27. The rehabilitation of the proposed sign shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board for their recommendation. 28. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the Tentative Map approval date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]). 29. A Below Market Rate agreement shall be executed prior to City Council Action on the Final Map and recorded concurrently with the subdivision agreement and map. 30. Prior to the recordation of a Final Map, the applicant shall execute and record a Park Maintenance Agreement for the proposed public park to the satisfaction of the Director of the Community Services Department. Sustainability Requirements 31. The project is required to comply with PAMC 16.14 for green building. Building permit plans shall include compliance with the Greenpoint Rated Checklist –as locally amended - for the residential portion of the project and the California Green Building Code Checklist – as locally amended – for the nonresidential portion of the project. These requirements incorporate minimum standards for landscape water efficiency (note that the installation of a dedicated irrigation meter for all landscape with an approved backflow prevention device will be required) and energy performance among other things. For more information visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/greenbuilding. 32. The project is required to comply with PAMC 16.12.030 for recycled water infrastructure. Building permit plans shall include the on-site infrastructure necessary to connect the site‟s irrigation system to the city‟s recycled water supply when it becomes available. Plans shall demonstrate that recycled water will be used when available, and include consideration for plants that are recycled water tolerant Transportation Division 33. A Transportation Demand Management plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition to the annual report, the project applicant and/or Edgewood Plaza owner will conduct a parking monitoring program for a minimum of six months after full occupancy of the retail portion of the Edgewood Plaza site, or as directed by the City of Palo Alto Director of Planning and Community Environment. The monitoring program will record the number of parked vehicles during the anticipated peak times of 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. If parking demand is found to exceed parking supply, one or more of the following strategies will be employed as a part of the project‟s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to limit parking spillover: Offer parking cash-out (financial payment) to employees who forego their parking space on-site and get to work by carpooling, bicycling, walking, or taking transit; and/or Increase use of TDM measures (such as facilitating a carpool matching service for employees on site). The hours of loading shall be consistent with the Municipal Code. The need for traffic calming, including the installation of speed humps on Channing Avenue, shall be evaluated by the City approximately a year after occupancy. 34. One level 3 electric vehicle charging station and two level 2 electric charging stations shall be provided on site. 35. Bicycle racks must be installed to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division. The project shall include four double loaded bike racks (8 bike capacity) within 50 feet of the main entrance of the Grocery Store. The rack closest to the pedestrian ramp must be located with at least 5 feet of clear landing area from the ADA accessible ramp connecting to the parking lot pedestrian path. 36. Parking stalls closest to St. Francis Drive that are 15‟6” in depth must have a low curb and at least two feet of clear overhang. 37. The project shall include raised islands and median striping enhancements at intersection of West Bayshore/Embarcadero intersection (West Bayshore right-turn only). 38. The project shall include off-site crosswalk and curb ramp improvements at intersection of St. Francis / Channing. 39. Signing and striping modifications per mitigation measure identified on Embarcadero between St. Francis and Wildwood shall be included. 40. Bicycle improvements are recommended along West Bayshore including share the road signage and pavement markings. 41. A left turn sign shall be installed on Embarcadero Road, north of Channing subject to the review of the Transportation Division. 42. Modify the traffic signal on Embarcadero Road at Saint Francis Drive to provide left turn signal phasing from Embarcadero Road to Saint Francis Drive. 43. Preserve the vehicular access between the project site and the adjacent gas station site at the existing site connection, with no net loss of vehicle parking spaces on the shopping center site. Building Division 44. Architectural Comments: On sheet A1.0, Project Data: list the following information on the plans for all the (N) and (E) structures: Building Occupancy Group: Type of Construction: Number of Stories: Building Area: Sprinklered: (Y/N) 45. On sheet A1.0, Conceptual Site Plan: provide a revised site plan showing the proposed lot line adjustments to be made for this project. Currently, this project is located on two legal parcels and the proposed residential units #3 & 4 both straddle the current lot line and is not allowed. Show on the revised Site Plan the lots lines that divides the ten (10) residential units into separate parcels. 46. On sheet A1.0, Project Data: provide an allowable area analysis for the (E) Grocery Building as it appears that it can no longer take advantage of the three (3) sides open for area increase. In addition, provide the allowable area calculations for Retail Buildings 1 & 2. Show if the buildings are to be considered as parts of one building on the lot or multiple buildings on one lot with assumed property lines between the buildings. If the latter is the case, then clearly show on the Site Plan the location of the assumed property line. 47. Structural Comments: A geotechnical report is required for the construction of the new location of the relocated Commercial building. 48. General Comment: The completed plan submittal package should be sent to an approved Outside Plan Check Consultant for plan review. 49. Additional accessible parking spaces are required due to the total number of required parking spaces. At least 6 are required when there are 151 to 200 parking stalls. Show location of dispersed accessible parking spaces and provide the accessible path of travel to the building located such that those persons with disabilities are not compelled to walk or wheel behind parked cars other than their own. CBC 1129B.4.3, CBC 1129B.1 50. Based on the scope of work for this project the City of Palo Alto has the option to require the applicant to utilize a third party plan check firm to conduct the building code plan review. A list of plan check agencies approved by the City of Palo Alto is available at the Development Center. The City of Palo Alto Building plan check fees are reduced by 35% when a 3rd party plan check agency is utilized. 51. The Building Permit Plans shall be prepared by a licensed architect. When the plans are submitted for a building permit, be sure to include the full scope of work including all site development, disabled access and exiting for the entire site, utility installations, architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical work associated with the proposed project. The plans shall include the allowable floor area and entire building area calculations on the project data sheet and where there are multiple occupancies, provide unity calculations for either separated or non-separated uses. EIR Mitigation Measures 52. MM CR-2.1: Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level III documentation of the exterior of Buildings 1 and 2 and their setting shall be prepared by the applicant and project consultants prior to the relocation of Building 1 and remodeling of Building 2. Following the HABS guidelines, this documentation shall include : Sketch plan of the existing site and reproduction of original drawings. Up to 12 large-format photographs (4 by 5 inches) of exterior view. A written summary of project site‟s history. Transmittal of one set of documents to the City‟s Historic Resources Planner and to a relevant local historical society, library or repository. The documentation shall be filed by the applicant prior to the start of construction 53. MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy. 54. MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and construction techniques of Buildings 1 and 2 including windows, frames and eaves will be retained to the extent possible, as the building elements will require some alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated condition. The existing building components may be constructed out of new building materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building components is not feasible. Prior to the relocation and reconstruction of Building 1 and the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the building‟s original design and applicable Secretary of Interior‟s Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of these buildings will be reviewed and approved by the Director and Historic Resources Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. 55. Air Quality MM AQ-1.1: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during all phases of construction on the project site to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving the site: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer„s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‟s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 56. Biological Resources MM BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the proposed project shall implement the following measures: Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 – August 31). If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the preconstruction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the preconstruction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals until construction activities are initiated. If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all the young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub. Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction activities, parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest. 57. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.1: Considering the property will be redeveloped and that potentially regulated soils may be encountered during site preparation activities, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared to reduce or eliminate exposure risk to human health and the environment. The SMP shall be developed to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials if encountered during construction activities. The SMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto prior to commencing construction activities. 58. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.2: Each contractor working at the site shall prepare a health and safety plan (HSP) that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site operations that includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. 59. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.3: At the time Building 1 is moved, soil and groundwater samples, and/or soil vapor samples, if appropriate, shall be obtained from under 2125 Saint Francis Drive (the former Moon Cleaners) to ensure that soil exceeding the applicable levels for tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its breakdown products is not present within five feet of the ground surface. PCE-affected soil shall be removed by properly trained and licensed personnel and contractors, in conformance with procedures in the soil management plan (MM HAZ-1) prior to paving the area. Contaminated soil will be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. An excavation base confirmation sample will be collected and analyzed to document sufficient soils removal. Documentation of removal of PCE-affected soil shall be provided to the City of Palo Alto and appropriate oversight agencies prior to installation of pavement in the parking lot area. 60. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.4: Excavated soils will be characterized prior to off-site disposal or reuse on-site. Appropriate soil characterization, storage, transportation, and disposal procedures shall be followed. Contaminated soils shall be disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with all appropriate local, state, and federal regulations, in accordance with its characteristics. 61. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.5: The applicant shall prepare a contingency plan prior to the beginning of the project construction that will address any previously unknown sumps, hydraulic hoists, or tanks that may be present in the area of work. 62. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-2.1: In conformance with local, state, and federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint on the structures proposed for renovation. The surveys shall be completed prior to work beginning on these structures. 63. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-2.2: A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos- containing materials, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, prior to building relocation or renovation that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. 64. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-2.3: During renovation activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. 65. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYDRO-1.1: Construction of the proposed project on site will comply with the City of Palo Alto Flood Hazard Ordinance, including elevation of habitable spaces above anticipated flood levels, as listed in the Municipal Code, Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations. All project plans must show the base flood elevations on all applicable elevations, sections, and details, and must comply with all other requirements as listed in the ordinance. 66. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYDRO-1.2: Construction of the proposed project on site will comply with the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for flood hazard areas. 67. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYDRO-2.1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control: The following erosion and sediment control measures, based upon Best Management Practices recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall be included in the project to reduce potential construction-related water quality impacts. Many of these measures are the same as or similar to measures required to reduce air quality impacts. Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Stormwater inlet protection will be installed around storm drain inlets to keep sediment and other debris out of the stormwater drainage system. All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces will be watered at least twice daily to control dust as necessary. Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities will be suspended during periods of high winds (instantaneous gusts exceed 25 miles per hour). Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind will be watered or covered. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials will be covered and all trucks will be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas adjacent to the construction sites will be swept daily with water sweepers. Vegetation in disturbed areas will be replanted as quickly as possible. 68. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYDRO-2.2: Post-Construction Mitigation: The following mitigation measures, and City of Palo Alto requirements, are included in the proposed project to ensure compliance with NPDES permit requirements to reduce postconstruction water quality impacts: All onsite trash enclosures shall have roofs. Storm runoff from the site shall be treated prior to discharge to the City of Palo Alto stormwater system. (Treatment may or may not include the use of mechanical devices.) An annual post-construction maintenance agreement shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The commercial development shall implement regular maintenance activities (i.e., litter control and maintaining on-site drainage facilities) to prevent soil and litter from accumulating on the project site and contaminating surface runoff. Landscape maintenance shall employ minimal pesticide use, including landscape maintenance techniques listed in the Fact Sheet on Landscape Maintenance Techniques for Pest Reduction prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 69. MM NOISE-1.1: Sound-rated windows, doors, and exterior wall assemblies will be used in residential building construction to reduce interior noise from outdoor sources to the 45 dB DNL and Lmax 50/55 dB criteria. Specific details and sound insulation ratings shall be determined during the design phase, when the final site, grading and floor plans, and exterior elevations have been determined. An acoustical consultant shall review drawings during the design phase and finalize appropriate noise control treatments, which will be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Building Division along with the building plans, and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 70. Noise MM NOI-1.2: Dual pane windows and doors with equal glass thicknesses can have resonances that result in audible tones indoors. Acoustical test reports of all sound rated windows and doors shall be reviewed by an acoustical consultant, and compared with traffic noise spectrums, prior to approval. 71. Noise MM NOI-1.3: Since windows will have to be closed to maintain the interior noise goals, “ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment,” even with windows closed, shall be included in the project (i.e., windows shall not be relied upon for ventilation). 72. Noise MM NOI-1.4: Overall outdoor noise in yards is expected to be between DNL 60 and 65 dBA, based on a combination of local and distant transportation sources. Since the proposed residences would include private fenced yards, six foot tall noise barriers shall be incorporated where plans currently show walls or fences separating private yards from the adjacent roadways. Barriers should be solid from bottom to top with no cracks or gaps, and a minimum surface density of three pounds per square foot. 73. Noise MM NOI-1.5: Residential mechanical equipment shall be selected and located to meet the property line limits in the City‟s Noise Ordinance. If determined to be necessary during the design phase and the acoustical review described in MM NOISE-1.1, additional measures may consist of equipment barriers and/or enclosures. 74. Noise MM NOI-2.1: Measures shall be included in the renovation of the commercial buildings to reduce noise impacts at nearby residences, in conformance with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. These measures would be finalized during the design phase and acoustical analysis (as described in Mitigation Measure MM NOISE-1.1), submitted to the City of Palo Alto Building Division along with the building plans, and approved prior to issuance of building permits. These measures could include: Solid noise barriers along the north and east sides (the eastern wall extending south alongside delivery trucks) of the loading dock, combined with a shed roof. These barriers would reduce the estimated noise levels from unloading activities to the allowable limits in the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. The roof and walls shall be lined with a sound absorbing material (for example, perforated metal panels, such as Kinetics KNP, or a spray on material, such as Pyrok Acoustement 40, applied to a thickness of 1- 1/2”). 75. MM NOISE-2.2: Trucks entering and leaving the site must pass close to a residential property line. As they do, they are likely to exceed the noise ordinance limits. Although it may not be feasible to completely eliminate this noise, the following measures would reduce this impact: Limit deliveries to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Communicate to vendors that their drivers will be operating close to residences, so they limit noise (e.g., avoid excess idling, high engine speeds, un-necessary backing, etc.) Provide a full disclosure statement to the owners of residential Lots #9 and #10 to make them aware that trucks entering and leaving the site may generate noise levels in excess of the Noise Ordinance limits. This disclosure would be incorporated by the project applicant into the deeds for these residential properties. 76. MM NOISE-3.1: Mechanical equipment shall be selected, designed, and located so as to minimize impacts on adjacent and nearby residential uses. This can be accomplished by locating noise generating equipment away from residential uses or by providing acoustical shielding. Preliminary estimates suggest that solid rooftop screens or noise barriers will be needed. An acoustical specialist will review the mechanical equipment plans prior to construction to confirm that the City‟s Noise Ordinance would be met at the residential property line. These plans will be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Building Division, and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 77. Transportation MM TRANS-1.1: Because of signal spacing considerations, a traffic signal is not recommended at this intersection. To mitigate this impact, the proposed project will restripe Embarcadero Road to create a left turn receiving lane. As part of the project left turn lane improvements at the Embarcadero Road/Saint Francis Drive intersection, a left turn receiving area will be built at Wildwood Lane. This will facilitate outbound left turns and reduce left turn delay, which would reduce the project impact to a less than significant level. 78. Avoidance Measures a. Biological Resources CONDITION BIO-2.1: A Tree Preservation Report (TPR) will be prepared for trees to be preserved and protected, consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City Urban Forester. The TPR incorporate the following measures, safeguards and information: The TPR shall be based on latest plans and amended as needed to address activity or improvements within the dripline area, including but not limited to incidental work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, patio material, leveling, etc.) that may affect the health of the trees. The project shall be modified to address TPR concerns and recommendations identified to minimize below ground or above ground impacts. The TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the tree preservation ordinance, PAMC 8.10.030 and the City‟s Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urban_canopy.asp. To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of the trees the TPR shall review the applicant's landscape plan to ensure that patio flat work, irrigation, planting or potted plants is consistent with the Tree Technical Manual. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City Urban Forester. b. Biological Resources CONDITION BIO-2.2: Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of one or more public street trees. Publicly owned trees are growing in the right- of-way along Saint Francis Drive, Channing Avenue, and West Bayshore Road. Provide mitigation in the event of a public tree removal. The new frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to include the following elements: Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program. Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources. Create conflict-free planting sites by locating tree sites and underground utility services at least 10-feet apart (electric, gas, sewer, water, fiber optic, telecom, etc.). Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, generous planter soil volume (800 to 1,200 cubic feet) to sustain a medium to large tree. c. Noise CONDITION NOI-4.1: The following mitigation measures are included in the project to further reduce construction noise impacts on neighboring properties: Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; Route construction related traffic to and from the site via designated truck routes and avoid residential streets where possible; Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent land uses; Shield adjacent sensitive uses from stationary equipment with individual noise barriers or partial acoustical enclosures; Temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences (minimum 8 feet in height) and/or acoustical blankets could be erected, if necessary, along affected property boundaries facing the construction site. This mitigation would only be necessary if conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected; Locate staging areas and construction material storage areas as far away as possible from adjacent sensitive land uses; Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule; Hold a preconstruction meeting with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices (including construction hours, construction schedule, and noise coordinator) are completed. Utilities Water Gas Wastewater 79. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 80. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 81. The applicant shall submit a completed separate water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheets for each commercial tenant space or residential unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). 82. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. All water meters shall be in the public right-of-way (sidewalk or planting strip). All WGW utility services shall be from Saint Francis Drive or Channing Avenue. 83. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing or new water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1‟ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. 84. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 85. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 86. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one foot above the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 87. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 88. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: The pump(s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less. The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20‟ from the City clean out. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 89. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 90. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of- way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. 91. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant‟s expense. 92. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 93. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. 94. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 95. A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 96. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter, within 5‟ of the property line. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. The applicant shall provide the City with current test certificates for all backflows. 97. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5‟ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 98. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location(s) on the plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. The gas meters shall be located above ground on private property against the building as close to Saint Francis or Channing as possible. 99. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 100. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures before any new utility services are installed. 101. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 102. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department as-built drawings of the installation of water and wastewater utilities to be owned and maintained by the City in accordance with: Two sets of as-built drawings (hard copies). As-built drawings in 2008 or 2010 AutoCAD format. As-built drawings in .tiff format. Survey points in .csv format for all new utility features. Note: All survey data shall be collected by a California Licensed Land Surveyor. The surveyor is responsible to setup all control points needed to perform the survey work. The accuracy for all survey data shall be +/- 1cm. 103. Survey data to be collected (what's applicable): Collect horizontal and vertical data for: Sanitary sewer manholes (rim and invert elevations and depth) Storm drain manholes and catch basins (rim and invert elevations and depth) Water valves (cover and stem elevations) 104. Collect horizontal data only for: Service or lateral connection points at the main Fire hydrants Water meters Sanitary sewer cleanout boxes 105. Use CPAU WGW Engineering‟s "feature codes" for naming convention available from CPAU WGW Engineering 1007 Elwell Ct, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 566-4501. All drawings and survey data shall be on the California State Plane Coordinate System - Zone 3 in units of feet. The horizontal datum shall be the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) and the vertical datum shall be based on Bestor 93. Fire Department 106. Applicant shall follow all mitigation measures outlined in the EIR. 107. Fire Department recommends a contingency plan be put in place to deal with any previously undiscovered soil contamination, sumps, hydraulic hoists or tanks that may be present in the area of work. The plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Public Works Engineering 108. Flood Zone: The proposed improvements are located within Special Flood Hazard Areas AH 11.9 & AH 12.2. Please make sure the submitted plans accurately reflect the flood zone designation. Accordingly, the proposed construction must meet all of the City‟s and Federal Emergency Management Agency‟s (FEMA) requirements for construction within a flood zone, such as: the finished bottom floor must be at or above the base flood elevation (BFE); the crawl space (if used) must have flood vents; and all construction materials and equipment below the BFE must be water-resistant. Garage slabs can be below the BFE, but the garage will then need flood vents. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations, and our website for more information. The plans must show the BFE on all applicable elevations, sections and details; must include a calculation of the required amount of flood vents; must include the flood vents on the elevations and foundation plan; must note all materials below the BFE as water-resistant; and must include the Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for Construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area form, which is available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. Please note that FEMA recently (May 2009) changed the vertical datum of the flood zones. You must use the new vertical datum (NAVD88) on plans submitted for a building permit. 109. Substantial Improvement: The existing structures are located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. If the construction cost of the improvements (remodeling and/or addition) is greater than 50% of the depreciated existing value of the structure, then the improvements will be classified as a “substantial improvement” and the existing structure and all new construction will be required to meet the City‟s Flood Hazard Regulations. In particular, the finished first floor must be at or above the base flood elevation (BFE). If the project is a “substantial improvement”, then upon submittal for a building permit, the applicant must provide a copy of the FEMA Elevation Certificate showing that the existing finished first floor is at or above the BFE or, if the floor is below the BFE, the plans must show the floor being raised. The plans must include: The Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for Construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area form The BFE on sections, elevations and details Flood vents, if there is a crawl space A table calculating the flood vents required and provided If the crawl space is subgrade, meaning that the bottom of the crawl space is below the adjacent exterior grade on all four sides of the house, then it must be filled in until it is either no longer subgrade or until it is 18” from the floor framing (to meet the minimum CBC requirement) If the crawl space is still subgrade after filling, then include a sump, pump and outlet pipe to pump flood waters out The garage slab can be below the BFE, but the garage will then need to be flood vented separately from the house Notes that all materials and equipment below the BFE are water-resistant 110. Public Works will prepare a flood zone screening form, including a “substantial improvement” screening form, at the Development Center when plans are submitted for a building permit. In order to determine if your project is a “substantial improvement” prior to submitting for a building permit, you can have a preliminary screening performed by Public Works‟ staff at the Development Center. 111. Conceptual Grading, Drainage, C.3 and SWPPP Plan: To verify the project adequately addresses grading, drainage and surface water infiltration, the applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to the final ARB submittal. The plan must demonstrate that site runoff is conveyed to the nearest adequate municipal storm drain system and that drainage is not increased onto, nor blocked from, neighboring properties. The plan must also include a conceptual storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), including the permanent best management practices (BMP‟s) to protect storm water quality and control runoff per the C.3 provisions of the Grading Ordinance (see C.3 below). Resources and handouts are available from PWE, including “Planning Your Land Development Project”. The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. 112. Subdivision Maps: A Tentative Map and a Final Map are required for the proposed development. The applicant shall submit an application for a major subdivision with the Planning Division. Public Works‟ Major Subdivision - Tentative Map checklist must accompany the Tentative Map and the Major Subdivision – Final Map checklist must accompany the Final Map. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the maps. A digital copy of the Final Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NAVD 1988 for vertical survey controls. 113. Improvement Plans: The applicant shall arrange a meeting with the Public Works Engineering, Water/Gas/Wastewater and Electric Utilities Engineering, Planning, and Transportation Divisions and the Fire Department to determine what on-site and off-site public improvements will be required. The off-site improvements required by Public Works Engineering will include at minimum: replacement of the sidewalk, curb & gutter along the frontages of the site; the installation of curb ramps and street trees; and the resurfacing of the street (2” grind & overlay) along the project frontages. Improvement plans must be completed, approved and signed prior to the Final Map going to City Council for approval. 114. Subdivision Improvement Agreement: A subdivision improvement agreement is required to secure compliance with the conditions of approval and security of the onsite and offsite public improvements. The agreement must be finalized and signed prior to the Final Map going to City Council for approval. 115. Bonds: The developer shall post bonds to guarantee the completion of the onsite and offsite public improvements. The applicant must submit a construction cost estimate for the onsite and offsite public improvements. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments after reviewing the plans and the estimate. The bonds must be submitted prior to the Final Map going to City Council for approval. 116. Developer‟s Project Manager: The subdivision includes significant complexity involving coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with Planning, Public Works and Utility Department staff. Public Works will have regular communication with the Project Manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction. Prior to Final ARB Submittal 117. Flood Zone: The applicant shall arrange a meeting with the Public Works Engineering Division to verify compliance with the FEMA flood zone construction requirements regarding all new construction as well as remodeling of existing retail buildings. Grading & Building Submittal 118. Grading & Excavation Permit: A Grading and Excavation Permit is required for the project. A grading permit only authorizes grading and storm drain improvements, therefore, the following note shall be included on each grading permit plan sheet: “This grading permit will only authorize general grading and installation of the storm drain system. Other building and utility improvements are shown for reference information only and are subject to a separate building permit approval.” No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprints. 119. Storm Drains: The existing municipal storm drainage system in the area may be unable to convey the peak runoff from the project site. The applicant may be required to provide storm water detention on-site to lessen the project‟s impact on city storm drains. The applicant‟s engineer shall provide storm drain flow and detention calculations, including pre-project and post-project conditions. The calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 120. C3: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. In addition, the applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 121. UPDATE: New regulations regarding third-party certifications of storm water treatment designs and installations went into effect 2/10/11. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third-party reviewer that the design of the project complies with the requirements of PAMC Chapter 16.11. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third-party reviewer that the project‟s permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were constructed or installed in accordance with the approved plans. A list of qualified third-party reviewers is available at: http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/consultants.htm 122. Revision: Additional, new storm water treatment requirements will go into effect on December 1, 2011. These new requirements will not apply if a development application (ARB) receives final discretionary approval before December 1, 2011. 123. Survey Datum: Plans shall be prepared using North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NAVD 1988 for vertical survey controls throughout the design process. 124. Final Drainage Plan: The plans shall include a final drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional. This plan shall show proposed spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. 125. SWPPP: This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board‟s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. 126. Impervious Surface Area: The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. For non- residential properties, a Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant‟s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering and on the division‟s website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng-documents.html 127. Work in the Right-of-Way: The off-site public improvement plans must note that any work that is to be conducted in the public right-of-way must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 128. Street Trees: Show all street trees in the public right-of-way or state that there are none. Include street tree protection details in the plans. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement installation within 10 feet of a street tree, must be approved by Public Works' arborist. This approval shall appear on the plans. Prior to Demolition & Construction 129. Temporary Encroachment Permit: The contractor may be required to obtain a temporary encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to occupy the right-of-way and/or to provide traffic control to perform the demolition. 130. Street Work Permit: A Permit for Construction in the Public Street (“street work permit”) must be obtained by the general contractor or all subcontractors performing work in the public right-of-way. All construction within the right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to the standard specifications and details of the Public Works and Utility Departments. 131. Logistics Plan: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public and including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors‟ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto‟s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map, which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. Typically, the construction logistics plan is required for and attached to an encroachment permit or a street work permit. 132. Storm Drain Logo: The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. The applicant is required to install thermoplastic logos adjacent to all off-site storm drain inlets that are located in the public right-of-way and affected by the project. The thermoplastic logos may be obtained from the Public Works Inspector. 133. Record Drawings: At the conclusion of the project applicant shall provide digital as- built/record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in which the City owns an interest. The digital files shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NAVD 1988 for vertical survey controls. In addition, a digital copy of any project parcel map, subdivision map, or certificate-of-compliance shall also be provided. All files should be delivered in AutoCad format. 134. Building Permit Sign-Off: The Public Works Inspector shall sign-off the building permit. Activities that must be completed prior to this sign-off include: 1) all off-site improvements, 2) all on-site grading and storm drain improvements, 3) all post- construction storm water pollution control measures, 4) entering into and recording a maintenance agreement for the C.3 measures, and 5) submittal of as-built record drawings for improvements in the public right-of-way. Utilities Electrical Engineering General 135. This project requires the installation of padmount transformers for both the new residential development and the rehabilitation of the existing retail buildings. The present transformer serving the site shall be removed by CPAU. Proposed locations for the transformers shall be incorporated on the site plan and submitted to the Utilities Department for approval. 136. The existing main breaker serving the facility, located in CPAU manhole 1637, shall be removed. The new switchgear location shall be incorporated on the site plan and submitted to the Utilities Department for approval. 137. Easements for the pad mounted transformers and clearances in the front and around the transformer shall be as per City‟s requirements. 138. All the existing equipments/vaults and utility lines (on-site) shall be removed or relocated at applicant‟s expense prior to construction. 139. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 140. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. The Following Shall Be Submitted for Electrical Permit Submittals 141. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 142. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 143. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 144. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 145. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer‟s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 146. A public utility easement shall be required for the padmount transformers. 147. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 148. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 149. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility‟s padmount transformer and the customer‟s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 150. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 151. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 152. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 153. Applicant shall submit well-pump specifications. Specifications to include pump type, HP, voltage, starting current, efficiency, single-phase or three-phase. Also include reduced starting method. 154. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer‟s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. During Construction 155. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 156. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer‟s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 157. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 158. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 159. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 160. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 161. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 162. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 163. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. Public Works Department Water Quality Control Plant/Environmental Compliance Division 164. PAMC 16.09.032(B)(17) Covered Parking: Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system. 165. PAMC 16.09.106(e) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities: New dumpster areas shall be covered. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and run- off from the area. 166. PAMC 16.09.032 Loading Docks with Chemicals: Connections to the storm drain shall not be permitted for loading docks where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled. 167. Loading dock drains may be connected to the sewer only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the superintendent is provided. Any loading dock area with a sanitary sewer drain shall be equipped with a fail-safe valve, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation. 168. PAMC 16.09.106(d)(4) Loading Docks without Chemicals: Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if a valve or equivalent device is provided, which remains closed except when it is raining. 169. Undesignated Retail Space: PAMC 16.09 - Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. 170. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met: PAMC Section 16.09.103(a) Grease Interceptors for Food Service Facilities 171. A grease interceptor shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 750 gallons. The grease interceptor must be sized in accordance with Appendix H of the Uniform Plumbing Code. The sizing calculation must be submitted with the plans. 172. PAMC 16.09.032b(16) Covered Dumpsters for Food Service Facilities: After January 1, 1996, new buildings constructed to house food service facilities shall include a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. Drains that are installed beneath dumpsters serving food service facilities shall be connected to a grease removal device. 173. PAMC 16.09.103(e) Prohibition Against Garbage Disposals: The installation of a garbage grinder at any food service facility is prohibited after January 1, 2003. The kitchen cannot utilize a garbage grinder for food waste disposal to the sanitary sewer. 174. PAMC 16.09.032b(16) Large Item Cleaning Sink for Food Service Facilities: Food service facilities shall have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment, which is connected to a grease interceptor and the sanitary sewer. 175. At the former Moon Cleaners location, the current appropriate level that will be used to define the extent of soil removal and as the comparison criteria for the confirmation sample for PCE is the Environmental Screening Level (ESL) of 0.70 mg/kg for commercial/industrial land use listed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Table A, Interim Final November 2007, revised May 2008). This ESL for sites where Groundwater is Current or Potential Source of Drinking Water would be conservatively applied. Characterization and removal of any contaminated soil will be undertaken in coordination with appropriate oversight agencies and that coordination will be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Environment and the Palo Alto Fire Department. 176. The final underground utility plan will be reviewed by a qualified California professional geologist or professional civil engineer, the Palo Alto Fire Department, Utilities Department, and Department of Public Works to determine whether the extension of underground utilities (in a joint trench or separate water lines, sewer lines, storm drains, electrical conduit, etc.) could provide a conduit for PCE soil gas intrusion from the former Moon Cleaners location. In the event utility lines extend through areas near the former Moon Cleaners site and a possibility of soil vapor intrusion remains, appropriate engineering controls will be implemented to reduce possible soil vapor migration through trench backfill and utility conduits. These engineering controls may include placement of low-permeability backfill “plugs” at intervals in the on-site utility trenches or other measures. Measures to be employed will be approved by the Palo Alto Fire Department, the Utilities Department and the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2642) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 3 (ID # 2642) Summary Title: Amendment - Design & Permitting of New LFG Flare Title: Approval of Amendment No. 1 in the Amount of $31,460 to Contract No. C09129898 with Golder Associates, Inc. for a Total Contract Amount of $150,460 for Development of Alternate LFG Flare Stack Design on Water Quality Control Plant Premises - Refuse Fund Capital Improvement Program Project RF-10002 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 (Attachment A) to Contract C09129898 with Golder Associates, Inc. in the amount of $31,460 for development of an alternate design of the landfill gas (LFG) flare. The revised total contract amount is not to exceed $150,460 which includes $142,525 for basic services and $7,935 for additional services. Background The existing landfill gas flare is located in Byxbee Park above a closed section of the Palo Alto Landfill. The existing flare has reached the end of its useful life. Currently, the flare capacity is not optimally sized for projected landfill gas production, thereby creating inefficient utilization of the landfill gas in the flare and the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) sewage sludge incinerators. Council previously approved a contract with Golder Associates for design on May 4, 2009 (Staff Report 221:09). This Flare Relocation Project (CIP RF-10002) includes the design and installation of a smaller replacement flare and removal of the existing flare and supporting equipment from Byxbee Park. The project optimizes the April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 3 (ID # 2642) operation of the landfill gas collection system and the RWQCP sewage sludge incinerators, leading to decreased greenhouse gas emissions. Golder Associates previously prepared construction drawings and specifications for a new LFG flare station, based on a new flare design by Bekaert Corporation. The Bekaert flare was selected because of its low profile and greater turn-down ratio compared to standard LFG flares. Golder Associates also obtained an Authority to Construct (ATC) permit for the Bekaert flare from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Although the Bekaert flare is more expensive than standard enclosed LFG flares, based on information provided by the Bekaert representative during the design phase of the project, the differential cost was acceptable. The bids received for the project were much higher than Golder Associates engineers’ cost estimate, primarily because the bid price of the Bekaert flare was substantially higher than the price given by the manufacturer during design. As a result of the higher than anticipated bids and the resulting impact to the Refuse Fund budget, bids were rejected. Discussion Staff considered options for reducing the cost of a new flare and determined that including a standard LFG flare as an alternate to the Bekaert flare should result in more competitive bids, as Bekaert is the sole manufacturer of the new, low profile flare technology. The tradeoff for the lower cost design is a higher stack height and wider stack diameter. The stack height of a standard flare to meet BAAQMD requirements would be 30 feet high and 6 feet wide compared to the Bekaert flare at 22 feet high and 5 feet wide; as reference, the existing flare in Byxbee Park is 24 feet 4 inches high and 7 feet 6½ inches square. Scope of Services Discussion The scope of services are primarily to modify the construction drawings and specifications prepared for the Bekaert flare to include a standard enclosed flare as an alternate bid item, to provide graphics support for Planning and Community Environment Department review, to amend the ATC permit, to assist the City in administering the bidding process through contract award to revise the electrical and controls specifications as April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 3 (ID # 2642) needed, and to provide technical assistance during construction. The ATC issued by the BAAQMD is valid through August 1, 2013. Resource Impact Funds for this project are included in the FY2012 Refuse Fund Capital Improvement Program RF-10002 Flare Relocation Project. Policy Implications Authorization of this project amendment does not represent a change in existing City policies. Environmental Review The award of this design contract amendment is not a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act. A Planning Department environmental review will be conducted once the design plans are finalized. Attachments: A: Amendment 1 to Contract No. C09129898 (PDF) Prepared By:Padmakar Chaobal, Project Engineer Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager AMENDMENT NO.1 TO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC. This Amendment No.1 to Contract No. C09129898 ("Contract") is entered into on this __ day of March, 2012, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY"), and GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC., a Corporation in the State of Georgia, located at 425 Lakeside Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94085 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of consulting services for design of new LFG flare station as described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1: "Section 4 -NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATON' is hereby amended to read as follows: "The compensation to be paid to Consultant for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Forty Two Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($142,525). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Dollars ($150,460). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C", entitled "HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part ofthis Agreement." SECTION 2: The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit "A" entitled "Scope of Services". b. Exhibit "B" entitled "Schedule of Performance". c. Exhibit "c" entitled "Compensation". II II AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 1 120307 sm 010 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES -AMENDED SCOPE OF WORK The consultant shall provide services for complete Landfill Gas (LPG) flare system planning, permitting and design engineering for the new LPG flare on the RWQCP premises. This encompasses engineering services during all phases of the project from concept development and permitting through support in commissioning/start up. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Landfill: The City of Palo Alto (City) owns and operates an unlined, active, class III municipal solid waste disposal site, located at 2830 Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto, CA. The landfill occupies approximately 126 acres of the 1800 acre Byxbee Park and Baylands Natural Preserve. City of Palo Alto owns both the Byxbee Park and the Baylands Natural Preserve. Approximately 76 acres of the site that were subject to land-filling activity have been filled to the final grade and closed in accordance with the regulations. The landfill is divided into two phases. Phase I comprises approximately 29 acres and was closed and developed into parkland in 1991, named "Byxbee Park". Phase II is subdivided into three areas designated as "Phase HA", "Phase lIB" and "Phase IIC". Phase IlA was closed in 1992 followed by Phase lIB in 2000. Both these closed areas are closed off and have landfill gas and leachate extraction system pipes on the landfill surface. The remaining active section, Phase HC, is approximately 50 acres in area and is expected to be filled to grade by 2010. Landfill Gas and Leachate Control System: The environmental control system within the landfill consists of a vertical gas extraction system and a retrofitted vertical Leachate Collection and Removal System. The landfill gas (LPG) collection system consists of 92 vertical extraction wells strategically located throughout the landfill (18 well heads are buried within Byxbee Park). Most of the gas wells within the landfill are spaced approximately 200 feet apart, have been constructed with a 4 to 6 inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing placed within 24 inch diameter boreholes and have an average depth of approximately 45 feet below the landfill surface. An HDPE pipe network collects and transmits gas from the extraction wells to a blower flare facility located within Byxbee Park. The LPG is conveyed to the adjacent RWQCP to be used in afterburner abatement devices (A-20 and A-21) for the sewage sludge incinerators (S-i and S-2) and the excess is burned in the landfill's flare located in Byxbee Park. AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 3 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 III. SCOPE OF WORK A. General The consultant shall develop a design for a landfill gas flare and associated gas collection and transmission equipment. It is the intent ofthe City to locate the new flare on R WQCP premises. The Consultant's work shall include, but not be limited to: Developing estimate for the future LFG generation; designing blower flare system components based on the future LFG generation curves and usage at the RWQCP, developing system sizing and performance specification, system layout, including its components, and preparing construction bid documents. The design shall comply with all local, state, and federal rules and regulations such as EPA's Code of Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 60, the BAAQMD's Title V Major Facility Review (Title V) Permit, and BAAQMD's Regulation 8-34. The consultant shall also develop a plan to decommission and demolish the existing flare (A-3) on landfill property. Consultant shall perform the design in phases. The design goals and deliverables shall be performed for 30% design, 60% design, and 90% design. At the completion of each phase of design, consultant shall submit the design package and meet with the City staff to review the submittal and discuss comments. The intent of the design review meeting is to solicit and compile comments and address/resolve issues. Design drawings shall be prepared in AutoCAD and PDF, and specifications shall be prepared in Microsoft Word for the use by the City. B. Tasks The Consultant's scope of work shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: Task 1 -Design Design 30% -Develop Design Criteria Prepare LFG generation and recovery estimates for the landfill's active and inactive waste cells. The remaining active "Phase lIC" of the City's landfill is expected to be filled to the grade by 2010. The gas usage atthe RWQCP in afterburner abatement devices (A-20 and A-21) for the sewage incinerators (S-l and S-2) is available to the consultant. Develop design parameters for the various components of the system, such as blowers, flare stack, gas compressor, LFG flow metering, etc. Evaluate and recommend optimum location for the flare stack within the RWQCP boundary. For the 30% design review, prepare a technical memorandum outlining the basis of design, preliminary system sizing and performance specifications, and AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 4 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 concept drawings showing the flare location, preliminary layout, and process flow diagram. Provide five sets of drawings, specifications, and other 30% deliverable documents. Design 60%- The flare system design that shall meet the following objectives: Meet all BAAQMD requirements for LFG combustion equipment. Accommodate all LFG generated from Landfill's active and inactive waste cells. Have significant "turndown" ratio to accommodate excess LFG not utilized at the RWQCP, including all LFG flows during the sewage incinerator down time. Automated controls shall be included for routing the LFG flow between the flare and Regional Water Quality Control Plant's after burners. The flare automation shall communicate with the RWQCP's SCADA system. The PLC for the system is located in the penthouse control room of the Dual Media Filters (DMF) bulking. Electric power for the flare system is available at the DMF building power panel. Design monitoring system to record temperature and LFG flow rates. Comply with provisions ofthe latest California Electric Code (CEC) regarding design of electrical systems for explosive, hazardous environments. Evaluate optimal methods for condensate handling and disposal, including temporary storage, gravity drain or pumping to the RWQCP's drain system. Assess Landfills' existing LFG collection system and resize or redesign headers and the blowers/compressors as required for the proper functioning of the Plant's afterburners and the new flare system. Perform comparative life-cycle feasibility study for alternative or innovative LFG destruction technologies, including but not limited to, Bekaert Clean Enclosed Burner (CEB) Develop screening-level air quality modeling or industrial worker exposure calculations, and if necessary for up to two additional flare locations beyond the primary selection. Perform refined air toxic health risk assessment for primary or up to two alternative flare locations in the case of unanticipated excessive risk calculated in the primary screening assessment. For the 60% design review, finalize system sizing and specifications; firm up the flare location proposed at 30% design; and firm up layout and process and instrumentation diagrams (P&ID). The drawing/specification package shall be of sufficient detail to allow for regulatory permitting, cost estimating and preliminary project schedule. Provide five sets of drawings, specifications and other 60% deliverable documents. AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 5 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 Design 90%- Consultant shall incorporate all the comments and concerns issued during the previous reviews. The design shall be the true reflection of City's intent for this project. Consultant shall perform internal quality control and audits for any design errors and omissions. The flare system design at this stage will include construction documents with plans, specifications, quantity calculations, bid items and construction cost estimate. Provide five sets of drawings, specifications and other 90% deliverable documents. Design Final - Consultant shall perform final updates derived from City's comments and Consultant's own internal quality control and audits. The flare system design at this stage will include construction documents with plans, specifications, quantity calculations and final construction cost estimate. Prepare design package to enable permitting and soliciting construction bids. Provide one unbound copy and one Microsoft Word electronic copy of final specifications. Provide two wet stamped hard copies, one digital copy in PDF format and one in AutoCAD Land Enabled Map 2006 format of the final stamped plans. Provide two hard copies & one digital copy in MS Word format of the final specifications. Task lA & IB-Revise Construction Documents Consultant shall revise the existing flare station construction drawings and specifications to include a performance-based alternative design for a standard enclosed LFG flare. Design items to be revisited in this task include: Blower system design and operating parameters that meet the requirements of a standard enclosed flare; VerifY foundation calculations for larger flare; Revise construction drawings: Notes and call-outs throughout the construction plan set Flare foundation details Piping and Instrumentation Diagram and Legend Flarelblower system specifications Electrical specifications. In general, the specifications for the alternative flare package will require detailed field engineering of civil and mechanical site integration to be provided by the selected construction contractor/equipment supplier. To accommodate a standard flare station package, it will be necessary for electrical/controls consultant to specifY a central control panel that combines AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 6 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 all the functions of the flare, blowers, and sump, and provides the necessary signals to RWQCP main control. For this task, we have assumed electrical/controls consultant will not design the single central control panel, but will provide a specification that is sufficiently detailed for the contractor/vendor to design and build the panel. The technical specification and revised bid schedule may include allowances for a system integrator and/or a special inspection to confirm that the alternative installation will perform as required. Task 2 -Permits and Environmental Documents Estimate priority and toxic pollutants and evaluate impacts to R WQCP (Plant 617) and landfill's (Plant 2721) Title V Permit. Should evaluation indicate the need to provide emission offsets, the Consultant shall assist the City in identifying suitable alternatives and assist in negotiating on behalf of the City. The Consultant shall develop whatever CEQA documentation is necessary for the project. Prepare an application for an Authority to Construct (ATC) for submittal to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in sufficient lead time to receive ATC for the project schedule. The task deliverable shall include submittal of all requisite application forms and infonnation, design plans and details, equipment specifications, and air emissions estimate for priority and toxic pollutants. Respond to BAAQMD's comments and assist in securing the ATC. Assist the City in obtaining the approval from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning Commission. This includes; ifrequired; design of landscaping or architectural screenings to mitigate visual or noise impact, and information brochures for distribution at public meetings. Attend meetings with these entities and make presentations as required. Some ofthese meetings may be in evening hours. If required, assist in obtaining permits from the Santa Clara County Department of Health Services and Permit and Resource Management Departments. Prepare design package to enable permitting from local buildings authorities. Task 2B-Re-permitting Assistance (Optional) Ifthe City elects to proceed with a standard enclosed LFG flare, existing permits will need to be revised to reflect the new equipment. Consultant will assist the City to amend the following permits: BAAQMD ATC Penn it: Consultant will correspond with BAAQMD regarding the potential changes in equipment description and permit conditions. Based on BAAQMD recommendations, Consultant will prepare the required permit amendment application and provide all requested supporting information, including adjusted dispersion modeling results due to lower exhaust temperature and increased stack height. AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 7 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment review: Consultant will provide graphic renderings and other product descriptions needed for internal submittal and review by the City. These are anticipated to consist of: Color graphic renderings of flare station elevation views from two angles (park side and street side). Photographs of existing similar equipment installations. Infonnation on available finishes and colors. This task does not include staff time or expenses for educational presentations or field trips, but such assistance can be provided as additional services if requested by the City. Task 3-Decommissioning Existing Flare System Upon start up and commissioning of the new flare stack, the City intends to decommission the existing flare. The City may choose to demolish and safely dispose of the existing flare. Consultant shall develop a plan and write procedures to decommission the existing flare stack (A3) on the landfill property. The decommissioning plant shall include a survey to identify the potential hazardous materials to be processed as part of demolition contract. The decommissioning plan shall meet the requirements of all applicable regulatory agencies such as City's Fire Department. The Consultant shall develop a plan and write specifications to safely demolish the decommissioned flare. The demolition specifications shall include adequate details to enable the City to solicit bids from the Contractors. Task 4 -Services During Bidding Consultant shall assist the City in preparation of construction bid packages. Consultant shall respond to the requests for clarification and/or information from prospective bidders. Consultant shall assist the City with preparation of Project addenda and furnish the originals required for said addenda. Consultant shall attend and assist the City at the pre-bid conference and the walk through. Task 4A -Services During Bidding Task 4A includes providing all activities described in Task 4 but during re- bid and contractor re-selection. Depending on the equipment vendor bids, less effort may be required to review and/or compare the vendors' flare station package and control designs. Task 5 -Services During Construction AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 8 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 Consultant shall review submittals from the contractor for conformance with the Contract Documents. The Consultant shall review and return the submittal comments to the City within seven working days. Consultant shall prepare written response to the Request for Information (RFl) submitted by the contractor. The Consultant shall review, comment and return the RH responses within seven working days. Consultant shall review and validate the Contract Change Order requests submitted by contractor for accuracy and correctness, as requested by the City. As requested, the Consultant shall attend periodic Project Progress Meetings with the Contractor. Please allow for one meeting per month, at the minimum, during the construction phase. The Consultant shall provide the technical support to the City during start up and commissioning of the new flare system. The Consultant shall work with Contractor and Flare and component equipment manufacturer's representatives, as requested by the City. The Consultant shall review the "as-built" or "red line" drawings and documents maintained by the contractor during construction. Upon construction completion, the Consultant shall prepare one full size set and one electronic copy of the record drawings. The electronic copy shall be in AutoCAD Land Enabled Map 2006 format. The record drawings shall consist of annotated contract drawings and electronic files showing changes in design and construction. Task 5A -Services During Construction (Optional) Depending on the selected contractor's equipment vendor(s), additional effort may be required to review alternative flare station package and control submittals. Based on the contractor responses from first round of bidding, electrical/controls consultant recommends providing additional electrical engineering assistance during construction for electrical review services for alternative vendor designs. Electrical/controls consultant will answer questions during bidding, review the vendor design, review submittals (shop drawings and product information), answer questions during construction and prepare as-built drawings based on contractor's mark-up. END OF SECTION AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 9 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 EXHIBIT "B" SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE-AMEMDED 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 lA& IB Alternate Design -Standard Flare 2B. Pennit Assistance for Standard Flare ,., .:l. Services During Bidding 4. Services During Construction END OF SECTION AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 10 Completion No. of weeks from NTP 9 4 TBD TBD CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION -AMEMDED The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-l up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $142,525.00. CONSUL T ANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $150,460.00. 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. 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, does not exceed $142,525.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $7,935.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE Task 1 (Design) Task lA (Revise Construction Documents -Golder) Task 1B (Revise Perfonnance Based Specifications-WHK) Task 2 (Permits and Environmental Documents) Task2A (Additional BAAQMD Permitting Services) Task2B (Permit assistance for Standard Flare -as needed) Task 3 (Decommissioning Existing Flare System/Bid Package) Task 4 AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 11 NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT $39,000 $8,000 $4,800 $28,000 $5,625 $4,100 $8,800 $14,850 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 (Services During Bidding) Task 5 $21,800 (Services During Construction) Task 5A $5,300 (Services During Construction WHK -as needed) Sub-total Basic Services $140,275 Reimbursable Expenses $2,250 Total basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $142,525 Additional; Services (Not to Exceed) $7,935 Maximum Total Compensation $150,460 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. Third party reproduction services, travel (auto) mileage per City of Palo Alto's policy for site visits and meetings. B. Long distance telephone cellular phone, facsimile transmission, film, video, photographs, computer 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 $1,000.00 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-l. 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. AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 12 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C09129898 Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be considered as additional services: • Attending more than 12 meetings with regulatory agencies, such as BAAQMD. • Site specific soils investigation; • Obtaining variances for unavoidable and excessive LFG system downtime during construction, or other unanticipated air quality non-compliance; • Airport impact study or mitigation design; • Amendments to existing facility's Hazardous Materials Business Plan or Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan; • Field sampling and/or laboratory analysis. END OF SECTION AMENDMENT NO.1 CONTRACT C09129898 13 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY April 9, 2012 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Request for Authorization to Increase Existing Contract with the Law Firm of Stubbs & Leone by an Additional $200,000 For a Total Contract Not to Exceed Amount of $385,000 The City Attorney's Office requests authorization to increase and amend the existing contract with the law firm of Stubbs & Leone, a Professional Corporation by an additional $200,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $385,000 for legal services relating to defense of the City in tort litigation matters. Stubbs & Leone has defended the City in various tort litigation matters since 2004. The current contract with Stubbs & Leone for $185,000 covered litigation defense services since January 2011 in two matters. One of these matters has settled. The other matter is scheduled for trial. This amendment brings the total contract to an amount not to exceed $385,000 for services through trial. Funding for this contract does not require additional budgetary authority as it can be accommodated within the Office of the City Attorney’s budget and the legal contingency fund for FY 2012. Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney Updated: 4/4/2012 7:22 AM by James Keene Page 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 2678) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 2678) Summary Title: Mitchell Park Construction Contract Monthly Report Title: Submittal of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Monthly Construction Contract Report and Council Direction to Staff to Continue Construction Contract Monthly Reports From:City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1)Accept this update on the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (MPL&CC) construction contract change orders; and 2)Direct staff to continue to submit monthly reports to Council and to take related actions which Council may direct. Executive Summary The MPL&CC construction is approximately 71% complete (based on expenditures). Council has authorized a 20% construction contract contingency ceiling for unanticipated construction costs and established specific project reporting requirements in order to manage costs. Actual change orders approved to date total $1,676,174 or about 7% of the base construction contract amount. Background On September 12, 2011, Council authorized an increase in change order authority and a ceiling for the MPL&CC construction contract from 10% to 20% to cover unanticipated construction costs. Council also directed staff to provide Council with a Monthly Report on Change Orders with Flintco, the general contractor. Discussion To date, 14 change orders have been approved for a total amount of $1,676,174. This amount constitutes about 7% of the base construction contract amount. Council has authorized change orders up to 20% of the base contract amount; leaving about 13% remaining. A breakdown of the change orders and the key components of each are contained in Table 1 listed below with a April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 2678) brief description of each. Please recognize that change orders can include reductions and credits as well as new costs. You will see this, for example, reflected in Change Order #5 in Table 1 below. Note: The last change order (14) is newly approved since the last monthly report to Council. Table 1 Change Order Amount Change Order Summary 1 $41,725 Eight extra work items including the pruning of trees, clean- up of the old building, and removing conduit found during site clearing and grading. 2 $33,102 Four extra work items including the rerouting of a storm drain around tree roots and the addition of a new manhole that the drawings showed being present but wasn’t. 3 $215,501 10 extra work items including an adjustment needed due to tree root interference, an upgrade in wall insulation capability, and design coordination needed for steel installation. 4 $242,754 11 extra work items including the installation of dowels at additional locations, the installation of thicker glass railings to increase stability, increased gas transmission line coordination, and extra concrete water protection. 5 $4,436 24 extra work items including an extra light fixture cost, fire safety drawing coordination, and a variety of additional required supplies totaling $70,536 minus credit given for three of the 24 work items including spare fixtures no longer required and reimbursed City of Palo Alto dump fees totaling $66,100. 6 $25,123 Seven extra work items including additional gas main protection, curb strengthening, and deck support for the Building A green roof. 7 $74,304 19 extra work items including HVAC driven floor adjustments, electrical system adjustments, data cable rerouting, and a new load break cabinet totaling $109,965 minus credit given for two of the 19 work items including stones for the Arch provided by the artist and value engineering totaling $35,661. 8 $385,251 10 extra work items including additional fill, perforated metal panel ceiling work, various waterproofing, and conduit. 9 $195,706 18 extra work items including multiple curb installations, a basketball court slab, and an art sculpture foundation. April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 2678) 10 $78,514 18 extra work items including a Flintco field staff supplement, waterproofing, plumbing and electrical system alterations, and tree protection measures totaling $79,226 minus credit given for one of the 18 work items identified as plumbing fixture changes totaling $712. 11 $224,662 14 extra work items including beam strengthening, interior & exterior roof tank pipe supports, electric vehicle chargers, load break cabinet bollards, and additional steel. 12 $20,347 Seven extra work items including A/V work, electrical changes, and a roof access ladder. 13 $80,721 13 extra work items including metal stud framing, light fixtures, and miscellaneous electrical work. 14 $54,028 Five extra work items including a thickened roof edge, equipment curbs, a Building A ramp, signage support, and a book drop. TOTAL $1,676,174 TOTAL CO’s 1-14 ***For further information about each of the change orders see the attached corresponding Contract Change Order Scopes of Work. (Attachment A) Change order requests submitted by the contractor are typically bundled together on a monthly basis and summarized in one single change order. On September 12, 2011, Council further directed staff to submit any change order request which exceeds $85,000 to Council for approval. Staff is interpreting this to mean an individual change order line item more than $85,000. (You may note over the course of a month a number of on-site decisions are made, in order to not slow the project down, which when complied later can add up to more than $85,000). Thus, there are no change order requests greater than $85,000 which staff is recommending Council approve at this time. (Bundled Change Order 11, for example, totals $224,662, but includes as series of change orders, none of which exceeds $85,000). Council further directed that staff report to Council on oversight activities. Therefore, attached is the most recent Library Bond Oversight Committee agenda (Attachment B) and Library Bond Oversight Committee minutes (Attachment C). On October 17, 2011, Council requested information on two other related topics and these are addressed below. 1)Expenditures for New Consultants The City Attorney’s Office has hired three Consultants to assist with the review of construction costs requested by Council. The table below shows the amount encumbered and the amount spent to date. April 09, 2012 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 2678) Contract Amount Amount Expended ZFA Structural Engineers $25,000 $17,850 Jarvis Fay (Law Firm) $75,000 $42,855 Reidinger Consulting (Scheduling) $85,000 $72,327 2)Outstanding Change Orders Proposed by the Construction Contractor (Flintco) In addition to knowing the amount of the Change Orders approved to date by the City (above), Council members asked the value of the outstanding change orders proposed by Flintco but not yet approved or rejected. This information is contained in Attachment D. The first graph on Attachment D shows both Potential Change Orders (PCOs) (which is an internal list compiled by the City’s construction manager of certain work items that could eventually result in extra work claims)s and actual Change Order Requests (CORs) , a subset of the PCOs, which have been submitted by Flintco to date. (Note: All CORs have been temporarily retracted by Flintco while they work on adjustments to them. Flintco has been notified that the retraction may jeopardize the ability of the City to act on these CORs). The latest Monthly Report concerning all Library Projects (“Palo Alto Library Projects”) is included as Attachment E. These will no longer be forwarded to Council via a separate staff report. Resource Impact There are no resource impacts associated with providing the monthly reports to Council. The approved change orders are within the Capital Improvement Program Project (CIP) Budget PE- 09006 for the MPL&CC project. Policy Implications There are no policy implications in providing the monthly reports to Council. Environmental Review Providing monthly reports on this topic to Council does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: ·A -MPL COs # 1-14 (PDF) ·B -LBOC Agenda_1-24-2012 (PDF) ·C -LBOC Minutes_10-25-2011 (PDF) ·D -Summary Charts_3-31-2012 (PDF) ·E -PAL Monthly Report -January and February 2012 (PDF) April 09, 2012 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 2678) Prepared By:Philip L. Bobel, Interim Asst. Director, Engineering Services Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager S:/pwd/eng/kb projects/cips/library/meetings/bond Agenda Library Bond Oversight Committee meeting Quarterly Meeting January 24, 2012 7th floor conference room 4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Committee Members: James Schmidt (Chair), Sandra Hirsh (Vice-Chair), John Melton, Dena Mossar, Alice Smith Staff: (Public Works) Phil Bobel, Karen Bengard, Debra Jacobs, (Library) Monique leConge; (Administrative Services) Joe Saccio, Tarun Narayan, (Auditor) Jim Pelletier, Ian Hagerman, (Attorney) Melissa Tronquet Others: (Turner Construction Management) Greg Smith ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS APPROVAL OF MINUTES – October 25, 2011 AGENDA REVIEW & REVISIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. DISCUSSION – Construction Progress (Greg Smith) a. Mitchell Park Library & Community Center b. Temporary Main Library 2. DISCUSSION – Design Progress (Karen Bengard) a. Main Library NEW BUSINESS 3. DISCUSSION – Outside Auditor’s Report (Ian Hagerman) 4. DISCUSSION – Timing of Main Library bond issuance 5. DISCUSSION -- Draft Financial Report Summary from Administrative Services (Tarun Narayan) a. Expenditures to date – summary spreadsheet S:/pwd/eng/kb projects/cips/library/meetings/bond 6. ACTION – Approval of Quarterly Report to Finance Committee 7. DISCUSSION– Mitchell Park Library & Community Center contingency issue (Phil Bobel) 8. Next Steps a. Next meeting: April 24, 2012 Meeting minutes Library Bond Oversight Committee meeting Quarterly Meeting October 25, 2011 Community Room, Downtown Library (*Note change in location) 4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Committee Members: Dena Mossar (Chair), James Schmidt (Vice-Chair), Alice Smith, Sandra Hirsh, John Melton Staff: (Public Works) Phil Bobel, Karen Bengard, Debra Jacobs, (Library) Monique leConge; (Administrative Services) Joe Saccio, Tarun Narayan, (Auditor) Michael Edmonds, Ian Hagerman, (Attorney) Melissa Tronquet Others: (Turner Construction Management) Greg Smith ROLL CALL 4:02 pm. Quorum. Absent: Smith ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 26, 2011 Motion to delete 2e. Unanimous AGENDA REVIEW & REVISIONS No changes UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. DISCUSSION – Construction Progress (Greg Smith) a. Downtown Library -- Kudos on job well done. b. Mitchell Park Library & Community Center -- Trying to close in building, get site paved, mitigate (e) moisture due to early rains. Partnering will continue. Third party review is underway to analyze project challenges & consequences. Project will still come in less than bond measure cost estimate. Reserves will be likely approx $7 million for MPL & CC. Change orders are being driven by low bid environment. 2. DISCUSSION – Design Progress (Karen Bengard) a. Temporary Main Library -- Finding usual hidden conditions. b. Main Library – i. Community meeting last evening. Part of study effort to explore connectivity. Gardeners less resistive to idea ii. Parks & Rec Commission and LAC this week 1. HRB, ARB in November 2. Council in December iii. Main Library added 1.7 million for added scope of 10 items that went to Council on July 25. iv. Artist was at Community meeting and showed demonstration of art project. NEW BUSINESS 3. DISCUSSION -- Draft Financial Report Summary from Administrative Services (Tarun Narayan) a. Expenditures to date – summary spreadsheet i. Auditor will recommend that Staff costs be reimbursed by Bond Measure. ii. To Finance committee on Dec 6. at 600K in staff costs to date will be increasing iii. Report is positive in tone. Minor items were immediately corrected by staff. iv. Take up in January at LBOC v. Precedence for including staff costs? Have been included in Enterprise Fund capital bonds. 1. Not originally part of $76 M cost estimate 2. Other entities have charged staff costs vi. Previous Council direction was that staff costs shouldn’t be included. vii. New vendors. Creative Machines and Big D. 4. ACTION – Approval of Quarterly Report to Finance Committee a. Math error possible in columns 5 & 6. Needs to be corrected before committee can vote to approve it. 5. ACTION– Mitchell Park Library & Community Center contingency issue a. Discussion of MPL & CC contingency issue. b. Received report from staff on Council actions relative to MPL & CC contingency issue. 6. ACTION – Officer elections a. Chair - Jim Schmidt b. Vice Chair - Sandra Hirsh c. Elected unanimously. Effective after this meeting. 7. Next Steps a. Next meeting: January 24, 2012 b. Next Council memo in November. Adjourn 4:50 pm. Mitchell Park Library Approved Change Orders (CO's) and Outstanding Potential Change Orders (PCO's) $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,0000%71%100%Percent Completion Co s t Approved CO's Outstanding PCO's Flintco COR's 10% Contingency 20% Contingency Revised 11/10/11 Library Bond Fund Utilization Projections (February 2012) (Dollars in Millions) 4 (DT) 5.212 (DT) 4.418 (DT) $50M (Mitchell) $49.043M (Mitchell) $41.027M (Mitchell) $18M (Main) $18M (Main) $21.706M * (Main) 4 (Other) 3.745 (Other) 1.626 (Other) Cu r r e n t P r o j e c t i o n En g i n e e r ' s Es t i m a t e Bo n d E l e c t i o n Es t i m a t e Dollars (Millions) Downtown Library Mitchell Park Library Main Library Temporary Libraries & Bond Costs $68.777M $76M *The Main Library Projection was increased following Council approval on July 25, 2011 (Staff Report #1438) of approximately $1.7M of design amendments and future building improvements related to deferred maintenance, code upgrades and service enhancements. Palo Alto Library Projects Bi-Monthly Progress Report January - February 2012 Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Main Library Mitchell Park Main Entry Table of Contents Mitchell Park Library Status Report Management Summary Action Items Schedule Milestones Main Library Status Report Management Summary Library Closure Plan Financial Summary Mitchell Park Library & Community Center 3700 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto The new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center is a highly sustainable joint-use facility that will be a vibrant destination for civic, cultural, social, educational, and recreational activities. The new center, which will replace undersized and aged facilities, is made possible through Measure N and the strong partnership between the city and the community. During construction, temporary library and teen center facilities are available at the Cubberley Community Center. WEB CAM LINK: http://173.164.239.206/view/viewer_index.shtml January - February 2012 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION BEGAN: September 2010 SCHEDULED OPENING: Fall 2012 PROJECT TEAM OWNER: City of Palo Alto Public Works (650) 329-2295 ARCHITECT: Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning Inc. South San Francisco, CA (650) 871-0709 GENERAL CONTRACTOR: Flintco Pacific, Inc. Folsom, CA (916) 351-5400 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: Turner Construction Company San Jose, CA (408) 277-6370 FOR MORE INFORMATION www.cityofpaloalto.org/libraryprojects KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS • Middlefield Street improvements UPCOMING ACTIVITIES • Exterior Wall Dry in & Finishes • Window installation in progress Library & Community Center North Elevation Library Roofing Started February 2012 Library Window Installation has Started Street Work in Final Phase Community Center Interior Framing & Above Ceiling Rough In Community Center Exterior Waterproofing Library Metal Siding Supports Library Metal Soffit Framing Complete Library Stucco Starting Progress Photos Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Management Summary January - February 2012 Noteworthy Accomplishments • Exterior walls spray on waterproofing 90% complete • Exterior wall sheet metal flashing 70% complete • Middlefield signal is working, street is paved and sidewalk is open • Occupancy separation plan check complete Current Project Challenges: • Exterior wall dry-in is two months away ◊ No net progress on dry-in for the last two months ◊ Window mock ups failed water leak testing ◊ Temporary dry-in is incomplete • Processing the high volume of change documentation and providing direction ◊ Settle tube steel and exterior wall framing changes ◊ Settle waterproofing and sheet metal changes • Submittals impacting material delivery and inspection ◊ Photovoltaic and Solar Hot Water systems need separate permits ◊ Vehicle chargers need a separate permit. ◊ Deferred submittals for glass railings, elevators and library shelving need to complete plan check ◊ Architects Supplemental Instructions need to complete plan check Safety • Contractor has no lost time incidents in 115,000 hours of work to date with 4 incidents reported • Public Safety is a priority outside the fence. No incidents reported to date • Flintco has created designated walkways in the Library to reduce tripping hazards. Quality Control • City & Special Inspectors re-inspect work se veral times ◊ Work is not always ready when inspection is called for. ◊ Work does not always pass inspection ◊ Inspector has set minimum requirements for interior inspection and Flintco is preparing a plan. • Quality Control Observation Reports : 54 have been issued and 7 remain open • Glazing contractor is having difficulty meeting quality control standards. Schedule: • Flintco’s reported completion date has slipped 3 months since the beginning of the year • Updates are not tied to baseline schedule. Maintain baseline as built for contract purposes • City & TCCO are reviewing schedule extension requests from contractor Next Key Milestones: • Building Dry In: Library 4/23; Teen Center 5/22 Community Center 5/9 Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Schedule Milestones February 2012 Activity ID Bldg-A Bldg-B Bldg-C Pad Certification 10/27/10 10/27/10 10/27/10 Foundation Complete 12/28/11 1/16/11 1/7/11 Frame & Place Slab on Grade 2/11/11 5/6/11 5/3/11 Top out Structural Steel Frame 5/31/11 4/15/11 5/12/11 2nd Floor Poured 4/16/11 X X Roof Poured 5/31/11 6/24/11 6/21/11 Frame Ext Walls EXT 4000 9/2/11 9/26/11 9/2/11 Building Dried In EXT 5555 4/23/12 5/22/12 5/9/12 Frame Interior Walls INT 1130 5/24/11 6/1/11 7/1/11 Insp - OK to hang drywall INT 1085/2090 6/13/12 5/10/12 7/5/12 Insp - MEP overhead AINT 1220 9/20/11 9/20/11 9/20/11 Casework Start Date FIN 10159/1090 8/16/12 7/30/12 8/23/12 Ceiling Complete FIN 1120 9/14/12 9/4/12 8/6/12 Flooring Complete FIN 1180/1250 9/13/12 9/18/12 9/17/12 Permanent Power EQU2020 6/12/12 9/11/12 8/17/12 Heat & Air Conditioning Online EQU 1100 7/18/12 10/9/12 9/10/12 Elevator Complete AEQU1090 8/13/12 x x Parking Paving Complete STE 1410 6/21/12 x x Substantial Completion PCO 1555 12/17/12 12/17/12 12/17/12 Certificate of Occupancy PCO 5020 2/4/13 2/4/13 2/4/13 Building Air out and Commissioning complete EQU 1070 2/17/13 1/25/13 2/22/13 Completed Completion Date Main Library 1213 Newell Road, Palo Alto Exterior View February 2012 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION STARTS: Winter 2012-2013 SCHEDULED OPENING: Spring 2014 PROJECT TEAM OWNER: City of Palo Alto Public Works (650) 329-2295 ARCHITECT: Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning Inc. South San Francisco, CA (650) 871-0709 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: TBD FOR MORE INFORMATION www.cityofpaloalto.org/libraryprojects KEY ACCOMPLSHMENTS • Design Development Complete • Council Approved Scope Expansion UPCOMING ACTIVITIES • Parking & Circulation Study • Constructability Review The Palo Alto Main Library renovation and addition is in the final phase of design “Better Libraries for Palo Alto” projects, funded by the passage of Measure N by voters in 2008. The project incorporates upgrades to the historic building’s structural, electrical and mechanical systems while preserving the integrity of architect Edwards Durrell Stone’s iconic design. The new addition includes a program room and additional restrooms to extend the services of this heavily-used branch. The project targets LEED certification. Main Library Management Summary February 2012 Noteworthy Accomplishments • Design development complete • Council approved scope expansion • Competed hazardous material report • Published 100% design development estimate Current Project Challenges: • Final construction documents • Bidding project Safety • No activities Quality Control • No activities Schedule: • Construction begins Spring 2013 Next Key Milestones: • Constructability review of 95% construction documents • Parking & circulation study printed 3/29/2012 MEASURE N ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE PROJECTED RESERVES 09010 Cubberley Temporary Library 645,000 619,687 25,313 09005 Downtown Library 4,000,000 5,212,000 4,418,111 793,889 09006 Mitchell Park Library & C.C.50,000,000 49,043,000 41,027,138 8,015,862 11000 Main Library 18,000,000 20,100,000 21,705,700 -1,605,700 11010 Art Center Temporary Library 500,000 506,309 -6,309 Bonding and Financing Costs 4,000,000 500,000 500,000 0 BONDED AMOUNT 76,000,000 76,000,000 68,776,945 7,223,055 - - - February-2012 FINANCIAL SUMMARY BUDGET COSTS The combined projects currently have a projected cost reserves of $7,223,055 Temporary Library at Cubberley finished below estimate. Balance is held for move out costs. Downtown Library is now finished. Budget will update when all contracts are closed out. Mitchell Park Library and Community Center bids were significantly below estimate. Bond costs have been reforecast and the financing budget is reduced by $2,100,000 from the last report Main Library Budget is increased $2,100,000 from financing budget reduction. Council scope increases and current estimates still project higher costs. Reserves are based on contracts awarded to date. Future awards will affect reserves. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2736) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 5 (ID # 2736) Summary Title: Cubberley Guiding Principles Title: Recommendation that Council Adopt the Draft Cubberley Guiding Principles, Accept the City Manager’s Appointments to the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and Review the Conceptual Site Plans Prepared Jointly by the Staff of the PAUSD and City of Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the draft Cubberley Guiding Principles, accept the City Manager’s appointments to the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and review the conceptual site plans prepared jointly by the staff of the PAUSD and City of Palo Alto. Executive Summary In November of 2011, the City Council established a process and timeline to engage the community in a discussion regarding the future of Cubberley. The timeline anticipated achieving a group consensus on a vision for the future of the Cubberley site one year prior to the City’s current lease expiration in 2014. The process included by the end of 2013 (the City’s lease terminates in 2014) forming three groups: the Technical Advisory Committee made up of top executive staff of School District and the City; a Community Advisory Committee to be appointed jointly by the City Manager (with recommendations from the School Superintendent); and a Policy Advisory Committee composed of three Councilmembers (Yeh, Shepherd and Klein) and two School Board members (Mitchell and Townsend). The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met the first three months of this year to establish baseline information regarding school enrollment and facility needs. April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 5 (ID # 2736) The TAC worked jointly to produce a set of conceptual site plans showing several Cubberley re-use alternatives. These concepts are intended to solicit Council comments in advance of discussion by the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) scheduled to begin meeting in early May. The Council’s action in November 2011 scheduled the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) to begin meetings shortly after the CAC was up and running (in June 2012). The Council also requested a CAC report to the full Council in October 2012. The Council’s November action also requested that staff return to Council with a set of Guiding Principles for use by the PAC and CAC during their discussions. The Guiding Principles to reflect community values of transparency ensuring that the public is invited to meetings and offered opportunities to interact with both groups. In addition, the Guiding Principles set up very broad objectives to clarify that the process is intended to be collaboration between the City and the School district emphasizing joint use of the facilities where possible. Cubberley is a significant element of the City’s complete infrastructure needs. Both the on-going maintenance and the anticipated capital improvements are estimated to be an excess of $10 million over the next four years. The work the City and School District are doing to plan for the future community and educational needs will be important factors for the Council and community to understand as our infrastructure backlog is quantified. Background and Discussion In establishing the Cubberley process and timeline, the City Council raised the following issues (see Excerpt Minutes attached) in its discussions: Brown Act Because the PAC is a standing committee of the Council and the School Board configured to last longer than 6 months, it will be subject to the Brown Act. Primarily, this means its meetings will have regular agendas posted 72 hours prior to regular scheduled meetings and 24 hours prior to special meetings. Minutes and staff reports will be attached to agendas and made available to the public at or prior to meetings. Because the CAC is appointed by the City Manager, it is not a standing committee of the Council and therefore not technically subject to the Brown Act. The April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 5 (ID # 2736) Council, however, directed that the CAC function to the extent possible as if Brown Act regulations applied to meeting agendas. This means that agendas and written materials would be made available to the public at or prior to meetings. Members of the public would be invited to attend meetings and would be given time to address the CAC. Guiding Principles Staff prepared the attached draft principles to guide both the PAC and the CAC over the course of their discussions. The intent is to establish both committees as fully transparent and publically accessible groups. Because the CAC is appointed by the City Manager and not a Council standing committee, it would not technically fall under the Brown Act. The Guiding Principles make it clear that the CAC’s business would always be open to the public who would have opportunity to interact with the CAC on a regular basis at their publically noticed meetings. Process and Timeline The City’s Cubberley lease expires in December 2014. At that time, the lease may be extended an additional 5 years upon mutual consent of the City and the District. The City’s schedule assumes providing the District notice of its intentions regarding renewal of the lease at the end of 2013 to provide the District with one year’s notice prior to the lease expiration. The Council and PAUSD process focuses on reaching a consensus on whether to renew by the end of 2012. This would leave much of 2013 for the City and the District to work through lease renewal discussions prior to the un-official Cubberley December 2013 extension notification deadline. Council also directed that the PAC begin meeting shortly after the CAC was up and running in June 2012. Council envisioned the PAC and the CAC’s work running roughly parallel enabling regular communication between the two groups prior to the Council and School Board decision making. The City Council directed that the CAC provide at least one status report to the full Council in October 2012. Technical Advisory Committee Status and Conceptual Options City and District staff established the conceptual baseline school growth needs based on District growth projections. The square footages used in the conceptual site plans equate to one additional elementary school (500 student), one middle school (600 student) and a small (500 student) High School. The conceptual plans show the elementary school located on the 525 San Antonio property, which was April 09, 2012 Page 4 of 5 (ID # 2736) recently purchased by the District and outside of the Cubberley area. Option 1 shows the Middle and High School developed stand alone and independent of any city community uses. Subsequent Options show increased use of joint facilities such as gym, theater and studio/classroom spaces. Joint use reduces overall development and parking needs as well as a lower total construction cost. The preliminary options developed jointly with PAUSD and their architect should be considered conceptual drafts intended to present alternative for subsequent discussions. The options only provide some high level detail as to a foundation and starting point for the Cubberley vision process. Connectivity The City Council directed that the CAC mission include addressing the connectivity of school sites in the general vicinity of Cubberley and requested that a member of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) be made a CAC member. Staff has reached out to PABAC which is still deliberating on who the representative will be. The CAC’s discussions regarding connectivity will be a part of the CAC’s conceptual site planning review. Planning and Transportation Role The Council deferred the role of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in the Cubberley decision making process. While the Council may decide to proactively involve the PTC during or after the CAC completes its work, staff will include a PTC liaison on the CAC to provide consistency when the Council engages the PTC over the course of the CAC and PAC discussions later this year. Timeline As discussed above, the CAC and PAC are scheduled to meet over the course of 2012 concluding its recommendations to Council in early 2013. This timeline allows the Council to engage in lease negotiations with the School District two years prior to the expiration of the lease in 2014. The timeline anticipates a decision on the lease by the end of 2013 providing a one year notice period if either party decides to not exercise the 5 year option to extend the lease. Environmental Review Environmental review will be required for any project anticipated for Cubberley. The anticipated discussion of conceptual plans, however, will not require April 09, 2012 Page 5 of 5 (ID # 2736) environmental review. Once there is agreement and the project is no longer speculative, environmental review will be required. Attachments: Attachment A: Draft Guiding Principles (DOCX) Attachment B: Cubberley Community Advisory Panel (PDF) Attachment C: Cubberley Site Options (PDF) Attachment D: 11-01-11 Cubberley Excerpt Minutes (PDF) Prepared By: Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager Department Head: James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Attachment A DRAFT City Council Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee City Manager Community Advisory Committee Guiding Principles Adopted April 9, 2012 The Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) consists of two Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board members appointed by the School Board President and three City Council members appointed by the Mayor. The PAC shall be the primary advisor to the Council and the School Board on issues related to the lease and possible re-use or joint use of the Cubberley campus. The Cubberley Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) is appointed by the City Manager and shall represent a broad cross section of Cubberley, neighborhoods, Schools and city- wide representatives. The CAC shall review Cubberley background and history and provide the PAC with community input including but not limited to possible re-use scenarios, alternative lease arrangements, site plan configurations, possible funding plans, identification of joint use opportunities and compatibility standards. In order to ensure consistency with existing City Council positions and policies, both the PAC and the CAC will be guided by the following principles: 1. The Committees shall maintain open and transparent processes at all times. Members of the public shall be invited to all meetings. 2. Documents, architectural drawings and other written communication provided to the Committees shall be made available to the general public as soon as possible. 3. The City is supportive of Cubberley remaining a major cultural, educational and non-profit resource very important to the community’s health and vitality. 4. The City seeks to work cooperatively with PAUSD to explore all practical means to jointly re-use the Cubberley campus for both educational and community services. 5. The City recognizes that both entities have significant financial interests in the Cubberley campus which should be evaluated as equal priorities. Attachment A 6. Both PAUSD and the City have ownership interests in portions of the campus: PAUSD owns 27 acres and the City owns 8 acres. The parties may consider relocation of its ownership interests within the site to facilitate optimal site layout and efficiency. 7. To the extent possible, facility planning, architectural design, economic analysis or other expert service costs should be shared equally between the City and PAUSD. 8. While the Policy Advisory Committee planning should occur as cooperatively as possible, the City Council representatives and the PAUSD Boardmembers will retain independent recommending authority should consensus not be reached. 9. School capacity is a significant City-wide issue considered essential to the overall health and well-being of our community. 10. The types of programs offered by the City and its contractors and sub- tenants at Cubberley enrich the community and should be preserved and enhanced wherever possible. 11. The City recognizes the potential to re-use the site as a joint City/PAUSD facility could result in stronger educational and cultural programs provided more efficiently. 12. The City Council representatives on the Policy Advisory Committee shall provide regular reports to the full Council on Cubberley planning activities. 13. Recreation facilities provided at the Cubberley campus produce important services benefitting the community at large. 14. The residential neighborhoods surrounding Cubberley are significant factors in determining the compatibility of possible building changes on the Cubberley campus. 15. Transportation issues and access to Cubberley shall be considered in evaluating possible re-use options including improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Cubberley Community Advisory Panel Group First Name Last Name Neighborhoods Fair Meadow Tom Vican Walnut Grove Tom Crystal Green Meadow Lanie Wheeler Charleston Gardens Jean Wilcox Midtown Sheri Furman PAN Ken Allen Commercial Retail Charleston Plaza Tenant Village Properties Damian Cono PTA's Fairmeadow Elementary Claire Kirner JLS Middle School John Markevitch Gunn High School Tracy Stevens Palo Alto High School Susan Bailey Cubberley Tenants Child Care Rachel Samoff Artist Lessa Bouchard Non Profit ‐Cardiac Therapy Jerry August FOPAL Jim Schmidt Park and Rec Commission TBD after next Parks & Rec Meeting 4/24 PT&C Greg Tanaka Acterra Michael Clossen PABAC TBD after next Parks & Rec Meeting City School Traffic Safety Penny Ellson Recreation and Sports League Soft Ball Mike Cobb Other TBD 3 DRAFT 20 12 -03-23 NOT FOR puauc DISTRIBUTION flJ) CITY OF ~; PALO ALTO Cubberley Community Center Current Facilities vs. Master Plan Program 4 Attachment D EXCERPT MINUTES Special Meeting November 1, 2011 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:03 P.M. Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh Absent: Price ACTION ITEMS 6. Staff Recommendation for a Process and Timeline Addressing the City’s and Palo Alto Unified School District’s (PAUSD) Interest in the Cubberley Campus and Adjacent Properties. City Manager, James Keene stated that the Staff had been working with the Palo Alto Unified School District’s (PAUSD) School Superintendent on a proposal regarding the School District’s interest and plans for the Cubberley site. The proposal had two components: 1) to focus during calendar year 2012, alternatives on issues leading to joint recommendations on plans, and calendar year 2013 on lease renewal issues, and 2) to layout during the first year, a recommended process on how to work through issues related to site planning. Deputy City Manager, Stephen Emslie clarified that Staff Report ID#2249 had indicated that Council had directed Staff to setup a special recreation fund when the rental income from the City’s payments to the District no longer was required. He said the direction was for consideration only. Herb Borock said it would be helpful to obtain a history of the payments the City made to the School District for the past 25-years for the Cubberley site as well as the City Improvement Program (CIP) expenditures. The information would help the Council in their decision to move forward on a lease renewal and the covenant to not develop Attachment D at other sites. Additionally, the public may want to see the information. Council Member Klein asked who would be appointing the members for the Community Advisory Committee (CAC). Mr. Emslie stated that Staff envisioned for the School Board Members and City Staff to work together in appointing a panel of members. Council Member Klein stated it would be a Staff appointed committee and not subject to the Brown Act. Mr. Emslie said that was correct but the Brown Act rules could be adopted if the Council desired. Council Member Klein asked if the list of community organizations was meant to be exclusive or welcoming of more. Mr. Emslie said it was welcoming of more. Council Member Klein stated that the role of the CAC would be to work on issues at the same time as the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). He asked how that would work. Mr. Emslie stated Staff envisioned the meetings to be driven by site planning and architectural issues of how the campus could be shared. One committee could react on a proposal and provide input to the other. The PAC could send issues and questions to the CAC to explore. The two committees would run in parallel and blend together. City Manager Keene stated that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) would work independently. Once the PAC and CAC were up and running, a decision could be made on how things should be staged or sequenced. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to direct Staff to form a: 1. Collaborative PAUSD and City Process Timeline on Cubberley. An initial 14 month process which anticipates reaching City and PAUSD consensus on a Cubberley Master Plan by the end of 2012. Such Master Plan may include alternative scenarios. Attachment D 2. A Technical Advisory Committee to be established, co-chaired by the City Manager and Superintendent, focusing on developing the technical foundations for eventual policy decision making. TAC members would also include City departmental representatives including Community Services, Administrative Services, Planning, Attorney’s Office and Public Works, and their PAUSD counterparts. 3. A Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) is proposed to be comprised of two PAUSD Board Members and three City Council Members appointed by the Mayor and Board President. 4. Community Advisory Committee (CAC) will be a cross section group of community stakeholders (15-20 members). FURTHERMORE, that the Ventura and Greendell school sites and connectivity issues shall be included in the study; that the representatives of the Chamber, PACC and one or more environmental organizations should be included as part of the CAC; that the CAC commence meeting in February or March 2012 and report to the PAC no later than October 15, 2012 which shall commence its discussions on receipt of the CAC report; the CAC be appointed by City and PAUSD staff and not be covered by the Brown Act although its processes shall be transparent and similar to the Brown Act. Council Member Klein raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of two committees working in parallel. He preferred the traditional practice for committees to work in accordance to a timeline, report back to the Council, and in this instance to the School District as well, and then move forward. Council Member Shepherd asked that the Greendale School site be included in the planning process. She asked how transparency would work without Brown Act rules. Mr. Keene said Staff would look at options to keep the Council and the community well informed through communication and a webpage. Council Member Shepherd stated she did not want decisions to be made behind closed doors. Mr. Keene stated that Guiding Principles would need to be established on how the process would work and how business would be conducted. Attachment D Council Member Shepherd asked about the 8-acres. She said the city owned them and the community does not consider them part of the public school portion of the Cubberley. She said this may limit development prospects and asked how quickly that issue could be addressed. Mr. Keene stated that could take place during the initial period when the TAC assembled statistical information and programming needs. Council Member Shepherd said she felt the Motion was even-handed and placed the School District and the City on a level for input and exploration of the site. She noted that the 8-acres were obtained by the City 10-years ago to build something such as a community center. This process was a fresh way of looking at the site. She hoped that the School Board and the City would articulate on what public education could look like and to work through the community center inspired at that location. She expressed the need for transparency as the process moved forward. Council Member Schmid raised concerns regarding moving forward on setting up committees without a clear sense on what they would be working on. He felt the focus of attention should be clarified prior to voting. The City was dealing with a lease and a covenant to not develop. He stated the document covered three issues: the City’s lease at the Cubberley site; an agreement to not develop other school properties in town, and to have City-sponsored child-care at each campus. He asked what the Committee’s involvement would be in these issues. He spoke of the $7 million payments from the City that had been divided between the three aspects of the lease and covenant and asked if the Committees would be dealing with these issues. Mr. Keene stated that was not the intent. The proposed process was to separate the planning and land use demands from the lease and covenant discussions. Staff and the Council would revisit the process after land use scenarios were developed to help with the lease and covenant issues in calendar year 2013. Council Member Schmid stated that Greendale was a pre-school, an elementary school, and day-care located on the property and asked how the City would address the School District’s needs since they conflicted with City issues. Mr. Keene stated it would be difficult to address those issues at this point. A clear understanding would need to be made on what the Attachment D drivers and implications were which would be part of alternative scenarios. Council Member Schmid said it was important to have a clear understanding of what was being done during the first year prior to moving forward. He said the Staff Report noted that the School District was asked to update their school population predictions. He noted that the Housing Element was 4-years overdue; the City had not given public notice of how many houses would be built by 2014, and was in the process of committing to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process regarding a 25-year growth rate that could bring the Palo Alto’s population to 80,000. He said it would be difficult for the School District to come up with a plan without an idea of what the City’s long-term forecast was for the community. The City should have a clear statement on the City’s current Housing Element and what the City was going to do with the future RHNA allocations before the technical processes begin. Mr. Keene agreed with the challenges outlined by Council Member Schmid. He said Staff anticipated having scenarios rather than a plan during the first year. He said implications could be made if the City was fortunate to see the future numbers in growth by March 2012. He felt the City should use alternative assumptions rather than hold up the scenario planning process if those numbers were not reached. Council Member Schmid noted the PAC would consist of three Council Members and two Board Members. He raised concerns regarding the statement “PAC’s mission to forward a recommendation.” He asked if the Council had the right to say that the Committee had a majority that would forward a recommendation. He felt there should be some sensitivity to the School District and to consider the PAC’s mission to reach consensus or to have both sides agree to a recommendation. Mr. Keene said the Staff report noted that Staff viewed the Council and the Board Members to be intermediaries between Staff and the governing bodies. Staff did not see the Board Members having authority to make decisions on behalf of the governing bodies. They were to keep the lines of communications open and flowing. There was a need for mutual interest and consensus between the School District, the City, and stakeholders in order for the process to work correctly. Council Member Schmid suggested changing the verbiage from “a recommendation” to “joint recommendation.” Attachment D Council Member Shepherd stated it was her understanding there could be a conflict if a member lived within a certain radius of the site. She asked for the City Attorney to clarify the issue. City Attorney, Molly Stump a process could be established to not have conflict issues. If the Council used the procedure to setup a multi- member body that doesn’t trigger the Brown Act it did not mean you had to have closed meetings. Council Member Holman said the meetings should be disseminated to groups and publicly noticed. She did not want to see a website developed where citizens would need to check daily to see if a meeting was scheduled for the following day. She asked if the Maker of the Motion had accepted to include the Greendale School site in the planning process. Mr. Keene confirmed that it was accepted. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add the Bicycle Advisory Committee to the list of representatives. Council Member Holman noted that the PAC was expected to report back to the Council and the Board but was not identified as a systematic process. She favored a more iterative process. She suggested that PAC report out to the City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), who would comment on the progress as the process moved forward. Mr. Keene stated that Staff envisioned issues to unfold as the process moved forward. The PAC would report back to their governing bodies with periodic updates to the Council. He said a specific date had not yet been determined to appoint the PAC and that the Council may want to wait until there was feedback from the community. Council Member Holman stated that the Staff Report noted that Staff envisioned the PAC to work under the Guiding Principles adopted by the Council and the School District. She asked where the Guiding Principles were. Mr. Keene stated there should be a process or period when the Guiding Principles would be adopted as the group was formed and opened to any input from the Council. He said Staff could move forward and Attachment D setup the CAC if the Motion passed. The first order of business would be to structure the Guiding Principles. Council Member Holman stated that the project was enormous for Palo Alto. The process needed to be well thought-out, transparent, and done correctly. She wanted to make clear that the 8-acres at the Cubberley site was not referred to as “the 8-acres”. “The 8-acres” described a specific piece of land that contained irregular boundaries around buildings and would not allow flexibility to swap pieces with the School District during the planning phase. Mr. Keene stated that Staff would be obligated to come back to the Council for direction on how to work through any technical issues. Council Member Holman asked that Charleston Plaza and Green Meadow neighborhood be included for planning purposes. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to include Charleston Plaza and the Green Meadow neighborhood as part of the land-use planning component. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Holman stated she hoped that the Green Meadow neighborhood would be heard by the CAC for good connectivity to the school site. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER for the sake of clarity that the PAC shall report out regularly and systematically to the City Council. Council Member Holman asked that the P&TC have an active role in land use planning. The site had many issues that included horizontal mixed use, site planning on site, connectivity issues with commercial development and residential neighborhood. To add the P&TC only made common sense. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the Planning and Transportation Commission have an active role in land-use planning to be determined at a future date. Attachment D Council Member Burt asked Staff how they would integrate the P&TC into the process with their normal role as an advising body to the Council. Mr. Keene stated that Staff could not say at this point what the alternatives, scenarios, and plans would be at the end of the year. He preferred an approach where the Staff would report back to the Council and for the Council to give direction that the issue was at an appropriate stage for the P&TC to handle. Council Member Burt asked if the item would be coming back to the Council after scenarios and plans were determined. Mr. Keene said yes. Council Member Burt stated that would be the appropriate time for Staff to provide the Council with better guidance of what was being proposed for the P&TC’s role. Mr. Keene said he would like to get the TAC started as soon as possible and for Staff to return to the Council in January 2012 for direction. Council Member Burt stated that the P&TC was alluded to as one of the Commissions under the CAC. The P&TC was an advisory body in terms of land use and transportation and suggested that Staff consider having the P&TC’s role under the PAC. He clarified the suggestion was not a Motion or a recommendation but as a suggestion for consideration. Council Member Klein stated he was not in favor of the process and felt it was overkill. He said the matter was not a land use issue and ran the risk of annoying the School Board. The District was not subjected to the City’s land use planning and the P&TC was not experienced in planning school sites. The School District did not have a P&TC and one of the goals was to run in parallel in terms of processes. There would be a great deal of negotiations between the City and the School District with regard to finances, ownerships, and decision-making. He felt two P&TC members would be sufficient for the CAC. Council Member Shepherd stated the matter was focused on the shape of the property for the School District’s use and what the City would keep for the Community Center. That would be a task for the TAC Attachment D group. She felt the only way the P&TC could help with the task was to have borders and boundary issues. She was in favor of Council Member Burt’s concept to go to the P&TC deliberatively as issues come up. Council Member Holman said there would be a point in time when Staff would determine the P&TC’s involvement. She spoke of interconnectivity issues and how they related on and offsite, which was more reason for the P&TC to get involved. She did not want to develop an insular site or one without good pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. The goal was not to interfere but to supplement the School District. Council Member Burt said there were eight City acres that would be repurposed or redeveloped with more intensification in use, which would pull the P&TC into the project. Connectivity should be considered and that transportation elements and connectivity issues required P&TC’s involvement. Council Member Shepherd stated safe routes to schools had its own values and would be part of the project. Council Member Scharff did not disagree with the P&TC getting involved, but raised concerns of what the project would look like. He felt the discussion should take place in March 2012 after the TAC had a chance to narrow down the issues. He understood the comments made by Council Member Burt and Holman; however, the School District was not under the P&TC in developing a school site. He advised looking at the project with caution and felt the discussion was premature. Council Member Schmid raised concerns regarding the process being set up for a six-month period of time with a TAC made up of Staff, the CAC appointed by Staff, and a PAC that would report to the Council and the School District at some point. He asked when the public would have the opportunity to become engaged. He stated the PT&C would bring focus to the community on certain issues. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add “to be determined at a future date” regarding the Planning and Transportation Commission’s active role. Attachment D Council Member Burt asked if Mr. Keene was describing Guiding Principles that were process based and not outcome based. Mr. Keene said they were process based. Council Member Burt stated the Guiding Principles were self-governing rules as opposed to predetermining outcomes at a higher level. Mr. Keene said that was correct. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER the meetings will be open to the public and posted on the internet where feasible, advanced information will be available to the public, and outcomes from the meetings be available to the public Council Member Scharff asked if Council Member Burt was asking for Senses Meeting Minutes. Council Member Burt said no. He clarified that outcomes from meetings should be summarized and made available to the public. Council Member Schmid asked if “open” meant open communication from the public. Council Member Burt said it meant open for participation at the meetings and that participation needed to be addressed in the Guiding Principle. Council Member Shepherd asked to include “meetings to be publically noticed.” Council Member Burt said that was a formality with legal ramifications. Council Member Shepherd asked how can “meetings publically noticed” be included. Ms. Stump stated the Council could decide if you want to have a public notice requirement. There was balance was between providing formal notice for the public, and decreasing flexibility. She suggested that when the meeting time was set it shall be posted on the internet to let the public know about the meeting. Council Member Shepherd stated to include “open to the public and posted on the internet where feasible.” Attachment D Council Member Burt said that was acceptable. Vice Mayor Yeh asked if there was a mechanism where people could subscribe or opt to be notified of different City activities. Mr. Keene stated that Staff would review vehicles and ways to inform the public. He said consensus and agreements needed to be built in for the project to work. The public needed to be informed, be knowledgeable, and involved in order for that to happen. Staff will bring back a communication plan. Mayor Espinosa stated that the public now had the ability to sign up to receive information on regular basis via e-mail. The feature would be enhanced when the new website rolled out in the New Year. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND THE SECONDER to add “and connectivity issues shall be” to the Motion as a study component. Vice Mayor Yeh stated he was in favor of the process and the capability to engage in communication with all stakeholder groups. He said the City had a relationship and a partnership with the School District to not create an environment with surprises. He supported the Motion. Council Member Scharff felt the process would work once the TAC convened and narrow down the issues in reaching agreements. It was important to stay on track and meet the March 2012 target date to establish the foundation for the CAC. Mr. Keene stated it was an issue for the TAC to have City Staff and the School District on the same page in terms of requirements and could mean having to bring in outside assistance to make that happen. The School District’s Superintendent had agreed to cost-sharing if assistance was needed. Mayor Espinosa stated that the Council would want the City to develop a process in partnering with the School District to come up with a comprehensive and a long-term plan and to be transparent and inclusive. Council Member Schmid said his understanding was that the Cubberley contract expired at the end of 2014 and a 12-month notice needed to be given by either party setting a hard deadline for 2013 for Attachment D conclusion. He raised concerns of the CAC working on its own for six months and felt it would be beneficial to have overlap with the PAC. AMENDMENT: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member XXX that the Policy Advisory Commission would start in June with opportunity for interactions with Community Advisory Commission AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the PAC will start in June 2012 and receive a report from the CAC midway through the CAC meeting period. Council Member Holman noted that Council Member Klein had requested to add Acterra to the process and did not see that added. Council Member Klein stated the language was changed and added the verbiage “one or more environmental organizations.” Council Member Holman asked if the Guiding Principles would come to Council for adoption. Mr. Keene said yes, with a caveat that there was another party in the process and amendments and clarifications would be made as the process unfolds. Council Member Holman stated the Motion had many parts. She asked that the Motion be added to the Staff report that comes back to the Council for quick reference and clarity. Mr. Keene said that could be done. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Price Absent City of Palo Alto (ID # 2575) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/9/2012 April 09, 2012 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 2575) Summary Title: 2585 East Bayshore (Mustard Seed) Title: Public Hearing: Approval of a Site and Design Review Application and a Record of Land Use Action for a Change in Use from Office to Day Care Center at 2585 East Bayshore Road. *Quasi Judicial From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission), and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) approving a Site and Design Review to allow a change in use from office to day care center as well as other associated site improvements at 2585 East Bayshore Road. Executive Summary The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that the establishment of any use within the Site and Design Review Combining District (D), as is the case east of Bayshore Freeway, adjacent to the Baylands, is subject to the Site and Design Review process. The proposal involves a change in use from office to day care center, which is a “permitted” use in the zone. There are few exterior modifications to the site as a result of the proposed change in use. Concerns have been voiced, however, by adjacent property owners related to traffic and parking. The Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board have voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project. Background The project involves the use of an existing office building for a day care center for 117 students on a 1 acre site. The day care use is “permitted” according to zoning for the Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) district. Few changes to the exterior of the site would be required to accommodate the change in use from office to day care center. The proposed changes to the site include the April 09, 2012 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 2575) addition of a new children’s play area, new chain link fencing, a new covered trash enclosure, a new handicap ramp, a new painted cross walk, and new accessible parking stalls in the front parking lot. Site and Design Process and Findings The zoning for the site includes a (D) overlay, which means the site is subject to the Site and Design Review requirements of the City’s Zoning Code (Section 18.30(G)). While these criteria are primarily focused on the physical/visual compatibility of the site with its surroundings, such review is also required for a “change of use.” Site and Design review entails review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and City Council. Findings that must be made to approve a Site and Design Review include: a) construction and operation in an orderly, harmonious manner and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjacent sites, b) ensuring desirability of investment or conduct of business, research, or educational activities, c) ensuring sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance; and d) ensuring use in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Commission Review The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed the application on February 8, 2012. At the hearing, four speakers spoke against the proposal, primarily neighboring property owners expressing concerns over potential queuing of vehicles on the site as well as on East Bayshore Road. One person spoke in favor of the proposal, noting the significant demand for day care centers within the community. At one point, the Commission considered a motion to reverse the flow of traffic circulation on site but decided against this when the City’s Transportation Official explained the negative ramifications this would cause for the adjacent property to the north and to the roadway itself. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the project as recommended by staff. The Commission’s Site and Design findings are included in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Architectural Review Board (ARB) Review On (February 16, 2012), the ARB unanimously approved the project on its Consent Calendar and no members of the public spoke on this item. The project involves little in the way of exterior improvements. No ARB minutes are attached due to the minimal discussion. April 09, 2012 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 2575) Discussion The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) outlines the necessary approvals and findings to support approval of the project. The key issues of concern to the property owners on either side of the site were the traffic, circulation and parking implications. Traffic and Parking Concerns Three adjacent property owners have raised issues related to traffic, circulation and parking. One of these owners hired his own traffic consultant to review the proposal to determine if there would be a traffic issue with the proposed use. The consultant found that the applicant’s analysis of the traffic and parking was sound and agreed with the findings that the proposal would not create an impact to intersections and local roadways. That consultant, however, suggested that there would be a problem with the queuing of vehicles at the entry point to the property. He stated that would result in an onsite problem for the adjacent neighbor to the south, since the proposed day care center and the office to the south share a common driveway that provides an exit and entry for both properties. The City’s Transportation staff and the applicant’s traffic consultant believe that queuing of vehicles will not be an issue for the adjacent properties or onto the roadway, given the proposed parking and circulation pattern. Transportation staff has determined that the on-site parking provisions are adequate for the anticipated demand. Policy Implications The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, given that the land use is permitted, no impacts to the Baylands would occur, and traffic and parking issues are addressed. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. Resource Impacts Property taxes are the primary source of revenue from the site. The Day Care Center is a for-profit business and would not qualify for a non-profit tax exemption, so property taxes would still be collected. Due to the tenant improvements that would be necessary for the proposed Day Care Center tenant, the property taxes paid to the county would increase by an estimated $3,500 per April 09, 2012 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 2575) year. Costs of staff review are recovered through Site and Design review permit fees. Environmental Review Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Attachments: Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (PDF) Attachment B: Site Location Map(PDF) Attachment C: Project Overview (PDF) Attachment D: Traffic Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, November 8, 2011 (PDF) Attachment E: Public Correspondence (PDF) Attachment F: February 16, 2012 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (PDF) Attachment G: February 8, 2012 Planning and Transportation Minutes(PDF) Attachment H: February 8, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (PDF) Attachment I: Plans (Council Only) (PDF) Prepared By:Russ Reich, Senior Planner Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager 1 ACTION NO. 2012-04 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 2585 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW (11PLN-00415) On April 9, 2012, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Site and Design Review application for a change in use from R&D office to Day Care Center in the Research Office Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone district with Environmental Sensitivity (E), Site and Design (D), and Auto Dealership (AD) Combining Districts, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background.The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. 2585 Bayshore, LLC has requested the City’s approval for the change in use from R&D office to Day Care Center to accommodate approximately 117 children for afterschool and preschool care as well as site improvements including the removal of 18 existing parking spaces, the addition of a new play area, a new chain link fence, a new trash enclosure, a new painted cross walk, and new handicap parking stalls and ramp. B. The site is currently occupied by a vacant office building, designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Research/Office Park, and located within the Research Office Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone district with Environmental Sensitivity (E), Site and Design (D), and Auto Dealership (AD) Combining Districts. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project on February 8, 2012, and recommended approval. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR: 2575 and the attachments to it. D. Following Commission review, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the Project on consent on February 16, 2012, and recommended approval. The ARB’s recommendations are contained in CMR: 2575 and the attachments to it. SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The City, as the lead agency for the Project, has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (existing facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2 SECTION 3.Site and Design Review Findings 1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The proposed day care center would be conducted such that it would not result in an impact on adjacent properties. The traffic and parking for the project have been reviewed and it has been determined that the use would be adequately parked and that the traffic volumes would not result in an impact to local intersections or roadways. The exterior improvements associated with the change in use are minor and would not be visible from the baylands or have an impact on adjacent properties. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The approval of the change in use would allow a new use to occupy this previously vacant office space. Occupancy of the building would help to ensure that the property is properly maintained. Construction of all improvements will be governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development. 3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the project. The reuse of the existing building for the new use reduces the need for the removal and disposal of large amounts of demolition and construction debris and reduces the need for large amounts of new construction materials. 4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project, as conditioned, complies with the policies of the Community Services and Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan. Child Care is a service that is underrepresented in the community and this application is an opportunity to increase the child care capacity in Palo Alto. Policy C-11 states that child care services in Palo Alto should be supported and promoted. The proposed change in use to a child care facility supports this policy. 3 SECTION 4.Site and Design Review Approval Granted. Site and Design Review Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).070 for application 11PLN-00415, subject to the conditions of approval in Section six of the Record. SECTION 5.Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Kenneth Rodriguez and Partners Incorporated entitled “2585 East Bayshore Road”, consisting of 9 pages, dated November 10, 2011, and received January 27, 2012, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section Six. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment. The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment 1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans received on January 27, 2012, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission or City Council. The following conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. 2. All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the allowances specified in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 3. Any existing city street trees shall be maintained and protected during construction per City of Palo Alto standard requirements. 4. All landscape material shall be well maintained and replaced if it fails. 5. Any exterior modifications to the building or property shall require Architectural Review. This includes any new signs. 6. Prior to the commencement of operations on site the facility shall acquire a Day Care Center license from the Department of Social Services and provide a copy to the City of Palo Alto. 4 7. The facility shall be limited to a total maximum number of 117 children on site at any given time. At such time as the applicant proposes to increase the capacity beyond the proposed 117 children, the applicant shall submit a written request or application as may be required based upon the increase requested, to modify this permit and provide a new traffic analysis for review and approval by the City of Palo Alto. Public Works Engineering 8. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from Public Works at the Development Center. The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at the building permit phase. Plan set details or forms may be received from Public Works at the City's Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on the Public Works’ website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms_permits.asp Include in submittal for building permit: 9. Substantial Improvement: The proposed improvements are located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. If the construction cost of the improvements to the structure is greater than 50% of the depreciated value of the structure, then the improvements will be classified as a “substantial improvement” and the existing structure and all new construction will be required to meet the City’s Flood Hazard Regulations, including the finished first floor must be above the base flood elevation (BFE), which for this site is 10.5 feet above sea level. You can view information regarding the flood hazard regulations on our website. You can view the actual Regulations, which are in Chapter 16.52 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, at 5 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org./depts/clk/municipal_code.asp 10. Storm Water Pollution Prevention: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. 11. Work In The Right-Of-Way: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, utility laterals, or street tree work. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor(s) performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. Water Gas Wastewater 12. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas- wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). 13. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for any utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 14. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. 15. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 16. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 6 17. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one foot above the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 18. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 19. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: 1. The pump(s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less. 2.The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out. 3. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 20. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 21. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. 22. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 23. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. The applicant shall provide the City with current test certificates for all backflows. 24. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. reduced 7 pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly. 25. Any utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Electric Utilities 26. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 27. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 28. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 29. A completed Electric Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The application must be included with the preliminary submittal. 30. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 31. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 32. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural 8 Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 33. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 34. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 35. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 36. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 37. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 38. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 39. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 40. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts 9 and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 41. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned an maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 42. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 43. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. 44. Submittal must include a single-line diagram of the proposed electrical design, provide panel schedules with estimated/existing load, and provide the estimate available short circuit current and rating of the panel. 45. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 46. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 47. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 10 48. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 49. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 50. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 51. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 52. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 53. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 54. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 55. Any relocation of existing utilities or substructure shall be done, if feasible, at applicant’s expense. 56. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. 11 57. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 58. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 59. All fees must be paid. 60. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. Fire Department 61. Fire Sprinkler system required. Provide documentation of testing, maintenance and certification. 62. Automatic and manual fire alarm system required. Separate submittal required for installation of fire alarm system. 63. Contact Utilities Department for acceptable backflow prevention requirements. Building Division 64. When a building is subject to a change of occupancy and where such change results in a higher seismic occupancy factor based on Table 1604.5 of the California Building Code, the building shall conform to the seismic requirements of the current codes for the new seismic use group. SECTION 7.Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).080. SECTION 8. Indemnity Clause. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized 12 hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: _____________________________________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by Kenneth Rodriguez and Partners Incorporated entitled “2585 East Bayshore Road”, consisting of 9 pages, dated November 10, 2011, and received January 27, 2012. • o~o • I , , 2858 East 8ayshore Road Technical Appendices November 08, 2011 (»»»»This Page Intentionally Left Blank««««) • at-o .@i I Appendix A Traffic Counts (»»»»This Page Intentionally Left Blank««««) AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AIJTO-CENSIJS Traffic Monitoring and Analysis Date: 7/31/08 870 Castlewood Dr, #1 Counter: Patti and Janea Los Gatos, CA 95032 Intersection Name: Embarcadero and St. Francis Palo Alto Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Weather: Clear 08GB15 St. Francis Embarcadero St. Francis Embarcadero ( .. :r-.. ':~L~~ ",},! C '" ::. t' ~'. eaii-Aiil19"ith':'='"';' , ... ~'''~:' _ .... $ ' . 'h; . ...... '. W"-' -., Start Time Right Thru Left . Total R!.9.ht Thru Left Total Right hru Left Total Right Thru Left Total 7:00 0, 0 "Q . 0, 0 0 0 0 <0: 1<; y ,; I·'· ( .. :.:. ">0" 0 0 0 0 7:15 1 0 . ~e ... 2~r: 8 185 0 193 '7 .. • :> ..... :. ; : ,": '7 0 110 1 111 7:30 5 0 6:1. 66 13 410 3 426 11" ;) . '.~ . j) 0 242 1 243 7:45 11 0 t03' 1:14 23 660 4 687 .:14 ' ). : ' .. .... 1:4 · 0 388 2 390 8:00 14 0 148 Hi2 36 922 6 964 20 , ( 2 22 0 549 5 554 8:15 18 0 2():¢··.· 420 40 1,175 8 1,223 ~3 0 '3 Zq 0 747 5 752 8:30 20 0 258. ,-,~'713 56 1,384 11 1,451 29 1 6 36 1 928 6 935 8:45 21 -0 309 3~Q . 61 1,605 13 1,679 35 1 8 44 1 1,208 6 1,215 9:00 24 0 366 390 69 1,862 16 1,947 38 2 .12 52 2 1,454 11 1.467 .. -• ,PHi(Houf RJaht ' TImI... . J.m -ImaJ. ' .BI5lht .Ib.ru -~~-'Total Right rhru 1Aft' TOt.t .~ RIght· .. ..n!ru· • J,;.~ '. ::Ioll..l 1 PK Hour 7:00 -8:00 14 0 148 162 36 922 6 964 20 0 2 22 0 549 5 554 1,702 7:15 -8:15 17 0 174 191 32 990 8 1,030 16 0 3 19 0 637 4 641 1,881 7:30 -8:30 15 0 197 212 43 974 8 1,025 18 1 6 25, 1 686 5 692 1.954 7:45 - 8:45 10 0 206 216 38 945 9 992 21 1 8 30 1 820 4 825 2.063 8:00 -9:00 10 0 21-8 228 33 940 10 983 18 2 10 30 2 905 6 913 2,154 Peak Volumes: 10 0 218 228 33 940 10 983 18 2 · 10 .30 2 905 6 913 2,154 II Cut and Paste "·Nel ~~ ,"NBJ';'l . .NeR QL'J S8!...J 'SBR :E81 EBT . EBR ·' IVBL " WaT ·1":W8R .! I 10 2 18 J 218 j 0 J 10 6 1 905 1 2 10 940 I 33 St. Francis Out ill Total 41 228 269 Right Thru Left 10 0 218 '~I M jl to,) .~ ~ Ii .... CD <& ~ to,) N m E ~ 3 a> "C I[ a- ni C") ~I It) CD CD 1:;-AI ~ .=1 .... 0 ~ C» ~ nI a"I a"I to,) AI .D C. E (I) w ~I 0 I -I~ -I~ (3 CD N 0 ~ a"I 10 2 18 Left Thru Right 12 30 42 Out In Total St. Francis PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AUro-CENSUS Traffic Monitoring and Analysis Date: 7/31/08 870 Castlewood Dr, #1 Counter: Patti and Janea Los Gatos, CA 95032 Intersection Name: Embarcadero and St. Francis Palo Alto Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Weather: Clear 08GB15 St. Francis Embarcadero St. Francis Embarcadero .' NOioI,~liP.rtMCh'-.. ~ .. ~ .... ··~MtAm!~ch ' -'\'. : ~'AI~ch ' ., , : westA~PnSllch ,,~, - Start Time Right Thru left Total Right Thru left Total Right Thru left Total Right Thru left Total 4:00 0, . 0 '. ,0 : L '0 0 0 0 0 () , b ·· ... · .iQ· 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 4 : Q ~313 . '42 14 176 4 194 5 L .••. 1 "'1 1 334 5 340 4:30 7 1 ",-' E;S ,''6~, ._ 36 365 7 408 7 2.' 4. 13 4 597 10 611 4:45 7' .1' . ;91" I 9.9 .. 52 528 11 591 8 2 " .6 tEl 6 914 15 935 5:00 10 f I ,·. 1;21,'" ".J~.2' 67 732 16 815 16 2., 6: .' '.24;:,· 8 1,214 18 1,240 5:15 17 i . 1 ... · :'J5S ' 173 . 89 899 19 1,007 '29 ..... 2 8 :;0 12 1,569 24 1,605 5:,30 20 '. ··1 Uj~ ... ·. i.20(3 , 109 1,102 24 1,235 .24' 2 .: ".10 ' 36 14 1,892 34 1,940 5:45 28 1 2J5 244 136 1,313 31 1,480 26. .:g .... 14" 42 . 15 2,142 40 2,197 6:00 39 2 ~33 ' '274 159 1,506 39 1,704 28 .2 16 46 ..•.. 17 2,371 45 2,433 ~.~,,~"K "QUr.~ .HHHl1 D IU. ...Uft .~LJ~~t . .IruII. . _ ..... 11 TOtal . RIGht Tbru .. Le" Total' , -Rlaht ~ LtI[ '. .XMI! J PK Hour I 4:00 -5:00 10 1 121 132 67 732 16 815 16 2 6 24 8 1,214 18 1,240 2,211 4:15 - 5:15 13 1 117 .131 75 723 15 813 15 1 7 23 11 1,235 19 1,265 2,232 I 4:30 -5:30 13 0 124 . 137 73 737 17 827 17 0 6 23 . 10 1,295 24 1,329 2,316 ! 4:45-5:45 21 0 124 145 84 785 20 889 18 0 8 26 9 1,228 25 1,262 2,322 5:00 -6:00 29 1 112 142' 92 774 23 889 12 0 to 22 9 1,157 27 1,193 2,246 Peak Volumes: 21 0 124 145 84 785 20 889 18 ; 0 8 26 9 1,228 25 1,262 2,322 Cut and Paste NBl.. I ".T· j ' .HM 'j ' S.L'~, ·seT . salt 1 EBL 'r EST, Eaa·.J WBL "-'WBT J watt-It 1 8 1 0 18 124 0 21 25 1 228 9 1 20 785 84 St. Francis Out In Total 109 145 254 Right Thru Left 21 0 124 ~I CD ~I I N I~ ,... ." 4> co N E 0 N .c. U'I m N CD 3 CII 'C N co ~ I:T "' CD ~I N ...., co 1:;-~ e '=1 "!. . N~ co co n "' U'I CD II) J:I ..... ..... a. E (\) I I~ .... I~ 0 w 81 ~ N (.) en 0 ...., co 0 8 0 18 left Thru Right 29 26 55 Out In ' Total Sl Francis ( -.... AM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet AFl'O-CEJ.'VSUS Traffic Monitoring and Ana/ysis Date: 4/10/08 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Counter: Janea & Byron Los Gatos, CA 95032 Intersection Name: Ba~shore & embarcadero Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-1625 Weather: Clear City: Palo Alto Bayshore Embarcadero Bay_shore Embarcadero " . ,NortJJ:' iJlriKh~ . ' ~ -•. Eat.Am m"Ch :' '$Cl ~'A' aproadl" 'M'lA ~roaCIi"R.· .. ' -, " '. Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right hru Left Total Right Thru Left Total 7:00 0 '0 :P '~(l; 0 0 0 0 I· ·ty· .... . 0' .: ;.,,'0 ..... . c'O . ". 0 0 0 0 7:15 104 . L to> .: ...... $ .... .1'22 .. 2 6 1 9 . .. 5: .3 ." j} 19 17 80 75 172 7:30 266 .'27 2.0 , 3Y3 4 14 1 19 1.~k 14 .; .: .. ~.~ .. 52; 45 136 167 348 7:45 480 · 43 27. SSO .' 5 32 3 40 ·.4~ 1'8 : .:&6 1·75 79 225 243 547 8:00 6:74 .. ·.65 .··· 44 ... 783 ." 7 48 5 60 43 '3'~: 67 142 130 304 322 756 8:15 849 ,1q~ M ···tOJO · 9 66 10 85 '.50 44' t03 197 190 403 401 994 8:30 988 .133 ·. [·f· t.J9S: 10 94 14 118 .64 6$. ': .·124 . 251 266 503 489 1,258 8:45 1;112 170 :.'93 1::f75. 16 121 20 157 19 82 143 '. 304 325 608 540 1,473 I 9:00 1;240 209 106 ··J,555 19 148 24 191 115 M14 175 404 434 717 647 1,798 .peak.HoU". ..HCOnl ''::.J!,~':''''-''LtIl-. IO.lIl ..KIOru. .IMl ..l.tn TotIl RIGht rnru . L~~ ....... , .. ".i otal Right . .mtu", _~e~' ..IQ..tal PK Hour I 7:00·8:00 67465 '4'4 783 7 48 5 60 43 .32 67 142 130 304 322 756 1,741 7:15 -8:15 745 92 51 888 7 60 9 76 45 41 92 178 173 323 326 822 1,964 7:30 -8:30 722 106 54 882 6 80 13 99 50 49 1'00 199 221 367 322 910 2,090 7:45-8:45 632 127 66 s'25 11 89 17 117 5.8 .64 167 229 246 383 297 926 2,097 8:00 -9:00 566 144 62 772 12 100 19 131 72 82 1'08 262 304 413 325 1,042 2,207 -Peak Volumes: 566 1.44 ··62 ' 772 12 100 19 131 72 . ':' '82 103 262 304 413 325 1,042 2,207 II _ Cut and Paste r !NBl.:':'J : NBT ' J. Ji8R.l~ Sl{I:_ "sax I -:8BR '1 ' E8L I . EST I E8Jf rvs~ wsr. .k.weR 108 82 -' 72 62 144 566 325 I 413 304 19 I 100 12 Bayshore Out ill Total 419 772 1,191 Right Thru Left 566 144 62 ~I ~ ~I U') ~ ~ C7) I~ N 4> ..., e 00 M IV 00 m Q) -3 't:I I~ C' «I N ~I M ~ ~ DI ~ '=1 v 0 ~ 1:;-~ 0 :; 0 DI «I ....= .Q Q. E ~ CD LU ~I v v ~ I~ (J'I ~ 0 ..... 0 fD ~ ..... M ..., 108 82 72 Left I!l!Y. Right 467 262 729 Out ill Total - PM Peak-Hour Volume Count Worksheet Date: 4/10/08 Counter: uene& Byron Intersection Name: 8ayshore & embarcadero Weather: -:C,,",I.::oea=.:r~ _________________ _ City: Palo Alto B~shore Embarcadero -NorthA~ch . '., '.E.~ roach ~shore ,·r--~DiOt .' Start Time Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left Total Right II Thru I Left 4:00 ci 0 I 'b " .. ,"0' 0 0 0 0 o 110 I 0 4:15 135 27 I' .8 , 170 12 99 7 118 7 45 74 4:30 23} 46 .16 . .293; 27 193 15 235 13 '.89 J21 4:45 335 ('5 2f·.··· ',43:3 37 306 23 366 ... 28 J5~ ... I ·· .1:~$" 5:00 433 t09 ·····<32 . 574<" 54 405 45 504 31 . 225 : .1".2$7 . ' 5:15 565 146,' 3'5. ". ·'146 69 540 70 679 ..~a · ~$Q . :.1'3:13 5:30 664 · . 172 ' . ':·3:7.,' "~7a < 81 655 85 821 h.4~ :34'0::::1 37~.·· 5:45 770 20t . 39.··· .1,'010 .. 96 727 100 923 .' ·A~. tl "41S:.,·1 ·443····· 6:00 842 .. 232 .. 43 ·····)l,Jft 104 804 114 1,022 ,5;4< ·IIMt:J 4'1~' Peak Volumes: 430 '119 27 .576 57 441 63 561 31 245' 239 Cut and Paste I..- Ba~shore Out !n Total 933 576 1,509 Right Thru Left 430 119 27 ~I 0 ~I .... 0'1 li M e 0 M <& ..... N (j) Q) 't:J III 0 ~I ~ ~ I~ ~ '=1 N (j) III 0) .... ,g E ILl 81 ~ ~ It) 0) I~ ~ .... W .... 239 245 31 Left Thru . Right 307 515 822 Out !n Total Bayshore AI.i'TO-CENSUS Traffic Monitoring and Analysis 870 Castlewood Dr. #1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Phone 408-826-9673 Fax 408-877-162~ Embarcadero .' ':··.1~,!'o: _, -:W"I~IIi)OlC1I: .. '· .~.' Total Right Thru Left Total 0 0 0 0 0 126 29 46 156 231 223 60 93 337 490 I' 3n 84 137 498 719 493 . 106 169 637 912 '$4.1 ', 154 210 787 1,151 .. Z$7 185 234 902 1,321 '90S .•. 229 265 1,017 1,511 $74 . 261 292 1,117 1,670 -tmt --Ld -Tojr~ PK Hour 169 637 912 2,483 164 631 920 2,572 141 565 831 2,531 128 519 792 2,459 123 480 758 2,300 515 125 164 631 920 2,572 ..... I~ 00 m w 3 C" 0'1 III ~ IS" n III c.. m N I~ a N N ~ -cr · • o~o • I Cd • • .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=----"--~-~~----------.-----------------.-.. --~------- Appendix B Intersection Level of Service Calculations (»»»»This Page Intentionally Left Blank««««) OAV[OM. VANATTA AI'ROI'IlSSIOIIAl.OOlI'<lRAnlf< MafCh 30, 20 12 Russ Reich IlANNA & VAN ATTA ATTORNtYSAT LAW 525 UNTVEllSTTY AVENUE, SUTT'E 600 P A1.O ALTO, CAufOiU','!A 94301-1921 www.banv .... com City of Palo Alto Development Center 285 Ilamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (and via email: OISS.reich@cjwfpaloalto.org) Re: Proposed Day Ca~ Center at 2585 East 8aysbo~ Road Dear Mr. Reich: >~ (.W!nl-Jo6)\I EmaIl: jtmrm.@han ...... ""'" As you are '''''are,' proposal has been submitted by the 0 ... = of2585 East Ba)'llhore Road to allow for, change in use of the property from officeJR&D to a children's dayc:are center. The owner is proposing thai the Mustard Seed Learning Center be relocated from its existing facility at 2800 West Ba)"hore Road in Palo Alto to the 2585 East Baysbore Road property ("2585 Property,,). The: MustanI Seed Learning Center, a children's daycare, is also proposing to increase: the number of school age cbildren from 85 up to 117 at the new location. The Planning and Community En\ironment Department of tile City of Palo Alto has reviewed the request fot the establishment of the day care center and has recommended that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend City Council approval. lbc Planning Commission and the ARB have also approved the proposal which is sc.hc:duled to come before the Cil)" Council on April 9. We represent the: property owner ("Office Building Owner") oftbe pruttl adjacc:nt to the proposed 25g5 p,operty location. That adjacent propeny, 2595 East Baysbore Road, includes a roughly 16,000 sq~ foot, 2-5toty muhitenant office bui lding (the "Office Building"). The common driveway shared between the two properties (2585 and 2595) provides the only possible point of ingress 10 both properties. Please see Exhibit "A" (Figure I Property Line & Easement Locations) alt.ached to this leller for a diagram of the two propenies, propeny lines, driveway locations and driveway easements. The shared driveway is by vi rtue ora 25 foot ingress/egress easement, which Hes 10 feet on the 2585 Property, and 15 feet on the Office Buildi ng ("Reciprocal Easement Area"). lhe easement was created by a covenant recorded in 1974 (~Reeiprocal Easement Agreemcnt"). TIle purpose: of lhe easemcnt was to provide for ingress and egress via a center driveway to service each parcel. At some point in time after the creatiOn of the easement. the owner of the 2585 Property ("2585 Owner") installed within the 10 foot easement area located within the 2585 Property and for the exclusive benefit oftht 2585 Property, parking spaces, sidev .. a1ks and landscapi ng. Those improvements encroach upon the casement area.. The parties recorded an Russ Reich March 30, 2012 Page 20f3 encroachment agreement in 2010 ("Encroachment Agreement~) whereby the Office Building Owner consented to the continuation of these specific encroachments subjcct to certain terms and condi tions. See Exhi bit "B" attached hereto, which shows the location of the "Encroachment Area." Both the Reciprocal Easemcnt Agreement and the subsequent Encroachment Agreement were based upon the premise that the uses of the two contiguous propenies would continue as they had, historically, with a reasonable pattern and volume ofvchicular ingress and egress commensurate with the use at thaI time. Further, the driveway itse lf encroaches on the Office Building outside of the Reciprocal Easement Area (,'Consentual Encroachment"). The location of the Consentual Encroachment is wi thin the area between the southerly edge of the Reciprocal Easement and the side of the building on the Office Building as seen on Exhibit "A~. That aspect to the encroachment is not addressed in the Encroachment Agreement. The Office Building Owner has consented to that aspect of the encroachment IllKI reserves the right to revoke that consent and to remove or restrict the 2585 Owner or tenants from the usc oftbat ponion of the shared driveway which lies outside the Encroachment Area Should the Office Building Owner be forced to take such an action, be it through the introduction of a landscape strip or otherwise, the 2585 Owner and tenants will be unable to !lC(:ess the parking which lies in the Encroachment Area along the side of the 2585 Building. In any case, the Office Building Owner is sensitive to any use changes at the 2585 Property which would res ult in heightened 1cvels of traffic to and around both properties. Upon thorough review of the daycare center proposal, consultations with traffic consultants and discussions with the 2585 Owner's representatives, the Office Building Owner has become extremely concerned that the proposed use will have a very detrimental impact to the Office Building propeny. The area of concern he re is not so much the off-site effect of the operation of the school at that location, as it is the on-site effect. The daycare center proposal includes a traffic study issued by Hexagon Transportation Consultants on November 8, 20 11 ("Hexagon Report"). That study, while projecting a 400% to 600% increase in traffic to the shared driveway, concludes that the increased volume will not cause critical movement delay on the nearby surface streets or freev .. ay. Among a number of other deficiencies, the Hexagon Repon omitted any considerations to the impact of a very dramatic increase in traffic to the shared driveway and on the Office Building property. In order to get a second professional opinion, the Office Building Owner cngaged a second lnIffic consultant to review the Hexagon Repon and daycare cenler proposal. That consUltant, Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering, issued a briefletter describing their findings which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Abrams generally agrees with the majority of the findings in the Hexagon Report, but strongly disagrees with the conclusion and raises issue with a num ber of as~ts of the rep,,"_ Abrams took Hexagon's own statistics for projected trip counts and added to them the existing trip counts from the Office Building, which were omitted from the Hexagon Report. From this. Abrams calculates that circu1ation within the shared driveway will be severely impacted. Cars waiting to tum into the limited parking area at the front of the 2585 Property to pick up and drop off children T:\\1II'1\·I~60\LETTECNPll\Rci<Io. koso [OJ lOl1>:![.<Ioo RussRcich March 30, 2012 Pagd of) will be SlaCked oot onto East Bayshore Road. These concerns ate neither studied nor adequately addressed in the dayCM: center proposal. Exhibit "0" (Figure 2 Park.ing Let Circulation Mustan:! Seed Learning Center) attached hereto illustrates this. Should the Abrams conclusion become reality and the ingn:sslegrcss bceome impac1ed lU the Office Building on II regular basis, the Office Building OWllCr will be left with few options. The illCTCllSCd traffic due 10 the change in usc (which could not have been reasonabLy foreseen at the time of the Reciprocal Easement Agreement and/or the Encroachment Agreement) will clearly constitute an overburdening of the Reciprocal &iscment. Our client, the Office Building Owner, is not necessarily opposed to the change in use of the 2585 Property \0 a daYCate center under a reasonable set of circumslaIlcC::s. "That said however, the Office Building Owner is strongly opposed to the approval of a use lIS intensive lIS a 117-child daycarc opcT1ltion on such a constrained site with no clear way to mi ti gate problems should they arise. If the change in usc is approved as proposed and our conclus ions prove COI;TeCI, the Office Building Owncr's remedy ..... ould be \0 pursue litigation against the 2585 Owner for overburdening the Reciprocal Easement. Meanwhile, the Office Building Owner will be forced to remove or restrict the 2585 Owner and tenants from the use of the shared drive ..... ay which lies outside of the Reciprocal Easement Area, and within the Consenrual EnCl"()llchment. In order to avoid such a situation, the Office Building OwntT insists that some controls be built into the conditions of approval for the change in usc to provide a remedy should the dayeare center traffic prove to be 100 intensive for the limited acccss and car stacking ateu. One way to avoid a confrontation over this issue would be to build inlO the approval of the project a mechanism for diffusing the controversy by providing for a reduction in the maximum number of students ..... hich the project can be licensed to serve. l1le projoct approval could include a condition that would require the owner/operator to reduce the maximum number of children in the event that Lhc operation of the school at the maximum capacity of 117 students results in unacceplably high levels of on-site traffic. John Paul Hanna JPH:smlmh Eoc""""" Mr. Yates McKenzie (via ~-mai/: Mr. Dan Cunningham, VILIlCC 8m;;;; 2233 Mr. Jack Hsu, Mustard Seed l..caming Center, 2800 W. Bayshore Road, Suite 100, Palo Alto, CA 94303 COmments OD the traffic study by HeUIOD COnsultants.. November 18. 2011 Re: 2585 East Baysbore Road (Mustard. seed J.earning Ce nter) • The ~ totally ignores 1M IrIffic impacts on Yolll" neiihboring property on EM! Bay$hore Ro.!. TheA Iw been ..... """Iualion III all or!he drivowly ~ionI within 1MolflCe buUdlng p8Jt.i", 101. • The tnUflC rqlOI1 ~ilell I __ way en_ driveway 10 tbe pre-school. This is~. 11 is I two-way driveway. East Baysllore Road. h Is only_way within 1M ~I J>IIkin8 lot. The pre.-school entJBnce is only 40 feet from &51 e.ylhore Road., whidl il barely CIlOII&h room for aqueue or2 vehicles. In\emlWog!he pn-tehooI traffic with lhe office building traffic moverntnlS will not~ safely, and will uuse delly. • There is no Ionpr • two-lane pid-upldrop-off area. !he fron' ofllle xhool. as _ shown in Ihe previous plan. With this new plan, pamlts will be required 10 p8Jt. in fronI, and en!eT Ihe school 10 pick up their childm!. The", ~ only 17 spaces available for puentI and visilOrs, while !he ,.;hooI propo:scs to hI. ... an enrollmcnc: of 117 students. Then! will be fmI.-backup from this area out into the nci&bb0rin8 ptopeny. This will block the m.m drivewly ('hocII in-and out) and cause 1 lot of dellY and tqeSIioD. • Traffic entering \be office: buIldi/w parting area will get uopped by • q ... ue wailing to twn left Into tile xboollWl. Thc queuing caJ<;U]lIions in tbe Inffic n:pon are nOI correct. By our caleulMions, then: could be a queue of) 10 ~ velticles waiting to tum left Iiun East Bayshon: Drive durina the afternoon pick-up period. While this queue II prtxnt. then: is very little room for throu&h traffi~ on East a.y,ho", ROIId 10 go .-ound I stopped line of vehicles. ~ t\hr.lIlIS t\o;')(."I(·i.·1h:s ~ ' .... ', ' ....... ''''-'" Chllrlle Abrlm. Principal 1875 ~ BouIeYaid, Sufte 210 WalnIA Creek. C\ 94596 p~: ($25) 9-45-0201 CeI:(925)~ I!ITI8I: ctw1jeG>abram'r'rims cqn Exhibit "e" April 2, 2012 Russ Reich City of Palo Alto Development Center 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (and via email: russ.reich@cityof palo alto.org) Re: Proposed Day Care Center at 2585 East Bayshore Road Dear Mr. Reich and City Council, The property at 2585 East Bayshore Road is unsafe and is not suitable for a Heritage School, daycare or pre- or post- school center. Approval by the Palo Alto City Council would in fact be irresponsible. The California Department of Education Site Selection and Approval Guide listed in the order of importance are as follows: 1. Safety 2. Location 3. Environment 4. Soils 5. Topography 6. Size and Shape 7. Accessibility 8. Public Services 9. Utilities 10. Cost 11. Availability 12. Public Appearance Evaluating Safety Factors : 1. Proximity to Airports 2. Proximity to High-Voltage Power Transmission Lines 3. Presence of Toxic and Hazardous Substances 4. Hazardous Air Emissions within a quarter mile 5. Other Health Hazards 6. Proximity to Railroad 7. Proximity to High-Pressure Natural Gas Lines 8. Proximity to Propane Gas Tanks 9. Noise 10. Proximity to Major Highways 11. Results of Geological Studies and Soils Analysis 12. Condition of Traffic 13. Safe Routes to School 14. Safety Issues for Joint Use Projects 1. Proximity to Airports – When the property is located within 2 nautical miles of an airport runway, the property must be investigated and approved by the Dept of Education and the Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program, Office of Airports. Code Section 17215. Comment : The property is located within ¼ nautical mile of an existing airport runway. A helicopter crash took place weeks ago directly behind the property. This is the second such case in recent history. An article of the crash is attached. 2. Proximity to High-Voltage Power Transmission Lines – In consultation with the State Department of Health Services (DHS) and electric power companies, the Department has established the following limits for locating any part of a school property near the edge of easements for high-voltage power transmission lines : 100 feet from the edge of the easement for a 50-133kV line 150 feet from the edge of the easement for a 220-230kV line 350 feet from the edge of the easement for a 500-550kV line Comment : Per PG&E, the main power trunk to the entire city of Palo Alto is located on the property. The power trunk is made up of 10 transmission lines. The edge of the PG&E easement lies adjacent to the main entrance of the building. The first set of power transmission lines is located just steps away over the main entrance. This set of power transmission lines carry 115kV. Approximately 16 feet west of this first set of power transmission lines is a second set of power transmission lines. This set of power transmission lines carry 115kV. Both sets of lines are directly under the front pick-up, drop-off and parking area. Approximately 26 feet west of this second set of power transmission lines is a third set of power transmission lines. This set of transmission lines carry 115kV. This set is located in between the front sidewalk and the front parking area. In total, there are 3 sets of power transmission lines each carrying 115kV within approximately 42 feet of each other ! In addition to the close proximity to the building, all 3 sets of power transmission lines wires run directly across the only ingress, egress and emergency access to the property. Engineers from Palo Alto conducted an EMF electromagnetic field test on March 27, 2012 at approx 4 PM. The test was conducted with an Intertek magnetic field meter accurate to +/- 1%. The average milligausse home rating is 0.5mG. The average milligausse rating under the power transmission wires was a high of 13.0mG. EMFs increase according to voltage load. Therefore, EMF radiation under the power transmission lines would significantly increase to many times of that of the March 27th rating in the summer when voltage loads increase to peak capacity when home and office building air conditioners are in use. On behalf of the California Utilities Commission (CPUC), scientists from the California Department of Health Services (DHS) conducted an EMF investigation. The conclusion after reviewing all the evidence supported that EMFs do cause an increased of risk of childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s Disease and miscarriage. A new study concluded that children whose addresses was within 200 meters of an overhead power transmission line had a 70% increased risk of childhood leukemia. Approximately 7 states have now set standards for the width of the right-of-way under high-voltage power transmission lines in case of broken, downed lines. A person standing under a high-voltage line at peak load may actually feel a mild shock when touching something that conducts electricity. In summary, these power transmission lines will expose 117 young children on this property to a large degree of EMF radiation. The numerous high voltage power transmission lines over the only entrances and exits to the property will cause another very serious safety concern due to the potential of multiple earthquake, soils liquefaction, flood and fire issues associated with this property. In a disaster, child evacuation and first response could prove hazardous, difficult or impossible. Should the city choose to approve this site, the power transmission lines should be buried underground to reduce EMF radiation exposure and allow emergency passage to and from the building. 3. Presence of Toxic and Hazardous Substances – Site evaluation should take into consideration the following hazards: Landfill areas on or adjacent to the site. Proximity of the site to current or former dump areas, chemical plants… Naturally occurring hazardous materials, such as asbestos, oil, and gas Requirement: Phase 1 Environmental and Preliminary Endangerment Assessment by the Department of Toxic Services (DTSC) is required. Codes 17071.13, 17072.13, 17210, 17213.1-3 and 17268. Comments : The Palo Alto Landfill has been a landfill dump for almost a century. The fact that the landfill is closing after 100 years of commercial operation is irrelevant. The landfill is located a short distance of the property. 4. Hazardous Air Emissions and Facilities Within a Quarter Mile – Identify facilities within a quarter mile of the site that might reasonably emit hazardous air emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. Code 17213(b) and Public Resources Code 21151.8(a)(2). Requirement: Phase 1 Assessment and CEQA compliance required. Other factors to consider: whether the site is downwind from a stockyard, soil-processing operation, sewage plant, or other potentially hazardous facility. Comments : Bay winds blow escaping landfill gases into this direction. The gases give off an unpleasant smell in the heat of summer causing local employees to head for their cars in haste. Two playgrounds are located to the rear of the property where the issues are at their worst. In addition to a 100 yr old dump, a 25 acre wastewater treatment plant located at 2501 Embarcadero Way is within a quarter mile as well. It is my understanding, that plant management, has recently objected to another childcare facility similarly proposed within close proximity. Of final concern is the proximity of truck emissions from idling 10-wheeler delivery trucks making supply deliveries adjacent to the proposed northern playground. 5. Other Health Hazards – Code 17213(b) and Public Resources Code 21151.8(a)(2). Requirement : Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. Comments : 1. Fire, police and emergency vehicle access currently exists around the entire perimeter of the building that historically supported a small occupancy of adults. In the proposed childcare change of use, a large occupancy of 117 small children will exist. The northern and eastern walls and entrances will be vehicle inaccessible to emergency vehicles, as 2 playgrounds will replace the existing perimeter driveway. This is of special concern in the summer as dry grasses and brush occur in the baylands preserve adjacent to the eastern wall and playground. The western wall and main front entrance is located under the high-voltage transmission lines. This will limit the use of overhead ladders and fire fighting equipment and will create a very potentially hazardous situation. 2. Decomposing gases have caused spontaneous fires at Palo Alto landfill. See attached ABC News article. Per ABC News, “Firefighters are still looking for a cause, but say that it’s not unusual for a compost pile to catch fire…usually in most cases they self combust from the inside due to the decomposing material,” said Donald Dudak, Battalion Chief, Palo Alto fire department. This creates additional concern in combination with the dry summer baylands and the very limited access around the perimeter of the building. 3. See Section 4 other factors to consider regarding downwind of sewage plant and landfill. 6. Proximity of Railroads – N/A 7. Proximity to Pressurized Gas, Gasoline, or Sewer Pipeline – The site of one or more pipelines, situated underground or above ground, which carry hazardous substances, materials, or wastes, unless the pipelines are used only to supply natural gas to the site or neighborhood. Code 17213 and Public Resources Code 2115.8. Comments : A major trunk of underground Pressurized Gas Pipeline is located under the major trunk of High-Voltage Power Transmission Lines in the 60 foot PG&E easement that is located directly on the front of the property. An oil and gas easement is located directly on the front of the property as well. A major trunk of underground Sewer Pipeline is located in the 15 foot Palo Alto easement that is located directly on the front of the property adjacent to the 60 foot PG&E easement. These utility trunks service the city of Palo Alto. Due to the high potential of earthquake, soils liquefaction, and flooding, these major pipelines and transmission lines are at an increased risk of failure and potential rupture. It does not seem prudent to enclose 117 young children on a property containing these major utility trunks which are located over and under the only viable driveway access to the building ! 8. Proximity to High-Pressure Water Pipelines, Reservoirs, Water Storage Tanks – Large buried pipelines are commonly used for water delivery. A severe earthquake, damage by adjacent construction activity, or highly corrosive conditions in surrounding soils can contribute to leakage or even failure of the pipe. A sudden rupturing of high- pressure pipeline can result in the release of a large volume of water at the point of failure and fragments of concrete pipe being hurled throughout the area. Subsequent flooding of the immediate area and along the path of drainage to lower ground levels might occur. Requirements : Sites within 1,500 feet of the easement of an underground pipeline should obtain the following information : 1. Pipeline size, alignment, type, depth of cover. 2. Operating water pressures in pipelines near the site. 3. Estimated volume of water that may be released from the pipeline should a rupture occur. 4. Assessment of the structural condition of the pipeline with periodic reassessment as long as both the pipeline and site is operational. If a site must involve such pipelines, minimize student use of ground surfaces above or in close proximity to the buried pipeline. Provide safeguards to preclude flooding in the event of a pipeline failure and prepare and implement emergency response plans for the safety of students and faculty in the event of pipeline failure and flooding. Comments : A major rupture caused a severe flooding many years ago. Due to the congregation of major underground utility pipelines in the area, minor ruptures due to street and utility construction have periodically occurred. The water easement is directly on the front of the property. The property is uniquely at greater risk as the front floor of the building lies only 3.9 feet above sea level. 9. Proximity to Propane Tanks – N/A 10. Noise – Comments : Freeway and road noise is generally not an issue. Adjacent property owners have concerns regarding noise levels of children in the playgrounds located adjacent to their property lines that function in both business and industrial work environments. 11. Proximity to Major Roadways – Trucks traveling on public roads – including interstate freeways, state highways, and local roads – often contain the same hazardous materials that railcars on railroads contain. The quantities of materials carried on trucks are smaller for a double trailer or double tanker in comparison to a railcar. However, trucks have a greater incidence of accidents, spills, and explosions than do railcars. The protective enclosures of a truck are not as strong as those of a railcar. Requirements : Distances of 2,500 feet are advisable when explosives are carried and at least 1,500 feet when gasoline, diesel, propane, chlorine, oxygen, pesticides, and other combustibles or poisonous gases are transported. Each case is reviewed individually. California Code of Regulations Title 5, 14010(e). Comments : This site does not meet advised freeway hazardous material safety setbacks. Trucks containing hazardous materials heavily travel the 101 freeway. East Bayshore Road is a freeway service road. Trucks carrying like-materials travel this road as well. In addition, East Bayshore Road is a fast traveled access artery. The daycare center and the front parking area lies in close proximity of the road unlike daycare centers located on slower side streets. This is an unsafe situation for preschoolers and young children. 12. Results of Geological Studies and Soils Analysis – Earthquake Requirements : All sites must have Geological Studies and Soils testing completed. California Building Code and California Code of Regulations. Flooding and Inundation Requirements : A hydrologic study that the site will not be subject to flooding is required. Sites are not to be within an area of flood or dam inundation. Areas subject to flash flooding and surface runoff is case for concern. Potential damage maybe mitigated by raising the floor above flood levels. Comments : Earthquake - The Site is located within the San Francisco Bay region, one of the most seismically active areas in the world. The Site is located in Seismic Zone 4. Three major faults have a history of strong earth movement. These faults include: The San Andreas Fault Zone, located approx 7.5 miles to the SW of the Site. The Calaveras Fault Zone, located approx 16 miles to the NW of the Site. The Hayward Fault Zone, located approx 13 miles to the NE of the Site. Soils Analysis - These soils consist of alluvial deposits comprised of a clay matrix with varying degrees of silts, sands, and gravels. Liquefaction is general caused when saturated relatively shallow soils are transformed from a semi-solid state to a liquidous state as a result of seismic shaking. E2C Seismic Investigative Report 2001 Flood - The property is located in the 100-year Special Flood Hazard Zone. FEMA does not consider these old salt pond levees to be adequate protection from the sort of high tide event that has a 100-year probability of occurring, and assumes when the levees fail the area will be flooded by salt water to the elevation of 8 feet above sea level. Much of the residential area west of the Bayshore Freeway is only about three feet above sea level, meaning the 100-year flood would reach a height of five feet above the ground. There is only one such zone in Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Flood Zone Descriptions. The current property floor is only 3.9 feet above sea level. To comply with FEMA requirements, the property floor would need to be 10.5 feet above sea level. The property floor is 6.6 feet under FEMA floor height requirements. There is no second story for possible child safety. 13. Conditions of Traffic and School Bus Conditions – The facility should be situated so that children can enter and depart the building and grounds safely. The size and shape of the site will affect traffic flow. If school buses are utilized, special curb openings and isolation from regular traffic is required. Comments : A traffic flow does not exist. Vacancies in the side parking area are not discernable to a car entering from the street due to the 90 degree perpendicular angle of the parking stalls. This absent line of sight will be further compounded by the congestion of cars entering the site at key pick up and drop off times ! Cars will enter the side alley to hope and guess if there is an available space. If a space is not available, the cars will be forced to dead end into the rear fence as the rear exit driveway and parking lot will be converted to a playground. This u-turn congestion is unfair to the property to the South that shares the once properly flowing agreed easement and will significantly increase and change the previous utilization of the agreed easement. The only other option for stranded cars will be to infringe and trespass upon the neighboring 2595 property lot to turn around or park. In addition, fourteen side spaces and two front spaces sit erroneously on a shared ingress and egress easement. The repetitive parking and child drop off and pick up will significantly increase and change the previous utilization of these spaces. Keep in mind that 18 rear parking spaces that have always existed, will be removed and converted to a playground. Therefore, the increase of demand on these side spaces will be many times that of the historic use. The small front parking area is even more dangerous. Three cars will be forced to back out over the crosswalk to exit the 45 degree angled parking stalls next to the crosswalk. Four cars will be forced to back out into the shared driveway easement blocking and backing up incoming traffic in the shared easement and out into the street. The staff report incorrectly states that this driveway is one way. This error has been pointed out to staff many times to no avail. In fact, the shared driveway is the only reasonable exit and entrance for the neighboring 2595 property’s rear parking lot. Office workers at the neighboring 2595 property will not be able to cut across it’s own limited front parking area to exit because the entrance to the small front parking area will be solidly blocked by incoming cars lined up in the easement. The turning of cars into 2585’s front parking area will further congest 2595’s ability to pass to the street to exit. Futhermore, two of the front parking spaces are handicap and cannot be utilized in high turn use. The remaining 9 spaces will be a congestion of backing out and standing vehicles trying to exit or enter the small front parking area. The battle of vehicles over the shared easement and the limited and difficult parking coupled with the installation of a crosswalk in the middle of it all and the children will not enter and depart safely ! The ensueing backlog of cars will cause critical delays and dangerous unexpected stops on fast moving East Bayshore Road to drivers in both directions and northbound cyclists. It will cause a hardship for adjacent property owner’s driveways on either side and will block the entrance to the property owner’s driveway located directly across the street. The Hexagon traffic study is seriously flawed. Random studies at the existing school indicated an average time of 10-20 minutes for pick up. The Guide for City Planners indicates in most cases a pick up time of 10 minutes is required at large childcare facilities. Contrary to this, the Hexagon report understates the time required and the resulting impact to traffic back-up. Various statements to this effect were cited by an independent traffic study by Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering. 14. Safe Routes to Site – If there are unsatisfactory walking routes for the proposed site, another site should be considered. California Department of Transportation (DOT). Comments : Based on the proximity to residential areas and schools and the lack of safe intersections, there are no Safe Routes to this location. Conclusion : There is no emergency plan adequate to protect the children from all of the potential disasters at this location. This property is not a safe environment for pre- schoolers and young children whether a School, Heritage School, Daycare Facility, Pre- School, After-School Program or combination thereof. While the Architectural Review has required “an emergency plan”. The property is not required to present the plan to be reviewed. They are simply required to “have” a plan. Per Public Resources Code Section 21000, CEQA applies to any discretionary permit for a childcare center. The Planning Department has declared the property exempt of CEQA Environment Review. A CEQA Environmental Review is clearly required based on the fact that 12 out of 14 site conditions of safe occupancy by young children are unacceptable and unsafe ! In addition to CEQA Compliance the following studies should be obtained: Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Impact Reports, Department of Transportation Aeronautics Study, EMF Radiation Study, Geotechnical Soils Testing Report, FEMA Assessment, Department of Transportation Study, Utilities Assessment, Hydrologic Study, Fire Re- assessment Review, Environmental and Preliminary Endangerment Assessment and any other applicable studies. Mustard Seed has been licensed as a Heritage School and is operating as such under the Department of Education. The Department of Social Services reported that the Heritage School license was questionably attained after Mustard Seed was cited by the Department of Social Services for complaints received from parents and for operating as an illegal day care. This is additionally disturbing. No matter the case of jurisdiction of operation, this property is not suitable for a change of use to allow the occupancy of 117 young children. Anything less, will be an irresponsible lack of due diligence and complete disregard toward the safety of the children. Very truly yours, Edwina M. Cioffi 2575 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Cc: Daniel J. Muller, Attorney-at-law Nixon Peabody LLC I - The current application was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (the Commission) on February 8, 2012. The discussion at the public hearing was primarily related to concerns about traffic and parking, most specifically about the possibility of cueing backups on the project site creating impacts to users of the adj acent office building due to the fact that they share an ingress / egress driveway. The Commission ultimately decided to unanimously recommend that the City Council approve the change in use from office to day care center. The physical changes on the site are now before the ARB as part of the Site and Design Review process. Site Information The project site is located on the east side of East Bayshore Road just south of Embarcadero Road. The site is approximately 43,560 square feet in area and is located within the Research Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone district with Environmental Sensitivity (E), Site and Design CD), and Auto Dealership (AD) Combining Districts. There is currently one single story building on the site consisting of approximately 15,927 square feet of floor area. The building was formerly used as a general business office and currently has 49 parking stalls. There is a two story office building to the south of the subject property at 2595 East Bayshore Road and a two·story tall commercial business to the north at 2575 East Bayshore Road. The Palo Alto Baylands are located directly behind the subject property to the east. The ROLM zone district provides for a limited group of office, research and manufacturing uses. Day care centers are also specified as a permitted use within the district. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the project site is Research/Office Park which also cites child care centers as an 'appropriate use. Project Description The proposed project consists primarily of a change in use from office to day care center. The initial proposal is to provide after school day care for 117 children with 15 staff members with a possible future expansion to a maximum of 150 children with a total of 17 staff members. The facility is intended to provide after school care for children enrolled in public or private schools within Palo Alto. The age of the children would tange between five and 12 years old. The center would operate on weekdays only, typically between the hours of 12:30 pm and 6:00 pm. The applicant has provided a detailed plan to handle the pick up and drop off of the children including a staggered schedule and they would employ staff members, strategically stationed within the parking lot, to facilitate the on site circulation of vehicles to ensure child safety and to reduce any potential cueing of cars on East Bayshore Road. Changes to the site include the addition of a new covered trash enclosure to accommodate the building's trash and recycling needs, the removal of 18 parking stalls at the rear of the building for the addition of a child play area, and the use of an existing driveway on the north side of the building for a second child play area. The remaining number of parking stalls for staff, parents, and guests would be 31. The trash enclosure would have a standing seam metal roof painted bronze and a metal gate in the same bronze color. The enclosure's walls would be a split face concrete block in a brown color. A new chain link fence would be added to enclose the play areas 'around the rear and north side of the building. It would be four feet tall and would be green vinyl clad with vinyl slats. The existing dense vegetation on the sites perimeter would remain. This 11 PLN-00415 Page 2 of 4 vegetation would provide a visual screen of the property as seen from the Baylands. The new fence and play structure would be concealed behind this existing landscape screen. DISCUSSION: Traffic and Parking The change in use from General Business Office to Day Care Center would potentially result in an increase in the overall volume of trips to and from the site. According to the applicant's traffic consultant and the City's traffic engineer, the increased volume of traffic would not cause critical movement delay or the demand-to-capacity ratio to increase beyond the City of Palo Alto Standards under both the near and the far terms. The proposal includes the removal of 18 existing parking stalls to accommodate the new play area. Even with the removal of these spaces, the proposed use will be adequately parked per the code (see table below), The traffic consultant has studied the current Mustard Seed Day Care facility located at 2800 West Bayshore Road, as well as several other similar Day Care facilities, to observe how the current parking demand functions for this type of use. The consultant found that only 22 spaces would be needed, and that the 31 parking spaces provided would be more than adequate for the demand associated with the proposed use for the after school program as well as the potential preschool program based on a total of 117 children. Parking Requirement Parking Provided 1 parking space per each 1.5 employees = 8 required parking spaces 3 1 spaces are provided Palo Alto Baylands The only changes to the exterior of the property would be the new trash enclosure, the new four foot tall fence, the reorientation of the handicap parking and ramp, and the new play equipment. These features will be screened from off site views from the Baylands by existing vegetation. There will be no visual impact to the Baylands. Neighbor Comments An email wasreceived.prior to the Commission hearing, from the neighbor from the adjacent property to the south citing concerns over traffic and parking (Attachment E). Staff has also had a verbal conversation with the adjacent neighbor to the north regarding traffic and parking. These interested parties spoke to the Commission on February 8,2012 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQ A Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Only) 11 PLN·00415 Draft Record of Land Use Action Site Location Map Applicants Project description letter Public Correspondence Development Plans Dated received February 10, 2012 (Board Members Page 3 of 4 COURTESY COPIES Dan Cunningham, 2585 Bayshore, LLC, Owner Edwina Cioffi, Neighbor Yates McKenzie, Neighbor James Foug, Neighbor Prepared By: Manager Review: 11 PLN-00415 Russ Reich, Senior Plann~ Amy French, Acting Assistant Director of the Department of Planning ~ Community Environment ~ Page 4 of 4 Page 1 of 25 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 February 8, 2012 3 4 DRAFT EXCERPT 5 6 2585 East Bayshore Road*: Request by 2585 Bayshore LLC on behalf of 2585 Bayshore LLC 7 for Site and Design Review of the proposed conversion of an existing Research & Development 8 building into an after school daycare center with an exterior play area. Zone District-9 ROLM(D)(AD)(E). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California 10 environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303. 11 12 And with that we will move to the first item which is a presentation by Staff on 2585 East 13 Bayshore Road Site and Design Review for a proposed daycare center. Staff. 14 15 Mr. Russ Reich, Sr. Planner: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. The application 16 before you this evening is for the approval of a change in use from office to daycare center under 17 the requirements of the Site and Design Combining District Regulations. The project site is 18 located on the east side of Highway 101 surrounded by office and commercial uses except to the 19 rear where the property abuts the Baylands. There are few exterior changes to the existing 20 building. These include new play equipment to be placed at the rear of the building, a new 4 foot 21 tall fence to enclose the play area, a new trash enclosure to house the trash and recycling bins 22 that currently sit out on the open pavement and new ADA parking stalls at the front of the 23 building. 24 25 The daycare center would provide afterschool care for a maximum of 117 children typically 26 between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 6:15 p.m. with a possibility of preschool operations in the 27 future. The addition of any future preschool use would not change the limit of 117 children at 28 the site. Concerns over this proposal have primarily been related to traffic and parking. The 29 Applicant has provided a traffic analysis, Attachment D of your Staff Report, that finds that the 30 roadway and intersections would not be adversely impacted by the project and the parking 31 provided on the site would be adequate for the proposed use. Working with City Staff and the 32 Applicant’s Traffic Consultant was directed to study the existing Mustard Seed operations but 33 three other daycare operations to determine the adequate number of parking spaces that would be 34 needed to provide for daycare center use. That analysis determined that 22 spaces would be 35 needed to serve the use including parent pickup as well as employee parking. The proposal 36 provides a total of 31. 37 38 The City’s transportation staff has reviewed the Applicant’s findings and agreed the proposal 39 would not have adverse impacts. I wanted to point out one error in the Staff Report. On Page 4 40 there is a table that shows the parking calculation requirements and the City’s requirement for 41 daycare centers is one parking space for each 1.5 employee and it actually results in a total 42 required number of spaces of 8 and it says 18 so I just wanted to point that out for you. 43 44 The Commission is being asked to make the four findings as specified in Section 18.30G of the 45 Palo Alto Municipal Code provided in the Draft Record of Land Use Action. These can be 46 Page 2 of 25 found in Section 3 of Attachment A of the Staff Report. At places you should have 4 items 1 related to this project. There is a hard copy of the Applicant’s PowerPoint presentation, there is 2 a Proposed Condition of Approval that requires the daycare provider to prepare an emergency 3 preparedness plan to insure that there are plans in place such that people know what to do in the 4 event of a disaster such as a flood, fire, earthquake, etc. There are questions from Commissioner 5 Keller that with the responses from the Applicant’s Transportation Consultant Gary Black and 6 there are written comments from the neighbor to the south of the project, Mr. Gates McKinsey 7 related to traffic and parking concerns. City Staff including myself and Transportation Division 8 Staff Member Rafael Rios as well as the Applicant and his Traffic Consultant had a phone 9 conference meeting with Mr. McKinsey and his Traffic Consultant yesterday to discuss his 10 concerns. There appeared to be some mutual understanding between the two traffic consultants 11 but ultimately the meeting did not resolve the neighbor’s concerns as there was remaining 12 disagreement between the two traffic consultants. I believe Mr. McKinsey is here this evening to 13 speak to his concerns. 14 15 Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission forward a Recommendation 16 for Approval to the City Council for the change in use from office to daycare center. The 17 Applicant is here to make a brief presentation and both the Applicant and Staff are here to 18 answer any question you may have. 19 20 Chair Martinez: Great Russ. With that we’re going to open the Public Hearing. The Applicant 21 may have 15 minutes for your presentation. If you care to share that with your Traffic 22 Consultant that’s fine too. 23 24 Mr. Kevin Jones: Good evening. My name is Kevin Jones, I’m with Kenneth, Rodriguez and 25 Partners Architects. I’m pleased to be before you tonight. This is a project we’ve been involved 26 with for over a year and tonight I’d like to break up our presentation into two parts and be 27 succinct and brief. 28 29 The first part I would like to present to you is an overview of the project and then I’d like to have 30 Gary from Hexagon Transportation Consultants speak to you directly about specific 31 transportation and traffic components of our project and then afford any time for questions you 32 might have of myself and our team. 33 34 Just as an overview to address the site location, the large arrow pointing to site, that’s the 35 location of the proposed project. It is an existing one story, just under 16,000 square feet empty 36 office R&D building that’s been vacant over a year with two adjacent properties to the south or 37 to the right there is a two story office building and one to the left and then the third building from 38 there is an existing church which does have a form of daycare component as a part of that use. 39 The Bayshore off ramp is the frontage of our site. 40 41 A few images of the existing building and the adjacent buildings. Our proposal has very limited 42 modifications to the exterior. Russ had pointed to some of those in his description and it’s 43 indicated in your report. Those basically involve providing code compliant handicapped parking 44 stalls and trash enclosure at the rear. The picture at the bottom is a somewhat angled view of the 45 Page 3 of 25 rear which we’ll be fencing off and creating a children’s play area as well as providing for the 1 trash enclosure. 2 3 The existing site, showing it as it is today with parking that’s at the rear of the site abutting the 4 Baylands and parking on the side or plan wide of the building or parking in the front of the 5 building which you see in the image. Our proposed site plan, largely what is different from the 6 existing to the proposed, is at the top of the sheet. We’ve introduced these play areas at the top 7 of the plan as well as the side of the plan which would be play areas to allow for the state 8 requirement for each child having a specific outdoor play area requirements. 9 10 The parking to the right is along the shared easement of the property line and we share a 11 driveway with the property to the south. That property has two driveways, the shared driveway 12 and then there’s a secondary driveway that is on the south of that existing building. Then we 13 show our handicapped parking stalls on the front and then the proposed, I believe its 22 parking 14 spaces on the front of the property. 15 16 The project is an existing use as office. The proposed change in use is consistent with zoning, it 17 is a permitted use in this zoning. The proposal is for 117 children licensed daycare facility. The 18 reduction in parking, just to highlight it for you, the existing 44 parking stalls will be reduced 19 down to 31 to allow for the outdoor play area, basically a reduction or loss of about 18 parking 20 stalls. 21 22 Much of the work we’ve done over the past year with Staff and our Traffic Consultant was to 23 really look at the current Mustard Seed operation which is in Palo Alto. Mustard Seed has been 24 operating in Palo Alto for about 20 years serving only Palo Alto families and children so it’s had 25 a long run of being involved in the community and wants to continue the involvement with the 26 community at this location. The observations we’ve done over the past year in brief summary, is 27 we studied their current use and then with input from Public Works studied I think three other 28 daycare facilities to get a better handle on parking demand as well as patterns of pick up and 29 delivery of children as they arrive at the site. 30 31 With that I’d like to turn it over to Gary and let him speak to some specific items that were 32 identified in his traffic studies. 33 34 Mr. Gary Black: Thank you. Gary Black with Hexagon Transportation Consultants. We did the 35 Traffic and Parking Study for the project. As Russ mentioned we did have a phone conversation 36 with Mr. McKinsey yesterday to talk over his concerns. The primary issue we talked about at 37 that was concern about how the shared driveway would operate and whether there would be any 38 impact to his office employees or office users at that driveway that would also be used for the 39 daycare and so we prepared this slide as a way to sort of illustrate how the pickup operation 40 would work because that was the primary concern. That’s the busiest time for the daycare, when 41 children are picked up. 42 43 It’s important to note that children are picked up anywhere from 3:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. when the 44 facility closes so there’s not a particular ending time when everyone leaves so they’ll leave 45 during that time period. Nevertheless, based on the surveys we did on their existing facility in 46 Page 4 of 25 Palo Alto we estimated that this particular proposal with 117 children would generate 77 cars 1 coming in in what we call the peak hour which would be 5:15 to 6:15 for the parents to pick up 2 their children so out of the 117, 77 would be focused during that one hour period. We also 3 looked at the peaking within the hour which I could get into if you want to talk about that but 4 what this illustrates is that there are 17 parking stalls in front of the building. If we assume that it 5 takes an average of five minutes to pick up a child and that means that each parking space could 6 be used 12 times during an hour and there’s 17 so 12 times 17 equals 204 cars that could be 7 serviced in that parking lot in one hour and we estimate that there would be 77 that would 8 actually come. 9 10 We went one step further and then analyzed, they’re not spread out evenly throughout the hour, 11 that there’s peaking within the hour and what we typically see is that, because of the peaking, we 12 can make the assumption that the parking spaces would be used, I can explain in more detail, but 13 essentially, a capacity of 100 cars in the hour, really because of the peaking within the hour so 14 that’s one way to look at it but again when we make a comparison of 77 cars coming in and a 15 capacity of 100 we don’t see that there would be a problem in terms of any queuing at the 16 driveway or difficulty, congestion, any backups or anything like that. There’s a lot more 17 information in the Traffic Study but I wanted to focus in on the primary concern that the 18 neighbor had so our conclusion was that these uses are compatible and there wouldn’t be 19 congestion of the driveways. It’s also important to point out that the peak time for the daycare is 20 of course when it closes or just before it closes, there’s still a flurry of activity when the parents 21 come at that time which is after 6 p.m. and by that time most of the office occupants of the 22 building next door are gone by 6 p.m. so there’s kind of a time difference too between those two 23 uses. So that’s my presentation unless you had any questions. 24 25 Chair Martinez: Yes. We do have some questions. Commissioner Keller. 26 27 Commissioner Keller: The first question is based on this chart. I understand that there are 17 28 parking spaces and the two to the upper left hand side are actually handicapped spaces so you’re 29 including people parking in the handicapped spaces, 12 people per hour per space? 30 31 Mr. Black: Yes. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: I’m not sure the legality of that but I’m not a parking attendant. 34 35 Mr. Black: Let me just say we don’t know how many of the parents would actually be 36 handicapped but presumably because there are two handicapped spaces there would be a need for 37 their use. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: Yes and I’m not clear that their utilization would be turnover in 5 minutes 40 and that there would be 12 people using them per space per hour so that’s questionable. The 41 second question is I understand that according to the Staff Report there were 8 spaces needed for 42 Staff. How many Staff do you expect there to be? 43 44 Mr. Jones: There are 7 full time staff members and 5 part time staff members. 45 46 Page 5 of 25 Commissioner Keller: So I’m wondering how many Staff you’ll have concurrently in the 1 afternoon? 2 3 Mr. Jones: The number would vary depending on people’s schedule but at the most it would be 4 12. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: So if you have at maximum 12 staff members, where will those staff 7 members park when they are on site? 8 9 Mr. Jones: If you let me refer to one of the back slides, the plate that we’re currently showing 10 you is also the same plan that shows on the screen is equivalent to Sheet A2 in your packet and 11 along the shared driveway on your right you see a number of parking stalls 14. Those stalls are 12 available for employee parking throughout the day. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: So you would have the employees park on the right side of the building 15 and no employees would be parking in the front. 16 17 Mr. Jones: That is correct. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: That’s helpful. And am I to understand there will be no changes to the 20 shared easement between the two properties? 21 22 Mr. Jones: There are no planned revisions to the easement’s location or driveway access 23 configuration. That’s correct. No construction. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Is the play yard in the rear? Is that part of the easement or is that beyond 26 the easement? 27 28 Mr. Jones: That is not part of the easement. It is behind the easement. The easement line on the 29 same drawing is the secondary dotted line which you see just north of the property line on A2. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: So that would be between the 14 and the S that goes on the bottom there 32 on the right hand side? 33 34 Mr. Jones: Correct. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Thank you very much. 37 38 Chair Martinez: Commissioners, anything else? Commissioner Tuma. 39 40 Commissioner Tuma: The Applicant currently operates a similar facility in Palo Alto. Is that 41 right? 42 43 Mr. Jones: That is correct. It’s opposite the freeway. 44 45 Commissioner Tuma: How many children are served at that facility? 46 Page 6 of 25 1 Mr. Jones: Let me check with the user. I’m not exactly sure. 2 3 Mr. Reich: I believe it’s 80. 80 or 85. 4 5 Commissioner Tuma: Okay. In terms of the analysis and coming up with what you think the 6 parking demands are going to be, have you used that facility as a model? 7 8 Mr. Jones: That facility as well as three or four others as noted in the Staff Report were the basis 9 of trying to make the analysis for the Traffic Study. Last spring we met with Public Works 10 Transportation and tried to make sure that we weren’t underestimating the demand here so the 11 three important factors here were one, looking at how the existing operation was operating and 12 the second part was looking for analogous uses in the community to be able to establish some 13 parallels and then from that, that’s what drew a lot of the data that Gary has presented today and 14 is represented in the Staff Report under the Traffic Report section. 15 16 Commissioner Tuma: How many spaces do you have for pickup at the other facility where there 17 are 80 students? 18 19 Mr. Jones: Again, I’m not well versed in the other facility. 20 21 Mr. Black: The existing facility has parking spaces along the street so they don’t have any off 22 street spaces so you really have to measure the length of the street so you can kind of say there’s 23 any number of spaces along there depending on how far back you go along the street. When we 24 were out there we saw a maximum of 7 cars parked along the street to pick up the children. The 25 teachers don’t park on the street though. 26 27 Commissioner Tuma: Thank you. 28 29 Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg. 30 31 Vice Chair Fineberg: I’m a little confused from a couple of different descriptions of what 32 program will exist when you immediately begin operations in the new facility. Is the intention 33 that you’ll go through the approval process, do your construction, and open up just to begin with 34 as a after school care facility and then as licensing progresses later add daycare or do you 35 anticipate on your occupancy date starting with both preschool and after school daycare? 36 37 Mr. Jones: On the occupancy date it would open as an after school daycare program. The desire 38 would be in the future to have the capability of providing preschool services. 39 40 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay thank you. I still have one more question for you but note to Staff 41 and we can deal with it later on our Conditions of Approval Page 3, Item 6 it talks about “prior to 42 the commencement of operations on site the facility shall acquire a daycare license”. That needs 43 to be amended to say something to accommodate the use as the Applicant just described because 44 if they start as just after school care we don’t want to require them to have a daycare license yet. 45 46 Page 7 of 25 Mr. Reich: Yes we do. The afterschool care is a daycare center. They will need to be licensed. 1 2 Mr. Jones: As a part of the operation they will need to be a licensed daycare facility complying 3 with the State of California requirements for that. 4 5 Vice Chair Fineberg: Don’t they already have that in place to operate the existing operation at 6 the Emerson School? 7 8 Mr. Jones: There’s a different arrangement at the Emerson School but that’s not in place 9 currently. 10 11 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay. I saw the description of what they’re doing at the Emerson as 12 having a license for the Heritage facility but it was again maybe my confusion but not clear to 13 me whether the existing license for after school would transfer. 14 15 Mr. Jones: No it would not. This would be a brand new license for this facility for them to 16 operate as a fully licensed daycare center. 17 18 Vice Chair Fineberg: My next question to you is in our Conditions of Approval on Page 4 it 19 talks about Section 9 substantial improvements and states that the proposed improvements are 20 located in the special flood hazard and if the construction costs exceed half the value of the 21 improved structure then there are a number of other conditions. Is there a rough estimate of what 22 this project costs and what the estimate is on the technical definition of however they define the 23 depreciated value of the structure? 24 25 Mr. Jones: Unfortunately I don’t have those exact figures with the ownership has gone through 26 that calculation and I can’t quote them to you. We have done that analysis. Largely what’s 27 happening with this is there are tenant improvements on the interior. Much of the interior rooms 28 are remaining so if you look at this project in its totality its involved in basically maintaining as 29 much of the interior as we can, recreating a new gypsum board walls, metal set frame walls, 30 moving some lighting around so the actual improvements are limited relative to the overall value 31 but unfortunately I don’t have specific dollar values for you. 32 33 Vice Chair Fineberg: But is it your expectation that the Condition of Approval will be satisfied? 34 35 Mr. Jones: It will be satisfied and typically it comes out as a part of the Building Department 36 Permit process. 37 38 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay thank you. 39 40 Chair Martinez: I have a couple questions. To the Traffic Consultant, did you look at the traffic 41 generated by the previous use so we can compare the impacts? 42 43 Mr. Black: When we came along the building was vacant. We made an estimate of what the 44 traffic generated would be based on our typical sources that we use for traffic estimates which is 45 the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual and if you give me just a 46 Page 8 of 25 second I can look that up. Yes, occupied as an office using those numbers we would get 24 peak 1 hour trips versus 158 for this use. 2 3 Chair Martinez: Yes Commissioner Garber. 4 5 Commissioner Garber: Is that for the existing square footage that is currently built on the site or 6 what could be built on the site? How much square footage could be built on the site and then 7 what would that generate? 8 9 Mr. Black: It’s what’s there and you’d have to ask somebody else because I don’t know what 10 would be allowable on the site. 11 12 Commissioner Garber: I only ask because it seems to me that would be the appropriate way to 13 consider this. No? 14 15 Vice Chair Fineberg: Staff can correct me if I’m wrong but I believe we have a longstanding 16 tradition of the baseline is defined as full occupancy of the existing use if it’s been within 5 years 17 I believe. I think there’s a time limit but it’s not full built out conditions of a hypothetical 18 project. 19 20 Ms. Amy French, Acting Assist. Director: Yes our longstanding policy is the office can be 21 reoccupied by office anytime. That has been a longstanding Council policy. There is discussion 22 about baseline, what we do with a vacant building but I don’t believe it’s been vacant for 5 years. 23 I think it’s been less than that. 24 25 Chair Martinez: So if I could get back to my question, it seems to me that the building is 15,000 26 square feet. Is that right? There would be an office occupant load of about 60. That generates 27 more peak hour trips than 24 if you’re looking at 9 to 5, 8:30 to 5:30 and it seems like the impact 28 on evening peak hours would be greater than the proposed use. Is that a faulty assumption? 29 30 Mr. Black: Let me just say that that assumption’s not borne out by the trip generation data that 31 we typically look at and that we typically see. The way that the trip generation estimates are 32 done is to find comparable facilities if it’s an office building and comparable office buildings and 33 simply count the number of cars that are going in and out and then relate that to the size of the 34 building and that’s how the estimates are typically done. In the case of office buildings, yes 35 you’re right that it seems kind of out of balance to say that you have 60 people there but there’s 36 only 24 in the peak hour of trips that are generated or cars leaving the site but when we actually 37 survey office buildings we find that the occupant load is maximum at about 2:00 in the afternoon 38 and then it continually goes down after that so for whatever reason, this doesn’t happen in my 39 office but people start leaving at 2:00 and then by the time you get to 5:00 the occupant load is 40 nowhere near what it was earlier in the afternoon. 41 42 What we look at is an average over basically 50 to 100 studies are actually in the trip generation 43 manual right now so that’s what we’re looking at. 44 45 Chair Martinez: Finally, are you proposing any kind of traffic mitigations? 46 Page 9 of 25 1 Mr. Black: No there were no impacts identified so there were no mitigations. 2 3 Chair Martinez: What about traffic signage? Children present? Daycare facility ahead? That 4 kind of stuff. Not required? 5 6 Mr. Black: That would be up to your City Public Works Department if they would want to put 7 that signage out there, if it’s typical on that road. But the children will not be walking around on 8 the sidewalk or walking to school or crossing the street or anything so they’ll stay inside the 9 building or out in the play yard so hopefully children won’t be present. They’ll be in the 10 building. 11 12 Chair Martinez: Okay thank you. We have a number of speakers from the public. Vice Chair. 13 14 Vice Chair Fineberg: First speaker will be Kevin Jones. I’m sorry you were the Applicant. 15 Yates McKenzie to be followed by Edwina Cioffi. 16 17 Mr. Yates McKenzie: Good evening. My name is Yates McKenzie. I live at 119 Oak Springs 18 Drive in San Anselmo, CA. I am representing the ownership at 2595 East Bayshore, the 19 property that is immediately next door and to the south of the proposed daycare center. I’m 20 going to be brief but we’ve got a consultant here to also speak, Charlie Abrams but overall we, 21 the ownership at 2585 are opposed to the project as it’s currently presented. We’ve got a shared 22 driveway and a shared easement and the proposal is going to significantly, significantly impact 23 the traffic we’re going to have on that shared easement and put an undue burden on our property 24 and our tenants. 25 26 I understand that the Hexagon Traffic Study concludes that the impact will be minimal at worst 27 however the numbers don’t seem to bear out and I’ll let Charlie Abrams speak to that but that’s 28 what I wanted to say. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Great thank you. 31 32 Vice Chair Fineberg: Edwina Cioffi to be followed by Charlie Abrams. 33 34 Ms. Edwina Cioffi: Good evening. Edwina Cioffi, I am the owner of the property next door 35 north of this property, 2575 East Bayshore Road. I am in agreement with the other local adjacent 36 property owners that this change of use as its proposed is not conducive to the property. I feel 37 that it would be dangerous to the children. It would also impact the adjacent property owners 38 and the traffic on East Bayshore. I believe that the Applicants in a sense are grossly minimizing 39 the impacts just as one case in point, the property that the school is at currently I had visited on 40 several occasions. There are about 40 to 50 parking spaces in a parking lot in addition to street 41 parking and we timed the parents picking up children, many of which had other toddlers with 42 them, strollers. They zip in at about 10 minutes to 6, the majority of the parents. They took 43 about 12 to 20 minutes to go inside and take the little children out, huge space circular parking 44 lot plus another offshoot at the parking lot where they are presently located. This is very 45 congested. Very few parking spaces. The spaces are going from 49 to 31. 46 Page 10 of 25 1 A couple of quick points. Two playgrounds. One to the rear and one adjacent to my property. 2 Adjacent to my property we have large trailers coming in with exhaust fumes and loading and 3 unloading with forklifts. This is an industrial usage property. The playground to the rear, 4 employees at our location in the summertime run to their cars because of the gasses that come off 5 of the dumps. I question without an environmental study how long term exposure to the gasses 6 coming off the dumps in the playgrounds are going to be good for these young children. That’s 7 kind of a whole separate point from all the other traffic issues. Our entrance to our parking lot 8 runs right next to the entrance on the left hand side up there which is going to impact our 9 employees’ ability to get in and out. I also question all of this minimizing of the queuing and 10 stockpiling of cars, the interchange of cars picking up and dropping off because its difficult 11 during peak hours to get in and out of East Bayshore as it is so those cars are going to have a 12 hard time getting out and its going to impact the other adjacent properties. I know at the front 13 property there somebody brought up the handicap which cannot be interchanged every five 14 minutes which is a push anyway. The cars next to the crosswalk would have to back up into the 15 crosswalk where proposedly little children would be crossing. The cars along the side are 16 already or those spaces already infringe on the easement drive. They are already incorrectly on 17 the easement driveway. Little children would be funneling up to get into those cars with a very 18 congested driveway that’s shared with the next building. I guess in closing I covered most of the 19 issues but the property is just not conducive to this use and it will be dangerous, it will impact 20 our property values and the neighboring properties are opposed to this. Thank you. 21 22 Vice Chair Fineberg: Charlie Abrams to be followed by Ron Cioffi. 23 24 Mr. Charlie Abrams: Good evening Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission. My 25 name is Charlie Abrams. I am Principal at Abrams Associates Traffic. We have been engaged 26 by the property owner immediately to the south, just to the right of the sketch to evaluate the 27 traffic impacts that are going to arise from this neighboring use. The one problem is, and I don’t 28 have any problem with the Traffic Study. I think they’ve done a good job. The parking is 29 adequate and the effects of the project traffic on offsite roadways is accurately described but 30 there is no discussion at all in the report of the impacts of this connection between this diagonal 31 row of parking in the front and the neighbor’s driveway. The neighbor has a two way driveway 32 immediately adjacent to the property line. It is the only driveway available to the neighboring 33 office building. It is also about 16,000 square feet and probably generates the type of traffic that 34 was discussed formally for the entire building, probably about 30 trips per hour is what we 35 would come up with. 36 37 The layout of this particular situation is going to be conducive to a queue of vehicles extending 38 out of a drop off and pickup area in the front of the school. It is then going to turn the corner 39 onto East Bayshore. The majority of the traffic, parents coming to pick up their children are 40 going to be going south and make an immediate left turn into the driveway that would be used at 41 the front of the school and that just does not work with the numbers that have been presented. 42 Again, by our calculations we would estimate a queue that would extend out into the street and 43 could be as many as 3 to 5 cars waiting in that left turn to turn into the driveway to serve the 44 number of students they’ve got during this peak hour. Again, the peak hour is probably 5 to 6 45 and within that peak hour there is probably an additional peak for the school works just like one 46 Page 11 of 25 that I’m very familiar with where the parents will pay a penalty fee if they don’t pick up their 1 children by 6:00 and the results of that is a significant group of people, the large number of the 2 77 per hour are occurring during that 15 minutes prior to the school ending. 3 4 I take issue with the calculations that have been done by my compatriot with Hexagon. The 5 assumptions that they’ve made are… Can I just finish this point? The assumptions they’ve 6 made assume almost a perfect operation. They assume that these parents who are going to pull 7 in, park, then go in and pick up their children, then out into the building, back up and proceed in 8 an average of five minutes and that each space has, one leaves and the next one immediately fills 9 in that space and it just doesn’t work that way. The random statistics where this would suggest 10 these numbers are really erroneous. Someone also brought up the point of there being 17 spaces 11 for use by these parents. Two of them are handicapped spaces and they aren’t going to be very 12 usable for parents having to drop off their children and undoubtedly having seen these events 13 two or three of the other spaces will be occupied by somebody. It may be another visitor but for 14 long term parking and two or three other spaces are not available as well so there are only about 15 12 spaces available and we have 77 cars turning into the driveway which when you look at a 16 peak hour factor really expands to the equivalent of 120 cars during that period trying to use 17 these 12 spaces and turn over in a 5 minute increment in a very uniform method, it just doesn’t 18 work that way. 19 20 One last point, I guess this thing really doesn’t work very well and I think the remedies to this 21 could be something like cutting back on the number of children to about half of what they’ve got, 22 about 60 the front area would work. Another alternative which we’ve often thought about too is 23 to reverse the direction of the front driveway and have the cars enter on the northern driveway 24 and proceed south and make a right turn as they come out and that would work much more 25 effectively. 26 27 Chair Martinez: There’s a question for you. Commissioner Tuma. 28 29 Commissioner Tuma: I was going to ask what proposed alternatives you have in terms of… Let 30 me ask one more follow up question. In the current configuration, did you do a calculation for 31 the current number of spaces they do need? 32 33 Mr. Abrams: It’s a very unusual situation with diagonal parking but we would estimate they 34 would need 20 spaces to accommodate the number of spaces they’ve got and they only have or 35 can expect to use about 12 during the peak hour. 36 37 Commissioner Tuma: So 8 more spaces. 38 39 Mr. Abrams: Yes. 40 41 Chair Martinez: One more question for you, Vice Chair Fineberg. 42 43 Vice Chair Fineberg: Would a curb cut or direct access to the property at 2595 be feasible or 44 help the situation so it wasn’t a shared access through the drive? 45 46 Page 12 of 25 Mr. Abrams: We did consider that. It would be better for our property owner if they had their 1 own separate driveway for cars entering into the front but it would narrow and limit the amount 2 of cars they would be able to park in front if they did use that driveway so that’s the negative 3 impact. 4 5 Vice Chair Fineberg: Ron Cioffi to be followed by Jim Foug. 6 7 Mr. Ron Cioffi: Good evening. Ron Cioffi. I’m actually Jim Foug could not be here this 8 evening, I’m actually representing him. I’m also a Principal at 2575 East Bayshore Road. Jim’s 9 property is directly… Oh Jim’s here. Jim do you want to speak? Jim’s here, sorry. 10 11 Mr. Jim Foug: Hi. My name is Jim Foug and I’m the property manager and part owner of 2600 12 East Bayshore which is directly across the street from the proposed center and my main concern 13 dovetails off of some of the earlier comments about the queuing. I did thumb through the 14 Transportation Report. I just want to make one comment and it was noted in the Transportation 15 Report that the Traffic Volume Data was from 2008 which I believe is before the large Stanford 16 Eye Clinic was completed and its now occupied so I’m not sure how accurate or applicable those 17 traffic volume numbers are currently. 18 19 My comment is real quick. It’s actually, I just thumbed through regarding Page 27, vehicle 20 queuing down in Paragraph 4 and I’ll paraphrase that paragraph, “if left turning southbound 21 vehicles are perceived to be taking too long, the vehicle going through can go around the left 22 turning vehicles by using the bike lane”. So this is in reference, if by chance there is some 23 congestion in the front of the building and the traffic starts backing up southbound on East 24 Bayshore 4 or 5 cars, it seems to me that the Transportation Report recommends that these cars 25 pass the stopped vehicles on the right hand side of the road through the bike lane. I’m sure 26 you’re aware that there is a pedestrian bicycle overpass that empties out right to the north of this 27 project so there is a lot of bike traffic on the road but to me it seemed like a potential hazard and 28 I just wanted to bring that to your attention in case that is something that was not brought up 29 earlier. That’s all my comments. Thank you very much. 30 31 Vice Chair Fineberg: Gregory Klingsporn. 32 33 Mr. Gregory Klingsporn: Thank you Commissioners. Greg Klingsporn, I’m an Attorney at 34 Mitchell, Hertzog and Klingsporn down the street on Hamilton Avenue in Palo Alto. I represent 35 the owners of the site and I just wanted to make one comment that hasn’t really been addressed 36 yet and that is as you’ll see in the findings in the Staff Report, this childcare and daycare is 37 underserved in the City of Palo Alto and I can tell you from my professional experience 38 representing this property owner and some others that one of the main reasons is its very difficult 39 to find a site that is workable within the licensing restrictions that the State of California has with 40 regard to interior space, exterior space, being on the ground floor, a whole host of limitations that 41 make it very difficult and every site of the few that are left faces, has an impact when you’re 42 bringing a group of children to a site where there wasn’t before and I think when you’re looking 43 at this project you have to also consider that despite the objections of some of the adjacent 44 property owners I think this is an appropriate site. It’s got demonstrated capacity for both the 45 licensing requirements and also for the traffic impact. I think the Staff has spent a lot of time, I 46 Page 13 of 25 know the Staff has spent a lot of time working with the Hexagon folks and the Applicant to make 1 sure of that and it comes through in the Site Report. 2 3 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. Is that it? Would the Applicant care to speak? You 4 have five minutes. 5 6 Mr. Jones: I think one of the things I would like to bring to your attention because a lot of this 7 comes off as sort of a black and white kind of decision. One of them is the commitment of 8 Mustard Seed, has been in the community for 20 years and really wants to expand their business 9 and continue to serve the Palo Alto community. Dealing with that, I feel that there are things we 10 can do to help further safeguard the interests of our neighbors in terms of staggering the parents’ 11 arrival, making other types of commitments that are nonstructural items to improve any problem 12 that might arise down the line which our report doesn’t foresee but I don’t want to make this 13 come across as clearly a black and white distinction. There is a very strong commitment by them 14 as well as the ownership to make this a viable project and should any point in the process find 15 there is a concern there is a strong commitment to find ways to solve those things. With that, 16 Gary had a few comments he wanted to bring back to your attention in light of some of the 17 opposing views. Thank you. 18 19 Mr. Black: Thank you. Really only one point that I wanted to speak to which a couple of 20 statements were made about it being difficult to access the site from East Bayshore during peak 21 hours and I just wanted to say that the traffic counts on East Bayshore and also my observations 22 on the site do not support that statement that its difficult to get in and out of the site during peak 23 hours. The count on Bayshore northbound, which is the busiest direction in the afternoon is only 24 500 cars during the peak hour which is well below the capacity of that street which could be 25 roughly 900 or so in an hour and so that was the only point I heard that I wanted to speak to. 26 27 Chair Martinez: Okay Commissioner Keller had a question. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: One question. You just mentioned the northbound direction of East 30 Bayshore. Is there any point in time in the PM rush hour, which I suppose is the busiest on that 31 road, is that the traffic backs up so that it blocks access to that site at anytime during the PM rush 32 hour? 33 34 Mr. Black: No. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: The second thing is, and I don’t know if you’re the right person to ask 37 this question, but my belief is that it is actually against the California Vehicle Code to pass a car, 38 stop making a left turn and use the bike lane in order to pass a stopped vehicle attempting to 39 make a left turn. Are you aware of that illegality? 40 41 Mr. Black: That’s my understanding as well unless there is a broken line on the bike lane. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: So therefore the comment that you can use the bike lane to pass a vehicle 44 attempting to make a left turn is in fact erroneous. Is that correct? 45 46 Page 14 of 25 Mr. Black: You cannot legally use it. 1 2 Commissioner Keller: So you’re encouraging people to do something illegal by your statement? 3 4 Mr. Black: It’s only a statement of practicality, not a suggestion to plan for that activity. We did 5 not show that there would ever be any queue that any cars would need to go around so it 6 wouldn’t be a regular occurrence. If for some reason there’s an accident in the middle of the 7 road or whatever, the statement was made merely to convey that the street’s wide enough for two 8 cars to pass, that’s all. 9 10 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A question of the Architect please. 11 12 Mr. Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: Actually if I may, Jaime Rodriguez with 13 the City of Palo Alto. The California Vehicle Code Section 2128 does actually allow for a 14 vehicle to traverse into the bike lane to avoid a hazard so if there was a hazardous situation 15 where someone was turning left and the vehicle making the left would not be able to make the 16 site, they can traverse into the bike lane legally to avoid the vehicle. It is allowed in the Vehicle 17 Code. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Okay well I’ll show you the moving violation I got for actually doing that 20 in Palo Alto. 21 22 Commissioner Tuma: Pardon me but that stuns me Jaime because I actually received a moving 23 violation for the same thing and I routinely see in front of our school where this happens 24 routinely. There are police officers sitting there ticketing people for going in the bike lane all the 25 time. It’s a daily occurrence so I’m stunned by a statement that says it wouldn’t be illegal to do 26 that. 27 28 Mr. Rodriguez: I think I’ve offered it to all of you in the past. If you get a ticket call me and I’ll 29 try to help you fight it but in this particular case, the Vehicle Code does allow that. That would 30 be a definable hazard of a vehicle approaching a situation with a stopped vehicle. That would 31 allow movement within the vehicle code. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: Thank you for offering to fight my next ticket in that regard but I did go 34 to traffic school instead for the record. One question is to the Architect. You’re the Architect, 35 right? I’m not sure if you’re sufficient to represent the owner or the Applicant but there was a 36 comment about the capacity of the site and the potential for reducing the number of students. Is 37 there a potential for thinking about something like for example, staggering or graduating the 38 increase so initially you do it with a smaller number of students and then make sure that there are 39 no impacts then increase the number of students to insure that impacts don’t occur and then if 40 they do occur that the adjacent neighbors are fearful of then we ratchet back? Is there something 41 like that that could be considered? 42 43 Mr. Jones: The operator might speak to that perhaps a little bit better but let me give you a 44 framework. The number we came up with, 117 is based on the capacity of the building to meet 45 the requirements for state licensing so they’re making a license request for a maximum of 117 46 Page 15 of 25 enrollment and as any business owner would like to do, they would like to maximize their 1 occupancy to meet that but upon opening it may very well not be 117 available at that time, 2 that’s the maximum that would be on site. Is there a potential to stagger that growth? I’m not 3 sure that would be appropriate from the user standpoint because of the demand that’s out here in 4 the community to bring in students so unless they’re here tonight, they might want to speak to it 5 if I haven’t for our best benefit but to my understanding the licensing would be for 117 and 6 would grow to the number but is not intended to have a staggering start and see what happens. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 9 10 Commissioner Garber: I have questions of Staff if that’s okay. For the City Attorney and 11 possibly for the Planning Staff as well, two questions. The first is the use of this property as a 12 daycare center is allowable by right. There is nothing that keeps that, that’s not a discretionary 13 option for review here. 14 15 Ms. French: This is not a conditional use permit we’re talking about. It’s simply because it’s in 16 the D overlay that we’re looking at the change from one use to another however daycare is an 17 allowable use in this district as a permitted use. 18 19 Commissioner Garber: And relative to the D overlay it is primarily for design as opposed to a 20 use function, etc. 21 22 Ms. French: Yeah, it’s a little tricky. Minor changes to a site, we typically handle through 23 Architectural Review as we did in this case previously. We did share it with the ARB and they 24 did give us their input, kind of like a PC where we say, hey if you change the design and its 25 minor we can take it to ARB. If you change the use we go and visit with the Planning 26 Commission as kind of a rule of thumb. We’re bringing it to you in that regard partly as well 27 because we had the concern. 28 29 Commissioner Garber: I hesitate to bring up the word PC because we’re not talking about public 30 benefits here. Second question, relative to the easement which I was sort of unaware of or I 31 didn’t sense that as an issue in the Staff Report one way or another but the overall use of that 32 easement, I’m presuming that the Applicant has access to that easement and whatever the 33 agreement or the use that exists between the two owners or more owners, I don’t know how 34 many there are to use that, is between them. We have no say over that. 35 36 Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Deputy Asst. City Attorney: That’s correct to the extent whatever they’re 37 doing does or does not comply in terms of the easement would be a civil issue between the two 38 property owners. 39 40 Commissioner Garber: For us it’s just an entry and an exit. 41 42 Ms. Tronquet: That’s correct. 43 44 Chair Martinez: Anyone else? Commissioner Tuma. 45 46 Page 16 of 25 Commissioner Tuma: I have a question for the second Traffic Consultant, sorry I’ve forgotten 1 your name. Thank you Mr. Abrams. The property just to the south of the subject property which 2 is the one you are representing, I’m looking and maybe this is an old picture but I’m looking at 3 Google Maps and it appears there is a second driveway on the southern end of that parking lot. 4 Is that correct? 5 6 Mr. Abrams: There is a second driveway there but its only usable, there is also a one way row of 7 parking in the front of the building and those are the only cars that can use that and it would be 8 exit only. 9 10 Commissioner Tuma: So the shared easement isn’t necessarily used for egress from the cars 11 from you client’s property so there is a second. 12 13 Mr. Abrams: I would guess 20% of the spaces could use that driveway effectively. 14 15 Commissioner Tuma: You had talked before about what the alternatives may be and someone 16 has raised the concept of another curb cut. There was a driveway there that already exists. 17 Currently the traffic flow is really only allowed practically for egress but there is a second curb 18 cut there that is used for some percentage. 19 20 Mr. Abrams: That’s true. 21 22 Commissioner Garber: May I follow up Mr. Abrams because I’m not quite following. If I’m 23 looking at the diagram up there, I would assume that the drive that is shared by both the property 24 that you’re representing and the Applicant is essentially in only and then you’re turning right into 25 your property or left into the Applicant’s property and then you’re going back out through the 26 other curb cut. Am I misunderstanding that? 27 28 Mr. Abrams: That is not the way it works. It is a two way driveway and the majority of the 29 traffic that leaves the office building that I’m representing does leave via that driveway. 30 31 Commissioner Tuma: But you do have the curb cut on the south side so what would keep you 32 from telling your employees just go in that way and out the other way. 33 34 Mr. Abrams: I suppose. It would be very inconvenient. They would be coming down and 35 having to go out of their way in the wrong direction but it certainly would be possible. 36 37 Commissioner Tuma: Let me just ask because I’m again having a hard time following. Is your 38 parking lot striped that way right now? In the direction that’s shown on that diagram? 39 40 Mr. Abrams: Yes it is. 41 42 Commissioner Tuma: So someone is pulling in there and taking a 45 degree or 60 degree turn to 43 get in and then they are coming out and turning whatever that is, 90 plus 135 degrees to go back 44 the way they came as opposed to just turning the 45 and going forward again? 45 46 Page 17 of 25 Mr. Abrams: No they are doing the latter, turning out and going in the proper one way direction 1 and exiting via the other driveway. 2 3 Commissioner Tuma: So everybody that comes in on the north side comes in on the south side 4 right? 5 6 Mr. Abrams: Maybe one way to clarify it is there are 54 spaces. The majority of the parking is 7 behind the building and I would say about 10 of the 54 are those diagonal spots in front. The 8 remainder is a parking field that is behind the building. 9 10 Commissioner Tuma: I see, so if you’re parking behind the building you’re coming between the 11 two and then going straight out as opposed to going between the two and then in front of your 12 property and then out. I understand. 13 14 Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg first. 15 16 Vice Chair Fineberg: This same topic but maybe better for the Applicant because I’m confused 17 by this driveway configuration also. So if they pull in at that shared entrance that we’re hearing 18 almost everyone uses, the people on the north are going to exit before they hit the property to the 19 south and so are those parking spaces slanted the wrong way to park if you’re pulling in? 20 21 Mr. Reich: I don’t follow your question. You’re talking about the daycare center? 22 23 Vice Chair Fineberg: Yes which is the blue parking lot sort of on the left so if the shared 24 driveway, maybe I’m confused, the shared driveway is the one in the center. 25 26 Mr. Reich: So they pull in and go left. 27 28 Vice Chair Fineberg: So there are two means of exit, so the sort of driveway is like a T that 29 people come in in the middle, go out to the left and exit to the left and then the people that go to 30 the property on the south drive to the right and then exit to the south except for the people that 31 are behind it so there’s one way in, I’m sorry I thought from the Staff Report, forgive me that 32 there was only one way out for the Applicant. I didn’t realize the Applicant had two ways out. 33 34 Mr. Reich: The Applicant has one way out for the spaces in front of the building. The spaces on 35 the side of the building they could either exit the shared driveway or they could exit the other 36 driveway. 37 38 Vice Chair Fineberg: Okay that you. 39 40 Commissioner Tuma: Do we have a laser pointer by any chance? 41 42 Ms. French: This system does not allow laser pointing at it. 43 44 Mr. Reich: You can use the pointer on the mouse. 45 46 Page 18 of 25 Commissioner Tuma: One of the things that’s not shown on any of the diagrams we have is 1 that there is a bunch of parking behind both of these buildings on the various different sides and 2 if we had something up there that would show us that, this would be great. So on the ground in 3 reality I believe cars come in here, there’s this parking here, this parking here, currently 4 additional parking in the back that’s going to be converted to a play area so the cars that park 5 here, they come back, they either could come out this way or come across here and go out this 6 way. Is that correct? 7 8 And the mirror is also true. You have cars coming in here. Some go in here to park. Others go 9 down here and there’s a fairly large parking area back here so when these cars come out they can 10 come out this way or if this is too congested they can come here and go here and exit out this 11 way, is that right? So there’s a shared entrance. Each of them has additional exits that can be 12 used for traffic flow. I believe on the south side of the neighboring building over here is 13 currently landscaped, there is no access over there. Could access be gained over here? 14 15 Mr. Jones: I don’t know that there’s the room to do that. 16 17 Commissioner Tuma: So Mr. Abrams can I ask you to come back up for a second. So is the 18 primary point of concern the congestion that would occur in this area right here? 19 20 Mr. Abrams: Yes, exactly. 21 22 Commissioner Tuma: What would keep during that peak, and its probably 30 minutes or so in 23 the evening right at that 5:45 to 6:15 timeframe, parents are rushing madly to pick their kids up, 24 that’s when it will be worst I think so during that half hour or so to the extent that people are 25 leaving the building, would them coming across here and going out here alleviate the congestion 26 that’s happening here? 27 28 Mr. Abrams: I don’t believe it would. Those spaces that are on the side of the building mostly 29 would be used by the teachers and the staff at the daycare center, they are going to back up into 30 the traffic and their most desirable way out is just to proceed straight down that driveway and 31 back out onto East Bayshore there. 32 33 Commissioner Tuma: That’s their staff but I’m talking about the folks that are parking back here 34 in this building. 35 36 Mr. Abrams: They certainly could do that but it would not be very convenient or effective. 37 38 Commissioner Tuma: This is all theoretical. If they get to a certain capacity they could have 39 that congestion so if a set of circumstances comes to pass a half an hour per day perhaps one of 40 the solutions may be that some people could go out this way if the delay here is intolerable. It’s 41 possible. 42 43 Chair Martinez: Commissioners, we’ve been an hour into this and I would like to close the 44 Public Hearing. If you have questions of any of the speakers, it’s your prerogative to call them 45 Page 19 of 25 back but I think we should get on with our comments, further questions of Staff and kind of get 1 to where we want to go with this. Commissioner Keller. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: Another question of the last speaker please, Mr. Abrams, thank you. I’m 4 very bad at names so I apologize. Thank you. So let me understand this question. Could we go 5 back to the last diagram that’s on the screen? Great. Thank you. So it seems to me that the 6 problem is that we have a single driveway that is used for all ingress and we have three 7 driveways that are used for egress. For exiting. So what I’m wondering is if the Applicant were 8 to switch around their parking so that the north side of their property was used for entering and 9 the south side of their property through the shared driveway was used for exiting, would that 10 eliminate the conflict that you’re thinking about? 11 12 Mr. Abrams: Yes that would eliminate much of the conflict because left turns are not crossing 13 each other. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Exactly and one of the problems from this is because people are entering 16 on the right and then turning in, people might be blocking the road there so its kind of a big 17 conflict. What I’m wondering, so that would eliminate the problem there? 18 19 Mr. Abrams: I believe it would, yes. 20 21 Commissioner Keller: There was a comment said that it might be improper because the 22 Applicant had some of their parking spaces on the shared easement and that might be improper. 23 Who said that? Is the person who said that wanting to come back up? Well what I’m wondering 24 is and you can answer, is that an existing condition because I’m looking at the map and it 25 appears to me that all of that issue of parking in the easement and the driveway and parking and 26 all that seems to be an existing condition. 27 28 Mr. Foug: Yes it is an existing condition. There is an encroachment on the easement of those 29 parking spaces along the south side of the daycare building. Additionally, there was an 30 encroachment agreement put in place. It’s on our title and allows that condition to exist although 31 it may or may not be subject to a number of conditions changing use may be one of those. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: But that’s not something the city has any part of. 34 35 Mr. Foug: I’m not an attorney but I don’t think so. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: May I ask this question of the Traffic Engineer for the Applicant. How 38 would the Applicant feel about reversing the front driveway so you enter from the north side and 39 all the parking spaces were reversed in the other direction? 40 41 Mr. Black: I can’t speak for the Applicant on that but from my perspective if that’s a solution 42 that’s acceptable to the neighboring property owner from a traffic standpoint I don’t see that 43 creating problems. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Great. Can I ask that of the Architect? 46 Page 20 of 25 1 Mr. Jones: Thank you. Very good question. The ownership would be accepting of that 2 alternative to reverse the parking flow. Perhaps that could be identified as a Condition of 3 Approval or Recommendation from Planning Commission. We would not like to have to come 4 back with a revised plan that represents that but nonetheless they are supportive of that direction. 5 6 Chair Martinez: Okay. Do we have a Motion? 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Let me ask one more question of Staff first and then I’ll give a Motion. 9 The question of Staff is if the daycare use discontinues does there necessarily have to be a Site 10 and Design Review of the change in daycare use that would necessitate turning the parking back 11 if it went to office use again? 12 13 Ms. French: Gosh, I believe change of use requires a matter of discretion and the Director might 14 be so inclined to refer it to the Planning and Transportation Commission or it might be 15 something that is simply not an issue. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: One thing I’m concerned about is the daycare goes away sometime in the 18 future and the building becomes office and the parking doesn’t return so in other words it’s a 19 shortage of parking and I just want to make sure it doesn’t happen and if there’s a Condition of 20 Approval needed to make sure that this comes back to, not necessarily us but somebody to make 21 sure the parking returns if the use changes, that’s what I would want. 22 23 Ms. French: I don’t believe a Condition is necessary. It sounds like the Applicant is agreeable to 24 reversing that direction and that’s the kind of thing the Architectural Review Board is quite 25 qualified to review the design of that. I know you’re talking about if it went back to office and 26 would we have to look at parking all over again. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: If it came back to office again is there a mechanism for insuring that the 29 parking returns so that the sufficient parking for the office use. 30 31 Mr. Reich: Since the change in use requires Site and Design Review or some level of discretion 32 yes, we would look at it and make sure the new use had adequate parking. 33 34 Commissioner Garber: And if I might add the Applicant might have to apply for a Use of 35 Occupancy Permit and that would notify Staff and the Staff would put it through the procedure 36 and depending on what the application is it could go through Staff or come to the Commission 37 again depending on what the requirement is so there are plenty of safeguards that are in place. 38 Correct me if I’m wrong. 39 40 Ms. French: But I think once it’s reversed, you’re going back to office and let’s put it back the 41 direction that it is. 42 43 Commissioner Garber: The point would be that if it’s office you’re going to need, you can no 44 longer have the play lot in the back. 45 46 Page 21 of 25 Ms. French: We would have to make sure they had the number of spaces, correct. 1 2 Commissioner Garber: At which point all of the issues will be raised again and have to go 3 through the review of one sort or another. 4 5 MOTION 6 7 Commissioner Keller: I move that we recommend, let me get the right language here, I move 8 that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommends the City Council approve the Site 9 and Design Review request for the establishment of an after school daycare center at 2585 East 10 Bayshore Road as set forth in the draft record of land use action with one change and that is that 11 the front, the driveway entrance to the property be on the north side, that the front driveway 12 parking be reversed to be accessible from the north side and that the exit and parking on that 13 continue through the shared easement and as a, this is not part of the Motion, but that the Staff 14 Report and/or the Traffic Report be modified to insure that there is no encouragement of 15 violation of the California Vehicle Code with respect to passing cars stopped making a left turn, 16 passing cars into a bike lane but that’s just a request to Staff and the Applicant, not a part of the 17 Motion. 18 19 Chair Martinez: Is there a Second? 20 21 SECOND 22 23 Commissioner Tuma: Sure. 24 25 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller, care to speak to your Motion? 26 27 Commissioner Keller: I think there’s a need for more daycare in Palo Alto so I’m happy to try to 28 support this need. It seems that a reconfiguration of the driveway will go a long way towards 29 avoiding a conflict with the adjacent neighbor. I’m not sure we can avoid all the conflicts that 30 exist but our review of this project is fairly limited because the daycare is at this site by right. 31 I’ve been personally interested in having daycare and schools have a Conditional Use Permit 32 precisely so we can deal with these traffic issues on the Conditional Use Permit and not have it 33 be by right but now it is by right so there is limited review here. So that’s it. Thank you. 34 35 Commissioner Tuma: I have a question of our Chief Transportation Official. You looked before 36 like you had something you wanted to say. 37 38 Mr. Rodriguez: I did want to recommend that a conversion of the driveway not be recommended 39 and really for the reason that it actually introduces two conflict points at which vehicles driving 40 southbound on East Bayshore could potentially have to weave a vehicle that is turning left in that 41 site. We did consider that during the initial design with the Applicant and internally Staff 42 decided not to move forward with that type of recommendation. If this driveway here were an 43 inbound driveway, this driveway is an inbound outbound driveway for the occupant next door so 44 if the vehicle is stopped here it blocks the driveway automatically as to where the situation where 45 there’s one driveway in the middle, all of the funneling of the site occurs at one location so 46 Page 22 of 25 introducing two locations could introduce a conflict with the site next door and then for the 1 southbound vehicles if they did need to weave it could happen twice in front of the site as 2 opposed to once. That was our reasoning as to why we didn’t make that recommendation. 3 4 Commissioner Tuma: Okay thank you for that. So in speaking to my Second of the Motion, I 5 will reiterate what Commissioner Keller said just now with respect to while in some ways when 6 you put a daycare center in an area that has proximity to a freeway and to the dump and all those 7 other things maybe its not ideal but I think this is somewhat of a balancing act here and I think 8 we do have a shortage of daycare. We just lost another facility in town. Its very difficult to do 9 and when there are opportunities to do that and weighing the pros and cons and looking at the 10 overall quality of life that things like a local daycare center have and have those positively 11 impact our residents, I am inclined to support that, not that the impacts of neighboring properties 12 are to be diminished but it’s a balancing act. I am however concerned now with the component 13 of the Motion that requires the ingress to be on the northbound portion of the driveway. That 14 sounds like it would run counter to Staff’s recommendation and I would see where if you have a 15 backup in the current configuration from a southbound vehicle if you have a backup it may well 16 not block anyone else, no other driveway, but if we moved it to the northern portion all it takes is 17 one car and then you’ve blocked that other driveway. 18 19 The other overarching comment that I would say is I have a good friend who works in an office 20 building fairly closely and for whatever reason I seem to be over there from time to time at the 21 end of the day. Compared to just about everywhere else in Palo Alto, there’s not a lot of traffic 22 there. It happens a little bit but its not really what I would consider backups, it just doesn’t seem 23 in the scheme of things that significant and yes, it may present some conflicts in terms of ingress 24 or egress but I don’t think it’s of the magnitude that in any way should hold back a project like 25 this. So I’m supportive of the project but I do now have a question about whether this 26 requirement for the entrance on the north makes sense or not. I’m not a Traffic Engineer but I 27 would defer to Staff for their thoughts on how to engineer this best. We shouldn’t try to second 28 guess that so my inclination would be to remove that condition based on the recommendation of 29 Staff. I’m open to hear other Commissioners’ thoughts but I’m in support of the project but 30 question this condition. 31 32 Chair Martinez: I’m going to ask Commissioner Keller whether he would like to revise his 33 Motion. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: I think the adjacent property owner wished to speak. Is that right? 36 37 Chair Martinez: The Public Hearing is closed. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: Since we are thinking about something that affects the adjacent property 40 owner, can I ask a question as to what the consideration of potential for changing the driveway 41 orientation, what affect would that be on the property? 42 43 Ms. Cioffi: That is the only entrance. We do have large trailers coming in throughout the day 44 and leaving. That is our only entrance and any blockage on East Bayshore would be a burden to 45 Page 23 of 25 us as well as directly across the street is an entrance to Jim Foug’s property which is also an 1 access to his parking lot as well. 2 3 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I would like to amend the Condition and it is instead to direct 4 Staff to work with the neighbors to figure out the best harmonious way of dealing with the traffic 5 impacts. 6 7 Chair Martinez: Could you repeat that? 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Direct Staff that before it goes to Council, work with neighbors to figure 10 out the most harmonious way to deal with potential traffic impacts. 11 12 Commissioner Tuma: Fine. I don’t think we need to direct Staff to do that. They are perfectly 13 capable and they’ve been doing that all along. That’s what this is about is trying to come to 14 some sort of resolution. To make it a Condition of our Motion seems a bit overreaching but in 15 the interest of sort of moving this along, fine. 16 17 Chair Martinez: Yes, City Attorney. 18 19 Ms. Tronquet: Sorry Commissioner Keller, could you clarify whether that was a Condition of 20 Approval or just a recommendation. I’m concerned that it may not be specific enough for Staff 21 and what if they can’t work out a harmonious agreement. 22 23 Commissioner Keller: It’s not a Condition of Approval. It’s just a recommendation that Staff 24 spend time trying to figure out if there is a solution that works for everybody. 25 26 Commissioner Tuma: So through the Chair, just to clarify, your Motion is simply the 27 recommendation from Staff Report. 28 29 Commissioner Keller: Yes my Motion is the recommendation from Staff Report. There are two 30 comments not from the Staff Report… 31 32 Commissioner Tuma: I understand the comments but let’s just stick to the Motion. 33 34 Commissioner Keller: The Motion specifically is to move the Staff Report. That’s correct. 35 36 Commissioner Tuma: I’ll Second and I’ve said enough. 37 38 Chair Martinez: Okay any discussion? Commissioners? Yes, Vice Chair Fineberg. 39 40 Vice Chair Fineberg: I have a question for Staff and this might possibly lead to a friendly 41 amendment. At places this evening is an additional Condition of Approval and I’m sorry I didn’t 42 bring this up earlier during our Staff question period but basically the facility is located in a title 43 flood zone. If the levies are breached or overtopped the site could be under 4 feet of water and it 44 is between a highway, there’s a highway between the site and high ground. We’ve had 45 discussions about childcare and floodplains before with the Google project and the emergency 46 Page 24 of 25 response there was go up because they had a second floor on that facility. This facility does not 1 and what we’re considering tonight while I’m generally in favor of putting 117 kids in a 2 floodplain without an evacuation plan with a highway between them and high ground poses 3 significant potential risks to public health and safety so Staff, is this additional Condition of 4 Approval something that Staff has prepared to address that issue? And I don’t see it in the Staff 5 Report because I believe this additional Condition was developed after the Staff Report and does 6 Staff recommend that this Condition is written and be included or what’s our status on it? 7 8 Mr. Reich: Yes the additional Condition that was put at places this evening was specifically to 9 address that issue and it is our recommendation that that Condition be added to the approval so 10 your Motion to approve would include that Condition that was set at places this evening. 11 12 Vice Chair Fineberg: Do I need to make a formal amendment or is it in the language of the Staff 13 Report and I’m just not seeing it? 14 15 Mr. Reich: The Staff Report went out before the Condition was developed so it’s not in there but 16 it’s understood that that Condition that was provided to you at places would be added to the 17 Conditions of Approval that the Council will see. 18 19 Vice Chair Fineberg: So let me just read it in and does the Maker and the Seconder I guess 20 understand that this is in there even though it’s not in writing? So it basically says that the 21 daycare center provider shall ensure that an emergency preparedness plan is created to set forth 22 procedures and plans of action in the event of a fire, flood, earthquake, power outage, chemical 23 spill/gas release and let me now speak just generally to my support of the Motion. We don’t 24 have enough childcare, daycare, after school or preschool facilities in town. I wish that this 25 could be on the same side of the highway as the 60 some thousand people who live and the 26 12,000 some kids who go to school in Palo Alto but that land is rare and expensive and mostly 27 unattainable so it’s not necessarily ideal that it’s on the other side of the highway. That will 28 impact ease of access by biking and by children or families walking but it’s a compromise to get 29 much, much needed daycare. 30 31 I’m pleased to hear that Staff will continue to work with the adjoining properties to address real 32 world concerns and real problems should they arise and I would hope that the Applicant and the 33 neighbors continue to be good neighbors and remain in a dialogue for constructive outcomes. 34 Sometimes fears don’t pan out and sometimes reality is worse than our worst fears and we don’t 35 know exactly how that’s going to go. We model and do our best so I think good neighbors can 36 work together to solve problems and that goes a long way and I’ll be supporting the Motion. 37 38 Chair Martinez: I support the Motion as well. I could support it either way, reversing the 39 parking would be fine, leaving the entrances where they are now would be fine. I’m less 40 supportive of putting it back onto Staff to work with the Applicant and the neighbors again since 41 you all haven’t really been able to do that. I would be happier if we just had a solid Motion that 42 says this is what we’re recommending to Council. 43 44 Commissioner Tuma: We do. The Motion was pared down to simply moving the Staff 45 Recommendation. 46 Page 25 of 25 1 Chair Martinez: What about working with neighbors? 2 3 Commissioner Tuma: Those are Arthur’s comments. 4 5 Chair Martinez: Is that the way you see them? 6 7 Commissioner Keller: They were not part of the Motion, just encouragements to work things out 8 and that might involve monitoring in the future but its not formally part of the Motion. 9 10 VOTE 11 12 Chair Martinez: Fine. With that, let’s vote. Those in favor of the Motion say Aye. Ayes. 13 14 Chair Martinez: No opposed. So the Motion passes with Commissioner Garber, Michael, 15 Keller, Chair Martinez, Vice Chair Fineberg and Commissioner Tuma voting Aye and 16 Commissioner Tanaka absent. We’re going to take a 5 minute break. Thank you all very much. 17 18 MOTION PASSES (6 – 0) 19 20 City of Palo Alto Page 1 PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Russ Reich, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE:February 8, 2012 SUBJECT:2585 East Bayshore Road: Request by 2585 Bayshore LLC for Site and Design Review of a proposed after school Day Care Center on a one acre parcel. Zone District-ROLM(D)(AD)(E) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend City Council approval of the Site and Design Review request for the establishment of an after-school Day Care Center at 2585 East Bayshore Road as set forth in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). BACKGROUND Process History In 2011, the applicant submitted an Architectural Review (AR) application for modification of the site to accommodate a Day Care Center. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the exterior improvements and recommended approval of the design. The owner of an adjacent property (2575 East Bayshore) raised concerns over traffic and parking, and appealed the Director’s AR approval of the design and use. The applicant then withdrew the application to provide a more thorough analysis of potential traffic and parking impacts, to address the concerns. The applicant’s traffic consultant worked with the City’s Transportation staff to determine the best way to analyze potential impacts. The new traffic analysis is provided as Attachment D. Site Information The project site is located on the east side of East Bayshore Road just south of Embarcadero City of Palo Alto Page 2 Road. The site is approximately 43,560 square feet in area and is located within the Research Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone district with Environmental Sensitivity (E), Site and Design (D), and Auto Dealership (AD) Combining Districts. There is currently one single story building on the site consisting of approximately 15,927 square feet of floor area. The building was formerly used as a general business office and currently has 49 parking stalls. There is a two story office building to the south of the subject property at 2595 East Bayshore Road and a two-story tall commercial business to the north at 2575 East Bayshore Road. The Palo Alto Baylands are located directly behind (east of) the subject property. The ROLM zone district provides for a limited group of office, research and manufacturing uses. Day Care Centers are also specified as a permitted use within the district. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the project site is Research/Office Park, the definition of which includes childcare center as an appropriate use. Project Description The proposed project is the establishment of a Day Care Center within an existing office building and related site improvements, to allow for the after-school care of approximately 117 children by seven full-time staff and five part-time staff. The facility is intended to provide after-school care for children enrolled in public or private schools within Palo Alto. The ages of the children would range between five and 12 years old. The anticipated hours of operation would range from 7:30am to 7:30pm on weekdays only, with children typically cared for between the hours of 12:30 pm and 6:15 pm. The applicant has also indicated that the facility may include preschool services on weekday mornings in the future. The 7:30am start time mentioned above would be the possible future preschool start time. The traffic analysis studied both am and pm peak hour trips based on the understanding that the preschool use, in addition to after school day care, could at some point in the future also be one of the uses on site. The applicant’s description is contained in Attachment C. To meet state licensing requirements, the 18-space parking lot at the rear of the building would be replaced with an outdoor playground, and the existing driveway on the north side of the building would be used as a second play area; chain link fencing would be installed for safety and security of these areas. The new chain link fence would be four feet tall and clad in green vinyl with vinyl slats to screen the play areas. The existing dense vegetation on the site’s perimeter would remain. This vegetation provides a significant visual screen of the property as seen from the Baylands. The new fence and play structures would be concealed behind this existing landscape screen. Changes to the site also include the addition of a new covered trash enclosure at the rear to accommodate the building’s trash and recycling needs, a new handicap ramp, a new painted cross walk, and new accessible parking stalls in the front parking lot. The trash enclosure would have a standing seam metal roof painted bronze and a metal gate in the same bronze color. The enclosure’s walls would be a split face concrete block in a brown color. The parking lot would provide 31 spaces for staff, parents, and visitors. SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION : Commission Purview City of Palo Alto Page 3 The subject property is zoned ROLM (E)(D)(AD). The Site and Design (D) Review Combining District Section 18.30(G).040 requires site and design approval for the establishment of any use. Site and Design Review is a process intended to ensure the development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, compatible with environmental and ecological objectives and in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Transportation Commission’s purview on Site and Design applications is to recommend approval and/or such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following objectives: 1. To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. 2. To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. 3. To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. 4.To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. A Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) provides findings for Site and Design Review approval of the project for the P&TC to review and recommend to the City Council. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: Traffic and Parking The change in use from General Business Office to Day Care Center would potentially result in an increase in the overall volume of trips to and from the site. According to the applicant’s traffic consultant and the City’s traffic engineer, the increased volume of traffic would not cause critical movement delay or the demand-to-capacity ratio to increase beyond the City of Palo Alto Standards under both the near and the far terms. The Traffic Analysis is provided as Attachment D. The proposal includes the removal of 18 existing parking stalls to accommodate the new play area. Even with the removal of these spaces, the proposed use will be adequately parked per the code (see table below). The traffic consultant has studied the current Mustard Seed Day Care facility located at 2800 West Bayshore Road, as well as several other similar Day Care facilities, to observe how the current parking demand functions for this type of use. The consultant found that only 22 spaces would be needed, and that the 31 parking spaces would be more than adequate for the demand associated with the proposed use for the after school program as well as the potential preschool program based on 117 children Parking Requirement Parking Provided City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 parking space per each 1.5 employees =18 required parking spaces 31 spaces provided Traffic congestion is also alleviated by the fact that the pick up and drop off of children would be staggered and take place over a period of time such that all the children would not be picked up and dropped off at the same time. Palo Alto Baylands The only changes to the exterior of the property would be the new trash enclosure, the new four foot tall fence, the reorientation of the handicap parking and ramp, and the new play equipment. These features will be screened from off site views from the Baylands by existing vegetation. There will be no visual impact to the Baylands. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. TIMELINE Application Submittal: November 10, 2011 Application Complete: January 10,2012 P&TC:February 8, 2012 ARB (Consent):February 16, 2012 City Council:March 12 or 19, 2012 If the Planning and Transportation Commission makes a favorable recommendation on the project, the application would go forward to the Architectural Review Board who would act on consent to reaffirm its previous recommendation on the design. City Council would make the final determination on the application. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). ATTACHMENTS: A. Record of Land Use Action B.Site Location Map C.Project Overview* D.Traffic Impact Analysis, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, November 8, 2011* E. Plans (Commission only)* * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES: Dan Cunningham, 2585 Bayshore, LLC Edwina Cioffi, Neighbor Yates McKenzie, Neighbor City of Palo Alto Page 5 James Foug, Neighbor PREPARED BY: Russ Reich, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Acting Assistant Director DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Director PLACEHOLDER