Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-16 City Council (42)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 6 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AGENDA DATE: December 16, 1996 CMR:508:96 SUB3ECT:Approval of Grant Agreement for Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station REQUEST Through the efforts of then Assemblyman Byron Sher, the City of Palo Alto is the recipient of a grant of $200,000 from the Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA). The grant monies are for design development work related to the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station and the grant is being achninistered by Caltrans for the State. Caltrans has forwarded copies of the Grant Agreement to the City for execution. The purpose of this staff report is to request Council approval of the Grant Agreement and authorization to execute the Grant Agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Council take the following actions: Approve the Grant Agreement (Attaclunent 1) between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for the use of $200,000 of PVEA funds for the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station, and 2.Authorize the City Manager, or her desiguated alternate, to execute the Grant Agreement on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Execution of this Grant Agreement is consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 3, Coordinate transportation planning, including public and private roadways, transit, paratransit and bikeways, and Progrmn 4, provide transit transfer centers at the University Avenue and California Avenue Southern Pacific Station. Also, while the Urban Design Guide is not a policy docmnent, it is a guide for encouraging improvements to the CMR:508:96 Page 1 of 4 Downtown, and it calls for creation of a~ Alma!University entrance to Downtown, which gives particular attention to creating a comfortable and rational pedestrian walk and connection from the transit station to the Downtown, and a more attractive connection to Stanford University.. In addition, Council has expressed general interest and support for the Intermodal Transportation Station Project and has previously directed staff to take necessary and appropriate steps to secure fm~g for the required further schematic design development work for this project. EXECIITIVE SIIMMARY Background As an outgrow~ of the "Dream Temn" Design Charette (March 1993), Council directed staffto secure the services of a transportation financing specialist to assess the potential for public financing of both the schematic design portion and the subsequent design/construction of the project (CMR:247:94). A contract with the finn of Smith and Kempton resulted in a funding alternatives report which presented a full array of specific federal, state and local funding programs available for transportation capital investment, operations, and maintenance, mad also discussed alternative local revenue mechanisms. The funding alternatives report went on to present a bleak, albeit realistic, assessment of current funding availability for the proposed project. There is an existing major b~icklog of planned, but unfunded, transportation projects, coupled with increasing costs for maintenance and major seismic upgrade. All of these compete for a limited amount of transportation funding. This creates a funding situation that is problematic mad one for which competition, for whatever funds are available, is certain to be intense. The funding alternatives report concluded with the recommendation that the most effective and decisive action the City of Palo Alto could take in the near term was to pursue funding for the schematic design development work that is needed for this project. In April 1995, Council approved a motion (a) to support the further incremental development of the Project and (b) to direct staff to take necessary al~d appropriate steps to secure adequate funding ($300,000 to $400,000) for the required further schematic design development work, including the possibility of a local funding share on the order of 20 percent (not to exceed $80,000), if necessary (CMR:213:95; April 17, 1995). CMR:508:96 Page 2 of 4 Concurrently, on the City’s behalf, Assemblyman Byron Sher introduced legislation that would allocate $400,000 of PVEA funds for the design development work. After much time and effort, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a bill that allocated $200,000 of PVEA funds for the Project. The next step was to develop a grant application that met the Federal Court guidelines for the use of PVEA funds. This has now been accomplished, and Caltrans, acting as the administrator of the grant, has forwarded a Grant Agreement for execution by the City. In March of 1996, City staff sent letters to Stanford University, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority requesting that an interagency body of stafffrom these three agencies and the City oversee the grant. The letter also requested $50,000 funding from each participant, in order to make up the shortfall between the mnount provided by the PVEA grant and the original estimate for design development and an accompanying enviromnental impact report. All three agencies responded that they were interested in participating in the interagency design development effort, but none were willing to contribute to the cost for environmental impact assessment at this time. Two agencies expressed willingness to consider participating in funding after completion of the design development (copies of correspondence to and from these agencies is included as Attacltrnent 2). Grant Agreement A copy of the Grant Agreement is included as Attachment 1. The Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions with which the City is to comply. Included in the Agreement as Attachment A is a copy of the scope of work and related information that was submitted as part of the grant application. In smnmary, the PVEA funds will be used to fund design development work related to the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station (Dream Team Project). Staff expects that a team of consultants will be hired to do the work; and a study team comprised of representatives from the City, Stanford, the Transit Agencies, JPB/Caltrain and others will oversee the consultant’s work. The Agreement is for a total mnount of $200,000 with no requirement for any local funding match. Tltis amom~t is sufficient to complete some, but not all, of the Schematic Design Development work, which is estimated to cost a total of $400,000. Therefore, it will be necessary to divide the work into two phases. The first phase will focus on schematic design development, and will include base mapping, site investigation, resolution of design plan, m~d hffrastmcmre components, as well as access, circulation and parking. The second phase will focus on the enviromnental review process and will be completed when additional funding is available. CMR:508:96 Page 3 of 4 E.!SCAL IMPACT The PVEA grant for $200,000 is on a reimbursable basis. Therefore, City funds are required to pay for the work with reimbursement from the PVEA grant to follow. A Budget Amendment Ordinance establishing a Capital Improvement Program Project in the amount of $200,000, utilizing Street Improvement Funds, to be reimbursed by the PVEA grant funds, will be brought to the Council for approval, once the Grant Agreement is fully executed. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Approval of a grant agreement does not require an environmental assessment. Environmental assessment work will be completed as part of later phases of the project development. ATTACHMENTS 1. Grant Agreement PVEA-96(004) 2. Correspondence to/from Stanford, JPB, Transportation Authority Prepared By: Marvin L. Overway, Chief Transportation Official Department Head Review: City Manager Approval: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Cormnunity Environment Joint Powers Board (Gerald Haugh, Jerry Kirzner, Tom Davids, Russel Driver, Elisa Arias) Stanford University (Andy Coe, Julia Fremon, David Neuman) Stanford Management Company (Curtis Feeney, Bill Phillips, Leone Batkin) Transportation Authority (Peter Cipolla, Jim Pierson, Jim Lightbody) CMR:508:96 Page 4 of 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ATTACHMENT GRANT AGREEMENT NO. PVEA-96(004) FOR STRIPPER WELL FUNDS PETROLEUM VIOLATION ESCROW ACCOUNT (PVEA) I1. TERMS AND CONDITIONS Background Assembly Bill 1671, Chapter 980, Statutes of 1995, appropriated $3,825,000 from the Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) held in the Federal Trust Fund to the State Department of Transportation, hereafter called "Caltrans", for allocation to various local entity transportation projects. This Agreement, entered into on ,1996, is between Caltrans and the CITY OF PALO ALTO a political subdivision of the State of California, hereafter called the "Recipient". Project Description and Scope of Work A.The Recipient will be responsible for implementing the project as designated herein below. The work to be performed under this agreement shall be in accordance with the Recipient’s project proposal entitled Intermodal Transit Station, which also includes the project budget and timeline, which are included as a part of this agreement as Attachment A. The project proposal was approved by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as being in compliance with the PVEA regulations on September 18, 1996. Project implementation shall conform to the description contained in the Recipient’s project budget and timeline. ~ ALnlH GEN LED ISUB ACCT SUB JO~ NO. 04 1 1 0 0 4 1 1 0 9 20 5 0 1 3 6 0 1 7I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I hereby ce~ify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for the period and pu~ose ~o[, the expenditure stated above. ~e-~l~" eSg~q 9 8 0 (~1 9 9 5 SPECIAL DESIGNATION FVW PARCEL NO BRIDGE NO. I I I I I I OBJECT AMOLJNq"FISCAL ~ YEAR ~ I I ,I I I 11 I I 11 (Rev. 3/96)1 of 7 ~;ement No. PVEA-96(004) Ill. IV. Vo The Recipient shall submit a written request for approval to the Caltrans District PVEA Project Manager prior to any changes in project scope. All changes are subject to Federal approval and are to be submitted following the Federal format. E°The Project Manager for the Recipient *will be Marvin Overway, Chief Transportation Qfficia!. Fo The Caltrans District PVEA Project Manager for the State will be Herb Okubo, Chief, Local Assistance. Schedule of Reports The Recipient shall prepare and submit to the Caltrans District PVEA Project Manager a six-month progress report. This report will allow Caltrans to determine if the project is being performed as expected, and will be due every July 15 and January 15 until the project is completed. ao The Recipient shall also submit an Annual Report by July 5th of each year. This annual report will cover activities that began from July 1 .and ending June 30 of each fiscal year until the project is 8ompleted, and is to be submitted in the format requested by the Caltrans District PVEA Project Manager. C.The Recipient shall meet with the Caltrans District PVEA Project Manager as needed to discuss progress on the project, any problems, or anticipated problems which could lead to delays in the schedule. Do The Recipient shall submit for Caltrans to review all pertinent documents relating to this project to assure compliance with State and Federal laws and regulations. The Recipient and Caltrans agree to conduct on-site reviews of all aspects of the progress of this project to allow Caltrans to review whether the activities are within the scope of the project. Fo Upon completion of the project, the Recipient shall submit to Caltrans a Final summary report. Period of Performance This agreement shall begin no earlier than the DOE approval date (Article ll.B.), contingent upon approval by Caltrans, and terminate on June 30, 1998 unless extended by supplemental agreement. The strategies and dates for implementation of the project are specified in the Recipient’s project budget and timeline. Recipient shall notify the Caltrans District PVEA Project Manager in writing in advance of any proposed changes in scheduled completion dates. Payment Provisions (Rev. 3/96)2 of 7 A_ ~ement No. PVEA-96(004) Vl. C. Eo Funds disbursed shall be used to supplement and not supplant funds otherwise available for the project. If included in the Recipient’s approved project proposal, the Recipient is allowed no more than 5 percent of the funds allocated by Chapter 980, Statutes of 1995 (AB 1671) for this project for administrative expenses. "Administrative expenses" are those expenses which are considered necessary in developing, implementing, managing, monitoring, and directing proposed programs. If the Recipient decides to use that 5 percent of the funds for administrative expenses, the Recipient will submit a full auditable report on the use of the funds for administrative purposes, thereby assuring compliance with Federal regulations, The Recipient shall not commence performance of PVEA-funded project work or services until this agreement has been executed and approved by Caltrans. No payment of PVEA funds will be made for any PVEA-funded work performed prior to execution or following termination of this agreement. Total reimbursement under this agreement to be provided by the funding legislation shall not exceed $200,000. The method of payment under this contract will be based upon reimbursement at actual cost. Caltrans will make progress payments monthly in arrears based on work performed and actual costs incurred. Caltrans will withhold 10 percent of each progress payment. The retention amount will be paid to the Recipient upon satisfactory completion of the project and agreement. Monthly payments will be made as promptly as fiscal procedures permit upon receipt by the Caltrans District PVEA Project Manager of an itemized invoice in triplicate. Invoices shall be mailed to the Caltrans District PVEA Project Manager at the following address: California Dept. of Transportation Local Assistance Branch P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 ATTENTION: Mr. Herb Okubo Recipient will provide vouchers of actual expenditures incurred and a narrative description of work completed. Subcontracting Any work not described as subcontracted under the Recipient’s approved project proposal which is pertinent to this agreement, and which is intended to be subcontracted must first be reviewed and approved by Caltrans to assure compliance with project scope before that work commences. Any work subcontracted in excess of $25,000 by the Recipient shall be held to the same provisions as found in this agreement. (Rev. 3/96)3 of 7 ~ ement No. PVEA-96(004~ VII.Nondiscrimination During the performance of this agreement, Recipient and its Contractors shall not unlawfully discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, age (over 40), or sex. Recipient and its Contractors shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code. Section 12900 et seq.) and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California Administrative Code, Title 2, Section 7285.0 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Government Code, Section 12990, set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Administrative Code are incorporated into this agreement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. Recipient and its Contractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. ao Recipient shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under this agreement. VIII.Drug-Free Workplace Certification By signing this agreement, the Recipient certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the Recipient wilt comply with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Government Code Section 8350, et seq.), and will provide a drug-free workplace by doing the following: Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations , as required by Government Code Section 8355(a). o Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program as required by Government Code Section 8355(b), to inform employees about all of the following: Co do The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; The person’s or organization’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; Any available counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance programs; and Penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations. Provide as required by Government Code Section 8355(c) that every employee who works on the proposed contract or grant: a.Will receive a copy of the Recipient’s drug-free policy statement; and b.Will agree to abide by the terms of the Recipient’s statement as a condition of employment on the contract or grant. (Rev. 3/96)4 of 7 cement No. PVEA-96/00~) Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under this agreement or termination of the agreement or both. The Recipient may be ineligible for award of any future PVEA funding if Caltrans determines that any of the following has occurred: (1) the Recipient has made a false certification, or (2) violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above. IX. Cost Principles The Recipient agrees to comply with Federal procedures in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments and CFR 49, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, also known as the Common Rule. Bo Any costs for which payment has been made to the Recipient and its Contractors that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under OMB A-87, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments or CFR 49, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, are subject to repayment by the Recipient to Caltrans. C.Should Recipient be declared to be in breach of this Agreement or otherwise default any material portion thereof by either Caltrans or DOE, any project costs for which payment has been made to the Recipient are to be repaid by the Recipient to Caltrans. Should Recipient breach this Agreement and fail to pay monies due to Caltrans, or fail to repay funds provided hereunder, within 30 days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed upon between the parties hereto, Caltrans, acting through the State Controller, the State Treasurer or any other public agency, may withhold or demand transfer of an amount equal to the amount owed to Caltrans from future apportionments, grants, or any other funds due Recipient from the Highway Users Tax Fund, or from any other funds and/or withhold approval of future PVEA or.Federal-aid projects of the Recipient, as applicable. Disputes Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this agreement that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by Caltran’s Headquarters Contract Officer who may consider any written or verbal evidence submitted by the Recipient. The decision of the Contract Officer, issued in writing, shall be conclusive and binding on both parties to the agreement on all questions of fact considered and determined by the Caltran’s Contract Officer. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be reviewed by the Chairperson of the Audit Review Committee (ARC). The ARC will consist of the Assistant Director, Audits & Investigations (Chairperson); Deputy Director of Transportation Engineering or designated alternate; the Chief Counsel, Legal Division or designated alternate; and two representatives from private industry will be advisory in nature only and will not have voting rights. Additional members or their alternates may (Rev. 3/96)5 of 7 ,.,ement No. PVEA-96(004) XI. XII. serve on the ARC. Not later than 30 days after issuance of the final audit report, the contractor may.request a review by the ARC of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing to the following: Audits Review Committee Chairperson Department of Transportation Office of Audits and Investigations, MS-2 P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 The request must contain detailed information of the factors involved in the dispute as well as justifications for reversal. A meeting by the ARC will be scheduled if the Chairperson concurs .that further review is warranted. After the meeting, the ARC will make recommendations to the Chief Deputy Director. The Chief Deputy Director will make the final decision for the Department. The final decision will be made within 3 months of receipt of the notification of dispute. C.Neither pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by Caltrans will excuse the contractor from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this contract. Retention of Record/Audits The Recipient, its Contractors, Caltrans, and the State shall maintain all books, documents, paper, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the agreement, including but not limited to, the costs of administering the agreement. All parties shall make such materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the agreement period and for three years from the date of final payment under the agreement. Caltrans, the State, the State Auditor General, FHWA, or any duly authorized representative of the Federal Government shall have access to any books, records, and documents of the Recipient that are pertinent to the agreement for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions, and copies thereof shall be furnished if requested. Funding Requirements It is mutually understood between the parties that this agreement may have been executed before ascertaining the availability of congressional or legislative appropriation of funds for the mutual benefit of both parties in order to avoid program and fiscal delays that would occur if the agreement were executed after that determination was made. This agreement is valid and enforceable only if sufficient funds are made available to Caltrans by the United states Government, or are appropriated by the California State Legislature for the purpose of this program, and if the previously mentioned Statement of Work was approved by the U.S. Department of Energy. In addition, this agreement is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations, conditions or any statute enacted by the Congress or the State Legislature that may affect the provisions, terms or funding of this agreement in any manner. Change in Terms It is mutually agreed that if Congress or the State Legislature does not: (Rev. 3/96)6 of 7 , aement No. PVEA-96(004) Appropriate sufficient funds for the program, this agreement shall be amended to reflect any reduction in funds. go Caltrans has the option to void the agreement under the 30-day cancellation clause contained in Article XlV.A., below, or to amend the agreement to reflect any reduction of funds. XIV.Termination This agreement may be terminated for breach of any obligation, covenant or condition hereof, upon written notice to the breaching party. With respect to any breach which is reasonably capable of being cured, the breaching party shall have 30 days from the date of the notice to initiate steps to cure, such party shall be allowed a reasonable time to cure, not to exceed 60 days from the date of the initial notice, unless a further extension is granted. B°In the event this agreement is terminated by Caltrans without cause, reimbursement shall be made to the Recipient for all project expenses incurred up to the time of termination, subject to the expenditure limits applicable to this agreement. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) DISTRICT 4 Dennis Mulligan, Deputy District Director Date CITY OF PALO ALTO Glenn Roberts, Director of Public Works Date (Rev. 3/96)7 of 7 Attachment A PROJECT TITLE City of Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station PROJECT OVERVIEW The Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station Project is comprised of a number of construction elements that will be completed by October 1999. Construction elements include: ¯Station Improvements at the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station. ¯Expansion of the existing bus loading area to accommodate improved service levels. ¯A new bike path that will link the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station with the new Palo Alto Medical Center Campus, Town and Country Shopping Center, Palo Alto High School and an existing path serving residential areas to the south. ¯A new roadway segment that will provide direct transit access from the new Pa]o Alto Medical Center Campus to the Intermodal Transportation Station. ¯Pedestrian Access Improvements linking the Stanford Shopping Center to the Intermodal Transportation Station. ¯Improvements to the bus loading area utilized by the Stanford University shuttle bus system. ¯A new pedestrian/bike bridge to cross San Francisquito Creek, linking the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station with the City of Menlo Park. The PVE funded potion of this project is the design development of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station centered around the existing CalTrain station. The intermodal station will serve a variety of regionally significant origins and destinations including downtown Palo Alto, Stanford University, Stanford Medical Center, Palo Alto Medical Clirfic, Stanford Shopping Center, and hotel, recreational and commercial facilities, as well as multiple residential areas within Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Stanford. This innovative and creative project will integrate existing rail, bus, local shuttle, pedestrian and bicycle travel with adjacent land uses, to create opportunities for major enhancements and transportation options for multiple travel user groups and needs, and will reduce reliance upon the use of private automobiles. ENERGY SAVINGS AND BENEFITS Daily Usage Daily Usage Increase Annual Energy Savings Annual Fuel User Savings 8,000 trips 260 trips 31,502 gallons $ 38,748 See Exhibit "A" for calculations. Attachment A The Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station will provide the following energy-related benefits: The Intermodal Transportation Station. will incorporate a variety of existing regional and local transportation services and modes into a high quality, integrated system that builds upon the core service provided by CalTrain. The project will provide better coordination of multiple transport services, improved information, facilitation of transfers, increased safety and attractiveness, and support anticipated increases in service frequency. Energy savings will result from a shift of automobile users to the existing train and bus services as well as well as anticipated increases in service. With the close proximity of the project to downtown Palo Alto, Stanford University, two major medical facilities and one major shopping center as well as other hotel, recreational and commercial facilities, energy savings will accrue to a diverse economic population for a variety of travel needs. The project will also contribute to reduced energy consumption and improved air quality by removing automobiles from existing congested roads. The energy savings estimates are derived from data from a variety of sources: ridership data from CalTrain, SamTrans, Santa Clara County Transit, Marguerite Shuttle, and Dumbarton; and travel related characteristics, such as trip length, fuel consumption and price of fuel, from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. PROGRAM FUNDS AND MILESTONES Local: State/Federal: Miscellaneous PVE: Total: $1,530,000 $2,600,000 $200,000 $4,330,000 Petroleum Violation Escrow funds will not be used for administrative costs for this project. A request for proposals for the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station is planned to be released by January 1997. A consultant will be selected by June 1997, and the work completed by June 1998. RESTITUTION/TARGETED POPUI~TION The project will benefit residents from diverse economic levels and broad geographic area up and down the San Francisco Peninsula, from San Francisco to San Jose, who travel to the Palo Alto/Stanford area for reasons of employment, as well as medical, commercial, educational and recreational purposes. The project will als0 benefit residents of the Palo Alto/Stanford areas by providing a high quality transit service paralleling the heavily utilized U.S. Route 101 corridor. 2 Attachment A COGNIZANT AGENCY/CONTACT PERSON This project will be administered by the City of Palo Alto. h~arvin L. Overway, Transportation Division, (415) 329-2578. The City of Palo Alto contact is 3 AttacHment A EXHIBIT A CALCULATION OF ANTICIPATED ENERGY SAVINGS KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Daily usage of existing train service (CalTrain) and bus services (SamTrans, SCC Transit, Marguerite, and Dumbarton) = 8,000 trips1 Increase in transit usage attributable to time savings, and enhancements in convenience, transfers, safety, access and overall quality is conservatively estimated at 260 trips~-. DAILY GALLONS SAVED ESTIMATE: 260 new trips per day .* 11.05 miles per trip3 = 2,873 miles per day 2,873 miles per day / 22.8 miles per gallon4 = 126 gallons per day ANNUAL GALLONS SAVED ESTIMATE: 126 gallons per day * 250 work days per year = 31,502 gallons per year ANNUAL FUEL USER SAVINGS ESTIMATE: 31,502 gallons per year * $1.23 per gallon5 = $ 38,748 per year 1Number of daily trips is based upon ridership data provided by CalTrain, SamTrans, SCC Transit, Marguerite and Dumbarton service providers for 1995. 2Based upon consideration of time savings and other benefits for existing service levels. Does not include consideration of anticipated increases in train and bus service that will also attract additional users. 3Average trips length for Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties; source is Metropolitan Transportation Commission Bay Area Travel Data. 4~Average mileage per gallon for Bay Area; source is Metropolitan Transportation Commission. ~Fuel costs per gallon for Bay Area; source is Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Palo Alto D~7.~m’tm~zt qfPlamzing amt March 11, 1996 Gerald T. Haugh Executive Director Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Avenue P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070 Dear Mr. Haugh: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the City of Palo Alto is likely to soon become eligible for a Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) grant amounting to $200,000. The gant funds are anticipated to be available for application in January." of 1996, and the grant proposal and approval process will take another 4 to 6 months. The Governor has signed Assembly Bill 1671, which appropriates PVEA funds throughout the State, and the bill includes a project centered on the Palo Alto Downtown Transit Station. Project Description The project concept for which PVEA funds have been set aside is the result of joint City/Stanford University" funded planning effort, known popularly as the "Dream Team" project. Your agency’ participated in this planning effort. The results include multi-modal circulation and urban desig--n improvements to better link Downtown Palo Alto, Stanford University’, Stanford Shopping. Center, Town and Country." Shopping Center and the relocated Palo Alto Medical Foundation with the Downtown Transit Center. A copy of the results of the design charerte and a follow-up feasibility study are enclosed, as are some background staff reports to our City Council on this subject. From the second study, titled "Palo Alto Dream Team Phase II Preliminary’ Feasibility Study Project Summary~, Parts One and Two", prepared by Peter Walker-William Johnson and Partners, et.al., we were able to establish a budget for the design development costs for proceeding with the project, which amount to be~veen $300,000 to $400,000 including an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It was on the basis of this cost estimate that we put forward the subject assembly bill request to our .State representative, Byron Sher, who introduced and sponsored it. Hamilton Avenue P.O. Px}x 102=,0 Palo Alto, C.\ 415. 33). 2441 415.329.~4~Fax Joint Agency Proposal Prior to the City applying for this $200,000 gant, City staff would like to make an informal proposal.to three other agencies who have both long- and short-term interest and plans for investment in the Palo Alto Transit Center Area. Your agenc.v is one of those stakeholders. This informal proposal has not yet received endorsement from our City Council, which would be our next step after hearing back preliminarily from you and the txvo other agency stakeholders. We propose that the PVEA grant be overseen by an interagenc.v body made up of staff from the City.’, Transportation Agency, Joint Powers Board, and Stanford University. We further propose that each agency contributes an additional $50,000 to makeup the difference between the gant amount made available to us from PVEA and the amount estimated to complete the design development stage of this plan. With or without your financial partnership, Palo Alto desires a process that includes your participation.. Goals, Objectives and Timeline The primary. goal would be to accomplish the visionary objectives laid out in the "Dream Team" project descriptions, while accommodating the interim and longer range objectives of all agencies involved. The design development and construction drawings wilt need to split the entire plan into incremental projects which can be developed in stages by various funding sources and agencies through time. The process for this joint effort would involve prescheduled meetings and a contribution of your staff time in fiscal years 1996- 97 through 1999-2000. The actual calander and work program for the process xvould need to be developed jointly by al! parties, and would include public participation as well as staff involvement. It would be anticipated to initiate no sooner than the summer of 1996. Your staff involvement would be needed most intensively during the first six months of the design effort, and they would also be called upon to a lesser extent in the subsequent 12 months to review and provide input into the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. Their technical expertise would again be needed in the final 12 month construction drawing phase. The entire effort is estimated to consume 42 months. The City of Palo Alto would lead and coordinate the effort, but the annual staff commitment from other agencies would also be noteworthy. Joint Powers Board lrnmediate Objectives, Plans for Improvements, and Desire for Coordination It is our understanding that the Joint Powers Board is currently preparing plans to make ADA improvements at the Transit Center. There have also been discussions xvith our Real Estate staff about other capital improvements to the station to improve it for public use. Any future improvements and investments that are on a compatible timeline with our proposal would benefit through coordination with this longer-range planning process. Conclusions While this proposed Joint Agency process for expending PVEA funds is a considerable investment of resources, it is our opinion that it can, in the long run, save time and effort by all parties. If a plan for all future public and private investments in the area is not developed jointly, our various but independent ambitions mav compete or interfere with each other, causing wasted resources. We also believe that efforts such as this have the highest probability of being recipients of any future public or private implementation funding, acknowledging that the current probabilities for substantial public funds are at an all time low. We hope you give this proposal positive and thoughtful consideration, and look forward to your response. We welcome any comments on the proposed process, including suggested modifications to the Joint Agency composition or any other suggestions. Sincerely, Kenneth R. Schreiber Director of Planning and Community; Environment Glenn S. Roberts Director of Public Works t Nancy Maddox Chief Planning Official Marvin Ovenvay Chief Transportation Official Enclosure:Dreams to Visions, A Summar), of the Stanfordq~alo Alto Interface Urban Design Charette Palo Alto Dream Team Phase II Preliminar-, Feasibility Study, Project Summa~~ Backgound Staff Reports CO:Bill Fellman, Real Property Division Ariel Calonne, City Attorney P:\sharc\dreamtea.j pb PenJnaJa Corddo Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Ave., P.O. Box 3C<36, San Ca-ra, o% CA 94070-1306 (415) 508-6269 fro’< (41~ 508-6281 May 16, 1996 Mr. K Schreiber Director of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue PC) Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Schreiber. Thank you for your recent letter regarding future PCJPB participation in the development of the Palo Alto "Dream Team" project. As you acknowledged, we have been a participant in the previous "Dream Team" efforts and recognize Palo Alto as a key station on the CaR’rain system. We applaud Palo Alto for securing PVEA funding to continue this planning effort, however, we are not in a position to participate beyond continued staff participation..We would consider st~pport for future capital improvements proposed by the study if they are rail transit related and meet with the goals and objectives of future adopted CalTrain Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). If you have any questions, please call Larry Stueck, Manager of Planning at 415-508--6226 who will be able to assist you in the development of this project. Sincerely, Executive Director ibm cc: Howard Goode, Larry Stueck, lan McAvoy March i1, 1996 David Neuman Univ. Architect and Director of Planning Stanford UniversiD’ 855 Serra Street, 2nd Floor Stanford, CA 94305 ~ba_nnmg Division Dear David: The purpose of this letter is to thank you for Stanford’s support in the effort to acquire City eliNbility for a Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) grant amounting to $200,000. The grant funds are anticipated to be available for application soon. and the grant proposal and approval proces.s will take approximately 4 to 6 months. As you kno’‘’‘,, the Governor has signed Assembly Bill 1671, which appropriates PVEA funds throughout the State, and the bill includes a project, the concept for which was derived from jointly sponsored effort to plan the area centered on the Palo Alto Downtown Transit Station. Project Description In the follow-up feasibiliD" study prepared by Peter Walker-William Johnson and Partners, et.al., we were able to establish a budget for the design development costs for proceeding with the project, which amounted to bewveen $300,000 to $400,000 including an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It was on the basis of this cost estimate that we put forward the subject assembly bill request to our State representative, B.vron Sher, who introduced and sponsored it. The outcome of the legislative process ",’,’as a potential grant for one-half the original request. In the Walker-Johnson feasibility study, the project ",,,’as divided into t-’‘vo areas: 1) Area 1 - the Public Garden, and 2) Area 2 - Stanford Plaza. The cost summary indicates that it is possible to construct these two areas in phases, and that the Public Garden could be constructed without the E1 Camino Real changes. We would appreciate .’,’our confirmation that, per our previous joint discussions of project implementation, it is Stanford’s understanding that Area 1 - the Public Garden, estimated to cost $18,200,000 in 1994 dollars, is the implementation segrnent for which public funding would initially be sought. 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 109,.50 Palo Alto, CA 94303 415.329.2441 415.329.2240Fax Joint Agency Proposal Prior to the City applying for this $200,000 grant, City staffv,’ould like to make an informal proposal to three other agencies who have both long- and short-term interest and plans for investment in the Palo Alto Transit Center Area. The University continues to be one of those stakeholders. This informal proposal has not yet received endorsement from our City Council, which would be our next step after hearing back preliminarily from you and the two other agency stakeholders. We propose that the PVEA grant be overseen by an interagency body made up of staff from the City, Transportation Agency, Joint Powers Board, and Stanford University. We further propose that each agency contributes an additional $50,000 to make up the difference between the grant amount made available to us from PVEA and the amount estimated to complete the design development stage of this plan. With or without your financial partnership, Palo Alto desires a process that includes your ~taffparticipation. ,Goals, Objectives and Timeline The primary goal would be to accomplish the visionary, objectives laid out in the "Dream Team" project descriptions, while accommodating the interim and longer range objectives of all agencies involved. The design development and construction drawings will need to split the entire plan into incremental projects which can be developed in stages by various funding sources and agencies through time. The process for this joint effort would involve prescheduled meetings and a contribution of your stafftime in fiscal years 1996- 97 through 1999-2000. The actual calender and work program for the process would be developed jointly by all parties. It would be anticipated to initiate no sooner than the summer of 1996. Your staff involvement would be needed most intensively during the first six months of the design effort, and they would also be called upon to a lesser extent in the subsequent 12 months to’review and provide input into the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. Their technical expertise would again be needed in the final 12 month construction drawing phase. The entire effort is estimated to consume 42 months. The City of Palo Alto would lead and coordinate the effort, but the annual staff commitment from other agencies would also be noteworthy. Conclusions While this proposed Joint Agency process for expending PVEA funds is a considerable investment of resources, it is our opinion that it can, in the long run, save time and effort by all parties. We share with you the belief that efforts such as this have the highest probability of being recipients of any future public or private implementation funding, ackmowledging that the current probabilities for substantial public funds are at an all time low. We hope you give this proposa! positive and thoughtful consideration, and look for~vard to your response. We welcome any comments on the proposed process, including suggested modifications to the Joint Agency composition or an2,’ other suggestions. Sincerely, Kenneth R. Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment Glenn S. Roberts Director of Public Works Nancy Maddox Lytle Chief Planning Official Marvin Ovenvay Chief Transportation Official Enclosures"Dreams to Visions, A Summary of the Stanford!Palo Alto Interface Urban Design Charette Palo Alto Dream Team Phase II Preliminar3’ Feasibiliu’ Stud3’, Project Summary Backgound Staff Reports cc:Bill Fellman, Real Propert-y Division Ariel Calonne, Ciw Attorney P:kshare\dreamtea wpd STANFORD UNIVERSITY PLANNING OFFICE April 22, 1996 Nancy Maddox Lytle Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Nancy: Stanford University has been a significant participant, as well.as an avid supporter of the development of the "Dream Team," the Palo Alto transit center redevelopment proposal since its initiation. We have continued to work closely with the City during this process, including actively supporting the City’s successful proposal to the State for further planning funds. In response to your letter of March 11, 1996, however, there are several points which we would like to clarify before the project again moves for~vard. In our continuing efforts to develop successfully a multifaceted transit hub which serves our entire community, Stanford believes it is integral to the project that it include the immediately surrounding area, rather than focus the study solely on the public garden centerpiece. Hence, we would like to be sure that the study area is defined by the boundaries of the southerly edge of E1 Camino Park to the North, the Holiday Inn to the South, City of Palo Alto University Circle to the East, and the Stanford University entry gates to the West. (See attached sketch.) In conjunction, Stanford hopes the conducted study for this area goes beyond the schematic design of the new railroad underpass and giarden; and includes, as recommended in the 1994 Peter Walker William Johnson and Partners study, all circulation!roadway improvements for motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit, open space/landscape enhancements, and related adjacent land uses per the original "Dream Team" charette. Finally, it is our goal that in addition to the overall schematic design, the associated EIR process for the "Dream Team" project should include further analysis of the transportation 8555ERRASTREET.STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305.6115 o(415) 723-7773 FAX (415] 725.8598 impacts and associated economic impacts resulting from these further design refinements. As pointed out in the Preliminary Feasibility Study from 1994, such comprehensive efforts are necessary in order for the "Dream Team" project to be competitive for either public or privately-based funding. It is our belief that this scope wi!l no~ only increase the project’s chances in competing for such funding, but also will make for a better planned, and hence better functioning, project area. In addition, in order to continue forward progress with the "Dream Team" project, a project consultant team proposal would, necessarily, be solicited. It is Stanford’s recommendation that this team be comprised of the previously constituted members; i.e., Peter Walker William Johnson and Partners (land planner); Fehr & Peers Associates (transportation engineers); Robert Cervero (transportation planner); and Brian Kangas Foulk (civil engineers); along with a land use economics analyst. This group could be immediately brought up to speed in order to expedite the work and to avoid unnecessary orientation!duplication issues. Recognizing that the City has public procurement requirements, we would like to discuss the requisite process prior to our proceeding. Stanford is prepared to discuss in appropriate detail our level of participation, both staff time and consultant fee funding, as we conclude the actual project scope, schedule, participation and procurement methodology. Please let me "know if it is agreeable to you .to meet soon in this regard.. Cordially, David J Neuman, FAIA University Architect/Associate Vice Provost for Planning Andy Coe Curtis Feeny Julia Fremon Marvin Overway Glen Roberts Ken Schrieber IJ I1 Planning DMsion March 11, 1996 Peter M. Cipolla, General Manager Jim Pierson, Director of Planning and Capitol Development Transportation Agency 333 ! North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1906 Dear Mr. Cipolla and Mr. Pierson: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the City of Palo Alto is likely to soon become eligible for a Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) grant amounting to $200,000. The gant funds are anticipated to be available for application in January of 1996, and the grant proposal and approval process will take another 4 to 6 months. The Governor has signed Assembly’ Bil! 1671, which appropriates PVEA funds throughout the State, and the bill includes a project centered on the Palo Alto Downtown Transit Station. Project Description The project concept for which PVEA funds have been set aside is the result of joint City/Stanford Universiw funded planning effort, "known popularly as the "Dream Team" project. Your agency participated in this planning effort. The results include multi-modal circulation and urban design improvements to better link Downtown Palo Alto, Stanford Universit),’, Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Shopping Center and the relocated Palo Alto Medical Foundation with the Downtown Transit Center. A copy, of the results of the design charette and a follow-up feasibility study’ are enclosed, as are some background staff reports to our City’ Council on this subject. From the second study’, titled "Palo Alto Dream Team Phase II Preliminary Feasibility Study Project Summary, Parts One and Two", prepared by Peter Walker-William Johnson and Partners, et.al., we were able to establish a budget for the desi~ development costs for proceeding with the project, which amount to between $300,000 to $400,000 including an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It was on the basis of this cost estimate that we put for~vard the subject assembly bill request to our State representative, Byron Sher, who introduced and sponsored it. Z",0 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 1 Palo Alto, CA 415.329.2441 415.329.2240Fa\ Joint Agency Proposal Prior to the City applying for this $200,000 grant, City staff would like to make an informal proposal to three other agencies who have both long- and short-term interest and plans for investment in the Palo Alto Transit Center Areal Your agency is one of "" those stakeholders. This informal proposal has not vet received endorsement from our City Council, which would be our next step after hearing back preliminarily from vou and the t~vo other agency stakeholders. We propose that the PVEA grant be overseen by an interagency body made up of staff from the City, Transportation Agency, Joint Powers Board, and Stanford Universi~’. We further propose that each agency contributes an additional $50,000 to make up the difference between the gant amount made available to us from PVEA and theamount estimated to complete the design development stage of this plan. With or without your financial partnership, Palo Alto desires a process that includes your participation, but we feel a master EIR which covers joint agency planning,- both short- and long-range, is of mutual benefit to all involved. Goals, Objectives and Timeline The primal’ goal would be to accomplish the visional," objectives laid out in the "Dream Team" project descriptions, while accommodating the interim and longer range objectives of all agencies involved. The desi~ development and construction drawings will need to split the entire plan into incremental projects which can be developed in stages by various funding sources and agencies through time. The process for this joint effort would involve prescheduled meetings and a contribution of your staff time in fiscal years 1996- 97 through 1999-2000. The actual calender and work progam for the process would need to be developed jointl.v by all parties, and would include public participation as well as staff involvement. It would be anticipated to initiate no sooner than the summer of 1996. Your staff involvement would be needed most intensively during the first six months of the design effort, and they would also be called upon to a lesser extent in the subsequent 12 months to review and provide input into the EIR for the project. Their technical expertise .would again be needed in the final 12 month construction drawing phase. The entire effort is estimated to consume 42 months. The City of Palo Alto would lead and coordinate the effort, but the annual staff commitment from other agencies would also be noteworthy. Transportation Agency Immediate Objectives, Plans for Improvements, and Desire for Coordination It is our understanding that the Transportation Agency is currently in the process of developing designs for expansion of the bus loading and turn-around at the Transit Center, and that these improvements are anticipated to cost $260,000 for design in 1998 and $770,000 to construct in 1999. These improvements are conceptually consistent with the "Dream Team" project, appear to be on a compatible timeline with our proposal, and would benefit through coordination with this longer-range planning process. In a preliminary meeting with your staff (Julie Render, Nancy-Cross Fitzwater, Kivo Ushino, Bill Capps and Tom Roundtree) on November 7, 1995, we ageed that our agencies will need to coordinate on these improvements in any case. Is there an opportunity to combine these two efforts? Conclusions While this proposed Joint Agency process for expending PVEA funds is a considerable investment of resources, it is our opinion that it can, in the long run, save time and effort by all parties. If a plan for all future public and private investments in the area is not developed jointly, our various but independent ambitions may compete or interfere with each other, causing wasted resources. We also believe that efforts such as this have the highest probability of being recipients of any future public or private implementation funding, acknowledging that the current probabilities for substantial public funds are at an all time low. We hope you give this proposal positive and thoughtful consideration, and look forward to your response. We welcome any comments on the proposed process, including suggested modifications to the Joint Agency composition or any other suggestions. Sincerely, Kenneth R. Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment Glenn S. Roberts Director of Public Works Nancy Maddox Lytle Chief Planning Official Mar~’in Overway Chief Transportation Official Enclosure:Dreams to Visions, A Summary qf the Stanfo~d/Palo Alto Interface Urban Design Charette Palo Alto Dream Team Phase II Preliminary Feasibility Study, Project Summary Back~ound Staff Reports CC:Bill Fellman, Rea! Property Division Ariel Calonne, City Attorney P: ~share idreamtea, wpd Transportatic Agenc~v Santa Ciar: Count/Bus. L:ght Rai,. Congest on Management April 9, 199(5 Mr. Kenneth R. Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue P. O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Schreiber: Thisletter is in response to your recent request to participate in the development of the ’~Dream Team" project, located near the Palo Alto Do\vntown Transit Station. We will certainly participate in the next project phase and continue to work closely with you as the project is developed. Mr. James R. Lightbody, Manager, Planning and Programming. will be our representative. He can be reached at (408)321-5744. Since a detailed project proposal must be finalized before environmental work commences, we believe the current PVEA funding grant is adequate for the next phase of the project. Ifa project is defined which has substantial benefit to both the Transit Center and the City, we will consider, at that time, financial participation in the EIR and other development costs. \Ve look forward to working with you on this project. Peter M. Cipolla General Manger