Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-25 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION:PLANNING COMMISSION FINANCE COMMITTEE FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENTS: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA DATE: JUNE 25, 1997 JULY 15, 1997 SUBJECT:INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION) CMR:298:97 PLAN: MODULE 2 (TRAFFIC AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Finance Committee and the Planning Commission comment on the second module of the Infrastructure Plan dealing with traffic and transportation. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 26, 1996, the Finance Committee approved an Infrastructure Work Plan (CMR:377:96), which included a timetable for presenting infrastructure modules to the Planning Commission and Finance Committee. The first module, Buildings and Facilities (CMR:466:96), was reviewed by the Planning Commission and Finance Committee jointly. on November 19. The second module, Traffic and Transportation, was delayed, due to staffing transitions and is now being presented. Traffic management and safety issues have received considerable attention from the public and Council over the past several years. In 1995-96, Council established "Traffic Management and Safety" as a priority to be addressed in forthcoming budgets. In July 1996, the Finance Committee received CMR:336:96, "Proposed Framework for Prioritizing Traffic/Transportation Projects." This report.identified a significant number of important traffic/transportation projects that required substantial funding, and recommended a CMR:298:97 Page 1 of 7 framework or criteria for prioritizing proposed work. In addition, it was recommended that proposed traffic/transportation projects be incorporated into the City’s Infrastructure Plan process so that all of the City’s infrastructure requirements could be evaluated and prioritized according to need and financial constraints. Module 2 of the City’s Infrastructure Work Plan encompasses Transportation Management and four other infrastructure elements that constitute the City’s traffic and transportation infrastructure backbone. They are: ® 0 Streets Sidewalks Medians, Islands and Planters Bikes and Pedestrian Facilities Transportation Management Each element consists of a report and attachments. Reports are designed to provide important background information which consists of a discussion of existing inventory, maintenance needs, capital replacement requirements, new and expanded infrastructure needs, a rationale for prioritizing needed work, and funding options. Attachments to these reports provide a detailed study and prioritizafion of each element’s replacement and repair needs and their associated costs, as well as other pertinent information. As with the Module 1 Buildings and Facilities report, these traffic and transportation reports ¯ identify a substantial need for infrastructure work over the next 15 years. It is staff, s goal to have the Planning Commission and Finance Committee review all of the City’s critical infrastructure needs (to include a Module 3 "Parks and Open Space" by the end of the Summer). In the Fall, staff will present a comprehensive review of the City’s infrastructure requirements and propose a methodology for prioritizing all infrastructure work, as well appropriate financing vehicles. After Planning Commission and Council input is received, staff will fold infrastructure recommendations into the 1998-2000 budget process. It is important to note that critical infrastructure needs, such as roof repair and feasibility and design work for traffic calming, were proposed in the 1997-98 Capital Improvement Program. POLICY IMPLICATIONS A fundamental policy decision in moving forward with a major infrastructure effort is that the City will have fewer resources for new program services, enhanced service levels, and new buildings or the replacement of buildings. Finite resources implies a need to choose, and in a City accustomed to high service levels, choices will be challenging. While the City enjoys high levels of fire, library and police services, for example, it also faces new demands CMR:298:97 Page 2 of 7 on resources. Examples of such demands include expanding Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) athletic field work, building a community library, implementing a new shuttle service, constructing a joint City/PAUSD library, and initiating a Family Resource Center. As the Finance Committee proceeds with its Infrastructure Work Plan review, the policy issue of allocating resources among competing needs will be present. Because the proposed infrastructure management system is intended to set a plan for the 10 to 20 years of infrastructure changes and improvements, staff has reviewed policies from both the 1980 adopted Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Comprehensive Plan which has had only preliminary City Council review and has not yet been adopted. The 1980 Comprehensive Plan includes the following Policies and Programs: Transportation Element: Policy 3: Coordinate transportation planning, including public and private road- ways, transit, paratransit, and bikeways. Program 4: Provide transit transfer centers at the University Avenue and California Avenue Southern Pacific Stations. Policy 4: Reduce through traffic on residential streets. Policy 5: Avoid major increase in street capacities, but undertake critically needed intersection improvements connected with severe traffic congestion or neighborhood traffic intrusion problems, or both. Program 17: Make operational and intersection improvements to ease traffic flow on major streets. Program 18: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s network of major streets. Policy 12: Promote bicycle use. Program 33: Complete the adopted Bikeways Master Plan. Program 34: Develop and implement a network of through bicycle boulevards. Program 39: Develop walkways and improved bicycle routes in industrial areas through an assessment district. CMR:298:97 Page 3 of 7 Urban Design Element: Policy 3: Promote visual aesthetics through tree planing, landscaped areas, and removal of visually disruptive elements on major City streets. Policy 7: Strengthen gateway identity. The current draft of the proposed Comprehensive Plan includes the following,polices ~and programs related to traffic and transportation: Land Use and Community Design Element: Policy L-15: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians. Policy L-20: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all centers through an aggressive repair program, the use of special pavement, landscaping, and street improvements. Policy L-25: Pursue redevelopment of the University Avenue Multi-Modal Transit Station area to establish a link between University Avenue/Downtown and the Stanford Shopping Center. Policy L-39: Provide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment District. Pursue opportunities to build sidewalks and paths in renovation and expansion projects. Policy L-60: Maintain a clear, functional and aesthetically pleasing street network that helps.frame and define the community, while meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Policy L-65: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, E1 Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the CalTrain stations; entries to commercial districts; and Embarcadero Road at E1 Camino Real. Program L-77: Undertake a coordinated effort by the Public Works, Utilities, and Planning Departments to establish design standards for public infrastructure and examine the effectiveness of City street, sidewalk and street tree maintenance programs. CMR:298:97 Page 4 of 7 Transportation Element: Policy T-13: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destina- tions, including public facilities, schools, parks and open space, employment and shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. Program T-16: Implement the Bicycle Master Plan. Program T-18: Develop and periodically update a long-term street and bicycle facilities improvement program that identifies and prioritizes critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities, and establishes an implementation plan for their construction. Program T-1: Develop public sidewalks and bicycle facilities in Stanford Research Park and other employment areas through assessment districts. Program T-26: Adjust the street evaluation criteria of the City’s Pavement Management Program to ensure that areas of the road used by bicyclists are maintained at the same standards as areas used by motor vehicles. Program T-27: Provide regular maintenance of off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths, including sweeping, weed abatement and pavement maintenance. Policy T-27: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the needs of. pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Policy T-33: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures. Additional policies and programs will be cited from both the 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Comprehensive Plan as the later modules are brought to Council. FISCAL IMPACT As shown in the table below and expressed in 1996-97 dollars, Module 2 identifies $46.2 million in replacement and rehabilitation capital work and $61.7 million in new and enhanced programs (for a more detailed breakout of projected costs, see Attachment 2: Module 2 Financial Summary by Year). Included in the $46.2 million replacement and CMR:298:97 Page 5 of 7 rehabilitation cost is $18.2 million of infrastructure work that has been identified as a "backlog." The backlog consists of infrastructure that has been identified as being in poor condition and should be corrected now if the funding were available. Module 2: Traffic and Transportation Financial Impact ($000’s) I Backlog Years1-5I Years6-10I Years11.15I TotalCosts Replacement/Rehabilitation Capital Costs Streets Sidewalks Bicycle and Pedestrian Off- Street Paths Medians, Islands and Planters Existing Inventory Tota, $6,229 $8,790 $ 3,187 $ 18,206 New and Enhanced Bicycle and Pedestrian $ 9,450 $ 3,ooo $ 624 $ 1,595 $ 14,669 $ 9,000 $ 3,000 $ 637 $ 1,595 $ 14,232 $9,000 $ 2,790 $ 186 $ 5,329 $ 17,305 $ 27,45C $ 8,79C $ 1,447 $ 8,519 $ 46,206 $ 2,325 $ 2,500 $ 1,500 $ 6,325Facilities Traffic Management $ 11,850 $ 26,000 $ 17,500 $ 55,350Programs Subtotal $ 14,175 $ 28,500 $ 19,000 $61,675 Grand Total $ 18,206 $ 28,844 $ 42,732 $ 36,305 $107,881 The fiscal impact of new and enhanced facilities and traffic management programs is included in this report, even though the primary focus of the Infrastructure Plan is on replacement and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. This information is provided in response to Council and public concerns about traffic and transportation issues and to aid in prioritizing future infrastructure work. Proposition 218 has made the requirements for establishing assessment districts more rigorous; however, this financing option is still available to cities for street and sidewalk infrastructure work. Proposition 218 requires approval of an assessment district by a majority vote of affected property owners and that property owners, who may be assessed only for the specific benefits attributable to their property. A street or sidewalk assessment district might more readily meet the "specific benefit" requirements imposed by CIViR:298:97 Page 6 of 7 Proposition 218, than, for example, a Parks and Open Space Assessment District, where the benefits are more general and not so easily attributable to specific parcels. A strong argument can be made that a street or sidewalk assessment district for a small portionof the City, such as individual residential neighborhoods would serve a specific group of users for whom the benefit of residential street or sidewalk work could be directly attributable. Depending upon the level of funding provided, staff’mg to implement enhanced infrastructure efforts may be required. Such costs would be evaluated in each two-year budget process. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The infrastructure modules reports and committee comments represent preliminary policy assessment and, as such, do not require California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Individual projects identified in the reports will be subject to environmental review as they are further developed. ATTACHMENT: Infrastructure Plan: Module 2 (Traffic and Transportation) PREPARED BY:John Carlson, Acting Assistant Director of Public Works Joe Saccio, Senior Financial Analyst DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: Melissa Cavallo Acting Director Administrative Services DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:/g~_~ ~:~. " Glenn S. Roberts Director of Public Works CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager CC:n/a CMR:298:97 Page 7 of 7