HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-01 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO Special Meeting
CITY COUNCIL Council Conference Room
August 1, 2011
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are
available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
1 August 1, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
Call to Order
Study Session
1.Joint Meeting with the Human Relations Commission
COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM or as Soon as Possible Thereafter
City Manager Comments
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval
Approval of Minutes June 13, 2011
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
2.Adoption of a Resolution Calling a Special Election for November 8, 2011 for
Submittal to the Qualified Electors of the City an Initiative to Undedicate Ten
Acres of Existing Parkland in Byxbee Park for Use as a Compost Facility
3.Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Contract with Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $8,605,000 for the
Construction of the El Camino Park Reservoir, Lytton Pump Station and Well
Project WS-08002-501
2 August 1, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
4.Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Contract with Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $2,560,000 for
Construction of the Well Rehabilitation Project WS-08002-501
5.Approval of Automatic Aid Agreement With the Menlo Park Fire Protection
District; and Authorization to Transfer Ownership of One Inflatable Boat,
Motor and Boat Trailer to the Menlo Park Fire Protection District
6.Approval of a Contract with Alliance Roofing Company, Inc. in the Amount of
$402,751 for Civic Center Tower Roof Replacement Project, Capital
Improvement Program Project PF-01002
7.Authorization of City Manager to Execute the Amended Memorandum of
Agreement with the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition for the Recycled Water
Project
8.Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute the Welch Road Utilities
Project Facilities Construction, Ownership, Operation and Maintenance
Agreement
9.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Section 2.36.040 to the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Impartial Mediation for Impasses in Labor
Contract Negotiations (First Reading July 18, 2011-Passed 5-4)
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members
of the public have spoken.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings,Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
10.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance for a Zone Change of a 1,565
square foot parcel from PF (Public Facility) to ROLM (Research Office Limited
Manufacturing) at 200 San Antonio Avenue.
11.Approval of an Extension of the Trial Period for Phase 2 of the Charleston-
Arastradero Corridor Re-Striping Project through June, 2012
3 August 1, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
12.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement
Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the
Respective Properties Described Therein
13.Recommendation from the Policy & Services Committee Regarding Electronic
Packet for Council
14.Authorization for the Mayor to Appoint Members of the City Council to File
Written Arguments for the Binding Arbitration Repeal Measure and Against
the Green Energy Initiative
15.Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternates for 2011 League of California
Cities Annual Conference -September 21-23, 2011, San Francisco
16.Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve Policies and Guidelines for a
Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabiltities who require auxilliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like
information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550
(Voice) 24 hours in advance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the
notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue
that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and
deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to
speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful.
4 August 1, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
17. 17. CLOSED SESSION
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
Conference with City Attorney --Potential Litigation
Subject: Potential Litigation-Public Employment Relations Board on behalf of
International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1319 v. City of Palo Alto
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(c)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabiltities who require auxilliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like
information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550
(Voice) 24 hours in advance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the
notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue
that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and
deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to
speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
5 August 1, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Standing Committee Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings from the City Clerk
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda from the City Clerk
Informational Report
Acceptance of Palo Alto Airport Informational Update
City of Palo Alto’s Investment Activity Report for the Fourth Quarter, Fiscal
Year 2011
Informational Report on 456 University Avenue
Public Letters to Council
Supplemental Information
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
August 1, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of a Resolution Calling a Special Election for November 8,
2011 for Submittal to the Qualified Electors of the City an Initiative to
Undedicate Ten Acres of Existing Parkland in Byxbee Park for Use as a
Compost Facility
RECOMMENDATION
The City Clerk recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution Calling a Special Election
for November 8, 2011 placing the Green Energy Initiative on the ballot (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
An ordinance petition was circulated regarding the City of Palo Alto Green Energy and Compost
Initiative. The petition was certified by the City Clerk on March 24, 2011. The petition received
5,128 votes (over 12% of registered voters) qualifying it for a special election ballot under Palo
Alto Charter Article VI, Section 2. The City Council on April 4, 2011 directed Staff to return on
August 1, 2011 with a Resolution calling a Special election for November 8, 2011. With most
initiative measures the Council has the option to either pass the ordinance itself or call a Special
Election. However, since the petition would require the un-dedication of parkland, Article VIII
of the Charter requires a majority vote of the electorate. Therefore, Council must submit the
matter to a Special Election.
The following chart establishes the pertinent deadlines for this election:
DEADLINE DATE DOCUMENTS
August 16, 2011 Direct Arguments
August 17, 2011 -August 26, 2011 Ten Day Review Period for Direct
Arguments
August 23, 2011 Impartial Analysis
August 23, 2011 Rebuttal Arguments
August 24, 2011 -September 2, 2011 Ten Day Review Period for Rebuttal
Arguments
An election information packet containing more detailed information on ballot arguments,
deadlines and required forms to be filed with the City Clerk is included as Attachment B.
Updated: 7/27/2011 10:56 AM by Donna Grider Page 2
RESOURCE IMPACT
The Registrar of Voters has estimated the cost for this measure to be approximately $305,100.
for the election of November 8, 2011. Additionally, the legal ads that are required to be placed
will cost approximately $15,000. These monies have already been budgeted.
ATTACHMENTS:
·RESO Special Election on Compost Initiative (2)(DOC)
·CITY MEASURESguide (DOC)
Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 7/27/2011 10:56 AM by Donna Grider Page 3
Not Yet Approved
110727 jb 0130794 1
Resolution No. ________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a
Special Election for November 8, 2011 for Submittal to the
Qualified Electors of the City an Initiative to Undedicate
Ten Acres of Existing Parkland in Byxbee Park for Use as a
Compost Facility
WHEREAS, an initiative petition to amend the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
Municipal Code and Baylands Master Plan to undedicate approximately 10-acres of existing
parkland in the Palo Alto Baylands has been submitted to the City in accordance with the
requirements of Article VIII of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto; and
WHEREAS, elections will be held on November 8, 2011, in certain school districts
and certain special districts in Santa Clara County; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Education Code section 5342 and Part 3 of Division 10 of
the Elections Code commencing at section 10400, such elections may be partially or completely
consolidated.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby
RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Special Election. Pursuant to Elections Code sections 1405 and 9255
there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Palo Alto, California, on Tuesday, November
8, 2011 a special municipal election. Pursuant to Article IX of the Charter of the City of Palo
Alto, this Council orders the following question to be submitted to the voters at the Election:
CITY OF PALO ALTO INITIATIVE MEASURE ________:
SECTION 2. Adoption of Measure. The measure to be submitted to the voters is
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. If a
majority of qualified electors voting on such measure shall vote in favor of City of Palo Alto
Initiative Measure “___”, it shall be deemed ratified and shall read as provided in Exhibit “A”
attached hereto.
YES Shall ten acres of existing parkland in Byxbee Park
be undedicated for the exclusive purpose of building
a processing facility for yard trimmings, food waste
and other organic materials?NO
Not Yet Approved
110628 jb 0130794 2
SECTION 3.Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the
election is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further
or additional notice of the election in time, form, and manner as required by law.
SECTION 4. Impartial Analysis. Pursuant to California Elections Code section
9280, the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City
Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed
500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of
the measure, and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk on or before August 23, 2011.
SECTION 5. Ballot Arguments. Pursuant to Elections Code section 9286 et seq.,
August 16, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. shall be the deadline for submission of arguments in favor of, and
arguments against, any local measures on the ballot. If more than one argument for and/or
against is received, the priorities established by Elections Code section 9287 shall control.
SECTION 6. Rebuttal Arguments. The provisions of Elections Code section 9285
shall control the submission of any rebuttal arguments. The deadline for filing rebuttal
arguments shall be August 23, 2011, at 5:30 p.m.
SECTION 7. Consolidation Request. The Council of the City of Palo Alto requests
the Governing Body of any such other political subdivision, or any officers otherwise authorized
by law, to partially or completely consolidate such elections and to further provide that the
canvass be made by any body or official authorized by law to canvass the returns of the election,
except that in accordance with Article III, section 4, of the Palo Alto Charter, the City Council
must meet and declare the results of said elections; and that this City Council consents to such
consolidation.
SECTION 8.Request for County Services. Pursuant to section 10002 of the
California Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby requests the Board of
Supervisors of Santa Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City
of Palo Alto relating to the conduct of Palo Alto’s Special Elections which are called to be held
on Tuesday, November 8, 2011.
The services shall be of the type normally performed by the Registrar of Voters in
assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections including, but not limited to,
checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and arranging for polling places,
receiving absent voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving absent voter ballots and opening
and counting same, providing and distributing election supplies, and furnishing voting machines.
Subject to approval of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County of the
foregoing request, the City Clerk is hereby authorized to engage the services of the Registrar of
Voters of the County of Santa Clara to aid in the conduct of said elections including canvassing
the returns of said election. Further, the Director of Administrative Services is authorized and
directed to pay the cost of said services provided that no payment shall be made for services
which the Registrar of Voters is otherwise required by law to perform.
SECTION 9.Transmittal of Resolution. The City Clerk is directed to submit a
certified copy of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara and to
the Registrar of Voters.
Not Yet Approved
110628 jb 0130794 3
SECTION 10.The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED:
____________________________
Senior Asst.City Attorney City Manager
Director of Public Works
CITY OF PALO ALTO MEASURES
If a majority of the qualified voters voting on a proposed ordinance or measure vote in its
favor, the ordinance or measure shall be a valid and binding ordinance of the city. The
ordinance or measure shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is
declared by legislative body, and shall go into effect 10 days after that date.
City measure means any proposed city charter change, any proposition for the issuance
of funding or refunding of bonds of the city, and other questions or propositions
submitted to the electors of the city at any election held throughout the entire city .
The following are deadlines, established by the Office of the City Clerk, relating to any
measure to appear on the City's 2011 Special Election.
Special Election, November 8, 2011
Last Day Item
Monday, 8/1/11 Last regularly scheduled City Council Meeting at
which a Special Election may be called for November
8, 2011.
Tuesday, 8/16/11 Last day to file written arguments for or against a
measure not to exceed 300 words. Direct arguments
may not be changed or withdrawn after this date.
Wednesday, 8/17/11 –Ten day public review period for direct arguments.
Friday, 8/26/11
Tuesday, 8/23/11 Last day to file, change, or withdraw rebuttal
arguments, not to exceed 250 words.Last day to file
Impartial Analysis.
Wednesday, 8/24/11 --Ten day public review period for rebuttal arguments.
Friday, 9/2/11
Please Note: This information packet for measures has been prepared to assist the
proponents and opponents of measures for the Special Election on November 8, 2011.
No one should rely solely on this information but should seek legal counsel.
SUBMISSION OF ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST MEASURES
Arguments will be printed in the Voter Information Portion of the sample ballot.
9281. If not otherwise provided, voters may submit arguments.
If no other method is provided by general law, or, in the case of a chartered city, by the
charter or by city ordinance, arguments for and against any city measure may be submitted to the
qualified voters of the city pursuant to this article. If a method is otherwise provided by general
law, or, in the case of a chartered city, by charter or city ordinance, for submitting arguments as to
a particular kind of city measure that method shall control.
(Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920, Sect. 2)
9282. Written arguments.
(a)For measures placed on the ballot by petition, the persons filing an initiative petition
pursuant to this article may file a written argument in favor of the ordinance, and the
legislative body may submit an argument against the ordinance.
(b)For measures placed on the ballot by the legislative body, the legislative body, or any
member of members of the legislative body authorized by that body, or any individual
voter who is eligible to vote on the measure, or bona fide association of citizens, or
any combination of voters and associates, may file a written argument for or against
any city measure.
(c)No argument shall exceed 300 words in length.
(d)The city elections official shall include the following statement on the front cover, or if
none, on the heading of the first page, of the printed arguments: “Arguments in
support or opposition of the proposed laws are the opinions of the authors.”
(e)The city elections official shall enclose a printed copy of both arguments with each
sample ballot provided that only those arguments filed pursuant to this section shall
be printed and enclosed with the sample ballot. The printed arguments are “official
matter” within the meaning of Section 13303.
(f)Printed arguments submitted to voters in accordance with this section shall be titled
either “Argument In Favor Of Measure ____” or “Argument Against Measure _____,”
accordingly, the blank spaces being filled in only with the letter or number, if any,
designating the measure. At the discretion of the elections official, the word
“Proposition” may be substituted for the word “Measure” in these titles.
(Amended by Stats. 2006, c.508, Section 4)
Arguments are limited to 300 words. You may refer to the section in the enclosed “Guidelines
for Counting Words”for assistance on counting words. Text is printed in the sample ballot
pamphlet in single-spaced, full-justified, standard paragraph format. Only standard bullets will be
printed and non-standard bullets will be changed to standard bullets. You may bold, italicize and
underline text. After 5:30 p.m. on the argument filing deadline, arguments chosen will be faxed to
opposing authors via the fax number listed under the contact information.
Arguments filed with the City Clerk are confidential until after the deadline for the filing of those
arguments. The next business day after the deadline, arguments may be viewed by the public or
photocopies purchased.
All signatures on arguments and any other related documents must be original signatures. Faxed
or photocopies signatures will not be accepted.
9283. Argument not accepted without names.
A ballot argument shall not be accepted under this article unless accompanied by the
printed name and signature or printed names and signatures of the author or authors submitting
it, or, if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization and the printed name
and signature of at least one of its principal officers, who is the author of the argument.
No more than five signatures shall appear with any argument submitted under this
article. In case any argument is signed by more than five authors, the signatures of the
first five shall be printed.
(Amended by Stats. 2004, c. 785, Sect. 2)
An author’s name will appear in the sample ballot pamphlet exactly as submitted on the
signature line of the Declaration by Author(s) for Arguments. Therefore, the “Type Name as
Signed” line must match the signature line.Typed Names are preferred, as they are clearer to
read. Only the author’s name will be printed on the name line. Titles, such as, Mr., Mrs., Dr.,
M.B.A., etc. may be included on the title line. Author’s names and titles must be TYPED on the
forms.
9285. Rebuttal arguments.
(a) (1) When an elections official receives an argument relating to a city measure that will
be printed in the ballot pamphlet, the elections official shall send a copy of an argument in favor of
the proposition to the authors of any argument against the measure and a copy of an argument
against the measure to the authors of any argument in favor of the measure immediately upon
receiving the arguments.
(2) The author or a majority of the authors of an argument relating to a city measure
may prepare and submit a rebuttal argument or may authorize in writing any other person or
persons to prepare, submit, or sign the rebuttal argument.
(3) No rebuttal argument may exceed 250 words.
(4) A rebuttal argument relating to a city measure shall be filed with the elections
official no later than 10 days after the final filing date for primary arguments.
(5) A rebuttal argument relating to a city measure may not be signed by more than
five persons and shall be printed in the same manner as a direct argument and shall immediately
follow the direct argument, which it seeks to rebut.
(b) Subdivision (a) applies only if, not later than the day on which the legislative body
calls an election, the legislative body adopts its provisions by majority vote, in which case
subdivision (a) applies at the next ensuing municipal election and at each municipal election
thereafter, unless later repealed by the legislative body in accordance with the procedures of this
subdivision.
(Added by Stats. 2006, c.508, Section 5)
Rebuttal arguments will be printed in the Voter Information Portion of the sample ballot.
In contrast to the arguments, those permitted to sign rebuttal arguments need not meet any
criteria except that those who sign the rebuttal must either have signed the original argument or
be authorized in writing from the authors of the argument to sign the rebuttal argument. The
written authorization allowing a person to sign a rebuttal argument must be filed at the time of
filing the rebuttal argument. Included in this pamphlet is a form titled “Rebuttal Signer
Authorization” to authorize a different author to sign a rebuttal argument.
No more than five author signatures shall be accepted on a rebuttal argument. Authors can sign
on separate pages of the Rebuttal Argument Declaration by Author(s). If you have authors
sign on separate pages, number the names in the order they are to appear.
An author’s name will appear in the sample ballot pamphlet exactly as submitted on the
signature line of the Declaration by Author(s) for Arguments. Therefore, the “Type Name as
Signed” line must match the signature line. Typed Names are preferred, as they are clearer to
read. Only the author’s name will be printed on the name line. Titles, such as, Mr., Mrs., Dr.,
M.B.A., etc. may be included on the title line. Author’s names and titles must be TYPED on the
forms.
All signatures on rebuttal arguments, authorizations or any other related documents must be
original signatures. Faxed or photocopied signatures will not be accepted.
Rebuttal arguments are limited to 250 words. You may refer to the “Guidelines for Counting
Words” for assistance on counting words. Text is printed in the sample ballot pamphlet in single-
spaced, full-justified, standard paragraph format. Only standard bullets will be printed and non-
standard bullets will be changed to standard bullets. You may bold, italicize and underline text.
Rebuttal arguments filed with the City Clerk are confidential until after the deadline for the filing of
those rebuttal documents. The next business day after the deadline, rebuttal arguments may be
viewed by the public or photocopies purchased.
9286. Final date for arguments.
(a) Based on the time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the arguments and
sample ballots and to permit the 10-calendar-day public examination as provided in Article 6
(commencing with Section 9295) for the particular election, the city elections official shall fix a
date 14 days from the calling of the election as a deadline, after which no arguments for or
against any city measure may be submitted for printing and distribution to the voters, as provided
in this article. Arguments may be changed or withdrawn by their proponents until and including
the date fixed by the city elections official during the normal business hours of the elections
official’s office, as posted.
(b)The requirement in subdivision (a) that the period for submitting arguments for
inclusion with the sample ballot materials must be 14 days from the calling of the election is not
applicable when the election is consolidated with another election pursuant to Part 3
(commencing with Section 10400) of Division 10.
(Amended by Stats. 2009, c.549, Sect. 2)
9287. Elections official to select if more than one argument.
If more than one argument for or more than one argument against any city measure is
submitted to the city elections official within the time prescribed, he or she shall select one of the
arguments in favor and one of the arguments against the measure for printing and distribution to
the voters. In selecting the argument the city elections official shall give preference and priority,
in the order named, to the arguments of the following:
(a)The legislative body, or member or members of the legislative body authorized
by that body.
(b)The individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of voters
and associations,who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure.
(c)Bona fide associations of citizens.
(d)Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.
(Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920, Sect. 2)
Chapter 7. General Provisions
9601.Arguments may be withdrawn.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, whenever any ballot arguments for or
against any measure submitted to the voters for approval are authorized, these arguments may
be withdrawn by their proponents at any time prior to and including the final date fixed for filing
arguments.
(Added by Stats. 1994, c. 920, Sect. 2)
NO USE OF BOARD OR COMMISSION TITLES IN BALLOT ARGUMENTS
The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.40.080 states: “No city board or commission
member may use his or her board or commission title when signing a ballot argument for
or against an ordinance or measure. If an argument is submitted to the city clerk with
such a title in the signature, the title shall be omitted from the ballot argument signature.”
PUBLIC EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS AND IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS
9295. Public examination of arguments, ordinance and analysis.
(a)The elections official shall make a copy of the material referred to in Sections
9223, 9280, 9281, 9282, and 9285 available for public examination in the election
official’s office for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline
for submission of those materials. Any person may obtain a copy of the materials from
the elections official for use outside of the elections official’s office. The election official
may charge a fee to any person obtaining a copy of the material. The fee may not
exceed the actual cost incurred by the elections official in providing the copy.
(b)(1) During the 10 calendar day public examination period provided by this
section, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections
official, himself or herself, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or
all of the materials to be amended or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request
shall be filed no later than the end of the 10 calendar day public examination period.
(2)A peremptory write of mandate or an injunction shall be issued only
upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or
inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or
injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election
materials as provided by law.
(3)The elections official shall be named as respondent, and the person or
official who authored the material in question shall be named as real parties in interest.
In the case of the elections official bringing the mandamus or injunctive action, the board
of supervisors of the county shall be named as the respondent and the person or official
who authored the material in question shall be named as the real party in interest.
(Amended by Stats. 2007, c. 286 Sect. 3)
FPPC Financial Compliance and Forms
There are various forms that are required to be filed in connection with a measure
committee. You may obtain the necessary forms and manuals at the Fair Political
Practices Commission (FPPC) website www.fppc.ca.gov. The City Clerk is your local
filing officer, but may not provide technical assistance you need. For technical
assistance, please call FPPC at (866)ASK-FPPC.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1646)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/1/2011
August 01, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1646)
Summary Title: El Camino Park Phase 1 Reservoir, PS and Well
Title: Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Contract with Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $8,605,000 for the
Construction of the El Camino Park Reservoir, Lytton Pump Station and Well
Project WS-08002-501
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute the attached contract with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc.
(Attachment A) in a total not to exceed amount of $8,605,000 for construction of the El Camino
Park Reservoir, Lytton Pump Station and Well, as part of the Emergency Water Supply Project
WS-08002-501.
Staff also recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction, Inc.for related additional but unforeseen work, which may develop
during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $860,500 (which represents 10% of
the contract amount).
Background
This construction contract supports the ongoing efforts to improve the City’s distribution
system water supply during emergency periods when the traditional supply is not available. The
California Department of Public Health (CDPH) recommends that water systems have the ability
to supply an 8 hour peak demand during supply interruptions. The design basis for the
recommended capital improvements was addressed in the Water Wells, Regional Storage and
Distribution System Study (1999 Study) prepared by Carrollo Engineers, which the UAC and
Council supported.
During the project development, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) titled “City of Palo Alto
Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project” was prepared and approved by Council on
March 5, 2007. The project description in the EIR proposed implementing capital improvements
which would allow the City to provide water in the event of an emergency. The El Camino Park
Reservoir, Lytton Pump Station and Well Project is one of the recommended capital
August 01, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1646)
improvement projects that will provide the City with a means to supply Pressure Area 1 with
water. Pressure Area 1 serves the majority of residences in Palo Alto and is bounded by Alma
Street, the Menlo Park and Mountain View borders, and the Bay. This Pressure Area is primarily
fed with water from the SFPUC aqueduct at the Lytton Pump Station. The new reservoir, Lytton
pump station and well will supply Pressure Area 1 when the San Francisco aqueducts are out of
service.A project location map is provided in Attachment C.
Discussion
This contract will provide construction services for construction of the El Camino Park
Reservoir, Lytton Pump Station and Well Project and connection of these new facilities to the
existing water distribution system. This includes the installation of a new reservoir, pump
building, generator, transformer, water supply well, utility piping and landscaping. The work is
being performed by contract because the project resource requirements are beyond City’s
personnel and equipment capacity.
Summary of Solicitation Process
Bid Name/Number Construction of the El Camino Park
Reservoir, Lytton Pump Station and
Well, IFB Number 141077
Proposed Length of Contract 460 days
Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 4
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 8
Total Days to Respond to Bid 28
Pre-Bid Meeting?Yes (Mandatory)
Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 25
Number of Bids Received 8
Bid Price Range $8,605,000 to $11,297,777
*Bid summary provided in Attachment B.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $8,605,000 submitted by
Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc.be accepted and that Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction, Inc.be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is 18 percent
below the engineer’s estimate of $10,500,000. A contingency amount of $860,500, which
equals 10 percent of the total contract,is requested for additional unforeseen work that may
develop during the project.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor’s State License Board that the contractor has an active
license on file. Staff checked the references supplied by the contractor for previous work
performed and found no significant complaints.
Resource Impact
Funds for this project, in the amount of $9,465,500, are included in the WS-08002 Emergency
Water Supply Project CIP. Bonds were sold for financing of the Emergency Water Supply and
August 01, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1646)
Storage Project on October 6, 2009 in the amount of $35,015,000. The bond funds will be used
to fund water system improvements including the construction contract services in this project
with an anticipated completion of December 2012, compliant with bond fiduciary
requirements. This project will be managed by existing Utility Engineering Staff.
Policy Implications
The approval of this Water Enterprise Fund contract is consistent with existing City policies. This
recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key Strategy
No. 1, “Operate distribution system in a cost effective manner,” Strategy No. 7, “Implement
programs that improve the quality of the environment” and Objective No. 2, “Invest in utility
infrastructure to deliver reliable service.”
Environmental Review
The construction work for this contract is part of the overall project EIR for the Emergency
Water Supply Project (SCH #2066022038), which Council certified on March 5, 2007 as being
adequate to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Reviewed By:Romel Antonio, Senior Project Engineer
Greg Scoby, WGW Engineering Manager
Tomm Marshall, Assistant Director, Utilities Engineering
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Contract (PDF)
·Attachment B: Bid Summary (PDF)
·Attachment C: Site Plan (PDF)
Prepared By:Jennifer Cioffi, Project Engineer
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Rev. August 3, 2010
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C12141077
City of Palo Alto
and
Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc.
PROJECT
“El Camino Park Reservoir, Lytton Pump Station,
and Well Project - Phase 1”
Rev. August 3, 2010 C12141077 Contract.DOC i
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS....................................1
1.1 Recitals................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Definitions ...........................................................................................................................1
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ...................................................................................................1
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS........................................................................1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................................................1
3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ...............................................................................2
SECTION 4. THE WORK.........................................................................................................2
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................2
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION.....................................................................................3
6.1 Time Is of Essence .............................................................................................................3
6.2 Commencement of Work ...................................................................................................3
6.3 Contract Time......................................................................................................................3
6.4 Liquidated Damages...........................................................................................................3
6.4.1 Entitlement...................................................................................................................3
6.4.2 Daily Amount................................................................................................................3
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy........................................................................................................3
6.4.4 Other Remedies...........................................................................................................3
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ..........................................................................................3
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR ..............................................................3
7.1 Contract Sum ......................................................................................................................1
7.2 Full Compensation..............................................................................................................1
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................1
7.3.1 Self Performed Work....................................................................................................1
7.3.2 Subcontractors.............................................................................................................1
Rev. August 3, 2010 C12141077 Contract.DOC ii
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE.......................................................................................1
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ............................................................................................5
9.1 Hold Harmless.....................................................................................................................5
9.2 Survival................................................................................................................................5
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ......................................................................................5
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS................................................................................5
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.............................................................5
SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................6
13.1 Method of Notice.................................................................................................................6
13.2 Notice Recipients................................................................................................................6
13.3 Change of Address.............................................................................................................7
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................7
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes............................................................................................7
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.................................................................................................7
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.................................................................................................7
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.......................................................................................8
14.3.1 By Contractor...............................................................................................................8
14.3.2 By City..........................................................................................................................8
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process ..............................................................................8
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.......................................................................................................8
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................9
14.4.3 Mediation......................................................................................................................9
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration........................................................................................................9
14.5 Non-Waiver........................................................................................................................10
SECTION 15. DEFAULT..........................................................................................................11
15.1 Notice of Default ...............................................................................................................11
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.............................................................................................11
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES....................................................................11
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ...................................................................................................11
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services .............................................................................................11
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................11
Rev. August 3, 2010 C12141077 Contract.DOC iii
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract..........................................................................11
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default........................................................11
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond....................................................................................11
16.1.6 Additional Provisions..................................................................................................12
16.2 Delays by Sureties............................................................................................................12
16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................................12
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.............................................................................................12
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ..........................................................................................12
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .............................................................................12
16.6 Termination Without Cause.............................................................................................13
16.6.1 Compensation............................................................................................................13
16.6.2 Subcontractors...........................................................................................................13
16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination...........................................................................13
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ..................................................14
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies ....................................................................................................14
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage....................................................................................................14
17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment.............................................................................................14
17.2 Damages to Contractor....................................................................................................14
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS...............................................................................14
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.........................................................................14
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ......................................................................................14
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES................................................................................14
SECTION 20. NUISANCE........................................................................................................15
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES...............................................................................15
SECTION 22. WAIVER............................................................................................................15
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ...........................................................................................15
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT ..............................................................................15
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.............................................................................15
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES......................................................................................15
Rev. August 3, 2010 C12141077 Contract.DOC iv
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION ...................................................................................15
SECTION 28 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS...........................................................................16
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................16
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................16
1 Rev. August 3,
2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on August 1, 2011 (“Execution Date”) by
and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and
ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference
to the following:
R E C I T A L S:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a Class A “General Engineering” duly organized and in good standing in
the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 2452154. Contractor represents that it is duly
licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to
perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On June 7, 2011, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the El
Camino Park Reservoir, Lytton Pump Station, and Well Project-Phase 1 (“Project”). In response to the
IFB, Contractor submitted a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and
other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and
conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set
forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract
and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the El Camino Park Reservoir, Lytton Pump Station, and Well
Project-Phase 1 ("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”)
consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
3) Contract
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 2
4) Project Plans and Drawings
5) Technical Specifications
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated
2005 and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in
the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence,
the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the
best interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all
other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including,
without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all
Applicable Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project
requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 3
members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the
Project.
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed within four hundred sixty calendar days (460) after the commencement date
specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result
of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to
all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the
event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within
the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of
$2,000 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until
Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated
damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the
amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision
shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have
where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to
by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
1 Rev. August 3,
2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with
the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Eight Million Six Hundred Five Thousand Dollars
($8,605,000).
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall
cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any
unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of
the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all
expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may
only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in
accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work
involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be
selected by City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that
is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment
methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall
not be compounded, shall be computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 5
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City,
its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and
volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel
acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in
any manner relating to any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors, of any tier;
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors,
of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project;
and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated
with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of
Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance
of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin
color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has
read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained
insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General
Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not
assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly,
by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment,
hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the
Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 6
control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control
means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall
be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to: City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
Or
X City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Romel Antonio
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be
provided to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 7
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Romel Antonio
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the
change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace
any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights
adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive
recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating
to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et.
seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall
not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City
reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as
Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the
preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided
pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for
Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to
defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 8
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's
written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10
of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract
Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a
portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of
Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim
becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be
signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and
the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of
Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed
Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of
the Contract Time shall include both of the following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract
Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the
following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any
time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract
Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted
by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the
events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their
occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in
good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith
effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next
step in the process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but
not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a
good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be
represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge
of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the
negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there,
subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval
of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion
of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against
Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass-Through
Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 9
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential
and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the
Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the
Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract
Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a
reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant
to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal
negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations
shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and
resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before
a mutually acceptable third party mediator.
.1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator
who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience
in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty
(20) hours of formal training in mediation skills.
.2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules.
.3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of
City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The
mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the
Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that
occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose
of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California
Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of
California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator
therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent
jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint
in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 10
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all
parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five
(5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in
arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall
have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the
event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an
arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein.
.3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices
of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the
arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance.
.4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown.
.5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by
a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City
and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award.
.6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in
accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract
Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the
following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses
per party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall,
for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed
an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence.
.7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards.
.8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to
a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non-Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or
compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the
assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were
previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract
Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods
for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for
submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 11
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in
the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations
under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may
reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be
reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2)
Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously
prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later
than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set
forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity,
including, without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor
and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to
itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction
Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion,
appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or
Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs
Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part,
upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15.
City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be
communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner
specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of
termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless
otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 12
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not
waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right
to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there
has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by
City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be
binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination
shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the
Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor
to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to
insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or
unreasonably delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor
or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City
exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and
shall promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified
as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at
City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs
allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension
of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order,
delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or
expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued
to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by
such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the
Work.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 13
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part
or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed
under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but
not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other
consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination
without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay
the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the
Work :
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the
portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of
termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor.
.2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project
(including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not
including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty
(30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination.
.3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and
other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless
the notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of
the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable
terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work
already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site
or in transit thereto.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 14
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of
Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any
Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other
than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a
national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any
work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either
for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after
receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract
(30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the
Construction Contract.
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums
provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole
and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses,
including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or
other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be
necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants
during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books,
estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings,
receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this
Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of
(i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for
such longer period as may be required by law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a
condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor
against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract
Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its
business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance
of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent
jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint
venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of
Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set
forth.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 15
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor
shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other
government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all
costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No
other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City
inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of California.
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes
all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the
Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities,
payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force
and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages
in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a
chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City
invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the
Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year
in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at
any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year
and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in
the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141077 Contract.DOC 16
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity
and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If
the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by
attorneys employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed
the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:________________________
CIT
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
BID
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
P
A
R
K
R
E
S
E
R
V
O
I
R
,
L
Y
T
T
O
N
P
U
M
P
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
W
E
L
L
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
,
W
S
-
0
8
0
0
2
-
5
0
1
Bid
D
a
t
e
:
0
6
-
3
0
-
1
1
BI
D
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
Pr
o
v
e
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
I
n
c
.
We
s
t
e
r
n
W
a
t
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
s
,
I
n
c
.
Au
b
u
r
n
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
s
,
I
n
c
.
Mo
u
n
t
a
i
n
C
a
s
c
a
d
e
,
In
c
.
We
s
t
B
a
y
B
u
i
l
d
e
r
s
,
In
c
.
And
e
r
s
o
n
P
a
c
i
fic
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
I
n
c
.
Ra
n
g
e
r
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
In
c
.
Sch
e
m
b
r
i
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
.
,
In
c
.
It
e
m
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
No
.
(
L
S
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pri
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
A:
B
A
S
E
B
I
D
1
1
A
l
l
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
t
h
e
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
P
a
r
k
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
,
L
y
t
t
o
n
P
u
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
W
e
l
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$1
0
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
1
,
2
9
7
,
7
7
7
.
0
0
$
9
,
8
2
1
,
7
4
6
.
0
0
$
9
,
2
3
7
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
,
6
8
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
,
6
0
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
,
6
4
6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
,
9
8
6
,
0
2
2
.
0
0
To
t
a
l
o
f
B
a
s
e
B
i
d
(
i
t
e
m
0
1
,
w
i
t
h
a
l
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
t
a
x
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
)
$1
0
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
1
,
2
9
7
,
7
7
7
.
0
0
$
9
,
8
2
1
,
7
4
6
.
0
0
$
9
,
2
3
7
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
,
6
8
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
,
6
0
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
,
6
4
6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
,
9
8
6
,
0
2
2
.
0
0
Pa
g
e
1
»
cn
~
=i
»
n1
n
.,
,
:
:
:
I
:
IS
:
:
:
:
»m
ZZ
..
.
.
.
n
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1660)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/1/2011
August 01, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1660)
Summary Title: Well Rehabilitation Project
Title: Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Contract with Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $2,560,000 for
Construction of the Well Rehabilitation Project WS-08002-501
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute the attached contract with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc.
(Attachment A) in a total not to exceed amount of $2,560,000 for construction of the Well
Rehabilitation Project, as part of the Emergency Water Supply Project WS-08002.
Staff also recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction, Inc.for related additional but unforeseen work, which may develop
during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $256,000 (which represents 10% of
the contract amount).
Background
This construction contract supports the ongoing efforts to improve the City’s distribution
system water supply during emergency periods when the traditional supply from San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is not available. The California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) recommends that water systems have the ability to supply an 8 hour peak demand
during supply interruptions. The design basis for the recommended capital improvements was
addressed in the Water Wells, Regional Storage and Distribution System Study (1999 Study)
prepared by Carrollo Engineers, which the UAC and Council supported.
During the project development, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) titled “City of Palo Alto
Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project” was prepared and approved by Council on
March 5, 2007. The project description in the EIR proposed implementing capital improvements
which would allow the City to provide water in the event of an emergency. The Well
Rehabilitation Project is one of the recommended capital improvements projects that will
provide alternative water supplies during an interruption of water supplied by the SFPUC.
August 01, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1660)
The Hale, Rinconada, Peer’s Park, Fernando and Matadero Wells were constructed in the 1950s
and were fully operable until 1962. The wells have not been used regularly since the City’s
connection to the SFPUC aqueduct system. In order to supply adequate water to the
distribution system in an emergency, the five wells comprising this project need to be
rehabilitated to restore their water production rates. A project location map is provided in
Attachment C.
Discussion
This contract will provide construction services for the existing Well Rehabilitation Project and
reconnect each facility to the existing water distribution system. This includes the demolition of
the existing well control buildings, mechanical and electrical equipment and the installation of
new well pumps, mechanical and electrical equipment, repairing and cleaning well casings, and
installing utility piping at the Hale, Rinconada, Peer’s Park, Fernando and Matadero Well sites.
The work is being performed by contract because the project resource requirements are
beyond City’s personnel and equipment capacity.
Summary of Solicitation Process
Bid Name/Number Well Rehabilitation Project, IFB
Number 141113
Proposed Length of Contract 159 days
Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 8
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 7
Total Days to Respond to Bid 21
Pre-Bid Meeting?Yes (Mandatory)
Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 15
Number of Bids Received 5
Bid Price Range $2,560,000 to $3,366,000
*Bid summary provided in Attachment B.
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $2,560,000 submitted by
Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc.be accepted and that Anderson Pacific
Engineering Construction, Inc.be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is 24 percent
below the engineer’s estimate of $3,375,375. A contingency amount of $256,000, which equals
10 percent of the total contract, is requested for additional unforeseen work that may develop
during the project.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor’s State License Board that the contractor has an active
license on file. Staff checked the references supplied by the contractor for previous work
performed and found no significant complaints.
Resource Impact
Funds for this project, in the amount of $2,816,000, are included in the WS-08002 Emergency
Water Supply Project CIP. Bonds were sold for financing of the Emergency Water Supply and
Storage Project on October 6, 2009 in the amount of $35,015,000. The bond funds will be used
August 01, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1660)
to fund water system improvements including the construction contract services in this project
with an anticipated completion of December 2011, compliant with bond fiduciary
requirements. This project will be managed by existing Utility Engineering Staff.
Policy Implications
The approval of this Water Enterprise Fund contract is consistent with existing City policies. This
recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan Key Strategy
No. 1, “Operate distribution system in a cost effective manner,” Strategy No. 7, “Implement
programs that improve the quality of the environment” and Objective No. 2, “Invest in utility
infrastructure to deliver reliable service.”
Environmental Review
The construction work for this contract is part of the overall project Environmental Impact
Report for the Emergency Water Supply Project (SCH #2066022038), which Council certified on
March 5, 2007 as being adequate to meet the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Reviewed By:Romel Antonio, Senior Project Engineer
Greg Scoby, WGW Engineering Manager
Tomm Marshall, Assistant Director, Utilities Engineering
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Contract (PDF)
·Attachment B: Bid Summary (PDF)
·Attachment C: Project Location Map (PDF)
Prepared By:Jennifer Cioffi, Project Engineer
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Rev. August 3, 2010
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C12141113
City of Palo Alto
and
Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc.
PROJECT
“Well Rehabilitation Project”
Rev. August 3, 2010 C12141113. Contract.DOC i
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS....................................1
1.1 Recitals................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Definitions ...........................................................................................................................1
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ...................................................................................................1
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS........................................................................1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................................................1
3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ...............................................................................2
SECTION 4. THE WORK.........................................................................................................2
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................2
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION.....................................................................................3
6.1 Time Is of Essence .............................................................................................................3
6.2 Commencement of Work ...................................................................................................3
6.3 Contract Time......................................................................................................................3
6.4 Liquidated Damages...........................................................................................................3
6.4.1 Entitlement...................................................................................................................3
6.4.2 Daily Amount................................................................................................................3
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy........................................................................................................3
6.4.4 Other Remedies...........................................................................................................3
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ..........................................................................................3
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR ..............................................................3
7.1 Contract Sum ......................................................................................................................3
7.2 Full Compensation..............................................................................................................4
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................4
7.3.1 Self Performed Work....................................................................................................4
7.3.2 Subcontractors.............................................................................................................4
Rev. August 3, 2010 C12141113. Contract.DOC ii
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE.......................................................................................4
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ............................................................................................4
9.1 Hold Harmless.....................................................................................................................4
9.2 Survival................................................................................................................................5
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ......................................................................................5
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS................................................................................5
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.............................................................5
SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................6
13.1 Method of Notice.................................................................................................................6
13.2 Notice Recipients................................................................................................................6
13.3 Change of Address.............................................................................................................6
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................7
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes............................................................................................7
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.................................................................................................7
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.................................................................................................7
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.......................................................................................7
14.3.1 By Contractor...............................................................................................................7
14.3.2 By City..........................................................................................................................8
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process ..............................................................................8
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.......................................................................................................8
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................8
14.4.3 Mediation......................................................................................................................9
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration........................................................................................................9
14.5 Non-Waiver........................................................................................................................10
SECTION 15. DEFAULT..........................................................................................................10
15.1 Notice of Default ...............................................................................................................10
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.............................................................................................10
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES....................................................................11
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ...................................................................................................11
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services .............................................................................................11
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................11
Rev. August 3, 2010 C12141113. Contract.DOC iii
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract..........................................................................11
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default........................................................11
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond....................................................................................11
16.1.6 Additional Provisions..................................................................................................11
16.2 Delays by Sureties............................................................................................................12
16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................................12
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.............................................................................................12
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ..........................................................................................12
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .............................................................................12
16.6 Termination Without Cause.............................................................................................12
16.6.1 Compensation............................................................................................................12
16.6.2 Subcontractors...........................................................................................................13
16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination...........................................................................13
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ..................................................13
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies ....................................................................................................13
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage....................................................................................................14
17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment.............................................................................................14
17.2 Damages to Contractor....................................................................................................14
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS...............................................................................14
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.........................................................................14
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ......................................................................................14
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES................................................................................14
SECTION 20. NUISANCE........................................................................................................14
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES...............................................................................15
SECTION 22. WAIVER............................................................................................................15
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ...........................................................................................15
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT ..............................................................................15
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.............................................................................15
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES......................................................................................15
Rev. August 3, 2010 C12141113. Contract.DOC iv
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION ...................................................................................15
SECTION 28 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS...........................................................................15
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................16
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................16
1 Rev. August 3,
2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on August 1, 2011 (“Execution Date”) by
and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and
ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference
to the following:
R E C I T A L S:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a Class “A” General Engineering duly organized and in good standing in
the State of California Contractor’s License Number 245215. Contractor represents that it is duly
licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to
perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On May 31, 2011, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Well
Rehabilitation Project (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and
other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and
conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set
forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract
and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the Well Rehabilitation Project ("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”)
consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 2
5) Technical Specifications
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated
2005 and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in
the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence,
the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the
best interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all
other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including,
without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all
Applicable Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project
requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other
members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the
Project.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 3
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed within One Hundred Fifty Nine calendar days (159) after the commencement date
specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result
of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to
all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the
event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within
the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of
$2,000 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until
Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated
damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the
amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision
shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have
where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to
by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with
the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Two Million Five Hundred Sixty Thousand
Dollars ($2,560,000).
4 Rev. August 3,
2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall
cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any
unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of
the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all
expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may
only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in
accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work
involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be
selected by City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that
is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment
methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall
not be compounded, shall be computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City,
its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and
volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel
acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in
any manner relating to any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors, of any tier;
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 5
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors,
of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project;
and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated
with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of
Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance
of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin
color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has
read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained
insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General
Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not
assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly,
by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment,
hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the
Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the
control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control
means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 6
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall
be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to: City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
Or
X City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Romel Antonio
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be
provided to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Romel Antonio
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the
change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace
any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 7
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights
adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive
recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating
to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et.
seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall
not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City
reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as
Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the
preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided
pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for
Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to
defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's
written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10
of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract
Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a
portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of
Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim
becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be
signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and
the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of
Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed
Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of
the Contract Time shall include both of the following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 8
Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the
following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any
time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract
Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted
by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the
events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their
occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in
good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith
effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next
step in the process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but
not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a
good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be
represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge
of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the
negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there,
subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval
of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion
of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against
Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass-Through
Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential
and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the
Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the
Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract
Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a
reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant
to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal
negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations
shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and
resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before
a mutually acceptable third party mediator.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 9
.1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator
who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience
in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty
(20) hours of formal training in mediation skills.
.2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules.
.3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of
City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The
mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the
Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that
occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose
of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California
Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of
California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator
therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent
jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint
in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all
parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five
(5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in
arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall
have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the
event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an
arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein.
.3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices
of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the
arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance.
.4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown.
.5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by
a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City
and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 10
.6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in
accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract
Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the
following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses
per party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall,
for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed
an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence.
.7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards.
.8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to
a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non-Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or
compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the
assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were
previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract
Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods
for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for
submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims.
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in
the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations
under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may
reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be
reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2)
Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously
prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later
than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set
forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity,
including, without limitation, the following:
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 11
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor
and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to
itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction
Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion,
appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or
Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs
Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part,
upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15.
City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be
communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner
specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of
termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless
otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not
waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right
to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there
has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by
City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be
binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination
shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the
Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor
to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to
insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or
unreasonably delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 12
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor
or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City
exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and
shall promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified
as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at
City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs
allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension
of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order,
delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or
expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued
to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by
such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the
Work.
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part
or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed
under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but
not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other
consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination
without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay
the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the
Work :
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the
portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of
termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor.
.2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project
(including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not
including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty
(30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 13
.3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and
other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless
the notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of
the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable
terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work
already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site
or in transit thereto.
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of
Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any
Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other
than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a
national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any
work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either
for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after
receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract
(30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the
Construction Contract.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 14
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums
provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole
and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses,
including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or
other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be
necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants
during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books,
estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings,
receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this
Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of
(i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for
such longer period as may be required by law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a
condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor
against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract
Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its
business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance
of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent
jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint
venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of
Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set
forth.
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor
shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other
government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all
costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No
other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City
inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 15
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of California.
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes
all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the
Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities,
payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force
and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages
in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a
chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City
invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the
Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year
in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at
any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year
and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in
the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity
and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If
the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by
attorneys employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
Rev. August 3, 2010
C12141113. Contract.DOC 17
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed
the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:________________________
CI
T
Y
O
F
P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
BI
D
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
WE
L
L
R
E
H
A
B
I
L
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
,
W
S
-
0
8
0
0
2
-
5
0
1
Bid
D
a
t
e
:
0
6
-
2
8
-
1
1
BI
D
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
'
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
S
i
e
r
r
a
El
e
c
t
r
i
c
C
o
.
Co
n
c
o
W
e
s
t
,
I
n
c
.
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
Me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
We
s
t
e
r
n
W
a
t
e
r
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
I
n
c
.
Ander
s
o
n
Pac
if
i
c
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
I
n
c
.
It
e
m
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
Un
i
t
No
.
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
Pr
i
c
e
(
$
)
A:
B
A
S
E
B
I
D
1
1
M
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
/
D
e
m
o
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
2
3
,
8
8
0
.
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$6
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
1
H
a
l
e
W
e
l
l
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
i
v
i
l
,
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$5
9
5
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$5
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$4
9
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$6
8
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$6
8
7
,
1
6
7
.
0
0
$4
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
1
R
i
n
c
o
n
a
d
a
W
e
l
l
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
i
v
i
l
,
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$6
9
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$6
6
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$7
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$7
8
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$6
1
5
,
6
4
4
.
0
0
$6
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
4
1
P
e
e
r
'
s
P
a
r
k
W
e
l
l
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
i
v
i
l
,
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$6
3
6
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$5
4
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$6
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$6
7
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$5
8
7
,
1
1
1
.
0
0
$4
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
5
1
F
e
r
n
a
n
d
o
W
e
l
l
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
i
v
i
l
,
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$6
3
1
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
$4
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$5
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$6
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$5
8
8
,
5
4
8
.
0
0
$4
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
1
M
a
t
a
d
e
r
o
W
e
l
l
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
i
v
i
l
,
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$5
8
8
,
6
2
5
.
0
0
$4
3
2
,
5
5
3
.
0
0
$5
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$5
4
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$4
7
2
,
7
1
3
.
0
0
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
7
5
S
t
a
r
t
u
p
&
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
$2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$4
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
To
t
a
l
o
f
B
a
s
e
B
i
d
(
i
t
e
m
s
0
1
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
7
o
n
l
y
,
w
i
t
h
a
l
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
t
a
x
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
)
$3
,
3
7
5
,
3
7
5
.
0
0
$
2
,
7
9
4
,
4
3
3
.
0
0
$
3
,
0
4
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
3
6
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
0
7
6
,
1
8
3
.
0
0
$
2
,
5
6
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Pa
g
e
1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1782)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/1/2011
August 01, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 1782)
Council Priority: Emergency Preparedness
Summary Title: Automatic Aid Agreement with Menlo Park Fire
Title: Approval of Automatic Aid Agreement With the Menlo Park Fire
Protection District; and Authorization to Transfer Ownership of One Inflatable
Boat, Motor and Boat Trailer to the Menlo Park Fire Protection District
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Fire
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council:
1.Approve a new, expanded Automatic Aid Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and
the Menlo Park Fire Protection District for a term of five years; and
2.Authorize the transfer of the City’s ownership share of one rigid hull inflatable boat,
motor and trailer to the Menlo Park Fire Protection District with the expiration of the
South Bay Water Rescue Program Joint Power Agreement between the City and the Fire
District.
BACKGROUND
The Palo Alto Fire Department and the Menlo Park Fire Protection District share a contiguous
border and have a long history of working together to provide the best and most expedient
response to render emergency assistance to the citizens of Santa Clara and San Mateo
Counties. Both agencies have been working on updating the current Automatic Aid Agreement,
dated November 17, 1999 to better serve the community and enhance the current response to
reflect today’s climate and changing needs.
August 01, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 1782)
The City of Palo Alto (“City”) and Menlo Park Fire Protection District (“Fire District”) entered
into an Automatic Aid Agreement on November 17, 1999 to provide emergency medical and
rescue services in a reciprocal exchange on a day-to-day basis. The current agreement is still in
force, however it is 11 years old and both agencies are amenable to replacing the current
contract with updated terms that better reflect current needs and services,and that can
enhance resource responses to emergency medical and rescue services, fire protection as well
as mitigate other types of emergencies.
The new agreement enhances the automatic aid response by adding Truck Company and
Battalion Chief responses from both agencies into the requesting jurisdiction. In addition,
Menlo Park agrees to provide water rescue in the San Francisquito Creek and the San Francisco
Bay adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport while Palo Alto agrees to expand coverage into portions of
East Palo Alto. Palo Alto agrees to support the Fire District in seeking available grant funds and
other available forms of financial recovery for incidents involving a municipal airport and
related preparedness and rescue activities. By approving the agreement with these new,
updated automatic aid terms, the existing agreement will necessarily be terminated.
The South Bay Water Rescue Agreement entered into in April 1992 terminated on June 30,
2011. As part of the new mutual aid agreement, the District will provide, upon request,
appropriate water craft response to emergency incidents for the San Francisquito Creek and
San Francisco Bay in Palo Alto jurisdictional areas.
DISCUSSION
Key provisions of the new agreement include:
1.Automatic Aid Response
Automatic aid means that the closest available and appropriate engine will respond to Code
3 emergencies which require the use of red lights and sirens by responding fire units. For
confirmed structure fires or secondary incidents requiring a Truck and Battalion Chief from
August 01, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 1782)
each agency will respond. The response of a truck and Battalion Chief are new components
to this agreement.
2.Palo Alto Airport -Water Rescue Response
Water rescue was formerly provided under the South Bay Water Rescue operating
agreement between the City and the Fire District, which expired on June 3, 2011. The City
concluded that the Palo Alto based boat was not practical due to the tides and lack of
launching facilities near Palo Alto. It was also costly and difficult to complete required
training. The Fire District agrees to, upon request of City, provide appropriate water craft
response to emergency incidents for the San Francisquito Creek and the San Francisco Bay
adjacent to the Palo Alto Airport. In exchange, the City of Palo Alto supports the Fire
District in seeking available grant funds and other available forms of financial recovery for
incidents involving a municipal airport and related preparedness and rescue activities.
3.Response Area Boundary
Each jurisdiction’s boundary for response is listed and clearly delineated in Attachment B of
the agreement. The new agreement expands Palo Alto coverage into East Palo Alto up to
Bay road and expands the Districts coverage into West Bayshore, the Airport and the
baylands.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no direct resource impact to the City’s budget, as this agreement provides for the
mutual exchange of emergency services, but no monetary compensation.
In the event either party is not available to provide assistance, pursuant to this agreement, the
dispatcher for the assisting agency shall promptly notify the Agency Having Jurisdiction. The aid
provided to each jurisdiction assist in providing better service and coverage to the citizens and
enhances response times, safety and potentially minimizes loss.
August 01, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 1782)
Transfer of the City’s ownership of the rigid hull inflatable boat, motor and trailer to the Menlo
Park Fire Protection District will result in lower maintenance expense to the City. The boat was
jointly purchased by both agencies at inception of the water rescue agreement, however, it
now has minimal asset value to the City and a low resale value. Proceeds of a sale would have
to be split between the agencies. The transfer to the Fire District keeps the boat as a resource
available to the City.
This contract requires Council approval because it is for a five-year term period.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies, and various provisions of the
Health and Safety and Government Codes of the State of California, and acts and statutes of the
Federal Government relating to mutual aid and cooperation between emergency responders.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An agreement to provide mutual aid in emergencies does not constitute a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
·1999 Auto Aid Agreement (PDF)
·Water Rescue JPA 062111 (PDF)
·2011 Automatic Aid Agreement -071211 (DOC)
Prepared By:Roger Bloom,
Department Head:Dennis Burns, Police Chief
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE MENLO PARK FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR AUTOMATIC AID AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL
FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE,
EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND RESCUE AND FIRST RESPONSE SERVICES
This Agreement, made and entered into on ___________, 2011, by and between the
City of Palo Alto (“City”)in Santa Clara County and the Menlo Park Fire Protection District
(“Fire District”)in San Mateo County in the State of California
RECITALS
WHEREAS, in 1999 the City and Fire District entered into an Automatic Aid and
Interjurisdictional Fire Protection Agreement for the benefit of the City of Palo Alto and
Menlo Park Fire Protection District; and
WHERAS, the parties to this agreement provide emergency medical and rescue
services, fire protection, as well as mitigate other types of emergency and non-emergency
incidents; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens within Santa Clara and San
Mateo County and each individual jurisdiction to provide the most expeditious response to
render emergency medical and rescue assistance and to suppress fires, as well as mitigate
other types of emergencies and non-emergency incidents; and
WHEREAS,each party is desirous of providing to the other a reasonable and
reciprocal exchange of emergency medical and rescue, fire and other emergency and non-
emergency services on a day-to-day basis; and
WHEREAS, this agreement is authorized and provided for by provisions of the
Health and Safety and Government Codes of the State of California and acts and statutes of
the Federal Government, where applicable.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these mutual covenants, the parties
hereto agree as follows:
1.Type of Assistance.
(a) Purpose. This agreement is intended to provide for automatic response by the
closest emergency first response unit for use in fire suppression and first responder medical
and rescue emergency incidents within individual jurisdictional fire boundaries in Santa
Clara and San Mateo County.
For purposes of this agreement, the party providing automatic aid into the
adjacent jurisdiction shall be identified as the “Assisting Agency” and the party receiving
automatic aid shall be identified as the “Agency Having Jurisdiction”.
(b) Automatic aid response. The automatic aid response shall consist of the
closest available and appropriate Engine or Truck Company and shall follow each agency’s
jurisdictional guidelines and deployment plan or model.Battalion coverage is based upon
each Agency Having Jurisdiction but shall include the AHJ and next closest Menlo Park or
Palo Alto Battalion Chief for confirmed structure fires or secondary incidents requiring a
Battalion Commander.
(c) Availability to provide automatic aid. Specific jurisdictional response
deployment will be determined by each agency.Should the closest automatic aid unit be
unavailable due to circumstances related to “Brown Out, Black Out or Station Closure”, the
parties agree to meet together prior to creation of the impact in order to mitigate any potential
adverse affects to either party. The agencies agree to contact each others respective Battalion
Chief and Communications Center daily or when ever it is most reasonable during the period
of impact to update operational status. In the event that agreement can not be reached the
“assisting agency” has the option of “refusing” automatic aid.
(d) Types of emergencies for which automatic aid will be provided. Code 3
emergencies which require the use of red lights and sirens by responding fire units are the
only incidents for which provisions are made for automatic aid under this agreement.
Calls for public service, post-fire investigations, invalid assistance and similar
responses which do not require the use of red lights and sirens by the responding fire units
are not incidents for which provisions are made for automatic aid under this agreement.
(e) Assignment of resources for automatic aid.Resources not pre-assigned to
incidents shall officially attach themselves to an incident per the discretion of the Agency
Having Jurisdiction or by authority of the Fire Chief.Assigned units are expected to check
into staging or directly to the command post incidents involving more than a single resource.
In addition, each agency agrees to provide the specialized services and participate
in the training described in Attachment A.
2.Insurance and Liability.
No debt, liability, or obligation of one party shall be the debt, obligation, or
liability of another party.Each party shall provide, in its discretion, insurance for its
personnel and entity.
The Agency Having Jurisdiction agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the
Assisting Agency from all costs, expenses, claims, liabilities or damages, including
attorneys’ fees and cost of defense, to persons or property arising out of or in any way
connected with the Agency Having Jurisdiction’s actions in response to the alarm or call for
service, with the exception of the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Assisting
Agency.
The Assisting Agency agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Agency Having
Jurisdiction from all costs, expenses, claims, liabilities or damages, including attorneys’ fees
and cost of defense, to persons or property arising out of or in any way connected with the
Assisting Agency’s actions in response to the alarm or call for service, with the exception of
the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Agency Having Jurisdiction.
3.Worker’s Compensation. Each party shall provide, at its sole expense, the
required worker’s compensation insurance coverage necessary for its own employees. It is
recognized that at such times as one Agency provides aid to another Agency pursuant to the
terms of this Agreement, the employees of the Assisting Agency may claim to have become
special employees on a temporary basis, of the Agency Having Jurisdiction. Should any such
claim result in any worker’s compensation claim being asserted, it is hereby agreed that each
such claims shall be the responsibility and liability of the Assisting Party as general employer
to process, defend, and pay, if necessary.
4. Equipment and Resources.
Each agency shall use the equipment designated in National Fire Protection
Agency (NFPA) Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression
Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career
Fire Department –Edition 2010 NFPA 1710 or its discretion to determine the equipment and
resources it deems appropriate in any automatic aid response.
5.Incident Command and Management.
The Incident Command System (ICS) and the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) will be utilized for all incident responses.
6. Agency Having Jurisdiction.
The highest ranking officer of the Agency Having Jurisdiction will have
operational responsibility and the final authority as to strategic and tactics deployed at the
incident.If the first arriving officer on scene is from the Assisting Agency, that officer will
assume command until an officer from the Agency Having Jurisdiction responds to the
incident and assumes command.
It shall be the responsibility of the officer in command to summon additional
personnel and equipment, if needed, to handle the emergency.
As soon as the officer in command determines that no further assistance is
required, the officer in command will inform the Communications Center to “cancel” any
other responding units.
It shall be the responsibility of the Agency Having Jurisdiction to utilize their
staffing and equipment for overhaul and clean up operations after a fire. The Assisting
Agency shall, provide assistance for overhaul and clean up, if available.
Resources from the Assisting Agency shall be released from the scene of an
emergency as soon as is possible or at the request of the Assisting Agency’s command team.
7. Fire Incident Reporting.
The Agency Having Jurisdiction, if it responds to an incident, will be responsible
for completing, filing, recording, and storing all reports including reports mandated by local
and state governments and agencies. If the Agency Having Jurisdiction does not in fact
respond to an incident, the assisting agency will be responsible for completing, filing,
recording and storing all reports (unless otherwise provided by law) and shall additionally
transmit a copy of each report to the Agency Having Jurisdiction for the incident upon
request.
8. Response Area Boundary.
Each jurisdiction’s boundary for response is listed and clearly delineated
in Attachment B.
9. Coordination and Communications
Upon execution of this agreement, both agencies shall provide each other with
current standard response maps and pre-plans for the designated areas and shall provide
updated versions within 30 calendar days of changes which may occur.
Contact shall be made to the dispatch centers through pre-established
communication or computer links requesting the appropriate unit per this agreement.
All necessary information including address, type of emergency, radio frequency,
and related information that is available shall be relayed to the responding unit by
dispatching communications center and updated as appropriate.
Automatic aid shall be delivered first based on closest station and then by type of
apparatus need.If the requested type of unit is not in the station requested and its actual
location at the time of the request would result in an extended response time, the requesting
agency dispatch center will be advised of the delay to ensure that closest available unit will
respond.
In the event the automatic aid unit of either party is not available to provide
assistance pursuant to this agreement, the dispatcher for the assisting agency shall promptly
notify the Agency Having Jurisdiction.
Each jurisdictions’dispatcher is to advise their respective on-duty Battalion Chief
when automatic aid is being provided.
Radio coordination of responding units shall be handled by the dispatch center of
the Agency Having Jurisdiction. When apparatus is in a joint response, the frequency(s) of
the Agency Having Jurisdiction will be used.
Both agencies agree to share radio frequencies when needed as a result of their
dual response to a given incident. Further, both agencies agree to give the other the right to
communicate using the frequencies listed in Attachment C.
The right of either party to use these frequencies is with the express control of
either jurisdictions’ command and dispatch center.
10. Compensation
All services provided by the “parties” under this agreement shall be performed
without monetary compensation unless bordering agencies agree to a compensation
arrangement made outside of this agreement related to shared services, consolidation, brown
outs, black outs or station closures.The mutual advantages, protections and services afforded
by this agreement are mutually agreed to be adequate compensation for both agencies.
11. Third Party Beneficiaries.
Nothing set forth in this Agreement shall create, nor is it intended to create, third
party beneficiaries who may rely upon a breach in the relationship(s) established in this
Agreement to assert a cause(s) of action in their behalf.
12. Evaluation.
The effectiveness of the procedures contained in this agreement shall be evaluated
at least annually by the respective Fire Chiefs of the agencies which are party to this
agreement.
13. Legal Relationship.
For purposes of this agreement, the parties concur by signature that employees so
assigned to automatic aid or special details will remain the employee of each individual
agency and the responsibility of the respective agencies.
14.Termination.
This agreement may be terminated by either agency at any time during its term by
providing written notice of intent to terminate 30 days in advance of the requested
termination.
15.Term
This agreement shall become effective on __________, 2011 and unless
terminated earlier as set forth in Section 14, shall remain in full force and effect through
________, 2016. This agreement shall be reviewed by both fire chiefs annually on or around
____(month), and no later than 90 days prior to _________, 2016 for possible amendments
and extension.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District:City of Palo Alto:
____________________________________________________________
Menlo Park Fire Protection District City Manager
________________________________
Interim Fire Chief
Approved as to form:
________________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney
Attachment A
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE MENLO PARK FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR AUTOMATIC AID AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL
FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE,
EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND RESCUE AND FIRST RESPONSE SERVICES
Palo Alto Airport -Water Rescue Response:
The Fire District agrees to on request of City, provide appropriate water craft response to
emergency incidents for the San Francisquito Creek and the San Francisco Bay adjacent to
the Palo Alto Airport.
In exchange, the City of Palo Alto support the Fire District in seeking available grant funds
and other available forms of financial recovery for incidents involving a municipal airport
and related preparedness and rescue activities.
Both agencies are encouraged to establish a Unified Command Post for Water Rescue related
emergencies. The first arriving water craft will establish the Operations Branch and designate
the need for additional resources.
The Parties will make their best efforts to plan and conduct a minimum of one joint response
exercise each calendar year. The exercise will be jointly scheduled by December 1st of the
preceding year and will include incident management, water rescue and patient care and
handling.
Wildland Interface Response:
Upon mutual aid request, both agencies agree to respond a “Patrol” off road capable mini-
pumper or Type III “Brush Rig” to Wildland Interface incidents along San Francisquito
Creek, San Francisco Bay, Stanford Hills and the Alpine Road corridor.
The Parties will make their best efforts to plan and conduct a minimum of one joint response
exercise each calendar year. The exercise will be jointly scheduled by December 1st of the
preceding year and will include incident management, progressive hose lay, pump and roll
and fire shelter deployment.
Other Specialized Services
Deceased individuals will be respectfully recovered and addressed by the County Coroners
Office of the respective Agency Having Jurisdiction.
Attachment B
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE MENLO PARK FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR AUTOMATIC AID AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL
FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE,
EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND RESCUE AND FIRST RESPONSE SERVICES
The City of Palo Alto and the Menlo Park Fire Protection District have established the
following boundary for response.
City of Palo Alto
The Fire District shall respond into those areas of Palo Alto delineated and enclosed by a
solid line on the map identified as “Area A” incorporated by the reference herein. “Area A is
generally described as being bordered on the north by Highway 101 at the Embarcadero
Road interchange, on the east by Embarcadero Road from Highway 101 extending along
Arboretum Road and University Avenue to Campus Drive and then along Junipero Serra
Boulevard and San Francisquito Creek to Highway 280, on the south by Highway 280, and
on the west by Sand Hill Road from Highway 280 extending along San Francisquito Creek to
Highway 101 near its intersection with Embarcadero Road.
Menlo Park Fire Protection District
The Palo Alto Fire Department shall respond into those areas of the Fire District delineated
and enclosed by a solid line on the map identified as “Area B” incorporated by reference
herein. Area B is generally bounded on the north by Highway 101, on the east by San
Francisquito Creek extending to Highway 280, on the south by Highway 280, and on the
west by Walsh Road extending to Alameda de las Pulgas to Valparaiso Avenue and thence
along Middlefield Road to Ringwood Avenue to Highway 101 to San Francisquito Creek.
Attachment C
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE MENLO PARK
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT FOR AUTOMATIC AID AND
INTERJURISDICTIONAL FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE,
EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND RESCUE AND FIRST RESPONSE SERVICES
Updated February 1, 2011
Radio Frequencies:
Agency Frequency Use XMT Frequency Rcvd Frequency PL Tone
PAF Primary 154.4450 153.7700 110.9
PAF C25 154.0600 154.0550 110.9MNL
Control 1A 159.0750 153.8900 114.8
MNL Command 11 155.7450 154.3700 162.2
MNL Tactical –Tac 15 154.0400 154.0400 118.8
MNL Tactical –Tac 16 154.0100 154.0100 146.2
MNL Tactical –Tac 17 155.4000 154.4000 141.3
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1869)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/1/2011
August 01,2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1869)
Summary Title: Approval of Contract for Civic Center Reroofing
Title: Approval of a Contract with Alliance Roofing Company, Inc. in the Amount
of $402,751 for Civic Center Tower Roof Replacement Project, Capital
Improvement Program Project PF-01002
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached
contract with Alliance Roofing Company, Inc. (Attachment A) in the amount of $402,751
for Civic Center Tower Roof Replacement, Capital Improvement Program Project PF-
01002.
2.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more
change orders to the contract with Alliance Roofing Company, Inc. for related, additional
but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which
shall not exceed $40,275.
Background
In 2010, the Civic Center Rehabilitation Project began its final phase which consisted primarily
of electrical and mechanical upgrades along with waterproofing and recoating of the building’s
exterior walls. As a result of the depressed economic climate, the bids for this project came in
very low in comparison to the original cost estimates, leaving a balance of funds for other
related work. The existing Civic Center roof has been in service for 40 years and is exhibiting
signs of severe wear, including a saturated insulation layer and minor leaks. In order to avoid
the potential for larger leaks and structural damage to the building, staff has expedited the
implementation of the roof replacement utilizing the remaining funds in Civic Center
Infrastructure Project capital improvement project.
Discussion
Project Description
The Civic Center Tower has three roof areas, including the top of the main tower, the 8th floor
mechanical cooling tower area, and a catwalk on the exterior of the eighth floor. Work on the
August 01, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1869)
current phase of the Civic Center Rehabilitation Project included replacement of existing HVAC
units on the Tower roof along with waterproofing of the Tower parapet. During this work, it
was noticed that the layer of insulation between the roof membrane and the concrete deck of
the main Tower roof is completely saturated. Use of the roof scaffolding that was lowered to
access the building exterior during the waterproofing of the walls further aggravated the
condition of the roof and created leaks into the eighth floor. Additional leaks into the 7th floor
were found to be originating from the saturated roof under the 8th floor cooling tower area.
The Tower roof is also used for the mounting of numerous antennas for the Police/Fire Dispatch
Center, Police Department communications, and information technology networks. There is
currently a project underway by the Police Department to replace and upgrade all of these
antennas. The timing of the roof replacement has been coordinated to occur in conjunction
with the antenna replacement project. Installation of a new roof placed immediately after re-
installation of the antennas will assure that these areas will be properly sealed in order to
provide decades of service.
The type of roofing system chosen for this project is a liquid-applied, seamless membrane that
will work well given the complexity of the elements such as scaffolding supports, antennas, and
mechanical equipment located on the Tower roof. It also provides for an easy method of
resealing the roof after any future reconfiguration of either antennas or mechanical equipment.
Bid Process
On June 20, 2011, a notice inviting formal bids for the Civic Center Tower Roof Replacement
Project was posted at City Hall and sent to 8 builder’s exchanges and 12 contractors. The
bidding period was 29 days. Bids were received from two qualified contractors on July 19,
2011, as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment B).
Summary of Bid Process
Bid Name/Number Civic Center Tower Roof Replacement Project, Capital
Improvement Program Project PF-01002 /IFB # 142183
Proposed Length of Project 45 calendar days
Number of Bids Mailed to
Contractors
12
Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s
Exchanges
8
Total Days to Respond to Bid 29
Pre-Bid Meeting?June 29, 2011 at 9:00 A.M.
Number of Company Attendees at
Pre-Bid Meeting
12
Number of Bids Received:2
Bid Price Range $402,751 –$490,500
August 01, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1869)
Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $402,751 submitted by
Alliance Roofing Company, Inc. be accepted and that Alliance Roofing Company, Inc. be
declared the lowest responsible bidder. The award of contract includes the base bid plus all of
the add alternate bid items. The low bid is 19.5 percent below the engineer's estimate of
$500,000. The change order amount of $40,275 (which equals 10 percent of the total contract)
is requested for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project.
Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that the contractor has an active
license on file. Staff also contacted the listed references for Alliance Roofing Company, Inc. and
found that they have performed satisfactorily on past construction projects for other clients.
Project Coordination
The Civic Center Tower Roof Replacement Project has been coordinated with the Antenna
Replacement Project. This project does not conflict with any upcoming Public Works or Utilities
Department projects.
Resource Impact
Funding for the Civic Center Roof Replacement Project is available in the Civic Center
Rehabilitation Capital Improvement Program Project PF-01002.
Policy Implications
The recommendation does not represent any changes to existing City policy.
Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance and/or minor
alteration of existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary.
Attachments:
·A -Contract (PDF)
·B -Bid Summary (PDF)
Prepared By:Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Rev. August 3, 2010
Attachment A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. C12142183
City of Palo Alto
and
Alliance Roofing Company, Inc.
PROJECT
Civic Center Roof Replacement
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC Rev. August 3, 2010 i
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS....................................1
1.1 Recitals................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Definitions ...........................................................................................................................1
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT ...................................................................................................1
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS........................................................................1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................................................1
3.2 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE ...............................................................................2
SECTION 4. THE WORK.........................................................................................................2
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM ................................................................................................2
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION.....................................................................................2
6.1 Time Is of Essence .............................................................................................................3
6.2 Commencement of Work ...................................................................................................3
6.3 Contract Time......................................................................................................................3
6.4 Liquidated Damages...........................................................................................................3
6.4.1 Entitlement...................................................................................................................3
6.4.2 Daily Amount................................................................................................................3
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy........................................................................................................3
6.4.4 Other Remedies...........................................................................................................3
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time ..........................................................................................3
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR ..............................................................3
7.1 Contract Sum ......................................................................................................................3
7.2 Full Compensation..............................................................................................................4
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work ........................................................................4
7.3.1 Self Performed Work....................................................................................................4
7.3.2 Subcontractors.............................................................................................................4
Rev. August 3, 2010 IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC ii
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE.......................................................................................4
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ............................................................................................4
9.1 Hold Harmless.....................................................................................................................4
9.2 Survival................................................................................................................................5
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION ......................................................................................5
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS................................................................................5
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.............................................................5
SECTION 13. NOTICES ............................................................................................................6
13.1 Method of Notice.................................................................................................................6
13.2 Notice Recipients................................................................................................................6
13.3 Change of Address.............................................................................................................7
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................7
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes............................................................................................7
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.................................................................................................7
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.................................................................................................7
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.......................................................................................8
14.3.1 By Contractor...............................................................................................................8
14.3.2 By City..........................................................................................................................8
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process ..............................................................................8
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.......................................................................................................8
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.......................................................................................9
14.4.3 Mediation......................................................................................................................9
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration........................................................................................................9
14.5 Non-Waiver........................................................................................................................10
SECTION 15. DEFAULT..........................................................................................................11
15.1 Notice of Default ...............................................................................................................11
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.............................................................................................11
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES....................................................................11
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ...................................................................................................11
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services .............................................................................................11
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ................................................................................................11
Rev. August 3, 2010 IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC iii
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract..........................................................................11
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default........................................................11
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond....................................................................................11
16.1.6 Additional Provisions..................................................................................................12
16.2 Delays by Sureties............................................................................................................12
16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................................12
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.............................................................................................12
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ..........................................................................................12
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience .............................................................................12
16.6 Termination Without Cause.............................................................................................13
16.6.1 Compensation............................................................................................................13
16.6.2 Subcontractors...........................................................................................................13
16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination...........................................................................13
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ..................................................14
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies ....................................................................................................14
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage....................................................................................................14
17.1.2. For City's Non-Payment.............................................................................................14
17.2 Damages to Contractor....................................................................................................14
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS...............................................................................14
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.........................................................................14
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ......................................................................................14
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES................................................................................14
SECTION 20. NUISANCE........................................................................................................15
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES...............................................................................15
SECTION 22. WAIVER............................................................................................................15
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW ...........................................................................................15
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT ..............................................................................15
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.............................................................................15
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES......................................................................................15
Rev. August 3, 2010 IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC iv
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION ...................................................................................15
SECTION 28 GOVERNMENTAL POWERS...........................................................................16
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES ............................................................................................16
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY ................................................................................................16
1 Rev. August 3,
2010
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on August 1, 2011 (“Execution Date”) by
and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and
Alliance Roofing Company, Inc. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
R E C I T A L S:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the
State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the
statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of
California, Contractor’s License Number 487025. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the
State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the
obligations set forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On June 20, 2011, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Civic
Center Roof Replacement (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and
other services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and
conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set
forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract
and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
The Project is the construction of the Civic Center Roof Replacement ("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”)
consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby
incorporated by reference.
1) Change Orders
2) Field Change Orders
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
5) Technical Specifications
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
2
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated
2005 and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre-
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in
the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence,
the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the
best interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all
other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including,
without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all
Applicable Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project
requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other
members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the
Project.
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
3
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed within forty-five calendar days (45) after the commencement date specified in City’s
Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result
of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to
all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the
event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within
the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of
$500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until
Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated
damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the
amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision
shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have
where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to
achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to
by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with
the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Four Hundred Two Thousand, Seven Hundred
Fifty-One Dollars ($402,751.00).
[This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates 1, 2, 3, and 4.]
4 Rev. August 3,
2010
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall
cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any
unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of
the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all
expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may
only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in
accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work
involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be
selected by City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that
is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment
methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall
not be compounded, shall be computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City,
its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and
volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel
acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in
any manner relating to any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors, of any tier;
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
5
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors,
of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project;
and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated
with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of
Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance
of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin
color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status,
marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has
read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained
insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General
Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of
the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not
assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly,
by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment,
hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the
Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the
control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control
means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
6
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall
be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(iv) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to:⌧ City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Joe Teresi
Or
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be
provided to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
7
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Alliance Roofing Company, Inc.
1250 Campbell Avenue
San Jose, CA 95126
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the
change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace
any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights
adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive
recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating
to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-
subcontractors of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et.
seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall
not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City
reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as
Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the
preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided
pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for
Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to
defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
8
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's
written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10
of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract
Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a
portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of
Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim
becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be
signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and
the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of
Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed
Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of
the Contract Time shall include both of the following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract
Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the
following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any
time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract
Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted
by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the
events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their
occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in
good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith
effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next
step in the process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but
not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a
good faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be
represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge
of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the
negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there,
subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval
of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion
of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against
Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass-Through
Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
9
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential
and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the
Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the
Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract
Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a
reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant
to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal
negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations
shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and
resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before
a mutually acceptable third party mediator.
.1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator
who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience
in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty
(20) hours of formal training in mediation skills.
.2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules.
.3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of
City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The
mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the
Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that
occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose
of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California
Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of
California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator
therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent
jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint
in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
10
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all
parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five
(5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in
arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall
have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the
event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an
arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein.
.3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices
of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the
arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance.
.4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown.
.5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by
a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City
and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award.
.6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in
accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract
Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the
following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses
per party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall,
for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed
an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence.
.7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards.
.8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to
a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non-Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or
compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the
assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were
previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract
Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods
for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for
submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
11
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in
the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations
under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may
reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be
reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2)
Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously
prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later
than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set
forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity,
including, without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor
and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to
itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction
Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion,
appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or
Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs
Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part,
upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15.
City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be
communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner
specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of
termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless
otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
12
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not
waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right
to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there
has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by
City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be
binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination
shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the
Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor
to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to
insure full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or
unreasonably delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor
or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City
exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and
shall promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified
as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at
City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs
allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension
of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order,
delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or
expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued
to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by
such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the
Work.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
13
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part
or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed
under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but
not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other
consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination
without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay
the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the
Work :
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the
portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of
termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor.
.2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its
Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project
(including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not
including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty
(30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination.
.3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and
other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless
the notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of
the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable
terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work
already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site
or in transit thereto.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
14
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of
Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any
Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other
than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a
national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any
work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either
for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after
receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract
(30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the
Construction Contract.
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums
provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole
and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses,
including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or
other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be
necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants
during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books,
estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings,
receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this
Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of
(i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for
such longer period as may be required by law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a
condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor
against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract
Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its
business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance
of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent
jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint
venturers of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of
Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set
forth.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
15
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor
shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other
government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all
costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No
other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City
inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the
State of California.
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes
all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be
amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the
Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities,
payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force
and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages
in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a
chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City
invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the
Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo
Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year
in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at
any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year
and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in
the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
16
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity
and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If
the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by
attorneys employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
IFB 142183 Construction Contract .DOC
Rev. August 3, 2010
17
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed
the date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
___________________________
Interim Director of Public Works
ALLIANCE ROOFING COMPANY, INC.
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:________________________
ATTACHMENT B
IFB NO. 142183
BID SUMMARY
Engineer's Alliance Legacy
BASE BID: Estimate Roofing Roofing
BID DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
ITEM QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Demolition and disposal of old roofing materials 1 LS $125,000 $125,000 $45,883.00 $45,883.00 $115,000.00 $115,000.00
2 Installation of insulation and cover board 1 LS $75,000 $75,000 $51,493.00 $51,493.00 $85,000.00 $85,000.00
3 Installation of new liquid-applied roofing system 1 LS $220,000 $220,000 $222,777.00 $222,777.00 $225,000.00 $225,000.00
4 Application of two specified final coatings 1 LS $40,000 $40,000 $39,288.00 $39,288.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00
5 Bonds, etc. 1 LS $0 $8,523.00 $8,523.00 $0.00
BASE BID TOTAL:$460,000 $367,964.00 $460,000.00
ADD ALTERNATE:
BID DESCRIPTION BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID
ITEM QTY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT PRICE AMOUNT
1 Increase slope to drain 1/16" to 1/8" per foot 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
2 Provide boxed-in weatherproof davit containers 1 LS $7,000 $7,000 $9,979.00 $9,979.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
3 Add additional drain to northeast corner tower 1 LS $4,500 $4,500 $6,308.00 $6,308.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
4 Allowance for new guardrails 1 LS $18,500 $18,500 $18,500.00 $18,500.00 $18,500.00 $18,500.00
ADD ALTERNATE BID TOTAL:$40,000 $34,787.00 $30,500.00
.
BID GRAND TOTAL:$500,000 $402,751.00 $490,500.00
FY 2012 CIVIC CENTER ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1887)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/1/2011
August 01, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1887)
Summary Title: Federal Legislative Memorandum of Agreement
Title: Authorization of City Manager to Execute the Amended Memorandum of
Agreement with the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition for the Recycled Water
Project
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the
amended Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition
(BAC) for federal legislative efforts to secure a grant under Title XVI of the Reclamation
Wastewater and Ground Water Study and Facilities Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575).
Executive Summary
The City of Palo Alto is pursuing federal grant funding opportunities for a future recycled water
project to serve the Stanford Research Park. To participate with the other members of the BAC
in the regional effort to secure grant funding, the City of Palo Alto executed a MOA in May
2008. The MOA defines the relationship between the projects, including grant funding
allocation, advocacy costs, membership, and termination. As the BAC has evolved over time,
the MOA now needs several minor changes.
Background
Title XVI of the 1992 Central Valley Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575) directed the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to form a partnership with Bay Area water and wastewater
agencies. The purpose of the partnership is to study regional opportunities to maximize water
recycling throughout the region. The BAC program started in 1992 with a coalition of 17
agencies. Presently, 14 agencies remain in the program.
The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) joined the BAC in 1992 and has
remained a member ever since. The RWQCP Master Plan has been incorporated into the
regional program so that recycled water projects sourced from the RWQCP can qualify for
Federal grants. Beginning with the RWQCP’s collaboration with the City of Mountain View on
the Mountain View recycled water project, the City sought Title XVI grant funding, and
ultimately succeeded in securing federal authorization for a $5 million grant. In order to codify
the relationship with the BAC members regarding future appropriations, the City of Palo Alto
August 01, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1887)
executed the original MOA in May 2008 (CMR 249:08). The City of Mountain View and the
RWQCP completed the Mountain View recycled water project in 2009.
The City is evaluating an extension to the recycled water distribution system to provide recycled
water to select users in the Stanford Research Park. The project to serve the Stanford Research
Park is currently seeking authorization for $8 million in Federal Title XIV grants.
Discussion
The original MOA has functioned well since its creation in 2008, but the evolution of the BAC
and the regional Title XVI program necessitates minor adjustments to the original MOA. In
particular, the following changes are required:
1.Creation of a new category of parties to this Restated Agreement called Associate
Participants;
2.Allowance for investor-owned water utilities regulated by the California Public Utilities
Commission to become Participating Agencies and/or Associate Participants; and
3.Incorporation of changes to the existing cost share formula.
The first two changes are minor administrative changes that have no material impact on the
City. The third adjustment changes the cost allocation methodology. The new formula retains
the existing methodology of equally distributing the Lead Agency’s administrative costs
between the members, but changes the advocacy cost allocation to a method proportional to
each individual federal authorization request. The impact of this change to the City is not
expected to be significant. For example, for calendar year 2011, the total cost to the City is
expected to increase by approximately $3,100 under the new formula.
Resource Impact
The execution of the amended MOA will not result in additional resource requirements from
the City. The new cost share formula will result in a small increase to the City’s current annual
fee contribution.
Policy Implications
Activities that promote the use and expansion of recycled water are consistent with Council
adopted Water Integrated Resource Plan Guideline 3: “Actively participate in development of
cost-effective regional recycled water plans.”
Environmental Review
The City of Palo Alto is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
for the recycled water project to serve the Stanford Research Park. In addition, the Bureau of
Reclamation is the lead agency for the project under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The City is currently collaborating with the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare a joint
August 01, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1887)
CEQA/NEPA document for the project. Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report is
currently underway.
Execution of the MOA does not require additional environmental review under CEQA or NEPA.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: BARWC MOA amended restated Final (PDF)
·Attachment B: 2011 MOA Project Costs (PDF)
Prepared By:Nicolas Procos, Senior Resource Planner
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Page 1 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BAY AREA RECYCLED WATER COALITION
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS
A Memorandum of Agreement was originally made and executed on August 25th, 2008, by and between
the City of Mountain View, a Charter City and Municipal Corporation; City of Palo Alto, a Charter City; City
of Redwood City, a Charter City; and the City of San Jose, a Municipal Corporation, and administering
agency for the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant, a joint powers agency formed pursuant
to California Government Code section 6500, et seq.; the Delta Diablo Sanitation District (“DDSD”), a
County Sanitation District formed pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 4700 et seq.;
North Coast County Water District, formed under the County Water District Act, California Water Code
Section 30000, et. seq.; Santa Clara Valley Water District, a Special District created by an act of the
California Legislature, “Participating Agencies,” and the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (“BACWA”), a joint
powers agency formed pursuant to California Government Code section 6500 et seq.
Subsequent to the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement, the following entities became parties to
the Memorandum of Agreement as Participating Agencies: the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, a
Special District formed under the Sanitary District Act pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 6400, et
seq.; the Dublin San Ramon Services District, a Special District formed under the Community Services
District Law, California Government Code Section 61000, et. seq.; the City of Petaluma, a Municipal
Corporation; the Ironhouse Sanitary District, a Special District; the Coastside County Water District, a
Special District; the City of Hayward, a Municipal Corporation; Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood
Control & Water Conservation District, a component of Alameda County; the Town of Yountville, a
Municipal Corporation; and the City of Pleasanton, a Municipal Corporation.
The Participating Agencies (including those agencies that become Participating Agencies after the
execution of the August 25, 2008 Memorandum of Agreement) and BACWA now desire to amend and
restate the August 25, 2008 Memorandum of Agreement effective June 30, 2011 by entering into this First
Amended and Restated Memorandum of Agreement (“Restated Agreement”), which creates a new
category of parties to this Restated Agreement called Associate Participants ; allows investor owned
water utilities regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission to become Participating Agencies
and/or Associate Participants; shares costs for the Lead Agency’s administrative expenses incurred to
provide services for BARWC; and revises the cost sharing formula for Participating Agency costs for federal
advocacy.
It is the intent of the Parties that this Restated Agreement replaces the Memorandum of Agreement that
was originally made and executed on August 25, 2008.
RECITALS
1. WHEREAS, Title XVI of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of
1992 (also known as Public Law 102‐575) authorized a feasibility study of the potential for
development of demonstration and permanent facilities to reclaim water in the San Francisco Bay
Area, bringing Bay Area agencies together to study opportunities to use recycled treated
wastewater for beneficial uses; and authorized the planning, design and construction for the San
Jose Water Reclamation and Reuse Program; and
Page 2 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
2. WHEREAS, the Bay Area Recycled Water Master Plan, completed in 1999, identified opportunities
to use 125,000 acre‐feet per year (AF/yr) by 2010, and 240,000 AF/yr by 2025; and
3. WHEREAS, Bay Area agencies have invested nearly $300 million of local funds in water recycling
projects, and many more projects are ready to be built; and
4. WHEREAS, federal funding is essential to support these highly leveraged, locally managed, projects
to help ensure the security of water supplies for years to come; and
5. WHEREAS, Public Law 102‐575 also provides a program for Federal participation (through cost
sharing) in specific water reuse projects up to certain amounts specified in the Act; and
6. WHEREAS, Participating Agencies have identified 8 projects for which they wish to seek near‐term
federal funding; and
7. WHEREAS, Participating Agencies anticipate identifying future projects for which they may wish to
secure federal funding; and
8. WHEREAS, federal funding monies will not be available for any authorized project until such funds
have been specifically appropriated by Congress; and
9. WHEREAS, Public Law 102‐575 requires that projects complete a feasibility determination process
administered through the United States Bureau of Reclamation (“USBR”) and that specific
authority for funding be legislatively granted; and
10. WHEREAS, Participating Agencies have collaborated in efforts to promote legislation authorizing
federal funding for Bay Area recycled water projects; and
11. WHEREAS, the United States House of Representatives on July 23, 2007, passed HR 1526
amending the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 and
authorizing the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program and a companion bill was introduced
in the Senate on May 24, 2007; and
12. WHEREAS, Senate Bill 2739, the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, containing the HR
1526 language, was introduced on March 10, 2008 and passed by the full Senate on April 10,
2008; and
13. WHEREAS, Senate Bill 2739 was signed into Public Law 110‐229 on May 8, 2008; and
14. WHEREAS, Participating Agencies desire to continue efforts to obtain necessary legislation
authorizing federal funding for Bay Area recycled water projects; and
15. WHEREAS, Participating Agencies desire to collaborate in efforts to promote legislation to
appropriate federal funding for authorized projects and for other Bay Area projects that may be
authorized in the future.
NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL BENEFITS, COVENANTS AND PROMISES
CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES DO HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
Page 3 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
I. DEFINITIONS
1. Associate Participant: A public agency or an Investor Owned Water Utility regulated by the
California Public Utilities Commission that both: (i) does not have a recycled water project for
which they are seeking congressional authorization and/or appropriation, but which wishes to
monitor BARWC’s efforts to promote legislation to appropriate federal funding for recycled water
projects authorized through Title XVI of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act of 1992; and (ii) is approved as an Associate Participant pursuant to Section II(2) of
this Restated Agreement. Associate Participants may participate in BARWC discussions regarding
federal funding efforts to be pursued under this Restated Agreement, but may not vote, or
otherwise participate in any decision‐making, including the efforts to be undertaken under this
Restated Agreement or any other matter.
2. Authorized Project: A project that has been enacted into federal law.
3. Federal Share: The dollar amount of Federal Title XVI funding that a Participating Agency is
seeking for their project(s). In general, the Federal Share is 25% of the estimated total cost of a
project for which a Participating Agency is seeking authorization and/or appropriation. However,
an Authorized Project may have a remaining Federal Share that is less than 25% of the total
project cost if it has previously received Federal appropriations.
4. Lead Agency: The Participating Agency selected by majority vote of the Participating Agencies to
provide federal advocacy outside consulting services, including consultant contract management,
facilitation and management of meetings, and accounting services.
5. Participating Agency: Each of the agencies that is a Participating Agency as of the effective date of
this Restated Agreement. A Participating Agency also includes a public agency or Investor‐Owned
Water Utility regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission that both: (i) has a recycled
water project(s) authorized through Title XVI of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act of 1992 or that will seek congressional authorization and appropriation for
such projects; and (ii) is approved as a Participating Agency pursuant to Section II(1) of this
Restated Agreement.
6. Parties: BACWA and all current and future Participating Agencies and Associate Participants.
II. ELIGIBILITY TO BECOME A PARTY TO THIS RESTATED AGREEMENT
1. Any public agency or Investor Owned Water Utility regulated by the California Public Utilities
Commission in the nine‐county Bay Area that is developing a recycled water project and has an
interest in securing federal participation through Title XVI can become a Participating Agency upon
approval of such status by a majority of the Participating Agencies and execution of the
Participating Agency Addendum attached hereto as Attachment 1. Any Addendum must be
approved on or before September 30 in order to be effective for the forthcoming calendar year.
2. Any public agency or Investor Owned Water Utility regulated by the California Public Utilities
Commission in the nine‐county Bay Area that has the ability to develop a recycled water project
can become an Associate Participant upon approval of such status by a majority of the
Participating Agencies and execution of the Associate Participant Addendum, attached hereto as
Page 4 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
Attachment 2. Any Addendum must be approved on or before September 30 in order to be
effective for the forthcoming calendar year.
3. A Participating Agency or an Associate Participant can convert to a different party status upon
approval of such change in status by a majority of the Participating Agencies and execution of a
Change of Party Status Addendum, attached hereto as Attachment 3. Any Addendum must be
approved on or before September 30 in order to be effective for the forthcoming calendar year.
III. PARTICIPATION AND ROLES IN FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS
1. The Participating Agencies hereby agree that either Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA), or
the Lead Agency may be the legal authority to represent Participating Agencies in pursuit of the
Title XVI grants under the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of
1992 (Public Law 102‐575), and may act as the regional entity on behalf of Participating Agencies.
2. The Participating Agencies agree that either BACWA or the Lead Agency may be listed as the entity
submitting the authorization and appropriation requests to members of Congress and that either
BACWA or Lead Agency support of Participating Agency legislative efforts may include review of
and signature on, letters of support drafted by Participating Agencies, and attending hearings
and/or meetings with congressional representatives and their staff. If the Participating Agencies
vote to request that BACWA perform these functions and BACWA agrees to do so and incurs costs
for these functions, the Participating Agencies will reimburse BACWA for these costs. Any
documents BACWA or the Lead Agency requests from a Participating Agency to support its
legislative role will be prepared by the respective Participating Agency at its own expense.
3. The Participating Agencies agree that all appropriations requests pursuant to this Restated
Agreement shall include language directing USBR to enter into grant agreements with the
Participating Agencies for reimbursement of all eligible costs of the projects designated in the
Appropriations Request List developed by the Participating Agencies pursuant to Section V of this
Restated Agreement, in accordance with the distribution formula set forth in Section VII below.
Any agreement required by USBR shall be subject to Participating Agency accepting the terms
thereof.
4. Participating Agencies agree to provide for their own projects all necessary in kind services
including providing background information, project or program descriptions, planning,
environmental review, federal feasibility documentation and determination, design, construction
and coordination, project or program status reports, meeting attendance, review of documents,
Board or Council resolutions (if needed), and any other staff support required to support federal
advocacy efforts. Neither BACWA nor the Lead Agency shall have responsibility for provision of
any of these services.
5. All recycled water projects for which federal participation is sought by the Participating Agencies
through Title XVI that meet the terms of this Restated Agreement shall enjoy the same Bay Area
wide legislative priority for funding and authorization regardless of project size or congressional
district in which the project is located.
6. Each Participating Agency is committed to securing or assisting in securing the support of its
House of Representatives member(s) to actively advocate on behalf of the Bay Area Recycled
Water Coalition approach. Each Participating Agency will request its House of Representative
Page 5 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
member(s) to place the Bay Area regional recycled water Title XVI requests as a very high priority
in order to support and reward the regional approach, even if the list of projects for any given year
does not have a project in his/her district.
7. No later than September 1 of each calendar year, the Participating Agencies will select from
among themselves one Lead Agency to provide federal advocacy outside consulting service for the
forthcoming calendar year, including consultant contract management, facilitation and
management of meetings and accounting. The Lead Agency will bill the Parties for the costs it
incurs for these activities (“Lead Agency Administrative Costs”). Each Participating Agency and
each Associate Participant agrees to be individually liable for its pro rata share of the Lead
Agency’s Administrative Costs as provided in Section VI below. All Participating Agencies shall be
considered third party beneficiaries of the outside consultant contract and shall be entitled to
receive all copies of consultant’s correspondence and reports. The outside consultant shall
provide all required lobbying disclosure documentation for each of the Participating Agencies.
Each Participating Agency agrees to be individually liable for its share of such consultant costs
(“Advocacy Costs”) as provided in Section VI, below.
IV. DETERMINATION OF PROJECTS FOR AUTHORIZATION REQUESTS
No later than October 30 of each calendar year, Participating Agencies will determine which
projects will be included in the authorization requests for the following calendar year and will
create a list of those projects. The list may include any recycled water project located within the
nine‐county Bay Area where the project sponsor is a Participating Agency.
V. DETERMINATION OF PROJECTS FOR APPROPRIATION REQUESTS
1. No later than October 30 of each calendar year, Participating Agencies shall review the status of all
Authorized Projects to determine those projects that will meet both the following criteria: (1)
Project has completed or is in the process of completing the Title XVI Feasibility Determination
process administered by the United States Bureau of Reclamation; and (2) the funded phase of the
project will be completed no later than the end of the federal fiscal year of the appropriation
request (i.e. 2011 appropriation requests must be for work that will be completed by September
30, 2011); and project otherwise meets all eligibility requirements for funding under Public Law
102‐575 as amended. Projects meeting these criteria will be eligible for inclusion in the list of
projects for which a federal funding allocation will be sought.
2. No later than October 30 of each calendar year, Participating Agencies will determine the final list
of projects; the associated project cost for which a federal funding allocation will be sought
through the Congressional budget process for the subsequent federal fiscal year; and the
percentage share each agency would receive of the total requested appropriation. This list shall
be the “Appropriation Request List”.
VI. COST SHARING
1. Participating Agencies will pay their pro rata share of Lead Agency Administrative Costs and their
share of Advocacy Costs, as defined in Section III (7). Associate Participants will pay their pro‐
rata share of Lead Agency Administrative Costs only. The Lead Agency will bill the costs to the
Participating Agencies and Associate Participants on an annual basis. Payment is due within thirty
days of the date of the bill.
Page 6 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
2. No later than September 30 of each calendar year, the Lead Agency will submit a budget for Lead
Agency Administrative Costs for the next calendar year. No later than October 30 of each
calendar year, representatives of the Participating Agencies will approve the final budget amount
for these administrative costs. They will then determine the pro rata Lead Agency Administrative
cost share for each Participating Agency and each Associate Participant for the next calendar year.
The pro rata cost share will be determined by equally dividing the annual budgeted Lead Agency
Administrative Costs by the number of Participating Agencies plus one‐half of the total number of
Associate Participants. Each Participating Agency will pay a full pro rata share, and each Associate
Participant will pay one‐half of a full pro rata share.
3. No later than October 30 of each year, Participating Agencies will identify each agency’s Federal
Share for the next calendar year and determine the monetary sum of the Federal Shares for all
Participating Agencies for that year.
4. No later than October 30 of each year, Participating Agencies will approve the total amounts to be
spent on Advocacy Costs for the next calendar year. They will then determine the Advocacy Cost
share attributable to a Participating Agency for that calendar year. The Advocacy Cost share will
be determined by multiplying the total approved Advocacy Cost amount by a Participating
Agency’s Federal Share and then dividing by the sum of the Federal Share for all Participating
Agencies. Once the Advocacy Cost share for each Participating Agency for the next calendar year
has been determined, a Participating Agency’s Advocacy Cost share will not be changed for that
calendar year, even if the agency otherwise adjusts its Federal Share.
5. No later than November 30 of each year, each Participating Agency will obtain the necessary
Board/City Council approval for funding of the next calendar year’s Advocacy Costs and Lead
Agency Administrative Costs. No later than November 30 of each year, each Associate Participant
will obtain the necessary Board/City Council approval for funding of the next year’s Lead Agency
Administrative Costs.
6. A Party that terminates its participation in this Restated Agreement will not receive any refund of
its payments for either Lead Agency Administrative Costs or Advocacy Costs. A Participating
Agency that is not eligible for federal funding under Title XVI of the Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 will not receive any refund of its payments for either
Lead Agency Administrative Costs or Advocacy Costs.
VII. DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL FUNDING
1. Participating Agencies may designate BACWA or the Lead Agency to serve as the legal entity to
request amendments to the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of
1992 for the authorized projects.
2. When a federal appropriation is made, in accordance with the Appropriation Request List, either the
Lead Agency or BACWA shall inform the USBR of the percentage share that each Participating
Agency should receive for its project(s) from the appropriation pursuant to an individual project
agreement(s) between the Participating Agency and USBR. Should the total amount of the federal
appropriation be less than the total amount sought for all authorized projects in any given year,
each Participating Agency will receive its percentage share of the lower appropriation, and the Lead
Agency or BACWA shall inform USBR of the percentage shares.
Page 7 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
3. Neither the Lead Agency nor BACWA shall have any responsibility or liability for any other
Participating Agency’s performance of its obligations pursuant to its individual project agreement
with the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Each Participating Agency that receives a federal
appropriation agrees to hold harmless the Lead Agency and BACWA from any and all claims, causes
of action or liabilities arising from or connected to (1) the Participating Agency’s acceptance and use
of the federal appropriation and/or (2) the project for which the appropriation was received.
4. Neither BACWA nor the Participating Agencies are required to accept the USBR proposed agreement
terms. If USBR requires an agreement with BACWA, the terms of which BACWA cannot agree,
BACWA’s obligations under this Restated Agreement shall terminate. If the affected Participating
Agencies do not enter into the USBR agreement, the affected Parties’ obligations under this
Restated Agreement shall terminate.
VIII. DISPUTES
The Parties agree to follow this dispute resolution procedure:
1. Informal Conferral. If a dispute related to the interpretation, enforcement, or compliance with the
terms and provisions of this Restated Agreement arises, the affected Parties will first attempt to
resolve it through informal discussions, which will include the persons identified as Entity Contacts in
Section IX below for the affected Parties. If such a dispute cannot be resolved in this matter within
fifteen (15) business days, the affected Parties will endeavor to settle the dispute through
negotiation.
2. Negotiation. Not more than fifteen (15) business days after the conclusion of the informal conferral,
the aggrieved Party shall serve on the other affected Parties (a) written notice of the nature and
basis of the dispute, including any amount of money claimed, the provisions of this Restated
Agreement at issue, and the facts in support of its position; and (b) a copy of all supporting
documents. Within ten (10) business days after service of the notice, the responding Parties shall
serve on the aggrieved Party (a) a written response setting out their position, including the
provisions of the Restated Agreement relied on and the facts in support thereof; and (b) a copy of all
supporting documents. Within ten (10) business days after service of the response, the affected
Parties shall meet to negotiate resolution of the dispute. Each Party’s negotiator shall be its general
manager or city manager, executive director, or their designee.
3. After negotiation, any affected Party may pursue any available legal remedy. The written notice of
the dispute and the written response and all documents produced, but not the subsequent
discussion, shall be admissible in any subsequent proceeding.
4. Pending resolution of the dispute, each Party must fulfill its payment obligations and other
responsibilities under this Restated Agreement.
IX. ENTITY CONTACTS
For each Participating Agency, each Associate Participant, and BACWA, a contact person is identified
below. All communications regarding activities covered by this Restated Agreement will be made to
those contact persons. All notices pertaining to this Restated Agreement will be in writing and may be
delivered by deposit in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, addressed in the case of each entity to the
contact person. Upon written notice of the change of an Entity’s contact person, the Lead Agency may
Page 8 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
update the list of entity contacts and circulate a copy of the list to all Parties. Contact persons of the
Parties as of June 30, 2011 are:
City of Mountain View
Gregg Hosfeldt, Assistant Public Works Director
500 Castro Street/ P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039‐7540
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
Caroline Quinn, District Engineer
2500 Pittsburg‐Antioch Highway
Antioch, CA 94509‐1373
City of Palo Alto
Daisy Stark, Contract Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
North Coast County Water District
Cari Lemke, Assistant General Manager
2400 Francisco Blvd./P.O. Box 1039
Pacifica, CA 94044
City of Redwood City
Roanne Ross, Whitley Burchett & Associates
1777 Oakland Blvd. Suite 200
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Alan Kurotori, Deputy Operating Officer
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
City of San Jose, South Bay Water Recycling
Eric Hansen, Acting Division Manager
c/o City of San Jose Municipal Water System
3025 Tuers Road
San Jose CA 95121
Bay Area Clean Water Agencies
Amy Chastain, Executive Director
P.O. Box 24055, MS702
Oakland, CA 94623
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Don Berger, Recycled Water Program Manager
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
City of Hayward
Alex Ameri, Deputy Director of Public Works
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Rhodora Biagtan, Principal Engineer
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
Ironhouse Sanitary District
Tom Williams, General Manager
450 Walnut Meadows Dr.
Oakley, CA 94561
Town of Yountville
Graham Wadsworth, Public Works Director
6550 Yount Street
Yountville, CA 94599
City of Pleasanton
Daniel Smith
P.O. Box 520
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Zone 7 Water Agency
Amparo Flores
100 North Canyons Parkway
Livermore, CA 94551‐9486
City of Petaluma
Remleh Scherzinger,
P.O. Box 61
Petaluma, CA 95953
Coastside County Water District
David Dickson, General Manager
766 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Page 9 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
X. AMENDMENTS
This Restated Agreement may be amended by a written document executed by all of the Parties hereto.
XI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Restated Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. Except as
expressly provided herein, no other understanding, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of
this Restated Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind all of the Parties hereto.
XII. TERMINATION
This Restated Agreement may be terminated immediately at any time by written mutual consent of all
the Parties. Upon provision of written notice of termination to all other Parties no later than October
15, and full payment of any amounts it owes under this Restated Agreement, a Participating Agency or
an Associate Participant may terminate its participation in this Restated Agreement effective December
31 of the then‐current calendar year.
XIII. COUNTERPARTS
This Restated Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
EXECUTED AND APPROVED ON BEHALF OF EACH PARTY AS SIGNIFIED BY THE SIGNATURES BELOW:
PARTIES:
Bay Area Clean Water Agencies:
________________________________
Amy Chastain, Executive Director
Page 10 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
City of Mountain View:
________________________________
City Manager
Page 11 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
City of Palo Alto:
________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Page 12 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
City of Redwood City:
________________________________
Robert Bell, City Manager
Page 13 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
City of San Jose:
________________________________
Debra Figone, City Manager
Page 14 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD):
________________________________
Gary W. Darling, General Manager
Page 15 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
North Coast County Water District (NCCWD):
________________________________
Kevin O’Connell, General Manager
Page 16 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
Santa Clara Valley Water District:
________________________________
Beau Goldie, Chief Executive Officer
Page 17 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District:
________________________________ _
James M. Kelly, General Manager
Page 18 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
Dublin San Ramon Services District:
_________________________________
Bert Michalczyk, General Manager
Page 19 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
Ironhouse Sanitary District:
_________________________________
Thomas Williams, General Manager
Page 20 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
City of Petaluma:
_________________________________
John C. Brown, City Manager
Page 21 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
City of Hayward:
_________________________________
Frances David, City Manager
Page 22 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
City Pleasanton:
_________________________________
Nelson Fialho, City Manager
Page 23 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
Town of Yountville
_________________________________
Steven Rogers , Town Manager
Page 24 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
Coastside County Water District:
_________________________________
David Dickson, General Manager
Page 25 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
Zone 7 Water Agency:
_________________________________
G.F. (Jill) Duerig, General Manager
Page 26 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
Attachment 1 ‐ Participating Agency Addendum
Attachment 2 ‐ Associate Participant Addendum
Attachment 3 ‐ Change of Party Status Addendum
Page 27 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 1
PARTICIPATING AGENCY ADDENDUM
This Addendum to the First Amended and Restated Memorandum of Agreement for the Bay
Area Recycled Water Coalition (BARWC) Federal Legislative Efforts (the “Restated Agreement”) is made
on (date)_______________, by the (name of entity) _____________ , (the “Agency”) a (state legal
capacity, i.e. a municipal corporation) _____________ for the purpose of becoming a Participating
Agency as that term is defined in the Restated Agreement. The Restated Agreement is incorporated by
reference in and made a part of this Addendum.
The Agency acknowledges that it has received a copy of the Restated Agreement and after
thorough review of the Restated Agreement desires to become a Participating Agency under the
Restated Agreement. The Restated Agreement contemplates the inclusion of Participating Agencies by
a process of voluntary execution of this Addendum and a majority vote of the Participating Agencies to
approve inclusion of the signatory as a Participating Agency.
The governing body of the Agency certifies that the Agency has a recycled water project
authorized through Title XVI of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act
of 1992 or intends to actively seek congressional authorization and appropriation, for projects covered
under Title XVI.
In consideration for the mutual promises set forth in the Restated Agreement, the governing
body of the Agency hereby agrees to accept and perform all duties, responsibilities and obligations
required of a Participating Agency as set forth in the Restated Agreement. Further, the governing body
authorizes its ____________________ or his/her designee to sign all documents necessary to
implement the Restated Agreement.
The contact person and notice address for the Agency are:
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
Date________________________ (Name of Agency)
By:________________________
Chairperson
The Restated Agreement and the Addendum are approved as to form:
By:_________________________, Attorney for PARTICIPATING AGENCY
Page 28 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 2
ASSOCIATE PARTICIPANT ADDENDUM
This Addendum to the First Amended and Restated Memorandum of Agreement for the Bay
Area Recycled Water Coalition (BARWC) Federal Legislative Efforts (the “Restated Agreement”) is made
on (date)_______________, by the (name of entity) _____________ , (the “Agency”) a (state legal
capacity, i.e. a municipal corporation) _____________ for the purpose of becoming an Associate
Participant as that term is defined in the Restated Agreement. The Restated Agreement is incorporated
by reference in and made a part of this Addendum.
The Agency acknowledges that it has received a copy of the Restated Agreement and after
thorough review of the Restated Agreement desires to become an Associate Participant under the
Restated Agreement. The Restated Agreement contemplates the inclusion of Associate Participant by a
process of voluntary execution of this Addendum and a majority vote of the Participating Agencies to
approve inclusion of the signatory as an Associate Participant.
The governing body of the Agency certifies that the Agency does not intend to actively seek
congressional authorization and appropriation for projects covered under Title XVI. However, the
Agency would like to participate in BARWC.
In consideration for the mutual promises set forth in the Restated Agreement, the governing
body of the Agency hereby agrees to accept and perform all duties, responsibilities and obligations
required of a Associate Participants set forth in the Restated Agreement. Further, the governing body
authorizes its ____________________ or his/her designee to sign all documents necessary to
implement the Restated Agreement.
The contact person and notice address for the Agency are:
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
Date________________________ (Name of Agency)
By:________________________
Chairperson
The Restated Agreement and the Addendum are approved as to form:
By:_________________________, Attorney for Associate Participant
Page 29 of 29
First Amended and Restated Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition Memorandum of Agreement June 6, 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
CHANGE OF PARTY STATUS ADDENDUM
This First Amended and Restated Addendum to the Memorandum of Agreement for the Bay
Area Recycled Water Coalition (BARWC) Federal Legislative Efforts (the “Restated Agreement”) is made
on (date)_______________, by the (name of entity) _____________ , (the “Agency”) a (state legal
capacity, i.e. a municipal corporation) _____________ for the purpose of becoming a (specify new status
e.g., Participating Agency or Associate Participant) as that term is defined in the Restated Agreement.
The Restated Agreement is incorporated by reference in and made a part of this Addendum.
The Agency acknowledges that it has received a copy of the Restated Agreement and after
thorough review of the Restated Agreement desires to change its party status from (specify current
status, e.g., Participating Agency or Associate Participant) to (specify new status, e.g., Participating
Agency or Associate Participant) under the Restated Agreement. The Restated Agreement contemplates
the modification of party status by a process of voluntary execution of this Addendum and a majority
vote of the Participating Agencies to approve modification of the signatory’s party status.
[If new status is Participating Agency, include the following paragraph] The governing body of
the Agency certifies that the Agency has a recycled water project authorized through Title XVI of the
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 or intends to actively seek
congressional authorization and appropriation, for projects covered under Title XVI.
[If new status is Associate Participant, include the following paragraph] The governing body of
the Agency certifies that the Agency does not intend to actively seek congressional authorization and
appropriation, for projects covered under Title XVI. However, the Agency would like to participate in
BARWC.
In consideration for the mutual promises set forth in the Restated Agreement, the governing
body of the Agency hereby agrees to accept and perform all duties, responsibilities and obligations
required of a (specify new status, e.g., Participating Agency or Associate Participant) as set forth in the
Restated Agreement. Further, the governing body authorizes its ____________________ or his/her
designee to sign all documents necessary to implement the Restated Agreement.
The contact person and notice address for the Agency are:
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
Date________________________ (Name of Agency)
By:________________________
Chairperson
The Restated Agreement and the Addendum are approved as to form:
By:_________________________, Attorney for PARTICIPATING AGENCY
Ad
v
o
c
a
c
y
Co
s
t
Sh
a
r
e
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
Co
s
t
Sh
a
r
e
To
t
a
l
Co
s
t
Sh
a
r
e
Ci
t
y
of
Ha
y
w
a
r
d
$
6,
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
9,
3
7
0
.
0
6
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
15
,
6
9
8
.
9
5
$
‐
$
15
,
6
9
8
.
9
5
$
Ci
t
y
of
Mo
u
n
t
a
i
n
Vi
e
w
$
3,
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
4,
3
3
7
.
9
9
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
10
,
6
6
6
.
8
8
$
‐
$
10
,
6
6
6
.
8
8
$
Ci
t
y
of
Pa
l
o
Al
t
o
$
8,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
11
,
4
5
2
.
3
0
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
17
,
7
8
1
.
1
9
$
‐
$
17
,
7
8
1
.
1
9
$
Ci
t
y
of
Pl
e
a
s
a
n
t
o
n
$
5,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6,
9
4
0
.
7
9
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
13
,
2
6
9
.
6
8
$
‐
$
13
,
2
6
9
.
6
8
$
Ci
t
y
of
Re
d
w
o
o
d
Ci
t
y
$
8,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
11
,
1
0
5
.
2
6
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
17
,
4
3
4
.
1
5
$
‐
$
17
,
4
3
4
.
1
5
$
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
$
9,
8
0
1
,
3
7
5
$
13
,
6
0
5
.
8
5
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
19
,
9
3
4
.
7
4
$
‐
$
19
,
9
3
4
.
7
4
$
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Co
n
t
r
a
Co
s
t
a
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
$
8,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
11
,
1
7
4
.
6
7
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
17
,
5
0
3
.
5
6
$
‐
$
17
,
5
0
3
.
5
6
$
De
l
t
a
Di
a
b
l
o
Sa
n
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
$
7,
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
9,
8
9
0
.
6
2
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
16
,
2
1
9
.
5
1
$
‐
$
16
,
2
1
9
.
5
1
$
Du
b
l
i
n
Sa
n
Ra
m
o
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
$
7,
1
1
2
,
5
0
0
$
9,
8
7
3
.
2
7
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
16
,
2
0
2
.
1
6
$
‐
$
16
,
2
0
2
.
1
6
$
Ir
o
n
h
o
u
s
e
Sa
n
i
t
a
r
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
$
6,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
9,
0
2
3
.
0
2
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
15
,
3
5
1
.
9
1
$
‐
$
15
,
3
5
1
.
9
1
$
Sa
n
t
a
Cl
a
r
a
Va
l
l
e
y
Wa
t
e
r
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
*
$
9,
2
3
1
,
6
4
2
$
12
,
8
1
4
.
9
7
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
19
,
1
4
3
.
8
6
$
(1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
)
$
18
,
1
4
3
.
8
6
$
Sa
n
Jo
s
e
Wa
t
e
r
Co
m
p
a
n
y
$
6,
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
9,
3
7
0
.
0
6
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
15
,
6
9
8
.
9
5
$
‐
$
15
,
6
9
8
.
9
5
$
To
w
n
of
Yo
u
n
t
v
i
l
l
e
$
75
0
,
0
0
0
$
1,
0
4
1
.
1
2
$
6,
3
2
8
.
8
9
7,
3
7
0
.
0
1
$
‐
$
7,
3
7
0
.
0
1
$
Zo
n
e
7 Wa
t
e
r
Ag
e
n
c
y
$
‐
$
‐
$
3,
1
6
4
.
4
4
3,
1
6
4
.
4
4
$
‐
$
3,
1
6
4
.
4
4
$
$
86
,
4
4
5
,
5
1
7
12
0
,
0
0
0
$
85
,
4
4
0
$
20
5
,
4
4
0
.
0
0
$
(1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
)
$
20
4
,
4
4
0
.
0
0
$
Ad
v
o
c
a
c
y
DD
S
D
Ad
m
i
n
.
To
t
a
l
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
/ ag
r
e
e
d
am
o
u
n
t
s
$
12
0
,
0
0
0
$
85
,
4
4
0
$
20
5
,
4
4
0
$
*S
C
V
W
D
ov
e
r
p
a
i
d
in
20
1
0
Ba
y
Ar
e
a
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
Wa
t
e
r
Co
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
Sh
a
r
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
fo
r
Ca
l
e
n
d
a
r
Ye
a
r
20
1
1
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
Sh
a
r
e
Re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
‐
Su
m
of
Al
l
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
Co
s
t
Sh
a
r
e
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ag
e
n
c
y
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
T
o
t
a
l
to
In
v
o
i
c
e
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1851)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/1/2011
August 01, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1851)
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: Welch Road Agreement
Title: Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute the Welch Road
Utilities Project Facilities Construction, Ownership, Operation and Maintenance
Agreement
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute the Welch Road Utilities Project
Facilities Construction, Ownership, Operation and Maintenance Agreement (Attachment
A).
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2011, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Expansion Project (“project”) and
approved a series of land use entitlements related to the project. These entitlements included
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to exempt the Hospital District from the citywide and area
specific non-residential development caps and to permit higher buildings in the HD zone; the
creation of a new Hospital District Zone; a Conditional Use Permit for the major components of
the project and a Development Agreement which would lock in the entitlements for a period of
30 years in exchange for a mutually acceptable package of community benefits.
The Council also requested that the Development Agreement be revised to include language
consistent with the agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the SUMC project applicants, and
the City of East Palo Alto, for payment of specific fees related to traffic improvements at
University Avenue in East Palo Alto and a payment if the SUMC project sponsors are unable to
achieve the 2025 transportation mode-split target as described in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, mitigation number TR-2.3.
DISCUSSION
Welch Road Utilities Agreement
August 01, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1851)
As part of the project, many of the existing utilities will need to be relocated to permit better
site planning. In addition, some utilities will have to be upsized to permit enhanced capacity.
Stanford The City and Stanford have negotiated the Welch Road Utilities Project Facilities
Construction, Ownership, Operation and Maintenance Agreement (COOMA).(Attachment A.)
This agreement describes and identifies the parties’ respective rights, duties, and obligations
related to the design, construction, ownership, operation, maintenance, demolition,
construction, modification, widening, and replacement of the following facilities to be installed
on and under Welch Road, North and South Pasteur Drive,and Quarry Road:
1) roadway surface improvements, which includes street surfacing, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, bicycle lanes, median strips, crosswalks, surface lighting, mass transit duck-
outs, intersections, traffic and cross walk signals, street and cross walk striping, and
landscaping; and
2)underground utility facilities improvements, including electric, water, natural gas,
sanitary sewer, storm drain, chilled water, steam/hot water, and telecommunications
and fiberoptic facilities.
The agreement includes an individual exhibit for each of the underground utilities and street
improvement facilities which briefly describe the work to be done on each, as well as a detailed
matrix which defines which party owns the existing facilities, which party is responsible for
constructing the new facilities, paying for the construction costs, and connecting the new
facilities, and which party will own, operate, and maintain each of the new facilities after
construction is compete.
The work is expected to take 36 months. To minimize road closures, Stanford will complete the
work in stages. During construction, only half of Welch Road will be open and traffic will be
restricted to one direction. Stanford has performed extensive outreach with the tenants of the
affected buildings and plans to continue an active community outreach program during the
entire construction period.
The agreement also includes, as an attachment, the form of the Public Utilities Easement and
Right of Way Easement document that will be signed by the Parties related to the Welch Road
Utilities Project.Both the Welch Road Utilities Project Facilities Construction, Ownership,
Operation and Maintenance Agreement and the Public Utilities Easement and Right of Way
Easement will be recorded to provide a clear definition of the rights, duties and obligations of
the parties.
NEXT STEPS
The SUMC project applicant is expected to begin minimal site preparation at Hoover Pavilion
for the building renovation activities within the next few weeks. This may include installation of
protective fencing and minimal tree protection and relocation preparation work.
August 01, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1851)
Work is expected to begin on the Welch Road Improvement Project as soon as Stanford
finalizes its Construction Improvement Monitoring Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City Council certified the FEIR for the project on June 6, 2011.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Final Welch Road Improvement Agreement (PDF)
Prepared By:Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
Department Head:Curtis Williams,Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 1, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Section 2.36.040
to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Impartial Mediation for
Impasses in Labor Contract Negotiations (First Reading July 18, 2011-
Passed 5-4)
This is the second reading of the Ordinance which was passed by the City Council on July 18,
2011 by a 5-4 vote: Burt, Holman Schmid, Scharff, Yeh yes. No report is required.
Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 7/27/2011 10:09 AM by Beth Minor Page 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1797)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 8/1/2011
August 01, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1797)
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: 200 San Antonio Zone Change
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance for a Zone Change of a 1,565
square foot parcel from PF (Public Facility) to ROLM (Research Office Limited
Manufacturing) at 200 San Antonio Avenue.
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached Ordinance (Attachment A) amending
the zoning map of the City of Palo Alto to change the zoning designation for 200 San Antonio
Avenue from PF Public Facility zone designation to ROLM Research Office and Limited
Manufacturing zone designation.
Executive Summary
The rezoning of this small, triangular piece of property is a minor follow-up item related to a
larger previously approved 45-unit multifamily residential development. The property was City
of Palo Alto right-of-way with a Public Facility (PF) zoning designation but it has since been
deeded over to Hewlett Packard by the City in an exchange agreement so the property could be
incorporated into the approved housing project. The land exchange was part of the original
project approval. The PF zone district does not allow residential uses as a permitted use;
therefore, the zoning of this property must be amended to implement the residential
development project as previously approved by the City Council. Research, Office and Limited
Manufacturing (ROLM) is the most appropriate zone designation to select as it allows for
multifamily residential development and is the zoning designation for the adjacent parcel
comprising the remainder of the site. The rezoning does not increase the density of
development and the Planning and Transportation Commission has unanimously recommended
approval.
Background
Process History
The rezone request is a very small aspect of a much larger project that spans the Palo
Alto/Mountain View City boundary line known as the Mayfield project. The proposal includes
August 01, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1797)
260 residential units in Mountain View and 45 residential units in Palo Alto. The Palo Alto
portion of the project was approved by the Architectural Review Board in 2008. A Vesting
Tentative Map was approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City
Council in 2009. A Development Agreement to extend both of these approvals was
recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission and approved by the City
Council in 2009. A more detailed project background can be found in the attached Planning and
Transportation Commission staff report (Attachment C).
One of the ARB conditions of approval ensured public access to the development through an
existing underpass roadway serving San Antonio Avenue. This condition required that the
owner acquire a privately-owned parcel (Kelly Parcel) on the west side of San Antonio Avenue
on which the access road to the underpass lies and then deed this parcel to the City of Palo
Alto. It was discussed early on in the review process that this small piece of public property,
currently zoned PF (aka the Triangular Piece) could be deeded to the project in exchange for the
developer acquiring and deeding over the Kelly Parcel to the City. On January 18, 2011 the City
Council approved an Exchange Agreement and Quit Claim Deed for the exchange of the 1,565
square foot subject property for the 28,098 square foot privately owned Kelly Parcel to secure
and maintain a public access road to the former Mayfield Mall site at 200 San Antonio Avenue.
The 1,565 square foot property to be rezoned was, until recently, part of the City of Palo Alto
right-of-way but has been conveyed to Hewlett Packard through a metes and bounds
description and the process will be finalized by the recordation of the Final Map.
Project Description
The application is a request to rezone the property from PF to ROLM (see location map
Attachment B). The property has 99 feet of frontage along San Antonio Avenue just north of
Central Expressway/Alma Street, and appears to be a vestige of land remaining from the
acquisition of property for the San Antonio Avenue overpass. The area in question is not part
of the current roadway and serves no current public function. It lies partially within an area
that was used at one time as an access driveway to the owners of the parcel at 200 San Antonio
Avenue. It currently contains three stone pine trees, ground cover and some paving and
concrete curbing for a portion of the private interior ring road around the former HP parking
lot. The rezoning would allow for full implementation of the site plan for the project as
previously approved by the City.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review
On June 29, 2011, the Planning and Transportation Commission voted unanimously (on a 5-0-2
vote) to approve the requested rezoning with very little discussion. No members of the public
spoke to this item. Meeting minutes are provided as Attachment D.
Resource Impact
The rezoning of the triangular piece does not represent a financial impact to the City.The
previously approved 45 residential housing units would not be affected by this rezoning,
therefore no resource impact would result from the rezoning.
August 01, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1797)
Policy Implications
The rezoning to ROLM is consistent with the underlying land use designation of Research/Office
Park and with the zoning of the adjacent property. ROLM zoning allows for residential use with
a conditional use permit today, but this approval preceded changes to the zoning district and
was locked in with the subsequent development agreement with the City.
Environmental Review
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by the City of Mountain View in
June 2006 for multiple family residential development on the Mayfield site, which includes a
the bulk of the project area within the city of Mountain View and this smaller site within Palo
Alto.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Zone Change Ordinance (DOC)
·Attachment B: Site Location Map (PDF)
·Attachment C: June 29, 2011 P&TC Staff Report(DOC)
·Attachment D: June 29, 2011 P&TC Minutes Excerpt (PDF)
·Attachment E: Applicant's Project Letter (PDF)
·Attachment F: Site Location Images (PDF)
Prepared By:Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
*NOT YET APPROVED*
110727 dm 0120514 1
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to Change the Zone
Designation for 200 San Antonio Avenue From PF Public
Facility Zone Designation to the ROLM Research Office
Limited Manufacturing Zone Designation
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1.Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
(a)The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public
hearing on June 29, 2011 has recommended that the City Council rezone the approximately 0.12
acre subject site (200 San Antonio Avenue) to the Research Office Limited Manufacturing zone
designation.
(b) The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts presented
at the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations from the
director of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff.
(c) The Planning and Transportation Commission find that rezoning the Public
Facility portion of the parcel to Research Office Limited Manufacturing zoning is in accord with
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages harmonious
development that meets regional needs while preserving existing neighborhoods.
(d) The Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on August 1,
2011, and has reviewed the documents prepared for the project and all other relevant
information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the matter.
SECTION 2.The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare require
an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3.
SECTION 3.The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo
Alto to place Public Facility (PF) portion of the subject site (200 San Antonio Avenue), an
approximately 0.12 acre site, within the Research Office Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zoning
district.
SECTION 4.The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to
environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project and it has been determined that,
no potentially adverse impacts would result from the project; therefore, the project would have
no significant impact on the environment.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
110727 dm 0120514 2
SECTION 5.This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first day after its
passage and adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
________________________________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED:
________________________________________________________
Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Page 1
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Russ Reich DEPARTMENT:Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE:June 29, 2011
SUBJECT:200 San Antonio Avenue:Request by William Lyon Homes Inc, on behalf
of Hewlett-Packard to initiate a Zone Change for a 1,565 square foot parcel
from Public Facility (PF) to Research Office Limited Manufacturing
(ROLM).Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report was
prepared and certified by the City of Mountain View in June 2006 for
multiple family residential development on the site in Mountain View and
Palo Alto.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the Zone Change request from Public Facility (PF) to Research Office Limited
Manufacturing (ROLM) at 200 San Antonio Avenue.
BACKGROUND
Process History
In June 2006, the City of Mountain View approved an Environmental Impact Report and project
for the redevelopment of the Mayfield Mall/Hewlett Packard site with 450 units of multiple
family housing. The entire project site, owned by Hewlett Packard and located at the corner of
Central Expressway and San Antonio Avenue, contains 24 acres, 19.8 acres of which are located
within the City of Mountain View and 4.2 acres of which are located within the City of Palo
Alto. On October 22, 2008 the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board (ARB) conditionally
approved plans for 45 multifamily units to be built upon the Palo Alto portion of the project. The
following year, on February 9, 2009, City Council approved a Vesting Tentative Map for the 45
unit townhome development. On July 27, 2009, Council adopted Ordinance No. 5046
(CMR:209:09) approving a Development Agreement extending the ARB approval and Vesting
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Tentative Map approval for the project to February 26, 2014, to be consistent with the expiration
of approvals for the larger portion of the housing project located in the City of Mountain View.
One of the ARB conditions of approval ensured public access to the development through an
existing underpass roadway serving San Antonio Avenue. This condition required that the owner
acquire a privately-owned parcel (Kelly Parcel) on the west side of San Antonio Avenue on
which the access road to the underpass lies and then deed this parcel to the City of Palo Alto. It
was discussed early on in the review process that the small piece of public property, currently
zoned PF (aka the Triangular Piece) could be given over to the project in exchange for the
developer acquiring and deeding over the Kelly Parcel to the City. On January 18, 2011 the City
Council approved an Exchange Agreement and quick Claim Deed for the exchange of the 1,565
square foot subject property for the 28,098 square foot privately owned Kelly Parcel to secure
and maintain a public access road to the former Mayfield Mall site at 200 San Antonio Avenue.
Project Description
The application is a request to rezone the Triangular Piece from PF to ROLM (see location map
Attachment C). The 1,565 square foot property was, until recently, part of the city right-of-way
but has now been conveyed to Hewlett Packard through a meets and bounds description and the
process will be finalized by the recordation of the Final Map. The parcel is triangular in shape
with 99 feet of frontage along San Antonio Avenue just north of Central Expressway/Alma
Street. The Triangular Piece appears to be a vestige of land remaining from the acquisition of
property for the San Antonio Avenue overpass. The area in question is not part of the current
roadway and serves no current public function. It lies partially within an area that was used at
one time as an access driveway to the owners of the parcel at 200 San Antonio Avenue. It
currently contains three stone pine trees, ground cover and some paving and concrete curbing for
a portion of the private interior ring road around the former HP parking lot. The rezoning would
provide the ability to implement the proposed site plan for the project as previously approved by
the ARB, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
The rezone is necessary to allow for the implementation of the Project’s site plan as originally
proposed. The PF zoning does not allow residential development. As a PF zoned property, the site
plan would need to default to the alternative plan also approved by the ARB. The alternative plan,
while less desirable, was approved as a contingency should the developer not be able to acquire the
Triangular Piece from the City and be able to have the property rezoned. The rezoning of the
property provides for a more desirable site layout as provided in the approved tentative map and the
ARB approved site plan.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no other
substantive policy implications.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
TIMELINE
Following a favorable recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission the project
would go before the City Council on August 1, 2011.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by the City of Mountain View in
June 2006 for multiple family residential development on the Mayfield site, which includes a
large area within the city of Mountain View and includes this site within Palo Alto.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Ordinance
B.Conditions/Findings
C.Location Map
D.Applicant Submittal*
E.Comprehensive Plan Table
F.City Council Report on the Exchange Agreement and Quit Claim Deed, January 18, 2001
G.P&TC Staff Report on the Development Agreement, May 27, 2209**
P&TC Minutes on Development Agreement May 27, 2009**
H.P&TC Staff Report on the Vesting Tentative Map, January 14, 2009**
P&TC Minutes on the Vesting Tentative Map, January 14, 2009**
I.Project Plans (Commission only)*
* Provided by Applicant
** Embedded Links to Reports
COURTESY COPIES:
Penny Ellson, Neighbor
Brian Doyle, William Lyon Homes, Inc
Peter Gilli, City of Mountain View
Art Schultz, Hewlett Packard
PREPARED BY: Russ Reich, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning/Acting Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:
Curtis Williams, Director
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2011 Page 1 of 9
Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 17 18
6:00 PM, Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 6:05 PM
P&T Commissioners: Staff:
Samir Tuma – Chair Curtis Williams, Planning Director
Lee Lippert – V-Chair Donald Larkin, Sr. Assist. City Attorney
Daniel Garber Amy French, Acting Chief Planning Official
Susan Fineberg Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Eduardo Martinez Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
Arthur Keller Zariah Betten, Admin. Assoc. III
Greg Tanaka
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
Study Sessions: 19
1. Electric Vehicles 20
2. 355 Alma Street 21
Public Hearing: 22
23
24
3. 200 San Antonio Avenue
Chair Tuma: Well, we are going to move forward. I think Commissioner Fineberg may have
something she would like to say as we start this item.
25
26
27
Commissioner Fineberg: I need to recuse myself on this item. My husband is employed by
Hewlett Packard. So I have a personal conflict and will be leaving the room.
28
29
30
Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. The ranks are dwindling on many fronts here. We are down to
five Commissioners, one member of the public, and one Staff member who is the City Attorney.
So with that we will go to 200 San Antonio Avenue, which is a request on behalf of HP to
initiate a zone change for a slightly less than 2,000 square foot parcel from Public Facility to
ROLM. Welcome back. If Staff has a brief presentation for us we would be happy to hear it.
31
32
33
34
35
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2011 Page 2 of 9
1
Public Hearing: 2
3
3. 200 San Antonio Avenue*: Request by William Lyon Homes Inc, on behalf of Hewlett-
Packard to initiate a Zone Change for a 1,968 square foot parcel from Public Facility (PF)
to Research Office Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). Environmental Assessment: An
Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified by the City of Mountain View
in June 2006 for multiple family residential development on the site in Mountain View
and Palo Alto.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mr. Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Good evening Chair Tuma and Commissioners. The item
before you this evening is a request for a rezone from Public Facility to the Research Office and
Limited Manufacturing zone district. This is a minor cleanup item so I will try to be brief.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Tonight’s rezone request is a very small aspect of a much larger project that spans the Palo
Alto/Mountain View City boundary line known as the Mayfield project. The proposal includes
200 residential units in Mountain View and 45 residential units in Palo Alto. The Palo Alto
portion of the project was approved by the Architectural Review Board in 2008. A Vesting
Tentative Map was approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City
Council in 2009. A Development Agreement to extend both of these approvals was approved by
the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council in 2009 as well.
The subject of this rezone request, the small triangular piece, is vestige of land resulting from the
acquisition of land for the San Antonio Avenue overpass. It lies within an area that was used at
one time as an access driveway into the property at 200 San Antonio. This piece of property was
until recently city-owned property, but it was not part of the public roadway. It lies in the
landscape buffer area of the Hewlett Packard office complex parking lot. The City has since
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2011 Page 3 of 9
deeded over this property to Hewlett Packard through an exchange agreement such that it may be
incorporated into the approved residential development.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
The rezoning is necessary due to the fact that the residential uses are not permitted within the
Public Facilities zone district. Since the surrounding property is zoned Research Office and
Limited Manufacturing, which allows residential uses it seemed the most appropriate that the
triangular piece be rezoned to this designation.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the request to rezone this property. The applicant’s representative, Rhonda
Neely, is here to make a brief presentation. Staff as well as the applicant is available to answer
any questions that you may have. Thank you.
Mr. Larkin: The applicant is here as well to answer any questions the Commission might have. 14
15
Chair Tuma: To make a presentation or just to answer questions? Okay. Welcome. 16
17
Ms. Rhonda Neely, Summit Land Partners: I am representing William Lyon Homes, who you
may know is in escrow to purchase the Hewlett Packard property known as the Mayfield Mall
site.
18
19
20
21
22
23
If you are not finding exhibits up there I have a few extra copies if it is helpful. You already
have it, fine.
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2011 Page 4 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
As Staff has said we are here just to respectfully request your recommendation of approval for
this zone change. We look at it as a housekeeping issue and hope you do as well. As Staff has
noted this is a 1,500 square foot parcel along San Antonio Road that was deeded by the City to
Hewlett Packard in exchange for a 28,000 square foot parcel called the Kelly Parcel underneath
the San Antonio overpass.
An alternate land plan has been approved for this project, but we prefer the zone change because
it has been contemplated. Allowing the zone change would allow a less cramped land plan and it
would clean up the status of the parcel merging it into the rest of the property. It would allow the
homeowner association then to maintain that piece of property, and the zone change was just
always planned.
Anyway, that is really all there is to it. If you have any questions for me I am glad to answer
them.
Chair Tuma: Okay, thank you. With that we will close the public hearing and come back to the
Commission. I have a light from Commissioner Garber.
17
18
19
Commissioner Garber: Did you want to note that there is no public? 20
21
Chair Tuma: I already closed the public hearing. 22
23
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2011 Page 5 of 9
MOTION 1
2
Commissioner Garber: Okay, sorry. I would like to move that the Planning and Transportation
Commission support the Staff recommendation that the City Council approve the zone change
request from Public Facility to Research Office Limited Manufacturing at 200 San Antonio
Avenue.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
SECOND
Chair Tuma: I will second that. Do you want to speak to your motion? 10
11
Commissioner Garber: I don’t think I need to. 12
13
Chair Tuma: Nor do I. Any discussion among Commissioners? Commissioner Keller. 14
15
Commissioner Keller: So sometime somebody, not necessarily now, should enlighten me on
what is the difference between San Antonio Road and San Antonio Avenue. That has been
driving me nuts for some period of time.
16
17
18
19
Ms. French: It may have something to do with the jurisdictions. In other words, at some point
when you driving on the freeway you see San Antonio Road, and when it is one city it is one
thing, when it is in another city it is another thing.
20
21
22
23
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2011 Page 6 of 9
Commissioner Keller: So is San Antonio Avenue entirely within Palo Alto? 1
2
Mr. Reich: That is my understanding from the maps that we have. I was surprised to see that as
well way back when this project began.
3
4
5
Commissioner Keller: Okay, because I am curious whether TK/CJL and all that stuff is San
Antonio Road or San Antonio Avenue. Interesting.
6
7
8
9
10
11
The second thing is this change to this piece of land, in some sense this project was done prior to
a CUP being required in ROLM for housing.
Mr. Reich: Yes, that is correct. 12
13
Commissioner Keller: So that is why this is being done, and even if this piece is rezoned that
still carries forward?
14
15
16
Mr. Reich: Yes. 17
18
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The third thing is what is happening to – I understand that
we are acquiring this parcel that is being used for the underpass under the San Antonio Avenue
underpass.
19
20
21
22
Mr. Reich: The Kelly Parcel, which is actually on the other side of the underpass. 23
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2011 Page 7 of 9
1
Commissioner Keller: Right, where the ‘P’ is in that diagram on the screen. 2
3
Mr. Reich: Right. Right here you can actually see the outline of the Kelly Parcel. 4
5
Commissioner Keller: Right. Well, what I am wondering is where will that connect to on the
other side.
6
7
8
Mr. Reich: What it does is provides an outlet for vehicle trips from the development to San
Antonio going southbound or southwest.
9
10
11
Mr. Larkin: I think it is important to clarify there is an existing road that is on privately owned
property but it has been used by the public for many years back since there was a shopping mall
on the Mayfield site. The acquisition of the Kelly Parcel was necessary in order to guarantee that
it would remain a road. So it is not a proposed change to the current access. It is simply
guaranteeing that what is there currently will remain.
12
13
14
15
16
17
Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. I actually have shopped at the JC Penney that used to
be there when it was the Mayfield Mall. My question is that there is a reconfiguration of that
road. So I have a question of A) how will that road that is now making sure that it stays a road
so that it connects to the rest of the street network, because the street network is being redone,
right?
18
19
20
21
22
23
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2011 Page 8 of 9
Mr. Reich: The street network on the 200 San Antonio property is being redone, but where the
Kelly Parcel is that is not changing. So on the right side of San Antonio it will connect up in the
same place that it connects now even though the street network is being redone. So if you look
at the maps in your packet you will see the new street work and how it connects to that existing
underpass.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Commissioner Keller: So it is connecting to Avenue A? 7
8
Mr. Reich: Right. 9
10
Commissioner Keller: Okay. So my question here relates to the left turn lane that goes from San
Antonio Road into Nita Avenue. What I am wondering is that left turn signal is it better to direct
people and retain that left turn signal for people turning into Nita or is it better to have people go
through the Kelly Parcel and go through Avenue A and improve the traffic on San Antonio
Avenue?
11
12
13
14
15
16
Mr. Larkin: That was extensively discussed actually in the EIR process with the City of
Mountain View. Then when the City reviewed Mountain View’s EIR as part of our project
approvals we also extensively discussed that. It is not part of the purview for what is being
discussed tonight. But all of those issues are already locked in through a Development
Agreement. So we are really not within the purview to revisit those issues.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Commissioner Keller: Well, I appreciate that although this body never looked at the EIR. 23
City of Palo Alto June 29, 2011 Page 9 of 9
1
Mr. Larkin: That is not true. This body did review the EIR at the time the project approval came
through. It was required to acknowledge the review of the EIR.
2
3
4
Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. It was ages ago. I think there were certainly a lot more
hearings in Mountain View than there were in Palo Alto about this, and that is certainly the case.
I went to some of the hearings in Mountain View.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Well, I appreciate that that was addressed. It is relevant to the issue of the efficacy of that
roadway in the Kelly Parcel, so that is why I think it is relevant to the issue. I think that this is a
reasonable cleanup issue and I will vote in favor.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Vice-Chair Lippert absent, Commissioner Fineberg conflicted)
Chair Tuma: Okay. Any other discussion, Commissioners? All those in favor of the motion say
aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes unanimously with Commissioners Lippert and Fineberg
absent from this portion of the meeting.
15
16
17
18
19
So with that we will close that item.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1847)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 8/1/2011
August 01, 2011 Page 1 of 6
(ID # 1847)
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: Arastradero Road Re-Striping Trial
Title: Approval of an Extension of the Trial Period for Phase 2 of the Charleston-
Arastradero Corridor Re-Striping Project through June, 2012
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that Council approve an
extension of the trial period for the Phase 2 of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Restriping
Project for an additional 12 months, through July 2012.
Executive Summary
The Phase 2 Arastradero Road Trial Restriping project consists of a hybrid lane reduction to
include a combination of 4-lane and 3-lane segments between El Camino Real and Gunn High
School to help preserve roadway capacity, one of the initial project goals.
The Phase 2 Trial Restriping project was intended to begin in the Fall of 2010, and extend for a
one year period. Several features of the approved project and minor changes implemented in
response to community input were only recently implemented in Spring 2011. In addition,
delays in the delivery of equipment materials and construction staging delayed the final
configuration of the traffic signal modification at Arastradero Road and Coulombe Drive, which
is scheduled for completion in July 2011.
Staff has been notified that the bell times for school starting at Gunn High School are to be
adjusted to a time approximately 30 minutes later, and the Bowman International School also
plans to revise its start time to stagger times with Terman Middle School. These changes have
the potential to minimize traffic congestion during the morning peak hours.
Staff recommends that the Phase 2 Trial Restriping project on Arastradero Road between El
Camino Real and Gunn High School be extended for 12 additional months through July 2012, in
order to monitor conditions with the changes in place, particularly including the changes to bell
times at Gunn High School and Bowman International School. Additional striping modifications
in front of the Alta Mesa Cemetery and the Arastradero West Apartments are also
August 01, 2011 Page 2 of 6
(ID # 1847)
recommended in response to community input regarding improved left turn access. The
extension will also include the collection of traffic data outside of the core project area,
including Georgia Avenue, Amaranta Avenue, and Los Robles Avenue, and will look at additional
travel time runs during the AM peak period for the work commute peak (8:30 to 9:30AM).
Background
The Charleston Road/Arastradero Road corridor serves numerous residential neighborhoods,
eleven schools, and provides an alternative connection to the Research Park district. The
corridor also provides one of the few east-west through connections between Highway 101 and
Highway 280.
In 2003, the City Council directed staff to prepare a plan of transportation, safety, and urban
design/landscape improvements for the Charleston Arastradero Road Corridor that would
enhance pedestrian and bicyclist mobility, visual amenities and quality of life along the corridor,
and preserve as best as possible vehicle throughput.Phase 1 along Charleston Road from
Fabian Way to Alma Street plan underwent a trial striping phase in 2006, and was adopted for
permanent installation by City Council in 2008 after a two year trial period.
After the successful trial of the Phase 1 project along Charleston Road between Alma Street and
Fabian Way in 2006, staff began analyzing the Arastradero Road portions of the corridor.
Arastradero Road carries approximately 18,500 vehicles per typical weekday and approximately
11,800 vehicles on a typical weekend day. The trial project was initiated in August 2010 and
includes the following elements:
·Hybrid lane reduction from 4-lanes to 3-lanes with dedicated and two-way left turn
lanes
·Enhanced crosswalk at Arastradero Road and Clemo Drive
·Traffic signal modification at Arastradero Road and Coulombe Drive
In summer 2009, City Council approved the plan for the Phase 2 trial project on Arastradero
Road between El Camino Real and Gunn High School for a one year trial period.
Implementation started in August 2010 with several improvements made over the past year in
response to community input and observations over the past nine months.
Discussion
In the westbound direction, the two through travel lanes merge to one lane immediately west
of El Camino Real along the frontage of the former Volvo dealership site. This merge was later
relocated farther west in the Spring 2011 to 250 feet west of Alta Mesa in response to
community input and field observations. At Donald Drive-Terman Road, the westbound
approach widens back to two through lanes to help preserve roadway capacity for Gunn High
School and Research Park commuters traveling past Foothill Expressway.
In the eastbound direction, Arastradero Road merges from two lanes to one lane along the
frontage of Alta Mesa Cemetery. The one-lane approach is maintained until Donald Drive-
August 01, 2011 Page 3 of 6
(ID # 1847)
Terman Drive where the roadway widens back to two lanes through that intersection before
merging back to one lane at King Arthur Court. At El Camino Real the project merges back to
two lanes to align with Charleston Road. The two eastbound lanes approaching El Camino Real
were lengthened in Spring 2011 to McKellar Lane, also in response to community input.
The traffic signal at Arastradero Road and Coulombe Drive was modified to provide an
eastbound left-turn pocket to accommodate traffic heading towards Maybell Avenue with
special signal phasing. The traffic signal modification was delayed due to the procurement of
video detection system equipment that was obtained in June 2011. The traffic signal
modification will be completed in July 2011 and will provide dedicated left-turn arrow phasing
during peak periods depending on demand.
A new enhanced pedestrian crossing at Arastradero Road and Clemo Drive that includes a
raised median island, high-visibility step-ladder crosswalk, and pedestrian-activated flashing
beacon systems was completed in March 2011, delayed due to equipment procurement and
contract coordination with other projects to help bring the project in on budget.
In addition to the lane merge modifications near Alta Mesa-McKellar Lane, the City
implemented the following additional striping modifications during the one-year trial period:
·Westbound left turn storage increase at Arastradero Road and Donald Drive-Terman
Drive
·Vehicle speed feedback signs at Arastradero Road and Hubbart Street
·Arastradero Road and Alta Mesa-McKellar Lane –“Keep Clear” improvements
ANALYSIS
Traffic Data Collection
Daily traffic volumes were collected along the study corridor before and throughout various
stages of the project, along both Arastradero Road and Maybell Avenue. The intent was to
determine if the Phase 2 re-striping would result in significant changes in traffic patterns (cut-
through traffic).
Table 1 in Attachment C, the Staff Report for the Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC), summarizes the measured traffic volumes during the Peak hours and during a typical
weekday at three locations along Arastradero Road. Table 2 in Attachment C summarizes the
traffic volumes on Maybell Avenue. Both tables show that traffic volumes are approximately
within three to five percent of the pre-trial conditions. This is generally considered within
typical daily variations.
Travel time traffic data was collected between during the AM school commute period, which
lasts approximately 30 minutes between 7:30AM and 8:00AM, and during the PM commute
peak hour between 5:30 and 6:30 PM.
August 01, 2011 Page 4 of 6
(ID # 1847)
The pre-Phase 2 trial surveys include travel times data along Arastradero Road from El Camino
Real to Foothill Expressway; they do not however, include data along Charleston Road. Travel
time data collected since the project implementation includes traveling time along Charleston
Road to help better measure the effects of the project, particularly at the intersection of El
Camino Real. Table 3 in Attachment C of the PTC Staff Report summarizes the travel time data
and shows that in the eastbound direction, travel times have increased slightly during the AM-
school commute period but differences appear to be negligible during the PM commute peak
period. In the westbound direction, travel times between El Camino Real and Foothill
Expressway are approximately the same. Charleston Road approaching El Camino Real,
however, may experience increased delays but it is difficult to be conclusive given somewhat
different data points and the delayed implementation of all project improvements.
Prior to implementation of the re-striping project, concerns along the corridor included vehicles
travelling at very high speeds during the off-peak periods. Although the posted speed limit is
25 miles per hour, the measured 85th percentile speed was consistently between 36 and 40
miles per hour, with some vehicles traveling as high as 50 miles per hour. Following
implementation of the Phase 2 Trial Restriping project, the 85th percentile speeds have
decreased by approximately two to three miles per hour. The number of very high speed
vehicles (travelling greater than 37 miles per hour) during the off-peak hours appears to have
been reduced by approximately 30 to 50 percent.
Gunn High School and Bowman International School –Bell Schedule Modifications
The Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) approved a permanent modification to the Gunn
High School bell schedule starting in the Fall 2011 term. The new bell schedule will move the
start of school activities from the current bell schedule of 7:55 AM to 8:25 AM. This change in
bell schedule may have a positive impact on traffic along Arastradero Road through the project
area by dispersing traffic over a longer period of time. Terman Middle School will maintain its
bell schedule start time of 8:10 AM. The Gunn High School bell schedule change may also help
to separate middle school and grade school traffic to Juana Briones Elementary School located
at Maybell Avenue and Coulombe Drive from student driver traffic to Gunn High School, a
positive safety change along Arastradero Road. The Juana Briones Elementary School bell
schedule begins at 8:15 AM.
The Bowman International School contacted the City after the PAUSD approval of the Gunn
High School bell schedule and noted that it would also be modifying its school’s schedule to
begin classes later than the new Gunn High School schedule.
Community Feedback
Staff held community meetings in October 2010 after the initial implementation of the Phase 2
Trial Restriping project, and again on June 2, 2011, approaching the end of the 2010-11 school
year. Approximately 70 people attended the June 2, 2011 community meeting.
In general, the feedback received at the community meetings was mixed, with substantial
expressions of concern and requests for improvements along with significant positive feedback
August 01, 2011 Page 5 of 6
(ID # 1847)
regarding improved safety along the corridor. The majority of community input regarding the
Phase 2 –Trial Restriping project focused around increased travel time during the peak hours.
Additional concerns relate to: areas where full access (left turn in and out) to residences has
been modified, requests for comparative traffic data outside of the project area including
Georgia Avenue and Los Robles Avenue, and improved safety across the El Camino Real
intersection. Attachment B includes a more detailed summary of the direct feedback comments
received during the June 2, 2011 community meeting. In response to concerns about left-turn
access at the Arastradero Road West apartment complex across from the Alta Mesa Cemetery,
staff will consider modifying the roadway striping to allow full access to and from the complex.
Extension of Project Trial
The Phase 2 Trial Restriping project was intended to begin in the Fall of 2010, and extend for a
one year period. Several features of the approved project and minor changes were only
recently implemented, however, due to unforeseen delays with materials and construction
phasing. Some minor changes such as the vehicle detection system and left turn phasing at
Coulombe Drive were implemented in July 2011. It is also anticipated that the change in bell
schedules at Gunn High School and the Bowman International School could provide a benefit to
operations along the corridor during the AM peak school period.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Phase 2 Trial Restriping project on Arastradero Road
between El Camino Real and Gunn High School be extended for 12 additional months through
July 2012. The extension would include the collection of additional traffic data outside of the
core project area, including Georgia Avenue and Los Robles Avenue, along with additional left-
turn striping improvements to the Arastradero West apartment complex.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Recommendation
The Planning and Transportation Commission discussed the Arastradero Road Phase 2 Trial
Restriping project at its July 13, 2011 meeting and approved a recommendation to the City
Council to approve the trial extension. The two primary issues of discussion were 1) the end
date for the trial and 2) the traffic periods to be monitored. After some discussion, the PTC
recommended extending the trial to the “June/July timeframe” to fully capture traffic patterns
in the spring of 2012. The PTC also suggested that staff monitor more than 30-60 minutes in the
morning,particularly with the alterations to the bell time at Gunn. Staff will monitor traffic
from 7:30 AM to 9:00 AM. A copy of the PTC staff report and meeting minutes are provided in
Attachment C and Attachment D respectively.
Timeline
The trial extension, if approved, would continue through July 2012, with reports back to PTC
and Council at that time for a final determination on implementation. Over the next 12 months,
Staff would collect additional data, make minor changes and adjustments to the corridor, and
hold community meetings.
Resource Impact
August 01, 2011 Page 6 of 6
(ID # 1847)
The estimated cost to extend the trial period would be minimal and will primarily require Staff
time to collect travel time data and two (2) additional community outreach meetings over the
next year.
Policy Implications
The installation of the Phase 2 Trial Restriping and lane configurations for Arastradero Road is
consistent with the Council-approved Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan. The
project furthers the following Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goals:
·T-1, Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles;
·T-3, Facilities, Services and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and
Bicycling;
·T-5, a Transportation System that Minimizes Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods; and
·T-6, a High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians and Bicyclists on Palo Alto streets.
Environmental Review
Because no additional elements are being proposed to the project analyzed in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration that was approved for the entire project in 2003,no environmental
impacts are anticipated due to the extension of the restriping trial period.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)
·Attachment B: Summary of Comments from June 2, 2011 Community Meeting (PDF)
·Attachment C: July 13, 2011 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (PDF)
·Attachment D: July 13, 2011 P&TC Meeting Excerpt Minutes (PDF)
·Attachment E: Correspondence (PDF)
·Attachment F: Public Letter (PDF)
Prepared By:Rafael Rius, Traffic Engineer
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Project Area
Arastradero Road ‐Trial Restriping Project
Phase 1 –Charleston Road Improvements
Phase 2 – Arastradero Road Improvements
Future Improvements at El Camino Real Intersection
Phase 1
Phase 2
Attachment A
Arastradero Road Re-Striping Project
June 2, 2011 Community Meeting
Summary of Notes and Comment Cards
Meeting Notes:
? Any Pre-construction data for bicycle and pedestrian counts
- Data presented means nothing. Staff is dismissing comments from residents
- Getting onto and off of Arastradero from Side Streets is a problem (during peak periods.
- How will the (negative) feedback effect the outcome of the project. The project is too driven
by the data and not the feedback
/ Going to Terman, the backup to turn right off of Foothill Expressway is problematic
+ Not experiencing significant delay changes. Traffic conditions about the same.
+ Lower speeds and safer for bicyclists. Recommends improving the free right turn at El
Camino Real (eastbound right turn)
/ Continue to, and re-evaluate the data. Collect new data and monitor Miranda and other side
streets.
/ El Camino Real intersection is dangerous and needs to be fixed
- Buses get cut off at El Camino and creates a worse danger with the merge area. Illegal turns
are made during the all-ped phase at Terman. Increase in road rage and horn honking.
- Traffic counts! VMWare and Roche will increase traffic. Rain increases traffic.
- Arastradero West (apartments) residents cannon get out of driveway (near the eastbound
merge by Gunn HS).
+ Thankful for project. Thinks it is successful. Safety issues have improved
+ Previously rear-ended four times while turning left into side street. The current configuration
is much better. Terman School drop-offs on side streets still occur.
+ Cycling through corridor is much improved. Multiple threat to pedestrian crossings are
removed. Understands concerns of residents regarding traffic.
/ Los Robles, Baron Park area – would like more data collection of traffic patterns in Baron
Park area as the project continues (not previously collected). On Los Robles, vehicles reverse
long distances due to “No U-turn” restrictions.
- Road Rage has increased significantly. People don’t allow others to turn left across them.
Drivers were polite before the project, but are now inconsiderate.
? When will the El Camino Real intersection be fixed?
- Georgia Street has seen an increase in traffic
- Residents should not be burdened by the increased traffic delay in order to improve bicycle
and pedestrian safety
/ Biggest issues are that school enrollment and employment will increase. Need to open
Cubberley School.
/ Need pre- and post-project data for bicycles. The merges result in increased road rage
- Thinks Arastradero is less safe, and cut-through traffic decreases safety on other side streets.
- Design should focus on neighborhood streets as well as Arastradero.
- Amaranta to Arastradero takes 15 minutes during the OFF peak periods. Maybell Avenue
should have more bike improvements (Bicycle Boulevard)
- (645 Arastradero) Double-double yellow lines on Arastradero means no left turns in front of
driveway. Long detours are necessary since left turns are not allowed. Wants to have legal
left turns.
+ Likes the left turn pockets at the side streets. Trade offs are worth it (the peak period delays).
+ Schools were there, local street drop offs, longer delays are better than the bad speeding and
accidents observed in the past.
/ (cyclist) Appreciates the wider lanes. Wrong way bikes to Termon on the sidewalk can be
problematic.
+ The project has been a positive experience
? Any carbon / pollution data available?
? = question, + = positive or supportive, - = negative or against, / = neutral
Summary of Comment Card Submittals:
• The traffic “calming” has created more road rage than has ever been seen in Palo Alto.
This “trial” has been a complete failure. Please restore safety by removing the new
striping. After being here for 20 minutes, I am shocked at how little you know about the
actual traffic flow and the impact on the people that live here.
• Please have the merge lanes always be on the same side when narrowing to one lane.
Traffic from Coulombe (or another side street) turning left onto Arastradero have right of
way over the through traffic.
• Great Job!! You addressed the problem with safety and resident’s needs.
• 1) Residents were all up in arms at the bright yellow school that is now Bowman at the
time it was built. Are we going to have that gosh aweful yellow ped crossing instead of
white? 2) Are they going to get rid of arrows to nowhere as in front of the church on
Arastradero? One arrow goes into the church parking lot but the other points to no where.
3) Why can we have twinkle lights in the road instead of the “railroad crossing” for peds
by the fire house? 4)Unsafe U-turns on Donald are the order of the day during 7:30-
8:15am. 5) Trying to make lefts onto Donald from Arastradero is dicey when traffic is
coming out of Willmar.
• Strategic planning please! If it is a poor design, you’ll get more respect if you just
admitted it.
• (paraphrased from letter) maze of switching and merging is confusing. Have seen
numerous close calls. The road works reasonably well when there are few cars on it.
Roads of the size of Arastradero Road were designed to handel greater, peak-period loads
of traffic between El Camino Real and the Foothill Expressway… There are long lines of
cars standing waiting for lights to change. Longer commute times, more driver
frustration, mor localized pollution. It is much more difficult to turn left onto Arastradero
Road, and greater usage of the side streets which we are forced to do, and before the trial
we would not have done so.
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
The, 1ra.fFt~ "cafmi1'l" has Oreakd rncjV'v
road YtlIfb fft(J,f\ {las ,we;: btevl S,eeVj J V\
fq,lp Aiiv, . mmmmm ____ ~
Ivu's ''trlaf ~ /ItPS ~m CL ~JlltPJek., Ptu'luve.
p~ (t6~ S().~ bt rtfflollU1& ~ J1tW sfnptYj_
Contact: Division, City 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 943011
650-329-25201 Email: transportation(aJ.cityofpaioaito.org
Aftor bt01tf ¥1vr& for to rn~~ Ir (Av'Y\ S~o~c{ af:-'VtoW little )/Bv\ fLvllJ)lJ O1.bO'&\:1--the
tAct?ttoj fr1A~ttC-flaw ~.c(_ -r~m l r-Ar tl0t-6Y\t'VIre.-
Deo p Ie -f1ta.:~-l \ ve he;(<=--
/:t,.~.~ U ~rt~~~~dlv en cte/~ d~ ~ ~ '1 I ~.o -'5; (5(JuVV\.-~,
5' . -r-. fa Ara~~!~dero Road Restriping Trial P¥Oj t ' In ffiv.. ~I" rl)A.-,/ t:iIM()11 ~I' . K) C~2WJ l;l~i~~~rjI.o94 Meeting I».U )' L.71) 'lUG! ~
17 . ~~ ~
. 1~0V! e commen or mall 10 address below. ~
! . ':11 e.,'::, ~\~ ~~ oQt
27 Lv u.rt. -'vUvu
. Cont t: Traosportation Division, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alt , CA 943011
~-32m~il: trans ort tionwci of aloa! o.or t'~('oCLdl ~ v} ~ P.~ti, If;j~~ I) t, .. ~'. ~
bCQj-t:JQj Q, ,-0, C· ~r <2-mnf'\ @g'Yl'Gt! ' ~Onl
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide connnents or Email to address below. ' ///~'" ~-':22l1LUt411~~/1 LM.J6JLJ2lLg~1
If :t
.----... --------------
. Contact: Transportation Division, City of Palo Alto, 250 H~lnilton Ave" Palo Alto, CA 94301 /
650-329-2520/ Email: transportation@citvofualoalto,org
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide connnents or Email to address below .
.. _·f/~ b(tv~ mUd ~altutttp };p/ ;tip; AI~ h:' ~:::::Jf :~~~) . 2/~ _~;= e =h~ -6tftCb~7#' ~uo
W'-l~u1(.. /2,(jifP.q,V;Y,i'Vt!1 ~ :dtflLjl, p~
::-:---:::::c-:--:-:---=-=-:;::--=-~~:::-:---:"7""'-Contact: Transportation Division, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 943011
650-329-2520 1 Email: transportation@citvofpaloalto.org
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
612111 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
i )
yo\~J l~o Lo~tQ ~dt~,Lnv\ .
Contact: Transportation Division, ity of Palo Alto, 250 HamIlton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 943011
650-329-2520 ! Email: transportation@cityofpaloalto.org
Open Letter re: Arastradero Road Trial Project
We will be on out of town on Jnne 2ad and, thus, will not be able to attend the June 2nd
evening meeting. But, we want to make our feelings known about what is happening on
Arastradero Road.
The trial project is a maze of switching from one to two lanes and back again many times
that many people feel is confusing and prone to drivers speeding np to get by (in the two-
lane segments), bnt forced to merge or squeeze back in (in the one-lane segments). The
merge between Gunn High and the Alta Mesa cemetery seems particularly worrisome as
we've seen a number of very close calls during the merge, particularly when someone
unexpectedly slows down in front to enter the cemetery driveway as other cars are merging
behiud them.
The road works reasonably well when there are few cars on it Roads of the size of
Arastradero Road (2 lanes in each direction before the trial period started) were designed
to handle greater, peak-period loads of traffic between EI Camino and tbe Foothill
Expressway, which we think it did very well given our experience living just ten houses off
Arastradero for 37 years. We understand the reasons for trying a different design.
However, in our opinion, the redesigned roadway does not work well during peak periods.
By peak periods we mean (a) when parents are taking students to Terman Middle School,
students are going to Gunn, and people are going to work in the Research Park (Research
Park employment in the SW corner of the Park is down significantly from the early 90s
and presumably, in time, will return to normal levels, so Arastradero should be confignred
for greater usage in the future), (b) when students are leaving Gunn in the afternoon, (c)
when students are leaving Terman and parents are picking them up at the same time in the
afternoon, etc., and (d) when people are leaving work in the Research Park and traveling
on Arastradero toward EI Camino. There are long lines of cars standing waiting for lights
to change, sometimes all the way from the light at Terman Drive to Gunn and, on occasion,
beyond. When traffic is heavy there are also long lines (generally single lane) of stop-and-
go traffic between El Camino and the light at Coulombe andlor the light at Terman Drive.
Long lines of idling cars or single-lane traffic means longer commute times, more driver
frustration, and more localized pollution, none of which is good for the local residents.
Finally, it is much more difficult to turn left onto Arastradero Road and, of course, we've
noticed greater usage of the side streets, which we ourselves feel forced to do at certain
times of the day, when before the trial we would not have done so.
We urge a return to the prior 4-lane confignration. Thank you for taking these comments
onsideration.
J;&z£
149 Georgia Avenue
Palo Alto a At') J)f4~~~tr~ cY .
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Jaime Rodriguez DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Chief Transportation Official Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: July 13, 2011
SUBJECT: Arastradero Road Re-Striping Trial: Planning and Transportation
Commission recommendation to City· Council whether to extend the trial
period of the Arastradero Road Re-Striping Project for an additional 12
months through July 31, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council to approve an extension of the trial period for the Phase 2 of the Charleston-Arastradero
Corridor Re-Striping Project for an additional 12 months through August 2012.
BACKGROUND:
The Charleston Road! Arastradero Road corridor serves numerous residential neighborhoods, eleven
schools, and provides an alternative connection to the Research Park district. The corridor also
provides one of the few east-west through connections between Highway 101 and Highway 280.
ill 2003, the City Council directed staff to prepare a plan of transportation, safety, and urban
design/landscape improvements for the Charleston Arastradero Road Corridor that would enhance
pedestrian and bicyclist mobility, visual amenities and quality of life along the corridor, and preserve
as best as possible vehicle throughput. Phase 1 along Charleston Road from Fabian Way to Alma
Street plan underwent a trial striping phase in 2006, and was adopted for permanent installation by
City Council in 2008 after a two year trial period.
In summer 2009, City Council approved the plan for the Phase 2 trial project on Arastradero Road
between EI Camino Real and Gunn High School for a one year trial period. Implementation started
in August 2010 with several improvements made over the past year in response to community input.
During the preparation of this report, one final element still pending was the activation of video
detection equpiment at the intersection of Arastradero Road and Coulombe Drive.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
In January 2004, the. City Council approved the phased implementation for the Charleston-
Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan illustrated in Attachment A. Improvements at the
intersection of EI Camino Real & Charleston Road-Arastradero Road were not planned but are
proposed by staff as a future project.
Phase 2 Trial Restriping Project -Arastradero Road (
After the successful trial of the Phase 1 project along Charleston Road between Alma Street and
Fabian Way in 2006,staJf began analyzing the Arastradero Road portions of the corridor.
Arastradero Road carries approximately 18,500 vehicles per typical weekday and approximately
11,800 vehicles on a typical weekend day. The trial 'project was initiated in August 2010 and
incl~des the following elements:
• Hybrid lane reduction from 4-lanes to 3-lanes with dedicated and two-way left turn lanes
• Enhanced crosswalk at Arastradero Road and Clemo Drive ':-"
• Traffic signal modification at Arastradero Road and Coulombe Drive
Throughout the duration of the project, Staff has held regular meetings with the Charleston-
Arastradero Corridor Stakeholder committee to discuss roadway operations.
DISCUSSION
The Phase 2 -Arastradero Road Restriping Trial project consists of hybrid lane reduction to include
either 4-lanes or 3-lane segments between EI Camino Real and Gunn High School to help preserve
roadway capacity, one of the initial project goals. In the westbound direction, the two through travel
lanes merge to one lane immediately west ofEI Camino Real along the frontage of the former Volvo
dealership site. This merge was later relocated farther west in the Spring 2011 to 250 feet west of
Alta Mesa in response to community input and field observations. At Donald Drive-Terman Road,
the westbound approach widens back to twO' through lanes to help preserve roadway capacity for
Gunn High School and Research Park commuters traveling past Foothill Expressway.
In the eastbound direction Arastradero Road merges from two-lanes to one lane along the frontage of
Alta Mesa Cemetery. The one-lane approach is maintained until Donald Drive-Terman Drive where
the roadway widens back to two-lanes through that intersection before merging back to one lane at
King Arthur Court. At EI Camino Real the proj ect merges back to two lanes to align with Charleston
Road. The two eastbound lanes approaching EI Camino Real were lengthened in Spring 2011 to
McKellar Lane, also in response to community input.
The traffic signal at Arastradero Road and Coulombe Drive was modified to provide an eastbound
left-tum pocket to accommodate traffic heading towards Maybell Avenue with special signal
phasing. The traffic signal modification was delayed due to the procurement of video detection
system equipment that was obtained in June 2011. The traffic signal modification will be completed
in July 2011 and will provide dedicated left-turn arrow phasing during peak periods depending on
demand.
In addition to the lane merge modifications near Alta Mesa-McKellar Lane, the City implemented
the following additional striping modifications during the one-year trial period:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
• Westbound Left Turn Storage Increase at Arastradero Road and Donald Drive-Terman Drive
To help accommodate left turn access into Terman Drive, a dedicated eastbound left turn
lane to King Arthur Court was modified to a two-way left turn lane providing stacking
capacity for the Terman Drive nlovements to King Arthur Court
• Vehicle Speed Feedback Signs at Arastradero Road and Hubbart Street
. To further encourage vehicle speed reductions along the western side of the project, two
dynamic vehicle speed feedback signs were installed at Hubbart Street to advise motorists
exceeding the 25-MPH posted speed limit to slow down. Installation of the signs also
included the installation of a raised median island to protect one of the signs and encourage
driver compliance along the roadway.
• Arastradero Road and Alta Mesa-McKellar Lane -Keep Clear Improvements
Several intersections along the corridor were restriped after implementation to add "Keep
Clear" stencils to help maintain community access to residential streets. At Alta Mesa-Kellar
Lane "Do Not Block Intersection" and enhanced "Keep Clear" stencils were also added.
ANALYSIS:
Project Implementation
Implementation of the Phase 2 Trial Restriping proj ect on Arastradero Road between EI Camino
Real and Gunn High School began in August 2010. Due to worldwide materials shortages in
roadway thermoplastic material, most of the restriping elements of the project was not completed
until October 2010. The enhanced pedestrian crossing at Arastradero Road and Clemo Drive, that
includes a raised median island, high-visibility step-ladder crosswalk, and pedestrian-activated
flashing beacon systems that was not completed until March 2011 due to equipnlent procurement and
contract coordination with other projects to help bring the project in on budget. Additional delays in
the procurement of video detection equipment for the traffic signal modification at Arastradero Road
and Coulonlbe Drive have delayed completion of that project element until July 2011.
Traffic Data Collection
Daily traffic volumes were collected along the study corridor both before and throughout various
stages of the project along both Arastradero Road and Maybell Avenue. The intent was to determine
if the Phase 2 re-striping would result in significant changes in traffic patterns (cut-through traffic).
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Table 1 summarizes the measured traffic volumes during the Peak hours and during a typical
weekday at three locations along Arastradero Road. Table 2 summarizes the traffic volumes on
Maybell Avenue. Both tables show that traffic volumes are approximately within three to five
percent of the pre-trial conditions. This is generally considered within typical daily variations.
Table 1
Traffic Counts along Arastrade~o Road
West of Georgia East of Pomona East of McKellar
Vehicles Spring Fall Spring Spring Fall Spring Spring Fall Spring
2010 2010 2011 2010 2010 2011 2010 2010 2011
AM Peak I Eastbound 592 560 585 680 672 638 733 720 702
AM Peak I Westbound 992 968 935 952 924 941 1016 924 878
PM Peak I Eastbound 963 1076 1011 960 996 1090 870 912 969
PM Peak I Westbound p38 596 698 653 596 727 712 682 804
Daily I Combined 18,523 18,022 17,728 18,458 18,467 18,504 18,137 18,467 I 18,531
Table 2
Traffic Counts along Maybell Avenue
Vehicles Near Maybell Way
Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011
AM Peak Eastbound 448 461 468
PM Peak Eastbound 101 150 119
Daily Combined 1,638 1,646 1,614
Travel time traffic data was collected between during the AM school commute period, which lasts
approximately 30 minutes between 7:30AM and 8:00AM, and during the PM comnlute peak hour
between 5:30 and 6:30 PM.
The pre-Phase 2 trial surveys include travel times from EI Camino Real to Foothill Expressway; they
do not however, include data along Charleston Road. Travel time data collected since the project
implementation includes traveling time along Charleston Road to help better measure the effects of
the project, particularly at the intersection ofEI Canlino Real. Table 3 summarizes the travel time
data and shows that in the eastbound direction, travel times have increased slightly during the AM-
school commute period but appears to be a negligible effect during the PM commute peak period. In
the westbound direction, travel times between EI Camino Real and Foothill Expressway are
approximately the same. Charleston Road approaching EI Camino Real, however may have
experienced increased delays. It is difficult to be conclusive about travel times given somewhat
different data points and the delayed implementation of all proj ect improvements.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Table 3
Travel Time Surveys -Average Peak Period Travel Times
Eastbound Westbound
Time Period Arastradero Rd Arastradero Rd Charleston Rd
Foothill Exp to El Camino to Alma Stto
EICamino Foothill Exp El Camino
AM Peak Hour 7:30AM -7:55AM
Pre-Project 2006 to 2007 4'49" 7'53" nla
Post Project Fall· , 10-Spring , 11 6'22" 6'24" 4'25"
PM Peak Hour 5:15PM -6:30PM
Pre-Project 2006 to 2007 4' 05" 3'46" n/a
Post Project Fall '1 O-Spring , 11 4'27" 4'00" l' 56"
Off-Peak Travel Speeds
Prior to implementation of the re-striping project, concerns along the corridor included vehicles
travelling at very high speeds during the off-peak periods. Although the posted speed limit is 25
miles per hour, the measured 85th percentile speed was consistently between 36 and 40 miles per
hour, with some vehicles traveling as high as 50 miles per hour. Following implementation of the
Phase 2 Trial Restriping project, the 85th percentile speeds have decreased by approximately two to
three miles per hour. J:he number of very high speed vehicles (travelling greater than 37 miles per
hour) during the off-peak hours appears to have been reduced by approximately 30 to 50 percent.
Collision History
Due to delayed implementation of the Phase 2 Trial Restriping project a meaningful comparison of
vehicle collision history is not feasible. Staff recommends that a longer data collection period of up
to at least one more year be allowed before comparing collision history to fully determine the effects.
Arastradero Road and Donald Drive-Terman Drive All Pedestrian Signal Phase
Arastradero Road under the Phase 2 -Trial Restriping project generally operates with acceptable
conditions outside of the nlorning school peak period. During the morning school peak period, the
all-pedestrian signal phasing at the intersection of Arastradero Road and Donald Drive-Terman
Drive stops all vehicle movements for approximately 26 seconds. The all-pedestrian signal phase is
considered to be an essential safety feature during the AM school commute peak period serving both
Terman Middle School and students walking/biking to Gunn High School. The all-pedestrian signal
phase occurs between 7: 30 and 8: 15 AM however, and contributes to delays along Arastradero Road.
Gunn High School and Bowman International School-Bell Schedule Modifications
The Palo Alto Unified School District (P AUSD) recently approved a permanent modification to the
Gunn High School bell schedule starting in the Fall 20 11 term. The new bell schedule will move the
start of school activities from the current bell schedule of7: 5 5 AM to 8 :25 AM instead. This change
in bell schedule may have a positive impact on traffic along Arastradero Road through the project
area by dispersing traffic over a longer period of time. Terman Middle School will maintain its bell
schedule start time of 8:10 AM. The Gunn High School bell schedule change may also help to
separate middle school and grade school traffic to Juana Briones Elementary School located at
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Maybell Avenue and Coulombe Drive from student driver traffic to Gunn High School, a positive
safety change along Arastradero Road.
The Bowman illternational School contacted the City after the PAUSD approval of the Gunn High
School bell schedule and noted that it would also be modifying its school's schedule to begin classes
later than the new Gunn High School schedule.
CommuriityFeedback
Staffheld community meetings in October 2010 after the initial implementation of the Phase 2-Trial
Restriping project and again on June 2, 2011, approaching the end of the 2010-11 school year.
Approximately 70 people attended the June 2, 2011 community meeting.
ill general, the feed back received at the community meetings mixed, with substantial expressions of
concern and requests for improvements along with significant positivy feedback regarding improved
safety along the corridor.
The majority of community input regarding the Phase 2 Trial Restriping project focused around
increased travel time during the peak hours. Additional concerns relate to: areas where full access
(left tum in and out) to residences has been modified, requests for comparative traffic data outside of
the project area including Georgia Avenue and Los Robles Avenue, and improved safety across the
EI Camino Real intersection. Attachment B includes a more detailed summary of the direct feedback
comments received during the June 2, 2011 community meeting. ill response to c9ncerns about left-
tum access at the Arastradero Road West apartment complex across from the Alta Mesa Cemetery,
staff will consider modifying the roadway striping to allow full access from the complex.
Extension of Proj ect Trial
The Phase 2 Trial Restriping project was intended to begin in the Fall of2010, and extend for a one
year period. Several features of the approved proj ect and minor changes were only recently
implemented, however, due to unforeseen delays with materials and construction phasing. Some
minor changes such as the vehicle detection system and left tum phasing at Coulombe Drive will be
implemented in July 2011.
Therefore, Staff recommends that the Phase 2 -Trial Restriping proj ect on Arastradero Road
between EI Camino Real and Gunn High School be extended for 12 additional months through
August 2012. The extension would include the collection of additional traffic data outside ofthecore
project area, including Georgia Avenue and Los Robles Avenue, along with additional left-tum
improvements to the Arastradero West apartment complex.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The installation of the Phase 2 Trial Re-Striping and lane configurations for Arastradero Road is
consistent with the Council-approved CharlestoniArastradero Corridor Improvement Plan. The
project furthers the following Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goals:
• T-1, Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles;
• T-3, Facilities, Services and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling;
• T-5, a Transportation System that Minimizes hnpacts on Residential Neighborhoods; and
City of Palo Alto Page 6
• T -6, a High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians and Bicyclists on Palo Alto streets.
RESOURCE IMPACT:
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project P L-05 002 -Charleston Road/ Arastradero Road Project
provided funding for the implementation of the Charleston! Arastradero Corridor Phase 1 and Phase 2
Trial. Extension of the Phase 2 Trial Restriping project on Arastradero Road will not have a
significant cost impact to the City and funding is available within the original project CIP for
additional monitoring.
The estimated cost to extend the trial period would be minimal and will primarily require Staff time
to collect travel time data and two (2) additional community outreach meetings over the next year.
TIME LINE
A City Council hearing is tentatively scheduled for August 1, 2011. The trial extension, if approved
would continue through August 2012, with reports back to PTC and Council at that time for a final
determination on implementation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Charleston!Arastradero Corridor Plan on January 20,
2004. The plan included mitigation that would reduce the identified environmental impacts to a less
than significant level. The MND covered the implementation of the full Charleston! Arastradero
Corridor project including the Phase 2 trial and Gunn High School intersection improvements.
Because no additional elements are being proposed, no environmental impacts are anticipated due to
the extension of the re-striping trial period.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Location Map
B. Summary of Comments from June 2, 2011 Community Meeting
C. Correspondence
COURTESY COPIES:
Charleston! Arastradero Corridor Stakeholders Group
Katya Villalobos, Gunn High School
Katherine Baker, Principal, Terman Middle School
Matthew Nagle, Principal, Juana Briones School
Mary Beth Ricks, Bowman International School
Bob Golton, P AUSD
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
PREPARED BY: Rafael Rius, Transportation Proj ect Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official
~~ DEPARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: _____________ _
Curtis Williams, Director
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission1
Verbatim Minutes2
July 13, 20113
4
DRAFT EXCERPT5
6
Arastradero Road Re-Striping Trial: Planning and Transportation Commission 7
recommendation to City Council whether to extend the trial period of the Arastradero Road Re-8
Striping Project for an additional 12 months through July 31, 2012.9
10
Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Thank you Chair Tuma and Commissioners. We are here 11
tonight to discuss the Arastradero Road Trial Re-Striping Project status and request to extend the12
time period for review and report back. Tonight I have with me Jaime Rodriguez, our Chief 13
Transportation Official and Rafael Ruis, our Transportation Engineer, who have been hard at 14
work in looking at this issue for quite some time now. Jaime will be making the bulk of the 15
transportation but I did want to start out with some project background. Jaime then will be 16
talking about some of the changes that have been made since the initial implementation, some of 17
our data collection efforts, community outreach process and some of our additional 18
improvements we are looking at for the corridor and then we can come back to the Commission 19
and the public for comments and questions. 20
21
So in terms of background, this corridor effort goes back some time now, actually more than a 22
decade. But back about 10 years ago or so there were some projects that were being considered 23
in proximity to this corridor that cumulatively had the potential for certainly some impact. Those 24
projects included the Campus for Jewish Life, the project on Fabian Way near Charleston, the 25
Echelon Advantage Multifamily Developments on East Meadow and the Arbor Real Project at 26
the other end of Charleston at El Camino and subsequently next to those were a couple other 27
developments and the Campus for Jewish Life project had other components to it that were some 28
residential and some affordable housing project and a market rate project as well so all of that29
coming together coming before the city at one time and concerns that this corridor was going to30
feel the impacts of that particularly given the sensitivity of the safety issues on the corridor, even 31
its proximity to a number of schools and neighborhood commercial areas that it was really 32
paramount that we do something so in 2003 the city initiated this corridor study primarily to 33
create a safer and more functional corridor here for all the users and especially for the 34
pedestrians and cyclists along the corridor to better balance the needs of all road users so sort of 35
a precursor to our whole complete streets effort that we have as an ongoing goal of the city. The 36
project area for the corridor extended all the way basically from San Antonio Road to Foothill 37
Expressway but the sort of defined corridors were from Fabian Way to Gunn High School and 38
has essentially been broken up into two pieces. The first phase was the Charleston Road section 39
from Fabian to just short of El Camino and then the second phase was from the Arastradero 40
Road portion from El Camino to Gunn High School. 41
42
Jaime will talk a little bit more about the potential for future work and analysis to be done at the 43
El Camino intersection which is a very critical link and in some respect a bottleneck to this 44
corridor but it has not been the focus of either of those studies. Also, there was a portion of that, 45
see here is part of the Phase 1. While it focused on Charleston Road area, also included in the 46
Page 2
later parts of that phase, improvements to the Gunn High School driveway which had been 1
instrumental and integral to this whole discussion.So the whole corridor analysis and proposal 2
was an effort to try to mitigate the impacts of a lot of development that was anticipated there as 3
we know there is continued development potential along that corridor and that tends to make it 4
more critical that we continue to look for ways to resolve those potential existing conflicts and 5
potential conflicts in the corridor.6
7
So the original objectives that were stated in the study were to enhance the commute safety for 8
the students, to improve the bike and pedestrian experience along the corridor, to try in affecting 9
those two areas, particularly to reduce the traffic speed along the corridor and while at the same 10
time trying to accommodate a similar throughput in vehicular traffic so we could minimize the 11
traffic shift that might otherwise occur on adjacent streets. And then overall to create a more 12
pleasant streetscape and quality of life with medians and plantings and safety measures to 13
accomplish that.14
15
So there was in the first phase community evaluation,input period and trial for that Charleston 16
section of the corridor that included the four lanes to a three lane type of configuration, a number 17
of traffic calming treatments, and that was ultimately reviewed by the Planning and 18
Transportation Commission and recommended and approved strongly by the City Council in 19
2008. The striping improvements remain in place, the permanent funding for implementation in 20
terms of actually installing medians and landscape and to make that a reality is in our CIP but it 21
has not been implemented to date. Shortly thereafter there was also the recommendation to 22
proceed then with this phase of the Arastradero portion, similarly a kind of hybrid four lane to 23
three lane configuration and traffic calming treatments that has now been installed and that was 24
recommended by again the Commission and suggested and approved by the Council to proceed 25
with this trial and that brings us to where we have been for the last approximately year of 26
implementation through the striping. So at this point I’d like to turn it over to Jaime Rodriguez 27
who will take you through some more of the specifics of kind of what we’ve experienced in this 28
process and where we see it going from here. 29
30
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official:Good Evening Chair and members of the 31
Commission. Before I move on in the presentation I just want to make a quick note that 32
underneath the screen is actually a scaled drawing of Arastradero Road. It is a recent Google 33
aerial that shows all the recent improvements and what I’m going to do is leave at the dais here a34
pointer so if anyone wants to come up and perhaps point to an intersection while they are 35
speaking during public comment can do so, so I’ll leave that up there quickly and then I’ll move 36
on.37
38
As Curtis mentioned, this project began implementation about a year ago in August and the 39
initial implementation was completed around the early September timeframe but the complete 40
implementation of the project still has not been completed and we have held two major 41
community meetings during this process and we’ve been listening to the communities here, what 42
are their concerns, what are some of the areas we can improve in the project because as a trial we 43
want to make a conscious effort to help improve the project wherever we could. Since the 44
implementation of the project, we hear a lot of common themes and I’ll recap this again with the 45
results of the most recent community meeting at the end of this presentation. We did hear the 46
Page 3
community concerns very clearly from the very beginning and those concerns were very 1
consistent. Those were increased congestion specifically during the morning peak period. 2
Initially there were concerns regarding congestion in the p.m. peak period. There were concerns 3
about delays, crossing El Camino Real and as Curtis mentioned, that is definitely one of the 4
critical elements of this particular corridor that is still yet to be addressed. There were both 5
concerns as well as positive community feedback regarding left turn access. People both had 6
concerns that they lost access getting into their home. A lot of people also provided comments 7
saying that they liked the enhanced access they received turning left out of their residential 8
streets. There are still concerns regarding potential cut through traffic impacts to the streets to 9
the north of this corridor specifically Georgia, Maybell and as far north as Los Robles. In10
response to the communications we’ve been getting we’ve been trying to identify and implement 11
improvements with community support and what I want to do very quickly is go over what those 12
improvements were. 13
14
Immediately after the project was majority completed after the October timeframe, we 15
implemented a series of improvements in January and that is what I’m going to highlight here 16
because that was in response to that first few months of the improvements being in place at the 17
intersection of Arastradero and Ynigo Way, we implemented an additional raised median island 18
that was not initially put in with the first implementation in August. Now raised median island 19
as shown here in purple also houses an electronic vehicle speed feedback sign that provides 20
feedback information to drivers as to what speed they’re traveling in relation to the posted speed 21
limit. There was a sign installed in the median for westbound traffic as well as an additional sign 22
on a street light for eastbound traffic right across the street from there. That median was also 23
provided at the previous slide to help address concerns about people trying to drive through the 24
center lane of the roadway to bypass traffic that was accruing in the morning hour. We also at 25
the intersection of King Arthur Court modified the initial striping to provide a left hand turn lane 26
which also extended the left turn access onto Briones Elementary off of Maybell. There is 27
Terman Middle School at Donald. That same site also houses the private school, Bowman 28
International School and down toward the western end of the project is Gunn High School. That, 29
in addition to the research part of traffic to the west of Foothills Expressway. There is definitely 30
a lot of traffic coming in and what this slide shows you is just the major volumes, not all the 31
volume movements that are happening in these intersections, signalized intersections along the 32
corridor, but the major movements. So you see here you are basically crossing Arastradero and 33
we get a little over 300 cars during that peak period and really that peak period is the first half 34
hour so really that is a lot of cars trying to get through.35
36
As you continue down through the corridor, by the time you get to Coulombe we’re seeing about 37
800 vehicles traveling through the corridor and that remains a pretty consistent number at Donald 38
Terman and then you start to see the traffic drop off and split as you get to Gunn High School. 39
This is just for information. The bicycle and pedestrian counts for that corridor is also showing 40
red and support the highlight as we’re looking at this volume in relation to the vehicular traffic. 41
42
Some of the data that we have collected here for you is shown in three different states. The black 43
is the data we collected before the project was implemented in the spring of 2010. So what you 44
see here is at various points along the corridor, shortly after the project was implemented in the 45
fall and then recounted again in the spring, the volume counts are fairly consistent with one 46
Page 4
another. Within a 3 to 5% change of one another in relation to the previous condition and we 1
will revisit the state again when we talk about the project goals when the project was 2
implemented. But, again, a 3 to 5% change in traffic along Arastradero Road after and versus 3
before.4
5
On the traffic count data, what we see here is that along Maybell, the count data is also consistent 6
within about a 2 to 5% range. That was something we were really focusing on during the data 7
collection period because we wanted to see was any traffic being shifted off of Arastradero onto 8
those residential streets as we go through this project and that was a goal of ours to not do that 9
with this project so 2 to 5% change of traffic shift within the corridor. 10
11
On the bicycle count data, what we see here is there was a significant… enrollment change was 12
about the same, the top row here is the enrollment changes that determine Gunn year to year and 13
you see volumes of… I keep thinking traffic but I’m thinking population of the school here. 14
Traffic engineer falling point. The population of the schools was about the same but the number 15
of students that were actually biking has significantly increased along the corridors. That was an 16
important finding as part of this project. On the travel speed data, one of the goals of the project 17
was also to encourage speed reduction along the corridor. We’re also seeing from the prior trial 18
condition to shortly finishing in the fall and again in the spring, we are seeing about a 2 to 3 mile 19
per hour decrease. I think a majority of that comes from the speed signs we installed down 20
through the Ynigo Way area.We also noticed a much more significant reduction of over 50% of 21
high speed vehicles over that 37 mile per hour state in the after implementation versus before 22
implementation.23
24
In the travel time data, this is where we probably heard most of the concerns regarding 25
congestion as it relates to peak periods. I am going to try and walk you through this starting with 26
westbound. Westbound from El Camino to Foothill, what we have seen is an actual average 27
reduction in travel time. Traffic is actually moving faster along Arastradero Road in the 28
westbound direction going from El Camino to Gunn. Where I think we’ve heard a lot of concern 29
from the community is that we’re moving faster or about the same but it takes longer to get 30
across El Camino. What we’re finding is it takes on average about 4 ½ minutes to get across El 31
Camino Real so that’s about two cycles of that signal. We unfortunately don’t have data from 32
the before scenario because that’s something that wasn’t collected back in the spring. In the 33
eastbound direction though, this is again focusing in the morning, we did see an increase from 34
just under 5 minutes to just over 6 minutes in the eastbound direction going from Foothill to El 35
Camino Real. In the p.m. hour traffic has remained about the same. We don’t have the 36
Charleston, Alma towards El Camino Real data either but the data we’ve found was about the 37
same so what we’re calling the travel times are fairly consistent from before and after. 38
39
So again, this is a very quick summary of some of the most recent community concerns we heard 40
at our last community meeting about a month ago and a lot of those you’ll notice still echo some 41
of the comments that were received early on in the fall. Increased congestion along Arastradero, 42
we heard a little bit more concerns regarding cut through traffic in the areas north of Arastradero 43
back into the Barron Park area and along Maybell. We also received more concerns regarding 44
road rage happening on the road because people were concerned about their travel time. We did 45
receive more concerns about full access driveway impacts, full access being left turn in, left turn 46
Page 5
out and right turn in and right turn out access. Access might be limited to right in and right out 1
or some form or duration of that. We also received concerns regarding safety along El Camino 2
Real and perhaps being the need for additional signage improvements through the trial. 3
4
As a positive though, we did see no change in the congestion data. The volumes and travel times 5
were fairly consistent with each other but what we were seeing at the same time were reductions 6
in high speed vehicle traffic and we were still receiving some input from people that they did feel 7
the street did operate more safely as a residential street versus an arterial. But again, we heard 8
the feedback from the community and we’re still trying to address that.9
10
Some of the projects we have planned still are again the implementation of that arrow, that left 11
turn arrow at the intersection of Coulombe Drive that will get turned on again tomorrow. We are 12
looking at trying to figure out what we can do at El Camino Real to try to link the Charleston and 13
Arastradero corridors. This is one early on concept we put together to basically show bicycle 14
lane installations along Arastradero Road in the current gap which is between El Camino Real 15
and Alta Mesa McKellar. This does involve a sidewalk widening requirement. We would 16
require some utility relocation impacts. We are still working with our in house staff to see if this 17
would be feasible but we are trying to find a solution to that gap because that is the gap of 18
bicyclists along the corridor today right between Alta Mesa and El Camino Real. 19
20
One of the concerns that we did hear was, and I’m responsible for getting this implemented, is 21
during the trial we got a request for a Keep Clear at the intersection of Inigue. We have actually 22
implemented this as a work order request to our on-call contractor and this should get installed 23
within about the next three weeks. One of the other requests that we recently received was from 24
the Arastradero West Apartment Complex which is located along the north side of Arastradero 25
Road next to Gunn High School. That apartment complex has three driveways today, one just 26
before Gunn High School. They have a split driveway in the middle of their complex which is 27
an inbound driveway and then outbound. They also have a third driveway along the Hetch 28
Hetchy right of way and during the implementation of this project Arastradero West did receive 29
an impact with the loss of full access to all of their driveways. All of their driveways today 30
operate as a right in right out only. That was a petition that we received from some of the 31
residents that they weren’t so much opposing the project but concerned that they lost their 32
access. What we put together here is an option and we met with and discussed with the owners 33
of the apartment complex and would recommend as an implementation if this is approved for 34
extension. That would be to convert the dedicated left turn lane into Alta Mesa Cemetery and a 35
portion of the painted median north of that into a left turn lane which gives full access back into 36
their eastern driveway or the Hetch Hetchy right of way. It reintroduces the full access to their 37
center driveway by giving them an opportunity to stack in a middle area to turn into as well as 38
turn out of Arastradero West. It also produces the prior trial condition for them from last spring 39
where they had full access to at least two. We didn’t at staff level though this it would be 40
appropriate to reintroduce full access to their first driveway which is west most. That is the same 41
location where merge from two lanes to one lane eastbound is currently happening. We thought 42
it was too much to introduce a location where someone would stop and make a break over that 43
painted median so we worked out an opportunity with the apartment owners to do this 44
improvement and at the same time find a way further to the west to introduce a place for a u-turn 45
location opportunity to occur. What this is showing is a modification to the striping on 46
Page 6
Arastradero to the west of Gunn but before Foothill Expressway at Miranda to stripe any short 1
left turn pocket it would allow that traffic to make a u-turn or turn into Miranda more safely and 2
turn around and come back east along Arastradero Road. We submitted this to the county today 3
for input. We will know whether that is something we’ll get support on over the next few days.4
5
The evaluation criteria for this particular project, as you see there has been a lot of change and 6
we’ve been making a lot of change because we want to make sure we can meet the criteria here. 7
Specifically one is to not increase the peak or off peak travel time and I think that we’ve shown 8
in the previous data that at least within the westbound and eastbound direction within the project 9
has actually reduced in the westbound and stayed fairly consistent in the east but we do 10
recognize the community concerns that there was a potential increase in travel time along 11
Charleston Road approaching El Camino Real. That’s the thing we will continue to try to work 12
with with the state. 13
14
We also wanted to make sure there weren’t significant delays along intersections. This particular 15
design of the roadway did try to preserve the level of service by maintaining as many through 16
lane configurations along Arastradero Road at Culomne, Donald Sherman as well as the high 17
school. Another goal here was to try and reduce the vehicle speeds which we are starting to see 18
at those high level speeds over the 35 mph area and we are starting to see some reductions as 19
well in those 85th percentile areas. We also wanted to try to reduce the crashes but because 20
we’ve really just recently finished the initial implementation and are proposing changes we 21
haven’t focused too much on analyzing crash data yet because we felt it was too early. We also 22
wanted to increase pedestrian volume and we are starting to see that increase in bicycle 23
pedestrian traffic along the corridor and we also want to look at trying to increase public transit 24
boardings and that is something we are working with the VTA on to try to extrapolate data to see 25
what type of increases they’ve seen on their ridership.26
27
Some of the things that are going to be changing the way Arastradero Road operates today are 28
most significantly a change of the Gunn High School bell schedules through the district. The 29
start time for Gunn High School is 7:55 a.m. They have made a change that will begin this fall 30
in a couple of months to start at 8:25. This matches the bell schedule for Palo Alto High School. 31
We felt this will be a significant change for the corridor because it starts to break apart the cluster 32
of demand that happens in that half hour period and start to spread it out over an hour. Some of 33
the additional benefits to that change by the high school is that we start to separate the school 34
traffic from the traffic that is trying to get to Donald Terman, specifically the young youth 35
drivers who may have just gotten their licenses toward the end of the school year in the spring so 36
that may be a safety benefit for that particular corridor. 37
38
The all pedestrian phase that happens today for Terman Middle School does impact the ability of 39
traffic to move towards Gunn in the westbound direction. With the bell schedule change, we 40
want to look at ending that all pedestrian phase that happens at Donald Sherman from 8:15 to 41
8:10, five minutes after they’ve started school, to give a full 15 minutes of coordinated traffic 42
opportunities we haven’t in the past been able to implement along the corridor because of that all 43
ped phase to try and capture that for at least 15 minutes for traffic trying to get towards Gunn 44
High School. 45
46
Page 7
Shortly after the Gunn High School staff announced their bell schedule change, the Bowman 1
International School outreached to us to say what else can we do to try to improve operations 2
along Arastradero Road and they are actually looking at modifying their bell schedule for this 3
coming Fall term to start drop offs between 8:30 and 9:00 which is after the high school has 4
started and begin their school activities after 9:00. So before when we had this cluster of traffic 5
all within a half hour period it is now spread over an hour now and that is one of the other 6
reasons why we’ve made the recommendation to you in our staff report to extend this trial 7
project.8
9
I glanced over in the previous slides one of the improvements we’ll be making with the left turn 10
improvements was to an apartment complex. So again the Charleston Road trial lasted 2 years 11
and we are recommending an additional one year extension to August of next year which would 12
match the trial period of Charleston and also allow us to evaluate the corridor with all of the 13
improvements that we just recently completed in the spring as well as the final changes we 14
would implement in July and August that we showed you in the previous slides. 15
16
Following the PTC presentation here tonight we are tentatively scheduled to go to City Council 17
to show this presentation in August and we will be looking for your support in this 18
recommendation. In response to the additional community concerns we’ve heard throughout the 19
project, we want to ensure the community that we will continue to collect more data than we’ve 20
done in the past to try to address some of the concerns about cut through traffic to the north 21
through the Barron Park area, we’ll collect data for traffic in the Los Robles area, Amaranta 22
which connects Maybell to Los Robles, more traffic along Maybell and Donald to Georgia which 23
are the connections to the back of the school to see if in fact there have been increases in the 24
amount of traffic to drop off kids and the path connection at the rear of the school and with that 25
I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have.26
27
Chair Tuma:Ok, thank you. Commissioner Tanaka, you are late as always. Is that inadvertent 28
or… Ok, thanks. Just for the record, Commissioner Tanaka did join us about 15 minutes ago, 29
not too long into that presentation. Is now the time or do you want to wait until after public 30
comment? Ok, I figured as much.31
32
So as the City Attorney does have some pressing things to do outside of our meeting, I just 33
wanted to check in with Commissioners and see if there is any need at this point that people 34
recognize for the City Attorney to stay with us during this evening’s proceedings. Commissioner 35
Keller has a question for you.36
37
Commissioner Keller:Are there any EIR related issues that go for an EIR before or go through 38
some sort of Environmental Impact Report? Are there any issues extending it and the changes 39
being made that require any further study in that regard?40
41
Donald Larkin, City Attorney:There was a negative declaration prepared for the entire corridor42
project and I don’t think it was so specific that it would depend on these different… I think it 43
anticipated sort of a concept of lane reductions and traffic calming improvements but not so 44
specific that it was one versus another especially for this phase. We do, and I think it is certainly 45
justified to be looking at this traffic information and all that but it is not part of the environmental 46
Page 8
study. 1
2
Chair Tuma:Ok. You’ll be upstairs in the case of an emergency. Ok, we know where to find 3
you. Very good. At this point we will go to the public. For anyone who is not familiar with our 4
process, I will call members of the public to speak and please come to the microphone. Give us 5
your name and each speaker will have three minutes. At two minutes, the light will change from 6
green to yellow just to let you know you have a minute left and when the buzzer sounds I would 7
ask you at that point to wrap up with any final points you have. If there is anyone else who 8
would like to speak there are speaker cards. You can fill those out and bring them forward to 9
staff and with that we will begin our contribution from the public. The first speaker will be John 10
Elmon to be followed by Jeffry Mille. 11
12
John Elmon:Yes, I represent those who feel this project should be stopped right now. It is a 13
little less pressure because the kids are not in school but during school, and I’ve done my 14
homework on this, I’ve walked up and down Mabel early in the morning, 7:15, 7:30, quarter to 8, 15
down Arastradero and El Camino. I’ve gone up El Camino and watched the bicycles. Just an 16
opinion, but I think the kids love the danger. I think weaving in and out of the cars and each 17
other on skateboards and inline skates is kind of exciting for the kids but darn it, from the 18
parents’ side of it it is pretty dangerous on Mabel. 19
20
When Mr. Rodriguez gave his presentation to the neighborhood meeting, he was laughed at 21
every time he presented the data, said we slowed down the speed. And somebody blurted out, 22
“Yeah to 6 miles an hour!” It takes me 16 minutes extra to get from my house on Hubbartt down 23
to the JCC to work out. A couple of weeks ago before school was out I tried going down Mabel, 24
up Amaranta, Los Robles, down across East Meadow to Middlefield, down Middlefield to 25
Charleston and boom, it took me the same amount of time. That’s what’s happened. You can’t 26
say the traffic has slowed down a little bit but it’s reduced the number of people. Where do you 27
think they’ve went? They went down Georgia and around and we have a count of our own. We 28
know its increased traffic on the side streets and that was supposed to be a no no in this project. 29
So we put kids in danger. You’ve heard in the stack of people that responded at the table back 30
there from almost everyone who supports the project. But the other thousands who don’t support 31
the project you haven’t heard from them. I represent them. If you vote to continue this project, 32
you are going to get an invitation from me next fall to come to my place at 7 in the morning, I’ll 33
feed you fresh brewed coffee, my orange ricotta blueberry pancakes, and then we’ll go out and 34
wander in the traffic and you can tell me if this has improved anything for the City of Palo Alto. 35
I could go on and on but daily use of the thing has not been reduced. Speeds have been reduced 36
drastically, not just a little bit, 2 to 5% but drastically and there is no place to go. This project 37
shouldn’t even be part of Charleston. It’s a separate project. There is 30% more traffic on 38
Arastradero than there is on Charleston. People turn up and down El Camino, people turn up and 39
down Alma and we have a mess there. The positive part of it is if you drive at say 10:30 in the 40
morning after traffic its kind of fun. They’ve got orange… (Buzzer) it’s a lot of fun because it’s 41
all kinds of colors on the streets. It’s got arrows and lines and colors and dashes and dots and 42
even that big machine at the end of the street that tells fortunes. It insulted my mother the other 43
day, “slow down you ”. You never know what message is going to come up there and that is 44
kind of fun. That has slowed the traffic down a little because you are trying to figure out where 45
the arrows go, what lane should I be in, where am I going to turn, where are they coming from, 46
Page 9
but the dang thing is a mess and I hope you’ll listen to people who object to this or go out and1
test it yourself. Thank you.2
3
Chair Tuma:Jeffrey Miller to be followed by Philip Melese.4
5
Jeffrey Miller:Thank you. I’m Jeffrey Miller, a resident on one of the side streets off of 6
Miranda. I just want to make a couple of comments. If we are going to continue with this, I 7
would recommend that we continue on a temporary basis and take more data. A couple of 8
comments, and I apologize in advance if this is too mathematical but I look at the statistics about 9
how long it is taking to go eastbound and I see that over the time period that the data is collected 10
there has been an approximate, by the seat of my pants calculation, 30% increase in the amount 11
of time it takes to get from Foothill to El Camino going eastbound in the morning. I can tell you 12
because I need to take my children to school that if you take the interval between a certain period 13
of time, maybe it’s a 30% increase, but if you take a derivative, maybe it’s a point in time, you 14
shrink that time, the amount of time has gotten a lot longer.15
16
The time it takes to make a right turn on Miranda and to get my kids to Briones is taking 17
dramatically longer than it used to before this project started so that was my first comment. The 18
reason for that is that we are forced into one lane and then the traffic forces this huge backup 19
between 7:55 and 8:05 when people are trying to get there kids to school. I am a little worried 20
that the change in the gun timing may make that worse because people are going to be dropping 21
off their kids and the next step when they need to leave they are going to cause more eastbound 22
traffic onto Arastradero and that is going to become even more when we’re trying to get our kids 23
to either Briones or Terman. That’s my first point.24
25
My second point and I didn’t plan on talking about this because I didn’t know about it but if Mr. 26
Rodriguez goes to slide 23 where he was talking about trying to make some adjustments to the 27
striping to make things a little bit better for the folks that live in Arastradero West. One of the 28
things he said that is extremely disturbing to me, maybe it was slide 24, sorry, that they are going 29
to try to start forcing people to Miranda so they can make a u-turn to go back around and get into 30
their apartment. Well, I don’t know if there is anyone else here from the Miranda area but 31
Miranda is not a very wide street. I had to do a u-turn once because I forgot something and that 32
is something I think the members of the 50 families that live there would be very against forcing 33
people onto our fairly narrow street and asking them to make u-turns to get back to their 34
apartment building. That’s all I have. Thank you.35
36
Chair Tuma: Philip Melese to be followed by Jumana Nabti.37
38
Page 10
Philip Melese:Thanks for the opportunity. I’m Philip Melese and I live close to the epicenter at 1
Arastradero and Donald. I wanted to thank Jaime and Rafael for doing a great job on the 2
restriping. I am in support of it. I moved to Palo Alto about 7 years ago and I’ve been living on 3
Arastradero all that time. When I first got there the sense of Arastradero is pretty much a 4
freeway with the four lanes and the fast speeds. That was something that was uncomfortable for 5
me because I had kids going to both schools and I ride my bike everyday up and down so I find 6
the current configuration has done what it promised. It makes Arastradero seem less like a 7
freeway where people are just going from one end to another as fast as they can and I feel its 8
more conducive to walking and biking which is what I feel our community should be about. 9
10
I know that there will be this conflict between people who are walking, biking, looking at the 11
speed of traffic and those who want to get from El Camino to Foothill to go to the freeway for 12
whatever reason. There is an inherent conflict and to say that you could solve both at once is 13
probably hard but I would vote in terms of safety. That’s what I would do and I think hopefully 14
that’s consistent with what we want in Palo Alto. That’s all I have to say. Thank you very 15
much.16
17
Chair Tuma:Thank you. Jumana to be followed by Penny Ellson. And just to remind the 18
members of the public, if there is anyone else who would like to submit a card to speak, please 19
do so. We’ll be closing off that opportunity in a couple of minutes here. 20
21
Jumana Nabti: Great, sorry, I’ve got a very short PowerPoint. My name is Jumana Nabti and I 22
live in the Miranda neighborhood also, over by Gunn. So, I am speaking in support of the staff 23
recommendation to extend the trial period and I’m going to speak mostly about speed and safety 24
related to pedestrians and bicyclists and basically this project provides critical safety 25
improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists and many of them on this corridor as you know are 26
mostly residents with children. A lot of the additional improvements that are proposed by staff 27
and that can be made in addition to those proposed by staff can be made to reduce impacts to 28
drivers. 29
30
This is data that was just provided at the public meeting and as you can see the 85th percentile 31
speeds are relatively unchanged and this is a reiteration of what Jaime presented. On the right, 32
there is a drastic reduction in the percentage of fast drivers and the only place where that is 33
relatively unchanged is west of Georgia which is where the two lane westbound area remains. 34
Why does this matter? Even a small reduction in speeds can mean considerably safer 35
environment for pedestrians so, for example, a five kilometer per hour speed drop leads to a 10% 36
fewer pedestrian fatalities and 20% less of your pedestrian injuries. This is data and research 37
that has been done on this. The likelihood of pedestrian fatalities drops very sharply from a 38
speed reduction of only 40 mph to 30 mph and that is kind of what we are looking at here with 39
the drop in various fast speeds. So,I would support this extension and I would like to add that as 40
someone who actually rode my bike as a junior high student along Arastradero, it can be very 41
intimidating with the fast speeds and all of the proposed improvements in the future at the El 42
Page 11
Camino intersection I very much look forward to for that reason and permanent implementation 1
with landscaping would probably further reduce speeds. Thank you very much.2
3
Chair Tuma:Thank you very much. Penny Ellson to be followed by Rich Ellson.4
5
Penny Ellson:Hi. I had a PowerPoint. Thank you. So I am Penny Ellson, 513 El Capitan 6
Place. Let me see if I can get this slide show to come up. I am going to skip an awful lot of this. 7
You guys heard a very nice backgrounder but I think the most important thing on this slide is that 8
safe multi-mobile access to all these facilities, the parks, the schools, the research park, 9
Arastradero Preserve, the three community centers, all of that stuff along the corridor is really 10
important for South Palo Alto design. You’ve seen this before but I don’t know that everyone in 11
the audience has. We’ve had a steady increase in bicycling at Gunn High School over the last 7 12
years and I personally want to make sure those kids have a safe route to school and looking at 13
our middle school numbers that feed to this school I expect to see these trajectories continue for 14
a while.15
16
So Curtis gave a very nice background on this but I just want to do a reminder that we added 4% 17
of all Palo Alto households to the area that this street serves. This project is traffic mitigation for 18
the aggregate impacts for all of that development. The four lane configuration had some safety 19
problems. The last speaker alluded to the speed issues so I’ll skip that. Long crossings, long 20
distances, bike lanes too narrow and had gaps, uncontrolled turning movements, high crash rates 21
for all modes of transportation, not just bikes and peds but cars. I saw a lot of accidents prior to 22
this and poor site lines. The Arastradero end of the corridor as another speaker mentioned earlier 23
has some special challenges, higher daily auto volumes, larger campuses with very close bell 24
times which the staff proposal now addresses and determine exclusive walk signal phase and I 25
think Jaime did a great job of explaining how separating the Gunn High School traffic surge 26
which is equivalent of about 1,200 cars entering per hour and the Terman surge equivalent to 900 27
per hour, separating those two surges is really important in getting the Gunn traffic to not hit that 28
four walk signal phase is going to help a lot.29
30
Phase 1 of the trial, the city staff is working very hard to get around the whole issue of the bell 31
time surges converging so one of the things they did is they added a new 5th right turn lane into 32
the Gunn driveway to improve driveway circulation and get rid of the spill back congestion that 33
was spilling onto the corridor. The idea was to temporarily relieve congestion and add some 34
additional capacity with the idea that that capacity would be used for the future safety 35
improvements. The reason we did this in Phase 1 is staff wanted to use the data from that change 36
to understand what kinds of efficiencies they could build into the plan for Phase 2. Peak hour 37
congestion is not new on this street. This picture was taken before the trial. It was four lanes of 38
traffic both directions, this is the Donald intersection looking west and to the same way going 39
east. So please extend the trial. They need time to evaluate the effects of the bell time change. 40
We need a full year of data subsequent to the many improvements made up to this month. I need 41
to wrap up so that’s it. Thank you.42
43
Chair Tuma:Rich Ellson to be followed by Andrew Boone.44
45
Page 12
Rich Ellson:Hi. Rich Ellson. I am fortunate to live at 513 El Capitan with Penny also. I 1
wanted to take you more down history lane and actually remind you that buses like elephants 2
don’t forget and encoded in the bus schedules is historical times for actually how long it takes a 3
bus to travel down the corridor. So one of the things you can see is basically not much has 4
changed in 8 years. Some of what you can see is during that congested period of time a lot of 5
students are no longer being driven to school. They are going on a bus. So if you look at bus 6
schedules, and I’ll show you that proof on the next page, they start out by measuring what time 7
the bus stops and the average scheduled time just west of El Camino and basically ending at the 8
Veterans hospital. So once you pass Gunn and go around the corner that is a free area.There’s 9
not a lot of traffic there so that’s very consistent and so is the rest of the corridor as well. 10
11
So the red bullets at the top, sorry for the small type, this is actually that peak hour. That is the 12
bus as it is traveling between 7:40 and 7:50 along the corridor on El Camino Real, at that stop 13
west all the way to the Veterans hospital. If you look today, that is actually the time today going 14
back in time. You can see that basically there has been very little change in the corridor over 15
time,even though there has been an increase in traffic and a relatively large increase in student 16
population at both of those schools with the expansion of Terman since 2003 and also with 17
Gunn, increasing the number of students. What’s interesting is you might think the corridor 18
modifications would be shown in the bus measurements because you can see these 19
measurements were made multiple times. In fact, multiple measurements of the bus schedule 20
times have been made since the corridor change and you see no blip here at all. In fact, the 21
major changes have nothing to do with the corridor. One is the improvements in the Gunn 22
driveway actually slowed down the bus, can’t really tell you why, but the other one is the 23
introduction of bus preemption along El Camino in early 2005. That started and also seems to be 24
coincident with a large increase in travel time along the corridor. So once again the Arastradero 25
changes happened in here and there is no effect in the bus transit times. So just confirming what 26
you’ve seen earlier from the city but with more historical perspective. 27
28
So the other thing is bus rapid transit I think is one of the things that we can perhaps work with 29
the VTA on. They’ve been helpful in providing us with the elephant’s memory. Maybe they can 30
help us get across the intersection. I don’t have the exact number of crossings of the bus through 31
that intersection but they do have the right to turn that light green to allow them to pass through. 32
That has been in effect for the last 6 years. But they also have the ability to turn that off. If you 33
read their own reports, they’ve done so and it has caused problems with Cal Trans and with the 34
highways so we should encourage them to see if they can work with us to turn off the green light 35
extension time that they give the bus going through that intersection and see if they can help the 36
cross travel and even improve the ADA travel times and as a result encourage more students to 37
ride the bus to school. So, just quickly wrapping up, there is no real history of big impact of 38
what’s going on in the road. The actual other factors are unrelated to the changes in the corridor. 39
I think we should work with the city and with Cal Trans and with VTA and see if we can do 40
something to change the signalization. We should give the chance for the corridor to settle down 41
in the new configuration where we spread out the time which everyone is going to school and see 42
how things work and analyze it in a year. Thank you.43
44
Chair Tuma:Andrew Boone to be followed by Litsie Indergand.45
46
Page 13
Andrew Boone:Hi my name is Andrew Boone and I live near the main library. I am a student 1
at DeAnza Community College in Cupertino so I ride my bicycle regularly up and down 2
Arastradero Road and I was amazed to see last in the winter term when I had an early class at 3
DeAnza how many students are walking and bicycling along that street now all at the same time. 4
There is this massive rush hour of students going to Terman and Gunn schools and I think the 5
staff’s idea to change the bell time is a great idea. All the other ideas that Jaime has presented of 6
how we can make Arastradero even better, of course data needs to be collected before any 7
decision is made about those ideas, so I support the staff’s recommendation. Thank you.8
9
Chair Tuma:Litsie Indergand followed by Markus Fromherr.10
11
Litsie Indergand:My name is Litsie Indergand and I live on Ely Place which is just south of 12
Charleston and a little east of El Camino. I try never to drive during rush hour because I am 13
retired and no longer have to leave at 8 a.m. and come home at 5 p.m. however; I find that 14
traffic, even in the middle of the day along east Charleston and Arastradero is terrible. I think it 15
was two days ago I was going up east Charleston toward Alma and I think there were 18 cars in 16
line behind me waiting for the light at Alma to change and that was the middle of the day, the 17
middle of the week. There was nothing going on. I think the place where we see particularly at 18
Arastradero, changes from two lanes to one lane is possibly very, very dangerous. I have had at 19
least two times when I have tried to switch lanes and somebody in a car much bigger than mine 20
has decided, oh no, no, no, I don’t want you to switch lanes and get ahead of me. I have not had 21
an accident but I have come this close to having an accident because I wanted to change lanes 22
when it was necessary.23
24
I think that when you switch from two lanes to one lane in the middle of a block it is potentially 25
very dangerous and it may slow traffic. Maybe it does, I don’t know. I don’t keep track of 26
exactly how fast anybody goes all the time, but if it slows traffic it slows it in a way that makes 27
to longer to get from where I am to where I am going because I have to keep my eyes out 28
constantly for the cars that want to be where I am and don’t want me to move, don’t want me to 29
switch lanes. I think that it would be a much better idea to try to look at this thing very carefully 30
and see how you could do something other than this constant switching of two to one and one to 31
two lanes. I think it is dangerous and it does not improve my driving. Thank you.32
33
Chair Tuma:Thank you. Markus Fromherr to be followed by Heike Schmitz.34
35
Markus Fromherr:Good evening. My name is Markus Fromherr. I am a resident at Barron 36
Park. I live on Amarant Avenue. I work in the research park up above Foothill Expressway and 37
I bike or drive every day along this road including mornings between the 7:30 and 8:00 time and 38
in the afternoon and even between 4 and 6, so I get sort of all periods especially those congested 39
Page 14
ones. I would like to recommend extending the trial and I will make three points as to why I feel 1
it is on the right track and why it’s working. So far I see a positive change.2
3
The first one is I feel the road is more structured, more organized the way it is now. Some 4
people expressed the clear turn offs along the way when cars used to block the left lane when 5
turning. Compare that to the four lane throughway that we had before, almost a highway where 6
cars dominated the traffic. Although I feel we are closer to a compromise between a road for 7
local traffic, schools, parks and much of it bikes and pedestrians and commute traffic which 8
much of it is of course cars going through there.9
10
The second point is I think this provides a number of improvements for bicyclists and 11
pedestrians. That includes more room for bicyclists, better turn protection for bicyclists, better 12
crossings for pedestrians and overall lower car speeds with benefits for all of these. I have heard 13
this confirmed from other bicyclists, people who work with me or live nearby and I’ve heard the 14
comments along this line too.15
16
As a car traveler I find traffic from Coulombe to Gunn acceptable, two minutes longer than 17
normal or even five minutes I find is acceptable given the environment given where we are with 18
this many large schools and all this traffic there. There has always been a traffic jam during 19
school start time as you heard before. Traffic in Amaranta seems about the same. Back up on 20
Coulombe is no more than three cars trying to get onto Arastradero so that is acceptable in the 21
mornings. I, myself, haven’t’ seen any road rage. I think there are some improvements needed 22
still. The El Camino Real intersection is one of the biggest problems with entering and exit 23
issues. The bell schedule change will really help and that has been one of those that people ask 24
for. Overall I feel we are on the road to that compromise between local and commute traffic and 25
therefore we should extend this trial to get the data on this. Thank you.26
27
Chair Tuma:Thank you. Heike Schmitz to be followed by Douglas Moran.28
29
Heike Schmitz:Thank you. My name is Heike Schmitz Fromherr. I live on Amaranta as well 30
with Markus and I would like to just make a little observation in favor of extending the timeline. 31
I want to speak out because we live on Amaranta, which is one of the areas of concerns and 32
because I started going back to school 15 months ago I could see the change because I am going 33
every morning like around 7:30 or 7:45, I have to go up Amaranta onto Maybe, up Coulombe 34
and up Arastradero and onto Foothill. I must say I say the change. There was a little bit more 35
time, 2 to 5 minutes, I can’t confirm the survey. When I come back about 3 p.m., everything is 36
fine from my point. I realize I am driving slow enough which is a very good thing because I 37
might have been one of the reasons this had to happen. Changes have to happen and my 38
observation is that in Barron Park and Palo Alto we are a great community. And great39
Page 15
communities take care of their weakest members and if you look at traffic, pedestrians and 1
bicyclists are the weakest members and I, from my point, I don’t mind leaving 5 minutes early if 2
it means I can keep all the children, pedestrians, and bicyclists safe so I would really like to 3
speak out in favor of extending the period and finding a better way of doing this to keep all 4
people safe. Thank you. 5
6
Chair Tuma:Thank you. Douglas Moran to be followed by Nina Bell.7
8
Douglas Moran:Hello I’m Doug Moran. I’m on 790 Matadero and I’ve been involved in the 9
public hearing for this for almost 10 years. I would like to comment on some things for a mid-10
course correction. First, you hear a narrow emphasis in traffic calming and you have copies of 11
my slides before you so, traffic calming as slowing traffic, cutting off the top levels but there is a 12
lot more to traffic calming than just that. It is maintaining throughput by smoothing out the flow, 13
eliminating the lows and eliminating the highs together. By eliminating the highs you improve 14
safety but the second aspect of it is more predictable traffic movement. That improves safety 15
because people have fewer decisions to make, there are fewer distractions, they are less stressed, 16
in less of a hurry so they make fewer mistakes. Now what we’ve had is there has been a very 17
toxic sort of behavior in a number of the public meetings where people have commented about 18
the bad behavior that this current plan has produced as so-called road rage. The advocates have 19
dismissed these concerns as well, drivers shouldn’t, and they don’t understand that you can make 20
the same argument. Drivers shouldn’t drive so fast either so there needs to be an accommodation 21
of all these concerns about the bad behavior that a plan does and you need to reduce them all, not 22
just focus on your particular one. 23
24
Now, cut through traffic. We have seen apparent cut through traffic arise on Matadero. You 25
say, that far? Well, if you go beyond Los Robles, it is two stop signs versus more stop lights on 26
El Camino. I wouldn’t think about, hey, can you integrate seeing random vehicles, but there are 27
measures. We’ve seen people waiting for the light to get onto El Camino more than double. 28
Lots of people have observed this during peak hours. Plus, things coming up Matadero from the 29
light, you’ve seen far more packs of cars than you’ve seen before during peak hours. So these, 30
not statistically significant but you know they indicate there is a problem.31
32
The next problem I have with this is that in the public hearings there has been an impression that 33
the needs of drivers have been disregarded. Now, the signage is too little too late so it comes up 34
and you’ve got the problem of poor predictability. At Terman, you expand to two lanes and you 35
narrow back down to one lane before you have a chance to spread out so you’ve got real conflict 36
going on there that doesn’t seem to be necessary. The last point was fixed on slide 24 of the 37
presentation so I won’t go into that but the fact that that existed for a while indicates that driving 38
problems are not getting priority and I avoid during peak hours and I’m seeing that it is worse 39
than before. Some flaws may be fixable in worrying about increased capacity.40
Page 16
1
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Nina Bell to be followed by Robert Moss. 2
3
Nina Bell:Good Evening. My name is Nina Bell and I live in the Green Acres 1 neighborhood 4
which is directly adjacent to Terman Middle School. Bottom line, given a choice, I would like to 5
see the Arastradero Road Striping made permanent right now. However, as a staff 6
recommendation, is to extend the trial until August 2012 then I give their recommendation my 7
wholehearted support. I have gratitude every day as I wait to turn into my neighborhood street 8
without fear and trepidation of being rear-ended. Having the designated turn lane has made it so 9
much safer for our residents. I am grateful too to have the protection of the mid block cross walk 10
to access Briones Park and points north. In speaking with bicycle commuters, I have only heard 11
enthusiastic responses when I have asked how the road works for them. I am grateful for that 12
too. The change in the Gunn High School bell time will play a huge part in making the morning 13
commute run more smoothly as will the new light system at Coulombe which I saw just being 14
installed today. I appreciate all that staff has done to address people’s concerns. They have 15
listened and worked really hard. There is no absolute perfect solution and we all have had to 16
make concessions but this new striping is so much better and safer than the way it was. I urge 17
you to recommend the extension of the trial. Thank you.18
19
Chair Tuma:Thank you. Robert Moss to be followed by Don Anderson. 20
21
Robert Moss:Thank you Chairman Tuma and commissioners. I think it is only logical since the 22
school starting times are being pushed back, to continue to trial. It is obviously going to have a 23
significant difference in the traffic loads and patterns so extending it for a year seems quite 24
reasonable but the extension exposes some real problems with the current study. One of the ones 25
I was reminded of this morning is that peak traffic is identified as 7:30 to 7:55 in the morning. 26
Not true. At 8:55 this morning I was on Charleston. The traffic was backed up to Alma and 27
beyond Wilke Way. It took four stoplights to get across Alma and that was at basically 9 a.m. in 28
the morning. I can also tell you from commuting along that corridor for 30 years that the time 29
between 8:30 and 9:00 a.m. in the morning is extremely congested. So if you are talking about 30
a.m. peak travel times you should be talking about 7:00 or 7:15 to 9:00 because that is when 31
people really travel. Also, you find a certain number of people are able to adjust their schedules 32
so that they don’t take Arastradero or Charleston during the major commute time for schools, 33
they move back 15 to 30 minutes and that extends the rush hour time. 34
35
Another thing you have to keep in mind, traffic for the school doesn’t stop when the school bell 36
rings. Parents are dropping kids off, going into the campus and then turning around and going 37
back creating traffic in the opposite direction they came from. That all has to be taken into 38
account. One of the things I thought was curious was the bicycle counts. You say we counted 39
the bikes and it shows more people are biking. In the case of Gunn, there are five major routes to 40
Page 17
bike to Gunn. Arastradero is just one of them. It is not the one that gets the most traffic. There 1
is Georgia, Los Robles, Paradise, and the bike trail through Barron Park. Those all get 2
significant bike traffic, so if you are going to talk about changes on Arastradero because biking is 3
safer, you should do a true bike count along Arastradero, not just say I’m going to count what’s 4
parked in the parking lot.5
6
Finally, and that was in one of the comments you got already, but at the community meeting in 7
June, someone spoke and said her husband was a traffic engineer and he found it disturbing that 8
sometimes when you merge you merge to the left and sometimes you merge to the right. I had 9
noticed that a little bit so I paid close attention the next time I went down Arastradero. It is a 10
really bad situation. You should always be merging in the same direction. Change the laning.11
12
Chair Tuma:Thank you. Don Anderson to be followed by Jackie Berman. 13
14
Don Anderson:I’m Don Anderson. I live at the corner of Alta Mesa and Arastradero, a short 15
block from El Camino. I’ve lived there for 25 years and I’ve had kids at Walter Briones and 16
Gunn during that time.My gift to you is that I don’t have a PowerPoint presentation. I just have 17
some impressions as someone who has lived there for 25 years. I was part of the original group 18
at Gunn who got all this going several years ago when talking about the safety, especially on 19
Arastradero and my impression, which I don’t think is measurable, is that the psychology of 20
Arastradero has changed in my view for the better in the sense that it is no longer a freeway 21
psychology. If a pedestrian now looks as if he or she wants to cross Arastradero, people tend to 22
notice them, slow down and stop. That was never the case for years before this restriping 23
project. 24
25
Just for our little block of Alta Mesa, before the restriping we were prisoners on the block during 26
rush hour because it was simply impossible to get out of that block until rush hour was over. The 27
miracle of Keep Clear has changed that dramatically for us and I think a lot of the other markings 28
along that stretch of Arastradero have improved things dramatically in various ways. We have 29
our own issues about problems that happen on our block because of things that go on in that area 30
and I sympathize with the people who are on other blocks like Amaranta and Mabel and the 31
problems they have, but I’ve walked in those neighborhoods and on those streets early in the 32
morning for years and years and years and the problems with increasing traffic in those areas 33
really significantly predated anything that went on in the way of restriping on Arastradero. 34
Thanks.35
36
Chair Tuma: Thank you. Jackie Berman to be followed by Don Nielson.37
38
Page 18
Jackie Berman:Thank you. My name is Jackie Berman. I live at 810 Miranda Green which is 1
right off of Miranda Avenue in the back of the Alta Mesa Cemetery. I picked up one comments 2
as someone who spoke before me did made by the staff that in order to solve some problem 3
which I am not clear what the problem is, that cars would be encouraged to go to Miranda and 4
make a u-turn. I am not sure which side of Arastradero that Miranda that they would be5
encouraged to make a u-turn on is. If it is south, it would be where our houses are, if north, it 6
would be where the Veteran hospital is, that general location. I think either way would be a very 7
big mistake to encourage cars to make u-turns on the very narrow roads. We’ve had very many 8
problems as I’m sure you are aware, on Miranda, and encouraging cars to make u-turns is not a 9
move toward safety. Thank you. 10
11
Chair Tuma:Thank you. Don Nielson to be followed by our final speaker, Robert Neff. 12
13
Don Nielson:I’m Don Nielson. I live at 850 Miranda Green. I sent you an email today but just 14
in case it didn’t land, three quick things that I thought are worth considering. First of all, I’m not 15
sure the statistics gathered so far are in any sense comprehensive enough to deal with the 16
problem. It would be better, I believe, to first survey the data and the day variation and see when 17
those peaks really do occur and then do the traffic analysis accordingly rather than in two, 18
somewhat arbitrary, half hour periods.19
20
Another has to do with, I think by and large westbound is working okay. Eastbound I think it 21
really stinks. There is one little place in front of Terman, where you essentially get in a drag race 22
and there are two lanes, a very brief two lanes. Those two lanes are an occasion for the more 23
aggressive drivers to pull around and then try to get out and gain an advantage in a frustrating 24
line. If we are going to go ahead for another year on this, and I hope we do, it seems like a right 25
turn only turn lane might fix that so the traffic doesn’t assume the preferred route if you go 26
straight rather than doubling out into the second lane, just as a suggestion.27
28
The other thing that seemed to happen at the beginning of the whole Charleston and Arastradero 29
project was light timing, the synchronization of lights. I have not seen that. I have spent literally 30
a half hour getting from Miranda to Bay Shore and today it took me 45 minutes to get here from 31
my home in Miranda, 45 minutes to get here. That may be okay if we were walking or cycling 32
but right now it doesn’t fit the anticipation that we all have and maybe that needs changing but at 33
any rate, I would encourage you to extend this for another period of time so we can really get at 34
some of the nuances we haven’t gotten at yet. Thank you.35
36
Chair Tuma:Thank you. And our final speaker for the evening, Robert Neff. Welcome.37
38
Page 19
Robert Neff:Hello, I’m Robert Neff. I live at 3150 Emerson Street which is not in the 1
neighborhood but I’ve been commuting by bicycle from down Arastradero for about 14 years, 2
especially in the evening. So, the improvement to the Arastradero corridor has been positive for 3
me, I think, as a cyclist. The protected left turns are nice. The slower traffic speed makes it feel 4
safer. Although the other effect of the single lane is that the traffic comes through in a steady 5
stream and sometimes there isn’t a chance to get across a lane of traffic if you’re trying to get to 6
the protected left turn lane. The other thing about bicycling down Arastradero is that the 7
intersection at El Camino Real is the worst in the city. For any street that has bike lanes on it, it 8
is the worst. So improving that can’t come soon enough and the danger at that intersection is 9
way worse than anything cyclists experience on Arastradero the rest of the way through. 10
11
The other thing is I have experienced, for 14 years or so, occasionally commuting up Arastradero 12
in the morning or dropping my kids off at Gunn High School, and I must concur with other 13
speakers to say that the throughput is much worse. The backup across Charleston is really 14
unprecedented until this happened and so I hope that the proposed changes to the bell schedule 15
will improve that and stretch things out better but also I think that just the flow through, if there 16
are creative ways to improve the flow up Arastradero and keep the average speeds where they 17
are now which is pleasant around 25 to 30 mph, that’s perfect. At the same time, get more cars 18
through when they need to and there is certainly an opportunity for creative traffic engineering. 19
20
Chair Tuma:Okay, great. Thank you. With that, we will close the public comment period and 21
come back to the Commission. Commissioners, why don’t we go first round of five minutes 22
each to those who have comments or questions and we’ll go from there. We’ll start with 23
Commissioner Keller.24
25
Commissioner Keller:Thank you. So first, let me thank staff for their work on this effort and 26
also in terms of improving the trial over the last year or so.I think those improvements have 27
made a difference. Secondly, I’d like to thank the people who were involved in this and people 28
who have worked on this over the years and thirdly, I’d like to thank all the people who are here 29
and have voiced an opinion either in favor or opposed to it. Hopefully we’ll be able to come up 30
with something that will be as good as possible although it obviously is not possible to satisfy 31
everybody in all constraints. It is what we call in optimization, an over constrained problem and 32
therefore you try to do the best you can with the constraints you have.33
34
I was going to ask whether you are putting electrophacal charges on coolant. No, just kidding. 35
So, the first thing is in terms of evaluating this, I noticed that Rich Ellson had some data on 36
VTA. I’m wondering if it would also be possible with VTA data to go back to consistent VTA37
bus stop at Middlefield and Charleston because that one might give us the missing data that goes 38
across between Alma and El Camino and it would be helpful to do that. In particular, I vaguely 39
remember there were end to end data all the way from Fabian to the end of the corridor at 40
Page 20
Miranda so it would be helpful to go back and compare the end to end data with this to the end to 1
end data at the end.2
3
Secondly, I think it would be interesting to think about evaluating this in June rather than 4
evaluating it in August. I think June will allow us to do the count data in the April and May 5
timeframe hopefully in a consistent weather pattern as was done before that and that would allow 6
us to consider any changes that the commission and the council talked about doing over the 7
summer of 2012 rather than having that happen during the school year after school starts. 8
Remember that the summer of 2012 will actually be shorter because Gunn High School and the 9
other schools will end at the same time as they did in the spring but they’ll start a week earlier 10
because of the change to pre-break finals will happen in the 2012-2013 school year so therefore 11
we need to be cognizant of when that change is.12
13
I think that the left turn lanes, from my experience in driving that corridor for a number of years, 14
is that the left turn lanes do dramatically reduce the variance. Before left turn lanes were there, 15
people would go in the left lane, move along, and then somebody would try to make a left turn, 16
you’d get stuck and you’d try and move around to the right. There were rear-end accidents, side 17
swipe accidents, so that we have to take into account. 18
19
I think that it makes sense to help Arastradero West in terms of providing access to that however, 20
they did something that was not nice to Gunn High School and that is they closed off access to 21
bicycles, through the San Francisco Water Department Hetch Hetchy pipeline. They take that 22
land, public land from Hetch Hetchy and it used to be that bicyclists used to be able to get onto 23
the Gunn High School driveway without going all the way to corner of Gunn High School which 24
is much faster and reduces the car impacts. So I think that if they want better access for them, 25
they should provide better access for Gunn. It is perfectly fine to close that driveway, close off 26
the gates at the point and time when school starts. So if you wait until 10 minutes after school 27
starts and then close the gate, perfectly fine, but during that morning rush hour it would be 28
helpful for those bikes to go through there. I think those are helpful. I have a few more 29
comments later on but I think those are my initial comments. I’ll give them a later round. Thank 30
you.31
32
Chair Tuma:Commissioner Garber.33
34
Commissioner Garber:Comments. I see three things, that the study has not been completed 35
given its initial definitions. Two, that in the course of the study the variables have changed 36
which includes the Gunn information about their timing and periods, etc. and that the collection 37
of the existing data is incomplete. For those three reasons if no others, I believe the study needs 38
to be continued and I would support the staff’s recommendation that the study be continued.39
Page 21
1
This isn’t a project that is being foisted on our community. It is a trial and it has errors and as a 2
result it is structured in a way that we can address those errors and study them further and work 3
to correct them over time. The things that it appears to me need further study include all of the 4
things that have been mentioned today, but some of the things I wrote down, the u-turn on 5
Miranda, the El Camino intersection cut through, the eastbound traffic issues. But in general I’m 6
not hearing any need to change the goals of the trial or the effort that is in there.7
8
The last thing I wanted to mention is that there are comments about disregarding drivers and I 9
think that is probably a real comment but I interpret it differently and that is that I don’t think 10
there is disregard for drivers but I do believe the community has changed over the last 10 years 11
since the study has started and with increasing velocity it has changed even more quickly in 12
recent years to a re-evaluation or allocation of the values that driving has in our community. Its 13
not that driving has been disregarded or lowered in value, it’s that the pedestrian involvement 14
and biking involvement in our community has risen. As a result, you end up with streets such as 15
Arastradero which have historically been more cut through. I am going to get from El Camino to 16
the research park as fast as possible, but it also has residential uses and school uses, and children, 17
etc. so its not the freeway experience that some of the residents have described. It is a mixed and 18
really the street of our future which requires us to be able to slow down, requires us to rethink 19
about what this is and to accept slower drive through times as a result of the things I think are 20
now valued by our community. Thank you.21
22
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez.23
24
Commissioner Martinez:I kind of heard something a little bit different, Jaime, when you were 25
talking about the u-turn at Miranda and I thought it was the u-turn for the residents to be able to 26
head east. Isn’t that what you were pointing to and not to be able to cut through Miranda?27
28
Mr. Rodriguez: That’s right, Commissioner Martinez. The goal of this left turn pocket that is 29
shown here, westbound is going towards the exit of the Council Chambers and this is going 30
through Gunn High School. This particular striping option does two things. It provides left turn 31
storage for the residents who live on Miranda today if you are trying to turn on Miranda. It’s the 32
one place on the corridor on Miranda that we didn’t introduce left hand storage from so it 33
provides an opportunity for left hand storage. It does allow u-turn opportunity for the people that 34
can make the u-turn in a car back towards eastbound and allows them to turn into the street and 35
u-turn within Miranda. That happens today. It’s not something we want to encourage but it 36
allows that access to happen more easily through the introduction of the left hand pocket. So I 37
guess I should correct that and say we don’t want to encourage, but there were some concerns 38
expressed by one of the public speakers regarding u-turns on that street, but that is what happens 39
today so we’re trying to make access a little safer on that road as well.40
Page 22
1
Commissioner Martinez:Thank you. And I wanted to ask, is it really police data in terms of 2
traffic, ticketing, accidents, and like that, that you can cite?3
4
Mr. Rodriguez:We don’t have any data that we can cite here today. That’s part of the analysis 5
that we’re saying we really haven’t focused too much on yet because the corridor has gone 6
through so much change in the last year and as of tomorrow we’ll be technically complete and so 7
we haven’t focused too much on collision or citations given. 8
9
Commissioner Martinez: And then, I’m not really sure I heard, I know about the bell schedule at 10
Gunn and that sounds like a real positive move but I don’t think I’ve heard, or perhaps you can 11
recap just what is being done or has been done in terms of the improvement at the schools, in 12
terms of the city’s response to public safety and making the streets safer and access around the 13
schools. Is there something specific that we’ve done apart from what the schools themselves are 14
doing?15
16
Mr. Rodriguez:Through the design of this project, working when Charleston Road was 17
implemented, Phase 1 of that implementation back in 2006 included driveway modifications to 18
Gunn High School, specifically as Penny mentioned in the previous comments, the addition of a 19
fifth lane in the westbound direction, is a dedicated right turn lane to feed into Gunn High 20
School. At the same time, Gunn High School also made configuration changes into their parking 21
lot to require vehicles to go in, circulate in a counterclockwise manner, and then back out along 22
the corridor. So those are the specific modifications that happened in that area to move traffic 23
into and out of that parking lot. 24
25
Commissioner Martinez:But in addition to that, any other traffic calming efforts, signage, 26
striping, anything that we’ve added or are adding over the next year?27
28
Mr. Rodriguez:Historically we’ve added speed bumps along Mabel, striping along Mabel to 29
encourage speed reductions to the high school. Within the next year, if this trial were to be 30
extended, we haven’t identified anything specifically within the parking lot at this time. I think 31
that as Gunn High School begins to reach its construction phase for the improvements, we are 32
going to work closely with them to make sure the construction improvements they are doing 33
doesn’t significantly impact the operations along Arastradero Road.34
35
Commissioner Martinez:Okay, good. Kind of a comment. I don’t think I’ve heard kind of such 36
disparate positions on an issue as I have in reading our email and some of the comments tonight. 37
Page 23
Its easy to understand the differences or different points of view from commuters or drivers 1
coming from Foothill to El Camino versus people with children and the schools, pedestrians and 2
bikers, but we’re also hearing it from people who live in the neighborhood and feel that its made 3
traffic congestion worse and do you have really a sense that you can make a response that 4
somehow a part of what Commissioner Garber said, our values are changing, something that 5
really is making it better for the neighborhood for those people that are seeing the impact of 6
traffic congestion?7
8
Mr. Rodriguez:I’ll try and answer that question for you. I think that what we’re seeing is a 9
positive impact to the community and has been in line with some of the residents of the street, 10
more specifically that the addition of the left turn access into the street, the left hand turn lanes 11
and safety of the street has been the number one comment from residents, that it feels safer. You 12
can actually get out of the through lanes into the dedicated area to make a left turn and that alone 13
changes the street. If we are to move forward into an extension phase and eventually be 14
implemented, the number one thing that will be the biggest improvement long term will be the 15
addition of landscape median islands. That is one of the biggest benefits of a project like this at 16
any street. Its great as a trial and makes you understand how the street would operate but really 17
until those final improvements are in you don’t see the benefits of what the project can truly be 18
like because the addition of large landscaped trees along the corridor visually break up the 19
corridor as you are looking down the street. It narrows down the feel of the lanes and forces 20
people to slow down even more. It is unfortunate we don’t have the capital resources to 21
implement improvements along Charleston. Its in the CIP now for the first time and constantly 22
trying to pursue funding for that corridor but that would be the other piece that long term would 23
have a large positive impact from a commute corridor as well as property value and just an 24
aesthetic benefit through the corridor but that will take time to see.25
26
Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tanaka.27
28
Commissioner Tanaka:So first let me say thank you for all your work on this. It looked pretty 29
comprehensive and thank you everyone for coming out tonight and giving us your comments. I, 30
also, am in favor of extending the trial for many of the same reasons that Commissioner Garber 31
highlighted. It seems to make sense. There is more data to be collected with the introduction of 32
new bell times so it makes sense but I did have a few questions about some of the things I heard 33
in the public comments that perhaps you could address. The first question I have for you is, I 34
know there is a bike trail that goes along Gunn and continues along the other side of the 35
cemetery. What’s the plan to allow bikers to cross? How do they cross? What’s the thought 36
behind that?37
38
Mr. Rodriguez:I think we’re talking about on the south side of Arastradero Road that goes 39
along the edge of the cemetery. There is a connection in the neighborhood to the south of that. 40
Is that the trail you are speaking to?41
Page 24
1
Commissioner Tanaka:Yes, there are two bike trails and then there is Arastradero which 2
because there is quite a bit of traffic on there people have a hard time crossing. I heard that from 3
one of the speakers. Because it is a major bike route, how do people cross that? 4
5
Mr. Rodriguez:What we’ve observed is if you are on either side, most people don’t continue 6
straight. That is not a location we’d recommend for people to go straight. Most people, if 7
they’re coming from the south they’d be on that trail and cross at the Gunn High School 8
intersection…9
10
Commissioner Tanaka:No, I’m talking about the bike trail that goes around Gunn High School 11
and it goes across Arastradero near the cemetery. Along the cemetery there is a bike route. 12
There is no crossing. There is nothing. On the east, west side. 13
14
Mr. Rodriguez:I think the location we’re talking about is here, this is the entrance, the Hetch 15
Hetchy right away. What we’ve seen is people who are coming through this corridor will stay on 16
the south side of Arastradero Road and then cross up towards Gunn. In the egress of the after 17
school, we’ve observed people crossing and then staying along Arastradero and then getting back 18
onto the trail at this point. That’s what our observations are. I haven’t seen any pedestrian 19
traffic at all crossing in this particular area.20
21
Commissioner Tanaka:I’ve seen people crossing at Georgia instead of going along the Gunn 22
High School driveway.23
24
Mr. Rodriguez:So you’ve seen people come through here and then cross at Georgia? You 25
know, I’ll be honest, I haven’t really observed that. We can look for that and see if there are 26
opportunities to cross at Georgia and put it into the trial extension if that were to happen.27
28
Commissioner Tanaka:The second question is, are you going to extend the peak measuring time 29
from the half hour to maybe 7 to 9 a.m.? 30
31
Mr. Rodriguez:That is a really good suggestion. I think that what we did initially was we were 32
actually looking at that whole corridor from 7:30 to about 8:30 and 9:00. We focused on doing 33
our trial time runs during that half hour because that’s the period in which the schools were all 34
converging onto Arastradero Road. I think as the trial were to extend with the council’s support, 35
Page 25
we would want to take additional run times to address the benefit we’ve seen at varying times up 1
until 9:00 if that’s what’s needed.2
3
Chair Tuma:Vice Chair Lippert.4
5
Vice Chair Lippert:Thank you. First, I’d like to thank the members of the community for 6
coming out. It is a very important part of our deliberations to be able to hear what members of 7
the communities have to say. Our staff writes an excellent report in coming up with their 8
recommendations here. It’s really the citizens of Palo Alto that need to live with this and so its 9
really important that we hear your comments and take those into account in terms of our 10
recommendation here to Council. 11
12
I have a couple of questions for staff and first of all, metrics regarding level of service at the 13
intersections. Do we have any metrics on that at all?14
15
Mr. Rodriguez:We have the data now. We collected data at the end of spring term. We don’t 16
have it in context of the level of service. One of the things we do know is that because we 17
preserved the lane configurations through most of the intersections, where there were four lanes 18
for example, those are still maintained, in theory that doesn’t impact level of service because we 19
know the volumes are the same. So level of service really hasn’t been the most positive way to 20
measure the effects of the corridor because from a computer model standpoint the levels will 21
remain the same. That’s why we focused data collection on travel time because that’s what’s 22
more quantifiable with people’s comments.23
24
Vice Chair Lippert:With regard to the construction that is going on at the tree house, has that 25
impacted the service at all here? Has that been an impact that has thrown things off a little bit?26
27
Mr. Rodriguez:You’re referring to the developments on the north side of Charleston before El 28
Camino Real. We haven’t observed that. There were strict requirements on that project through 29
its construction phase that required construction after a certain period if it required a lane closure, 30
so we haven’t observed their construction to be impact in the morning or the evening.31
32
Vice Chair Lippert:With regards to my feelings on this, this is definitely a work in progress. I 33
would support continuing the trial and part of the reason why that is it first of all has not been 34
fully implemented. There are some things that still need to be accomplished or finished before 35
we can adequately evaluate this. In terms of the gathering of the information, until those 36
Page 26
improvements are made there is no data, there is no final data on the system, whether it is going 1
to work or not, so it is one of those deals where we have to wait and see once all the 2
improvements have been accomplished but once they have been, a very important part is to go 3
back to the community and find out what works and what doesn’t work and to tweak it. 4
5
I live in downtown north. I’ve lived in downtown north for the last over 25 years and we had our 6
own little traffic calming project, trial and I live on Hawthorne Avenue. Hawthorne Avenue you 7
may not know is the furthest most street in Palo Alto that actually connects Middlefield Road to 8
Alma so we were basically an extension of Willow Road and that’s how people got through the 9
neighborhoods to get to Stanford. So, they did the traffic calming trial there and the neighbors 10
were basically split. A lot of people were opposed to it, a lot of people for it. Ultimately what 11
was initially recommended was not fully implemented but there were parts that came out of it 12
that were implemented and it did change the way people drive through our neighborhood and it 13
is a much calmer, safer neighborhood. This is particularly important because I’ve observed that 14
neighborhood change over the years and go from, I hate to use the words, slackers and college 15
students and people that were just single people working, to becoming a family neighborhood 16
with lots of kids and I’ve seen the kids grow up in the neighborhood and I’ve seen the kids grow17
up and go off to college and with that, that traffic calming was particularly important in terms of 18
having life on the street and people use the streets and when I talk about that, I’m talking about 19
the citizens or the residents in that neighborhood, not the cut through traffic.20
21
So with regard to what is being proposed here, until it is completed and the trial is able to 22
actually take some real measurements and the citizens and residents are able to respond to the 23
pros and cons, I think it is still a work in progress and so it should be continued at least through I 24
would say, as Commissioner Keller suggested, to June of 2012.25
26
Chair Tuma:Okay, a few questions. What time does Terman start?27
28
Mr. Rodriguez:Terman starts at 8:10.29
30
Chair Tuma:So in terms of the discussion that has been had this evening around timing of peak 31
times, I think at minimum, 9:00 if not 9:15 this needs to go until. When looking at the new bell 32
times you’ve got 8:30 at Gunn, 9:00 at Bowman, 8:10 at Terman so there is a stretch there. 33
Going 7:30 to 8:00 definitely doesn’t cut it. You’ve got a bell time until 9 and my own 34
experience going through town, I don’t know whether it is Silicon Valley and everyone sleeps 35
late or what, but this isn’t done at 8 or 8:30. The congestion lives until at least 9:00 so I think 36
9:15 for an observation time frame makes sense. Did I hear right that in terms of implementation 37
you are going to be done tomorrow? Okay. So one of the reasons we’ve had a year long process 38
here is because we haven’t been able to implement a shortage of materials on availability of 39
Page 27
equipment and also getting feedback as we go along so it definitely makes sense to me to 1
continue the trial but the question I have is, why a year? We clearly want to see how things go 2
with the new bell schedule, we want to see how things go through the start of school, maybe 3
even a little bit into the winter months, but why a full year? Why not look at this again in six 4
months or seven months and evaluate it then as opposed to a whole year. There may very well 5
be good reasons so I wanted to hear what the thinking was, why a full 12 months.6
7
Mr. Rodriguez:That’s a good question and there are several reasons why we recommend a one 8
year extension. One of them is to provide a consistency with the trial along Charleston Road. 9
Charleston Road went through that full two year trial. We want to get at least one year of data 10
and we are going to have that starting in the fall and after the improvements we have already 11
made and we currently propose to be implemented at the end of this month and early August, 12
with the support of yourselves and the Council, I think there really isn’t too many more things 13
that I can think of that we can do along Arastradero Road to help improve things. We’ve heard 14
other recommendations that we can look at tonight such as, a right turn only lane into Terman. 15
I’m not sure if that’s feasible or not. We can look at it and respond later, but we have a year’s 16
worth of data during various seasons and so now with a permanent implementation we can 17
compare that data with the data of the previous year. It may not be a full comparison because 18
we’d make minor improvements along the way, but we have something we can compare to say, 19
what was the change like in relation to the bell schedule change and help us get a better measure 20
of what the traffic is like. So that is why we recommend a year. Plus, if we did a shorter 21
analysis it would be harder to change that without significant impacts. Change the corridor 22
without significant impacts to the school traffic because if we chose to remove it we would have 23
to wait until the summertime anyways so it makes sense to wait out that full year.24
25
Chair Tuma:That was going to be my next question. In terms of implementation, not exactly 26
work wise but timeframe wise, both if the implementation was to take it away, or the 27
implementation was to make it permanent, how long does that process take?28
29
Mr. Rodriguez:If we were doing a retention beyond the one year, meaning that it was to remain 30
permanent, there would be no more change needed. The project would remain as it is. If there 31
was a recommendation at the end of the trial period to remove the improvements, then we would 32
still be looking at more than likely to wait until the next resurfacing season which would 33
typically for us be that summertime period. We use the spring to design the projects that we 34
want to resurface. We put them out to bid, develop plans and specifications and then begin 35
construction usually around that end of spring, beginning of summertime period.36
37
Chair Tuma:So if the conclusion was to pull this stuff out, really, in order to do that next year, 38
you’d need to make that decision in the spring time in order to design the changes and do the 39
resurfacing over the summer. I mean if you wait a full year and so we’re not going to make a 40
decision until the middle of July then you’ve missed the resurfacing season and you don’t have 41
Page 28
an opportunity to pull out those changes and make those implementations in the resurfacing 1
season.You’re getting awfully close to the start of the school year again. I hear what you’re 2
saying about a full year of data, but at the same time as you’ve sort of acknowledged, you are not 3
really comparing apples because the data from this last year, while relevant, isn’t necessarily a 4
direct comparison because you are going to make significant changes. You are going to see 5
changes with the bell schedule so again, I’m wondering, does this make more sense to evaluate 6
through, say February, and then evaluate and look at it at that point. Because if you decide to 7
pull some things out you have time to design those and then get them implemented in that 8
resurfacing season or in the summertime in order for it to be ready in the fall for the school year.9
10
Mr. Rodriguez:One of the things that is nice about this project now is that we have the design 11
files ready to make any types of changes right away. So even if we moved to a trial extension 12
for a full year, it would actually be very simple for us to immediately develop a set of plans that 13
would be implemented in the coming resurfacing year relatively quick. It is an option to do an 14
extension through the spring timeframe but what we saw was a pretty good spike in data over 15
this past year, even with the changes that we had made where during that winter season there was 16
a drop in bicycle and pedestrian traffic because of the heavy rain. Luckily one of the things that 17
I’ve seen in Palo Alto that I don’t see in too many others is that even though there was rain, there 18
were still a lot of kids biking. That was a positive thing I experienced when I was there watching 19
traffic. It was pretty amazing to me to see that even though we had bad weather there was still a 20
commitment from our community to continue that alternative mode toward school. That spike 21
was up again in the spring significantly and so that was one of the data points that we want to 22
capture through a year extension.23
24
Chair Tuma:Okay, I’ve got one last question and then we’ll move on. The issue that 25
Commissioner Keller raises with respect to the gate being closed by the Arastradero West 26
community. What are your thoughts on your ability to force trade that, or something, because 27
that does seem sort of… I don’t know what the background is or what the issues were, the 28
reasons for them wanting that to get locked off but what are your thoughts on that?29
30
Mr. Rodriguez:I’ll be honest, not knowing the history prior to that either, we do have a fairly 31
good relationship with the Arastradero West apartment management staff and we can definitely 32
have that discussion within the near term to talk about that opportunity to open up those gates on 33
a timed basis. We do recognize concerns, the impacts regarding the loss of the full access of 34
their driveways, and came up with a pretty good alternative in working with them to try and 35
solve that. There is an openness on their part to work with us and make this project successful 36
and improve the benefits of their residence. We can definitely do that and report back to you as a 37
Commission.38
39
Chair Tuma:I think Commissioner Keller has a motion for us.40
Page 29
1
Commissioner Keller:Yes. Let me just finish up with a few points and questions and then I’ll 2
give my motion. With respect to the gate, I believe the reason the Arastradero West apartments 3
closed the gate is that students were hanging out there during the school day and that was very 4
annoying to the residents there is what I was told so if the gate was open during the morning 5
commute and then closed that would solve the problems of the apartment as far as I know as well 6
as provide the needs for Gunn High School.7
8
What is the story about synchronizing the lights on Charleston and Arastradero? Is that going to 9
be done? Has it been done? What’s the status of that?10
11
Mr. Rodriguez:Coordination along Arastradero Road today, and I’ll start with Arastradero 12
Road, it doesn’t exist. The reason why coordination doesn’t exist is that specifically during that 13
commute period, that all pedestrian phase, when we are seeing that spike of traffic, that all 14
pedestrian phase doesn’t allow for implementation of coordination between Coulombe and 15
Donald Terman. We plan to try to reintroduce the option for coordination with this new bell 16
schedule change because we feel there is going to be enough traffic to help move along the 17
corridor after the bell change has taken effect.18
19
On Charleston Road, we don’t have coordination either but we are actually in the process of 20
doing a couple of different projects in Palo Alto. I’ll try not to take too long but we have one 21
project which will actually replace our traffic signal controllers and our central system that 22
monitors that traffic system starting this fall. We are just waiting for authorization to expend 23
grant funds to secure that project. The second project is actually one we are working on with 24
coordination with CalTrans and VTA. We are actually beginning an upgrade of traffic signal 25
control equipment along Alma Street. We actually already replaced the older controllers we 26
were planning to replace in the fall along Alma at Meadow, at Churchill and at Charleston. As 27
part of that implementation, this is a comment that I’ve heard a lot in relation to people crossing 28
Alma just recently from the audience tonight. When we made these controller changes, we did 29
actually change the recovery sequence in terms of a railroad preemption. When we had a 30
railroad preemption in the past, the signal went straight to serve westbound Meadow, Charleston 31
and Churchill and then it went to the opposite side in the eastbound direction. As part of the 32
change, until all the equipment replacements are done, and we should be done next week we left 33
in the standard preemption, which was leave it on Alma and let it cycle naturally back to where it 34
will be based on demand. We are looking at recovery options which will then implement 35
additional coordination improvements along Alma as well as across Charleston Road.36
37
Commissioner Keller:I understand that there is going to be several thousand new employees at 38
VMware, is that right? And I’m wondering if you will do simulation analysis to see what the 39
impact of that additional traffic and employment will be on the Charleston Arastradero corridor?40
41
Mr. Rodriguez: In relation to VMware, the improvements that are happening now at the 42
VMware site are tenant specific improvements to the existing buildings. VMware is beginning 43
to occupy vacant buildings that are on the site that they are consolidating their full campus to. 44
So within the near term, which I would say about 2 years and if Curtis has any additional 45
comments he can add this in, within 2 years we don’t see any increase in traffic because all that 46
Page 30
is happening is that the existing sites are consolidated into one area so any volumes of traffic on 1
Arastradero should not increase in relation to VMWare but as VMWare begins to master plan 2
out its site which they are barely in the beginning stages of doing then whatever potential 3
increases in traffic can occur as a result of their new improvements, be can begin to work with 4
them as part of their TDM program, to implement some type of monitoring state. We are going 5
to be collecting more data along Arastradero Road and will capture changes as they are 6
happening as well. 7
8
Commissioner Keller: I think people mentioned the idea of merge directions, whether you 9
merge to the left or right, for traffic calming that it makes sense to always have the left merge 10
into the right if we can do that. I’m not sure if that’s always feasible.11
12
Mr. Rodriguez:That’s a good question and really whether you merge right or left isn’t a 13
function of you do it one way all the time. It’s a really a function of the geometry of the 14
roadways and that’s what’s been an issue in this project. We didn’t put merges without thinking 15
about it. I’ll start with the eastbound direction. The traffic #1 lane eastbound direction is 16
actually the lane that ends, that’s why you merge from the left to the right and when you are 17
actually past Terman, its actually the right lane that ends and that is in relation to the left turn 18
access lanes that were installed along the corridor so whether you merge left or right is really a 19
function of the geometry of the roadway, it isn’t a preference or right way to go, and that’s what 20
dictated this particular design.21
22
The same happens in the opposite direction. If you are coming westbound from El Camino Real 23
and the changes have been made, its again the #1 lane also that merges from left to right and as 24
we approach Donald Terman, that’s when the road again goes to two full lanes and is maintained 25
in that direction, so the merges we have again are geometry, not functions of the right or wrong 26
way to design merges.27
28
MOTION29
30
Commissioner Keller:Thank you. So let me make a motion that we continue the trial with the 31
improvements that have been made and that we come back in the June timeframe for results after 32
the data has been analyzed through the spring of the 2011 –2012 academic year.33
34
SECOND35
36
Vice Chair Lippert:Second. 37
38
Commissioner Garber: Are we making a recommendation to Council? 39
40
Commissioner Keller:Yes, I’m recommending that the trial be continued through…41
42
Commissioner Garber:You’re recommending to Council that the trial be continued? I didn’t 43
hear that.44
45
Page 31
Commissioner Keller:We are recommending to the Council that the trial be continued with 1
coming back to us in the June July timeframe. Okay. So a couple things, first of all I think that 2
because this project was essentially not completed until I guess tomorrow when the light at 3
Coulombe is being completed implemented that essentially the data is based on changes that are 4
happening. Secondly, I think that the dramatic change to the Gunn High School start time and 5
that being delayed half hour means that Terman and Gunn no longer conflict with each other so 6
people going to Gunn no longer have to wait through the Terman 90 second period of time, or 7
long period of time, when the students are crossing in all directions and that slowed down the 8
Gunn traffic dramatically so the Gunn traffic will now follow that so those changes alone justify 9
seeing what happens based on them. 10
11
I do think we need to be careful about some things. We have to think about what the impact of 12
later Gunn return traffic is. I don’t think that will be much of a problem but its worth taking into 13
account. I think its worth taking into account the impacts on other streets in Barron Park and 14
particularly one of the things that needs to be noted is I’ve heard anecdotal evidence that people 15
are dropping their kids off on Los Robles at the end where there is no u-turn allowed so instead 16
of u-turn they are backing up on Los Robles which is extremely dangerous because there are 17
bicyclists going the other way on Gunn so perhaps some enforcement from the police and other 18
analysis of that would be worthwhile and I think it would be interesting to see whether putting a 19
right turn from eastbound Arastradero into Terman might be useful to try to avoid the race 20
condition that is going on over there but I think there are things that can be done. I am 21
wondering if, without maybe having a session, if when there is a subsequent report or meeting 22
that happens, if you can sort of give us incremental data as a document to us without it having to 23
be an item so we can monitor it along the way, but that is just a request. 24
25
One last thing is that when you do your data analysis, it is useful to have a data analysis done by 26
half hour periods. Usually you do it over an average of 7:00 to 9:00. The data is too granular for 27
that to make sense so really we should have separate data from 7:00 to 7:30, 7:30 to 8:00, 8:00 to 28
8:30 and then from 8:30 to 9:00 because there are so many different things going on there that 29
understanding the data that goes on each half hour will be useful to realize what’s going on in the 30
corridor and the usual two hour average is just not useful enough. Thank you.31
32
Chair Tuma:Vice Chair Lippert, do you speak to your Second?33
34
Vice Chair Lippert:Yes, I am in support of the motion as stated. I think that tomorrow or 35
whenever you have this complete, it is not an end but in fact it’s a beginning so its important that 36
there actually be a full period by which the metrics can be made and evaluated but probably 37
what’s even more important than that and I hate to put you in such a delicate position but is to 38
hear from the community and what’s going to be important here is to be able to hear from the 39
residents of that area over that period of time and make adjustments. I think that looking at it 40
and seeing the level of services and how things move smoothly, what the accident rates are are 41
going to be particularly important and its truly not going to be able to be tested until the school 42
year begins and I think with the time shifting of when school begins and when school ends and 43
the different schools and commuting and all that is going to make a big difference in how this 44
functions particularly with so many high school students on their bicycles as well as those that 45
drive to Gunn.46
Page 32
1
So as I said before, it’s a work in progress and it needs to have a beginning of that trial period 2
once it’s been completed. 3
4
AMENDMENT TO MOTION5
6
Chair Tuma:Thank you. I’m going to offer a friendly amendment to motion and that is that the 7
trial be extended until the March timeframe with the notion that if there truly is additional time 8
needed, that staff can come back and ask for that. The reason I’m sort of pushing it forward a 9
little bit and balancing the time here is because there has been a great deal of consternation in the 10
community and I’m fond of the saying, I think you’ve all heard it by now, but we all tend to 11
grow to the size of our fishbowl. If there is a year to do the trial, we’ll take a year to do the trial 12
but to me I haven’t’ heard a compelling reason that it takes an entire year. Everything has now 13
been implemented, getting through the school year. So I think if there is a need to make 14
changes, if we wait until it comes back to us until June or July and then there are decisions to be 15
made, I’m afraid the changes don’t get made before the next school year starts. So its balancing 16
what actually will need to be done at the end of the trial if anything, in terms of implementation, 17
with the need to collect data, so I would rather see the recommendation that they extend it only 18
until March, we see what the data is at that point. If we need to extend it more we can but 19
otherwise are in a position for staff to come back with a recommendation about what the final 20
implementation should look like.21
22
Commissioner Garber:I’ll tell you why I would prefer it coming back at the end of the school 23
year and that is because…24
25
Commissioner Tanaka:Excuse me, do we have a Second to the motion? Don’t we need to do 26
that? Okay, who was it?27
28
Commissioner Keller:It was Lee. So can I respond to you before I accept it or reject you? So, 29
the issue is that the fall is different from the spring at Gunn High School and there are several 30
reasons. One reason is that in the fall you have a bunch of freshman coming onto campus who 31
are new, the parents are driving, and things don’t settle down for a few months in terms of the 32
traffic patterns on Arastradero once school starts. As soon as traffic patterns settle down the rain 33
starts and that starts a completely different traffic pattern and it gets busier then. Gunn High 34
School’s own timing on their driveway is in the spring after in the April May timeframe on a 35
clear reasonable warm day. That is when they do their timing so in some sense doing it in March 36
would still be the rainy season and we wouldn’t have any of the spring data. We might be able 37
to come back sooner than June but the issue is once you have data that covers early May you 38
really don’t have the spring data which is going to be qualitatively different than the fall. That’s 39
why I discuss that.40
41
Also, I think that the consideration that I see is that if the trial succeeds then obviously we just 42
keep it. If the trial fails, I don’t see us immediately going through a process of scrapping it and 43
going back to what? The question is to what? Even if the trial fails, I see us going through a 44
process that will take a number of months and figuring out what to replace it with. It’s not 45
simply restriping it back to the way it was before. It may be figuring out further changes to 46
Page 33
make, figuring out another configuration that’s better than what we had before and better than 1
what we have now so I think the design process is not going to be a simple revert or undo kind of 2
operation. At least that’s what I think but people may disagree. That’s why I think that the 3
advantage of starting in the June July timeframe allows us to do some of the design, put it into 4
the CIP process which starts in the fall and then it won’t happen in next year. If we do it in 5
August September timeframe it’s going to be hard to start in the CIP for the following year. I 6
think even if we make a decision in March, where is the money going to come from, how is it 7
going to be allocated, how will it fit into the CIP and we won’t be able to fix it anyway. 8
9
Chair Tuma:I understand the rationale. Mr. Planning Director,do you have any comments on 10
this timing issue?11
12
Mr. Williams:No, I think I’d probably yield to generally what Jaime said although it doesn’t 13
necessarily have to be a year but as far as the sense of how long it takes to implement changes 14
and so I guess my question would be of him, is it something that are we in a situation if we go 15
through March then decide over the course of a couple month of review probably to make 16
changes where they could be done in the summer and be ready in the fall or is it something that 17
would take longer anyway to incorporate? I’m assuming that as you go through and you have 18
your commissioning council that if there are decisions to be made they come out during that 19
process. Now there may be refinements to that too but at least some basic changes might be 20
decided on in that.21
22
Mr. Rodriguez:In this case, I think Commissioner Keller hit the nail on the head. If we want it 23
to go through just a March timeframe then we would need to agree what to go back to. If we 24
wanted to see a different type of design I don’t know if we could implement it fast enough 25
because we wanted to rebuild that community support again. If it was going to be as quick as go 26
back to just the four lanes then it could be implemented and even make a decision in the June 27
timeframe because we actually already have the design, it was just a matter of doing an 28
amendment against the CIP process. The bigger question is, if we don’t want to go back to the 29
four lanes and we have to introduce design options it is much longer of a period for the 30
community.31
32
Chair Tuma:Okay, I had a light from Commissioner Garber.33
34
Commissioner Garber:A couple of comments. I had actually thought the Chair was going to go 35
back and talk about the daily duration of observation to straddle the 9:00 period which he can 36
come back to. I recognize Commissioner Keller’s comments and our Chief Transportation 37
Official’s comments relative to how long it takes to process change through. It occurs to me that 38
maybe a way to think about this is the likelihood of something that isn’t working, will probably 39
be recognized fairly quickly and there are opportunities sort of on a quarterly basis for check in 40
as Commissioner Keller began to describe so maybe there is a check in in the January timeframe 41
and one in March to see where things are trending without taking up a lot of staff time to do a 42
full analysis at that point. Because then, if we get to March and things are clearly off rails and 43
we can make a preemptive recommendation at that point. Just a suggestion.44
45
Chair Tuma:Okay. Commissioner Martinez.46
Page 34
1
Commissioner Martinez:I think I fully agree with Commissioner Keller’s comments and why 2
we want to give this more time. I would also add Vice Chair Lippert’s comment about the 3
community process as well. We want to make sure that you have the opportunity to go back and 4
really have the kind of good extensive feedback from community as you’ve had to date. I just 5
want to add that I really want you to emphasize sort of the impact in your evaluation of what’s 6
happening in the neighborhoods and on the neighborhood streets because our public wasn’t 7
making that up today. There are some serious issues that aren’t going to be addressed by 8
landscaping and I’m not just saying this because I’m looking forward to the blueberry pancakes 9
next spring, but because I think it is a serious issue and when you do come back I’d like to hear a 10
little bit more about what really is going on there and what you are planning to do to address that. 11
12
Chair Tuma:Vice Chair Lippert.13
14
Vice Chair Lippert:I have one last comment. I look out into the audience here and I see adults 15
but one of the biggest users of that road are the high school and elementary school kids, also the 16
middle school kids. But I think it would be important to maybe hold some sort of community 17
meeting with the high school kids that are driving and get some of their feedback as well. I think 18
it’s really valuable and it seems to be lacking in this analysis. 19
20
Chair Tuma:Okay, with that Commissioners are we ready to vote? All those in favor of the 21
motion say I. Opposed? It passes unanimously with Commissioner Fineberg absent. Thank you 22
and we’ll close that item.23
24
MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Fineberg Absent)25
26
27
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
TbxJ R~v5lAvfiM( Hf1S fiT wo{('Jffd!.
J\U Lv{,t-\ fl;;' tc.:1i:-4> 0.~...e.b & ~t' S lta>eAJTS tD a1ViJ,-_
. N~ G VtPIJ" N t ~# S c-. DOL-.. "$ l Kt:£ S J d;'t Ub-e--bb-6
lPifA' · .--'
Contact: Transportation Division, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 /
650-329-2520/ Email: transportation@cityofpaloalto.org
C 7~r;-~c£4I/;;~3 )
·..··/c) .---'j'-eCL V' Jref I t&'/I.;t
-_ .... .....;...--.•. ~.~~~ -....... -_ ...... ---"--~~-. ---
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide cqrnments or Email to address below.
%(''1'€' tOtLV·e.. ~ee.V\... t\I\Ql'e.-O<.c-uc1enk ~ ~ t~,\-/
~~ ~~. ~~a1~~~ ~.
fh.cs 4= ok ~ W t~
flatU do VIe-+&[4 4ft tu...iY'1
~~
Contact: Transportation Division, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 /
650-329-2520/ Email: transportation@cityofpaloalto.org
\\ ~
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
~T MsJ it k ak(e~ +0
Contact: Transportatio
650-329-2520/ Email: f
I
--~~~~~~~~~~
'.
~-. '----------
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
~ -~ '\IlA..L~ \ J ']. lJ.. ~ r~ C? 5-
~b SU 1"¥-cJ>_ ~ 11.L-lt ~~
"'-~ '-'2-~ ~ ~
Contact: Transportation Division, City of Pal Alto, 250
650-329-2520 I Email: transportatiqn@cityofpaloalto.org
Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 /
~·~h +~(L
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
~ S(v"IM~WJ , I
a11-R. ~ mJ<9.. <.J1{;J t~yV\ I {j)g';sd: ()( JtgJ:
I
• I" ( ~~ ItSIS. ,-ff1&J
Conta t: Transportation Division, City ofPa.lo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA -9/301 /
650-329-2520 / Email: transportation@cityofpaloalto.org
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
The Ah.S'7c~q-a !Coaol ;'(19-Y-fI=/p'i.? lv:rl Cree>ft?
rj"eCl7' I~ COl/I'" ,'en Cf2 to. Ito af ( 1-P.J',W~0fs Otlo¥ de
sf;re-e f. T/'er-e are ofAf.QV tva yS" to Q j' J'tA I~ .=i\ t -fb 7
;7 I . 7 7
lite Ns7/--t'cfto(/{s' on ik lePf fUkt4£: shou~1 Le ~{~(~/J'ee/
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 N eighhorhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
b:i~ ?\blQ +1, .1·<H~ 1GB iv'd() 1k dL'\'£W(Uf5
0\ \-\. \J G-t i (\ C v\',,)\ (\ \ ~.¥\ ce Ar tyl(. Sf' (\ c:.Q .Z'
---.---:-
, {) , +, ()\I\ (~().( a ~ ~
=Xwri\. ,'fV\f\\.(Q t.OM bck +0 -He bJi'IJi"j',
A \ 50 +-. 0 f t\ \-0 (:.\ C Q VV1 : 11 () c",o\
Contact: Transport~tion DI ision,. Ci ~fPal0 Alto, 250 HaIDilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 / ~
650-329-2520 / EmaIl: transportatIon(aJ,cltyofpaloalto.org
,v ,l b J ~ J *C; -3-}.
0t 0+ ¥1>'f N }(' ) )<? C;~
Li: Cu[~+OW~S' G" :'~~ \'V~ ~5'S,\ <;~~1-'iJ~lQJ
i}.J-~ / ) N a 0 b V \ ~oC:f) ;-,
')\./~.~~
·t-v Vfr 1--(l )~ O)II:J\{A -t~ l''» :1
}-> I) d-I -:J; 'n1CV' -f J 0 \ \p \I.f <t +
ff) \1,: <>J\'>'C;:\')",\ YJ c;,
'011 ~..-~ C vl. ~. ~, -\-Q \j
"---
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
We... fOA.-iYld Oyr.seJiJe~q locAe-cf a.{~·~te~r-blLe.~
£Cf.%t y~r re -STriP t' ng.. ~ ~ -<L.u.-rr--O--f.-t-"'--~ "'-r:!
cVr.-a-&..f7/'Gt of e-vo kol 15 01 ~.ud2;r-f-D~·d
(Ud ~Kod(t clR~.b-£J a.dttp jOaAicyre . .!tJ~~,
of ~ r~ad. tu~ {~ lU~ct to iU/ ~uec1-,~
t-~ '1Ji.dl.J ... ,ct -I..~~i-~~·'te.,ti-on-tu,.·· ... '-I. o· It-on·-€¥-{4.;tCA/LrU....-
?f-1et~ "-&"ft= .:tt-Vt-J.1/j. kk-:/tCI-iL.4R.O/QJfjMo...,i I. COM
Contact: TransportatIon Division, City ofPalo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 /
650-329-2520 / Email: transportation@cityofpaloalto.org
(t/ld--O 7;c.;-04dtiil.uo £d )
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
Ovr 6a~~ cJ; ouf ofo:-c}~ . (oVIb\IIQ§ rut! bee~
&vnp 6'Oh!\\ ~ IAJHh t1~ re-str"f [ r:j , .1:-1: \6, (j~\r ff
±U O\~ :J cJAo w t -e ..f --I-,+1.7 ('f17 go( re:? \~ -5 lI{over td::! V(lA'-+s ~ ') I
il
O",r\ ~ 0 ll' Jt}~ I;;> ( AJJ.-'\t.t1o· f v crt) (' (); h/rYV1)-f-C -{ l t/V'1f)
,W,\\ .. fx ~,Je('e~1 ll;OPCIdt-€fi hbr ~ o-F ()6 w~ YJee)
¥ ~ t;::1 CoM!~ J ~. J:c, ~ 6o+~ ~. :krfVrr--.
lJgb\'J.-eo ~~ bunn ~ Jr\j-e-~eu"~ vuV\ich 9
Contact: Transportation'Division, City ofPa.lo Alto, 250 Hamilton A ., Palo Alto, CA 94301 /
650-329-2520 / Email: transportation@cityofpaloalto.org . A . l _ ~~ l~ ~p('Opr ~M. W l'-:h,--~ uk +u_uI-6 ~, . \OO~l(V tJ-t ~"e k' IJ\ ~6'! b \ rJ, p(~~ te.+?~ rJL . ~ h"tt b . ~0bt-e hNi.:::, y{l ¥on-f.~)" 7;;1Y fJ('01~d. ---' ----..-...-.-------" -------~ -~,: -----
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neighborhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
t 1 I
:/~q:'~, J.JIJZ~0 ~/:t~:id7t'~~·~{t-~:J
, . tJ', r ~~'1 ~
Contact: Transportation Divisio ,City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA1l301 /
650-329-2520/ Email: transportation@cityofpaloalto.orgA··1 d' '1 r It J 'or/{ .r>t T h 1(/1 /CJ1 I . .1 ~. ,WlS/-e-/vL~ Jw f (#d./~t:'it;1;
\
Arastradero Road Restriping Trial Project
6/2/11 Neigbborhood Meeting
Please provide comments or Email to address below.
LAte Vu. till ey' ~( [0 d i7 \ ~~~~~~~~~~~/..i..=.l,' .,.-=..:::..YoyS.
~~~~~~~~~~':::':!'--~~~/--/i!=' dt.Jh'tlJA!
\t Wa.J ~kf.' lu<L'Jy ik (,UvrN sJ,.:'pi'~ /
.S1 ';,',' ' 0 I Un ' Uu. O\;lIJ.{WO-yS
Contact: Transportation Division, City of Palo Alto, 25 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 ! I
~ ~-:;~/t~l:~tt~aC£:it?or:;I~.or~ ~;~ ~ / ~?~,C~{!~, ~o Ll't ~ rfiLtJIAf! Il~ yJe':t ~ b~f of. f!CWf,~io~ J V""'-'t J.b~ l 1'. r~ -V(~ o-f AVtlJI-A(AAO l)l'.\f~"" £WJI (7II.hkl.s ~
Betten, Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Thursday, May 26,2011 10:19 AM
To: Rius, Rafael; Rodriguez, Jaime
Subject: FW: arastradero project
fyi
Zorich Betten 11
Planning Dept .. Ext. 2440
From: Denson, Mike
sent: Thursday, May 26,2011 9:27 AM
To: Scott Hayes; Transportation; Info, Plandlv
Subject: RE: arastradero project
Mr. Hayes,
I have asked to traffic motor team to respond and work this area for gridlock violations. They will be there as their
schedule allows.
Thank you for letting us know.
AlCaptain Mike Denson
Palo Alto Police Department
275 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA. 94301
650-743-9931
From: Scott Hayes [maftto:scottchayes@gmall.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:39 AM
To: Transportation; Info, Plandiv
Cc: Denson, Mike
Subject: arastradero project .
I am writing to provide feedback on the arastradero project as I live on Arastradero in Tan Plaza.
In short, it seems like the project has gone very well and I can truly say that I have been very
pleased with the results, especially with the crosswalk at Arastradero and Clemo as well as the striping
in the same area and the fuehouse that says DO NOT BLOCK (or something like that). In fact, it's been
great for kids going to Tennan and Gunn to use the crosswalk at Clemo.
However, two items still remain (at no fault of yours / palo alto, but that of drivers conununting in the
area). In short, during the school commute people still block the road at Clemo and Arastradero as well
as the firehouse driveway onto Arastradero. The cross walk and striping have helped, but many people
do ignore it and block the intersection nonetheless. I understand this is out of your control, as such I
have cc:d Captain Denson ofP APD who may have a solution and would be able to assist in this matter,
Is it possible to put an officer in a patrol car or motorcylce out there for a day or two to dissuade people
from blocking the road at Clemo as well as the fire department? I know when an officer was there telling
7/2112011
kids to wear hel?1ets on their bicycles it worked very well --in fact, nly son's friends said it did :)
In addition, there's the continued issue of people driving north on el camino then turning left onto
Arastradero blocking the intersection when the people (like us residents) are heading east bound from
arastradero making a left heading north on elcanlino in the nlOTIling. Honestly, without having an
officer enforce this or at least striping 1 a sign saying don't block the intersection this will clearly
continue and potentially cause an accident in the future as people blatently are one or two cars into el
camino blocking th~ intersection when we have the green light to tuTIlleft or at times when people ar
heading straight to go east continuing on arastradero.
Again, I think the project has been a success but just need to see how we can get people to stop blocking
those interesections at clemolarastradero and el canlino/arastradero during the school comnlute.
Keep up the good work and your help on this matter is greatly appreciated!
Best,
Scott Hayes
7/21/2011
\
Arastradero Road Re-Striping
Arastradero Road Re-Striping
James Burian [cone78@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 20116:39 PM
To: transportation@Cityofpaloalto.org
Cc: Arastradero West
Page10f1
'fh~~Tack~~f ~o~;ideni'tion t~~;Ide~t~'~A;~tradero W7sth;-b~~ egregio~"dttring the '~:;tripi;g'hHu.wm
project. . '
We now can no longer make a legal left tum into any of our 3 driveways anytime of the day or night.
Student hours are between 7:30 AM and 3:30 PM.
I suspect it is illegal to make any left tum from our driveways too.
Drivers seem so upset during rush hour with the long lines they now experience thanks to the re-striping
to never let us even make our legal right tum from our driveways.
Since there is a No U-Turn at Foothill Expressway, I still have not figured out a convenient, yet legal
way to head toward El Camino.
I hope you can do better to find reasonable solutions to our concerns as well as those of our bike riders
and pedestrians.
Sincerely yours,
James D Burianr>
724 Arastradero Road, #724
Palo Alto, CA
No PhonelFax
email: cone78@yahoo.com
https:l!owa.wres.com/owal?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAACbyJzOIo2bRSQpQ7%2bc... 6/18/2011
Against Re-striping Arastroadero Road Palo Alto
Against Re-striping Arastroadero Road Palo Alto
Catherine Qiuping Zhang [catherineqzhang@gmail.com]
sent: Monday, June 20, 201110:33 AM
To: Arastradero West
Pagelofl
~""N~~NN'r'nvrl~~~~~"'Y~~VN'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<''''''''~''V«'oV~NYA-...,.'''tV~~;YV''~~~''''''N'''''''''~''''''''t"W\~Y'N~~~"I'''. Dear Sir/Madam,
We are a family four lives in 724 Arastradero Road, #209 for more then 7 years. Each day we have to
drive our car out of our apartment drive way or garage to work, shopping for food. We always need to
make a left tum to EI Camino. When you re-stripping,
please make a IIKeep Clear Zones" so we can get out of the building. Since there is "no U-turn" at
foothill Expressway, if you put double yellow line in front of our building, how much time and gas we
have to waste each day?
Please do not put double yellow line on Aradtradero road.
Thanks,
Catherine
https:llowa.wres.comlowal?ae=Itetn&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAACbyJzOIo2bRSQpQ7%2bc... 6/21/2011
Go & Kay Sasaki
P.OBox 536
Los Altos, CA 94023
June 28, 2011
Jaime Rodrigues
Chief Traffic Officer
City of Palo Alto
RE: Request for Modification of Arastradero Road Re-Striping at
724 Arastradero Rd. (Arastradero West Apartments)
Dear Jaime:
We appreciated the community forum that was held at Juana Briones Elementary School on June
2,2011. You and the City of Palo Alto made a presentation to the community, and neighbors and
others who use the corridor had an opportunity to voice their frustrations and opinions.
We understand that the "goals' of Re-striping are to provide a safer corridor, especially for the
many cyclists, pedestrians and students while keeping negative impact on the motor vehicles and
the neighborhood to a minimum. If so, we share and applaud those objectives.
I had the pleasure of meeting you at the end of the meeting and briefly for a second time at Palo
Alto City Hall in mid June. At the meeting on June 2, I spoke up on behalf of both the residents .
and owner of Arastradero West Apartments and stated that Re-Striping has "locked us in," and
has created a dangerous situation and much frustration for residents and those needing to access
our Apartments. I spoke for 63 Households, in other words, for....., 150-200 residents and
management when I said that we have been negatively and unfairly impacted by Re-striping.
Let us explain: we have been negatively impacted because prior to Re-striping, with only a single
double yellow line, the residents were able to tum left into and out of the three driveways on the
property, but now with the two double yellow lines, left turns in and out of the property have
become illegal. (I personally verified this by calling and checking with the Palo Alto Police
Department.) Additionally, with "No U-turn" at Foothill Expressway, our residents have to go
into private driveways to make U-turns if they wish to go towards EI Camino or make long
detours often at peak traffic hours. This has created a dangerous and frustrating situation,
probably more so for us than other communities further towards El Camino because Arastradero
by Gunn and Foothill expressway tends to be a congested area. Yesterday, the on-site manager
infonned me that since Re-striping, there have been several (serious?) accidents in front of
Arastradero West Apartments, two involving our Residents, whereas to his knowledge, we have
had none for a while prior to Re-striping. Residents are also saying Re-striping has not slowed
the motor vehicles, but instead, the vehicles are coming faster past the slight bend at Arastradero
Road where visibility is poor. It is no wonder our residents are feeling rage and frustration with
the Re-striping.
We say that Re-striping has impacted us unfairly because we see that the City has accommodated
other apartment communities/cuI de sacs along Arastradero Road with "Keep Clear" zones and/or
center tum features, etc. For example, we see that a small cuI de sac with only six homes like
Yingo, has been accommodated. However, it appears no accommodation whatsoever has been
made for the 63 Households at Arastradero West. That is inequitable treatment. Every time we
go out. we have had to struggle often to get out of our driveways and again to reach our
destinations. We face great inconvenience, frustration and a dangerous situation many times a
day. This is unconscionable, and we ask the City to address this problem now before the
start of this school year.
Due to our proximity to Gunn High School and Foothill Expressway and the often congested
area, we feel that a good option would be to install "Keep Clear" zones by our three driveways
(as they have done at Viola and El Monte in Los Altos to accommodate just six homes off
Foothill Expressway when Los Altos re-designed and re-striped El Monte at Foothill
Expressway) so our "'150-200 residents and visitors can enter and exit the property safely. Unless
this situation is corrected promptly, there will be more accidents and the City may become liable
for not correcting a dangerous situation now that the City has been notified. With 63 Households
wjth "'150-200 people going in and out at Arastradero West we expect no less.
We are already highly impacted by traffic since our property is located just three lots away from
Gunn High School. Also, coming from El Camino, there is a curve on the road just before the
first of our three driveways, making visibility an issue. As spokesperson for residents and
management,and as owner, we urge you to act promptly to resolve the access problem created by
Re-striping of Arastradero Road. Residents at Arastradero West Apartments deserve safe
enjoyment and use of the corridor as any other resident in the neighborhood.
Additionally, as owners we wish to notify the City that by not adequately designing in safe tum
features in and out of our three driveways, the City has made Arastradero West Apartments a less
desirable community and therefore has substantially and negatively impacted the value of our
apartment community.
A couple of weeks after the forum, we asked Resident feedback and attached the City Comment
Form provided at the forum. We had a resounding response. Enclosed are 18 Comment Sheets
or copies of e-mail from our residents (29% response rate). After you have had an opportunity to
review their comments, we would appreciate an appointment to meet with you at Arastradero
West. Please contact me on my cell phone at 650-868-1714. Now that June is over, time is of the
essence since school starts in mid August. Thank you so much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
(~~-t7 ;6?U<-(v
Kay &, Go Sasaki
Owners, Arastradero West Apartments, 724 Arastradero Road
CC: Arastradero West Apartments
W oodmont Real Estate Services, Managers, Arastradero West
Enclosures: 18 Resident Comments on Re-striping, from Arastradero West Apartments
Betten. Zariah
From: Gavin Tanner [gavin.tanner@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:18 PM
To: letters@mercurynews.com
Cc: Planning Commission; Transportation; Arastradero West
Subject: Arastradero Road in Palo Alto
Dear Editor:
Apartment dwellers should have rights within the City of Palo Alto. At the 2009 meeting my comments
went to the special treatment being given to small cul-de-sacs on Arastradero Road with minimal or no
concern for those living in our apartnlent. Additionally the road is dangerous due to scofflaws rounding
a blind comer on the road. Those comments were ignored.
Presently we are told we can no longer pull in or out of these apartments on to the road as we could
previously. That will be hundreds of new short trips completed each day from this address. Was that
addressed in an EIR?
The road is no slower on the back side of the blind curve, and our rental value is lessened without good
cause.
Sincerely,
Gavin Tanner
724 Arastradero Rd
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 493-1036
6/30/2011
Rius, Rafael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Michael Goldeen [goldeen@goldeen.com]
Tuesday, June 07,2011 2:05 PM
Rius, Rafael
michael@goldeen.com; Rodriguez, Jaime
Subject: Re: Arastradero/Charlston Lane Reduction
Attachments: 110607-lnOut Ratios.pdf; ATT00001
Dear Mr. Rius,
Page 1 of 1
Thank you for your response. As it happens what you did provide doesnDt give any Idea of traffic
congestion and road rage which this project may have created. It would be nice to see some detail on
intersections adversely affected. Especially those outside your reportOs scope, which is limited to the
Arastradero Road section of the project only. While changes on Charleston alone may have had minimal
downside, changes on Arastradero may have adversely affected traffic on Charlston, EI Camino, Alma, and
Meadow. I would like to find out something about that.
Your reponse does show up one intriguing event. Assuming that folks go in the morning and return in the
evening r have to ask why there has been, as a rule, a dramatic increase in returning traffic during the rush
OhourlJ either way. For example west of Georgia the change in PM westbound traffic compared to AM
eastbound traffic (supposedly the same cars) went from a 7.8% increase to a 19.32% increase. In the
reverse direction the PM/AM ratio went from a 3% decrease to an 8% increase. The same thing happened
east of Pomona where the ratio changes went from 0.84% increase to 15.83% increase. And for east of
McKellar where they went from a. 14A% decrease to a 10.4% increase.
The size and consistency of these dicrepancies may well indicate that something is happening which your
report fails to expose. 10m curious to learn wha1 you make of them, and have enclosed a table showing
how I calculated these numbers.
Cheers!
Michael
7/21/2011
Page I of1
Rius, Rafaet
From: Douglas Moran [dbmoran@gmaiLcomj on behalf of Douglas B. Moran [dmoran@dougmoran.comj
FrIday, June 03,2011 6;07 PM Sent:
To: Rius, Rafael; Rodriguez, Jaime
Subject: Arastradero restriping: diverted traffic
Jaime and Rafael:
Follow-up to Thursday's public meeting:
I. That traffic volumes have stayed the same on Arastradero is not evidence that traffic has not been
diverted to other streets (Maybell, Los Robles and Matadero) because it assumes that there has
been no change in the traffic that wouLd have used Arastradero. This _may_ not be true given the
recent ups and downs of the economy and work force sizes in the Research Park.
2. The reason that many people think. that there has been signiticant diversion to Matadero is based
on the queue at the EI Camino traffic light in both the moming and the afternoon. I hear more
complaints about the moming--people are saying that where they used to get out in 1-2 cycles, it
is now 3, sometimes 4. In the evening, there is also a longer queue, but Dot so long mat it often
adds waits for additional cycles. What I see is a queue that used to be 1-2 and sometimes 3-4 is
now often 7-8. Note: Matadero queue length has variability that you rrught not expect: Many
residents have learned that the light is so long and the gaps in the EL Camino traffic is so large that
rather than wait for the light for a left turn, it is routinely faster to tum rigbt on EI Camino and do
a U-turn at the Kendall intersection. If cars waiting for the light leave enough room for other cars
to squeeze by on the right, you will often see a stream of people doing this maneuver and thus
significantly shorten the queue.
--Doug Moran
712112011
Betten. Zariah
fyi
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Monday, July 11,2011 7:32 AM
To; Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael; Williams, Curtis; Keller, Arthur; 'Dan Garber'; 'Daniel 'Garber';
'Eduardo Marttnez'; 'Greg Tanaka'; Lippert, Lee; 'Michael Picetti'; 'Samir Tuma'; 'Susah Fineberg'
Cc: Tronquet, Melissa
Subject: FW: Comments on the Arastradero Corridor.
Zariah Betten 1l
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
From: Alice Smfth [maUto:asmlth36@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 07,20119:06 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Comments on the Arastradero Corridor,
1 strongly support the recommendation of the staff to continue the current Arastradero Road effort.
want to point out the benefits to those ofus who live along the corridor.
(1) I feel much safer turning left into Los Palos Ave from Arastradero Road
(2) When I try to move out from Los Palos Avenue or Pomona to turn left during commute times, I am
able to pull into the left, area where the road narrows into two lanes from 4, an unexpected benefit.
(3) It is much safer to pun onto Arastr~dero Road from the south ofECR.
(4) The signs which show how fast you are driving are making a great impact on those that have a
conSCIence.
(5) The lights at Foothill of course need to be adjusted and people have to learn rules about turning right
onto Miranda, which slows down people who really want to go onto Miranda going North.
r may not be able to testify on the 13th July hence this email
Remember: the neighborhoods need this Arastradero experiment.
Kind regards
Alice Smith
4284 Los Palos Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94306
asmith36@sbcglobal.net
7/21/2011
Betten, Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Monday, July ii, 2011 3:42 PM
To: Williams, Curtis; Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael; Keller, Arthur; 'Dan Garber'; 'Daniel Garber';
'Eduardo Martinez'; 'Greg Tanaka'; Lippert, lee; 'Michael Picetti'; 'Samir Tuma'; 'Susan Fineberg'
Cc: Tronquet, Melissa
Subject: FW: YES! on Trial Improvements Arastradero Road
fyi
Zarlah Betten ~
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
From: lynn Kidder [mailto:lykidder@gmaU.com)
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 3:19 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: YES! on Trial Improvements Arastradero Road
Hello,
I will be unable to attend the meeting Wednesday, but I wanted to let
you know that I LOVE the changes to Arastradero Road, and I hope they
are permanent! I
I feel the project is a huge success for severa I reasons:
1) Traffic DEFINITELY travels closer to the speed limIt (you probably
have data to back this up) rather than the 35-40 or even higher speeds
as before.
2) lIBack ups" only seem to occur at schoo! start/end times, and although
it may take me a few minutes longer to reach my destination) I don't
mind it a bit. It's much safer for kids crossing the street and bicycling,
I'd like to remind many of my neighbors that this corridor is NOT a
commute route---Page Mill should be used for commuting.
3) The new turn lanes make it much easier and safer to enter and
exit Arastradero. I used to fearfully check my rearview mirror every time
I slowed or stopped to make a left turn onto my street---with two lanes
traveling at 35-40mph, I would often see the car behind me veer into the
7121/2011
right hand lane at the last minute to avoid having to stop behind me,
especially during commute times .... Agggghhh! Very nerve-wracking.
The main negative impact I have noticed is th~ line of cars on Maybell in
the morning waiting to drop off kids at the Gunn bike path entrance on
Georgia (in order to avoid Arastradero, I presume). Based on my
observations, the overwhelming majority of these cars are driven by
parents dropping off their kids. These same cars then often make illegal
U-turns on Georgia to return the same way.
It would be great if the city could work with Gunn to offer incentives to
reduce what looks like quite a few able-bodied kids getting dropped off at
school by their parents.... .
Thanks so much for all your efforts to gather community input.
Lynn Kidd er
Willmar Drive
7/2112011
Betten, Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Tuesday, July 12,2011 7:07 AM
To: 'Rodriguez, Jaime; Rlus, Rafael; Tronquet, Melissa; WlUiams, Curtis; Keller, Arthur; 'Dan Garber';
'Daniel Garber'; 'Eduardo Martinez'; 'Greg Tanaka'; lippert, Lee; 'Michael Plcetti'; 'Samjr Turna';
'Susan Fineberg'
Subject: FW: ARASTRADERO ROAD RE-STRIPING PROJECT
FYI
ZariQh Betten ,J
PlannIng Dept .• Ext. 2440
From: Betty Lum [mailto:bylum@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 201110:19 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: ARASTRADERO ROAD RE-STRIPING PROJECT
We had originally planned to attend the subject meeting to support the staff's recommendation
that the Arastradero Re-striping Project be extended to August 2012 to ensure a fair evaluation
of the effectiveness of the Project. Unfortunately we will in Europe during this period and
cannot attend the subject meeting.
There have been many changes recently to the Arastradero Project to address the concerns and
issues raised by the affected neighborhoods and the commuters. In addition, PAUSD will
change the starting time for Gunn High starting in the Fa1l201l term and Bowman International
School will do likewise to reduce the morning peak traffic congestion. Thus, it is only
reasonable to extend the trial for at least another year to evaluate the effectiveness of the many
changes.
We have been living jn our home located at 4202 Suzanne Drive (cOI11er of Suzanne and
Arastradero) since 1965 and have noted significant improvements since the re-striping project
began. A few of the improvements we have noticed are:
1. Significant pedestrian safety since the crosswalk was installed at the Clemo/Suzanne
Intersection.
2. Easier and safer access to our neighborhood with the dedicated left tum lane without fear of
being rear-ended which has happened to us prior to the installation ofthe dedicated left turn, In
addition, this lane improves traffic flow since on~gaing traffic need not stop for those of us
making a left tum lane into our neighborhood.
3. Safer and wider bike lanes encouraging more children and seniors to ride their bicycles.
4. More traffic calming and, indeed, people are very courteous in giving us space to get in or
out of our neighborhood even during peak traffic hours. The drivers are also more aware of the
crosswalk and tend to drive a little slower.
5. Our quality of life is significantly better since the Arastradero Re-striping Project began!!
7/21/2011
We strongly encourage the Planning Commission to support the Staffs recommendation that the
Arastradero Re-striping Project be extended until August 2012.
Henry and Betty Lum
4202 Suzanne Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94306-4335
7/2112011
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Betten, Zariah
Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:26 AM
Williams, Curtis; Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael; Tronquet, Melissa; Keller, Arthur; 'Dan Garber';
'Daniel Garber'; 'Eduardo Martinez'; 'Greg Tanaka'; lippert, Lee; 'Samir Tuma'; 'Susan Fineberg'
Subject: FW: Arastradero restriping
fyi
Zariah Betten 11
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
From: Joshua.Moore@parc.com [mailto :Joshua.Moore@parc.comJ
sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:50 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Arastradero restriping
I work at the Palo Alto Research Center at 3333 Coyote Hill Rd and own a condo in Mountain View near EI
Camino. In the past I have driven and cycled on Arastradero twice a day, five days a week. I do not support the
current restriping project.
I do not have children of school age and do not know what the accident statistics are, but the current trial
striping is really bad for traffic congestion. During peak hours -even in the evening -it can easily take twice as
long to drive down Arastradero. These delays increase pollution and greenhouse gas emissions which cannot be
good for our community and the world. As the VA Hospital, VMWare, and other employers grow, traffic on
Arastradero will only get worse.
I am not sure that the efforts to make the traffic slower have made it much safer as well. Now when you drive
down the street you must consta ntly worry about merging traffic, which distracts from paying attention to who
is in the bike lane.
Thanks for your consideration
Joshua Moore
14826 Skyline Blvd Apt 2
Woodside, CA 94062
7/2112011
Betten, Zariah
fyi
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1 :25 PM
To: Williams, Curtis; Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael; Tronquet, Melissa; Keller, Arthur; 'Dan Garber';
'Daniel Garber'; 'Eduardo Martinez'; 'Greg Tanaka'; Lippert, Lee; 'Samir Turna'; 'Susan Fineberg'
Subject: FW: Arastradero Road Re-Striping Project
Za,.lah Betten !l
Planning Dept.., Ext. 2440
From: Yao Zou [mailto:yaozou@mindspring.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12,201111:26 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Arastradero Road Re-Striplng Project
Dear Palo Alto Planning Commission,
We are writing to express our strong support for the extension of the trial period to July 31st 2012. We live on
4205 Suzanne Drive with two school age children and are a user of the corridor on a daily basis.
The restriping has made left turns from Arastradero Road into neighborhood streets significantly safer. It
appears that the average speed of vehicles has been reduced. We also appreciate the installation of a cross walk
with a "safe island" in the street median that allows safe trips the Juana Briones Park. The availability of bicycle
lanes that are now usable by school children and residents is another benefit of the new design.
Please keep pushing forward with the trial. We look forward to seeing this configuration or one very similar to
the trial phase made permanent.
Best regards and thanks for the good work.
Yao Zou
Werner Goetz
4205 Suzanne Drive
Palo Alto
The information contained, in this message may be confidenllal &nd legally protected under applicable I(NJ. The message is inlendetl Solely for the
address!!6(s). If you are nol the Intended recipient. you are· hereby notified thai Clny use, forwarding. dissemlnalion, or reproducllon 01 this message is
strictly prohibited aod may \>13 unlawful. If you are nol U1e iOIended recipient. pIOOS& contact the sendur by return e·mail and destroy all CXljlles of the
original message.
712112011
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
fyi
zariah Betten <5
Betten, Zariah
Tuesday, July 12, 2011 1 :26 PM
Williams, Curtis; Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael; Tronquet, Melissa; Keller, Arthur; 'Dan
Garber'; 'Daniel Garber'; 'Eduardo Martinez'; 'Greg Tanaka'; Lippert, Lee; 'Samir Tuma';
'Susan Fineberg'
FW: Planning and Transportation, 7/13, Arastradero Re-Striping
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
-----Original Message-----
From: Raj Apte [mailto:raj.apte@grnx.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:02 AM
To: Planning Commission; Raj Aptei Byron Browni Pavlina Apte; KayAtPacbel1
Subject: Planning and Transportation, 7/13, Arastradero Re-Striping
Planning Commission
As a resident of Palo Alto since 1979, I feel that the Arastradero Re-Striping has been a
clear failure. Despite the only modest delays recorded ,in the staff report, I believe the
delays are longer and result in substantial noise, pollution, carbon-emissions r and
driver-discontent.
I live on Park Blvdr and we have seen a clear increase in angry through traffic in the
Meadow-Park-EI Camino area of Ventura/Mayfield as drivers have taken to commuting through
neighborhoods of Palo Alto with the highest concentration of children.
Intelligent Planning should seek to maximize car traffic through the major arteries (page
Millr Oregon r Arastradero, Charlestonr San Antonio) while proving safe routes for bikes
and pedestrians through the neighborhood streets. Park Blvd should be blocked with
bollards to all through car traffic (like Bryant) .
I commuted to Gunn High School as a student by bike for 4 years. There was never a reason
to stay on Arastradero--diversion through Barron Park is the best option for cyclists who
don't want to breath the fumes. The current r slow traffic produces sufficiently bad air
that I would not recommend anyone use Arastradero for bikingr regardless of bike lanes.
LastlYr please stop ruining Palo Alto by approving additional housing units. The city is
full (and has been for more than a decade). Stop adding condos or houses. The traffic
problem on Arastradero was created by thts commissionr which approved far too many units
along Charleston between San Antonio and EI Camino. If you want to stop ruining the city,
convert a commercial location to a park and focus on reducing the number of city
residents. Stop trying to farm property taxes.
Dr Raj Apte
Dr Pavlina Apte
210 Matadero Ave
Byron Brown
3786 Corina
1
Betten, Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:18 PM
To: Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael; Tronquet, Melissa; Williams, Curtis; Keller, Arthur: 'Dan Garber'; 'Daniel
Garber'; 'Eduardo Martinez'; 'Greg Tanaka'; Lippert, Lee; 'Samir Tuma'; 'Susan Fineberg'
Subject: FW; ARASTRADERO ROAD RE-STRIPING PROJECT
FYI
Zarian Bette" -.J
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
From: Betty Lum [mallto:bylum@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12,2011 2:14 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: ARASTRADERO ROAD RE-STRIPING PROJECf
In addition to the comments my husband and I sent to you last evening, I would like to
add a few additional remarks:
1. ANYONE travelling near a school during the morning and after school hours is
confronted with massive traffic jams. I have accidentally been "caught" on Meadow on
my way to the Ross Road YMCA during the morning "rush" hours where parents make
lIIegal U-turns, double-park etc. causing massive tie-ups. This is also true near any
school zone as I have personally experienced such "inconveniences" near San Mateo
High School (in the afternoon hours) and Los Altos High School (in the morning), As one
resident remarked at one of the public meetings: "What is a few minutes' delay in getting
Into the flow of traffic if it means the safety of the children?"
2, I sympathize with people whose driveways are on Arastradero, as well as residents
on Miranda. However, as a resident of Suzanne Drive trying to enter west-bound traffic
on Arastradero in the morning rUSh, 1 have not encountered any rude drivers. --Eye-to-
eye contact with drivers of on-coming traffic is .usually quite effective in their allowing me
safe exit from Suzanne onto westbound Arastradero. Some are, definintely, not as
patient and/or courteous, but this is more the exception rather than the rule.
I urge the Commission to extend the trial period to see if the late start of Gunn High
School and Bowman International School will make a difference in the "rush hour' traffic
flow,
Thank you.
Betty Lum
45-year resident of Palo Alto;
on the corner of Suzanne & Arastradero
7/2112011
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
BeHen, Zariah
Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:40 PM
Williams, Curtis; Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael; Tronquet, Melissa; KeUer, Arthur; 'Dan Garber':
'Daniel Garber'; 'Eduardo Martinez'; 'Greg Tanaka'; Lippert, Lee; 'Samlr Tuma'; 'Susan Fineberg'
Subject: FW: Public meeting of Planning and Transportation Commission 7/13/2011
fyi
Zorlah Betten tI
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
From: Shirley Nathan [mailto:shirJdn@pacbell.net)
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 2:50 PM
To: Planning Commission; Council, City
Subject: Public meeting of Planning and Transportation Commission 7/13/2011
AHantion: Planning and Transportation Commission and Palo Alto City Council
Following up on my letter dated June 2, 2011 regarding the Charleston/Arastradero Utraffic calming" project, I urge
you to discontinue any further so-called trials on this fiasco. I have been concerned about this experiment for
many years and the more work that's done, the worse it gets. I cannot understand why the City would narrow
roads when more and more housing is being built requiring just the opposite a pproach such as adding lanes.
Some light has been shed on the maHer after reading the weekly last week in the front page article on regional
growth. Cities are actually being bribed to build housing promoting development near transportation corridors in
return for receiving funding for ~raffic reduction". Kudos to City Council for at last resisting this pressure! Pure
common sense tells us that building more housing and reducing lanes on the roads makes no logical sense. It
has already been proven with the situation on Charleston/Arastradero, causing more gridlock, pollution and traffic
rage rather than the "traffic calming" (warm and fuzzy buzz words) supposedly intended. The merging lanes
intensify frustration especially at Hoover school where the lane layout is quIte confUSing not to mention
dangerous. More parents seem to be transporting their children to and from school which causes added traffic
Jams at those hours.
The boHorn line is that however much authorities desire to see fewer cars on the road, they are living in a dream
world. Automobiles afford freedom to come and go as one pleases. Emphasis should be placed on making
roads safer and more compatible to automobile traffic. Other modes of transportation could be Improved as well.
The so-called "VIsion Scenario" is tuming into a "Nightmare Scenario". Palo Alto is losing its character and is
turning into a high density global village.
I appreciate Nancy Shepard's response to my previous letter and would like this correspondence to be placed on
public record and included on the agenda tor the meeting July 13,2011.
Thanking you,
Sincerely.
Shirley Nathan
7/21/2011
Betten, Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 9:03 AM
To: Williams, Curtis; Rodriguez, Jalme; Riu5, Rafael; Tronquet, Melissa; Ke'Uer, Arthur; 'Dan Garber';
'Daniel Garber'; 'Eduardo Martinez'; 'Greg Tanaka'; Lippert. Lee; 'Samlr Tuma'; 'Susan Fineberg'
Subject: FW: Request to extend Araslradero Striping Trial
fyi
Zoriah Betten >i
Planning Dept. r Ext. 2440
From: Evan Lurie [mailto:evlurle@stanfordalumni.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 8:36 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Request to extend Arastradero 5tJfplng Trial
Dear Commissioners,
I write this email in support of extending the Phase 2 trial of the Arastradero Striping Project. I'm a father of two children under
age 10 and travel often by bIcycle both with and without them along Arastradero and the surrounding neighborhood.
To reflect changes requested by the public, initial Implementation was delayed. Major construction was not completed until
Sap, 2010. Enhanced pedestrian crossings at Araslradero Road and Clemo Drive were not completed unlil Mar. 2011. As of
the writing of City Staff's latest report, Coulombe Drive Signal Modification was not completed. In the Fall of 2011, both
Bowman and Gunn are delaying their starting bells to at least 8:25A. This change may diminish travel Ume by further
dIstributing volume through a longer window, although I have my doubts. In short. there hasn't been a ·complete", post
Implementation period from which to collect data.
According to staff reports, to dale 85th percenble speeds decreased by two to three miles per hour post Phase 2
Implementation, and motorists exceeding 37 mph of traffic diminished in number btween 30 and 50%. Dally average traffic
remained consistently around 18,500.
Most residents report no difference In commute period and that the corridor features more of a neighborhood street feel,
rendering It more comfortable and safe for botl1 cyclists and pedestrians. Some motorists are quite vocal about negative
[mplicatlons of these changes. It may be that during non-peak periods. the abatements have lengthened travel time. but as
there Is no pre-Implementation data on this topic trs not possible to draw defensible conclusions.
Cost implications of extending the trial through Aug. 2012 are minimal and primarily reflect Staff time to collect travel time data.
conduct two additional community outreach meetings, and summarize findings tor PTC and Council.
Thank you for your consideration.
Evan lurie
747 Marlon Avenue, Palo Alto 94303
7/2112011
Betten) Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Wednesday, July 20,2011 7:12 AM
To: Rodriguez, Jaime; Rlus, Rafael
Subject: FW: CharlestonJArastradero Corridor
fyi
Zarlah Betten II
Pl4nning Dept.. Ext. 2440
From: Ginny Chu [mailto:theodorechu@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 6:10 PM
To: Info, Plandiv
Subject: Charleston/ Arastradero Corridor
I would like to comment on the new traffic plan mainly between EI Camino and Foothill Expressway (Arastradero
Rd) ..
Illve in lower LA H. and use this almost every day. I am in favor of keeping the new plan the way it is. Many
drive far above the speed limit jeopardizing the safety of children and adults often going to and from Terman and
Gunn. Drivers also are at rIsk when observing the speed limit.
I hope you keep the traffic pattern the way it is (a lot of $s have already been spent on making this a safer corridor
between Middlefield and Foothill Expy.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Ginny Chu
7/21/2011
Betten. Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, July 19,2011 7:29 AM
Rodriguez, Jaime: Rlus, Rafael
Subject: FW: Please remove the Arastradero maze and restore two lanes in both directionsl
fyi
Zorlah Betten ~
Planning Dept" Ext. 2440
From: Teresa Smith Milo [mailto:tsmilo@gmaU,com]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 5:02 PM
To: Transportation
Cc: dsa muels@dallynewsgroup.com
Subject: Please remove the Arastradero maze and restore two Janes In both directions!
This message is regarding Arastradero Road between EI Camino and Foothill Expressway:
Please remove the maze on Arastradero and paint the lines they way they wer~ with two lanes in both directions!
I have lived in Barron Park for about 50 years and this is my fLrst complaint to the city. The two lanes in both directions never
posed a problem along Arastradero in the past and allowed the traffic to get through. People have always driven cautiously
when children are present along Arastradero and speed up appropriately when they are not, so there have been very few
traffic accidents in the past.
Now it is not safe because the lanes change at all the intersections and drivers have to merge in and out of one lane!
With significantly more people living in Palo Alto due to the increased amounts of dense housing, such as on the comer ofE!
Camino and Arastradero where Ricky's used to be, and tbe two lanes are reduced to one, we have major blockages with road
rage every workday morning and evening that overflow in(o olht:r streets! Auclilionally, lhis lack oClraffic fluw makes Palo
Alto less accessible, which makes Palo Alto less desirable for businesses and residents!
The current maze is causing:
• More potential for crashes.
• More potential for hitting bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Definite increases in peak and off-peak travel times.
• Definite increases in delay at signalized intersections.
• Definite increases in drivers along side streets trying to get around the blockages on Arastradero.
'fbe solution is to remove the maze on Arastradero and paint the lines they way they were with two lanes in both din:ctions to
restore the traffic flow and improve the quality of life in Palo Alto!
Sincerely,
Teresa Smith Milo
7/2112011
Betten, Zariah
fyi
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 7:35 AM
To: Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael: Williams, Curtis; Keller, Arthur; 'Dan Garber'; 'Daniel Garber';
'Eduardo Martinez'; 'Greg Tanaka'; Lippert, Lee; 'Samir Tuma'; 'Susan Fineberg'
Subject: FW: Please Support Staff Recommendation for Arastradero Trial to Continue for another Year.
Zorich Betten ~
Planning Dept.. Ext. 2440
From: Gary Bradski [mailto:garybradski@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:40 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Sonya Bradskl
Subject: Re: Please Support staff Recommendation for Arastradero Trial to Continue for another Year.
Just to reiterate. My daughter biked to swruner school at Gwm from South Palo Alto (Greenmeadow).
There are 3 possible ways to go:
Los Robles (no side walk, little room for bikes, Jots of morning traffic)
Maybell (iots of drop off traffic to the elementary school, bikes forced into the street)
Arastradero (pinch point past El Camino ... but definitely the safest route.
As above, Arastradero has problems but it is the safest route. Expanding it will make it much less safe.
Keep it as is and try to find a way to eliminate the loss of the bike lane in the block past EI Camino.
Gary
On Tue, JuJ 12, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Sonya Bradski <sonyang~@gm.<Yl.com> wrote:
Dear PLaruling Commission:
Please support the staff recommendation for the Arasterdero trial to
go for another year.
I '1 have three children in the Palo Alto Unified School district. My
oldest daughter just started in summer school at Gunn High School and
was riding her bike up and down Arasterdero for 3 weeks this summer.
Now that Arasterdero was redone this was a much safer way for my
daughter to get back and forth to Gunn by bicycle. We are a big
bicycle family . We LOVE all the bike lanes in Palo Alto especially on
Arasterdero so my daughter could safely get back and forth to Gunn
High School. All my daughters will be attending Gunn High School for
the next 10 years and will all be biking up and down the
Arasterdero/Charleston corridor. Please continue to make this a safe
bike route for my three daughters.
7/21/2011
Again. please support the staff recommendation for the Arasterdero
trial for another year so my three daughters will continue to have a
safe bike route to Gunn High School for the next ten years.
Please contact me with any questions you may have about this letter.
Thank: you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sonya Bradski
4082 N'e1son Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
sonyangary@gmail.com
650-856-9366
7/2112011
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Betten, Zariah
Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:21 AM
Williams, Curtis; Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael; Tronquet, Melissa; Keller, Arthur; 'Dan Garber':
'Daniel Garber'; 'Eduardo Martinez'; 'Greg Tanaka'; Lippert, Lee; 'Samir Tuma'; 'Susan Fineberg'
Subject: FW: In Support of the Arastradero Trial
(yi
Zariah Betten .oJ
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
From: Becky Epstein [mallto:epstein@meer.net)
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 20119:52 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: In Support of the Arastradero Trial
Dear Planning Commission,
[am a 14-year resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood and r remember all too well feeling
unsafe bilcing along many stretches of the corridor. I applaud the pedestrian/cyclist improvements made
through Phase 1 of the project. Because of successful Phase 1 completion, my husband and I became
comfortable allowing our children to bike to school andlor other activities in the south Palo Alto area. I
estimate that as a direct result of Phase 1, our family collectively takes 15-20 fewer car trips per week
along Charleston.
Are there times when I am frustrated as a driver along the Charleston! Arastradero corridor? Yes, but
any inconvenience when behind the wheel is FAR OUTWEIGHED by the safety improvements on the
corridor and the overall reduction in car trips my family takes due to corridor improvements.
I've reviewed the staff packet and understand that your decision is not going to make everyone happy. 1
respectfully ask you to prioritize the safety and promotion ofwalkinglbiking along the corridor and to
enthusiastically support staff's recommendation to extend the trial period of the Arastradero Road Re-
Striping Proj ect.
Thank you,
Becky Epstein
Edlee Ave., Palo Alto
712112011
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Betten,Zariah
Thursday, June 3D, 2011 7:37 AM
KeUer, Arthur; 'Dan Garber'; 'Daniel Garber'; 'Eduardo Martinez': 'Greg Tanaka'; lippert, Lee; 'Samjr
Tuma'; 'Susan Fineberg'
Rodriguez, Jaime: Williams, Curtis; Rius, Rafael
FW: Arastradero Road Striping So Far ~ Keep Clear Area Required
Attachments: Arastradero Road Test So Far.doc
fyl
Zaria" Bet1en ,J
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
From: Gavin Tanner lmalito:gavin.tanner@comcast.net]
Sent: WednesdaYI June 29, 2011 4:45 PM
To: Transportation
Cc: Arastradero West; Planning Commission
Subject: Arastradero Road Striping So Far -Keep Clear Area Required
Dear Transportation Committee:
Should the experiment of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project fail the City of Palo Alto will need to get
ready to create another major artery for iTaffiC on its southern edge along these roads. The expense of that
action is enough 1 hope to provide a redoubling of efforts in slowing traffic and accommodating all residences
along the right-of-way.
Although the road has been l'estriped and new traffic surveys completed, more work is needed to make the
corridor the pathway desired by the city, Why have we not seen better and more comprehensive enforcement of
speed limits along the corridor? What work is going 00 or is planned to request our neighbors in PARC to drive
in and out of Palo Alto by another road?
Those of us living at 724 Arastradero Road have ample and good opportunities to tum on and off of the road -
provided speeding is limited. Why are we now prevented from legaJly turning offtl:1e road as we used to?
Where in the original corridor plan and in the original Environmental Impact Report on the corridor project
were the hundreds of extra short trips now mandated on residents of this building specified?
We require a "Keep Clear" area be made in front of the Arasu-adero West Apartments in order to become part
of a successful project. It would be interesting to see if there. is a legal course to be taken from here for the
owners and residents of these apartments both for the environmental impact now imposed on the local area or
for the lessening of the value of the apartments and the building presently imposed by egregious and
unnecessary road markings.
Sincerely,
Gavin Tanner
724 Arastradero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 493-I 036
7/2112011
• Yingo Way has six houses and its own left tum lane off of Arastradero Road when
heading west. Arastradero West Apartments (724 Arastradero Road) has over sixty units
and more than sixty cars trying to tum on and off of the road, but currently cannot tum
off Arastradero heading east into any of the parking lots legally and currently cannot tum
on to Arastradero Road heading west from any of the parking lots. (However the
Arastradero Park apartments at 574 Arastradero Road have full ingress and egress with
the current striping.)
• Pulling out on to Arastradero Road eastbound however heavy the traffic load can be
safely made -provided there is not a scofflaw rounding the curve on Arastradero heading
westbound at more than forty miles per hour.
• Pulling out on to Arastradero Road westbound from the apartments is actually generally
more dangerous as any approaching scofflaw will likely rear end a car pulling out on the
road and crossing the path of scofflaws can be made more readily. '
• If the current traffic timings on Arastradero Road show a slowing of the average speed
traveled as stated in the June meeting, why isn't there an increase of enforcement to the
speeding still occurring?
• What would happen if intemlittently one police officer with a radar gun sat behind the
blind curve represented by these apartments and two other officers sat at the High School
parking lot to ticket westbound speeders at the newly defined speed?
• If the City of Palo Alto is serious about keeping Arastradero Road safe as a local use
street why hasn't any marketing gone out to the Palo Alto Research Center (P ARC)
companies advising those employees of better ingress and egress paths from the city?
• In addition to, the marketing efforts which should be made to our local businesses, what
plans have been made to mark the exits of P ARC with signage showing the best path to
Highway 101 out through the Page Mill A venue/ Oregon Avenue corridor?
• Can Page Mill Road and Oregon Expressway be timed to allow better flow of traffic from
P ARC to Highway 101?
• Why isn't the radar sign in front of Yin go Way hooked up to a battery besides the solar
panel so at least it could run later at night? And if a battery isn't available, what will it
take to make that sign (which is crucial to potentially slow down traffic so those at
Arastradero West can safely pull out on to the road -whichever direction is mandated)
hooked directly to CPA power to run 24 x 7?
• Would it violate the vehicle code if every time that signal processed a speeder the
proceeding light in front of the High School automatically turned red?
• Why isn't the "Driveway Ahead" sign at the comer of Georgia Avenue and Arastradero
put in front of the city tree so as to actually be visible twelve months of the year?
• Why doesn't the "Driveway Ahead" sign at the comer of Georgia Avenue and
Arastradero say "Three Driveways Ahead" and show all three of the impending
driveways on a blind curved street in the graphic used? [I have seen both the verbiage
and the graphic used for other dangerous roads in the State, and it should be done here.
The straight street showing the cross of a single driveway does not show the danger
ahead.]
• And when nl0ving the "Driveways Ahead" sign can a yellow warning sign showing a
recommended speed of 20 MPH be added?
• Where in the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for restriping of Arastradero
Road was the redirection of all westbound traffic in to the apartments and the redirection
of all eastbound traffic out of the apartments mentioned? (Residents to remain legal will
minimally need tomake hundreds of extra one quarter mile to halfmile loops each day.)
• Do any of our neighbors on Georgia Avenue, Hubbartt Drive, Yingo Way, Miranda Way,
or Willmar Drive know that we're planning to use those streets as turnarounds for dozens
and dozens of trips per day?
• Why not mark the apartments appropriately in front with a "Keep Clear" zone to allow
ingress and egress from the apartments for either direction as needed? And even without
that marking what would happen if the double line of yellow 'bots-dots' were broken to
allow ingress and egress to the apartments without violation of traffic codes at the
discretion of drivers? Wouldn't it be safer to allow drivers from the apartments to cross
Arastradero and head eastbound than force all exits from the apartments to go westward
in to the path of a scofflaw?
• Should the correct marketing, enforcement, and restriping of Arastradero Road not
succeed is the City of Palo Alto ready to absorb the expense of buying properties and
building another thoroughfare such as Oregon Expressway on this corridor? [With that
destruction, rebuild and widening at least the renters at the Arastradero West Apartments
will have easy and correct U-turns at hand.]
Betten. Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 11 :01 AM
To: Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael
Subject: FW: Arastradero Road Re-Striping
fyi
Zariah Betten 11
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
From: Andrei Bandrovsky [maIlto:abandrovsky@gmailcom]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 10:15 AM
To: Transportation; arastraderowest@wres.com
Subject: Arastradero Road Re-Striping
Unfortunately, I have to say that your re stripping project became a huge failure and waste of public
money.
First of, the quality of the road surface after re stripping ren1ains almost as terrible as before. I don't
know how cheap your contractors are, but the bumps on the road are unacceptable any more.
Second, with all good intentions behind this idea, Arastradero Rd. first of all is a road, that suppose to
handle increasing traffic. Now, with all those unwise pockets & build ups in the middle of the road,
Arastradero Rd. became clogged traffic artery with excessive an10unt of exost fumes form the cars, that
are most of the time standing in traffic. There is no real improvement of the safety of the road besides
the positive effect of the speed displays with "slow down" advise.
Regards,
Andrei Bandrovsky
724 Arastradero Rd. # 320
Palo Alto CA 94306
650-917-2447
andrey@campi.com
7/2112011
Betten, Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Monday, June 06, 2011 7:00 AM
Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael
FW: Palo Alto Online article today
fyi
Zariah Betten 0
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Willits [mailto:rwillits@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 11:38 AM
To: Transportation
Subject: Palo Alto Online article today
I just read today's article in Palo Alto Online on a meeting held on the
Arastradero/Charleston project, and the complaints from motorists about the project.
I want to say how much I appreciate how intelligently this project was designed. I walk,
ride and drive this road, and find the improvements wonderful. They make me feel like
bicyclists are being listened to in this city. When I am caught in a car on this street in
the morning commute, I find it no worse than before, but I find myself always thinking:
"how could I have avoided using a car for this trip?" Or better yet "how could I have
avoided this trip?" I know the bike/scooter/motorized chair/walk is now a safer
alternative.
The only voices you hear should not be the harried commuters who are never satisfied. The
kids, seniors, and those who plan their travel well appreciate this.road more now.
Thank you for the work you do.
Richard Willits
3396 Greer Road
PA, CA
1
Betten, Zarlah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 6:59 AM
To: RIUs, Rafael; Rodriguez:, Jaime
Subject: FW: AraslraderofCharlston Lane Reduction
fyi
Zarlah Betten 'II
PlannIng Dept.. Ext. 2440
From: MIchael Goldeen [mailto:goldeen@goldeen.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:36 PM
To: Transportation
Subject: ArastraderojCharlston Lane Reduction
To person concerned,
David deBolt reports in today's Post that at Thursday's meeting "Officials presented data showing the
reduction in lanes hasn't increased the volume of cars or slowed travel times through the thoroughfare
during the experiment."
I find that remark incredible -possibly just inaccurate. Consequently 1 ask you provide answers to the
following questions.
1) Has traffic volume decreased on the "thoroughfare"? Ifso. then by how much?
2) What is the "thoroughfare" being discussed?
If the "thoroughfare" referred to in the official's remarks is not the whole stretch of road from the
intersection of Charleston and San Antonio Roads to that of Arastradero and Foothill Expresway, then
3) What change in traffic vollune during peak hours if any has occured on the segment of Charleston
Road from San Antonio to Middlefield Road, and from Middlefield to Alma, and from Alma to El
Camino Real?
4) What change if any during peak hours has occured in southbound travel times on the segments of
Charleston Road from San Antonio to Middlefield Road, and from Middlefield to Alma, and from
Alma to El Camino Real?
and 5) What increase in diverted traffic has been observed on streets which can be used to by-pass that
road? Is there a record of the changed munbers?
Thank you for your answers to my questions. Without them I am forced to take any remarks made by
your officials about the project as self-serving.
Michael Goldeen
7/2112011
2350 Tasso Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone 650-391-7247
E-mail michael@goldeen.com
7/2112011
Betten. Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Betten, Zariah
Friday, June 03, 2011 11 :33 AM
Rius, Rafael; Rodriguez, Jaime
Subject: FW: Arastradero Road traffic review
fyi
zariah Betten
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
-----Original Message-----
From: Carolyn Tucher [mailto:catucher@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 11:24 AM
To: Info, Plandiv
Subject: Arastradero Road traffic review
My husband and I live on Manuela. Arastradero Road is our principal route to city
services, meetings, friends and shopping. Because the Arastradero Road traffic project
affects us, I wrote and asked to be informed of future meetings. Although no one answered
my email, I thought we would receive notice of future reviews. I was disappointed to read
that a meeting was held last night that we knew nothing about .. I read the Weekly and PA
Online thoroughly but did not see information about the meeting if there was any. Please
put us on your mailing list for future meetings. Also please answer my email this time so
that I know it reached the right desk.
Thank you
Carolyn Tucher
4264 Manuela Way
PA 94306
catucher@pacbell.net
1
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
fyi
Zariah Betten 0
Betten, Zariah
Friday, June 03, 2011 9:24 AM
Rius, Rafael; Rodriguez, Jaime
FW: arastradero project
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Eisenhardt [mailto:kme@stanford.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:58 PM
To: Transportation
Subject: arastradero project
transportation fol~s
i unfortunately had to miss tonite's meeting. my father is ill, and i had to go out of
town.
but i did want to express my opposition to the project. it has made driving less safe on
arastradero because of the switches in the number of lanes. it has also created more
congestion on both arastradero and the local streets (people avoiding arastradero). i also
dont see any change in the number of people riding bikes or walking.
overall, this seems like a costly experiment that has ended with a less effective
situation than previously existed.
please let me know if you would like me to follow up further.
kathy eisenhardt
(
4184 donald drive
650 799 9264
1
Betten, Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Thursday, June 02.2011 2:14 PM
To: Rius, Rafael; Rodriguez, Jaime
Subject: FW: Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Restriping Trial-Meeting
fyl
Zoriah Betten 1l
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
From: Peter Knopf [mailto:petenann@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 02,201111:29 AM
To: Transportation
Cc: Ellen Whitmore; Dick Whitmore
Subject: Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Restriplng Trial -Meeting
At tonight's meeting please infonn us (area residents) when this trial
will finally be evaluated and what are the pass/fail criteria. It would
seem that a return to 4 lanes with possible added left turn lanes would
alleviate the current morning commute congestion.
Peter Knopf. 927 Paradise Way
7/2112011
Betten, Zariah
From: Betten. Zariah
Sent: Thursday, June 02,2011 9:31 AM
To: Rodriguez. Jaime; Rlus. Rafael
Subject: FW: Trial ImprovementsArastradero Road
fyi
Za,.lch Betten \I
Planni"g Dept., Ext. 2440
From: lynn Kidder [mailto:lykidder@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:12 AM
To: Transportatlon
Subject: Trial ImprovementsArastradero Road
Hello,
I will be unable to attend the meeting tonight at Juana Briones school, but I
wanted to let you know that I LOVE the changes to Arastradero Road, and I hope
they are permanent!!
I am aware that some of my unhappy neighbors will be at the meeting to
complain, but I feel the project is a huge success for several reasons:
1) Traffic DEFINITELY travels closer to the speed limit (you probably have data to
back this up) rather than the 35-40 or even higher speeds as before.
2) "Back ups" only seem to occur at school start/end times, and although it may
take me a few minutes longer to reach my destination, I don't mind it a bit. It's
much safer for kids crossing the street and bicycling. I'd like to remind many of
my neighbors that this corridor is NOT a commute route---Page Mill should be
used for commuting.
3) The new turn lanes make it much easier to enter and exit Arastradero. I used
to fearfully check my rearview mirror every time 'I stopped to make a left turn
onto my street---with two lanes traveling at 35-40mph, I would often see the car
behind me veer into the right hand lane at the last minute to avoid having to stop
behind me .... Ack!
The main negative impact I have noticed is the line of cars on Maybell waiting to
drop off kids at the Gunn bike path entrance on Georgia (in order to avoid
Arastradero, I presume). My personal observation is that the overwhelming
7/2112011
majority of these cars are parents dropping off kids/ who then often make U-turns
on Georgia to return the same way.
Can the city work with Gunn to offer incentives to reduce what looks to be a lot of
able-bodied kids getting dropped off at school by their parents?
Thanks so much for all your efforts to gather community input.
Lynn Kidder
Willmar Drive
7/21/2011
Betten) Zarjah
From:
Sent:
To:
Betten, Zariah
Monday, May 3D, 2011 7:13 AM
Rius, Rafael; Rodriguez, Jaime
Subject: FW: Arastradero re-striping: comments on
fyi
Zorloh Betten 1.1
PlannIng Dept., Ext. 2440
From: Douglas Moran [mailto:dbmoran@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Douglas B. Moran
Sent: 'Sunday, May 29,2011 3:21 AM
To: Transportation
Subject: Arastradero re-striping: comments on
Comments on Arastradero striping problems I have encountered:
1. North-bound at Terman/Donald intersection: The signage for the merge down to one lane occurs
too late and creates substantial unnecessary conflict between vehicles. I suspect that this could he
reduced by starting the merge-left markings where the middle lane begins (before the
intersection). This merge seems designed to cause fender-bender accidents because both lanes
think they have the right-of-way in the merge: People in the right lane see it as a lane-shift where
it is the other lane merging in.
2. South-bound at Miranda. The two Miranda intersections create substantial unnecessary back-up
in the afternoon. On multiple occasions it has taken me three cycles to get through the light to
turn left on Foothill despite it being light traffic, that is, all the traffic going straight or turning
right easily makes it through the flrst cycle. all several occasions, it bas taken me at least 4 cycles
(the backup at 4pro-ish was almost to the cemetery entrance).
1. Cars turning left onto south-bound Miranda typically face a long delay until there is a gap in
the oncoming traffic, from Foothill and the west, and thereby create long backups in that
lane. Two left-turning cars can be devastating. My experience is that this happens outside
of the times that traffic is turning into Gunn and I wonder if the west-most portion of the
dedicated east-bound left-turn lane could be redesignated to also allow turns onto south-
bound Miranda.
2. The traffic Jight at the north-bound Miranda intersection.appears to be on a fixed schedule
and not responsive to actual traffic conditions. I have sat there countless times While the
light was green for non-existent cross-traffic, wasting much of the cycle of the light at
Foothill, time that could bave been weU used to clear the backup created by someone
turning left onto south-bound Miranda.
--Doug Moran. 790 Matadero Avenue
7/21 120t 1
Betten, Zar~ah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:40 AM
To: Rius. Rafael: Rodriguez, Jaime
Subject: FW: arastradero project
fyi
Zaria'" Betten !I
Planning Dept .• Ext. 2440
From: Scott Hayes [mai Ito:scottchayes@gmaILcom)
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:39 AM
To: Transportation; Info, Plandiv
Cc: Denson, Mike
Subject: arastradero project
I am writing to provide feedback on the arastradero project as I live on Arastradero in Tan Plaza.
In short, it seems like the project has gone very well and I can truly say that I have been very pleased with the
results, especially with the crosswalk at Arastradero and Clemo as well as the striping in the same area and the
firehouse that says DO NOT BLOCK (or some1hing like that). In fact, it's been great for kids going to Terman
and Gunn to use the crosswalk at Clemo.
However, two items still remain (at no fault ofyow-s I palo alto, but that of drivers communting in the area).ln
short, during the school commute people still block the road at Clemo and Arastradero as well as the firehouse
driveway onto Arastradero. The cross walk and striping have helped, but many people do ignore it and block the
intersection nonetheless. I understand this i3 out of your control, as such [ have cc:d Captain Denson of P APD
who may have a solution and would be able to assist in this matter,
Is it possible to put an officer in a patrol car or motorcylce out there for a day or two to dissuade people from
blocking the road at Clemo as well as the fire department? I know when an officer was there telling kids to wear
helmets on their bicycles it worked very well -in fact, my son's friends said it did :)
In addition, there's the continued issue of people dri ving north on el camino then turning left onto
Arastradero blocking the intersection when the people (like us residents) are heading east bound from arastradero
making a left heading north. on el camino in the morning. Honestly, without having an officer enforce this or at
least sniping I a sign saying don't block the intersection this will clearly continue and potentially cause an
accident in tbe future as people blatently are one or two cars into el camino blocking the intersection when we
have the green light to tum left or at times when people ar heading straight to go east continuing on arastradero.
Again, I think the project has been a success but just need to see how we can get people to stop blocking those
interesections at clemo/arastradero and el camino/arastradero during the scbool commute_
Keep up the good work and yow-help on this matter is greatly appreciated!
Best,
Scott Hayes
712112011
Betten, Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Monday, May 23,2011 7:47 AM
To: Rlus, Rafael
Subject: FW: Community Meeting Notice re: Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Restriping Trial Improvements
at Arastradero Road
Fyi
Zarlah Betten 1.1.
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
From: Daniel Fields [mailto:dfields68@yahoo,com]
Sent: Saturday, May 21/ 2011 6:15 PM
To: Transportation
Subject: Re: Community Meeting Notice re: Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Resbiping Trial Improvements at
Arastradero Road
Hello,
I won't be able to attend the meeting on June 2, 2011 at Juana Briones School, but 'I would like to give
some feedback on the Arastradero Road improvements:
1 live on Cherry Oaks Place, and it is very difficult to make a left turn from Cherry Oaks Place onto
Arastradero when traffic on Arastradero is very busy, especially when school traffic is on the road in the
mornings and evenings. Sometimes it can take 10 minutes to make a left tum at peak traffic times. The
IKeep Clear" sign painted on the junction of Arastradero and Cherry Oaks Place is regularly ignored by
dri veTS on Arastradero.
Is there an easy improvement that can be made 10 facilitate a safe left tum ontO Arastradero from Cherry
Oaks Place during peak traffic times? Thanks!
Daniel Fields
4189 Cherry Oaks Place
Palo Alto, CA 94306
7/2112011
1
Betten, Zariah
From:Hanwant Singh [hanwant.b.singh@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday, July 26, 2011 11:10 AM
To:Transportation
Cc:Raman Singh
Subject:Arastradero Road Restriping Project
Dear sir/madam,
This letter is to strongly support the trial period extension of the Arastradero Road
Restriping Project with the hope that it is eventually made permanent. We have lived on
Arastradero for over 20-years and have experienced the traffic flow situation on a daily
basis before and after the Restriping project. The addition of several turn lanes have
greatly improved safety and convenience for residents and school children. In the past
there was extremely fast (and unsafe) traffic on Arastradero mostly from people who
treated it as a 4-lane throughway. We have seen multiple accidents on Arastradero and
fast cars have also run into neighboring homes causing huge property damage. The new
arrangement has slowed through traffic
a bit making things a lot safer. Staggering of School times should
further improve the peak traffic situation. Overall our experience leaves no doubt that
Restriping offers a significant improvement over the situation that existed in the past.
We strongly recommend that Arastradero Road Restriping be made permanent.
Sincerely,
Dr. Hanwant B. Singh and Raman H. Singh
681 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 493-1079
Betten, Zaria.h
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Keri Wagner [keriw1 @earthlink.net]
Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1 :38 PM
Planning Commission
Keri Wagner
Please extend Arastradero trial
Dear Planning Commissioners --
Please extend the trial period for the Charleston/Arastradero corridor. with the changes
to the Gunn bell schedule, we really need to see how well traffic flows, with accurate
data taken over a full school year. The changes to the road have been fantastic, slowing
down traffic and making the road much safer. Yes, it's slow at peak times but it has
always been slow at peak times and at least the road
is now much safer. We have lived in Charleston Meadows since 1994.
The bike lane improvements and crosswalk improvements mean that my boys can now ride their
bikes or walk to Terman and Gunn, and I feel it is safe enough for them to do so.
Thank you for your consideration.
Keri Wagner
311 Edlee Ave
Palo Alto
1
Betten. Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
borisfoelsch@gmail.com
Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1 :49 PM
Planning Commission
pellson@pacbell.net
Subject: Arastradero Extension letter (Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org)
7/28/2011
D ARastradero Extension letter.docx
July 13, 2011
Palo Alto Council of PTAs
25 Churchill Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
www.paloaltopta.org
Honorable Commission Members,
We are writing to support staffs recommendation to extend the
Arastradero Re-Striping Trial. We agree that it is important to give
staff adequate time to evaluate the effect of changes made since the
initial restriping. There were multiple changes made to the initial
striping plan during the latter parts of this school year as well as delays
in implementation of the hardscape and new signalization (to be
installed this month).
7/28/2011
(
We are particularly interested in understanding the effect of Gunn
High School bell time changes. This is a change that the Palo Alto
Council of PT As Traffic Safety Committea-requested ten years ago
along with the city. The committee believed then that this change
would have a significant positive effect on morning peak hour
congestion, and we are very glad to see that P AUSD is now willing
and able to implement it.
Please support staff s recommendation to extend the trial.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Sincerely,
Boris Foelsch, Co-Chair & Middle Schools Representative
Penny ElIson, High Schools Representative
Palo Alto Council ofPTAs Traffic Safety Committee
Google Docs makes it easy to create, store and share online documents,
spreadsheets and presentations.
docs
Betten, Zariah
From: Betten, Zariah
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:55 PM
To: Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael
Subject: FW: Resurfacing of Channing Avenue East of Middlefield
fyi
Zariah Betten 11
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
Fronl: Jonathan Foster [mailto:jfoster@jfoster.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:06 AM
To:· Transportation
Subject: Resurfacing of Channing Avenue East of Middlefield
Hello. I was unable to attend the community meeting that was held last night on the issue of resurfacing
Channing Avenue east of Middlefield. I would be interested in hearing what options were presented and what
feedback was presented. I suspect I will have some feedback to add once I hear what options ~ere presented.
If you can forward to me whatever presentation was used in last night's meeting and whatever materials were
distributed, I would appreciate it. And if anyone has summarized the feedback that was received, please
forward that along as well (either now or, if it has not yet been summarized, but will later, then when it
becomes available). Thanks.
Jon Foster
Channing Avenue
(650) 533-0945
7/28/2011
Betten, Zariah
From: Don Nielson [nielsonz@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11 :02 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Arastradero's Future
Dear Commission Members,
Though I lead the small Miranda Neighborhood whose only access is from
Arastradero, and while I know a number of its residents are frustrated by the
restriping, I'll let them speak if they are serious enough to do so. This is more
of a personal note.
First of all, given the separation between Page Mill and San Antonio Roads,
the Arastradero-Charleston corridor will always have through-traffic pressure!
Thus, in the language of the Comprehensive Plan, it is likely a Residential Arterial.
Which leaves open the question of whether bicycle and pedestrian use is just
enabled or preferred. Keep in mind that only a small fraction of local residential
use will be car-less and essentially none of the non-residential will ever be.
My own experience is that westbound Arastradero traffic is pretty well
accommodated by the new striping while eastbound traffic is not. But I will
limit this to three brief observations:
1) This new corridor was to include traffic light synchronization and it seems
unfulfilled. Perhaps it is impractical given El Camino and the railroad
crossing but why hasn't this been addressed?
2) I'm not convinced by the traffic statistics because I don't believe they are
comprehensive enough. Any such characterization should begin with an
broader diurnal assessment of when traffic really is heavy rather than
assuming the two limited half hours they chose. I have often seen a continuous
eastbound line of cars from the Cemetery to the RR crossing in the 830-900am
time frame.
3) The eastbound backup turns the brief two-lane section near Terman into
an aggressive drive drag race.
All in all, I believe the assessment must continue for another year for what is
now present is largely unsatisfactory during heavy eastbound traffic.
Thanks for listening,
Don Nielson
850 Miranada Green
7/28/2011
Betten. Zariah
From: maravan@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11 :36 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Arastradero Corridor
As a resident living on Arastradero for nearly forty years, I have witnessed first hand
the "rampant speeding" and "reckless drivers" which caused the City to implement
this project. This experiment is nothing short of genius. For the first time in many
years, cars pass at staggered speeds so I can actually leave my driveway
safely. No longer do I hear careening vehicles, fearing that I am about to witness a
car driving into my living room. I was fed up with vehicles using this residential
neighborhood as a convenient detour to speed through illegally. This is not
hyperbole. The City knew they had to do something and so they did something
drastic. I for one applaud them.
Please maintain this project for at least another year.
Thank you,
Marilyn Van Horn
King Arthur Court
7/28/2011
Betten, Zariah
From: Michael Maurier [mmaurier@pubpow.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 4:49 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: July 13, 2011 Meeting: Arastradero Road Re-Striping Project
Palo Alto City Planning Commission Members:
In your meeting tomorrow (July 13, 2011) please support the staff's recommendation to extend the trial
period of the Arastradero Road Re-Striping Project through July 31,2012.
The extension would give staff adequate time to:
evaluate effect of changes made since the initial restriping. Though the initial restriping was
complete in late October, there were multiple changes made to the striping plan in response to
citizen input during the latter parts of this school year, including delays in implementation of the
hardscape (which was only completely installed at the end of the school year because the city
combined the project with hardscape installations at other locations to save money) and new
signalization (to be installed this month).
properly evaluate the effect of bell time changes. As you are doubtless aware, PAUSD has
announced that they intend to change Gunn bell times-starting in the Fall 2011 term. Gunn High
School will be modifying its bell schedule to begin classes at 8:25AM instead of the previous start
time of 7:55AM. The Bowman International School is also making bell schedule modifications to
begin school activities after 8:30AM. This is expected to reduce morning peak hour traffic
congestion. We are doubtful that any sort of changes to the traffic routing will ever wholly solve the
congestion in the area at peak traffic hours. But the bell-time changes are about the only thing I
currently believe might very well significantly improve the peak hour congestion without
compromising safety results. So these unanticipated but very welcome school bell time changes
unquestionably merit the requested time-extension to be properly evaluated.
collect a complete crash data set that measures the safety effects of the improvements.
review and possibly implement additional requested striping modifications near the west end
of the corridor to accommodate enhanced access to the Arastradero West apartment complex.
As you may have seen or heard at previous community meetings, there are a few people who continue to
be opposed to the project. These people seem primarily concerned with real or imagined inconveniences to
them that the project has caused and seem entirely unconcerned with the increasingly unsafe conditions on
Arastradero -especially since the reopening of the Terman --,-and the particular dangers this poses to
students.
We live on Fairmede Ave, have no other way to get in and out of our neighborhood than via
Arastradero, so we are also occasionally 'inconvenienced' by the project. But are willing to live with such
relatively minor inconveniences because the project has been a long-awaited, a badly needed effort to
improve safety along Arastradero ... particularly for school. age-children, and so far, appears to us to be
vastly improving safety for drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. The safety improvement aspect/intent of this
project is a critical point that the complainers seem all to willing to ignore.
Getting in and out of our Greenacres One neighborhood on Arastradero has always been somewhat
difficult/inconvenient at best, especially at peak traffic hours. But feels a lot safer now with the somewhat
slower traffic speeds, the various turn lanes and the fact that one doesn't have to contend with double
7/28/2011
lanes and faster traffic speeds in both directions. We'd really like the opportunity to see if our personal
impressions are borne out by empirical data.
Insofar as the complaints we have heard about traffic impact on adjacent neighborhood streets, we are also
somewhat inconvenienced by the now completely unregulated Terman drop-of and pick up congestion
traffic along our street and on adjacent Pomona. But we were aware that Terman might eventually be
reopened as a middle school when we secured our property and needed to be prepared for such a
possibility. One wonders just how many of those that complain of the varioius possible inconveniences
attendant living next to al the schools in our area would claim they weren't aware of the possible
ramifications of that over time. Or how many of them were the happy but naif supporters of all the increased
housing density in the city in recent years -never thinking that it might somehow impact them and their
sacred commute times. Or cause additional traffic on their adjacent neighborhood streets.
Apparently the critics of the project expect the project to be discontinued/4 lane-high speed traffic on
Arastradero restored based on their apocryphal experiences and have scant regard of empirical evaluation.
And a few persist in the belief that their real or imagined 'inconveniences' and observations should be given
precedence over careful measurement and data analysis. Which is not the way fair, rational, and effective
traffic planning is our should be done.
Finally, some of the critics don't seem to remember or otherwise make much connection with our south-end
experience in 2003 when 6 year old Amy Malzbender was killed and her 10-year-old friend, Chloe
McAusland, was injured on nearby Miranda Ave by A Palo Alto HS student who hit the girls with her car, but
failed to stop and continued in her all-important haste to get to her school. But some of us do remember this
horrific tragedy in our south-end neighborhood. And are more than willing to make sacrifices and support
carefully planned and exhaustively and objectively evaluated steps to try to prevent anything like it
happening again.
We therefore support the safety improvement efforts thus far made along both Charleston and Arastradero,
and ask your support for the staff's recommendation to extend the trial period of the Arastradero Road Re-
Striping Project through July 31,2012.
Sincerely,
Michael Maurier
Fairmede Ave.
Palo Alto
7/28/2011
Betten, Zariah
~"--~~~~ ~--------------------------------~
From: Kurt Partridge [kepart@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:53 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please extend the Arastradero trial
I am writing in support of continuing the trial to study the improvements of
the Arastradro road-restriping project.
I am a Palo Alto resident who regularly conunutes on Arastradero, often
late at night. I have found the changes to add greatly to the road's
safety, especially by protecting the left tum at Coulombe, which had
previously required either hopping onto the sidewalk, stopping in the narrow
bicycle lane, blocking traffic there, or crossing four lanes of fast-moving
traffic.
The city's support for bicycling makes it possible for me to live without
a car, and encourages others to do so as well, to the benefit of their
health, their pocketbooks, and the environment. It makes me proud to be
a Palo Alto resident.
--Kurt Partridge
4129 EI Camino Way Apt U
Palo Alto, CA 94306
7/28/2011
Betten, Zariah
From: Ellen Fletcher [ef@ellenfletcher.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12,2011 8:58 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Arastrastradero Rd Restripting Project
Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission:
I urge you to approve the staff recommendation to extend the Arastradero Road restriping project for at least
another year.
It appears that bicycle and pedestrian safety has improved since the implementation of the restriping. Bicycle
and pedestrian safety considerations must be first and foremost in any decision you make.
Sincerely,
Ellen Fletcher
899 E. Charleston Road #E-407
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4650
7/28/2011
Betten. Zariah
From: HSGolden@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:44 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Re: the Arastradero Road Re-Striping Project
To: City of Palo Alto Planning Commission
Re: the Arastradero Road Re-Striping Project
I have had the misfortune of being hit and injured by an automobile while I was crossing
Charleston Road so I have been closely monitoring the progress of the Arastradero Road
Re-Striping Project.
I encourage the Commission to extend the trial period (as was wisely done in the past) in
order to give some additional time to think through and review the changes that have
occurred ~ince the last evaluation (i.e. observe any effect that Gunn bell time changes might
make).
Process is important.
Thank you.
Helen S. Golden
460 EI Capitan PI,
Palo Alto CA 94396
7/28/2011
Betten, Zariah
From: Claire Kirner [chkirner@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 11 :25 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Arastradero Re-Striping
Dear City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission,
I am writing to ask you to follow staffs recommendation to extend the trial period of the
Arastradero Road Re-Striping Project through July 31, 2012. I feel that a project of this scope
needs to be adequately assessed before anything is decided. Since the initial re-striping, there
have been changes (such as installation of the hardscape and new signalization to be installed
this month). We need time to evaluate the effects of these changes, along with a change in
school start times for both Gunn and Bowman this fall. The city has invested a lot of time and
energy into this project, and it would be a waste to not properly review and examine all
relevant variables and data. Please give this project the time and careful analysis it deserves
by extending the trial.
Thank you,
Claire Kirner
3934 Nelson Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94306
7/28/2011
To: Planning Commission, City of Palo Alto
Re: Arastradero Phase 2 project.
3150 Emerson Street
July 12, 2011
I am writing as a member of the community, an experienced bicyclist who primarily travels by
bicycle within Palo Alto. I have been a member of PABAC (Palo Alto
Bike Advisory Committee) for about 18 months, but this letter only represents me.
My experience with Arastradero is that I have been commuting by bicycle from Foothill to EI
Camino Real every weekday evening between 6:00 pm and 7:00 pm for about 5 years,and before
that about 30 minutes earlier for 9 years. (I take the bus on a different route in the morning).
First the EI Camino Real (ECR) I Arastradero I Charleston intersection is one of the worst for
bicycling in the ci~ and is nearly unaffected by this project. Bike lanes disappear and lanes are
narrow within a half block of the intersection on W. Charleston, and for an entire block on the
Arastradero side. The danger and risk for cycling that section is an order of magnitude higher
than the sections affected by this Phase 2 of the corridor project, yet it is a well used cycling route
for Terman and Gunn students.
Speaking to this project, The Arastradero Phase 2 project has been a small improvement to my
commute. The changes affecting me are:
1) The left tum pockets make it much easier to tum left and continue my commute down
Maybell, instead of keeping to Arastradero all the way to ECR.
BUT: The way the traffic tends to be a steady stream in one lane, instead of clumpy in 2 lanes,
makes it more difficult to get across traffic to the left tum pockets. A less experienced cyclist
might choose to just stay right, and use the pedestrian light at Coulombe for a left tum there,
instead of getting across traffic to the protected left tum. This maneuver, using the pedestrian
signat was available before the trial.
2) The configuration of 1 traffic lane plus a bike lane transitioning to 2 traffic lanes at
McKella~ one block before ECR, feels a little safer in the case where I choose to continue in the
traffic lane. In the previous configuration two traffic lanes were continuous while the bike lane
disappeared, and I was likely to ride onto the sidewalk.
BUT: This helps only one small aspect of this scary intersection. I see very few other cyclists
using this new configuration to "take the lane". Many prefer to scoot by next to the curb, or just
go onto the sidewalk.
3) I do perceive the traffic to be a little slower. This makes the road feel safer for cycling.
As an auto driver, I have occasionally driven West on Arastradero, to either drop off one of my sons
at Gunn HS, or to commute to work. Before this triat I think the backup going West on
Arastradero from 7 :40 to 8:00 am often was from East of Clemo all the way to Gunn, but I don1t
ever recall the backup spilling to W. Charleston and to left turning traffic on ECR, as it did daily
this past school year.
My personal opinion is that Palo Alto needs 4 lanes on Arastradero just to maintain enough traffic
throughput to avoid complete congestion, at many hours of the day. The new configuration
reduces the flow and queuing of traffic, leading
to end-to-endbackups. Slowing traffic, especially at off-peak times, is a great improvement.
Maybe this can be achieved without reducing the lanes. For example speed tables could be added,
like on Louis, or the current electronic speed detectors could be coordinated with the lights. Cars
detected travelling 15% over the speed limit could be greeted with red lights at the next
intersection! '
I am hopeful that the new bell timing at Gunn HS will help traffic (with either lane configurationt
but will that be enough, and solve all the other problems created on the corridor? Should city
planning choose to extend the triat I hope you will reconsider it again shortly after the start of the
school year to see if the most recent changes will make the situation tolerable for the community.
Sincerely,
Robert Neff
3150 Emerson Street
Palo Alto
650-858-2436
robert@neffs.net
Betten, Zariah
From: Richard Swent [RSwent@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 7:44 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: I support Arastradero project
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am unable to attend the meeting, but I want to express my support for the staff recommendatiqn to continue
the trial project on Arastradero Road. As a bicyclist I find the conditions to be considerably improved. I know
there is some peak-hour congestion, as there was before the changes. That congestion lasts for only a short
time on weekdays, but a wide road that encourages speeding has negative safety consequences for 24 hours
every day. The change in Gunn starting time will help reduce the peak-hour congestion, and we should give staff
time to work on other ways to reduce this before we abandon the project. I don't want to see my family's safety
compromised in order to save a few seconds of time fpr someone in a car.
Richard Swent
2950 Clara Dr
Palo Alto, CA 94303
7/28/2011
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Betten, Zariah
Monday, July 11,2011 7:32 AM
Rodriguez, Jaime; Rius, Rafael; Williams, Curtis; Arthur Keller; Dan Garber; Daniel Garber;
Eduardo Martinez; Greg Tanaka; Lee Lippert; Michael Picetti; Samir Tuma; Susan Fineberg
Cc: Tronquet, Melissa
Subject: FW: Charleston Road Re-Striping
fyi
Zariah Betten 1l
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
Fronl: Shirley Campbell [mailto:sjccolts@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 2: 16 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Charleston Road Re-Striping
Dear Commissioner,
I live in the Greenmeadow area of Palo Alto and use Charleston Rd. regularly in the morning commute
hours and at various times of the day. I have observed the striping consequences on Charleston Rd. now
for several years and it is a nightmare. I see by the mailing I received that you are considering re-
striping Arastadero and I think you should seriously consider doing the same further east on Charleston.
It is a real bottleneck at Nelson and Charleston and sometimes it takes 2-3 light cycles before I can make
a right turn onto Charleston. This was not true with the former striping. In these several years I have
seen only 4 cars make a left tum or u-turn on Charleston at that intersection. Since there is only one
through driving lane now the cars back up 16-20 cars of so. It's really congested. Someone needs to
seriously consider returning to the earlier striping with 2 lanes in each direction. It doesn't make sense
as it is now striped.
I tried to reach you department bye-mail and phone previously and never reached a viable
number/address. I sincerely hope this get through.
Thank you for considering a change to this dilemma.
Sincerely,
Shirley Campbell
494-1378
244 Greenmeadow Way
Palo Alto 94306
7/28/2011
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Betten, Zariah
Tuesday, July 26, 2011 1 :18 PM
Rius, Rafael
Subject: FW: Arastradero Road Restriping Project
fyi
zariah Betten a
Planning Dept., Ext. 2440
-----Original Message-----
From: Hanwant Singh [mailto:hanwant.b.singh@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 11:10 AM
To: Transportation
Cc: Raman Singh
Subject: Arastradero Road Restriping Project
Dear sir/madam,
This letter is to strongly support the trial period extension of the Arastradero Road
Restriping Project with the hope that it is eventually made permanent. We have lived on
Arastradero for over 20-years and have experienced the traffic flow situation on a daily
basis before and after the Restriping project. The addition of several turn lanes have
greatly improved safety and convenience for residents and school children. In the past
there was extremely fast (and unsafe) traffic on Arastradero mostly from people who
treated it as a 4-lane throughway. We have seen mUltiple accidents on Arastradero and
fast cars have also run into neighboring homes causing huge property damage. The new
arrangement has slowed through traffic
a bit making things a lot safer. Staggering of School times should
further improve the peak traffic situation. Overall our experience leaves no doubt that
Restriping offers a significant improvement over the situation that existed in the past.
We strongly recommend that Arastradero Road Restriping be made pe:manent.
Sincerely,
Dr. Hanwant B. Singh and Raman H. Singh
681 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 493-1079
1
[PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY
ICLERK'S OFFICE TO VIEW
~DITIONAL PAGES OR
Minor, Beth ~TTACI:mfEN'l'S RELATED TO THIS
__ ~ __ ~~~~OcmmN'l'.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Wayne Martin [wmartin46@yahoo.com]
Friday, July 22, 2011 4:09 PM
Council, City
Keene, James; Williams, Curtis
Traffic Accident Analysis Of The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Attachments: wem_pa_ charleston _ arastradero _traffic_analysis _reL 1.doc
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Cc: James Keene, Curtis Williams
Subject: Traffic Analysis of The Charleston!Arastradero Corridor
Elected Council Members:
Page 1 of1
The attached MS-WORD file contains a traffic analysis of the so-called Charleston! Arastradero
Corridor. It is sugested that this material be used when considering the future ofthis roadway.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto, CA
7/2512011
Charleston/ Arastradero Corridor Traffic Accident Analysis
Table of Contents
Section
T~k #
Executive Summary 1.0
Preface 2.0
Introduction 3.0
Overview Of The Charleston! Arastradero Transportation "Corridor" 4.0
PicturesNideos Of "C/ A Corridor" Intersections 5.0
Perspective: Traffic Accidents In Charleston! Arastradero Corridor
vs City-wide Accidents 6.0
IS-Year Traffic Accident History/Trends On the "C/A Corridor" 7.0
Traffic Accident Locations 8.0
Issues Involved With Traffic Accident Analysis 9.0
Intersection vs Non-Intersection Accidents In Palo Alto 10.0
Accident Locations On The "C/ A Corridor" For 2009 11.0
Top-10 Most Dangerous Intersections In Palo Alto 12.0
Breakdown of Palo Alto-wide Accidents--Intersections vs Non-Intersections 13.0
Breakdown of Intersection vs Non-Intersection Accidents on
"C/ A Corridor" 14.0
Traffic Volume On Arastradero Road 15.0
S-Year Overview Of City-wide vs "C/ A Corridor" Traffic Accidents 16.0
IS-Year Casualty Counts For Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Accidents 17.0
Bicycle/Pedestrian Accidents In Palo Alto For 2009 18.0
Bicycle/Pedestrian Accidents On The "C/A Corridor" For 2009 19.0
Bicycle/Pedestrian Accidents In Peninsula Cities 20.0
Accidents Per Million-Vehicle-Miles Driven On Arastradero Road 21.0
Age of Parties Involved In Accidents On "C/ A Corridor" 22.0
AlcohollDrugs Involved Accidents 23.0
IS-Year History of Accidents At Gunn High School 24.0
Accidents At the Alma/Charleston Caltrain Crossing 25.0
Effects of School Crossing Guards on Traffic Accidents On "C/ A Corridor" 26.0
Root Causes of Traffic Accidents On "C/ A Corridor" 27.0
Effect of Cell Phone Use on Traffic Accidents On "C/A Corridor" 28.0
"C/A Corridor" End-to-End Travel Times 29.0
Discussion 30.0
Future Investigations 31.0
Conclusion 32.0
1.0 Executive Summary
Traffic accident data for Palo Alto (CA), obtained from the Califomia Highway Patrol
(CHP) for the years 1995-2009, has been analyzed to provide insights into the number of
accidents in Palo Alto, the kinds of accidents, and to investigate possible relationships
between accident locations and the frequency/kind of accidents at those locations. This
analysis, necessarily data-intensive, is being released in sections. This section
investigates the so-called "CharlestoniArastradero Transportation Corridor". Given the
numerous details involved in such an analysis, several readings might be required to fully
appreciate the implications ofthe results. The results are presented in tabular fashion,
and graphically, where trends can be easily demonstrated.
This analysis reveals:
• There has been, on the whole, a decline in the number of reported accidents in
Palo Alto over the past fifteen years.
• The total number of traffic accidents in Palo Alto, on the average, tends to be a
little higher than those of other Peninsula cities.
• Traffic volume data obtained from the Traffic Engineering Department shows that
there has been a decline from about 25,000 vehicles a day in 1999, to about
19,000 vehicles a day in 2011.
• Accidents/MVM (Million Vehicle Milles) have decreased from about 3.3 in 1999
to about 2.5 in 2011, based on decreased traffic volume alone.
• Accidents on the "CIA Corridor" for the 15-year study period constitute about 4-
7% of the yearly accident count for Palo Alto.
• Accident counts on the "CIA Corridor" parallel the 15-year decline in the number
of city-wide accidents.
• During 2009, there were, on average, slightly more than one accident a month on
Arastradero Road, and East Charleston Road, and fewer than one accident a
month on West Charleston Road.
• The number of fatal vehicle accidents in Palo Alto is very small. In like manner,
the number of fatal accidents on the "CIA Corridor" is quite small. No
pedestrians have been killed because of vehicular accidents during the past fifteen
years on the "CIA Corridor".
• The number oftraffic accidents in Palo Alto, and the "CIA Corridor", that involve
alcohol/drugs is small.
• "Unsafe Speed" Is Not The Dominant Reason For Traffic Accidents On The "CIA
Corridor" .
• The number ofbicycle/pedestrian accidents is somewhat higher on the "CIA
Corridor" than in Palo Alto, on the whole.
• The intersection at East Charleston & San Antonio Road is the third most
dangerous in Palo Alto, based on accident count.
• Twenty-five percent of the accidents occur at intersections on the "CIA Corridor",
the remaining 75% occur between intersections.
• The traffic accident data does not include 2010, which would be helpful in
determining any clear impact on "safety" for the so-called Charleston! Arastradero
Downsizing Road Reconfiguration Project.
• The highest number of vehicle accidents for 2005-2009, on average, occurred on
Segment #1 (San Antonio Road to Middlefield Road) and Segment #4 (EI Camino
to Foothill).
• Frequent traffic volume/speed data is needed to make meaningful correlations in
year-to-year variances in the accident data.
• Access to raw Traffic Accident Reports is restrict~d by state law, inhibiting the
ability to provide detailed traffic accident analyses.
• The perception of "safety" on the "CIA Corridor" is based on the prevailing 25
mph speed limit, which is probably too low for this road segment.
Since Palo Alto traffic accident data has not been systematically monitored, and reported,
by Traffic Engineering in the past, it is suggested that traffic accident data be included in
the decision process in the future, where issues involving traffic "safety" are concerned.
This is particularly true now, since Traffic Engineering is proposing the continued
reduction of the number of lanes on Charleston/Arastradero Corridor without presenting
data to the public about the effects of this downsizing on the occurrence of traffic
accidents that can be attributed to the road design.
2.0 Preface
During the initial promotion of the so-called Charleston!Arastradero Downsizing Project,
in the 2003-2004 timeframe, the Palo Alto Transportation/Engineering Department made
many claims about various reconfigurations to Palo Alto streets and roads that involved
the reduction of risk to cyclists and motorists. However, when pressed to define terms
like "safety", "danger" or "risk"-the key players in these Departments could not provide
definitions, or metrics, that were used by the road/street design discipline that provided
any sense that any of the streets in Palo Alto, or in the so-called Charleston! Arastradero
Transportation Corridor, were ''unsafe'', or "dangerous". Moreover, these same key
players could not provide any metrics that the streets would necessarily be "safer", or
"less dangerous" if their reconfigurations were applied to this roadway. For the most
part, the whole topic of traffic accidents based on road design, or traffic volume on this
roadway, was not discussed in a meaningful way, if at all. Overall, it is difficult to be
impressed by the Palo Alto Traffic Engineering Department's use of historic data to make
decisions about traffic engineering designs for the future.
Personal research revealed that traffic engineers do use one metric, however:
accidents/million vehicle miles as an indicator of "safety". Unfortunately, this is a very
rough metric, and can not readily be applied from street-to-road-to-highway, without
coming to conclusions about a road's "safety" that are more likely wrong, than not.
Attempts to obtain this metric from the Palo Alto Traffic Division has not been fruitful in
the past, although they did recently provide some traffic volume data which can be used
to estimate this number for the Arastradero Road segment of the "C/A Corridor".
Other indicators do exist, such as number of deaths, injuries, and the nominal damage to
the individuals in terms of medical care, lost productivity and wages. However, while
this data is available to the public (via the CHP), such data is generally not used as
metrics to justify engineering decisions reconfiguring roadways.
Publicly available accident data for Palo Alto does exist, however. The fact that this
wealth of data was ignored by the people entrusted to make the best decisions for the
public good caused me to want to do an analysis of this data to see what there was to be
learned, and to introduce this information into the public record so that the decisions
involving traffic accidents here in Palo Alto would not be ignored by government
officials in the future.
Since there are no standardized approaches to traffic accident analysis, this study has
developed in a more-or-Iess "organic" fashion, based on the results of attempts to
establish correlations between the numerous "variables" that are collected from each
accident investigation!report. The most interesting relationships that were revealed by
these inquiries have been included in this study.
This research has produced about 60,000 of SQL (Structured Query Language), using
MySQL as the database engine. The data was provided by the California Highway
Patrol, per request.
3.0 Introduction
Over the years there has been a lot of hysteria expressed by certain residents about the
traffic "problems" on the "Charleston! Arastradero Corridor". At one point, the City
actually declared a "Development Moratorium" along this roadway while it did "studies"
in order to halt development on two major projects on!near the "Corridor". These
"studies" added significant project delays, which turned out to be a contributory factor in
these projects being either abandoned, or greatly reduced in scale.
Periodically, some residents have made unsubstantiated claims about "how dangerous"
the "C/ A Corridor" is, but little, or no, real evidence of this danger was presented in a
formalized fashion, by anyone associated with the City, or even those making these
claims. The former Chief of Police (Lynn Johnson) stated at one point that: "this
roadway is not particularly dangerous" (or words to that effect), but no official accident
data was ever produced to prove, or disprove, that point, either way. In fact, no definition
of "danger", "risk", or even "safety", has ever been introduced into the dialogue by the
City that provided residents a rational way to review, think about, and come to
conclusions about, the safety of Palo Alto roadways.
At the time of the primary Charleston! Arastradero dialog, it seemed that hysteria, not
facts, prevailed--driven by some of the so-called Neighborhood Associations-that were
key to killing off the Rickey's Hotel expansion project. One City Council Member went
so far as to proclaim: "The Charleston! Arastradero Corridor is a Mini-Oregon
Expressway" (or words to that effect), without providing any details, or proof. Politics,
not traffic engineering, or rational inquiry, seemed to be the primary "stakeholder at the
table" as this process wound its way to the City Council.
To remedy the lack of actual traffic accident data in this debate, traffic accident reports
from the California Highway Patrol's SWITRS (Statewide Integrated Traffic Records
System) database were acquired, and examined from a number of different points-of-
view. This paper on the "Charleston! Arastradero Corridor", is a section of a full-city
traffic accident study reviewing traffic accidents throughout all of Palo Alto.
The work is not intended to be an engineering analysis of the "Charleston!Arastradero
Corridor". Instead, it is a study ofthe traffic accidents along this roadway, with some
interpretations oftrends revealed by the data. This paper is only intended to provide
residents along the "Corridor" hard data to use in discussing the changes on
Charleston! Arastradero in the future-<iata which has been provided by the City in the
past.
Errors will be correct when identified, via future releases of this document.
4.0 Overview Of The Charleston/ Arastradero Transportation "Corridor"
I -
~n\rol '.
Portola. v."~y
I
\-' J :,'
b .; /~
>0001. " eyfianch
'.
Los'AIIOS _.
~'IIS ;
.-
LOS"AIIO$ , I, -~ •. . ,--AImondA"". ' -
. :No""._ ", I los Attos --1 .'
, .. -, . -i -.".--:-' 1
. " §-;: '~ .. ~: ': i .;!'.' -I Cu'.
... /' 'I, "''''~.Dr i"i
~:~~J .l~~::,: , .
~ .... Rancho ~"!
Map of Charleston/ Arastradero Transportation Corridor
Segment Color Codes
Seg.l-Red
Seg.2 -Yellow
Seg.3 -Green
Seg.4 -Blue
Seg.5 -Violet
The so-called Charleston Road/ Arastradero Road Transportation Corridor that runs
through southern Palo Alto starts near Highway. 1 01, in a light-industrial area, and
proceeds in a southwesterly fashion through the residential sections of South Palo Alto,
traversing a very badly designed., at-grade, Caltrain crossing, eventually passing into Los
Altos Hills, then into the foothills, where it finally terminates at Alpine Road--not quite at
the ridgeline. All of Arastradero Road is included within the confines ofthe so-called
"Corridor" in this study, whereas the City of Palo Alto Traffic Engineering does not
include the segment from Foothill Expressway up to Alpine Road (Segment.S) in its
definition.
There are perhaps ten stop lights between the easterly terminus of the "C/ A Corridor",
and Foothill Expressway. On the three blocks of East Charleston, between Middlefield
and Alma Street, there are four (4) stoplights, and a railroad (at grade) crossing-which
require frequent stops for vehicles, resulting in a higher probability of accidents.
Additionally, the south-westerly "orientation of the roadway allows the sun to be in
drivers' eyes at certain times of the year, and certain times ofthe day. This geographical
condition results in many drivers running red lights at these intersections in the
afternoons of some parts of the year, and no doubt has been a contributing factor in some
accidents.
All told, the "Charleston! Arastradero Corridor" runs just over seven miles, end-to-end.
Since traffic accidents outside the Palo Alto municipal jurisdiction are often assigned to
the Palo Alto Police Department for responselinvestigation, non-Palo Alto accidents on
Arastradero are included in this report.
According to the City of Palo Alto Traffic Engineering Department,
Charleston! Arastradero Road is a residential arterial and a designated School Route that
serves:
• 11 public & private elementary, middle & high schools
• Multiple preschools
• 3 community centers
• 6 public & private parks
• Stanford Research Park
From a traffic accident analysis point-of-view, this study sub-divides the "Corridor" into
five segments, as the traffic volumes, number of signal lights, and school locations, all
contribute to the traffic dynamics that are contributory to traffic accidents. The following
table identifies the segments:
Se_9ment # S~gment
Near Highway 101 to
1 Middlefield
2 Middlefield to Alma
3 Alma to EI Camino Real
4 EI Camino to Foothill
5 Foothill to Alpine Road
The years 1995-2009 are included in this study of the CIA "Corridor". (Unfortunately,
complete data for 2010 will not be available for several months from the CRP.)
Traffic volume data previously obtained from the Palo Alto Traffic Engineering
Department (1965-1999) shows constant growth in traffic volumes on all major Palo Alto
streets, with the San Antonio segment carrying 24,900 vehicles a day, the West
Charleston Segment carrying about 18,100 vehicles a day, and the East Charleston
Segment carrying about 18,500 vehicles a day. Data published by Traffic Engineering
for the Lane Reduction Project shows traffic volumes in the mid-18,000 vehicles a day.
This 25% reduction in traffic volume is not related to the Lane Reduction Project, but can
be attributed to the general decline in the Silicon Valley business climate, that started
with the end ofthe so-called "Dot.Com" bubble in 2000.
5.0 PictureslVideos Of Charleston/ Arastradero Corridor Traffic
The following videos, and pictures, should help to fan1iliarize people who might be
unfamiliar with this roadway, or with current traffic conditions on this roadway:
Traffic Counts For Major Streets In Palo Alto (1999):
http://www.flickr.comlphotos128767 526@N06/5945330512/
Traffic At East Charleston/San Antonio Road:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYnFzJmbUoA
Traffic At East Charleston Road/Fabian Way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URp2fXt4N-8
Intersection At East Charleston/Road and Middlefield Road:
TBD:
Hoover Parents Making Unsafe Exits From School:
http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v= XDyZ8 _ az 1 ok
Alma Street/East Charleston Road Intersection:
http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=pLwKTBENJGw
Vehicles Crossing Caltrain Tracks At West Charleston/Alma Street:
http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=kDZQx9Qrn8HY
Queued Vehicles On West Charleston Road During Train Crossings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQsHltg-YV A
Intersection At West Charleston Road/EI Camino Real:
http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=p2PLqAVwt8g
Traffic At McKellar Lane and Arastradero Road:
http://www.youtube.com!watch?v= aOfQw8QMLA
Arastradero Road When Lane Reduction Work Performed:
http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=7v_T-yHyPXI
Traffic On Arastradero Road As Viewed From Crossing Island:
http://www.youtube.comlwatch?v=dQernSVCVbSU
Speed Limit Sign On Arastradero Obscured By Tree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4ErnFLegpUk
New Speed Monitoring Sign On Arastradero Road:
TBD:
Questionable Car Parking Lane On Arastradero Road:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCHW AaGSzIY
Left-Tum Lanes On Arastradero Road:
TBD:
Driveway At Gunn High School On Arastradero Road:
http://www.youtube.com!watch?v=IBJrnXMlt9KY
Intersection At Arastradero Road and Foothill Expressway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdwP404tkpU
Note--other videos documenting dangerous intersections, and other traffic-related issues,
can be found on: www.youtube.comlwrnartin46.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1873)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 8/1/2011
August 01, 2011 Page 1 of 3
(ID # 1873)
Summary Title: Weed Abatement Reso
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming Weed Abatement
Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the
Respective Properties Described Therein
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Fire
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council (1) hold a public hearing to hear and consider objections from
affected property owners of proposed assessments related to completed weed abatement
work and (2) adopt the attached resolution confirming the report and ordering abatement costs
to be a special assessment on the properties specified in the report.
Background
The Weed Abatement Division of Santa Clara County Agriculture and Environmental
Management administers the contract for weed abatement within the City of Palo Alto, in
accordance with an agreement established on April 18, 1977 between the City and County.
On December 13, 2010, in accordance with Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
City Council declared weeds to be a nuisance and ordered that the nuisance be abated. A
public hearing was held on January 10, 2011, to consider objections to the proposed
destruction or removal of the weeds. No objections were noted. Once the above steps had
been taken, the County Weed Abatement Division instructed its contractor to abate weeds on
City and private properties within Palo Alto. That work has now been completed. Property
owners were notified the third week in December 2010 that weeds were to be abated by April
30, 2011, either by the owners or by the County. If the property owners chose to have the
County abate the weeds, the abatement charges would be levied against the respective
August 01, 2011 Page 2 of 3
(ID # 1873)
properties as an assessment by the County Assessor. The County has since informed the
property owners of the costs for destroying and removing the weeds.
The City Clerk has published the required notice of this hearing in the Palo Alto Weekly. The
cost report by the County Weed Abatement Division has been posted on the City Hall Plaza
bulletin board for ten days prior to this hearing.
Discussion
Property owners may object to the charges for weed abatement being levied against their
properties. The charge consists of the contractor’s cost plus 150 percent administrative
charges, in accordance with Palo Alto’s contract with Santa Clara County (CMR 357:00,
September 18, 2000).
A representative from the County Weed Abatement Division will be present at the public
hearing with the records of weed abatement that have taken place. Should there be any
modifications in the proposed assessments as a result of the hearing, changes in the
assessment spread will be made as necessary. After any recalculations are completed, and
Council adopts the attached resolution confirming the abatements and ordering those costs to
be imposed as liens on the abated properties, the assessments will be submitted to the County
Assessor for entry on the October tax roll upon which general City taxes are to be collected.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact of this action to the City. The assessments identified on
Attachment B, totaling $2,250, will be imposed as liens on the properties listed and will not be
borne by the City.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This procedure is consistent with existing City policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
August 01, 2011 Page 3 of 3
(ID # 1873)
The Santa Clara County Counsel has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be
Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308.
Attachments:
·Weed Abatement Reso w-Exhibit A Aug 2011 (PDF)
·Attachment B (PDF)
Prepared By:Gordon Simpkinson,
Department Head:Dennis Burns, Police Chief
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
August 1, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Recommendation from the Policy & Services Committee Regarding
Electronic Packet for Council
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE:
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Burt that
the Council policy would encourage but not require Council Members purchase
and use their own electronic reading devices, the City would purchase any
applications required to allow the Council Members to read the packet on their
device. The City could choose to pay any applicable monthly fees incurred by the
Council Member to receive the packet. These charges would fluctuate based upon
the Council Member having either Wi-Fi or 3G access. Staff would support the
accessibility of the electronic packet.
MOTION PASSED: 3-1 Price no
BACKGROUND
The Policy and Services Committee have met on June 14, 2011 and July 14, 2011
to discuss and make a recommendation on electronic packets for the City Council.
Distributing the packet to Council Members electronically fits into the City’s
overall sustainability goals through the reduction of paper use and other
resources used to distribute the packet.
The City Clerk has taken the lead in identifying technology solutions that help
make Council processes be more efficient, and achieve cost savings. In
conjunction with the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Information Technology
Division, and the Administrative Services Director, Staff has explored moving
toward a paperless packet for the City Council. Beginning last fall, the City
Manager and his department along with the City Clerk department piloted a
program to receive the Council packet electronically.
Updated: 7/27/2011 11:54 AM by Donna Grider Page 2
Staff produces weekly packets for the upcoming City Council Meetings. These
packets can be anywhere from a couple hundred pages to over 1,000 pages and
are produced approximately 46 times a year. Each packet is copied 22 times and
distributed to Council, the Libraries, and the public in the Chambers.
Once the packets are complete they are delivered via City vehicle to the
Council Member’s homes and the libraries in a special delivery that
evening.
The current process is to produce a total of 22 packets:
· Nine for Council
· Six for the public in the Chambers
· Three for the libraries
· Two for media (KZSU, Palo Alto Weekly)
· One for Staff
· One for the City Clerk
Moving to an electronic packet would reduce the number of paper packets
produced by 50%. Staff would only distribute 11 paper packets:
· Six for the public in the Chambers
· Four for the libraries (increased for Downtown Library reopening)
· One for KZSU
The paper packets should still be completed for the public and the libraries to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Additional paper packets may
still be provided by request for a charge of $35.00 per packet as found in the
Municipal Fee Schedule. Staff actively encourages members of the public to
access the packet on-line and subscribe to the agenda notification program,
GovDelivery (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/council.asp). If a
Council Member preferred, a paper packet would still be produced for them.
If Council directs Staff to proceed with the implementation of the electronic
packet, Staff would notify Council via email when their packet is ready each week.
Council Members would then download the packet to their electronic device.
DISCUSSION
Updated: 7/27/2011 11:54 AM by Donna Grider Page 3
Committee Discussion
The Policy & Services Committee reviewed various options from the City
purchasing the electronic devices to the Council Member using their own
electronic devices, including having (1) the City purchase devices for all Council
Members, (2) the Council Members purchase their own devices with the City
providing support for the packet and other City uses, or (3) a combination of the
two options. At the first meeting on the issue, the Committee asked the City
Attorney to provide additional information regarding whether a policy governing
use of electronic devices is required and whether Council Members would be able
to use the devices for personal purposes.
The final motion was a recommendation that Council Members should purchase
and use their own devices if they wish to receive the packet electronically.
Because state law prohibits council members from using City-owned resources for
personal use, Council Members supporting the motion expressed concern about
issuing City-owned electronic devices.
Financial Issues
Administrative Services Staff prepared a cost analysis showing the current cost of
producing and delivering paper packets versus the distribution of an electronic
packet to Council. An electronic packet can be read on just about any type of
computer or e-reader. The calculated break-even point would occur in the
second year.
The budget savings would include dramatically reduced printing costs as the
number of packets printed could be reduced from 22 to 11. There still will
periodically be a need for delivery to Council Members when there are large
documents such as plans and EIR’s.
Legal Issues
The Committee raised two potential legal issues that were addressed in detail in
the July 12 report to the Committee and summarized briefly below.
The first issue is the city does not currently have a policy specifically addressing
electronic communications (or other uses of electronic devices) during Council
meetings. The Committee asked whether a policy revision was required to
Updated: 7/27/2011 11:54 AM by Donna Grider Page 4
address transparency issues associated with use of electronic devices during
Council meetings. No policy revision is legally required, so long as Council
Members avoid using the devices to develop a collective concurrence on an item
before the Council, which could violate the Brown Act, and do not use the devices
to communicate and receive evidence to which other Council Members or parties
to a quasi-judicial proceeding do not have access, which could create potential
due process issues by creating a perceived or actual challenge to a fair hearing.
Outside of these two considerations, it is not illegal to communicate with others
during a meeting, whether through an electronic device or any other means. A
policy revision is therefore not legally required, as these limitations exist whether
or not the Council adopts a policy specifically addressing electronic
communications. In addition, existing protocols already address these concerns
generally by providing that Council Members “should comply with both the letter
and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operation of government.”
The second issue was whether Council Members would be able to use City-issued
electronic devices for personal use. Public employees and officials in California are
subject to stringent requirements regarding use of City resources; any personal
use of City-owned equipment beyond that which is incidental, occasional,and
minimal, is prohibited by Government Code section 8314(a), which provides that
“It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local
appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public
resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not
authorized by law.” “Personal purpose” under this law is very broadly defined to
include activities resulting in personal gain or generally unrelated to City business,
as well as any activity for “personal enjoyment.” (Gov’t. Code § 8314(b)(1)).. The
Council Protocols also address this rule by providing that “Members shall not use
public resources, such as City staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for
private gain or personal purposes. Under these rules, using a city-issued device to
either conduct non-City business or for any general use that contributes to
personal enjoyment could be viewed as creating a “private advantage” in
violation of the law.
At the meeting on July 14, 2011,the committee’s discussion focused on the
following issues:
· Based upon the City Attorney’s research, Committee Members expressed
concern that it might be too easy for Council Members to use an electronic
Updated: 7/27/2011 11:54 AM by Donna Grider Page 5
device for personal use in violation of Government Code section 8314,
prompting the recommendation that Council Members should purchase
their own devices.
· Council Member Klein also noted that personal information on a City-issued
device might be more likely than a personal device to be subject to
disclosure could subject the city to claims for discoverability.
· Council Member Burt asked whether the Council Members could be given
an additional stipend in an amount sufficient to purchase an electronic
device. Such a stipend would be considered compensation and would
exceed the maximum amounts allowed for council members under the
charter, municipal code, and state law.
· Council Member Burt also asked whether the City could reimburse
members for the personal purchase of an electronic device. However, the
law limits reimbursement to actual and necessary expenses incurred in the
performance of official duties such as travel, meals, and lodging for city-
related business. (Cal. Gov’t Code § 53232.2). Reimbursing for a device
which could be used for non-official business would not meet these
standards for reimbursement.
ATTACHMENTS:
·a:Cost Analysis 7-20-11 (XLS)
·b:Report to P&S June 14 (PDF)
·c:Report to P&S July 12 (PDF)
·d:PS 7-12-11 E Packet Excerpt (PDF)
Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 7/27/2011 11:54 AM by Donna Grider Page 6
Current Annual Cost Estimate
Printing 23,011.22$
Delivery 6,798.57$
Total 29,809.79$
Annual Printing Costs,
Post Tablet 13,944.97$
Annual Delivery Costs,
Post Tablet 5,367.66$
Annualized Equipment
Purchase Cost -$
Annualized Dais Wiring
Cost 2,000.00$
Annual Data Plan Cost 4,548.00$
Total Annual(ized) Cost 25,860.63$
SUMMARY, QUARTERLY CASHFLOW BEFORE AND AFTER TABLET PURCHASE AND USAGE
Post Tablet Annual Cost Estimate
Bre
a
k
-
E
v
e
n
year 1 year 2 year 3
"BEFORE" TABLET Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Printing 5,753$ 5,753$ 5,753$ 5,753$ 5,753$ 5,753$ 5,753$ 5,753$ 5,753$ 5,753$ 5,753$ 5,753$
Delivery 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$ 1,700$
Total 7,452$ 7,452$ 7,452$ 7,452$ 7,452$ 7,452$ 7,452$ 7,452$ 7,452$ 7,452$ 7,452$ 7,452$
Cum. Total 7,452$ 14,905$ 22,357$ 29,810$ 37,262$ 44,715$ 52,167$ 59,620$ 67,072$ 74,524$ 81,977$ 89,429$
year 1 year 2 year 3
"AFTER" TABLET Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Printing 3,486$ 3,486$ 3,486$ 3,486$ 3,486$ 3,486$ 3,486$ 3,486$ 3,486$ 3,486$ 3,486$ 3,486$
Delivery 1,342$ 1,342$ 1,342$ 1,342$ 1,342$ 1,342$ 1,342$ 1,342$ 1,342$ 1,342$ 1,342$ 1,342$
Equipment -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Wiring 6,000$
Data Plan 1,137$ 1,137$ 1,137$ 1,137$ 1,137$ 1,137$ 1,137$ 1,137$ 1,137$ 1,137$ 1,137$ 1,137$
Total 11,965$ 5,965$ 5,965$ 5,965$ 5,965$ 5,965$ 5,965$ 5,965$ 5,965$ 5,965$ 5,965$ 5,965$
Cum. Total 11,965$ 17,930$ 23,895$ 29,861$ 35,826$ 41,791$ 47,756$ 53,721$ 59,686$ 65,652$ 71,617$ 77,582$
(3,025)$ (1,538)$ (51)$ 1,436$ 2,924$ 4,411$ 5,898$ 7,386$ 8,873$ 10,360$ 11,847$
Marginal Cumulative Savings ("BEFORE"
minus "AFTER")(4,513)$
1 P&S 110712
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
EXCERPT
July 12, 2011
1. Continued Discussion and Recommendation for Approval of an Electronic
Packets for Council
City Clerk, Donna Grider stated Staff had been directed to return to the Committee to
discuss whether there needed to be a policy regarding personal usage of an electronic
item purchased by the City and to research surrounding cities to see how they dealt
with the personal usage of the electronic devices. She noted there was a subsequent
request regarding the Council packets continuing to be delivered on the Wednesday
prior to the Council meeting. She stated if the City purchased the device that changed
the beak even cost from the first year to the third year. She stated if Council was to
vote to direct that the City would purchase the electronic devices for the Council
Members, it had been explained to her by the Director of Administrative Services, Lalo
Perez that a Request for Proposal (RFP) process would need to be followed.
City Manager, James Keene stated it had been reported in the media that the City was
only looking at iPad devices which was untrue, there were a number of electronic
devices which could be used for this process. He noted Hewlett Packard, a Palo Alto
based company made a tablet device and the technology used for distribution of the
packet could be used across a range of platforms.
Senior Deputy City Attorney, Melissa Tronquet stated a City policy was not legally
required regarding personal use on the device. The Council could go beyond the
minimal threshold of policy requirements and make a policy decision to have a policy
drawn up. The City Attorney’s office had made recommendations regarding a policy if
that was how the Council wished to proceed. She stated State law had limited
allowances for personal use of devices purchased by a government entity.
Mr. Keene stated if the Committee wished for the City to provide the hardware it
needed to be restricted for personal use. If Council wanted to use the device
unrestricted Council Members would need to purchase the devices.
Council Member Klein stated if the City owned the hardware the Council Member’s
communications would be discoverable in litigation.
2 P&S 110712
Ms. Tronquet stated the law was not settled on that point as of yet although there were
arguments that communications on any format whether on City owned devices or not
was subject to discovery.
Council Member Klein asked if the City Attorney’s office was suggesting that a
telephone call on a personal cellular line would be discoverable.
Ms. Tronquet stated the case had been brought about that City related communications
on personal e-mail accounts and she reiterated the law had yet to be settled.
Council Member Klein was asked by an outside member of the public why there was a
charge to rewire the dais within the Staff Report when in the City of Mountain View
their Council began using electronic devices without special charge.
Ms. Grider clarified the charge to re-wire the dais was added to allow for the Council
Members to charge their devices during the meeting.
Council Member Burt clarified the re-wire was for the ability to charge the battery of
the device and not for granting access.
Council Member Klein asked what the estimated cost would be.
Ms. Grider stated the estimated cost received by Staff was $6,500.
Council Member Klein stated it seemed to be a high fee for running an electrical line.
Ms. Grider stated the cost was presented by the City Facilities Department.
Mr. Keene stated the idea was to incorporate the wiring costs of the Chambers with the
technological upgrades of high definition projection screens and monitors on the dais.
Herb Borock stated at the present time if there were to be a communication occurrence
at the dais the public was able to decipher its existence but with an electronic device at
the dais there could be silent communications unknown to the public which may or
may not have to do with the agenda item being discussed. He suggested there be an
electronic device at the dais which could only access the City public website with a
thumb drive to grant the Council access to their annotated packet thereby avoiding any
public concern.
Council Member Klein stated if the decision was for Council Members to purchase their
own hardware he asked whether there would be a reason to have the City purchase
3 P&S 110712
the devices for the Council Members to ensure uniformity or a potential bulk savings.
Mr. Keene stated the uniformity issue pertained to the software side of the transition
and as for the hardware, there would not be uniformity since all of the Council
Members did not need to utilize the same device.
Council Member Klein asked for clarification that any hardware purchased would be
compatible with the software.
Mr. Keene stated in the sense of using the packets for either accessing e-mail or in
particular downloading the Council packet then yes, the software was applicable across
different pieces of hardware.
Chair Price felt it was appropriate for the City to purchase the devices for those Council
Members who may be interested in using them. She stated if the devices were
intended solely for City use it should be a City purchase. She noted at no point had
there been a requirement placed on the use of the devices.
Ms. Grider stated that was correct. There would continue to be paper packets produced
for the library system and if a Council Member chose, they could continue to receive
paper packets as well.
Council Member Holman stated from a procedural point of view there were packet
items which were more utilitarian in paper format. She asked how would Council know
when to request a paper version of a packet item due to its size or ease of use not
being electronic.
Ms. Grider clarified the norm would be to continue to produce paper packets with
respect to the Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) and maps although she was
uncertain of the size of other documents until the day of the packet. She noted if a
Council Member chose, after reviewing the electronic packet there was an item they
wished to have in paper; Staff would find a way to handle the request.
Council Member Holman stated she was looking for a manner in which to handle the
situation to not end up with a number of last minute requests. She asked if there was a
way to alert the Council in advance of the packet being sent if a report or study was
upwards of 120 pages therefore giving them the choice to request a paper copy of that
document.
Mr. Keene stated given time, Staff would figure out a mechanism in which to comply
with the request although at present it was unpredictable.
4 P&S 110712
Council Member Holman asked if the City was purchasing the electronic devices, and a
Council Member preferred to have a laptop over an iPad or an HP Tablet would there be
an allowance provided to the Council Member to acquire the device they felt was
appropriate.
Mr. Keene stated the type of device was within the Council purview.
Council Member Holman stated her understanding was the Boards and Commissions
were going towards paperless as well although without a stipend or City purchased
electronic device. She was not broaching a discussion but wanted to mention it.
Chair Price stated the option and Motion voted on previously was for City to purchase
iPads for Council Members to receive, the City installed appropriate applications. Her
understanding was the Motion passed 4-0. Procedurally if that Motion was passed,
unless there were modifications, that would be the Motion moving forward to the City
Council for discussion. At this point the discussions should be focused on the policy
matters.
Council Member Burt stated his recollection was the Motion was passed but it was
determined not to forward to the full Council pending the information brought to the
Policy & Services Committee by Staff during the current meeting. Therefore the
previous Motion was not final but pending the review of the current information.
Ms. Grider stated the previous Motion was within the report and had the incorporation
of the City Attorney looking into the policy of personal useage.
Council Member Burt clarified in essence, there needed to be an affirmation or
modification of the Motion prior to submission to the full Council.
Council Member Klein stated the memo from the City Attorney did cause him to rethink
that Council should purchase their own devices. He noted in recognition of the history
of cell phone usage it was unrealistic to not use a device for personal use. He stated
there was a saving for the City as well, if most or all of the Council Member purchased
their own devices.
Council Member Burt asked what the status was on the City policy of allowances for
telephones.
Mr. Keene stated there had not been a final resolution.
Ms. Tronquet stated her understanding was the final decision was to not move forward
with the allowance.
5 P&S 110712
Council Member Burt stated the Staff response was not a clear answer.
Ms. Tronquet stated the Administrative Services Department (ASD) was highly involved
in the decision making of the matter although she recalled there was a level of
personal cellular lines used for both work and personal that made it not cost effective
for ASD to administer stipends.
Council Member Burt stated it appeared the same issues being raised for Council
Members applied to City Staff on use of the devices. Therefore there was a
circumstance being created where the City Staff was required to have two computers,
a City supplied and a personal one. He asked why the allowance was not the way to
handle the situation, it made things simpler and made the device not City owned.
Mr. Keene stated to the extent of being able to use professional development funds for
the purchase of a computer or cell phone, yes that was allowed.
Ms. Tronquet stated there could be an issue with having a separate stipend for Council
Members to purchase their own devices because there were limits to Council Member
compensations.
Council Member Klein stated that would need to be a Charter Amendment to change
the compensation limit.
Council Member Burt stated if the constraints were in the Charter then he was satisfied
with the outcome although if not then there was a legitimate discussion necessary.
Council Member Holman asked whether there could be an expense account created so
Council Members could submit expenses for reimbursement which would not cause a
Charter Amendment.
Council Member Burt stated there was an expense type of account for Council travel
where they could submit for travel compensation per mile and that did not mean the
City owned the vehicle.
Ms. Tronquet stated there was a law in use being referred to, AB1234 the Ethics Law
which discussed expenses for travel.
Council Member Burt asked whether the idea of reimbursement was different in-kind.
Ms. Tronquet stated yes. Those were travel expenses and AB1234 was specific to
travel.
6 P&S 110712
Council Member Holman stated registrations to conferences were not travel expenses
but those expenses were reimbursable. She wanted to express it could be expensive
to serve as a Council Member and she did not want to discourage people from running
for office in the future.
Ms. Tronquet stated if there were a concern regarding expense the City should
purchase the electronic devices thereby eliminating the expense by the Council
although allowing them to perform their duty as an elected official.
Mr. Keene stated there was nothing to preclude the Council in having a policy which
was elective. If the Council Member chose to purchase the device there would be no
restrictions on its use, or the Council Member could choose to have the City purchase
the device and be restricted to the City use.
Council Member Klein stated the effort of adding an expense account for the purpose of
electronic devices added more effort of Staff than the reward. The City Manager had
expressed there were choices for those Council Members who wished to not have the
added expense.
Council Member Holman asked whether there was a practical or feasible way to limit
access during a Council meeting to ensure the City Council was viewing what was
pertained to the meeting at hand.
Mr. Keene stated he was unaware of the ability and noted that objective ran counter to
the purpose of the technology.
Council Member Burt stated the ILG website showed documentation on page 3
referring to Understanding the Basics of Public Service Ethics: perk issues. He noted
there was useful information regarding electronic meetings which may need to access
information that was related to the issues in the packet but not attached to the packet
itself.
Ms. Tronquet stated the City Council passed a Resolution in 2006, after AB1234 was
passed, that outlined the types of expense reimbursements that would be covered.
Essentially those types of expenses were travel related or expenses directly related to
further your service.
Council Member Burt asked whether that was based on a Council Resolution or
prescribed by AB1234.
Ms. Tronquet stated AB1234 set out the requirements for what could be reimbursed so
7 P&S 110712
most City Councils’ in the State passed Resolutions.
Council Member Burt confirmed that the City of Palo Alto’s Resolution was not more nor
less than the AB1234’s requirements.
Ms. Tronquet stated that was correct and it could not have reimbursed more than
AB1234.
Chair Price clarified the issue was the items themselves that were reimbursable not the
issue of cost to those items.
Ms. Tronquet stated that was correct. She stated public officials and employees jobs
were to serve the public therefore they should be provided with the tools to perform
those positions and not more. Items included but not limited to were cellular phones,
vehicle expenses, and travel.
Mr. Keene recited page 11 from the website of the Institute for Local Government
under section Understanding the Basics of Public Service Ethics: Perk Issues
Special Issues: Certain Kinds of Expenses
Cell Phone and Internet Expenses
Cell phone and Internet expenses can be reimbursed according to local agency policy with
documentation.74 In terms of kinds of documentation; one agency requires that telephone bills be
submitted and that the official identify which calls were made on agency business. For cellular calls
when the official has a particular number of minutes included in the official’s plan, then the agency
asks the official to identify the percentage of calls made on public business. For Internet access, the
official submits an estimate of the percentage of agency-related usage for the period in question and
proof of the amount of bill for such access.
Council Member Burt stated because the information listed included cellular phones but
not laptops or the portable devices currently available, it appeared the law was
outdated, although it was what was in place.
Ms. Tronquet stated unfortunately a number of the laws did not recognize technology.
To the extent that it could be determined the amount of personal use on the electronic
device, documented and then quantified for reimbursement it seemed incredibly
difficult.
Council Member Burt asked if Council Member Klein was persuaded by the report that
stated some neighboring cities had opted to not purchase equipment for Council
Members.
8 P&S 110712
Council Member Klein stated no, there was not a large enough sampling of information
to determine a direction. He clarified the City Attorneys’ memo provided sufficient
information to change his opinion.
Ms. Tronquet stated it was an accurate statement to say that the Council had less
expectation of privacy in communication on a City owned device.
Council Member Klein asked for the City Clerk to reread Option B from the previous
Staff Report.
Ms. Grider clarified Option B read: Council Members purchase and use their own
electronic reading devices, the City would purchase any applications required to allow
the Council Members to read the packet on their device. The City could choose to pay
any applicable monthly fees incurred by the Council Member to receive the packet.
These charges would fluctuate based upon the Council Members having either Wi-Fi or
3G access. Staff would support the accessibility of the electronic packet.
Council Member Klein stated that was the verbiage he elected for the Motion and added
the Council would encourage its Members to purchase and not require.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Burt that the
Council policy would encourage but not require Council Members purchase and use
their own electronic reading devices, the City would purchase any applications required
to allow the Council Members to read the packet on their device. The City could choose
to pay any applicable monthly fees incurred by the Council Member to receive the
packet. These charges would fluctuate based upon the Council Member having either
Wi-Fi or 3G access. Staff would support the accessibility of the electronic packet.
Council Member Holman stated the Motion was to encourage Council Members to
purchase their own device, she asked what happened if a Council Member opted to
have the City purchase the device.
Council Member Klein stated his Motion was to not have the City purchase the devices.
Council Member Holman felt the option should be up to the Council Member as to who
purchases the device.
Council Member Klein stated that was the opposite of his Motion.
Council Member Holman asked if the maker would accept the option for the City to
purchase the devices as an Amendment.
9 P&S 110712
Council Member Klein stated no. He stated if one Council Member took advantage of
the program it affected all of the Council Members.
Chair Price stated that concern was connected to the point of discoverability.
Council Member Klein stated yes.
Chair Price stated there was a certain amount of common sense to be used. She stated
the City e-mail she received were forwarded to her personal e-mail account and if
there was a time when the information was discoverable she felt it would be part of the
process. She stated she would not be supporting the Motion.
Council Member Klein stated the concept of discoverability was fraught with unclear
law which was why he used terms as more likely. He noted it was less likely to have
you personal account discoverable for use of City business than it would be if you were
to use your City account for personal business.
Council Member Holman stated she appreciated the Motion and yet she felt it created
two separate classes of Council Members. She stated her understanding as to why it
may not be best to have everything discoverable however, what was there that was
not meant to be discoverable.
Council Member Burt stated if the City supported the software if could be connected to
a variety of different devices, so a Council Member did not need to spend a large
amount of funds on a device.
Council Member Holman asked about the discoverability.
Council Member Burt stated you own the device and therefore it was not discoverable.
Council Member Holman stated but if a Council Member wanted the City to purchase
their device for personal reasons, there was not case law but where would there be a
situation where discoverability was a real issue.
Ms. Tronquet stated the law was not a settled issue but any time any one made a
request for electronic information it was a question of where the request fell in the
range. If the device was a personal item it was more likely there was more protection
and if it were a City owned device there were less protections.
Council Member Holman asked for an example of the type of materials would create
challenges on a Council Members device that would promote a request for records.
10 P&S 110712
Ms. Tronquet stated e-mails, and logs of internet usage.
Council Member Klein stated opposing Counsel can not determine whether an item
should be considered discoverable until after he or she reads the entire information. It
may not be desirable to have another party view all of your personal information even
if it did not make it to court.
Council Member Holman stated she was torn on her decision.
Council Member Burt stated yes, there were trade offs to either decision.
Council Member Holman requested to add to the Motion that the City Council would
revisit the policy in a year.
Council Member Klein stated Council had the ability to revisit any policy at any time, he
did not see why there needed to be language added.
Council Member Holman stated if the language was in the Motion there was an
automatic return for review.
Council Member Klein stated it would take a fairly dramatic change in the law; an act
by the legislature or an act by the Supreme Court to set forth definitive rules.
Council Member Holman asked what would happen if a Council Member purchased an
older device and it was incapable of keeping up with the current devices in terms of
access and handling the required software.
Council Member Klein stated as the facts change in the future, the future Council
Members had the ability to change the policy accordingly.
Council Member Burt stated there should be expectation whether the device was an
iPad or PC, within a few years the operating system would be outdated.
MOTION PASSED: 3-1, Price no
Chair Price asked when Staff was anticipating bringing the item back to Council.
Ms. Grider stated August 1st.
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
August 1, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Authorization for the Mayor to Appoint Members of the City Council
to File Written Arguments for the Binding Arbitration Repeal Measure
and Against the Green Energy Initiative
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
(1) Determine whether to file a ballot argument in favor of the measure proposing
repeal of Article V of the City Charter, Binding Interest Arbitration for Public
Safety, and, if so, authorize the Mayor to appoint up to five Council Members to
draft and sign the argument; and
(2) Determine whether to file a ballot argument against the Green Energy
Initiative, and, if an argument is desired, authorize the Mayor to appoint up to
five Council Members to draft and sign the argument.
DISCUSSION
The Elections Code governs submission of arguments for and against ballot
measures in Palo Alto. The Elections Code allows up to five signatures per
argument. Elections Code section 9282 contains separate requirements for
initiative petitions and measures placed on the ballot by the Council.
If more than one argument for or more than one argument against any city
measure is submitted to the city elections official, Elections Code section 9287
requires the city elections official to give the following preference and priority in
selecting the argument that will appear in the sample ballot:
(a) The legislative body, or member or members of the legislative
body authorized by that body.
(b) The individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or
Updated: 7/27/2011 9:43 AM by Beth Minor Page 2
combination of voters and associations, who are the bona fide
sponsors or proponents of the measure.
(c) Bona fide associations of citizens.
(d) Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.
Binding Arbitration Repeal (City-Sponsored Measure)
For a measure placed on the ballot by the legislative body, the legislative body
may submit an argument in favor, or authorize certain members of the body to
submit the argument. The Elections Code also authorizes citizens and other
groups to file arguments in favor or against a City measure. It has been past City
practice to also allow arguments written by a combination of council members
and citizens.
The Council is not required to submit arguments. If it wishes to submit an
argument in favor of the binding arbitration measure, that argument would
receive priority in the event multiple arguments are submitted.
In the event the Council as a body elects to draft the argument itself or designate
a quorum to do so, it must comply with the Brown Act.
The Green Energy Initiative (Citizen-Sponsored Initiative)
The Elections Code provides that proponents of a citizen-sponsored initiative may
file an argument supporting the measure and legislative bodies may file an
argument against the measure. Like city-sponsored initiatives, the City’s past
practice has been to permit a combination of council members and citizens to
submit arguments against a citizen-sponsored initiative.
If the Council wishes to submit an argument against the Green Energy measure,
that argument would also receive priority.
Arguments in favor of the measures are due to the City Clerk by 5:30 p.m. on
August 16, 2011, and arguments against the measures are due to the City Clerk by
5:30 p.m. on August 23, 2011.
Finally, in reviewing City practices and recent revisions to the Elections Code, the
City Clerk and City Attorney believe it would be beneficial for the City to consider
passing an ordinance to clarify and confirm local election practices. Staff will
return in early 2012 with an ordinance for the Council to consider.
Updated: 7/27/2011 9:43 AM by Beth Minor Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Ballot arguments are not projects subject to review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
August 1, 2011
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternates for 2011 League of
California Cities Annual Conference -September 21-23, 2011, San
Francisco
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates for
the 2011 League Conference.
BACKGROUND:
The League's 2011 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 21-23 in San
Francisco. The Annual Business Meeting is scheduled for 2:30 p.m., Friday,
September 23, at the San Francisco Moscone West Convention Center. At this
meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that
establish League policy.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, the City Council must delegate a
voting delegate and could appoint up to two alternate voting delegates.
Attached please find correspondence received from the League of California
Cities. To date, I have not received the Annual Conference Resolution Packet.
ATTACHMENTS:
·Annual league attachment (PDF)
Department Head:Donna Grider, City Clerk
Updated: 7/27/2011 11:14 AM by Donna Grider Page 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1827)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 8/1/2011
August 01, 2011 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 1827)
Summary Title: Renewable Feed-in Tariff Policies and Guidelines
Title: Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve Policies and Guidelines
for a Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff, the Finance Committee, and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the
City Council adopt the proposed Renewable Energy Feed-in-Tariff Policies and Guidelines
(Attachment A).
Executive Summary
A Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) is a purchasing mechanism that enables owners of small local renewable
generators (primarily rooftop solar panels) to sell power to the electric utility for a fixed price.
The electric utility is in turn able to include the energy in its supply portfolio and count it
towards its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Earlier this year staff completed an initial
evaluation of renewable FITs as a method of purchasing renewable power. The attached
policies and design guidelines reflect staff’s proposed approach to FIT program development. If
the policies and design guidelines are approved, staff would return to City Council for approval
of the detailed program later this year with the goal of launching the program in early 2012.
Committee Review and Recommendations
At the June 7, 2011 meeting of the Finance Committee staff presented the attached Policies
and Guidelines. The Committee asked various questions but was generally supportive of the
staff proposal. After discussion, the Finance Committee unanimously recommended approval
of the Policies and Guidelines with clarifications of the language in Policy 1 and Program Design
Guidelines 1a and 1b.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Proposed Renewable FIT Polices and Design Guidelines(PDF)
·Attachment B: Staff Report ID 1641, Renewable Feed-in Tariff Policies and Guidelines(PDF)
·Attachment C: Excerpt of Minutes of June 7, 2011 Finance Committee Meeting (PDF)
August 01, 2011 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 1827)
Prepared By:Jon Abendschein, Resource Planner
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) Proposed Renewable Energy Feed-In-
Tariff (Renewable FIT) Program Policies and Guidelines
POLICIES
1. The Renewable FIT program’s objective is to fulfill the City of Palo Alto (City)’s
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) from local renewable sources.
2. Enrollment will be capped at the amount of energy projected to be required to fulfill the
City’s RPS.
3. Eligible resources will include those that are deemed renewable by the California Energy
Commission (CEC) and that can be included in meeting RPS goals including solar
photovoltaic (PV) systems, wind, and biogas-fueled generators.
4. Eligible resources are to be located in the City and connected to the distribution system on
CPAU’s side of customer meters.
5. The Renewable FIT rate, set as a fixed-price in cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for a twenty-
year term, will be based on CPAU’s avoided energy and capacity cost (i.e., value-based) and
may vary by load shape for each renewable resource type.
6. The agreement between CPAU and program participants will be a non-negotiable, twenty-
year standard contract available to all eligible resources.
7. Program participants will be responsible for direct costs associated with the project (such as
interconnection and metering).
8. Projects with a Renewable FIT will not be eligible for a net metering tariff or incentives
under the PV Partners Program, the Power from Local Ultra-clean Generation Incentive
(PLUG-In) Program, or any other CPAU-funded incentive program.
9. City Council must approve the Renewable FIT rates, standard contracts and updates.
PROGRAM DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. The methodology for calculating avoided cost should include all of the following that apply
to the technology in question:
a. The market price of the renewable energy;
b. The value associated with fulfilling or reducing California Independent System
Operator (CAISO) requirements that the utility provide a minimum amount of capacity
within the Greater Bay Area, otherwise known as “local capacity requirements;”
c. Avoided transmission charges, transmission losses, and other CAISO charges;
d. Avoided distribution losses; and
e. Any other avoided costs attributable to local renewable generation
2. A standard contract will be established and published. The term will be 20 years.
3. A program cap will be established.
4. Maximum and minimum limits on individual project sizes may be used to limit the number
of projects or the risk associated with the operation of any single project. These may be
differentiated by technology type.
5. Updates to rates, contract terms, or program size should occur at regular scheduled intervals
or should involve substantial advance notice to project developers.
6. Metering requirements will be designed to meet any applicable California Independent
System Operator (CAISO), Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), and City
operational requirements.
7. Interconnection rules will be established or modified to ensure FIT projects meet all City,
NCPA, and CAISO operational requirements. Interconnection rules may be modified on a
schedule independent of the FIT update schedule.
8. The FIT program will be designed similarly to FIT programs in other utility service areas
where desirable, reasonable and feasible.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1641)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 6/7/2011
June 07, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 1641)
Summary Title: Renewable Feed-in Tariff Policies and Guidelines
Title: Approval of Policies and Guidelines for a Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the Finance Committee
recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Renewable Energy Feed-in-Tariff Policies
and Guidelines (Attachment A).
Executive Summary
A Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) is a purchasing mechanism that enables owners of small local renewable
generators (primarily rooftop solar panels) to sell power to the electric utility for a fixed price.
The electric utility is in turn able to include the energy in its supply portfolio and count it
towards its Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Staff recently completed an initial evaluation
of renewable FITs as a method of purchasing renewable power and is now proceeding to design
a program. The attached policies and design guidelines reflect staff’s proposed approach to FIT
program development. If the policies and design guidelines are approved, staff would return to
City Council for approval of the detailed program later this year with the goal of launching the
program in early 2012.
Background
On March 7, 2011, Council unanimously approved the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan
(LEAP) Objectives, Strategies and Implementation Plan (Staff Report 1317). LEAP Strategy #3
(RPS) and Strategy #4 (Local Generation) require the evaluation of the use of FITs to meet the
City of Palo Alto (City)’s RPS goal of supplying 33% of its power from renewable sources by 2015
and to encourage the development of local ultra-clean generation. Earlier this year staff
evaluated the use of FITs in Palo Alto and held study sessions with the UAC. Based on that
evaluation staff proceeded with the development of the proposed FIT Policies and Guidelines
(Attachment A), which were reviewed by the UAC on April 6, 2011.
Discussion
The City has an RPS goal to supply 33% of its power from renewable sources by 2015 while not
exceeding a 0.5 ¢/kWh impact on rates. Power from currently committed renewable resources
is expected to meet approximately 30.8% of the City’s annual electric energy needs in 2015
June 07, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 1641)
leaving a gap of approximately 23,000 MWh/year, or 2.2% of load, to meet the 33% RPS goal by
2015. Part of this gap could be filled with power procured through a renewable FIT program.
The renewable FIT program that staff is designing will be “value-based”, meaning that it is
based on the value of the energy to the City. The alternative is a “cost-based” FIT, which is
based on the cost to build and operate the generator and is designed to guarantee a rate of
return to the developer even if it means setting the rate higher than the value of the energy to
the utility. Unlike a cost-based FIT, a value-based FIT will not increase the City’s cost of
renewable power over other power purchasing methods because it is based on the market
value of the power.
Given current market prices, if the remainder of the City’s RPS goal were achieved using only
local renewable sources purchased through the FIT program, staff believes the total cost of the
City’s renewable power supply would have less than a 0.5 ¢/kWh impact on rates, the goal
included in the LEAP. It is worth noting, though, that a FIT program will have higher contract
and program administration costs than the City’s traditional purchasing methods because it
involves many small contracts rather than fewer larger ones.
Under a FIT program, the City will offer a fixed long-term rate and standard power purchase
agreement (PPA) to any developer of an eligible generator in Palo Alto. Eligible technologies
will initially include solar, wind, and biogas fueled generators. If developers’ projects fit the
program guidelines, they would be able to sign up for the standard contract and rate unless the
program is already fully subscribed. For example, if the City offered a program with the
following terms: a fixed rate of 15 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) for 20 years, any solar
developer willing to build a project in Palo Alto by the deadline, follow the program rules, and
agree to the standard contract terms could apply for the program and sign a 20-year PPA to sell
power at 15 ¢/kWh so long as there was still capacity remaining in the program.
The proposed Renewable FIT Policies and Guidelines (Attachment A) will be the basis for the
program. Below are some of the key features of the Polices and Guidelines:
1.The FIT will be value based.
2.A standard non-negotiable contract will be used.
3.Fixed rates will be available for solar, wind, and biogas-fueled generators.
4.Rates will take into account the value of the project to the utility, including the
renewable attributes, avoided transmission and distribution costs, local capacity value,
and the time of day the technology typically generates electricity.
5.The contracts will require the transfer of all energy, green attributes, and capacity
attributes (if applicable) to the utility.
The FIT program differs from the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, the method the City has
used to-date to purchase renewable power. In an RFP process several developers offer
projects, then the utility chooses the developers with the lowest priced feasible projects, and
negotiates PPAs with each one. An RFP process has worked well for obtaining contracts from
larger projects, but the costs and uncertainty associated with preparing a bid are too high for
June 07, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 1641)
small local developers. A FIT program will reduce costs and provide local renewable project
developers certainty because of the fixed long-term rate, the standard contract, and the fact
that it is open to any developer rather than only those who are selected through an RFP
process.
In addition to enabling smaller developers to supply power to the City, a FIT program can
deliver benefits to other stakeholders as well, including:
·Benefits to the utility, such as the fact that renewable energy is generated locally, meaning
lower transmission costs than for remote renewable resources. Also, local generation can
help maintain regional (Bay Area) electric grid stability, which can result in financial benefits
to the utility
·Benefits to the site owner, including additional revenue from power sales or roof rental. A
FIT can also provide a way for owners of multi-unit commercial rental properties to take
advantage of distributed generation. Under traditional incentive programs like the City’s
Photovoltaic (PV) Partners program, the solar projects are typically built behind the
customer meter, offsetting their consumption. This benefits the utility customer rather
than the building owner, meaning there is less incentive for the building owner to install
solar panels.
·Benefits to the community, such as the potential for money spent on renewable power to
return to the community. The community can also take pride in generating renewable
power locally.
Timeline
Upon Council approval of the renewable FIT Policies and Guidelines, staff will proceed with
program design and bring a proposal to Council in December 2011. The program will include
fixed rates, the standard contract, program rules (such as minimum system size and deadlines
for project progress), the amount of capacity to be procured, and any other necessary changes
to the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) rules and regulations, such as interconnection
agreements or metering requirements. Staff’s objective is to obtain Council approval in time to
launch the program in early 2012.
Commission Review and Recommendation
Staff held two study sessions related to FITs with the UAC, one on February 2, 2011 and the
second on March 2, 2011. At these meetings the UAC supported the adoption of a FIT for local
renewable generators as long as it was based on the value of the energy to the utility and not
on the cost of generation. The proposed Renewable FIT Policies and Guidelines are aligned
with the UAC’s preference.
On April 6, 2011 the UAC reviewed the proposed policies and design guidelines for a value-
based FIT and unanimously recommended that the Council approve them. The minutes of that
meeting are provided as Attachment B.
Resource Impact
Aside from the staff time associated with designing and launching the program, there wil be
June 07, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 1641)
some additional ongoing cost associated with program administration and interconnection and
permitting of new solar projects. The costs will depend significantly on the number of projects
that participate in the program, and may range from a negligible staff impact to 2/3 of an Full-
Time Equivalent or more. Most of these costs are related to permitting and interconnection,
meaning the costs would be recovered by the City’s existing permit fees. At this time staff does
not anticipate a need for additional permanent staffing, but will return with a more in-depth
projection of costs and staff time associated with the program when returning with the detailed
program design this fall. Any necessary additional resources would be requested via a Budget
Amendment Ordinance or through the Budget Process.
Policy Implications
The proposed Renewable FIT Policies and Guidelines help meet the Council-approved objectives
under LEAP Strategy #3 (Renewable Portfolio Standard, or RPS) and LEAP Strategy #4 (Local
Generation) and support the Council-approved Energy Risk Management Policies, and
Comprehensive Plan Goal N-9 (a clean, efficient, competitively-priced energy supply that makes
use of cost-effective renewable resources).
Enviromental Review
Approval of the proposed Renewable FIT Policies and Guidelines does not meet the definition
of a project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus no California Environmental
Quality Act review is required.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Proposed Renewable FIT Policies and Design Guidelines (PDF)
·Attachment B: Excerpted Draft UAC Minutes of April 6, 2011 (PDF)
Prepared By:Jon Abendschein, Resource Planner
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU)
Proposed Renewable Energy Feed-In-Tariff (Renewable FIT) Program Policies and
Guidelines
POLICIES
1. The Renewable FIT program’s objective is to maximize fulfillment of the City of Palo
Alto (City)’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) from local renewable sources.
2. Enrollment will be capped at the amount of energy projected to be required to fulfill the
City’s RPS.
3. Eligible resources will include those that are deemed renewable by the California Energy
Commission (CEC) and that can be included in meeting RPS goals including solar
photovoltaic (PV) systems, wind, and biogas-fueled generators.
4. Eligible resources are to be located in the City and connected to the distribution system
on CPAU’s side of customer meters.
5. The Renewable FIT rate, set as a fixed-price in cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for a
twenty-year term, will be based on CPAU’s avoided energy and capacity cost (i.e., value-
based) and may vary by load shape for each renewable resource type.
6. The agreement between CPAU and program participants will be a non-negotiable,
twenty-year standard contract available to all eligible resources.
7. Program participants will be responsible for direct costs associated with the project (such
as interconnection and metering).
8. Projects with a Renewable FIT will not be eligible for a net metering tariff or incentives
under the PV Partners Program, the Power from Local Ultra-clean Generation Incentive
(PLUG-In) Program, or any other CPAU-funded incentive program.
9. City Council must approve the Renewable FIT rates, standard contracts and updates.
PROGRAM DESIGN GUIDELINES
1. The methodology for calculating avoided cost should include all of the following that
apply to the technology in question:
a. The value of renewable energy (including the value of avoided carbon);
b. Local capacity value related to the applicable characteristics of the technology;
c. Avoided transmission charges, transmission losses, and ISO charges;
d. Avoided distribution losses; and
e. Any other avoided costs attributable to local renewable generation
2. A standard contract will be established and published. The term will be 20 years.
3. A program cap will be established.
4. Maximum and minimum limits on individual project sizes may be used to limit the
number of projects or the risk associated with the operation of any single project. These
may be differentiated by technology type.
5. Updates to rates, contract terms, or program size should occur at regular scheduled
intervals or should involve substantial advance notice to project developers.
6. Metering requirements will be designed to meet any applicable California Independent
System Operator (CAISO), Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), and City
operational requirements.
7. Interconnection rules will be established or modified to ensure FIT projects meet all City,
NCPA, and CAISO operational requirements. Interconnection rules may be modified on
a schedule independent of the FIT update schedule.
8. The FIT program will be designed similarly to FIT programs in other utility service areas
where desirable, reasonable and feasible.
ATTACHMENT B
EXCERPTED MINUTES OF UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
MEETING – APRIL 6, 2011
ITEM 1: ACTION: Proposed Policies and Guidelines for Renewable Energy Feed-In-Tariffs
Utilities Resource Planner Jon Abendschein provided a presentation summarizing the key points
in the development and approval process of a Renewable Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program in Palo
Alto to meet the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Objectives for Renewable
Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Local Generation and requested that the UAC recommend Council
approve the Proposed Policies and Guidelines for Renewable Energy Feed-In-Tariffs.
During his presentation, Abendschein identified key policy and guidelines which would be used
to guide the development of the Renewable FIT program, including:
Objective of the Renewable FIT program is to meet the City’s RPS of 33% by 2015.
Initial eligible technologies would be solar photovoltaic (PV), wind, and biogas-fueled
generators.
A FIT rate based on the City’s avoided (value-based) cost and fixed for 20-years.
A standard, non-negotiable, Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).
Abendschein also touched on several program design elements and details that staff is currently
working on with other City departments and Utilities divisions related to program size and limits,
development of power purchase agreements, fees and FIT rates, and program administration.
Abendschein laid out the next steps including seeking Finance Committee and Council approval
of the proposed policies and guidelines in June 2011 and July 2011, respectively. Upon Council
approval of the policies and guidelines and development of the program details, staff will return
to the UAC, Finance Committee and Council in the fall of 2011 for approval of the Renewable
FIT Program including the PPA and FIT rate along with a request for delegation of authority to
the City Manager to execute FIT contracts.
Commissioner Melton asked why staff was pursuing a FIT for biogas-fuel generation and what
opportunities exist. Abendschein explained that biogas-fueled generation is a CEC approved
RPS technology and that it is essentially a fuel-cell that burns natural gas that has been injected
into the gas system at a different location and nominated to the specific fuel-cell generator.
Abendschein mentioned that there has been some interest in this technology in Palo Alto, but that
it was not clear whether it would be economic in the near term.
Commissioner Foster asked staff not to limit the program to the RPS of 33% by 2015, but rather
use the ½ cent premium as the cap. He asked for clarification on the list of avoided costs in the
proposed FIT policies. Abendschein clarified that the items listed were the ones staff expected to
use in developing the feed-in tariff, but that future policy changes could result in additional items
being added to the list. Additionally, Commissioner Foster asked if staff believed 4 MW of FITs
could be achieved per year and why staff was limiting the FIT technologies to PV, biogas-fueled
generators and wind. Abendschein explained that 4 MW is an optimistic projection for Palo
Alto. With regards to technology to include within the program, Abendschein explained that
staff is trying to keep the program simple in the first year of the program.
Commissioner Keller asked why staff was recommending that program be limited to a 20-year
PPA. Abendschein responded that staff will look at what other utilities are doing during the
design phase and may recommend alternative durations when staff returns for approval of the
program. Utilities Director Fong emphasized that staff is trying to keep the program simple in
the beginning and can expand features as we gain experience.
Commissioner Cook clarified that he works in the solar industry for a manufacturer of larger-
scale PV systems with the smallest size being 20 MW and therefore did not feel that there was
any conflict of interest. He also asked why staff was considering a 25% phase-in per year of the
program cap and why staff would develop different FIT rates by technology. Abendschein
explained that staff has not developed a recommendation yet for the total program cap or the
amount of capacity released each year, but merely cited 25% as an example. Abendschein
mentioned that different technologies might have different FIT rates because of the different
value each technology provides as a result of varying generation profiles. For example, PV
generation generally coincides with higher market price conditions, whereas biogas-fueled
generation is a base-load resource generating in all market price conditions. Commissioner Cook
asked whether staff was talking to other municipalities about their FITs. Abendschein said that
they were.
Chair Waldfogel suggested staff work closely with the Building Department to ensure they
understand the Renewable FIT program including how it differs from the City’s current PV
Partners program. Abendschein mentioned that staff has reached out to key staff within the
Building Department to develop a program design team. Commissioner Waldfogel asked
whether system upgrades would be necessary and who would bear the cost. Abendschein said
staff would be working with the Utilities Engineering Division to assess the need for upgrades
and define who would bear the costs.
ACTION:
Commissioner Melton motioned to recommend Council approve the proposed Renewable FIT
policies and guidelines. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously (6-0) with Commissioner Eglash absent.
FINANCE COMMITTEE
DRAFT EXCERPT
Regular Meeting
June 7, 2011
Approval of Policies and Guidelines for a Renewable Energy
Feed-in Tariff
Jon Abendschein, Resource Planner, gave a presentation that included
an overview of Feed-in Tariffs (FITs), the objective of the proposed
program, and the next steps in getting the program implemented. He
said that such programs typically involve energy being “fed in” to the
grid and sold to the utility rather than used on site, and that they had
been implemented in various countries, U.S. states, and municipalities.
Several utilities in California had adopted FIT programs. Evaluating
and potentially implementing a renewable FIT program was a work
item in the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) approved earlier
in 2011. The objective of the program was to fulfill part of the City’s
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) from local renewable sources.
Some of the benefits of this strategy included avoiding transmission
costs and the cost of complying with other state grid operator
requirements, as well as keeping money spent on power within the
community. The proposed program was a value-based FIT program,
in contrast to a cost-based program. This meant that the program
was based on the value of the power rather than the cost to build the
generator. The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) had reviewed the
FIT and recommended the City Council approve the program. If the
Finance Committee and City Council approved the proposed Policies
and Guidelines, Staff would return with a detailed program for review
and approval in the fall.
Vice Mayor Yeh stated this program would provide more options for
the City to achieve its RPS goals. He asked whether the program size
was governed by the RPS limit.
Mr. Abendschein stated that the goal of the program was to fulfill the
City’s RPS program, but that the specific RPS limit was not specified in
the policy.
ATTACHMENT C
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the City’s market exposure would
increase if the program were fulfilled entirely with solar.
Mr. Abendschein said the amount of solar being discussed was small
and unlikely to create significant risks to the City’s portfolio, but Staff
would examine that over the following months.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the rate would be fixed over the term
of the contract or if there were escalators planned.
Mr. Abendschein stated the goal was to have a fixed rate for the full
term.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the program would be reviewed
annually.
Mr. Abendschein stated that the goal was to have an annual review
with the Council.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the value-based FIT rate was based on
the Market Price Referent (MPR).
Valerie Fong, Director of Utilities stated that the rate was based on the
market price.
Mr. Abendschein stated it was based on previously signed renewable
contracts that were very close to the MPR.
Council Member Schmid asked whether the most recent contracts were
included in the graph of the renewable portfolio included in the
presentation.
Mr. Abendschein stated that all of the geothermal contracts and landfill
gas contracts were included.
Council Member Schmid stated that he was concerned that the method
of valuation would include older contracts that no longer reflected the
market price.
Vice Mayor Yeh clarified that if the City based the price on previously
signed contracts it could lock the rate into older contracts that involved
escalators.
Jane Ratchye, Assistant Director of Resource Management, clarified
that the price would be based on an assessment of renewable market
prices, and that the most recently signed renewables contracts were
an indicator of current market prices.
Ms. Fong stated that the rates were also reviewed annually as market
prices changed. Signed contracts maintained the same rate for the
entire term of the contract. Future contracts could have a different
rate, but existing contract rates would not change.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the MPR was updated annually.
Ms. Ratchye stated the MPR used to be a good benchmark for
renewable prices but that changing regulations meant it would no
longer be updated.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the City would generate its own
renewable market price estimates.
Ms. Ratchye stated it would. The Northern California Power Agency
(NCPA) looked at the renewables market frequently and was a good
source of information.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked how the time-of-day benefits were calculated.
Mr. Abendschein stated the time-of-day benefits were based on the
hourly market price for power.
Chair Scharff asked for a clarification on Guideline 1. He asked how
the avoided cost related to the calculation of the value-based FIT rate.
Ms. Ratchye stated the avoided cost was the entire basis for the FIT
rate calculation.
Chair Scharff stated the language in Guideline 1a regarding the value
of renewable energy should be clarified. He asked whether the
renewable energy value included a separate carbon price.
Mr. Abendschein stated it was included in the renewable market price.
Council Member Schmid asked whether the market price was
technology-specific or based on the market for all renewables.
Ms. Ratchye stated it was based on the market for all renewables.
Chair Scharff recommended using the words “market price of
renewable power” in Guideline 1a.
Ms. Ratchye agreed, stating if the language was not clear it could be
changed.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the local benefits associated with the
FIT rate were calculated based on Staff’s estimates.
Mr. Abendschein state yes, the local benefits were based on forecasts
done for the City.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether these represented transmission costs
passed through to us by the California Independent System Operator
(CAISO)
Mr. Abendschein state they did.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked how roof rental would work for residential
installations.
Ms. Ratchye stated the program would not apply to residences. If the
building owner chose to rent out their roof to a developer the City
would not be a part of the contract.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the Building Division would need to be
involved in potential projects to issue permits.
Ms. Fong stated that all projects would need permits.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the Building Division would be involved
in the design process.
Mr. Abendschein stated the Building Division was already involved in
the process.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether the program would involve any
partnerships with public facilities.
Ms. Fong stated that was a program implementation issue and that the
Utilities Department was not at the stage of considering that yet.
Vice Mayor Yeh recommended that there be discussions with schools
to make sure they are aware of the program.
Ms. Fong stated a strong school advocate was on the UAC.
Ms. Ratchye stated there was discussion at the UAC regarding what
role the City should play in marketing the program. The UAC
recommended making the program streamlined, ensuring customer
awareness, but not actively connecting developers with available roof
space.
Council Member Shepherd stated she was conflicted between the cost-
based and the value-based FIT. She stated there seemed to be a
large difference between the two. She asked who the developer would
be in these projects.
Mr. Abendschein stated there could be a 3rd party renting a roof and
owning the solar panels or the facility owner could install the project
themselves.
Ms. Ratchye stated that if the value-based rate were $0.15 per kWh
but the cost to the developer was $0.16 per kWh, the developer would
not do the project. As costs came down over time, though, the project
would become economic. There had been discussion at the UAC about
paying more in order to get projects built earlier, but if the City
overpaid the cost would be borne by the electric ratepayers. Staff and
the UAC recommended the value-based approach.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the rate would be firm.
Ms. Ratchye stated if the price was too low in the beginning no
projects would be completed, but the solar industry was stating that
costs were coming down.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether it cost more to build in Palo
Alto and whether there was any allowance for that in the rate.
Ms. Fong stated there was not because the rate was based on the
value of the energy rather than the cost to build.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked whether Staff would help potential participants
make the decision about how much value the program would provide.
Ms. Fong stated Staff provided the program but let the customers
determine whether it was economically valuable to them.
Ms. Ratchye stated a key benefit of the FIT was that it involved a
standard contract with a fixed price, which reduced uncertainty for the
developer because they did not have to wait for a Request for
Proposals (RFP).
Vice Mayor Yeh whether information would be provided to the building
owners as well as solar developers in case a building owner wanted to
develop a project and be paid for the energy.
Ms. Fong stated that the choice of whether to develop or rent the roof
needed to be made by the market.
Vice Mayor Yeh asked how the City would notify developers of the
program.
Ms. Ratchye stated that solar developers were aware of the program.
Ms. Fong stated that information on the program would be made
available to the public.
Council Member Schmid asked about Guideline 1b related to local
capacity value.
Mr. Abendschein stated that local capacity value was related to grid
stability. It had to do with standards set by the CAISO.
Ms. Fong stated that different technologies had different grid stability
values. The CAISO set requirements for how much capacity was
needed in each region.
Ms. Ratchye stated that solar and wind might count differently toward
those capacity requirements.
Council Member Schmid asked what the value of local capacity was.
Mr. Abendschein said the value was a few dollars per megawatt-hour.
Council Member Schmid asked whether the resident had to pay for
these charges. He asked whether the charge was in addition to the
14-16 cents / kWh rate discussed in the report.
Mr. Abendschein stated no, it was part of that price.
Council Member Schmid asked whether the calculation would be
transparent in the final rate calculation.
Mr. Abendschein stated it would be.
Council Member Schmid asked whether some of the other renewable
resources the City owned were able to provide local capacity value.
Ms. Fong stated that some were, and others were not.
Shepherd recommended clarifying the language in Guideline 1b.
Ms. Ratchye stated that Staff would clarify the language.
Council Member Schmid asked whether it made sense to offer a
twenty-year term when technology was changing so quickly.
Ms. Fong stated that FITs were a mechanism being used throughout
Europe. Staff was aligning this program with the way FIT programs
were done elsewhere.
Council Member Schmid asked what would happen if the rooftop
system broke down.
Ms. Ratchye stated the City only paid if the energy was delivered.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the developer could get a
new contract if the system broke down after fifteen years.
Mr. Abendschein stated those types of contingencies would be dealt
with in the standard contract and included in the detailed plan.
Ms. Fong stated that with a flat rate the City paid more for power
earlier in the contract term and less later on. There was some
obligation by the developer to deliver in the later years.
Council Member Schmid asked if the program would be more attractive
if the City could offer shorter terms.
Mr. Abendschein stated that the UAC had recommended that Staff give
themselves the flexibility to examine shorter terms.
Chair Scharff stated that the twenty year benefited the developer. If
there were a shorter term there may be less interest.
Council Member Schmid stated it was the opposite of a business
investment encouraging people to replace the system.
Chair Scharff stated the systems that went in today would receive
higher payments, so if the system was repaired in fifteen years they
would continue to receive that payment.
Ms. Fong stated that the level of interest would not be clear until the
program was launched.
Vice Mayor Yeh said that the point was to protect the citizens’
interests. The price the City would have to pay would increase if the
solar system did not deliver in the last five years.
Ms. Ratchye stated the City paid a fixed price for the entire term of the
contract.
Ms. Fong stated this could be taken into account in liquidated damages
clauses. Staff did not have the answer ready that night.
Council Member Schmid stated that solar systems degenerated over
time.
Ms. Fong stated there would be performance requirements in the
standard agreement.
Council Member Shepherd stated it appeared similar to a ground lease,
so if the developer walked away the building owner could sign a
contract with the City.
Council Member Schmid stated he did not want to see abandoned solar
systems degrading on businesses’ rooftops. He asked if the program
provided an incentive to cut down trees to allow the solar system to
function, which would then increase the cooling costs of the building.
Mr. Abendschein stated a side benefit to the program was that the
solar panels on the building provide a cooling effect.
Council Member Schmid asked if Canopy had been consulted.
Pamela Antil, Assistant City Manager, stated the City would continue to
follow the tree ordinance when implementing the program
Council Member Shepherd asked what was meant in the guidelines by
biogas-fueled generators.
Mr. Abendschein stated the type of biogas being discussed would come
from a dairy farm. Methane generated by digestion of the waste
would be injected into a gas pipeline and directed to the generator.
Council Member Shepherd asked if that was specified in the policies
and guidelines.
Mr. Abendschein stated that the City was able to take advantage of
rules already set by the California Energy Commission (CEC) on this
topic.
Council Member Schmid asked what the rate impact of the program
would be.
Ms. Ratchye stated that this program would not cause the City to
exceed the half-cent per kilowatt-hour rate impact guideline set forth
in the LEAP for fulfilling the RPS.
Council Member Schmid asked what percent of the system average
rate that was.
Ms. Fong stated it was roughly $5 million out of an $80 million supply
portfolio.
Chair Scharff asked whether the half-cent limit would be exceeded if
the entire remaining RPS were fulfilled with through this program.
Ms. Ratchye confirmed that it would not unless the value of renewable
power goes up.
Chair Scharff stated there was no policy to that effect.
Ms. Fong stated that it was a requirement of the LEAP, meaning the
limit could not be exceeded.
Chair Scharff stated the Staff proposal was well thought out. He
recommended changing the language in Policy 1 to remove the word
“maximize.”
Ms. Fong said Staff would take out that word.
MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Vice Mayor
Yeh to recommend that the City Council accept the Staff
recommendation to approve the proposed policies and guidelines for a
Renewable Energy FIT program with the following modifications:
In Guideline 1a use the term “market price of renewable
energy.”
Clarify the wording in Guideline 1b.
In Policy 1 remove the work “maximize.”
MOTION PASSED 4-0