Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-03-11 City Council (15)
City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 6 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AGENDA DATE: March 11, 1996 CMR:168:96 SUBJECT:Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan - Award of Construction Contract On May 8, 1995, Council approved the trial implementation of a traffic management plan (Alternative 5) for the Lytton Avenue Neighborhood. On December 18, 1995, Council approved a Budget Amendment Ordinance establishing a new Capital Improvement Program Project (CIP No. 19623) in an amount of $74,000, to fund the installation. The purpose of this report is to request that Council now award a construction contract to MCE Corporation for the trial installation of the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan.. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached construction contract with MCE Corporation in the amount of $33,560, for installation of the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, on a six-month trial basis. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract for related, but unforeseen, work; the total amount of which shall not exceed $5,000. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Implementation of the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan is consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan Policy No. 4: Reduce through traffic on residential streets. CMR:168:96 Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SIIMMARY Background In December 1992, Council directed staff to work with representatives of the Lytton Avenue neighborhood to evaluate and report back to Council regarding appropriate steps to take, if any, to reduce the impact of traffic shortcutting through the neighborhood via the Pope/Chaucer Bridge. After several iterations of evaluation and discussion involving a neighborhood working group, general neighborhood meetings, and the Policy and Services Committee, the City Council, on May 8, 1995, approved a staff recommendation to proceed with the implementation of a specific Lytton Avenue Traffic Management Plan, identified as Alternative 5 (Attachment 2), on a six-month trial basis. Included as Attachment 3 is a previous staff report (CMR:242:95) which provides a more detailed description of the process and decision ma ~king that led to the decision to implement a traffic management plan (Alternative 5), on a six-month trial basis. On December 18, 1995, Council adopted a Budget mnendment Ordinance establishing a new Capital Improvement Progrmn Project (CIP No. 19623) in an amount of $74,000, in order to provide funds to proceed with the implementation of the Plan. Selection Process Plans and specifications were mailed to 16 general circulation exchanges and 20 contractors on February 5, 1996. In addition, plans mad specifications were picked up or mailed to 11 contractors prior to the bid opening. The bidding period was three weeks, which was an adequate period of time based on the size and complexity of the project. Bids were received from two qualified contractors on February 27, 1996, aslisted on the attached summary (Attaclmaent 4). The.bids ranged from a high of $56,000 to a low bid of $33,560. The low bid is 38 percent below the Engineer’s estimate of $54,000. Staff has reviewed all bids received and reco~mnends that the bid of $33,560, submitted by MCE Corporation, be determined by Council to be the lowest responsible bidder, and that the contract be awarded accordingly. Staff contacted several contractors to determine their reasons for not submitting a bid for the project. The reasons varied from the project being small, to the contractor being busy on other projects, to there not being enough ~vork in a particular area (e.g., not enough asphalt work or not enough striping). CMR:168:96 Page 2 of 4 Staffhas checked the two references provided by MCE Corporation and also whether any issues against the Contractor have been reported to the State of Califon~a. Both references were positive and there are no reported issues against the Contractor. In addition, staff discussed the cost of various bid items with the Contractor and the Contractor has stated that they have a good understanding of the job and the various bid items are priced accordingly. Project Description The scope of work includes installation of the following elements with related signing and striping: a.A traffic circle at Lytton and Fulton; b.A traffic median on Guinda at Lytton; c.A traffic median on Chaucer at Palo Alto Avenue; d.Three road bumps: two on Palo Alto Avenue and one on Guinda; and. e.Restriping of University Avenue between Fulton and Webster to accommodate an additional westbound lane and widening of the southeast corner to accommodate northbound vehicles on Middlefield turning right on to University. Next Steps If Council approves the award of the construction contract for the installation of the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, the following steps will occur: a.The construction contract will be executed. b.The contractor will hastall the various traffic management devices of the trial plan, as per Alternative 5. Work is expected to begin about April 1 st and to be completed by May 30th. c.A six-month trial period will start around June lst. d.Staff will monitor on-going operations of the trial traffic management plan during the trial period, and make any necessary adjustments that are warranted due to safety problems. e. Staff will complete an evaluation at the end of the six-month trial period and remm to Council for further direction. The evaluation will include the collection of field data, including volumes, and speeds for before and after comparisons, as well as a survey to identify residents’ concerns and issues. f.At the end of the evaluation, Council will need to consider the following options: (a) implement the trial plan on a permanent basis, (b) abandon further consideration of any traffic management plan (remove trial devices), or (c) try some other traffic management arrangement. CMR:168:96 Page 3 of 4 FISCAL IMPACT Funds for this project are available ha CIP No. 19623. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An Environmental Assessment (95-EIA-5) recolranendh~g a Negative Declaration was approved by Council at its regular meetfiag on May 8, 1995. ATTACHMENTS 1. Contract with MCE Corporation Alternative 5 3. CM~R:242:95, Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Study - Recommendation fi’om Policy and Services Cormnittee 4. Bid Summary Sheet Prepared By: Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer Department Head Review: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER " Director of Plalming mad Colmnunity Enviromnent City Manager Approval: er cc:Working Group Members Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (Margaret Feuer) City of Menlo Park (Jan Dolan, Don Dey, Rubin Nino) City of East Palo Alto (Jerome Groomes, William Howard, David Miller) East Palo Alto Transportation Task Force (Heidi Sanel) Safe Open Streets (Eric Doyle) MCE Corporation CMR:168:96 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT FORMALCONTRACT CONTRACT (Public Work) This Contract, dated _, is entered into by ~md between the City of Palo Alto, a chartered city and a municipal corporation of the State of California ("City") , and MCE C.orporation. , a. California Corooration ......... ("Contractor"). For and in consideration of the covenants, terms, and conditions ("the provisions") of this Contract, City and Contractor ("the parties") agree: Ter___..~m. This Contract shall commence and be binding on the parties on the Date of Execution of this Contract, and shall expire on the date of recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is required to be filed, on the date that final payment is made hereunder, subject to the earlier termination of this Contract. General Scope of Project and Work. Contractor shall furnish labor, services, materials and equipment in connection with the construction of the Project and complete the Work in accordance with the covenants, terms and conditions of this Contract to the satisfaction of City. The Project and Work is generally described as follows: Title of Project:Lytton Neigh_b._0rhood Traffic Manaqement Plan Base Bid:$ 33,560.00 Add Alternates (if any): $ 0 Total Bid: $ 33,560.00 NO.19623 Contract Documents. This Contract shall consist of the documents set forth below, which are on file with the City Clerk and are hereby incorporated by reference. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, these documents and the provisions thereof are set forth in the following descending order of precedence. mo This Contract. Notice Inviting Formal Bids. Project Specifications. Drawings. Change Orders. Bid. Supplementary Conditions. General Conditions. Standard Drawings and Specifications (1992). Certificate of Insurance, Performance Bond, Labor & Materials (Payment) Bond. Affirmative Action Guidelines and Compliance Report. Other Specifications, or part thereof, not expressly incorporated in the Contract Specifications or the Standard Drawings and Specifications (1992). Any other document not expressly mentioned herein which is issued by City or entered into by the parties. CITY of PALO ALTO: Planning Department/Transportation Formal Contract 1 of 8 FORMAL CONTRACT o Compensatio.n.. In consideration of Contractor’s performance of i~s obligations hereunder, City shall pay to Contractor the amount set forth in Contractor’s Bid in accordance with the provisions of this Contract and upon the receipt of written invoices amJ all necessary supporting documentation within the time set forth in the Contract Specifications and the Standard Drawings and Specifications (1992), or, if no time is stated, within thirty (30) Days of the date of receipt of Contractor’s invoices. Insurance. On or before the Date of Execution, Contractor shall obtain and maintain the policies of insurance coverage described in the Notice Inviting Formal Bids on terms and conditions and in amounts as may be required by the Risk Manager. City shall not be obligated to take. out insurance on Contractor’s ¯ personal property or the personal property of any person performing labor or services or supplying materials or equipment under the Project. Contractor shall furnish City with the certificates of insurance and with original endorsements affecting coverage required under this Contract on or before the Date of Execution. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person who is authorized by that insurer to bind coverage in its behalf. Proof of insurance shall be mailed to the Project Manager to the address set forth in Section 15 of this Contract. o Indemnification. Contractor agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, damages, costs, expenses, liens, penalties, suits, or judgments, arising, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, at any time from any injury to or death of persons or damage to property as a result of the willful acts or the negligent acts or omissions of Contractor, or which results from Contractor’s noncompliance with any Law respecting the condition, use, occupation or safety of the Project site, or any part thereof, or which arises from Contractor’s failure to do anything required under this Contract or for doing anything which Contractor is required not to do under this Contract, or which arises from conduct for which any Law may impose strict liability-on Contractor in the performance of or failure to perform the provisions of this Contract, except as may arise from the sole willful acts or negligent acts or omissions of City or any of its Council members, officers, employees, agents or representatives. This indemnification shall extend to any and all claims, demands, or liens made or filed by reason of any work performed by Contractor under this Contract at any time during the term of this Contract, or arising thereafter. To the extent Contractor will use hazardous materials in connection with the execution of its obligations under this Contract, Contractor further expressly agrees to protect, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its City Council members, officers and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, liabilities, losses, damages, costs, expenses, liens, penalties, suits, or judgments City may incur, arising, in whole or in part, in connection with or as a result of Contractor’s willful acts or negligent acts or omissions under this Contract, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. § §9601-6975, as amended); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. §§6901-6992k, as amended); the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. §§2601-2692, as amended); the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act (Health & Safety Code, §§25300-25395, as amended); the Hazardous Waste Control Law (Health & Safety Code, §§25100- 25250.25, as amended); the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Health & Safety Code, § §25249.5-25249.13, as amended); the Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act (Health & Safety Code, §§25280-25299-7, as amended); or under any other local, state or federal law, statute or ordinance, or at common law. Assumption of Risk. Contractor agrees to voluntarily assume any and all risk of loss, damage, or injury to the property of Contractor which may occur in, on, or about the Project site at any time and in any manner, excepting such loss, injury, or damage as may be caused by the sole willful act or negligent act or omission CITY of PALO ALTO: Planning Department/Transportation Formal Contract 2 of ~ FORMAL CONTRACT of City or any of its Council members, officers, employees, agents or representatives. Waiver. The acceptance of any payment or performance, or any part thereof, shall not operate as a waiver by City of its rights under this Contract. A waiver by City of any breach of any part or provision of this Contract by Contractor shall not operate as a waiver or continuing waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision, nor shall any custom or practice which may arise between the parties in the administration of any part or provision of this Contract be construed to waive or to lessen the right of City to insist upon the performance of Contractor in strict compliance with the covenants, terms and conditions of this Contract. Comoliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all Laws now in force or which may hereafter be in force pertaining to the Project and Work and this Contract, with the requirement of any bond or fire underwriters or other similar body now or hereafter constituted, with any discretionary license or permit issued pursuant to any Law of any public agency or official as well as with any provision of all recorded documents affecting the Project site, insofar as any are required by reason of the use or occupancy of the Project site, and with all Laws pertaining to nondiscrimination and affirmative action in employment and hazardous materials. 10. 11. ¯’SBonds. As a condition precedent to C~ty obligation to pay compensation to Contractor, and on or before the Date of Execution, Contractor shall furnish to the Project Manager the Bonds as required under the Notice Inviting Formal Bids. Representations and Warrantie..~.. In the supply of any materials and equipment and the rendering of labor and services during the course and scope of the Project and Work, Contractor represents and warrants: Any materials and equipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and Work shall be vested in Contractor; Any materials and equipment which shall be used during the course and scope of the Project and Work shall be merchantable and fit robe used for the particular purpose for which the materials are required; Co Any labor and services rendered and materials and equipment used or employed during the course and scope of the Project and Work shall be free of defects in workmanship for a period of one (1) year after the recordation of the Notice of Substantial Completion, or, if no such notice is required to be filed, on the date that final payment is made hereunder; e° Any manufacturer’s warranty obtained by Contractor shall be obtained or shall be deemed obtained by Contractor for and in behalf of City. Any information submitted by Contractor prior to the award of Contract, or thereafter, upon request, whether or not submitted under a continuing obligation by the terms of the Contract to do so, is true and correct at the time such information is submitted or made available to the City; Contractor has not colluded, conspired, or agreed, directly or indirectly, with any person in regard to the terms and conditions of Contractor’s Bid, except as may be permitted by the Notice Inviting Formal Bids; CITY of PALO ALTO: Planning Department/Transportation Formal Contract 3 of 8 FORMAL CONTRACT ho Contractor has the power and authority to enter into this Contract with City, that the individual executing this Contract is duly authorized to do so by appropriate resolution, and that this Contract shall be executed, delivered and performed pursuant to the power and authority conferred upon the person or persons authorized to bind Contractor; Contractor has not made an attempt to exert undb.e influence with the Purchasing Manager or Project Manager or any other person who has directly contributed to City’s decision to award the contract to Contractor; There are no unresolved claims or disputes between Contractor and City which would materially affect Contractor’s ability to perform under the Contract; Contractor has furnished and will furnish true and accurate statements, records, reports, resolutions, certifications, and other written information as may be requested of Contractor by City from time to time during the term of this Contract; 12. 13. 14. 15. ko Contractor and any person performing labor and services under this Project are duly licensed by the State of California as required by California Business & Professions Code Section 7028, as amended; and Contractor has fully examined and inspected the Project site and has full knowledge of the physical conditions of the Project site. Assiqnment. This Contract and the performance required hereunder is personal to Contractor,. and it shall not be assigned by Contractor. Any attempted assignment shall be null and void. Claims of Contracto[. All claims pertaining to extra work, additional charges, or delays within the Contract Time or other disputes arising out of the Contract shall be submitted by Contractor to City in writing by certified or registered mail within ten (10) Days after the claim arose or within such other time as may be permitted or required by law, and shall be described in sufficient detail to give adequate notice of the substance of the claim to City. Audits by City. During the term of this Contract and for a period of not less than three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Contract, City shall have the right to audit Contractor’s Project-related and Work-related writings and business records, as such terms are defined in California Evidence Code Sections 250 and 1271, as amended, during the regular business hours of Contractor, or, if Contractor has no such hours, during the regular business hours of City. ~. All agreements, appointments, approvals, authorizations, claims, demands, Change Orders, consents, designations, notices, offers, requests and statements given by either party to the other sha~l be in writing and shall be sufficiently given and served upon the other party if (1) personally served, (2) sent by the United States mail, postage prepaid, (3) sent by private express delivery service, or (4) in the case of a facsimile transmission, if sent to the telephone FAX number set forth below during regular business hours of the receiving party and followed within two (2) Days by delivery of a hard copy of the material sent by facsimile transmission, in accordance with (1), (2) or (3} above. Personal service sha!l include, without limitation, service by delivery and service by facsimile transmission. CITY of PALO ALTO: Planning Department/Transportation Formal Contract 4 of t5 FORMAL CONTRACT To City: Copy to: To Contractor: City of Pa!o Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 City of Palo Alto Department of ~ 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 (415) 329- 257_._._~8 FAX: (415) 329- 224~0. ATTN: Marvin Overway, Project Manager MCE Cor_9_gration 6515 Tr~ Court Dublin. C__A 94568-2627 (510) 803_ -4111 FAX: (510) 803-4405 ATTN: M..M..&vnard A. Crowther 17. Ao0rooriation of City Funds. This Contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of Article III, Section 12 of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto. Any charges hereunder for labor, services, materials and equipment may accrue only after such expenditures have been approved in advance in writing in accordance with applicable Laws. This Contract shall terminate without penalty (i) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (ii) 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 Contract are no longer available. This Section 16 shall control in the event of a conflict with any other provision of this Contract. Miscellaneous. b. Bailee Disclaimer. The parties understand and agree that City does not purport to be Contractor’s bailee, and City is, therefore, not responsible for any damage to the personal property of Contractor. Consent. VVhenever in this Contract the approval or consent of a party is required, such approval or consent shall be in writing and shall be executed by a person having the express authority to grant such approval or consent. Controlling Law. The parties agree that this Contract shall be governed and construed by and in accordance with the Laws of the State of California. CITY of PALO ALTO: Planning Department/Transportation Formal Contract 5 of 8 FORMAL CONTRACT Definitions. The definitions and terms set forth in Section 1 of the Standard Drawings and.Specifications (1992) of this Contract are incorporated herein by reference. Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default on account of any delay or failure to perform its obligations under this Contract which directly, results from an Act of God or an act of a superior governmental authority. Headings. The paragraph headings are not a partof this Contract and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part of this Contract. Incorporation of Documents. All documents constituting the Contract documents described in Section 3 hereof and all documents which may, from time to time, be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and shall be deemed to be part of this Contract. Integration. This Contract and any amendments hereto between the parties constitute the entire agreement between the parties concerning the Project and Work, and there are no other prior oral or written agreements between the parties that are not incorporated in this Contract. Modification of Agreement. This Contract shall not be modified or be binding upon the parties, unless such modification is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties. Provision. Any agreement, covenant, condition, clause, qualification, restriction, reservation, term or other stipulation in the Contract shall define or otherwise control, establish, or limit the performance required or permitted or to be required of or permitted by either party. All provisions, whether covenants or conditions, shall be deemed.to be both covenants and conditions. Resolution. Contractor shall submit with its Bid a copy of any corporate or partnership resolution or other writing, which authorizes any director, officer or other employee or partner to act for or in behalf of Contractor or which authorizes Contractor to enter into this Contract. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Contract is void or unenforceable, the provisions of this Contract not so affected shall remain in full force and effect. Status of Contractor. In the exercise of dghts and obligations under this Contract, Contractor acts as an independent contractor and not as an agent or employee of City. Contractor shall not be entitled to any rights and benefits accorded or accruing to the City Council members, officers or employees of City, and Contractor expressly waives any and all claims to such rights and benefits. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Contract shall inure to the benefit of, and shall apply to and bind, the successors and assigns of the parties. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Contract and each of its provisions. In the calculation of time hereunder, the time in which an act is to be performed shall be computed by excluding the first Day and including the last. If the time in which an act is to be performed falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or any Day observed as a legal holiday by City, the time for performance shall be extended to the following Business Day. CITY of PALO ALTO: Planning DepartmentfTransportation Formal Contract 6 of 8 M~R-O~-I~ ~8:~8 FORMAL CONTRACT Po MCE CORPOR~T I ON 1~108~4405 P.O~ Venue, In the ever~t that sui~ is brought by either party hereunder, the parties agree that trial of such a~n shall be.vesNd.e×clus~ely.ln the sNte ex~urtsof C,~li~mla in.the Count~ N San~ Clara in ~e CiN ..of San Jose.or In th~ United States Distdct Court for the Northern District of California in the City of San Recovery of. osts.IThe prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this Contractor adsingo~t of: this 13ontract may. recover Its r.easonat~le costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred.or expended in connection with Such action against the non-prevailing party.. : ". IN WITNESS WHEREO =;-the-parties have by their duly appointed representatives executed this " -Contmc~ in. the ci~ of Palo Alto, 3ounty of Santa Clams, State o,f California on the date first stated above. ~ AT~rI~ST: ...City Clerk...! APPROVF-D:, ~ity.Manager Director of Planning CITY OF PALO ALTO By: Its: Mayor ¯CONTRACTOR"~CE Corporation Name: ~.~m,a.,r,d Ao Cro~,:ber Title: / !’r~B~t-nt Manager; Contract Administatio~. A~PROVED AS TO FORM: Taxpayerl.D..No.95-2395310 .City Attorney :CITY of’PALO: ALTO; Planning Dep rtment/Transportatlon Formal Contract 7of 8 MRR-{i5-1996 88:38 FORMAL=CONTRACT MCE CORPORATION 15188834485 P.04 S ATE CERTIRCA!,E OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT " (G~vil Code §: 1189) " in and f.ors’~id:Cou.nty, personally appeared l e~;~.’tO be: the perso~(~ whose ,ame~@/~ subscribed to the within instrument,! ; ; a~d ackno~d~ed to me tha~~ executed the same i~~r authorized c~Pacity~); and: that by~~ signature(~ on the instrument the person(~, or the entity upon . behalf" of. which:the .person(~ cted~ execu;ed the instrument;¯ . :. WITNESS¯my hand ctal seal,. cl~Y, iof PALo LA~,TO:. Pianr~ing END OF SECTION Depirtmant/Trans!0ortation Formal Contract Bole TOTAL P.04 ATTACHMENT 2 ALTERNATIVE 5 11/94 2470 2750 / LEGEND: EXISTING DAILY VOLUME (1993) 3380 PROJECTED DALLY VOLUME Existing stop signs (shown only in the Lytton neighborhood area) Traffic Signals ~~iBUMP ~1800 HALE SIGNS ~ 270 2260 TRAFFIC CIRCLE N, ID OVAL (ALLMOVEMENTS PERMrr’£ED)NEGLIGIBLECHANGEIN VOLUME 27670 NEGLIGIBLECHANGES /28100 IN VOL~ _~43603230 2~70 2134O 386O 397O SENECA 1230 __ 18690 19280 GUINDA RESTRIPE T0 ADD SEiCO~"~WESTBOUNDTHROL~H U~ANE ~ -T----BETWEEN GUINDAA~ID ~ /M’DDLEFIELD / ~ ALTERNATIVE 5 Description Alternative 5, illustrated on the map on the opposing page, is a new alternative developed by staff in response to the Committee’s direction. To reduce through traffic and speeds in the neighborhood, this alternative employs a raised median on Chaucer, and numerous traffic calming devices on Palo Alto Avenue, Guinda, Fulton, and. Lytton. The median on Chaucer also would act as a traffic calming device. Only right turns in and out of the east and west legs of Palo Alto Avenue would be possible at the Palo Alto Avenue/Chaucer intersection. Full access for bicycles and emergency ..vehicles would remain. All movements could be made at the Fulton/Lytton traffic circle and the Guinda/Lytton "oval". Westbound flow through the University/Middlefietd intersection is improved as described for Alternative 1. Operation and Effectiveness Table 1 and the accompanying map provide details on this alternative. The predicted increase on Hale from 125 to 150 vehicles per day is considered to be "noticeable to residents", based on the TIRE index, and is the only such location. In the overall perspective of the lower volumes throughout the neighborhood produced by this alternative, the absolute increase of 25 vehicles per day on Hale is relatively sma!l. Alternative 5 provides a "rnedium" level of through trip reduction, similar to Alternative 2, and a correspondingly lnedium level of diversion to the surrounding streets (Chaucer, Hamilton, University, and Middlefield). As noted in the previous paragraph, however, volume increases on surrounding streets are not expected to be noticeable. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative 5 has a relatively high number of new speed reduction devices (6 locations). Alternative 5 strikes a reasonable balance between desired volume and speed reduction versus undesired diversion of traffic to other streets and limitations of neighborhood access and internal circulation. It does not require police enforcement to be fully effective, as do the alternatives with passive turn restrictions. Cost Estimate The estimated cost of a trial installation lbr Alternative 5 is $44,000. The cost of a permanent installation is $120,000, assuming that the road bumps and signs that are installed as part of the trial would not need to be replaced. An additional cost of $30,000 is required for restriping to create an additional westbound through lane on University Avenue at Middlefield Road. The cost of this component is separated out because it is an existing approved project from the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study and staff already expects to pursue funding and implementation as part of the 1996-97 Capital hnprovement Program process. ATTACHMENT 3 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AGENDA DATE: May 8, 1994 CMR:242:95 SUBJECT:Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Study - Recommendation from Policy and Services Committee REQUEST At its meeting on December 6, 1994, the Policy and Services Committee passed a motion recommending to the City Council that staff proceed with implementation of a traffic management plan for the Lytton Avenue Neighborhood, identified as Alternative 5 in CMR:531:94 (Attachlnent 1), on a six-month trial basis. The purpose of this report is to forward, for Council action, the Environmental Assessment that was prepared for the traffic management plan, mad to provide additional information. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendation of the Policy and Services Colmnittee is to proceed with the implementation of Alternative 5 (Exhibit 1) on a six-month trial basis. If Council wishes to proceed with this recommendation, Council should approve a motion that: Approves the Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment [95-EIA-5]), a copy of which is included as Attachment 2; bo Directs staffto proceed with the implementation of Alternative 5, on a six-month trial basis; and Co Directs staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Ordinance transferring a total of $74,000 from the City’s Street hnprovement Fund to a new Capital hnprovement Program Project - Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan - in order to provide funding for a trial installation. CMR:242:95 Page 1 of 7 LLI I © If Council does not wish to proceed with the implementation of a traffic management plan, staff recommends that Council direct staff not to proceed further with this matter. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The actions considered in this report represent implementation of existing policy (i.e. Comprehensive Plan Transportation Policy 4: Reduce tl~rough traffic on residential streets). Implementation of this project, like other similar traffic management rneasures, continues to incrementally add to the regularly required need for maintenance without any concomitant budget adjustment for maintenmace mad landscaping within the Public Works Budget. In addition, maintenance of the devices may require services that are not included with current staffing, or for which funding is not available in the Public Works Budget. The installation of traffic management devices is very likely to be located on top of one or more underground utilities. While provision is made for normal service access, there will likely come a time when a portion of such devices will have to be removed and replaced, in order to accomplish needed repair or replacement of the underground utility. While Street Improvement Funds are an eligible source of funding for such projects within the public roadway, the use of these funds for these types of projects diverts them away from the City’s ongoing street repair/resurfacing projects. For example, the estimated cost of approximately $200,000 for the trail and permanent installation of Alternative 5 represents approximately 10 percent of the Street Improvement Funds available for a given year. This equates to approximately 2 miles of streets to be resurfaced or sealed in the 1994/95 program. Over time, similar or larger diversions will have a significant impact on the ability of the City to repair/resurface its deteriorating streets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background In December 1992, Council directed staff to work with residents of the Lytton Avenue neighborhood to evaluate and report back to the Council regarding appropriate steps to be taken, if may, to reduce the hnpact of traffic short cutting through the neighborhood on Palo Alto Avenue/Lytton Avenue via the Pope/Chaucer Bridge. Residents had expressed concerns regarding the mnount and speed of traffic, pointing out that safety, noise, comfort mad the quality of life of their neighborhood were being compromised. CMR:242:95 Page 2 of 7 Study Phase One The study process that ensued included identification of issues, collection of field data, initial development of multiple alternative plans, and refinement of a smaller set of plans. The process included multiple meetings with a Neighborhood Working Group and one neighborhood public meeting, prior to the time that this study was referred to the Policy and Services Committee. In September 1994, staff prepared a report to Council (CMR:424:94; Attachment 3) reviewing the study process and findings and recommending that the item be forwarded to the Policy and Services Committee, for its consideration and fi~rther direction regarding additional steps for staff to pursue. The study findings indicate that safety and travel speeds witlfin the study area are not tmusual for comparable streets within Palo Alto. The findings also indicate that there is a substantial amount of cut through traffic within the neighborhood and that the potential for mitigating tl~rough traffic on some of the streets most affected does exist. From a larger set of initial alternatives, the initial study process evolved to the following four: Alternative # 1 Install traffic road bumps and other calming devices (i.e., circles, chokers); limit morning turns on University at Guinda and Fulton; and add a second westbound lane on University near Middlefield. Alternative #2 Install a diverter at Seneca and Palo Alto Avenue; install traffic calming devices; limit morning turns on University at Guinda and Fulton; and add a second westbound lane on University near Middlefield. Alternative #3 Close the Pope/Chaucer Bridge to through vehicular traffic, but maintain access for emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. Alternative #4 Maintain the status quo. Alternative 1 addresses speeding, but not through traffic within the neighborhood; and wl’dle Alternatives 2 and 3 address the current through traffic concern, Alternative 2 shifts through traffic to other streets and Alternative 3 does not have support in the neighborhood or elsewhere. Alternative 4 would not cause any changes from existing conditions. CMR:242:95 Page 3 of 7 Phase One Review In September 1994, the Policy and Services Committee reviewed the study results, heard public comments from residents, and discussed various options. They concluded that meeting with a motion requesting staff to prepare additional alternatives to those noted above. The Committee felt that Alternative 1 (Road Bmnps +) did not sufficiently address the neighborhood traffic concerns; Alternative 2 (Diverter +) was excessive in terms of traffic diversion to other streets; Alternative 3 (Bridge Closure) was inappropriate and should not be considered further; and Alternative 4 (Status Quo) was not acceptable. Additional comments reflected an interest in further consideration of measures such as traffic circles and road bumps, and not street closures and diverters. Finally, the Committee comments reflected an interest in reducing traffic impacts on local streets without excessive transfer of traffic to other streets, and achieving an appropriate balance. Study Phase Two Based upon the comments and direction provided by the Policy and Services Committee, staff developed three new alternatives (No.’s 5, 6 and 7) for further consideration. An illustration and summary description of each of the three new alternatives as well as two of the original altera~atives (No.’s 1 and 2), are included in CMR:531:94 (Attachment 1). Table 1 in CMR:531:94 presents a sunllnary evaluation of the three new alternatives along with two of the original alternatives. Staff concluded that Alternative 5, which employs a raised median on Chaucer Street as well as traffic management measures on Palo Alto Avenue, Guinda and Fulton Streets, and Lytton Avenue, is the best plan for addressing the neighborhood traffic concerns, within the context of the guidance and objectives set forth by the Policy and Services Committee, during its previous discussion of this topic. Phase Two Review In December 1994, the Policy and Services Committee reviewed the additional information concerning the new set of alternatives, again heard public comments from residents, and discussed various options. They concluded that meeting with a motion to recommend to Council to direct staff to proceed with implementation of Alternative 5, on a six-month trial basis, potentially leading to a permanent installation. The Policy and Services Co~mnittee also asked that this item be brought to the full Council, after Cotmcil had completed its discussion of the Transportation Element of Draft IV Comprehensive Plan Update Policies and Programs. Council discussion of the Transportation Element has occurred and included Cotmcil direction to include a progam CMR:242:95 Page 4 of 7 to "Implement traffic cahning measures in residential neighborhoods on local and collector streets," (Program TR-2, C, Page 7) as part of the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update - Transportation Elelnent. Cost Estimate For a trial installation of Alternative 5 the estimated cost is a total of $74,000, comprised of the following parts: Part A:$32,000 for the temporary installation of one circle, one oval, and one raised median, all of which would need to be removed and replaced for a permanent installation (not usable for permanent plan). Part B:$12,000 for a total of three road bumps which can only be installed on a permanent basis, mad would subsequently need to be removed if not part of a permanent plan (usable if they remain part of the permanent plan). Part C:$30,000 for lane restriping and relocation of traffic sign~al loop detectors to create an additional westbound through lane on University Avenue at Middlefiel~l Road. This is an existing approved project from the Citywide Land Use and Traaasportation Study, and staff would otherwise plan to pursue funding and implementation as part of the 1996-97 Capital Improvement Progrmn process (useable with or without a permanent plan). For a permanent installation of Alternative 5 (if the trial is successffd and a decision is made to move forward with a permanent installation), the estimated cost is an additional $120,000 to change the circle, oval, aud raised median (Part A). The road bumps (Part.B) and the restriping and loop relocation for University Avenue (Part C) would remain in place and unchanged. In summary, the cost to implement a six month trial is $74,000. If, after the trial period, a decision is made to implement Alternative 5 on a permanent basis, the road bumps ($12,000) and restriping/loop relocation ($30,000) would be retained, and an additional $120,000 would be required for the circle, oval, and median. If, after the trial period, a decision is made to abandon fi~rther consideration of any traffic management plan, the restriping!loop relocation ($30,000) would be retained, and an additional $6,000 would be required to remove the three road bumps. CMR:242:95 Page 5 of 7 If, after the trial period, a decision is made to try some traffic management arrangement on a trial or permanent basis, the restriping/loop relocation ($30,000) would be retained, and additional funds (now undeterminable) would be needed to install/remove various elements. Coordination with Infrastructure Proiects At the present time, the Public Works Department is plimning to install a new storm drain and the Utilities Depamnent is plamaing to replace a water main along segments of Lytton and Palo Alto Avenues, and Guinda and Fulton Streets. Both projects are scheduled to begin this summer, and are to be completed by December 1995. This work will cause a disruption in traffic flow throughout a portion of the neighborhood for which the traffic management plan is intended to be implemented, and, therefore, make any evaluation of the impacts of the six-month trial impractical. Since it is not possible to implement even a shortened trial before the start of the storm drain work, the actual implementation of a six-month trial, if approved by Council, would not likely occur until the first quarter of 1996. Next Steps If Council approves the implementation of a traffic management plan for the Lytton Avenue Neighborhood, on a six-month trial basis, staff will proceed with the following steps: a.Prepare the necessary plans and specifications for the trial implementation. bo Return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance that would create a new CIP Project and transfer $74,000 from the Street Improvement Fund for this project. Co Install traffic management devices in accordance with the approved plan, after the completion of storm drain project along Lytton and Guinda. do Monitor on-going operations of the trial traffic management plan, complete an evaluation at the end of the six-month trial period, and, thereafter, return to Council for further direction~ FISCAL IMPACT The cost for implementation of Alternative 5 on a six month trial basis is $44,000, plus $30,000 for restriphag University Avenue. Subsequently, if a similar plan is approved for permanent installation, a preliminary cost estimate for implementation is an additional CMR:242:95 Page 6 of 7 $120,000. In addition, implementation will increase maintenance requirements, for which Public Works is not currently staffed. If Council directs staff to proceed with the implementation of Alternative 5 on a six-month trial basis, staffwill return with a Budget Amendment Ordinance that would create a new CIP Project and transfer $74,000 from the Street Improvement Fund for this project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An Environmental Assessment (95-EIA-5) recommending a Negative Declaration has been completed, and is included as Attachment 2. ATTACHMENTS Attacl~nent 1:CMR:531:94; December 6, 1994 Attachment 2: Enviromnental Assessment (95-EIA-5) Attaclunent 3: CMR:424:94; September 19, 1994 Prepared By:Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer Marvin L. Overway, Chief Transportation Official Department Head Review: K]ENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Plmming and Community Envirom-nent City Manager Approval: City Manager Working Group Members Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (Margaret Feuer) City of Menlo Park (Jan Dolan, Don Dey, Rubin Nino) City of East Palo Alto (Jerome Groomes, William Howard, David Miller) East Palo Alto Transportation Task Force (Heidi Sanel) Safe Open Streets (Eric Doyle) CMR:242:95 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT 4 LYTTON NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN BID SUMMARY ITEM 4 DESCRIPTION Construct a temporary circle and striping and signing Construct speed bumps, including striping and signing Construct temporary traffic medians including striping and signing. Remove and replace striping and signing on University Ave. Widen southeast coruer of University at Middlefield QUANTITY LS LS LS LS ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE $8,000 $12,000 $11,000 MCE CORP. $4,675. $8,510 $6,655 LS $1!,000 $12,000 $8,870 $4,850 O’ GRADY PAVING $6,000 $10,000 $10,000 $9,000 $21,000 Grand Total $54,000 $33,560 $56,000