The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-01-27 Parks & Recreation Agenda PacketADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations, auxiliary aids or services to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn about the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (voice), or e-mail ada@cityofpaloalto.org This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. Members of the public are welcome to attend this public meeting. AGENDA IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(a) OR SECTION 54956 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 27, 2015 AGENDA City Hall Chambers 7pm 250 Hamilton Ave *In accordance with SB 343 materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Open Space and Parks Office at 3201 East Bayshore Road during normal business hours. Please call 650-496-6962. Attention Speakers: If you wish to address the Commission during oral communications or on an item on the agenda, please complete a speaker’s card and give it to City staff. By submitting the speaker’s card, the Chair will recognize you at the appropriate time. I. ROLL CALL II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. The Commission reserves the right to limit oral communications period to 3 minutes. IV.BUSINESS 1.Approval of Draft Minutes from the Special Meeting December 9, 2014 meeting –– Chair Hetterly - Action (5min) ATTACHMENT 2.Selection of Chair and Vice Chair for 2015 - Chair Hetterly - Action - (10min) 3.Report new 7.7 acres of dedicated park land at Foothills Park - Ad Hoc Committee - Discussion (30min) ATTACHMENT 4.Update and discussion on the design competition for the 101 Highway/Pedestrian Bridge project – Elizabeth Ames - Discussion (30min) ATTACHMENT 5.Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan - Peter Jensen Discussion (45min) ATTACHMENT 6.Other Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates – Chair - Discussion - (15min) 7.Discussion on possible dates for PARC 2015 retreat – Chair - Discussion - (15min) V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS VI.TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2015 MEETING VII. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT Draft Minutes 1 1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 SPECIAL MEETING 7 December 9, 2014 8 CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Stacey Ashlund, Deirdre Crommie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie 13 Knopper, Ed Lauing, Pat Markevitch 14 Commissioners Absent: Keith Reckdahl 15 Others Present: 16 Staff Present: Greg Betts, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen 17 I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 18 19 II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 20 21 Chair Hetterly: We would like to switch item numbers 3 and 4 on the agenda in order to 22 be sure we get as much of Gil as we can before he has to scoot off. Are there any 23 objections? 24 25 Vice Chair Lauing: Three and four? 26 27 Chair Hetterly: Yeah. We'll do Palo Alto's Chief Sustainability Officer before farewell 28 to Greg Betts. Seeing no objections, I'll make that change. Are there any other changes, 29 requests or deletions to the agenda? Nope. 30 31 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 32 33 None. 34 35 DRAFT Draft Minutes 2 IV. BUSINESS: 36 37 1. Approval of Draft October 21, 2014 Minutes. 38 39 Approval of the draft October 21, 2014 Minutes was moved by Vice Chair Lauing and 40 seconded by Commissioner Markevitch. Passed 6-0 41 42 2. Approval of Draft November 14, 2014 Minutes. 43 44 Approval of the draft November 14, 2014 Minutes was moved by Commissioner 45 Markevitch and seconded by Commissioner Ashlund. Passed 6-0 46 47 3. Introduction of City of Palo Alto's Chief Sustainability Officer Gil Friend. 48 49 Rob de Geus: Good evening, Commissioners. Rob de Geus, Assistant Director of 50 Community Services. It's my pleasure to introduce Gil Friend. He's the Chief 51 Sustainability Officer of the City of Palo Alto. You're probably asking yourself, "What 52 exactly does that mean?" That's why he's here; he's going to explain that. It's a fairly 53 new role with the City. Sustainability is a core value certainly for the City Council and 54 for all of you. Excited to have Gil here today. 55 56 Gil Friend: Thank you, Rob. Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Gil Friend, Chief 57 Sustainability Officer for the City of Palo Alto. It is a new position; it was created last 58 year. I started work one year ago today. As you know, the City has a long history of 59 commitment and innovation around sustainability. What motivated City Manager Jim 60 Keene and his colleagues in creating this position was to provide a point of focus to the 61 many initiatives that we have, give it some strategic coordination, and elevate the 62 significance of it and integration of sustainability in everything that the City does. I'm on 63 the executive leadership team of the city. I report to the City Manager and work with a 64 Sustainability Board which is the directors of most of the departments of the city. We 65 meet monthly. Also, I'm working with staff through a staff green team that had begun 66 some years ago, but we've revitalized it this year. That's going to be having regular 67 meetings and projects as a way to both engage the staff directly and also, as I see it, 68 having 1,035 pairs of eyes and ears to help see what's working, what could be working 69 better, and generally elevate the state of play of what we're doing. I received a copy of 70 the sustainability element of your Parks Master Plan. I've not reviewed that yet, but I will 71 have a review for you by Friday of this week. I just learned that was the deadline, so 72 we'll do that. I have not been able to do that, because I've been absorbed over the last 73 week preparing for a study session with City Council last night about the Sustainability 74 and Climate Action Plan that we're in the process of building. If this makes sense to you, 75 what might be useful is to very quickly move through the presentation. It summarizes the 76 status of our efforts and what we're up to right now, and concludes with a number of 77 DRAFT Draft Minutes 3 questions that are on the minds of my team, and then use that as a kicking off point for an 78 open discussion with you for the rest of the time I'm here. If that makes sense, we can do 79 that. I will need to leave between 7:45 and 7:50 at the latest to catch a train. I appreciate 80 your flexibility on your schedule to accommodate that. I'll give you some background; 81 the challenges as we see it right now; introduce you to the Sustainability and Climate 82 Action Plan; talk about what we call domains of action or areas of focus that we're using 83 to organize this complex and multi-faceted task into something clear and understandable 84 for us as well as the community; and then finish with some of the big questions. Let me 85 just stay I am not a fan of hair shirt environmentalism. I don't believe in sacrificing for 86 the good of the earth. Not because I don't care about the earth, but because I don't believe 87 sacrifice is necessary to have the kind of sustainability that we want. The framework that 88 I think about is how do we use sustainability not only as a way to protect and improve the 89 quality of living systems, but to grow the quality of life in the city overall, to build 90 economic prosperity, and to enhance the resilience of the City. By way of background, 91 before joining the City last December, for the last 20 years I've been working as a 92 strategic consultant to businesses, advising some of the world's largest companies on how 93 to integrate sustainability into business strategy and business practices, not just as a good 94 thing to do but as a way of growing significant economic value. That is where I learned 95 my game and honed my skills and have seen enough evidence in that world to believe 96 firmly that this kind of approach is grounded, makes sense and is viable for a city as well 97 as a company. Palo Alto leadership is important in this because we're affected by 98 climate. The direct impacts of climate change are serious potential impacts that we face. 99 Clearly we didn't cause the climate crisis uniquely; although, we're as involved as 100 anybody else in living the modern lifestyle that contributes to that. We don't get to solve 101 it by ourselves, but we need to respond to it. I think we have the opportunity here to 102 continue to pioneer beyond what's expected. The bar of leadership is rising. There are 103 direct benefits to our community in doing that as well as being a really important part of 104 our traditional role of being an inspiration to others. As I talk with my colleagues around 105 the country and around the world and tell them that I've left the consulting game to come 106 here, the general response is, "That's amazing. Palo Alto, what an amazing city." The 107 sense of leadership, not just here but in Asia and Europe, people are quite impressed with 108 what we've done. I think largely rightly, so there's something to live up to there. We've 109 done a lot. Our 2007 Climate Protection Plan was one of the first for a city to do. We set 110 what were at that time very bold goals. We've exceeded them and set new goals and 111 exceeded them. One of the things that I've done this year is ask the City departments to 112 collect all of their sustainability initiatives, because there's a lot going on that's just not 113 visible. It's not visible to me as supposedly the chief, but it's not visible to the 114 commissions. It's not visible to the community. We at last count clocked 154 different 115 measures ranging from Urban Forest Master Plan to electric vehicle policy, local solar 116 plan, the energy compost facility which Council discussed last night, streamlining of 117 photovoltaic permitting which we've taken from a nine-month process to an over-the-118 counter process. It's a great example of how we can improve service as well as 119 DRAFT Draft Minutes 4 economics as well as energy performance all together. There's a lot more that's in the 120 pipeline. We're starting to move key sustainability metrics into the City's open data 121 system so these are visible more than just once a year. I mentioned the green team 122 before. We're looking at ways to improve the process of how the City serves its citizens. 123 We've had a longstanding policy of environmentally preferable procurement for the 124 things the City spends money on. Frankly, it hasn't been applied consistently but, more 125 importantly, we don't have the measures to know how well it's working. We're putting 126 those into place now. We're working with the procurement team to ensure that green 127 procurement isn't just a good idea, but is the normal, the default. It's not that you have to 128 decide to make an extra effort to get the environmentally preferable products, but that 129 that would be the normal default that comes up in the purchasing system. If you need 130 something else, you'd have to justify lowering the standard. We've got zero waste 131 initiatives and the City is just behind San Francisco in terms of our diversion rate. We 132 just added a fleet manager in the last couple of months. We operate a fleet of almost 600 133 vehicles ranging from sedans to fire trucks, and we're looking at how do we electrify that 134 fleet in a systematic and economical way. Just as a sidebar, we have a probably nation-135 leading electric vehicle policy, but it's not enough for us to suggest what our citizens and 136 our businesses should do. We need to walk the talk ourselves. That's one of the things I 137 want to make sure we do. We have historic resolutions from Council to look at total cost 138 of operations, not just first cost when we spend taxpayer money but also the cost of 139 externalities, whether that's carbon, the most obviously one, or water or biodiversity. It's 140 a policy but it's not implemented in an effective way. We'll get that implemented. We 141 have been looking at how to take the philosophical aspiration of living today in a way 142 that doesn't compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs, the classical 143 definition of sustainability, and ask the question what does that mean actually on the 144 ground? What are the policies that do that or don't do that? What are the programs and 145 operations that support that or not? We'll be streamlining our reporting on sustainability. 146 Why act now? I'll let you read the slide; I won't read it to you. There's climate reasons 147 and economic reasons and just because this is what we do. We like to do the right thing 148 and we like to be the first doing it and be a beacon to others. The conversation that we're 149 beginning with the community, with the Council, with you is what's our appetite for 150 change now. Do we want to lead or do we want to follow? Where are our priorities? 151 What do we want to focus on? We had our first public event about three weeks ago at the 152 Downtown Library. We had an open ideas expo, inviting people to come forward with 153 their best suggestions and ideas. More than double the turnout that we expected. More 154 than 18 people presented posters, really well thought through, detailed presentations of 155 their ideas. These are available for your review on the sustainability website. That's the 156 first of a number of efforts we'll make to have a broader conversation in the community 157 about what people care about, where people think the opportunities are, where the 158 leverage is to move this forward. We talk about a Climate Action Plan, but we know that 159 this isn't just about climate and not just about carbon. It's about water. It's about 160 biological resources. It's about parks and rec and urban forestry and the regenerative 161 DRAFT Draft Minutes 5 capacity of living systems that support everything that we care about. The Climate Plan 162 is an effort to look rigorously at the challenges we face, tie them together into a coherent 163 strategy and support a grounded conversation in the community about where we want to 164 go. The elements of it, I'm not going to go through the detail of it. This is the work plan 165 that we're looking at. This is all available online or I'm happy to talk about it at a future 166 time. Let me just pull out one of those. The first step is that we're looking at best 167 practices around the world. Here's some of the examples of the goals that other cities are 168 setting. Some of the largest cities in the world are talking about climate neutral by 2050. 169 Copenhagen is looking at having a bicycle commute mode share of 75 percent within ten 170 years. Imagine Scandinavia, cold, wet, and 75 percent are commuting by bicycles. Kind 171 of an astounding goal, but they're putting investment into place in planning and land use 172 and infrastructure to make that workable. Not by requirements and not by finger 173 wagging and not by penalties, but by making it more convenient for people to bike than 174 to do anything else. It's a great model for some of the things we're trying to do. 175 California already has an aspiration to make all new residential buildings zero net energy 176 by 2020. We're looking to do that two or three years ahead of the State. Some of the 177 programs that we've seen, again I'll let you read these. You see cities in Europe and the 178 United States taking some very bold steps. These tend to focus more on the energy 179 component of it. This is one of our challenges frankly, because the energy and carbon are 180 easier to count than things like ecosystem health. We have to have your guidance about 181 what is important there and how do we communicate that effectively and in a way that 182 people really understand it and how do we tie all these pieces together. This is a snapshot 183 of our carbon footprint right now. 2005, 2012, 2013, you'll notice something very 184 interesting about this. We have significantly reduced our landfill emissions through our 185 recycling and zero waste strategies. The big bite is that, by making our electricity carbon 186 neutral in the last year, we've taken a big chunk out of our emissions. We've reduced 187 them 34 percent since 1990. It's stunning compared to other cities. If you also look at 188 that, you see that we've got two big challenges ahead of us: transportation and natural 189 gas. We don't get significant reductions in emissions without transforming transportation 190 and doing something very different with natural gas. That's the core of our focus 191 initially, and that's why you hear me keep talking about energy and climate. I'm going to 192 go to the big questions that we're thinking about. Should we become a carbon neutral 193 city? I would have thought we'd like to be the first. Copenhagen has said they're going 194 do it by 2025, so we might not be the first but that's okay. We'll be in good company if 195 that's something we want to do. How do we transform transportation? How do we 196 transform our relationship to natural gas? What's the role of Palo Alto utilities in this 197 future which will be very, very different for utilities than it has been in the past, as we 198 move to distributed generation? What about water? Some of the experts that I'm talking 199 to, when I talk to them about the drought, grab me by the lapels and shake me and say, 200 "Don't say drought. It's not a drought. It's the new normal." I don't know if they're right 201 or not, but what if they are? What if this is not a three-year or a seven-year drought 202 cycle, but something that we'll see for the next several decades? What do we do? How 203 DRAFT Draft Minutes 6 does that affect our parks? How does that affect the hydroelectric power that's part of our 204 electrical supply? How does that affect our land-use patterns or landscaping patterns and 205 so forth? I've talked about the future generations perspective. How do we report on all 206 this in a way that makes it clear to people how well we're doing? In 2007, I mentioned 207 the Climate Protection Plan, a green ribbon commission of citizens put together 400 or 208 500 suggested measures of things we should do. We have no dashboard that tells us what 209 are status is on those. It would be good to have that. It would be good to show our 210 progress so that people can orient themselves and self-organize. Frankly, people here do 211 propose ideas that could really contribute or build businesses that solve problems here 212 and become value contributors to the rest of the world. Difficult questions for most of us. 213 How will we adapt to climate change? Most of us have been focused for the last 10 or 20 214 years on how we prevent it. It's on us; we're not going to prevent it. We may mitigate it. 215 We may slow its impact, but we will see significant changes in the climate, in 216 temperature and rainfall. This affects parks and rec in a very direct way, because the 217 climatic zones for our vegetation may well shift. What do we do? Very important and 218 something I hope we can talk about is what other sustainability goals should we be 219 pursuing. These are the background questions and my team's work. We're planning to 220 come back to Council in the spring as well as out to community workshops. Last night 221 Council encouraged us to look at ways to more tightly integrate the Comprehensive 222 Planning process that is underway right now with the Climate Plan process, maybe make 223 those one plan or certainly tightly coupled. I would certainly like to have what we do and 224 what you do with the Parks Master Plan as well as the City's Forest Master Plan all be in 225 sync together. In particular, I'd like to be able to communicate this as clearly and 226 powerfully to the community as we can. Ultimately there's a limit to what we get to do. 227 We can physically control certain things. We can set policies on certain things. We can 228 advise and encourage certain things, but ultimately this stuff only works if the citizens of 229 this community want to do it. Engagement becomes really key in anything and certainly 230 in something that's going to be bold and visionary. Let me stop there. I'd love to hear 231 from you about what you see as important, what your vision is for parks in the City and 232 where there are opportunities to support each other's work. 233 234 Chair Hetterly: Let me start just with a question. Can you explain what distributed 235 generation and distributed storage are? 236 237 Mr. Friend: Distributed generation is solar on your rooftop as opposed to energy from a 238 power plant in the middle of the country. Local solar would be that. Distributed storage 239 is what we are starting to see happen as battery technology gets cheaper and cheaper. We 240 expect buildings will have their own storage systems within the building. Imagine a 241 building that's generating energy during the day from solar collectors on its roof, storing 242 it in its batteries in the basement, and running the building off the batteries in the evening. 243 Local solar, as you know, is rapidly accelerating as the prices drop. We expect to see 244 local storage prices dropping as well. The reason I put that there is that this becomes a 245 DRAFT Draft Minutes 7 big challenge to the whole economic model of utilities as we've known them for the last 246 100 years. We have the tremendous advantage of having full service municipal utilities 247 which are a leader in innovation in every sector that they're operating in. Their business 248 model is going to change, perhaps very dramatically. The question there is, in simplest 249 terms, do they react to the change when it happens or do they lead the change. It's not a 250 simple question. It's one that they're starting to grapple with, that we're talking with them 251 a lot about. 252 253 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. I'll open it up to the panel for questions and comments. 254 Abbie, do you have anything? 255 256 Commissioner Knopper: Hello. You jammed in a lot of information. It's mind blowing 257 how much information. Thank you. Obviously, it's a very long conversation ongoing. 258 259 Mr. Friend: I hope that it is. I wanted to just give you quickly some orientation, so you 260 understand the scope of what we're looking at and hopefully a bit about the way that 261 we're thinking about the issues. 262 263 Commissioner Knopper: It's true, everything you said. I was really happy to hear it, 264 because obviously we're going through this huge strategic planning process. To your 265 point specifically when it comes to water and the State of California, it's very, very 266 serious. Part of where my head is is how whatever we do in our strategic plan takes that 267 into consideration. Climate change is overwhelming when you think of the scope of it 268 all. I'm trying not to be completely neurotic about it. Actionable items and things that 269 you can do as a city to make clear, definitive choices that will at least help our kids and 270 future generations have drinkable water, being able to plant crops and have electricity, 271 that the source is not contributing to poisoning the environment. I'm not saying anything 272 other than thank you for being part of the City. Our process on the Park and Rec is a very 273 integral part of what we need to do as a City, planning all of this open space that we have 274 and all of these parks and really thinking about it. 275 276 Mr. Friend: Thank you. 277 278 Vice Chair Lauing: Just a couple of things. One is that you have to be integrated and 279 linked with basically everything that happens in the City. 280 281 Mr. Friend: Yeah. Welcome to my daily challenge. 282 283 Vice Chair Lauing: How you prioritize that I don't know and I won't put in a plug that 284 parks are more important. Basically if you need us to interface with you, let us know. If 285 you want a standing ad hoc committee, which is just a couple of Commissioners that 286 DRAFT Draft Minutes 8 work out of these meetings, to interface with you and make some progress, that's one 287 method. What you're doing is vital to what we do every year. 288 289 Mr. Friend: What you're doing is vital to the character of the City and the quality of life 290 in the City, how it feels being here with all the parkland. It's a different physical 291 sensation in Palo Alto than in many other cities. People notice that. You've got to 292 manage 4,000 acres of ecosystems in a changing climatic regime. That's not going to be 293 easy to do. 294 295 Vice Chair Lauing: That's a good segue to my next question. You mentioned that carbon 296 is looked at because it's easy to count. So much of the stuff that we work on and that 297 we've been struggling with in the last couple of years deals with habitat and ecosystem. 298 That's hard to count one-to-one replacements. We take some trees down and we want to 299 do mitigation for that and what is it. Because we don't want to put trees out there, we 300 have to do something else that's sort of equal. I don't know if you know right now if 301 there is state of the art on non-carbon quantification. As that goes forward, please keep 302 us informed. 303 304 Mr. Friend: Let me answer that in two ways. The state of the art is right here in town. 305 It's at Stanford. It's a group called the Natural Capital Project that has been developing 306 methodologies and tools for developing quantification of ecosystem value. Gretchen 307 Daily, who is a professor at Stanford, came out with a book about 15 years called 308 Nature's Services which was the first real public attempt to develop economic value for 309 nature. Her panel of dozens of economists and scientists from around the world said 310 basically the value of ecosystem services on the planet is worth about twice the global 311 economic product. Accurate, who knows? The point was a very, very big number, very 312 significant. In fact, even more significant because we don't know how to provide those 313 services. Without those, you don't have a global economy. That was the initial foray. 314 They've since built analytic tools. They've built planning tools. They're working with a 315 number of cities around the world and perhaps soon with us to look at the ecosystem 316 impacts of everything we do. That's one of the planning filters that we look at. There are 317 methodologies to do that, that are valuing water, that are valuing biodiversity, that are 318 valuing standing timber. It's a young science, so I don't know how precise it is. There's 319 real strength on that right down the road from us. I can't speak for them, but they might 320 be interested in having a conversation with you about that. Walter Passmore, our Urban 321 Forester, has been looking at the carbon sequestration value of the City forest as another 322 way to protect and encourage investment in that. Having said that, you'll hear me talk a 323 lot about analytics and value and so forth, but I also like to remind myself and I'll remind 324 you, I think it was Albert Einstein who said that not everything that counts can be 325 counted and not everything that can be counted counts. There are things that are of value 326 to us that may not fit into an economic equation, that live here and that people speak to. I 327 DRAFT Draft Minutes 9 want to acknowledge that as well. This is not going to be a purely dollars and cents 328 exercise. 329 330 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Ashlund. 331 332 Commissioner Ashlund: Yes. Thank you for your presentation. I have two questions to 333 ask. The first is related to sustainability and environmentalism. Sometimes in the past 334 I've heard those as differing viewpoints. Are you thinking of them as combined under 335 your role or is there a difference there? 336 337 Mr. Friend: What are you hearing as the difference? 338 339 Commissioner Ashlund: I guess I'm looking for an expert opinion. What I've heard in 340 the past is preservation is preserving the environment as it is. Sustainability sometimes 341 involves new technology that is more efficient for a longer-term benefit. I don't know if 342 that's accurate. 343 344 Mr. Friend: It's a long conversation on the semantics of all this stuff. The usual thinking 345 about sustainability talks about what people call the triple bottom line, looking at people, 346 planet, profit. How do you do things that are good for society, that are good for 347 ecosystems, and are good for the economy and trying to look at the three of them 348 together. Think of it as a three-legged stool. If you have only two legs on the stool, 349 you're not stable. The general notion is that it subsumes everything that we've thought of 350 as environmentalism, but also adds in addition to the living systems focus a concern for 351 social well-being and economic well-being. For a lot of people the social well-being 352 question is a question of inclusion. How do you not just have parks for wealthy people 353 but food for poor people and economic opportunity for all people? A lot of people take it 354 much broader. The other challenge frankly to sustainability, as the popular term of the 355 day, of how we talk about all this stuff comes from Michael Braungart, a chemist in 356 Germany, who says, "I'm actually not in favor of sustainability because sustainability is 357 really boring." Who wants to keep things the same? If I asked you how your marriage 358 was, and you said, "Well it's sustainable," I'd say, "Gee, I'm really sorry to hear that. You 359 have my condolences." I'd want you to tell me that your marriage is vibrant and fulfilling 360 and renewing and grows you and your family. That perspective that says sustainability is 361 a holding action, a defensive strategy is all well and good, but how do we enrich our 362 lives. How do we grow the vitality of ecosystems, make them healthier, not just keep 363 them from getting worse? How do we grow prosperity, not just hold it where it is? How 364 do we become more resilient and more independent of fossil fuel resources, not just slow 365 pollution? I tend to be of that school, not do less bad but find ways to use this 366 perspective as an innovation driver, as a lens to look through to identify opportunities to 367 uplift everything that we care about from parks and rec to transportation to housing to 368 food systems to water to all of it. My biggest challenge frankly is how to tie all these 369 DRAFT Draft Minutes 10 pieces together and communicate them in a way that's simple enough to convey in a 370 10-minute presentation at a Commission or a 5-minute conversation at a café, that 371 conveys some of the richness of the whole living system perspective but is bite-sized 372 enough that people can understand and see their place in it and do the piece that matters 373 to them. 374 375 Commissioner Ashlund: Thank you for the clarification. It's not a clarification, but like 376 you said it's part of a longer conversation. I appreciate that. 377 378 Mr. Friend: It's not settled. People argue about this all the time. There's not a right 379 answer on it. 380 381 Commissioner Ashlund: Great. Do you have any short-term goals for us to keep in mind 382 and/or will you be involved in the Master Plan process to share your expertise? 383 384 Mr. Friend: I'll be reviewing the sustainability element over the next couple of days, so I 385 may have some thoughts after that. The things that are top of mind for me are how do we 386 adapt to a different precipitation, to a different rainfall regime in California if that is 387 coming. How do we manage ecosystems when both rainfall and temperature zones may 388 be shifting? You're doing plantings that have long lives. You don't turn these things over 389 quickly. You have to make decisions today that are going to be healthy in 10, 20 and 30 390 years. How do we think about that? I don't know what the numbers are for the parks, but 391 for the City trees, we think something like 7 percent of our trees are native or drought-392 adapted. That's not a big percentage. We pride ourselves on our canopy. What are we, 393 35 percent canopy or something like that? We have a terrific City street tree system, but 394 possibly vulnerable. How do we think about evolving that ecosystem as the climatic 395 conditions change? The same question is there for parks. Walter didn't know what the 396 percentage were for parks; you may. I don't know if you have species assays of the parks 397 the way we do for City trees. We need to think about that. The term I use is an 398 ecosystem management perspective. How do we keep these ecosystems healthy when 399 the conditions they've arisen in change? That's not an easy question for you frankly. 400 Once I review the plan, I'll be happy to come back with comments, either relay them 401 through Rob or come back to you and talk about it. 402 403 Commissioner Ashlund: Thank you. 404 405 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Crommie. 406 407 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. I really appreciate your discussion on the value of 408 ecosystem. That's probably one of my most important goals on this Commission, is to 409 advocate for that. I have found within the sustainability movement in our City that's not 410 always taken into account. That came to the fore with our Measure E referendum, and 411 DRAFT Draft Minutes 11 there we undedicated 10 acres of parkland for future investigation for use of our waste 412 streams to generate energy. That land happens to be where there's a significant wildlife 413 corridor. That was very much underappreciated by some of the leadership in the 414 sustainability movement within our City, such that one of the leaders told me that he 415 didn't think the Baylands was a real park like Foothills. To me that was pretty jarring. 416 I've always tried to advocate for the environment and for ecosystems. One thing I'd like 417 to ask of you, when you do work on your section on sustainability for our Master Plan, if 418 you can really comment on the value of ecosystem and try to integrate that. I didn't see 419 that enough in our Urban Forest Plan. When our Commission reviewed that, we tried to 420 give a strong voice. I feel like we're always fighting an uphill battle when we talk about 421 ecosystems on this Commission. It's hugely undervalued in our City. We don't have an 422 expert on staff in our City; I mean we have some. I don't want to undervalue who we 423 have, but we don't have a czar of the ecosystem. We have you as a czar of sustainability. 424 We have Walter protecting our urban forest. We really don't have a czar of the 425 ecosystem, and it's very easy to tread upon it. Like Commissioner Lauing brought up, it 426 was very hard to quantify it. We were extremely dissatisfied with how Walter Passmore 427 got a consultant to try to quantify it for a tree mitigation. It would be interesting if you 428 could review the report that Walter wrote when we were trying to give value to the 429 ecosystem on the golf course that was being largely disrupted by the remodel. I was very 430 dissatisfied with the kind of modeling that was done. It doesn't seem like it's as advanced 431 as what you're describing as going on at Stanford. We could use some of those 432 connections when we reach out. That's a very real part of our role on the Commission, to 433 try to figure out the value of things, especially when we're making hard development 434 decisions. Another thing is that I feel like there is an over-focus on the urban canopy. 435 It's so simple. We all simplistically like shade and none of us want that to go away. I've 436 never seen anyone quantify the wildlife that is living within that canopy. We need to do 437 an evaluation of all kinds of ecosystems. We have to map out ecosystems within our 438 City. Until we map them out and understand them, there are more subtle ones than the 439 Baylands that maybe not everyone is aware of. I would just say that that's the kind of 440 work that I'd like to see. In the recent history of our City, there's been some tension 441 around that. We have Emily Renzel and Enid Pearson come and speak to us. They're 442 huge advocates for our ecosystem. We have wetlands and preserves named after each of 443 them, but they're often alone in terms of advocacy within our City. 444 445 Mr. Friend: Can I ask you, are there cities that come to mind that you think have done an 446 exemplary job on that? It's helpful for me to be able to point to examples as well as to 447 learn from them. If you have any of those, that'd be great to know. 448 449 Commissioner Crommie: I can talk to people I know who advocate for wildlife and 450 ecosystems, but I'm not familiar with it. I'm from Santa Monica, and I know in the 451 canyon lands there was always a lot of attention with the City of Santa Monica. I look 452 toward the City of San Francisco, because they have a big debate on whether they're 453 DRAFT Draft Minutes 12 going to use artificial turf versus grass turf. That's another thing that comes before us. 454 That's a very hot topic. It does relate to sustainability, but I don't know the answer on it. 455 It'd be really nice to get some clarification. Maybe I could pose that as a question to you. 456 I know it's really complicated, but does artificial turf rank higher on sustainability 457 measures than dealing with grass? The grass needs water, but the artificial turf needs to 458 be buried in landfill. It's lifespan is very short and it's very expensive. Do you just want 459 to comment on that? I have two more questions after this. 460 461 Mr. Friend: I'll give you the consultant's short answer: it depends. I'm saying that being 462 flip, but it really does. It depends on what the artificial is made of, how it's 463 manufactured, what it's life cycle is. Is it landfillable or compostable? What kind of turf 464 are you using? What's the water regime it takes to maintain it? It's a flip answer, but it's 465 a serious one. You have to look in detail at a comparison of all the factors over the life 466 cycle of the different choices. I don't know what the specific answer is. I'd be interested 467 in looking at how San Francisco's been going at the question. 468 469 Commissioner Crommie: They had a referendum in this last election about whether they 470 were going to replace a lot of grass fields with artificial turf. I don't know which way it 471 came out; I need to search that out. That's the kind of expertise that we often don't get 472 before our Commission, but we have to make a lot of decisions. We're a City that loves 473 playing fields for sports. It's a huge topic in our City. I have two more question. I was 474 wondering if you can give us some sense of how you can quantify and when you can 475 quantify if the current drought truly is the new normal. We need to know information to 476 make policy. 477 478 Mr. Friend: No, I can't. I don't know that anybody can. Scientists are debating about 479 this. We're in a very difficult situation of having to make decisions in the face of 480 uncertainty. There are people who think that we have a traditional cycle of x years of 481 drought every y years, whatever that is. There was a paper published this summer that 482 said this could be a 200-year cycle. Something came out this last week and said it might 483 be 70 years but we will be able to tolerate it for these reasons. Don't know. The safe 484 thing that you can assume is that weather is going to be more volatile, drier and wetter. It 485 looks like we'll probably be hotter. For me, I think that's a safe bet, but I'm not a 486 meteorologist. I'm not a climate scientist. I want to be clear on that. If you go into the 487 literature, the general direction of the trend says hotter and for northern California 488 probably drier. People disagree all the way down the line about the details. Here's your 489 challenge. We can't say we're not going to make decisions until we have certainty. We 490 have to make decisions now based on our best understanding of what we know. What I 491 try to do is look for the no-regrets strategy that could work well with current conditions 492 and work well with expected future conditions and try to slice that as best we can and in 493 particular build in as much flexibility as possibility, ability to change in the future as we 494 learn more. That means a different thing for managing parks than for managing City 495 DRAFT Draft Minutes 13 buildings. The principle is worth thinking about and asking what does that mean for 496 parks. How do we design with flexibility and agility? I don't know the answer to that. 497 That's something we need to talk about more. 498 499 Commissioner Crommie: A really important thing that you just said is that it is different 500 for parks and buildings. We can't get caught up in what everyone's doing for buildings. 501 We are the people who are here to defend the parks is how I look at it. We just have to 502 keep saying we're different until we know the answers. Sometimes I feel very lonely 503 saying that. Somewhere in your slides you talked about something called PV permit 504 streamlining. Permitting is another very important topic in our City, how that gets done. 505 There's been some controversy over various kinds of permitting that we do. Can you 506 explain what that is? 507 508 Mr. Friend: What the PV permitting is? 509 510 Commissioner Crommie: Yes. 511 512 Mr. Friend: PV is photovoltaic, so solar cells on rooftops. When somebody wants to put 513 rooftop solar on their home, they need to come to the Department of Development 514 Services to get a permit like with any other significant modification of your home. 515 516 Commissioner Crommie: What would you do if someone wants to cut down a tree to do 517 that? Something that would relate to the natural environment. 518 519 Mr. Friend: I actually don't know what the rules are on that. I know we have some rules; 520 I don't know exactly where they extend or how they're being implemented. It's 521 something I can find out more about and come back to you. 522 523 Commissioner Crommie: I'm always noticing points of conflict. I feel like that's another 524 one of these points of conflict. It's really good to think it through, to be ahead of the 525 curve rather than not knowing what to do when an important decision comes to us. We 526 will look toward you for that. I'm really grateful that you came to speak with us. I'm 527 looking forward to our Commission having more contact with you. 528 529 Mr. Friend: Thank you. 530 531 Chair Hetterly: I know you have to race out of here, but I also want to thank you. 532 533 Mr. Friend: Got a few more minutes. 534 535 DRAFT Draft Minutes 14 Chair Hetterly: I appreciate you coming. We've been trying to get you here. You're like 536 the superstar we've been trying to get to show up to our gig for quite some time. We're 537 glad that you came. 538 539 Mr. Friend: Thank you for electing me czar by the way. I have absolutely no authority. 540 This is purely an influence position like yours. It's a matter of education and persuasion 541 and invitation. "Hey, that would be cool. I want to do that." That's one of my main 542 levers. I have no sticks to beat people up with, and I wouldn't even if I did. Anyway, do 543 you have any questions in the 2 minutes we've got? 544 545 Chair Hetterly: No. I think I'll hold my questions until we've had a chance to review the 546 sustainability review. I appreciate your willingness to come back. We may well ask you 547 to come back once we have that context. 548 549 Mr. Friend: Be my pleasure. Thank you. 550 551 Chair Hetterly: Thank you very much. 552 553 4. Farewell to Greg Betts as He Retires after 31 Years of Distinguished Service 554 to the City of Palo Alto. 555 556 Rob de Geus: I will introduce this one. Thank you, Gil. That was great, very thought 557 provoking. Gil will be very involved with the Parks Master Plan. He's going to be 558 invaluable in a lot of areas, as you can imagine. Thank you, Gil. Greg, you want to come 559 up here? Come join me. I just want to say a few words about Greg, because we've 560 worked together for 15 years or something like that. Greg's been with the City for 31 561 years. He's done a lot over those years. I just wanted to mention a few of the things that 562 came to mind as I was jotting down notes of things he's been involved in over the years. 563 A lot of leadership. One area is in public-private partnerships. He's just really been 564 engaged with our partners in all sorts of ways. I think about the Lytton Plaza renovation, 565 the Heritage Park playground and most recently the Magical Bridge playground, which 566 he's involved in as a professional but also as a personal matter. He helped make those 567 things happen. I wanted to mention something about the budget for our department. It's 568 a really big budget; it's $22 million and an $8 million expectation of revenues every year. 569 Greg has managed that with the staff, but he's been the leader. There's been some pretty 570 difficult times. Between 2006 and 2011, it was really tough, really deep budget cuts. It 571 could have fractured the department in a whole lot of ways. He's held it together and 572 showed great leadership. He's been the Open Space Manager for a lot of years, and he's 573 managed the Junior Museum and all sorts of areas within the department. He was 574 instrumental in the Foothills Park/Arastradero Preserve Trails Plan and the Bay to Ridge 575 Trail through Foothills Park that connected communities and neighborhoods. That's 576 really outstanding. We do a lot of special events with the chili cook off and May Fete 577 DRAFT Draft Minutes 15 Parade. Greg's there every time. Out of all those years, I don't think he ever missed any. 578 Even with the May Fete Parade when we needed an announcer, he did it. He just went 579 with it and it was speaking for 60 minutes with a script that was long. He's just great, 580 outstanding. In marketing, he's always been pushing our marketing and our catalog and 581 our brochure. Customer service has been a focus for Greg. Some of these things you 582 don't see, because you see him in this kind of format. We see him every day and he'll 583 help out at the front desk and answer the phone. When we walk in the park, he's picking 584 up trash. That's the kind of guy he is. He really takes great pride in the work. He's 585 managed a lot of facilities. I was trying to add up how much capital work he's managed 586 specifically. I calculated over $40 million, but it's probably even more than that. He's 587 overseen a lot of capital works and really innovative capital work like the Arastradero 588 Gateway, Nature Center design and construction. He was instrumental in us getting the 589 Bressler acquisition. It wouldn't have happened without Greg. Again, I was trying to 590 calculate how many grants he's brought in. I don't know them all, but I think it's over $4 591 million that Greg has brought in with grants that he's written. That's just a sliver of the 592 things that he's done over the years. It's an amazing career. A lot to be proud of. We 593 thank him for all of that work and more. That's what I wanted to say. I have a couple of 594 gifts, but maybe some other people want to say something. 595 596 Chair Hetterly: Why don't we go around and do some comments first. Greg, your 597 passion for Community Services, for parks, for open space, for arts, for sciences, your 598 love of Palo Alto, it pours out of you every time you open your mouth. It's so infectious 599 and it's a real inspiration to all of us who've worked for you. It will continue to be 600 inspirational in whatever you do once you leave the City; I'm sure contributing back more 601 towards this great City that you've helped build in so many ways. Like Rob says, it's 602 amazing. I go to a lot of City events, and I'm not sure I've been to one where I haven't 603 run into you. It's always so nice for me. It's one of the highlights for me. I'm not big on 604 those social things, so I think "Oh, I bet Greg will be here." I look for you and there you 605 are. You always make me feel so welcome. I will really miss you a lot and I hope you 606 have a really fabulous transition into whatever it is that you do next. Commissioner 607 Lauing. 608 609 Vice Chair Lauing: Actually I was going to use that exact word, passion. I'll have to 610 switch my word. It's just so clear to me in the years that I've now had a chance to know 611 you is that you're not doing a job. You're on a mission that is civic, but it's also personal. 612 It's even emotional. When you get involved in something like Magical Bridge, you're in 613 it. You're totally involved in it. You're not just showing up to say hi and shake hands. 614 Throughout the whole process, behind the scenes and on the scenes and so on. That's 615 special and that comes across to folks like us. A hardy salute. You've been a role model 616 to other folks in the City who have picked up on that. The second thing I wanted to 617 comment on was that with all the times that he's standing at meetings and so on, you're 618 incredibly accessible. As I've had the opportunity to work with you as Chair and Vice 619 DRAFT Draft Minutes 16 Chair, I can get at you and I get a response and really fast. Maybe Rob and Daren would 620 say that's because you're such a good delegator. They're doing a lot of the work, so you 621 can just be able to respond and do emails and stuff. That is part and parcel of what we all 622 need to do to help the City, is to work together. You do it so quickly and so thoroughly 623 that again a hardy salute and a thank you for that. Enjoy that rest of time, but come see 624 us. 625 626 Commissioner Markevitch: Oh, man, I'm going to miss you. Dedicated. They said what 627 I was going to say. I wouldn't have stayed on this Commission as long as I have if it 628 hadn't been for the two of you. Just an amazing amount of work you've done for the City. 629 You've made it so easy to be on this Commission, because there's always an answer or a 630 thoughtful question to nudge us along. It's just incredible. I'm going to miss you, but I 631 know where you live. 632 633 Commissioner Knopper: I don't know you that well. It's been such a pleasure. Any 634 human being who dedicates 31 years to public service and does work for the overall 635 community is a special kind of person. I feel like I've been on the planet Earth long 636 enough now to recognize people that are genuine. We haven't chatted all that much, but 637 when we have you've always been so thoughtful and helpful. Whatever your next 638 endeavor is, I hope it's as exciting and fulfilling as the last 31 years have been and 639 different and new. People need to change and do different stuff and shake things up a 640 little bit. Thank you on behalf of just being a resident of the City for the last nine years. 641 Palo Alto is a really great place to live because of people like you who work hours and 642 hours. I can't believe how many people are at City Hall. We have so many dedicated, 643 wonderful people. Thank you so much. 644 645 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Ashlund. 646 647 Commissioner Ashlund: I can't imagine us going on without you, so we're going to all 648 follow you off. Your enthusiasm is impressive. You told me the story once of when you 649 started working for the City, I think you were a teenager. I hope that other folks hear that 650 story as inspiration and just sticking with it through thick and thin. It's always a joy. 651 Like Commissioner Lauing said, it's always easy to talk to you, easy to get a hold of you, 652 straightforward and really been a pleasure. I just can't even imagine it, so I'm going to 653 pretend that you're not retiring. I hope that I will bump into you around town. 654 655 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Crommie. 656 657 Commissioner Crommie: Hi there. I first met you, Greg, when I came onto the 658 Commission six years ago. You were our staff liaison and you welcomed me warmly. I 659 came on with Alex Pinelli. You gave us both a tour of the parks, of some hot button 660 places that were on your mind. Even though I'd already lived in the City quite a few 661 DRAFT Draft Minutes 17 years, it was such a great introduction, to get to see things through your eyes. My 662 memory is that you grew up in Palo Alto. Am I remembering that right? That just gave 663 you a personal connection to the City that permeated everything you did. It's been really 664 remarkable to get to know you. The first report that we were reading when I came on 665 was the Baylands Master Plan. It's an area that I'm passionate about and it was one of the 666 reasons I wanted to come onto the Commission, to help look at that open space. It was 667 just great that I got to see some of that through your eyes. I had a list of words I was 668 going to say. Five them got used up, and I have two left. Since I’m one of the last people 669 here, I get to review the ones that got used up: passionate, personal, dedicated, genuine, 670 enthusiastic. I'm going to add two more, humble and knowledgeable. That really sums 671 you up, Greg. You're a really special person. You're leaving a big hole, so we'll have to 672 see you come back. Thank you. 673 674 Greg Betts: Thank you, Rob and Commissioners. I feel really truly, truly blessed. As a 675 kid who grew up here in Palo Alto, my home backed up to Barron Creek. I would hop 676 the fence and take the creek out to the Baylands to explore the creeks and the waterways 677 and the old Sea Scout building. I had an opportunity as a kid to go to summer camps at 678 Foothills Park, to be a part of programs at the Junior Museum and Zoo. I remember the 679 first art classes and sciences classes I took at the Junior Museum and Zoo. I feel really, 680 really blessed that as a kid I had those opportunities in this community. To be able to 681 work with a staff that is so dedicated and so giving and so professional, that we've taken 682 these cherished programs and have been able to not only ensure a continuing legacy for 683 the kids of our community, but for our grandchildren and great grandchildren. They'll be 684 able to explore the Foothills and the Baylands, and that they too will become 685 environmentalists because they got to play in the mud and climb the trees, to explore. I 686 feel wonderful that I've got both a vocation and an avocation. I do hope to return to my 687 volunteer roots and continue to be a chili cook off judge as long as I'm able to. To be 688 able to help out on the fun stuff like the May Fete Parade. Sometimes I find myself 689 hiking in Foothills Park, checking out the trails or checking out the dock at Boronda Lake 690 and I think, "I get paid for this. This is really remarkable." It was in 1998 that the idea of 691 a Parks and Rec Commission was first floated. Like many things that you've 692 experienced, it took a while to ruminate. It wasn't until nearly a year later, I think, the 693 Commission was approved in September of 1999 at the same time the Council was 694 approving the ban on leaf blowers and approving the Palo Alto City Shuttle Program. It 695 took a couple of months to find Commissioners. It was December of 1999 that the 696 Commission had its first meeting. I remember that like it was yesterday. At the time we 697 were grappling with a disorganized trail system at the Pearson Arastradero Preserve. We 698 had 15 miles of renegade trails and we had big fights between mountain bikers, 699 equestrians and hikers. Mid Peninsula Open Space had just closed Los Trancos Open 700 Space to bikes. There was a lot of fervor around trail use. Right out of the chute, the 701 Parks and Rec Commission took charge of looking at the Trail Master Plan for 702 Arastradero. Through a lot of involvement in stakeholder meetings and hiking meetings 703 DRAFT Draft Minutes 18 and meeting with the equestrians, we forged this plan for 10.2 really good miles of trails 704 at Arastradero. That plan that the Commission worked on hard has been an enduring 705 Plan. Very few places have trails that are shared by equestrians and bikers and hikers so 706 successfully. Thanks to you. I want to thank you too for this Citywide Parks Master 707 Plan. It will endure 20 years, 30 years, 40 years from now. I feel embarrassed hearing 708 you say you see me at events. Well, I'm seeing you back. At every event, there's at least 709 four of you at any one of our community meetings or at our various events. I really, 710 really appreciate the fact that you volunteer so many hours to learn about these programs, 711 to question us. You give us really good, good wisdom. Through this interaction on every 712 one of the parks that we talk about or every one of the programs, we end up with a 713 product that is more fun, more educational, more beautiful and more vibrant for the 714 community. It's been a gas and I will see you around the City on a number of different 715 projects. It's been a pleasure working with each and every one of you. I know how many 716 hours you put in to this volunteer service. It's been great having you as partners and 717 friends. Thank you. 718 719 Mr. de Geus: Thank you, Greg. We all chipped in and bought you a few little things 720 from those gentlemen there and the Commission. There's three plants there. One is a 721 number of succulents to represent your commitment to preservation of habitat and those 722 types of things. There's a hydrangea there. I think it's called superstar or something, 723 because you always bring a little color. You always bring a little fun to the workplace, so 724 we thought that would be good. The third is a valley oak. That's just for your steadfast 725 leadership over these many years. I was talking to Daren earlier and we might plant that 726 together by the Gateway facility and see if we can protect it. 727 728 Mr. Betts: For those of you who know me, I love gardening. I get up early in the 729 morning to spend time in my garden. That's very, very special. Thank you very much. 730 731 5. Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. 732 733 Peter Jensen: That's a tough act to follow. Good evening, Commissioners. Peter Jensen, 734 Landscape Architect for the City of Palo Alto. Here to discuss what we've been working 735 on with the Master Plan; briefly touch on what we're working on next; and to start a 736 conversation about the actual structure of the Master Plan report. That doesn't have to 737 end tonight; we can carry on for the next few months. The things we've been working on 738 in the past have been speedy and we've been working on them very quickly. We can take 739 some time to talk about the structure of the Master Plan report. Probably during the 740 meeting we broke 1,000 for our survey, so I feel very good about that. It is going along 741 very well. It seems to have a life of its own now, which I do like. Each day it jumps up 742 by bigger increments. Definitely the community is involved and they are taking their 743 opportunity to do the survey. We're very excited about that. The next part of this Master 744 Plan is the priorities and recommendation phase. That's the part we'll be jumping into at 745 DRAFT Draft Minutes 19 the start of the new year. Right now the consultants have put together a sustainability 746 report which staff is reviewing. We'll get it to you. Gil is going to be a great advocate 747 for expanding that role in the review process of the sustainability report. The consultant 748 has also given us, and you've probably seen it, some samples of other Master Plan reports 749 and their overall breakdown of how they see the report laid out. It is important to note 750 that every Master Plan is unique to the city it is being done for. The samples that they 751 have provided us are good, but there are some areas that don't reflect what's going to be 752 in ours. As far as the general overview and getting an idea of how our Master Plan will 753 read, those samples were good to understand that structure. With that said, I will open it 754 up to any questions you had from the materials you got. If you want to have some 755 discussion about the structure for the Master Plan report, we can have that now. 756 757 Chair Hetterly: We can take comments across the board on anything you want to 758 comment on. 759 760 Commissioner Crommie: You want to start on this end? 761 762 Chair Hetterly: Yeah. 763 764 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you, Peter, our stalwart working on this Plan. I really 765 appreciate all the time and energy that you're putting into this. It's largely your passion 766 that's going to make sure that we do get a good representation of the City. I appreciate 767 you monitoring which sectors are under-reporting or over-reporting. I really appreciate 768 that in terms of the ongoing survey. I noted a couple of things on this report. Let me just 769 get my thoughts about me. I had a couple of questions. I was wondering if you could tell 770 us who the staff team is for this. I've gotten a sense of some of the people just by seeing 771 them at other meetings. Could you tell us who the staff team is? 772 773 Mr. Jensen: The staff team is the gentlemen that you see in the room. Rob, myself. 774 Greg Betts, who unfortunately is leaving us, has provided a lot of information and 775 background on it. I'm hoping that he stays involved with the project, because he does add 776 a lot of knowledge to it. Daren as well along with my manager, Elizabeth Ames in Public 777 Works, Claudia Keith who is the PR person for the City of Palo Alto. Gil is now 778 onboard with the team as well as Jaime Rodriguez, head of transportation. 779 780 Commissioner Crommie: Can you repeat that person's name? 781 782 Mr. Jensen: Jaime Rodriguez. 783 784 Commissioner Crommie: Oh, Jaime, good. That's a wonderful team. Okay, great. I 785 noticed that you guys had a meeting on the same day that we had our community meeting 786 on December 2nd. On page 3, when we list all these neighborhoods, one thing I was 787 DRAFT Draft Minutes 20 wondering about is Commissioner Reckdahl's neighborhood. I think of it as the Wilkie 788 Way neighborhood. It's too late now, but it was for a point of information. Did his 789 neighborhood get left off of this? 790 791 Mr. Jensen: No. The graphic shown on the data only goes through P and it was hard to 792 capture the ones after that. 793 794 Commissioner Crommie: I took some time to really go through this. I know we're going 795 to have other times to comment on it. I'm going to ask a couple of questions and then—if 796 I can find my questions. If it's not the right time to ask, I can come back to it at another 797 time. I guess that is one of my questions. When is our next meeting on this? I know you 798 probably have said it many times, but can you remind me? Is this our only meeting to 799 have input on this structure? 800 801 Mr. Jensen: No. We're doing this early so we can have a longer discussion about this. 802 Looking at the outline for the report, it wasn't actually set up until March. We felt that 803 providing this information earlier would give us a good grasp of how the structure of the 804 final report is going to be and would give the Commission more time to look at it. The 805 consultant will come back at some point over the next few months and talk about this and 806 field more questions about it. There will be more time to have in-depth conversation 807 about it. This is definitely not the last opportunity. There will be a draft of the full report 808 that can be massaged at that time, until we get to the final draft. This is the beginning of 809 looking at that report and will last until August. There will be plenty of opportunity to go 810 through it. This is the early phase of that structure of it. 811 812 Commissioner Crommie: We've just completed the three community outreach meetings. 813 Many of us Commissioners were there. It was great to participate. Our last one had good 814 attendance which was lovely. I saw many stakeholders there, so I presume you reached 815 out to them. I very much appreciate that. Ryan, our consultant, had mentioned that at 816 some point there's a separate process for the Commission to weigh in on what we think is 817 important. Can you tell me what that meeting will look like? Is this meeting tonight 818 considered that weighing in or is there a formal time when we do that? 819 820 Mr. Jensen: No, there will be a formal time when you do that. Right now, the consultant 821 is putting together the recommendations, everything that is being extracted from the 822 survey as well as the community meetings and the intercept groups that we had, to get to 823 a list of things that the community and the Commission and the City itself is interested in 824 seeing improved or developed in our park and recreation system. They will amass a list 825 and at that time we'll go through a process of prioritizing that list to gauge when or if 826 we're going to do these things and then what impact that will have on either economics or 827 time, things of that nature. This is not in any way an opportunity to comment on that. 828 DRAFT Draft Minutes 21 That will be a separate thing that we'll get from them as information with those 829 recommendations. 830 831 Commissioner Crommie: What I understood from what you just said, would that be the 832 beginning of what is called the prioritization process? Will we have more than one 833 session on that? 834 835 Mr. Jensen: Yes, definitely. 836 837 Commissioner Crommie: I know there's a draft of how this might be broken up. I have a 838 couple of comments. Under the introduction, the subheading that reads, "Palo Alto's 839 Parks, Trails, Natural Spaces and Recreation Programs." I might want that broken up if 840 we can into two subheadings. I'm just throwing this on the table. I'm not wed to that 841 idea. It just seemed very bulky to me, but I’m open minded about it. Is this a time for me 842 to make a couple of comments like this? 843 844 Chair Hetterly: Yes, but we have half an hour for this item, so keep in mind everybody 845 else may have comments as well. So prioritize maybe. I don't know how many 846 comments you have. 847 848 Commissioner Crommie: I just have a few more. Under "Needs, Opportunities and 849 Challenges" on page 2 of the report, there's a bullet point that says, "need for flexibility 850 and mix of uses." That's one thing that we're supposed to be figuring out by getting all of 851 our feedback. I don't know if it's a preordained bullet point that we will say we need to 852 do that. It's a subtle point, but I feel that should come out of the analysis rather than 853 already be there. I've three more points. Under "Recommendations," there's a bullet 854 point that's called "Recommendations for System Expansion." That's a very important 855 bullet point to me in terms of evaluating this. It can mean a couple of different things. It 856 could actually mean developing what we have, expanding into something for recreational 857 purposes. It can mean getting more land maybe to set up community gardens. What does 858 it mean in terms of how it's written here, of those two possibilities? Do we need a bullet 859 point for each of those? What's your gut feeling on that? You don't have to give me an 860 answer; I just want to bring it up. I would want some more granularity on that. 861 862 Mr. Jensen: We can clarify that with the consultant. I would say the recommendations of 863 the system expansion is the acquiring of additional or more parkland. Using right-of-way 864 easements, property lots, it would be those types of things or how to secure more 865 property. The expansion of the layering of activities would start to work more either in 866 the park-by-park recommendations, where we'll talk about specific spaces in parks that 867 could be layered or have multiple uses, that either have that now or don't, that they're 868 recommending that it could. That is probably where that aspect would come in. 869 870 DRAFT Draft Minutes 22 Commissioner Crommie: Future developments in parks, it's like a meta-level discussion. 871 Do we have any broad policies? Then there's the park-by-park. I'd want to know where 872 the big picture discussion of that lands. Almost done. I know I'm forgetting one, but I'll 873 have to do that another time. I wanted to discuss the title of the Plan. I don't know if you 874 want me to wait for that or give my comments on it now. 875 876 Chair Hetterly: Why don't you wait for that so we can make sure everybody has their 877 comments in. We can come back to that particular topic at the end. 878 879 Commissioner Crommie: I'm just glancing. I know I had one more question. This is my 880 question. As I'm looking over this outline and as I looked up the examples online, one 881 question that came to my mind is we have this question in our City, do we have enough 882 playing fields. I see it as a question because it's also linked to maintenance of playing 883 fields and lighting of playing fields. All those things have to do with capacity for play. 884 One thing that happened in the last community meeting on December 2nd is the head 885 consultant made a comment to our working group that, "I understand you all need more 886 playing fields." I said to her, "No, that's a question." She's the head consultant on this 887 project. I would want her to take a step back and know that we're answering that 888 question as part of this process. My question along that line is where in this outline 889 would it give us a discussion of do we need more playing fields? If we're going to look 890 somewhere in this document, where do you think that would fall? 891 892 Mr. Jensen: I believe that would fall in the system-wide recommendations. 893 894 Commissioner Crommie: This is not fully developed, so it might be a separate breakout. 895 We'll just see what kind of meat goes into that. I'm just going to note that might be where 896 it is and we might discuss that. 897 898 Chair Hetterly: That might also show up in the needs analysis and essential park 899 elements. Up above goals and objectives on page 2. Above recommendations, above 900 goals and objectives, there's a needs analysis and essential park elements. That's where 901 we're trying to answer those questions about what our needs really are. 902 903 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you very much. 904 905 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Ashlund. 906 907 Commissioner Ashlund: I have a couple of questions preceding structure where we're 908 talking about outreach. Did we want to talk about those as well? The assistance in 909 reaching out to various segments of the population, or did you want to focus just on the 910 structure at this point? 911 912 DRAFT Draft Minutes 23 Chair Hetterly: Whatever is your priority. Just keep in mind we're almost half way 913 through our time. 914 915 Commissioner Ashlund: If you can listen quick, I can talk quick. One of the questions is 916 about seeking feedback from youth. If we're talking about directly getting that from the 917 youth, in particular youth who are old enough to respond for themselves, such as teenage, 918 high school years, or if we're looking at parent input on what the needs of the youth are. I 919 wanted to know if you had a little clarity on that. 920 921 Rob de Geus: We want both. 922 923 Commissioner Ashlund: You're thinking both. 924 925 Mr. de Geus: Unfortunately we haven't heard from a lot of teens in the survey. I looked 926 today, and I think we had eight teens, people under 18, responding. That's not sufficient. 927 We need to do a push to get more youth voice in the survey. 928 929 Commissioner Ashlund: We can help with that for sure. 930 931 Mr. Jensen: One of the questions at the beginning that goes along with your age and 932 where you live is children in your household and the range of age of them. The majority 933 of the populace doing the survey do have children. I believe that information is a major 934 part of the questions they're answering, that they're answering on behalf of their children. 935 936 Commissioner Ashlund: That's addressed more. It's more the teens themselves that we 937 want to do outreach for. A couple of ideas about the Asian community. In Barron Park, 938 Lydia Kou has organized a festival in the past to celebrate holidays, so she would be a 939 great person for outreach. We also have a winter Christmas festival that's organized at 940 the park by Winter Dellenbach. She's good outreach into that community as well. For 941 the Spanish-speaking community, rather than hold events in English and provide the 942 Spanish translation, the school district has held events in those communities and 943 conducted them in Spanish with English translation. We've gotten a lot more 944 involvement that way. That's a possibility as well. On the structure, the one area that I 945 didn't see included here. Rob, I forwarded you an email. I think it was the City of San 946 Francisco that had quantified economic value of their parks. Somehow there's measures. 947 This is a great opportunity for us to see what we can cull and include in the Master Plan. 948 We know there is value there and some of it is more quantifiable than others. Whatever 949 we can use, I'd like to see if we can address that as opposed to it always being the 950 intangible. Under the "Needs, Opportunities and Challenges," especially given the 951 presentation on sustainability, we should have a specific section related to climate change 952 as opposed to it being embedded, but have a called-out section to say we're addressing 953 this, we're not ignoring it. Whether the word drought is used or not is to be determined. 954 DRAFT Draft Minutes 24 Pay attention to the climate change under challenges as well. Under implementation, it 955 says the Plan is actionable for the next five years. When we met with Council on this, 956 they really wanted more long term. They were requesting 20, 30, 50 years. Only a 957 certain amount of actionable planning is possible, but I wanted to suggest that we keep 958 that more open-ended, that we're not only looking five years out because that's a short 959 time span. That's it on the structure for my comments. Thank you. 960 961 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Lauing. 962 963 Vice Chair Lauing: Where you're looking at the stats in terms of age, etc., it would be 964 nice to have the baseline of what the City is made up of, then we have something to 965 compare it to. If 24 percent are blue, which stands for ages 35 to 44, and the City is 15 966 percent blue, then we're doing better than we need to. We don't really know what we're 967 comparing to. Secondly on page 3, very admirable to try to get numerical representation 968 here but, as you just suggested Peter, sometimes you're getting that in other places. For 969 example, Palo Alto Hills, only three respondents, but they all live in a park. It's called 970 their house and their land. We may not be missing as much as we think we're missing 971 here. Not that we shouldn't try to get more, but I don't think it's a big gap if we don't have 972 that. The best part about the document that was put out is this "Needs, Opportunities and 973 Challenges" which is the analysis completed and then particularly results of analysis, 974 gaps in parks and programs, unmet community demand, needs analysis, response to 975 demographic changes. To date we haven't seen any of that. That still needs to come. 976 We're chomping at the bit to get our teeth into demographics, forecasts. If the school 977 district forecast says there's going to be a decline of 20 percent in school-age kids, I'm 978 making this up, in the next ten years, then we need to repurpose some fields that are 979 already in existence to do something else with them. We really want some hard data to 980 be able to get some judgments and the gaps as well. To date all the stuff that we've seen 981 is pretty much qualitative data, and that's what you heard at last the meeting. I wanted to 982 add that you're hearing them again tonight, that we're a little concerned that we don't have 983 enough data to make any good decisions about that. This report admits that we're not 984 going to actually have statistically "valid" data. That's the next step that we have to think 985 about. As I said to you as a sidebar at the last community outreach meeting, this isn't 986 ultimately going to be a vote by the citizens. Those are indicators and then we all 987 collectively decide what's best. The starting place is to get as much good hard data as we 988 can. I just want to be very loud about that. It's still an angst on the part of 989 Commissioners it appears from the last set of meetings and some of the stuff that you're 990 hearing tonight. I appreciate the answers to the questions that were published from last 991 time. We're already concerned about stuffing the ballot box, so we have to beware of 992 that. I'll just say a brief thing about my table that I was at the last time. To put it in a 993 candid word, it was frustrating. One person wanted to talk about Baylands Athletic 994 Center because he was there from Babe Ruth. Another guy wanted to talk about little 995 league, little league, little league and we need more fields. The next guy said soccer. 996 DRAFT Draft Minutes 25 The next person said dogs. We already know those are issues, but we couldn't take a vote 997 at that table and decide what to do. We also don't want them all getting their 998 constituencies going and flooding the ballot box. We've been told there's a way to 999 monitor that. I just want to underscore that. That's it. Thank you. 1000 1001 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Markevitch. 1002 1003 Commissioner Markevitch: My comments are regarding outreach to various groups. I 1004 sent a link to this survey to both the high school principals, the PTA Council Executive 1005 Board, every PTA president in the district, the Asian parent support groups and the 1006 Hispanic parent networks. I said, "Send this out to your e-news people. Get this out 1007 here. We especially want to hear from kids." I'm surprised that there's that few 1008 responses. I will ping them again tomorrow and I will drop it down to a closer level. I'll 1009 go after the e-news editors myself and see if I can get a link provided on those e-1010 newsletters for those schools. I also was looking at the number of responses by 1011 neighborhoods self-selected. The ones with the higher numbers have the most active 1012 neighborhood associations. I'm really not surprised by that at all. That's all my 1013 comments. 1014 1015 Commissioner Knopper: I would like to take credit for one of them because I email 1016 blasted and there was pretty high turnout. Thank you. I know this has just been a lot and 1017 it continues to be. I first wanted to say thank you. To Ed's point, sitting at the table at the 1018 last community meeting, everybody obviously looks at it through their own personal lens. 1019 We had the Mountain View soccer guy. All he talked about was football. One person 1020 was biking. It's great that they're giving their input. It's fantastic that they're coming to 1021 meetings, but obviously it has to be vetted through a grander eye. A lot of the points the 1022 other Commissioners made were part of what I was going to talk about. I wanted to ask 1023 an overall question. Have you guys been surprised at all with regard to the demographic 1024 results thus far with regard to neighborhood participation or age or ethnicity? Are you 1025 surprised by any group that hasn't been as participatory or are you overall comfortable? 1026 To Ed's point earlier, I think you also mentioned to put the pie charts next to who actually 1027 lives here. We have almost a 30 percent Asian population in Palo Alto, yet they're 1028 woefully underrepresented. That certainly would be helpful moving forward. I was just 1029 wondering if any of you were surprised by the lack of one subgroup participating or are 1030 you just happy 1,000 people have done it? 1031 1032 Mr. Jensen: We are happy that it has generated a solid turnout in responses. I can't 1033 specifically say if I'm surprised or not, because it's not my area of expertise to say who 1034 takes a survey and how its dispersed and who's engaging in it. From my conversations 1035 with the consultant, they feel the people responding are the same that they've seen over 1036 and over again in the surveys they've done. 1037 1038 DRAFT Draft Minutes 26 Mr. de Geus: They're pretty excited about the number getting to 1,000. They didn't 1039 expect that. 1040 1041 Commissioner Knopper: I think their expectation of 400 would have been a win. In this 1042 memo it is requesting our assistance to do this outreach and intercept these 1043 underrepresented groups. Is there any other plan to do any public intercepts or do we just 1044 keep going through our channels? 1045 1046 Mr. Jensen: It's most effective if the message or the ask to do the survey comes from a 1047 representative of a group that they're affiliated with. Emails from me don’t generate a lot 1048 of activity, but an email from a stakeholder generates a lot more response. It is the best to 1049 keep reaching out. That's doesn't mean that the reaching out has to be directing everyone 1050 to go to the webpage to take the survey. We have quite a few surveys that were filled out 1051 at the libraries. I was surprised to go around today and find a lot of the boxes full. 1052 There's another opportunity for people to take the survey. 1053 1054 Commissioner Crommie: Is that a hard copy in the library or are they using the 1055 computer? 1056 1057 Mr. Jensen: Hard copies. 1058 1059 Chair Hetterly: I want to thank you for putting this plan outline before us early in the 1060 process along with the examples. You've heard a lot of angst from all of us about this 1061 anecdotal data, where are we going with it, what are we going to end up with. It's helpful 1062 to have some ideas of what's come before and an outline. I appreciate you putting that 1063 together. I did have a couple of questions. On page 1 of the plan outline under programs 1064 after introduction, there's bullets, key content drawn from the following products, park 1065 inventory, site visits, program analysis and revenue analysis. Is the program analysis the 1066 inventory matrix that we've seen before or is that something new and different? The 1067 same with the revenue analysis; I don't think we've seen any revenue analysis. Is that 1068 something that's still to come? 1069 1070 Mr. de Geus: I believe the program analysis is that spreadsheet matrix that we've seen. 1071 We have not seen any revenue analysis either on the staff side. That hasn't come forward 1072 from the consultant yet. 1073 1074 Chair Hetterly: Under "Needs, Opportunities and Challenges," that's the section I'm most 1075 interested in. Like Commissioner Lauing, those three bullets towards the bottom, results 1076 of analysis regarding gaps and unmet demand, needs assessment and response to 1077 demographic changes. We have seen the demographic study trends product, but what 1078 that turns into we haven't seen yet. We're going to be very interested in looking at those 1079 pieces in particular. I assume what we've seen for gaps in parks is the geographic gaps. 1080 DRAFT Draft Minutes 27 For programs we still don't know anything about gaps in substance or user groups. We're 1081 hoping to learn more from the survey in that. I wonder if there might be another source 1082 for data along those lines. I'm not sure the survey is going to give us much in that regard. 1083 The essential park elements, I suspect the Commission may want to have some further 1084 discussion about that. I think there was some discomfort about those elements and what 1085 they might lead to. That was the park where you can throw a ball or that stuff. We'd like 1086 to better understand what that particular analysis is going to tell us. Is there a parallel 1087 analysis for programs? That's obviously just focused on parks. In the prioritization, I 1088 assume that's when we're going to figure out how to differentiate between wish list items 1089 and priority items, items of high importance. At the top of that page, "Opportunities and 1090 Challenges Including the Most Important Park Features," I would resist using language 1091 like "the most important." I'd say something like "high interest." We don't want to lead 1092 people to believe that we're taking a vote through this survey. We want to be consistent 1093 in how we talk about it. Finally under "Goals and Objectives," it's a set of goals, long-1094 term directions for change and objectives, measurable desired results. I'm not sure what 1095 we mean by that. I assume we're going to have a discussion about what kinds of 1096 measurable desired results we're going to have and is that the basis for prioritization. I'd 1097 like to hear more about that when it's appropriate. Another thing we haven't talked about 1098 is how increased density may impact needs over time. That was part of some of the plans 1099 that were provided as examples. I don't know that it's necessarily appropriate now, but 1100 since this is a long range plan we would want to have some element that addresses how 1101 we would cope with that. Finally, looking back at our list of Commission priorities from 1102 the beginning of this process, we've touched on a lot of them so far, which is great. What 1103 I'm really hoping that we'll learn from this analysis is how do we assess and balance the 1104 needs of various constituents within limited real estate. I don't know how best to say that, 1105 but I think you know what I mean. Also, what locations can best accommodate certain 1106 functions and best serve the users of those certain functions. I hope we don't end up with 1107 a long range plan that says we should try to figure out a way to build more dog parks, 1108 because we know that. We're hoping to have more detail about where and how. 1109 1110 Mr. Jensen: The idea is to give us specific locations on where those amenities or 1111 elements would be best suited in the system itself. 1112 1113 Chair Hetterly: That's what I'd hoped. That's it for me. Maybe we should return to 1114 Commissioner Crommie's question about the title and then we'll move on to the next 1115 item. 1116 1117 Commissioner Ashlund: There's two discussion questions on page 3. 1118 1119 Commissioner Crommie: There's also a discussion question somewhere in here about 1120 schools. They said they needed help on that. I saw that somewhere in the report. 1121 1122 DRAFT Draft Minutes 28 Chair Hetterly: I think they said they were going to build in more analysis of school 1123 facilities. 1124 1125 Commissioner Crommie: Maybe it was in the introduction. I thought somewhere in this 1126 document it said that they might need some further guidance with that. 1127 1128 Chair Hetterly: Let's bring that up next time, once we've found it. 1129 1130 Commissioner Crommie: Shall I comment on the title? 1131 1132 Chair Hetterly: Yeah. 1133 1134 Commissioner Crommie: One thing that really struck me from the community outreach 1135 meetings was just how strongly Palo Altans value nature. It came up quite a bit. I went 1136 to two out of the three outreach meetings. I was there for the last two. It came up 1137 strongly in both of them such that it was broadly reported from just about every group. I 1138 would like to integrate the word nature into this title. I don't like "natural spaces" 1139 because it's not broad enough to my mind. This is just my opinion. Nature encapsulates 1140 the plants and the animals, the ecosystem. It's a word that's very loaded and deep and 1141 rich. "Nature" needs to be in this title because it talks about non-humans. That is the 1142 word that represents the non-human world. I strongly think it needs to be in here. I'm a 1143 big believer in trails, but I don't like the word trails in this Plan. Trails are part of 1144 recreation and it makes it very wordy. I would propose that we call it Parks, Recreation 1145 and Nature Master Plan. I don't think we need "Open Space" in there, because we are the 1146 Parks and Recreation Commission. Parks in titles of our documents encapsulates open 1147 space. I would like to make a plug for my preference which is Parks, Recreation and 1148 Nature Master Plan. I'd like to hear from others on that. 1149 1150 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Ashlund. 1151 1152 Commissioner Ashlund: Commissioner Crommie's very convincing. I was going to say 1153 I preferred the open space terminology, but I could easily be swayed to that. I agree that 1154 natural space is a vague term and it's not a commonly heard term. It's not that our parks 1155 are not natural spaces. There's a mixture of that. Open space definitely conveys the 1156 neighborhood parks, the open spaces, the Foothills and Baylands and Arastradero. That 1157 just seem clearer to the community, an ongoing use to me. 1158 1159 Commissioner Markevitch: I was at two of these public meetings. It's one woman who 1160 wants to add the word nature. I'm sorry, it's one woman. She was at the two meetings I 1161 was at. I appreciate her passion for that word, but this title makes more sense to me. 1162 1163 Chair Hetterly: Other comments? 1164 DRAFT Draft Minutes 29 1165 Commissioner Crommie: She's talking about Shani Kleinhaus I believe, who is a huge 1166 advocate for nature in our City. She's a Palo Alto resident and she works for the Santa 1167 Clara Valley Audubon Society. She's a very important stakeholder for our City and does 1168 a huge amount of advocacy in this area. I do take what she says seriously, but I'm basing 1169 this on my own preferences. I'm also basing it on sitting in groups that Shani was not 1170 part of. I don't think she came on-time to either of the meetings that I was at. Again we 1171 have to agree to disagree, but I don't think it's one person. 1172 1173 Chair Hetterly: It feels awkward to me to use the word nature in a Master Plan. It feels 1174 presumptuous that we could ever have a Master Plan for nature. Nature's bigger than us. 1175 I don't have any objection to natural spaces, though I like "open space" as well. I don't 1176 have very strong feelings about the title. I do feel like we're pretty far down the road to 1177 be changing the title. I would be reluctant to make any change at this point for the 1178 outreach. If there was a strong feeling on the Commission or among staff to change it for 1179 the title of our final report, that's something we can consider over the next few months. 1180 1181 Mr. Jensen: There is no report yet. If the title changes, if things rise to the surface in the 1182 report that call out that it should be highlighted in the title, those things are open to 1183 discussion. I don't think we need to decide on the title or if the title we have is 1184 appropriate at this time. At some point when we get the report itself, we can have further 1185 discussions on what the report is called. The consultants call it the Palo Alto Parks Plan. 1186 They've eliminated most of the verbiage there just to get down to a simplified statement 1187 of what it is. There's also those opportunities as well. The conversation is open and we 1188 can continue to have that. As the report comes to fruition, we can look at the title and 1189 make a judgment at that time. 1190 1191 6. Debrief City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission Study Session. 1192 1193 Chair Hetterly: This is on here to give Commissioners an opportunity to reflect, if they 1194 want to, on our joint session with the City Council. I have a summary of some 1195 takeaways, most of which pertain to the 7.7 acres. Maybe I should go through those now, 1196 and then see if anyone else wants to add any comments. There was significant interest 1197 across the Council in further opportunities for public inspection of the site, maybe 1198 without a tour. This is also for the ad hoc committee to consider as you move forward. 1199 Some wanted the 7.7 acres open in some interim capacity, in the short term, and then do a 1200 bigger plan for later. There are questions about costs for doing that. I didn't get the sense 1201 that there was consensus to do that. It seemed more like maybe we can find a couple 1202 more weekends when people could come and wander freely rather than with a strict tour 1203 structure. There were comments about keeping it natural, using the hillsides for trails, 1204 again phased public access, and whether or not we wanted a dedicated Commission and 1205 Council study session at some point along the way. Those are all things to keep on our 1206 DRAFT Draft Minutes 30 radar. Consider the commercial value of the sand, rock and gravel, opportunities for 1207 public-private partnerships, whether there are any as we consider renovations for the 1208 property. That's all I had for the 7.7 acres. There was also interest in Sterling Canal, to 1209 understand the competing needs for the site and what opportunities might still be 1210 available or might be foreclosed. I hope the Sterling Canal ad hoc will follow up on that. 1211 On the CIPs, they asked that we be realistic about requesting a placeholder for the next 1212 fiscal year, be conscientious about when you could actually spend it. Don't ask for 1213 something you can't spend. They offered help in providing a greater role with the finance 1214 committee. If the Commission or Community Services wanted to elevate some particular 1215 issues for the finance committee, they're open to that. That was all I had from my notes. 1216 Did anybody else have anything they wanted to add that we should follow up on? 1217 1218 Commissioner Crommie: Did you want to comment on the dog parks? 1219 1220 Chair Hetterly: They didn't really have any comments on the dog parks. I didn't think; 1221 did you? 1222 1223 Commissioner Crommie: I didn't bring my notes. It doesn't stand out in my mind. The 1224 things you said were the most prominent. Since you're on that subcommittee, if they had 1225 made comment, you surely would have noticed. The fact that you didn't probably means 1226 they didn't have much to say. 1227 1228 Rob de Geus: They were all very supportive of the dog parks. That's what I heard. They 1229 wanted to hear more and see us try something. We're looking forward to the outreach 1230 that we need to do around some of those pilot programs. It was an interesting study 1231 session. They were very supportive of the Commission, but it was hard walking away 1232 from it knowing exactly what to take from the discussion. The City Manager also 1233 mentioned that. There were sometimes specific recommendations from a specific 1234 Council Member or there was opinions or comments. The City Manager asked as well 1235 for us to meet as staff to decide what we need to follow up on versus what was actual 1236 direction. That meeting is being set up with the City Manager. Hopefully we get a little 1237 more information there. The 7.7 acres is a good example of that. There were different 1238 opinions on the Council on how to approach that. They are looking for a plan from us, 1239 staff and the Commission, about how best to open that up. 1240 1241 Chair Hetterly: That's what we were looking for from them. Not a unified approach, but 1242 we were trying to collect the whole universe of thoughts. 1243 1244 Commissioner Knopper: With regard to the 7.7, I was obviously doing a lot of the 1245 talking so I couldn't take notes while that was happening. The two Council Members I 1246 was sitting between were whispering in my ear as I was talking, so that was a little 1247 disjointed. My concern is that it's not safe to have it open to the public where people can 1248 DRAFT Draft Minutes 31 wonder around. There are two reasons. first of all, it's supposed to rain 5 inches 1249 tomorrow. What it's going to look like up there after torrential rains, I don't know. 1250 Secondly, they're going to wander onto private party and the City's going to hear about it 1251 within 42 seconds of that happening, because you don't understand the natural boundary 1252 when you're there. You're like, "Oh, an open field. Let's just keep walking." Third, 1253 whether Acterra stays or goes, they're there right now and they have a lot of valuable 1254 plants and equipment and things that they don't want people to mess with. That was 1255 concerning to me. I interjected at one point about the cost of the fence, that it didn't 1256 include fencing it off so people don't wander onto private property. That is a concern, 1257 that a lot of people wanted us to open it up and wander around so people can have 1258 thoughts and ideas about what to do with it. Being in the ad hoc, directionally I'm a little 1259 confused with regard to that. 1260 1261 Commissioner Markevitch: We've not had a chance to discuss this with the rest of the 1262 Commission, and that's what we need to do next. We need to hear their ideas and use 1263 them as a sounding board. We've heard from the Council now and they're looking to us, 1264 but we need to discuss it first before we do anything else. I'd like to have that on our 1265 agenda soon. 1266 1267 Chair Hetterly: Any other comments on the joint session? Okay, we'll move on. 1268 1269 7. Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 1270 1271 Chair Hetterly: I'm not sure we have any. Do we have any ad hoc or liaison updates? 1272 1273 Commissioner Crommie: I've been doing a little bit of work on outreach for the 1274 community gardens, going to some of the gardens. I made some contacts with people at 1275 the public outreach meetings. Just want to make sure that community gardens tries to get 1276 some representation at the survey. I'm doing a little bit of work, but I think Stacey and I 1277 will surely meet over this break and hopefully come back soon. I lost a little of my 1278 momentum as the bad weather hit, because it's not that fun to go hang out at the garden or 1279 be that energized about the garden right now. I'm sure we can try to pick up the 1280 momentum where we left off. 1281 1282 Catherine Bourquin: I did send it out to the community gardens. That's almost 300 1283 people. 1284 1285 Chair Hetterly: The survey? 1286 1287 Ms. Bourquin: Yeah. 1288 1289 DRAFT Draft Minutes 32 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you so much for doing that. I wanted to comment on 1290 the survey. I think Peter has left. I had a hard time getting it out to my neighborhood 1291 because the link didn't work. The link gets dead pretty easily if you pass it between 1292 people. I wanted to give Pat Markevitch that heads up, because I know you sent it to a lot 1293 of people. You might want to track down someone who received it and see if they got a 1294 live link. My neighborhood did not. 1295 1296 Commissioner Markevitch: It didn't seem to be a problem for some. 1297 1298 Ms. Bourquin: I did get complaints too, so I had to go in and get the link again and 1299 resend it. 1300 1301 V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1302 1303 Chair Hetterly: Anyone have comments and announcements? Do you have any? 1304 1305 Rob de Geus: I have a couple. We had a great weekend opening up the Mitchell Park 1306 Library and Community Center. Over 5,000 people came and some Commissioners 1307 came, which is great to see. We had the department represented entirely. We had the 1308 Junior Museum there and the Art Center. Ada's Café was handing out cookies. You 1309 couldn't get in the Teen Center it was so busy. The Gunn choir was there and sang before 1310 we did the ribbon cutting. It was a really great event. Very happy to report that. There is 1311 the Senior New Year's Brunch coming up, which is on the last day of the year. It's a 1312 program that Recreation puts on. This year it's going to be at Cubberley in the pavilion 1313 and should be a lot of fun. It's a brunch, so it's in the morning and over the lunch hour. 1314 They do a countdown to midday instead of midnight. 1315 1316 Commissioner Markevitch: What time does it start? 1317 1318 Mr. de Geus: I believe it starts at 11:00. 1319 1320 Commissioner Markevitch: (inaudible) 1321 1322 Mr. de Geus: Yes, the 31st. 1323 1324 Catherine Bourquin: I have an email I'm going to send out. 1325 1326 Commissioner Crommie: Rob, did you say that's at Cubberley? 1327 1328 Mr. de Geus: It's at Cubberley, yes. In the pavilion. 1329 1330 Commissioner Crommie: Is that where it usually is? 1331 DRAFT Draft Minutes 33 1332 Mr. de Geus: No. It's gone to different places over time. It's been at the JCC for the last 1333 several years. We're looking at the Mitchell Park Center next year, but this year we 1334 thought we'd try Cubberley. 1335 1336 Chair Hetterly: Any other comments or announcements? 1337 1338 Vice Chair Lauing: I had a request. For some reason the packet was late this month. 1339 When you get one that has those links and I start it on Monday night, it's kind of tough. 1340 If we could just do our best to get it out early. In the new year, I hope you include those 1341 calendar events. 1342 1343 Ms. Bourquin: (inaudible) 1344 1345 Chair Hetterly: I didn't get mine until today. 1346 1347 Commissioner Crommie: Same for me, I got mine today. 1348 1349 Ms. Bourquin: (inaudible) You got my email? 1350 1351 Chair Hetterly: I did thankfully. 1352 1353 Ms. Bourquin: (inaudible) 1354 1355 Chair Hetterly: That's really helpful, getting the electronic link. I appreciate getting that 1356 every month. 1357 1358 Commissioner Crommie: I had a comment. I probably should have brought it up under 1359 the ad hocs. I was reviewing our website, because when I met people at the community 1360 outreach meetings, I would say four different people came up and said they didn't know 1361 how to get in contact with us. Ironically, it was a lot of people from the playing fields 1362 community. I'm surprised they don't know how to get in touch with us. It says 1363 something important. I met some representation from the playing field community where 1364 they were individuals and it was lovely. It wasn't just the leadership; although, they were 1365 there too. I went back and reviewed our website. I know that we had an ad hoc working 1366 on it, but I found that our Commission has two webpages. 1367 1368 Chair Hetterly: Let me interrupt you, Deirdre. We are aware of that and we have talked 1369 about it here before. We are addressing it. I don't want to spend too much time going 1370 over the details now unless you have something you (crosstalk) 1371 1372 DRAFT Draft Minutes 34 Commissioner Crommie: If you could just email me a follow up. I'm just curious where 1373 we stand on it, if it's going to get resolved soon or if it's going to take a really long time. 1374 1375 Ms. Bourquin: I was unaware that there was a broken link. When you make changes, it 1376 goes to IT for them to have to release it onto the live site. It didn't. Thanks to your 1377 email, I was able to rectify it. If you go on now, it should be okay. 1378 1379 Commissioner Crommie: Should I just follow up with you on that email? 1380 1381 Ms. Bourquin: Sure. 1382 1383 Commissioner Crommie: I made like three different points on that. 1384 1385 Ms. Bourquin: Sure. 1386 1387 Commissioner Crommie: Okay, thank you. 1388 1389 Chair Hetterly: I think we'll have an update from the website ad hoc in January as well. 1390 Hopefully we'll be done with the whole thing soon. 1391 1392 Commissioner Crommie: I didn't know if it was an active ad hoc or not. 1393 1394 Chair Hetterly: It is. Thank you for bringing it up. Any other comments? 1395 1396 VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JANUARY 27, 2015 MEETING 1397 1398 Chair Hetterly: We will of course elect a new Chair and Vice Chair at that meeting. 1399 That'll be on the agenda. I noticed reading the meetings, Commissioner Crommie had 1400 asked for an agenda item on the undedicated parkland at Byxbee that I had overlooked in 1401 planning for this month. Can we try to get something on the agenda for that? 1402 1403 Commissioner Crommie: I did follow up on that with Daren Anderson, because he's in 1404 charge of doing some follow up. He had so much on his plate that he wasn't able to do it 1405 this month, but he said he would try for our next meeting. 1406 1407 Chair Hetterly: In addition, we're hoping to get a Byxbee Park Trails ad hoc report. You 1408 still had some more work to do on that. There are two different Byxbee issues. 1409 1410 Commissioner Crommie: Is one the CIP? 1411 1412 Chair Hetterly: One is the update on the trails plan where you and Commissioner 1413 Reckdahl and Daren had met with Public Works and there was some follow up to that. 1414 DRAFT Draft Minutes 35 The other, which I thought was your original question, is what is happening with the 1415 undedicated parkland from Measure E. 1416 1417 Commissioner Crommie: Yes, I had asked for that. Council had a very important 1418 meeting on that last night. It's really important for our Commission to digest that, 1419 because it is parkland. I did ask for that. Because there's been a lot of movement, maybe 1420 by next month someone can digest that and present it to us. 1421 1422 Chair Hetterly: That's all I had. I hope we'll have an ad hoc update for website, maybe 1423 for dogs, and 7.7 acres. 1424 1425 Vice Chair Lauing: At the January meeting, we should talk about dates for the retreat. 1426 1427 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Do you think that's enough? I think so too. Anyone want to 1428 adjourn? 1429 1430 Rob de Geus: Maybe in honor of Greg Betts? 1431 1432 Vice Chair Lauing: Absolutely. 1433 1434 VII. ADJOURNMENT 1435 1436 Meeting adjourned in honor of Greg Betts, retiring Director of Community Services, on 1437 motion by Vice Chair Lauing at 9:58 p.m. 1438 City of Palo Alto Memorandum TO: PUBLIC ART COMMISSION FROM: ELIZABETH AMES DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING SERVICES DATE: JANUARY 20, 2015 SUBJECT: Palo Alto Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Design Competition Results The discussion of the Design Competition is a study session item for the Parks and Recreation Commission’s review and comment on Tuesday, January 27, 2015. Please see attached P&TC staff report and Attachments A through F. Additional graphics and information on Submission A and C are also attached. The public comments and the attached Highway 101 Design Competition Proposal’s comments matrix will be revised to include the Public Art Commission comments received on January 22, 2015. These revisions will be provided during the meeting as an at places item. Thank you. ELIZABETH AMES, Senior Project Manager HIGHWAY 101 DESIGN COMPETITION PROPOSALS COMMENTS MATRIX PROS CONS PROS CONS PROS CONS 1 Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) ‐ December 10, 2014 Excellent division of pedestrians and cyclists; addressed all questions posed in the competition; Arc on west side gives nice symmetry; and colors were environmentally friendly Need large staging area and closing of the freeway & frontage roads; reflective disks coud be distracting to motorists; and need additional structure modeling for Caltrans approval process Imaginative design No clear separate path between pedestrians and bikes; maintenance issues for bridge and path; bird safety concerns; need specialty contractor to build the bridge; need extensive Caltrans evaluation & testing Good separation between pedestrians & bikes; thoughtful approach to bird safety, plantings and environment; may be easier to get approval from Caltrans than other submissions. Lighting may be distracting to freeway drivers;plaza has hardscape which may not be best environmental solution 2 JURY ‐ December 17, 2014 Signature design; integrated art; separate path for pedestrians and bicyclists On‐site constructability and closing freeway duration Is a concern; costs; possible glare from reflective disks Beautiful design; in‐line with the commuunity values in Palo Alto On‐going maintenance issues; wood structure durability and constructibility concerns Elegant design; environmentally friendly Too subtle; not enough redundant support for bridge structure; structure could look substantially different than presented 3 General Public from Project's website Graceful; user friendly; opens up on the baylands side; and less construction impacts on Highway 101 Look expensive; Arch is tall; bridge is too wide; bird deterrent disks are not appealing Nice design; Kayak images inspire as a gateway to the Baylands; and thoughful design Looks expensive; maintenance issues; and sides of bridge obstruct views Simple; elegant; environmentally integrative; and less construction impacts on Highway 101 Just an elevated pathway; not enough structural supports; less visually developed 4 PABAC ‐ January 6, 2015 Clear separation of paths between cyclists and pedestrians, wood is a "forgiving" material for pedestrians and joggers Path lights may distract motorists,fence between the pedestrians and cyclists should be more defined, may cost more Good turning radiuses for cyclists railings visually distracting and seem too far removed from the fence; Ramp on east side directs users to the north, narrow deck Raised seating to enjoy views; Easy access to S.F. Bay Trail on east side; bird friendly design, turning radiuses for cyclists Delineated path between cyclists and pedestrians and curb is not desirable; cyclists may ride on seating areas 5 PTC ‐ January 14, 2015 functional with restrooms, value clear separation of pedestrians and cyclists, landmark may attract more users motion lights could distract motorists, tight curves for pedestrians and cyclists at approaches kayak launch and short span and passageway may not appear to be a bike bridge short span and passageway and large curves/ turning radiuses for pedestrians and cyclists protective fences next to the bridge railing appear to be uninviting 6 ARB ‐ January 15, 2015 Visibility and height has wayfinding benefits; attracts potential users; best integration of Baylands at touch‐down; good integration of arch, platforms, and railings Bridge could appear larger due to the Baylands; tight curves at approaches Impressive design with a sustainability focus Concerns of durability of materials overrides beauty Delicate and subtle design focuses on the Baylands; fits vision of regional connectivity pursued by most cities Wood panels and protective fencing is incompatible; structural unknowns may negatively impact user experience due to bridge movement 7 PAC ‐ January 22, 2015 8 PRC ‐ January 27, 2015 Moffat & Nichol, SGA, Lutsko, JIRI, & MTC SUBMISSION A SUBMISSION B SUBMISSION C EndreStudio, OLIN, SBP, & BiohabitatsHNTB, 64North, Bionic Landscape, & Ned Kahn City of Palo Alto (ID # 5389) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 1/14/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Palo Alto Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Design competition Results Title: Review and Comment on the Palo Alto Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Design Competition Results From: Elizabeth Ames, Senior Project Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff requests that the Commission provide general comments on the bridge concepts that will be forwarded to the City Council. Background The proposed Highway 101 overcrossing (bridge) will provide safe travel for pedestrians and bicyclists from south Palo Alto to the Baylands Nature Preserve and the regional Bay Trail network of bike trails. The purpose of the Bridge Competition is to solicit creative bridge designs that meet the competition’s Guiding Principles (Attachment D), providing the City with a more innovative design than might be obtained through a traditional Request For Proposals design development process. The City of Palo Alto and American Institute of Architects California Council (AIACC) invited designers to create bridge concepts for the Highway 101 pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing. AIACC managed a five-month professional bridge design competition culminating in receipt and jury consideration of 3 design concepts. These design concepts were submitted by 3 design teams who were short-listed by the Competition Jury from 20 design teams that had submitted their design intent and qualifications. During a joint Competition Jury and ARB meeting on December 17, the “Confluence- Submission A” design was selected as the winner of the competition. The next steps in the process are as follows: Review of the three concepts at Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), Architectural Review Board (ARB), Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), and Public Art Commission (PAC) in January for PTC Page 1 of 183 City of Palo Alto Page 2 comment and input  Display of the concepts at the Mitchell Park Library and on the City’s website www.cityofpaloalto.org/101 to receive public comment  Recognition of the winning concept and decision to proceed with a design concept at a February 2015 City Council Meeting  Approval by Council of a bridge design contract in the Spring to implement the preferred bridge design pending Council direction noted above  Circulation of the Project’s draft environmental assessment in the Spring/Summer Discussion Competition participants were asked to develop designs in conformance with the design guidelines detailed in Attachments D and E, and to submit a construction cost estimate that met the project’s construction budget of $8 million ($7.2 million plus 10% construction contingency). Cost Estimates for all of the bridge concepts remained at approximately $8 million. All of the design teams included consideration of landscaping, wildlife habitat and natural materials. All designs had a potential vision of being an extension of the Baylands across the highway into the City. Staff is seeking input on the designs and will forward the comments to the City Council in February. While there are many comments noted in Attachment F, staff is seeking Board and Commission comments to be added to the matrix, Attachment F. The matrix will assist in Council’s decision of which, if any, of the designs the City should proceed with. For simplicity, the main issues for each concept are highlighted below: 1. Signature Gateway Bridge – the Confluence Concept PTC Page 2 of 183 City of Palo Alto Page 3 SUBMISSION A i. Emphasis is on the verticality and iconic form, viewing platforms, integrated slopes into the Baylands, and the modern arch and sculptural columns. ii. Construction costs are likely to increase due to potential issues with constructability of a single span over the freeway and the frontage roads. iii. Reflective disks should be studied and tested for bird and motorist safety iv. May need additional modeling for Caltrans design approval process. 2. Signature Gateway Bridge - The Portage Concept PTC Page 3 of 183 City of Palo Alto Page 4 SUBMISSION B i. Emphasis is on the sustainability and natural materials, complimentary with nature, solar panels, vertical elements and sculptural columns ii. Wood materials are untested for this highway application and will need extensive Caltrans evaluation and testing, and will also result in higher maintenance costs. iii. No clear separate path between bicyclists and pedestrians. iv. Potential bird safety concerns with fencing. 3. Suspension Bridge - The Low Profile Concept PTC Page 4 of 183 City of Palo Alto Page 5 SUBMISSION C i. Emphasis is on contemporary and linear form, complementary with nature, viewing platforms, and plaza setting at Baylands. ii. Innovative low-profile structural system may not have the necessary structural support and design could change substantially. iii. Construction costs are likely to increase due to structural system issues noted above and potential issues with constructability of a single span over the freeway and the frontage roads. iv. Raised curb to create a separation for pedestrians and cyclists could be problematic Attachment A - Vicinity Map  Attachment A shows the vicinity map of the project area within the City of Palo Alto. Attachment B - Project Area crossing over Highway 101  Attachment B shows the proposed bridge area crossing Highway 101 and East/West Bayshore Road Attachment C – Area Photos  Attachment C provides area photos of the highway and frontage roads for the proposed bridge location. PTC Page 5 of 183 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Attachment D –Guiding Design Principles  Attachment D provides the guiding design principles to inspire design teams Attachment E –Designer Guidelines  Attachment E provides the City’s design guidelines used by the international/national/local designers in the professional design competition Attachment F – Technical Advisory Panel (TAP), Competition Jury, Board, and Public input  Attachment F provides the December 17 Joint Competition Jury and ARB meeting minutes, Technical Advisory Panel memorandum, PABAC and public comments on the design concepts to date including a board, commission, public comment matrix Attachments:  Attachment A: Vicinity map (PDF)  Attachment B: Location Overview (PDF)  Attachment C: Area Photos (PDF)  Attachment D: Guiding Design Principles (PDF)  Attachment E: Design Guidelines (PDF)  Attachment F: TAP, Competition Jury, Board and Public Input (PDF) PTC Page 6 of 183 City of Palo Alto Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing ATTACHMENT A – VICINITY MAP PTC Page 7 of 183 PTC Page 8 of 183 2 City of Palo Alto Highway 101 Overcrossing and Reach Trail at Adobe Creek Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing ATTACHMENT B - LOCATION OVERVIEW City of Palo Alto Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Conceptual Design Program Overview Graphic Bridge Location: The bridge will crossover Highway 101 and frontage roads. The end of the bridge by East Bayshore Road is located near the Baylands Nature Preserve and connects to the San Francisco Bay Trail. The end of the bridge by West Bayshore Road will connect to the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. PTC Page 9 of 183 PTC Page 10 of 183 3 City of Palo Alto Highway 101 Overcrossing and Reach Trail at Adobe Creek Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing ATTACHMENT C - PHOTOS City of Palo Alto Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Existing view of project site from southbound Highway 101. Existing view of project site from northbound East Bayshore Road. Existing view of project site from northbound West Bayshore Road. PTC Page 11 of 183 PTC Page 12 of 183 4 City of Palo Alto Highway 101 Overcrossing and Reach Trail at Adobe Creek Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing ATTACHMENT D – Guiding Design Principles City of Palo Alto Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Design teams used these four design principles to create their design. (1) Innovation – inspire and engage the community with a contemporary design, incorporating creativity, originality, functionality, technology and education, that is also identifiable as a landmark in the heart of Silicon Valley; (2) Versatility – achieve a balance between engineering and art, efficiency and beauty,diversity of users and functionality, while conforming to the project’s construction budget; (3) Interconnectedness – respect the delicate ecosystem of the Baylands; recognize the integration with nature, connection to the bay trails and importance of viewing nature while accommodating walkers/bikers/commuters, and enhancing the human experience and universal accessibility; and (4) Conservation - incorporate state-of-the-art bird-friendly design science and guidelines and develop innovative approaches to management of native and non-native predator species PTC Page 13 of 183 PTC Page 14 of 183 PALO ALTO HIGHWAY 101 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING AT ADOBE CREEK DESIGN GUIDELINES ATTACHMENT E PTC Page 15 of 183 This page intentionally left blank. PTC Page 16 of 183 PALO ALTO HIGHWAY 101 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING AT ADOBE CREEK DESIGN GUIDELINES October 17, 2014 td tĂŐĞ ϭϳ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ This page intentionally left blank. PTC Page 18 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page i Contents Glossary of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2 Project Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................... 3 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 3 Project Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................ 5 Project Context & Setting ................................................................................................................ 6 Project Status ................................................................................................................................... 9 Design Guidelines ................................................................................................................................. 17 Guiding Design Principles ............................................................................................................. 17 Design Goals ................................................................................................................................. 17 Conceptual Design Program - Overview ........................................................................................ 18 Conceptual Design Program –Visual Tour ..................................................................................... 20 Design Criteria & Considerations ................................................................................................... 30 Design Criteria Checklist ............................................................................................................... 38 References............................................................................................................................................. 40 Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 41 List of Figures Figure 1. Project Area Overview .............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Flood Basin and Historic Creek/Tideline Map (source unknown). ............................................. 8 Figure 3. 1948 Aerial Photograph of Project Area (from Google Earth) ................................................... 9 Figure 4. Project Alignment Alternatives for Environmental Review ..................................................... 12 Figure 5. Project Boundary Map ............................................................................................................ 13 Figure 6 Project Schedule ...................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7. Conceptual Design Program Overview Graphic ...................................................................... 18 Figure 8. Birds eye perspective looking north/west toward bridge ramp over Adobe/Barron Creeks. ...... 21 Figure 9. Birds eye perspective looking north/east toward bridge ramp over Adobe/Barron Creeks. ....... 21 Figure 10. Photosimulation of West Bayshore roadway improvements, looking south toward overcrossing .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 11. Photosimulation of bridge at 3600 West Bayshore Road with secondary stairway access and sidewalk improvements. ........................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 12. Bird’s eye view of bridge main deck, looking ‘south’ along Highway 101 ............................. 25 Figure 13. There is the opportunity, as illustrated in the visual simulation, to provide a creek viewing and interpretive area in conjunction with the north/east ramp. ....................................................................... 27 Figure 14, Birds eye view of north/east ramp at the Palo Alto Baylands and Adobe Creek, with conceptual site program opportunities highlighted ................................................................................................... 28 Figure 15: Proposed Cross Section, Adobe Creek Reach Trail................................................................ 29 td tĂŐĞ ϭϵ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page ii This page intentionally left blank. PTC Page 20 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 1 Glossary of Acronyms AASHTO – American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. The AASHTO Bicycle Facility Design Guide (4th Edition) is a key reference source for the design of pedestrian and bicycle overcrossings, particularly with respect to curve radii and minimum design speeds. AIA – American Institute of Architects. ARB – City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. The Project is subject to local design review and approval by this body, in addition to review and approval by Caltrans. HPSR –Historic Properties Survey Report. These technical studies were performed as part of the National Environmenal Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review process and are included in this document as Appendix E. CAMUTCD – California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. CDFW – California Department of Fish and Wildlife. CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act. The Project is subject to CEQA environmental approval, with the City of Palo Alto acting as lead agency. CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission. CPUC guidelines dictate required clearances (both vertical and horizontal) between the Project structures and existing overhead electrical utility lines. EIR/EA – Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Assessment. A combined EIR/EA is the identified environmental document being prepared as part of the federal (NEPA) and state (CEQA) environmental review processes. PDA – Priority Development Area. A designated area targeted for future employment and housing growth. The nearest PDA to the proposed Project is approximately ¼ mile to the south in Mountain View. PEER – Permit Engineering Evaluation Report. A PEER report is the identified document for Caltrans design approval, due to the project’s expected limited permanent impacts on Highway 101 and improvement value of less than $3 million within the Caltrans right-of-way. PFR – Preliminary Foundation Report. This report provides preliminary geotechnical and foundation design guidance for assisting the design development process. The PFR is included as Appendix D. PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric. PG&E utilities in the project area include a high pressure gas line adjacent to the Bay Trail, as well as high voltage (60kv) overhead utility lines that cross Highway 101 and the Adobe Creek/Barron Creek confluence area. POC – Pedestrian (and Bicycle) Overcrossing. The term POC is used generally throughout the document in reference to the Project. NES – Natural Environment Study. NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act. This project is subject to NEPA environmental review due to the receipt of federal funding. SCVWD – Santa Clara Valley Water District, or “the Water District.” The Water District is responsible for flood protection and water supply/quality within Santa Clara County, and owns/maintains the Adobe Creek and Barron Creek channels within the Project area. VTA – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. The VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines is a valuable reference document for pertinent design considerations and guidelines related to bicycle and pedestrian overpasses as well as Class I shared use trails. td tĂŐĞ Ϯϭ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 2 Executive Summary These Guidelines are intended to provide background information and guidance for a competition to design the Palo Alto Highway 101 Pedestrian Overcrossing (POC) Project at Adobe Creek. The City of Palo Alto (City) is one of the most active bicycling and recreation-oriented communities in the Bay Area and California. Whether traveling for work, school, shopping or recreation, more people choose walking or bicycling on streets and trail systems than almost anywhere else for a comparable mid-size community. Such activity occurs despite a number of major barriers that bisect the City, not the least of which is the U.S. Highway 101 (Highway 101) corridor that separates the City from its largest open space, the Palo Alto Baylands, and the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail). As the heart of Silicon Valley, Palo Alto (along with its neighbor to the south Mountain View) is home to hundreds of technology and research-based companies, including a number of major employers such as Google, Intuit, and Space Systems Loral that have clustered in close proximity to Highway 101 and the Bay Trail. Between the need to better link these growing job centers with regional trails and bicycle facilities, as well as the need to improve access to superb recreation opportunities like the Baylands, Palo Alto has prioritized the funding and construction of a new, year-round bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing (POC) over Highway 101 at Adobe Creek near the City’s southern border. The proposed Highway 101 POC at Adobe Creek (“the Project”) would replace an existing underpass that is available for only half the year (on average) due to seasonal flooding, and would complement an existing, but Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) deficient, overpass that is 1.25 miles away to the north. The position of the new overcrossing was selected from over a dozen locations studied in 2010/2011, and has since been refined to include a short list of alignment alternatives, a 0.13 mile Class I trail connection along an existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD, or “the Water District”) maintenance road, and a potentially optimized alignment developed to the 15% design level. As the new overcrossing would encroach upon state right-of-way, project approval from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is required for this project. The City and Caltrans are currently working on environmental documentation for the project in the form of a joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment to satisfy both state and federal environmental requirements. With the vast majority of project funding secured, the City of Palo Alto has partnered with the American Institute of Architects California Council (AIACC) to conduct a design competition for the Highway 101 POC at Adobe Creek. This design guidelines document has been prepared to help focus design competitors and ensure compliance with existing environmental and site constraints, as well as provide a consistent understanding of the relevant context and recent planning work in support of the Project. Utilizing this document in combination with established procedures of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board (ARB) and input from Caltrans, a conceptual final design will be selected from the competition and the winning firm(s) may be awarded the contract through the City’s Professional Services Contract to complete the design, permitting/approvals, and construction administration for the Highway 101 POC at Adobe Creek. td tĂŐĞ ϮϮ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 3 Project Introduction and Background Project Description The City, in cooperation with Caltrans District 4, is actively planning to construct a POC of Highway 101, in the City of Palo Alto. The Project is located between the East Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road overpasses of Highway 101, in close proximity to Adobe Creek, and would replace the existing seasonal Benjamin Lefkowitz underpass. The grade-separated crossing would provide year-round connectivity from residential and commercial areas to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East Bayshore Road business park area, and the regional Bay Trail network of multi-use trails. The project construction program includes a new bridge over Highway 101 and West and East Bayshore Roads, a 0.13 mile trail connection along Adobe Creek to E Meadow Drive, sidewalk improvements along West Bayshore Road, and significant landscaping and habitat restoration within the Palo Alto Baylands and along the Adobe Creek riparian corridor (Figure 1). The project lies primarily within City and Caltrans right-of-way, although the south/west project area includes SCVWD and private property (a portion of 3600 West Bayshore Road, a Google-owned property). In 2010, an initial Feasibility Study project phase examined twelve separate potential Highway 101 bicycle and pedestrian over/undercrossing concept locations. Alternatives were generally located between the Highway 101 overpasses of East Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road, and included variations in both length and configuration. Selection of a preferred project alternative (an overcrossing at Adobe Creek) was identified and evaluated through a participation process involving the general public, a technical advisory committee, stakeholder groups, and City and technical consulting staff. td tĂŐĞ Ϯϯ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 4 Figure 1. Project Area Overview PTC Page 24 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 5 Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the Palo Alto Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Project is to build a year-round overcrossing to replace the existing Benjamin Lefkowitz seasonal underpass, which is prone to repeated and spontaneous weather-related closures and does not meet minimum Class I trail standards. The overcrossing would improve connectivity to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East Bayshore Road businesses, and regional Bay Trail network from residential neighborhoods and employment districts in south Palo Alto. The project would further improve accessibility and safety of local access by constructing a Class I multi-use trail along Adobe Creek, and improving pedestrian connectivity from West Bayshore Road. The combined overcrossing and access improvements would support regional bicycle commuting and encourage greater recreational activity and use of the Baylands and trail system. Existing Benjamin Lefkowitz Seasonal Underpass at West Bayshore Road Current year-round bicycle and pedestrian access over Highway 101 to/from southern Palo Alto and the Baylands Nature Preserve/Bay Trail requires significant out-of-direction travel south to the San Antonio Road overpass, which lacks sufficient non-motorized access facilities, and north to the Oregon Expressway Overpass, which is more than 1.25 miles away. The Oregon Expressway Overpass also does PTC Page 25 of 183 City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 6 not meet current ADA standards. The need for a new year-round pedestrian/bicycle crossing of Highway 101 in south Palo Alto is identified in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (2007) and the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). The BPTP was adopted in June 2012 and identifies the Highway 101 POC project as the highest priority Across Barrier Connection (ABC) project in the City. The Highway 101 POC at Adobe Creek is also identified as a high priority project in the Bicycle Transportation Plan (2003) and draft East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way Sub-Area Concept Plan, which will be folded into the update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Palo Alto Baylands at Adobe Creek, with Bixby Park visible in the background Project Context & Setting The City of Palo Alto is a dynamic, mixed-use community that is both the heart of Silicon Valley’s technology-based employment boom and a coveted assortment of quiet, tree-lined residential neighborhoods served by a top notch public school system. A leader in environmental sustainability, Palo Alto’s quality of life is heavily supported by investments in and close proximity to recreational open PTC Page 26 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 7 space areas (both near the San Francisco Bay and in the foothills to the west) as well as some of the highest rates of walking and bicycling in the country. Approximately 8% of workers in Palo Alto commute by bicycle and another 6% travel on foot, while nearly 60% of all school children travel to school using an active transportation mode. Continuing to grow the share of trips that take place on foot and bicycle is critical to maintaining Palo Alto’s quality of life. This is especially so for the East Meadow Circle sub-area to the west/southwest of the Project, where recently proposed zoning changes (awaiting adoption into the City’s General Plan) and significant land purchases by Google indicate strong potential for office/R&D development in the near term.1 Coupled with existing businesses and anticipated growth nearby in Mountain View’s North Bayshore Priority Development Area (PDA), active transportation investments such as the Highway 101 POC at Adobe Creek will be necessary to help manage transportation demands on an already-congested and physically-constrained state highway and local arterial roadway system. The existing built environment in the Project area is characterized by low (one- to three-story tall) office/research park and light industrial land uses to the east, south, and west. A multi-unit residential development also sits to the southwest across from Adobe Creek, but is somewhat buffered from the project area by a PG&E electrical sub-station. The Project is expected to cross US Highway 101 approximately 1,500 feet (ft) northwest of San Antonio Road, directly north of where Adobe Creek passes under the highway. Highway 101 in this location is a ten-lane, 160-ft wide highway (recently widened from eight lanes), and there are two-lane frontage roads with bikes lanes on either side. The north/east portion of the project site includes the Bay Trail, which runs parallel to Adobe Creek from Mountain View and turns sharply north across the creek (via a steel truss bridge) to follow the edge of the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve at East Bayshore Road. Visible to the north within the Baylands sits Hawk Pond and delineated wetlands in the immediate foreground, with Byxbee Park (a former landfill site undergoing transformation into a passive recreational area) in the distance providing one of the few interruptions of the predominantly horizontal Baylands views. Directly east of East Bayshore Road, the creek changes character from a concrete-lined flood channel to a riparian corridor vegetated predominately with non-native plants, including a large stand of Eucalyptus trees. The south/west portion of the Project is dominated by the confluence of the channelized Barron and Adobe Creeks, which drain urbanized areas of Palo Alto from the west and include maintenance roads owned and operated by the SCVWD. The existing seasonal undercrossing rises up to meet with West Bayshore Road approximately 100 ft north of the main entrance for the Water District maintenance road access to the confluence area (and proposed Adobe Creek Reach Trail). A PG&E high voltage power line crosses the southern portion of the Project area, aligned northwest/southeast and crossing just south of the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creeks. Maintaining clearance below the maximum calculated sag of these high-voltage lines is a critical design objective for the Project. A catenary survey has been prepared to establish the required clearance. It is provided as Appendix F of these Guidelines. 1 See http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23672621/google-buys-nearly-15-acres-palo-alto PTC Page 27 of 183 City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 8 Figure 2. Flood Basin and Historic Creek/Tideline Map (source unknown). PTC Page 28 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 9 From an historical context, most of the current Project site features represent relatively recent additions to a landscape that has undergone a series of dramatic changes in the last century and more. These changes include the Adobe and Barron Creek channels themselves, which have been relocated and modified from their historic alignments since the late 1800’s; as well as the Highway 101 corridor itself, which sits to the east (outboard) from the historic extents of the tidal marsh (Figure 2). Prior to the 1950’s, when mechanical gates were installed to control tidal flooding, the Project area consisted of little more than farmland on either side of the four-lane Bayfront Freeway, which was built in the 1930’s (Figure 3). Construction of the wider, access-controlled highway occurred in the 1960’s. Project Status Local Entitlements Local entitlements, including design review, would be required. Environmental Review & Oversight The proposed project is subject to federal (NEPA) and state (CEQA) environmental review in addition to City design review, due to the use of federal Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding. The City of Palo Alto is the lead agency for CEQA review, and Caltrans is lead agency for the NEPA process. Figure 3. 1948 Aerial Photograph of Project Area (from Google Earth) PTC Page 29 of 183 City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 10 Caltrans Permitting Caltrans’ Project Development Process is used for projects where the capital construction cost within state right-of-way exceeds $3 million. This process requires execution of a cooperative agreement and preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR), Final Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), and other related reports following standard Caltrans procedures. The City may submit the Adobe Creek POC PSR/PR for review concurrent with preparation of the environmental review. However, Caltrans will not approve the PSR/PR until the environmental review is complete per CEQA requirements. Funding The project has received $8 million in federal and local grant funding with $7.2 million is for construction, excluding contingencies. Together with committed local resources, the project budget for design and construction is $10 million based on a 2011 planning-level cost estimate. Alternatives Considered Subsequent to the adoption of the Feasibility Study, three alignment alternatives (shown in Figure 4) were developed to provide a basis for environmental and Caltrans review: Alternative 1A Alternative 1A crosses East and West Bayshore Roads and Highway 101 at a perpendicular angle. The west side connecting ramp alignment makes a loop, curving above private property. The loop is necessary to create a 5% slope ramp ending parallel to West Bayshore Road, while meeting clearance requirements associated with overhead power lines. On the east side, a curving north/east ramp alignment provides a 5% slope, an overlook of the Baylands, and provides a pleasant experience for both bicyclists and pedestrians. The physical footprint of Alternative 1A extends approximately 100 ft. east into the natural area along the north side of Adobe Creek before looping back and ramping down adjacent to the Bay Trail. Alternative 1B Alternative 1B also crosses East and West Bayshore Roads and Highway 101 at a perpendicular angle, and is identical to Alternative 1A except that the loop at the west end is replaced by a simple curve. The resulting shorter western ramp would descend at an 8.3% slope with landings in order to meet clearance requirements associated with overhead power lines. The east side ramp alignment is the same as Alternative 1A. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would cross East and West Bayshore Roads and Highway 101 in a curving alignment. It includes a curving east ramp just north of Adobe Creek before linking to the Bay Trail, and loops back over itself on the west approach in order to minimize footprint and allow an earlier touchdown point on West Bayshore Road. While potentially having the least visual impact on the Baylands vista, the looping west ramp associated with this alignment is not considered optimal due to sight distance and potential user conflict concerns. PTC Page 30 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 11 Alternative Selected as Guideline Based on results from preliminary environmental analyses and community input, Alignment 1A was selected as the basis for development of 15% plans for preliminary Caltrans review and for environmental review, including the project boundary map for the environmental document (Figure 5). For the purposes of the design competition, the alignment in Alternative 1A will be used as a guideline. The Preferred Alternative is not yet formally determined through the environmental review process. The Preferred Design “Envelope” To meet project schedule objectives a preliminary (15%) design has been completed for the Project (see Appendix A), and environmental documentation is in progress and will be completed in parallel with the design competition. The Caltrans (PA/ED) review process is in progress. In order for the design competition to maintain consistency with the environmental document, these Guidelines provide specific design requirements as well as a range of structural and architectural alternatives and design features to provide an “envelope” to guide design competitors. This includes the design parameters needed to stay within the environmental analysis assumptions, respond to community preferences, and be consistent with other standards and requirements. Note that a design departing from this envelope of assumed location, configuration, and features could trigger the need to revise and reissue the environmental document, creating undesirable delay and expense to the project. A design departing from this envelope shall be disqualified. PTC Page 31 of 183 City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 12 Figure 4. Project Alignment Alternatives for Environmental Review PTC Page 32 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 13 Figure 5. Project Boundary Map PTC Page 33 of 183 City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 14 Caltrans and Environmental and Design Review Schedule The project schedule (see Figure 6), shows the relationship between the preliminary design and environmental analysis that will be completed under the current contract with a consultant team, and the subsequent stages of project design and Caltrans review that will be completed by the consultant(s) selected through the design competition. Should the City Council and the community agree on a design concept, the Consultant team and City shall enter into the City’s Professional Services Agreement to complete the design and the construction bid documents and construction administration in accordance with the City’s and Caltrans’ local, state and federal requirements. A sample of the City’s Professional Services Agreement is in Appendix E. The draft project schedule is for reference. PTC Page 34 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 15 Figure 6 Project Schedule PTC Page 35 of 183 City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 16 This page intentionally left blank. PTC Page 36 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 17 Design Guidelines Guiding Design Principles This is a unique opportunity to showcase the City’s commitment to innovation, aesthetics and forward- thinking through the use of a design competition to solicit visionary ideas for a new bridge. Below are four design principles that will be used to help orient design competitors in the creation of concepts:  Innovation – inspire and engage the community with a contemporary design, incorporating creativity, originality, functionality, technology and education, that is also identifiable as a landmark in the heart of Silicon Valley;  Versatility – achieve a balance between engineering and art, efficiency and beauty, diversity of users and functionality, while conforming to the project’s construction budget;  Interconnectedness – respect the delicate ecosystem of the Baylands; recognize the integration with nature, connection to the bay trails and importance of viewing nature while accommodating walkers/bikers/commuters, and enhancing the human experience and universal accessibility, and:  Conservation - incorporate state-of-the-art bird-friendly design science and guidelines and develop innovative approaches to management of native and non-native predator species. Design Goals The following project design goals were derived from public, stakeholder, and decision-maker input during meetings regarding the project: 1. Provide an overcrossing that is safe and functional for a wide range of non-motorized users: commuting and recreational bicyclists, including casual or inexperienced riders; and pedestrians, including people with disabilities and families with children. 2. Meet or exceed applicable policies and standards, and adhere to the identified project environmental footprint, in order to facilitate a smooth approval and permitting process. 3. Protect and enhance environmental qualities and functions of the Baylands and Adobe Creek, incorporating compatible native plant and habitat restoration to the maximum extent feasible. 4. Provide a seamless and enjoyable experience for users across Highway 101, ideally creating a bridge that extends the Baylands experience into the urbanized area more than it intrudes into the Baylands. 5. Avoid or minimize disruptions and impacts to traffic on Highway 101, local roads, and the Bay Trail; and to utilities and SCVWD maintenance facilities both during construction and resulting from the completed facility. Avoid impacts to SCVWD maintenance, emergency, and flood protection operations under existing and future conditions along Adobe and Barron Creeks. 6. Provide an aesthetic/visual resource that respects and is compatible with the character of the Baylands and yet offers new iconographic or gateway elements appropriate to the context. 7. Incorporate references to the Baylands and the site’s history, with opportunities to view, learn about, and appreciate the adjacent Baylands Nature Preserve and Adobe Creek/Barron Creek habitats. td tĂŐĞ ϯϳ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 18 8. Design a cost-effective project that efficiently solves technical challenges/constraints and concerns of ongoing maintenance costs. Figure 7. Conceptual Design Program Overview Graphic Conceptual Design Program - Overview This section summarizes the primary elements of the project, which are further described and expanded upon in the subsequent visual tour. Overcrossing Alignment & Structure(s) As assessed for environmental review, the Project consists of a 250-ft to 280-ft long, 18-ft wide concrete main span structure (with a 16-ft wide shared use travel way cross section) over Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads, with one or more columns anticipated in the center median of the Caltrans PTC Page 38 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 19 right-of-way (see Figure 7).2 Additional columns are anticipated north and south of Caltrans right-of- way. Bridge designs that do not include a center column in the highway median are encouraged if they can respond to the project design guidelines and are feasible within the anticipated project budget. The north/east ramp is expected to be approximately 450-ft to 510-ft long (pending final design) and the south/west ramp is currently projected to be 410-ft to 450-ft long. The north/east ramp would be accessed from the Bay Trail just north of Adobe Creek. The south/west ramp would be accessed from the proposed trail along the Adobe Creek SCVWD maintenance road and from West Bayshore Road. The configuration and landing point for the ramp on the west side is constrained by the proximity of high voltage overhead power lines; underground utilities; Adobe Creek and Barron Creek – for which, impacts on the channel capacity and operation and maintenance are to be avoided; and site access and parking for 3600 West Bayshore Road. The ramp must have a minimum 25’ clearance from the lowest sag of overhead high voltage power line. The ramp would then rise parallel to West Bayshore Road from the proposed Adobe Creek Trail, with a relatively long (approx. 120 ft) pre-cast span between piers in order to cross over the confluence of Adobe and Barron Creeks and minimize utility/creek impacts. The trail in this location will likely need to be narrower than preferred (a minimum 10-ft wide travel way compared to the preferred 16-ft wide travel way) before rising north into a significant portion of private property at 3600 West Bayshore Road before turning north/east to meet the main bridge deck. The configuration and landing point for the north/east ramp is constrained by wetlands and sensitive habitat area to the north within the Baylands, the Adobe Creek riparian corridor to the south, and utilities located along the back edge of the existing Bay Trail. While a specific construction method and structure type have not been confirmed for the Baylands ramp, a cast-in-place concrete ramp and potential use of reinforced soil slope (RSS)/Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) ramp abutment have been assumed for helping define the potential environmental footprint and impacts. West Bayshore Road Sidewalk / Accessibility Improvements The proposed project includes pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements along West Bayshore Road to support travel between the overcrossing ramp and the Adobe Creek Trail. Specifically, the west/south side of West Bayshore Road would be upgraded with a continuous sidewalk, while the existing driveway for the 3600 West Bayshore parcel would be relocated to the north in order to provide room for the bridge’s west ramp. Due to the need to accommodate a new sidewalk adjacent to the ramp landing, West Bayshore Road would be narrowed slightly and existing southbound bicycle lanes would be replaced with shared lane markings, or sharrows.3 If an additional column on West Bayshore Road just outside the Caltrans right-of-way is required for a signature span concept, and/or a wider sidewalk over Adobe Creek is desired, the northbound bicycle lane may also be converted to sharrows to accommodate roadway narrowing. 2 Pending Caltrans potential approval of a 2-ft minimum shoulder width, for which a Design Exception Fact Sheet is being prepared for consideration. 3 A shared lane marking or sharrow is a street marking used to inform road users that bicyclists may use the full lane. PTC Page 39 of 183 City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 20 A secondary stairway or ramp connection is strongly desired within the 3600 West Bayshore parcel to limit out-of-direction travel for bridge users coming from the north, with a belvedere or widening of the bridge encouraged at the point where the secondary stairway/ramp meets the primary ramp deck. The bridge widening would serve several purposes, including:  Promoting safer trail access for secondary stairway or ramp users  Mitigating a tight (25 ft radius) curve that is necessary due to site conditions  Allowing potential seating/viewing area toward the Barron and Adobe Creek confluence  Possibly facilitating future potential ramp extensions across Barron Creek toward East Meadow Circle Site design for the secondary ramp/stairway access point, potential belvedere/widened ramp segment, and 3600 West Bayshore parcel segment is identified as a significant design opportunity. Baylands / Adobe Creek Riparian Area Habitat Restoration The project includes significant opportunity for site landscaping and habitat restoration, which is required both for environmental mitigation and aesthetic purposes to support Project goals. The work is anticipated to include removal of existing ornamental trees on the west side of the highway, and invasive non-native plants and trees on the east side, to be replaced with native species. Conceptual Design Program –Visual Tour This section describes the elements of the overcrossing, moving west to east, based on concepts that were developed for the preliminary environmental documents and Caltrans review. They reflect some of the specific constraints and requirements that are detailed in the checklist that follows, and general design considerations and preferences. South/West Approach The south/west approach would be accessed from near the SCVWD maintenance road between West Bayshore Road and Adobe Creek (see Figure 8). In Alignment 1A, the ramp rises to the north, crosses above a portion of the confluence of Adobe and Barron Creeks, then loops around to the east utilizing a small portion of private property at 3600 West Bayshore Road before meeting the main bridge deck (see Figure 9). A stairway connection from West Bayshore Road to the overcrossing ramp is envisioned to facilitate pedestrian access from north of the project site. WdWĂŐĞϰϬŽĨϭϴϯ Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 21 Figure 8. Birds eye perspective looking north/west toward bridge ramp over Adobe/Barron Creeks. Figure 9. Birds eye perspective looking north/east toward bridge ramp over Adobe/Barron Creeks. PTC Page 41 of 183 City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 22 Improvements along West Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road through the project site currently includes a four-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of the roadway, bike lanes, and an approximately 75-foot long bridge over Adobe Creek. North of the bridge, the sidewalk jogs to the east and the southbound bike lane ends. South of the bridge, the sidewalk jogs to the west and the southbound bike lane resumes. Proposed pedestrian improvements include widening approximately 525 linear ft of sidewalk to 5 to 6 ft wide between the 3600 West Bayshore parking lot driveway and the SCVWD access gate. North of the Adobe Creek undercrossing, the existing southbound bike lane adjacent to the widened sidewalk segment would be replaced with a four-foot wide buffer with plantings and/or a fence and associated curb and gutter. South of the Adobe Creek undercrossing, a 1.5-ft wide planting strip would be located between the sidewalk and POC ramp. Where the bike lane is removed, the southbound travel lane would be signed and marked as a shared roadway (Class III bike route) for a distance of approximately 600 ft (Figure 10). The 4-ft wide sidewalk along the bridge over Adobe Creek would be widened as feasible. The southbound bike lane would resume south of the SCVWD access gate. An approximately 80-ft long ‘sidepath,’ or two-way trail adjacent to a roadway, is proposed west of the widened sidewalk from the ramp touchdown to the Adobe Creek Trail. A stairway connection from West Bayshore Road to the overcrossing ramp is proposed north of creek crossing to better facilitate pedestrian travel from north of the project site (Figure 11). PTC Page 42 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 23 Figure 10. Photosimulation of West Bayshore roadway improvements, looking south toward overcrossing PTC Page 43 of 183 City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 24 Figure 11. Photosimulation of bridge at 3600 West Bayshore Road with secondary stairway access and sidewalk improvements. Main Bridge Structure In Alignment 1A, the superstructure over Highway 101 utilizes a straight alignment, which is suitable for either a concrete or steel structure (see Figure 12). For the purposes of environmental review, the City is currently assuming a center support column in the median of Highway 101 north/west of where Adobe Creek crosses under Highway 101, which would require the narrowing of Highway 101 shoulders and potentially travel lanes. Additional design coordination with Caltrans is necessary to fully understand potential implications and confirm approval of a center median column. Any final design must also be coordinated with ongoing plans to add High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) express lanes on Highway 101, an effort which is currently in design and expected to operate beginning in 2018. Signature bridge span designs that do not require a center median column are encouraged in the design competition if they can successfully respond to other project goals, including construction budget and ongoing maintenance. PTC Page 44 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 25 Figure 12. Bird’s eye view of bridge main deck, looking ‘south’ along Highway 101 PTC Page 45 of 183 City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 26 North/East Approach In Alignment 1A, the structure ramps down on the east side of Highway 101 with a “horse-shoe” alignment in the Baylands Nature Preserve. This alignment touches down and connects with the Bay Trail approximately 100 ft north of where the Bay Trail crosses Adobe Creek via a steel truss bridge. At the ramp’s furthest point within the Baylands, the curving trail could include widened shoulders, or a viewing deck, providing users with a vista outward toward the Palo Alto Baylands and in the near distance, Byxbee Park (see Figure 13). For potential aesthetic and environmental assessment purposes, the conceptual design of the north/east ramp touchdown considers the use of engineered fill with earth side slopes and/or retaining walls or MSE walls. The underlying Bay Mud is an important consideration (due to likely settlement issues) however, and such features should only be considered up to a maximum suggested height of 10 ft to 15 ft per the Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) (Appendix D). Masonry units, timber, and gabions may also be considered, in addition to concrete or steel structures. The north/east landing area, whatever the design, would be disturbed by construction and would require any impacted habitat to be restored. The emphasis would be on native riparian and Baylands appropriate planting. Construction or associated habitat mitigation may involve the removal of up to 36 non-native eucalyptus trees within the Baylands, including trees located along the edge of the Adobe Creek riparian corridor. Site design may also include consideration of a creek side interpretive trail, secondary stairs and ramp approaches, public art, seating, and other potential amenities (see Figure 14). The design of the north/east ramp structure would be subject to Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for the Baylands Nature Preserve, among others (e.g., the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) and Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82-05). The Baylands guidelines generally favor the celebration and maintenance of the horizontal landscape, muted tones, and natural materials. Further discussion of the guidelines, and potential implications for the Project, is provided in the Design Criteria section below. In general, developing a unified concept for the Baylands bridge and site landscape is the key opportunity and challenge that will be emphasized for the design competition and City of Palo Alto review process. PTC Page 46 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 27 Figure 13. There is the opportunity, as illustrated in the visual simulation, to provide a creek viewing and interpretive area in conjunction with the north/east ramp. PTC Page 47 of 183 City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 28 Figure 14, Birds eye view of north/east ramp at the Palo Alto Baylands and Adobe Creek, with conceptual site program opportunities highlighted PTC Page 48 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 29 Adobe Creek Reach Trail Figure 15: Proposed Cross Section, Adobe Creek Reach Trail The Adobe Creek Reach Trail would involve construction along the existing SCVWD maintenance road on the east side of Adobe Creek (west of Highway 101), between West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive. Improvements along this approximately 800 ft stretch of access road would include (also see Figure 15):  Minor grading and paving of a 10-14 foot shared use trail with natural surface shoulders  Modifications to the existing maintenance road access at West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive, including removal of existing fencing and metal bollards  Installation of a 42-inch (in) to 56-in high fence along the creek abutment wall, and additional fencing to secure the SCVWD vehicle ramp from public access  Landscaping: drought tolerant plantings, seating, and other potential decorative and functional elements such as a soft surface jogging path and public art, as feasible considering the constrained space and need to maintain SCVWD maintenance and operations functions  Signage and wayfinding Lighting along the trail is not proposed. Per SCVWD’s User Manual: Guidelines & Standards for Land Use near Streams, lighting of trails should be avoided, except in downtown commercial and entertainment areas where lighting should be minimized. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail would provide a more direct, comfortable, and potentially safer alternative to Fabian Way/West Bayshore Road for pedestrians and bicycle commuters, and is considered a critical complement to the overcrossing project. Appendix B presents the preliminary (15%) plan for the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. WdWĂŐĞϰϵŽĨϭϴϯ City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 30 Design Criteria & Considerations The following factors should be considered for design of the overcrossing and associated elements: Project Boundary Figure 5 provides illustrates the project boundary identified for this project. The footprint of all construction activities must occur within this boundary, including temporary traffic control, staging, and construction. Work within Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, or delineated wetlands will be prohibited. Work within the Caltrans right-of-way should be limited to a potential center median column, anticipated to be a maximum of 2 ft wide. Geometry – Width and Alignment Per the HDM, a two-way bike path shall have a minimum 8-ft wide paved travel way and minimum 2-ft wide shoulders adjacent to the traveled way of the path when not on structure. The HDM requires a minimum 2-ft horizontal clearance from the paved edge of a bike path to obstructions. Three ft should be provided. Adequate clearance from fixed objects is needed regardless of the paved width. If a path is paved contiguous with a continuous fixed object (e.g., fence, wall, and building), a 4-in white edge line, 2 ft from the fixed object, is recommended to minimize the likelihood of a bicyclist hitting it. The clear width of a bikeway on structure (e.g., a POC) between railings shall not be less than 10-ft wide, and it is desirable that the clear width of structures be equal to the minimum clear width of the path plus shoulders (i.e., 14 feet). Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle Technical Guidelines encourage a minimum effective trail width of 10 ft, which is assumed as the minimum for the Project. The current basis of design for the Highway 101 POC is an 18-ft wide structure outside edge to edge, with a 16-ft wide travel way cross section. The structure width may be reduced to a minimum of 12-ft wide (or whatever width can support a 10-ft minimum travel way width) where the basis of design is not feasible due to site and environmental constraints. According to the HDM, the target design speed for a trail overcrossing is 20mph, which corresponds to a minimum bridge curve radius of 90 ft. These design speeds are not achievable or desirable given the site constraints and alignments considered in the environmental assessment. In Alignment 1, the minimum curve radii are identified at 36 ft (30 ft required, 12 mph) for the west ramp and 60 ft (53 ft required, 15mph) for the east ramp, assuming a 20-degree lean angle as identified by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. These curves are both within the acceptable thresholds of AASHTO (assuming a constrained site), but should be mitigated to the maximum extent practical/feasible by widening the trail through these sections. Bicycle, shared use trail, and pedestrian/bicycle bridge design references:  Caltrans Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 82-05  Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) Wd WĂŐĞ ϱϬ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 31  AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (4th Edition)  VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines (2012)  City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012) Profile According to ADA standards, a path with a slope greater than 5% is defined as a ramp. The maximum allowable slope is 8.33% and ramps must provide a level landing for every 30 in of elevation rise. Furthermore, Section 1023.6 (currently Section 1133B.7.6) in Part II of Title 24 California Code of Regulations (CCR) states that walks with continuous gradients (slopes between 2% and 5%) shall have level areas (2% max) at least 5 ft in length at intervals of at least every 400 ft. The bottom of the proposed pedestrian overcrossing profile would maintain a clear distance of 18.5-ft above the roadway of U.S. Highway 101 when constructed. Accounting for a typical structure depth of 4- ft, the surface elevation of the overcrossing would be approximately 22.5 ft above the roadway. Approximately 450-ft of ramp would be needed on either side of the overcrossing to conform to grade. The structure must be at least 18.5 ft clear above the surface of the adjacent frontage roads – West and East Bayshore within the Caltrans right-of-way and 17 ft clear above approximately half of the frontage roads within the City’s right-of-way. Electrical Line Clearance PG&E operates a 60 kV overhead electrical transmission line that crosses Highway 101 and Adobe Creek south of the existing undercrossing. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 95 requires a minimum 25-foot clearance between a walkable surface and the transmission lines for 22.5 to 300 kV supply conductors and supply cables. Any pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing alignment would need to comply with the applicable CPUC clearances. CPUC/PG&E require a 25’ vertical clearance from the walkable surface to the lowest point of the sag in the cables, estimated at elevation 40, and an 8’ vertical clearance from the top of the “cage” to the lowest point of the conductors. Creek Maintenance Access and Flood Capacity Adobe and Barron Creeks are located in SCVWD’s Northwest Flood Control Zone of Santa Clara County. The creeks join just upstream of Highway 101 and drain to the Lower South San Francisco Bay through the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) east of Highway 101. Within the Project Boundary, the creeks are contained in concrete trapezoidal channels; the channel bottoms are concrete-lined so that maintenance equipment can drive through to remove sediment, debris, and vegetation. Two SCVWD ramps lead from street-level into the Adobe Creek channel and are accessible from West Bayshore Road: one ramp connects with the low-flow channel and one ramp descends to then maintains an elevation of 1.4 feet North American Vertical Datum4 (NAVD) and serves as the Benjamin Lefkowitz Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing. The widths of the ramps vary between 8 and 14 feet. 4 The North American Vertical Datum is the vertical control datum established for vertical control surveying. WdWĂŐĞϱϭŽĨϭϴϯ City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 32 The overcrossing will need to span the confluence of Adobe and Barron Creeks on the west side of West Bayshore Road. The overcrossing is anticipated to include column placement along Adobe and Barron Creeks and within the Baylands. Impacts to SCVWD’s routine maintenance and emergency access activities, and hydrologic capacity of the creeks and floodway are to be avoided. Due to the limited right- of-way between Adobe Creek and West Bayshore Road, the western overcrossing may touch down in a way that requires closure or reconfiguration of the SCVWD ramp/Benjamin Lefkowitz Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing. The overcrossing alignment, column locations, overcrossing ramp touchdown locations, and Adobe Creek Reach Trail improvements will require SCVWD approval to ensure SCVWD maintenance and emergency access, and floodway capacities are maintained. Geotechnical Considerations Subsurface soil conditions within the project vicinity consist of approximately 10 ft of medium stiff sandy lean clay with gravel (fill). High plasticity clays, such as soft to stiff lean/fat clay, known locally as Young Bay Mud, underlie the fill and is interbedded with medium dense to dense well-graded sand with silt. Well-graded sand with silt was encountered at depths ranging from about 18 to 26 and 45 to 48 ft below the ground surface. Groundwater in the area is commonly encountered within the upper 10 ft and influenced by tidal fluctuations. It is anticipated to vary with the passage of time due to seasonal groundwater fluctuations, variations in yearly rainfall, water elevations in the bay, surface and subsurface flows, ground surface run- off, and other environmental factors. The PFR (provided as Appendix D) states that the project appears feasible with current civil and geotechnical engineering design practice and construction technology, and that precast/prestressed concrete driven piles should be used for the proposed structure. Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles are not preferred. Pier depths are anticipated to be between 80 to 120 ft or more, pending additional boring tests and soil analysis. Due to noise impact concerns, all pile driving should take place during the daytime. Consolidation settlement and stability analysis of the new fill at the abutment locations needs to be evaluated and a settlement period is recommended after embankment construction prior to commencement of the pile construction at the abutments. Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls and abutments are not recommended above 10 ft to 15 ft in height. Structural Considerations Bridge design load The bridge should be designed to accommodate a maximum weight that includes potential maintenance and/or patrol vehicles, as well as a live load that would be generated by large events that include near full utilization of the bridge by pedestrians (for example, during the July 4th fireworks or for a big race). H20 loading is identified as the reference standard for guidance. Column placement for main span over Highway 101 and frontage roads PTC Page 52 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 33 Due to the narrow median on Highway 101, a typical column design is not feasible. Since the median is only 6-ft wide and Caltrans requires a minimum 2-foot shoulder, only 2-ft is available for the column (pending approval of required design exception). A potential solution for this constraint could be to utilize a 2-foot wide pier wall to support the structure at the median of Highway 101. Alternatively, a column support in the median of Highway 101 can be avoided if a steel or other signature span structure is used. Due to the sensitivity of the project to impact on nearby bird populations, a cable-stay steel structure5 is discouraged. Column placement outside of Highway 101 can be between the Caltrans right-of-way and East/West Bayshore Road, or behind the sidewalk of East/West Bayshore Road. Placing columns between the Caltrans right-of-way and East/West Bayshore Road would require the roadway to be narrowed since there is not enough space for a column within the current lane configurations. Such placement may be feasible, however, by dropping dedicated bicycle lanes in favor of shared bike routes with “sharrows” and other prominent features. Column placement should be carefully analyzed to avoid impacts to the Barron and Adobe Creek channel banks, since work within the creek area is not anticipated in the Project environmental review and permitting assumptions. All designs need to adhere to the SCVWD maintenance access requirements, which include a minimum 12-ft vertical clearance above existing maintenance roads and sufficient horizontal distance from the Adobe/Barron Creek confluence area. Any significant impacts such as levee reconstruction or column construction within the limits of the creek must be avoided. Visual and Programmatic Relationship to the Baylands The overcrossing and ramps would constitute a significant new visual element in the setting. A Visual Impact Analysis (VIA) will be prepared as part of the environmental review process to analyze the two alternative conceptual alignments (Alternatives 1 & 2). The selected design from the AIA design competition will be analyzed in the VIA. Table 1 highlights the design approaches that would tend to minimize adverse visual impacts. The aesthetics and visual qualities are important community concerns that will drive the project development end environmental assessment process. Table 1. Potential Visual Impacts and Avoidance/Mitigation Strategies (Draft)  Potential Visual Impact  Avoidance/Mitigation Strategy  The proposed bridge would obscure views of the Baylands from northbound Highway 101, East Bayshore Road and the Bay Trail.  Minimize extension of ramp alignments into the Baylands view. Locate the bridge and ramp alignments close to the edge of the Baylands, utilizing proximity to the existing tree canopy/Lowlands Development area as a method to limit loss of exposure to Baylands view.  Limit the bulk and massing of the bridge structure, particularly 5 A cable-stayed structure has one or more towers (or pylons), from which cables support the deck. The potential for birds to fly into the cables is a concern. WdWĂŐĞϱϯŽĨϭϴϯ City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 34  Potential Visual Impact  Avoidance/Mitigation Strategy east of Highway 101 near the Baylands for views immediately northwest of Adobe Creek.  Consider removal of existing non-native Eucalyptus trees to expand views of the Baylands from the Bay Trail and northbound travel lanes on East Bayshore Road and Highway 101.  Bridge lighting may produce glare for highway and frontage road users, contribute to a reduction in nighttime sky visibility within the Baylands, and spillover into the Baylands and riparian corridor.  Use lighting features that emphasize illumination of the bridge trail surface. Limit overall intensity of lighting to reduce “spillover” glare, particularly upward toward the sky and outward toward the highway, frontage roads, Baylands, and riparian corridor.  Consider limited hours of lighting and/or user-actuated lighting design to minimize unnecessary emissions when bridge is not in use.  Up to 12 trees (including three London Plane street trees and a mature Canary pine) and minor landscaping would be removed from the west side of West Bayshore Road at Adobe and Barron Creeks. Up to 36 Eucalyptus trees may be removed within the Baylands near the Adobe Creek riparian corridor.  Only a small fraction of the Eucalyptus trees proposed for removal within the Baylands may be considered to be impacted by the construction of the overcrossing structure and ramp landing area. The majority of trees identified are to be considered for removal only in so much as they are not compatible with the Baylands design and management guidelines that emphasize native landscapes and horizontal features, and their removal would positively expand views of the Baylands and Adobe Creek.  To the extent necessary and desirable, the number of trees proposed for removal can be minimized based on proposed project construction footprint and the final landscape design plan. If potential biological impacts are further identified in the removal of specific trees, the proposed ramp alignment can be modified slightly to reduce or avoid these impacts. Lastly, the impact of tree removal would be assessed in accordance with the Palo Alto Tree Technical Guidelines and a suitable mitigation plan (both on-site and off-site) would be prepared and adhered to in coordination with the City Arborist, the Caltrans Office of Landscape Architecture for planting in Caltrans rright-of-way, and adhering to applicable California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) requirements.  The project may break up the visual continuity of the Baylands with new vertical elements and further “urbanize” the open space aesthetic.  Limit unnecessary vertical elements east of Highway 101 near the Baylands by maintaining a maximum height of 35 ft from ground level to the top of the east ramp structure, which is consistent with the average height of adjacent tree canopies and buildings. Limit potential vertical towers associated with a signature bridge design to West Bayshore Road, and to a WdWĂŐĞϱϰŽĨϭϴϯ Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 35  Potential Visual Impact  Avoidance/Mitigation Strategy maximum height of 65 ft (consistent with highest allowable building elements according to adjacent zoning).  The final bridge design concept may introduce finishes and colors that conflict with or distract from the Baylands view. The final bridge concept could be a design incompatible with the visual environment of the Highway 101 Corridor.  Avoid garish colors and bright finishes that would be incompatible with the natural setting of the Baylands as established by existing policy and determined further by the local architectural review process. Underground Utilities Existing utilities will be a key consideration in alignment and design of the overcrossing. There are a number of underground and overhead utilities located within the project area. Three underground utilities cross Highway 101 within the project footprint in Caltrans right-of-way: a 4-in gas line, a 3-in telecommunications, and a 12 kV electrical. Numerous underground utilities exist along East and West Bayshore Road, including sanitary sewer, water, recycled water, gas, electrical, and telecommunications. The proposed overcrossing structure should avoid utility impacts and honor existing utility easements, which includes 48 inch gas line (approximate) within the 20 ft PG&E easement where structures are not allowed. Proposed designs that require relocation of utilities should demonstrate need and practicality of such impacts. Relocated utilities would need to be coordinated with the appropriate owners during the design phase of the project. Due to the adjacency of the project to an electrical sub-station, as well as the prominence of alternative energy within the City of Palo Alto energy portfolio, the concept of utilizing solar panels, possibly as part of overhead shade/weather protection, may also be considered in the bridge design. These features would likely need to remain outside of the Caltrans right-of-way due to anticipated safety, maintenance, and permitting concerns. Right-Of-Way It is anticipated that the overcrossing alternatives would impact Caltrans, City, and SCVWD rights-of- way, as well as an adjacent private property owned by Google. West of Highway 101, the overcrossing ramp is anticipated to encroach into Google’s 3600 West Bayshore Road property, before touching down within SCVWD right-of-way. The overcrossing would span over Highway 101 within Caltrans right-of- way, and touch down east of Highway 101 within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (a City of Palo Alto property). The overcrossing alternatives would require an easement from the 3600 West Bayshore Road property, and construction would have an impact on the private parking lot and landscaping, requiring reconfiguration of these improvements. These private property impacts are not anticipated to be a major constraint. Caltrans requirements for right-of-way certification shall be followed. WdWĂŐĞϱϱŽĨϭϴϯ City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 36 Design Elements Potential Secondary Access (Stairs) Stairs could be added to each side of the bridge at the ramps to provide additional access to the Highway 101 overcrossing. Stairs can provide faster access for users wishing to bypass the ramp structure or for bicyclists who want to carry their bike, and offer additional recreational value to the structure. Per ADA standards, risers shall be 4-in high minimum and 7-in high maximum. Treads shall be 11-in deep minimum. All steps shall have uniform riser heights and tread depths. Provision of stairs shall not preclude providing accessible pathways to the primary ramp touchdown locations. Provision of secondary ramp structures, in lieu of stairs, may also be desirable if cost effective and feasible within the proposed project footprint. Railings and Fences While a minimum 8-ft high ”missile barrier” fence with 1-in maximum openings is required by Caltrans standards over Highway 101 and frontage roads, a 42-in to 48-in high railing is preferred for improved user sight distance and design profile beyond the highway. Potentially an earth fill ramp portion of the north/east landing could avoid railings altogether, if the slopes were sufficiently moderate and setbacks adequate (i.e. 1:3 maximum slope and/or 5-ft wide graded shoulder). The most pertinent guidelines for this are in AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 4th Edition and VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines. Landscaping and Habitat Restoration The landscape/habitat restoration plan for the north/east ramp area should be reflect the specific guidance on plant palette in the Baylands Master Plan document, as well as SCVWD design guidelines for planting along creeks. There may also be some relevant habitat impact avoidance and mitigation measures to come from forthcoming Natural Environment Study (NES)/biological studies. Landscaping for the limited landscape areas around the south/west ramp that would be planted or restored are more likely to involve ornamental plants, but native plants are desirable to create potential habitat and in the surrounding area and drought-tolerant plants are required. Lighting Lighting is required to be installed on the bicycle path within Caltrans right-of-way. Although general bicycle path lighting is discussed in the HDM, the location of the proposed overcrossing requires special consideration for lighting levels due to the environmentally sensitive areas, including Adobe Creek and the Baylands. Any lighting installed on the overcrossing should shield direct light from spreading to sensitive receptors adjacent to the structure; including Highway 101 where light can be a distraction for vehicles. Construction Phasing & Traffic Handling Impacts to the existing roadways and Highway 101 should be minimized during construction. Caltrans standards should be adhered to during overcrossing construction. All modifications to Highway 101 that do not meet current Caltrans standards would require design exceptions from Caltrans and extensive PTC Page 56 of 183 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 37 coordination. A number of assumptions were made regarding the schedule and staging for construction to provide a basis for evaluation of impacts in the environmental document. They are reproduced here for information. Construction of the bridge approaches on E. and West Bayshore Road may require sidewalk closures or lane closures. If a column is constructed just outside of the Caltrans right-of-way (between E. and/or West Bayshore and the Caltrans right-of-way), traffic would be disrupted due to foundation construction. This may require a temporary lane closure and temporary traffic signal for one direction travel at a time. In those cases where a full closure is required, vehicles or pedestrians would be detoured. Construction for the overcrossing spanning Highway 101 is assumed to be built in two stages: 1. The first stage constructing the footing in the median of Highway 101 (to support column placement in the median), and 2. The second stage for falsework erection and superstructure construction In order to accommodate footing construction during stage 1 in the median, 26-ft is required between the temporary railings. The existing roadway width in each direction of Route 101 is approximately 80 feet (2-foot inside shoulder, (4) 11-foot lanes, (2) 12-foot lanes, and a 10-foot outside shoulder). A standard lane drop will occur for northbound Route 101 during this footing construction. However, for southbound Route 101, the lane addition entry point will be closed temporarily during construction. In both cases, (5) 11-foot lanes will be provided at the traffic opening. Based on the MUTCD standard lane taper lengths, approximately 1700-ft of restriping would be required on northbound Route 101 and 4700- ft in the southbound direction in order to accommodate the lane taper. Narrowing the lanes to 11-ft and eliminating the inside shoulder while providing an 8-foot outside shoulder would require approval from Caltrans. Following stage 1, the lane widths along Highway 101 can be shifted back towards the median as long as there is adequate width for falsework and superstructure construction. This stage (stage 2) would also require temporary closure of Highway 101 in order to erect falsework, most likely to occur during nighttime hours when traffic volumes are minimal. A detour plan during the design phase would be developed for the complete freeway closure. The anticipated truck route to the western construction staging area(s) includes Highway 101, San Antonio Road, Fabian Way, and West Bayshore Road. The anticipated truck route to the eastern construction staging area(s) includes Highway 101, San Antonio Road, and East Bayshore Road. The 15% plan set (Appendix A) includes preliminary traffic staging plans and cross sections. Cost/Budget The City currently has $10 million in grant and local monies identified for this project. The preliminary budget target for the construction is $7.2 million, excluding contingencies. The overall cost of the proposed structure will be weighed against its performance relative to the overall project objectives. Wd WĂŐĞ ϱϳ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 38 Design Criteria Checklist This checklist provides guidance for design competitors, but competitors will be responsible for independent reference to standards and requirements that may apply to the Project.  Maximum pathway profile grade (without landings but with 5-ft long level area for at least every 400 ft interval): 5% (the 15% design used 4.9%)  Maximum pathway profile grade (with level landings for every 30 in of elevation rise): 8.33% (use 8% as target)  Minimum vertical clearance from top of Highway 101 to underneath of pedestrian overcrossing: 18 ft 6 in  Minimum vertical clearance from top frontage road to underside of pedestrian overcrossing: 17 ft  CPUC/PG&E require a 25’ vertical clearance from walkable surface to the lowest point of the 22.5-300 kV cables and 8’ vertical clearance from the top of the “cage” to the lowest point of the conductors  Santa Clara Valley Water District Design (SCVWD) maintenance access requirements, including sufficient horizontal distance from the Adobe/Barron Creek confluence area.  Maximum overcrossing structure width, excluding railings/fence: 18 ft  Pathway width: Minimum 10-ft wide paved travel way, preferred overall width of 16-ft including shoulders, where practical.  Minimum fence (missile barrier) height (over Highway 101 and the frontage roads): 8 ft  Minimum fence (missile barrier) opening (over Highway 101): 1-in x 1-in  Minimum railing fence height (on bridge with vertical drop greater than 24 in): 42 in  Caltrans Target Standard Bicycle design speed (may not be feasible to meet): 20mph  Minimum bicycle design speed: west ramp 12 mph (minimum radius of 30 ft required based on 2% superelevation and 20% lean angle); east ramp 15 mph (minimum radius of 53 ft is required (based on 2% superelevation and 20% lean angle).  Load bearing requirements: H20 (16,000 lbs dual axle)  Bridge piers/columns: All alternatives would include bridge columns with pile depths of up to 120 ft or more, including not more than one column in the center of the Caltrans right-of-way. All alternatives would consider column foundation designs that are able to handle a future SCVWD project that might lower the existing ground surface and handle flood flows.  Lighting on bridge: Lighting for bridge use at night, with guidelines to avoid glare on highway, local roadways, Baylands, and other adjacent areas. Dark sky compliance encouraged, but not required.  Signage and striping: Trail striping and signage consistent with a two-way, shared use pathway as identified by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), including warning and regulatory signage on the overcrossing and along East and West Bayshore Road.  Wayfinding: All alignments should include improved bicycle and Baylands wayfinding signage consistent with City standards.  Landscaping: Native, drought-tolerant planting as specified in the Baylands Master Plan or SCVWD Guidelines should be used throughout the project, including to replace and/or restore disturbed areas within the nature preserve and along the Bay Trail and Adobe Creek riparian corridor. Additional landscaping of the west side of West Bayshore Road should be included. Wd WĂŐĞ ϱϴ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 39  Public Art: The incorporation of public art will be a requirement of the project and may help to create the envisioned iconographic gateway. Areas shall be identified for the incorporation of public art at a minimum.  Trail and SCVWD maintenance road fencing will be required to match or exceed existing facilities or standards.  Benjamin Lefkowitz Tunnel: All alternatives would require the partial removal and permanent closure of the existing seasonal Highway 101 underpass. The following Caltrans standards for Highway 101 during bridge construction activities must also be considered:  Minimum median width of Highway 101 for constructing center column: 22 ft  Minimum falsework traffic opening width over Highway 101: 72 ft  Minimum vertical falsework clearance over Highway 101: 15 ft Summary Table of Project Elements Table 2 Presents a summary of the elements included in the Project. Table 2: Summary of Project Elements Bridge Feature Description Main Bridge Span Maximum span of 240 ft, with 17 ft minimum vertical clearance over City’s right-of way frontage roads, 18.5 ft over half of the frontage roads and all of the Highway 101. Assumed structure width: 18 ft from outside edges. Bridge Ramps & Slope Target slope of between 4-5% (equates to ramp length of 400 ft to 500 ft from edge of the frontage road); maximum 8% grade for potential steeper segments. Trail Surface and Width Minimum 10-ft paved trail, total trail width of 16 ft including shoulders anticipated. Railings Min 42 in. where necessary, 8 ft “standard height” fencing required over highway and frontage roads. This is a potential public art element. Alternative Bridge Access A secondary stairway access point near 3600 West Bayshore Road would be considered to improve pedestrian accessibility for users headed to and coming from the north along West Bayshore Road. A secondary stairway access point for the north/east bridge ramp may also be considered in conjunction with a potential landscape program. Lighting Lighting is strongly recommended for use at night/during winter commute hours, but would be limited to the highway overcrossing structure and approach ramps only. This is a potential public art element. Signage and Striping Trail striping and signage consistent with a two-way, shared use pathway as identified by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD); additional warning and regulatory signage may be included along East and West Bayshore Roads. Wayfinding Include improved bicycle and Baylands wayfinding signage consistent with City standards. Interpretive Signage Interpretive/educational signage of the natural and cultural history of the Palo Alto Baylands and Adobe/Barron Creek systems would be included. Columns Include bridge columns with pile depths of 120 ft or more including not more than one column in the center of the Caltrans right-of-way. Number and WdWĂŐĞϱϵŽĨϭϴϯ City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 40 Bridge Feature Description spacing of columns outside the Caltrans right-of-way to be determined with subsequent design. Landscaping /Trees Assume the removal of up to 12 trees along West Bayshore Road, including 3 London Plane street trees and a tall Canary Pine tree at 3600 West Bayshore Road. Incorporate trees into the design if possible. Additional removal of up to 36 Eucalyptus trees and replacement of vegetation in the Baylands is possible. Removed trees would be replaced on or off site in accordance with the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual and in consultation with the City arborist, and CDFW requirements (if applicable). New landscaping on the west side of West Bayshore Road and within the Baylands would be included. Seating/rest areas, soft-surface jogging paths, and public art are also potential elements consistent across design alternatives. References American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. (2012). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (4th Edition). Washington, D.C. Alta Planning and Design. (2011). City of Palo Alto Highway 101 Over/Undercrossing Feasibility Study. Berkeley, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2013). Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects. Design Information Bulletin 82-05. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Transportation. (2014). Highway Design Manual. Sacramento, CA. City of Palo Alto. (2012). Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan. Palo Alto, CA. City of Palo Alto. (2007). Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Palo Alto, CA. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. (2012). Bicycle Technical Guidelines. San Jose, CA. td tĂŐĞ ϲϬ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Page 41 Appendices Appendix A. 15% Overcrossing Design Drawings Appendix B. 15% Adobe Creek Trail Design Drawings (separate project to coordinate with) Appendix C. Project Area Base Map Appendix D. Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) (prepared by Parikh Consultants) Appendix E. Sample of City’s Professional Services Contract Appendix F. Catenary Survey td tĂŐĞ ϲϭ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ City of Palo Alto –Design Guidelines Page 42 This page intentionally left blank. PTC Page 62 of 183 PALO ALTO HIGHWAY 101 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING AT ADOBE CREEK DESIGN GUIDELINES APPENDICES October 17, 2014 Wd WĂŐĞ ϲϯ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ This page intentionally left blank. PTC Page 64 of 183 PTC Page 65 of 183 PTC Page 66 of 183 PTC Page 67 of 183 PTC Page 68 of 183 PTC Page 69 of 183 This page intentionally left blank. PTC Page 70 of 183 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT HIGHWAY 101 OVERCROSSING & REACH TRAIL AT ADOBE CREEK/PALO ALTO BAYLANDS SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA For ALTA PLANNING & DESIGN 2560 9TH Street Berkeley, California 94710 April 1, 2014 Job No. 2012-138-PFR PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC. 2360 Qume Drive, Suite A, San Jose, CA 95131 (408) 452-9000 PTC Page 71 of 183 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................. 1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 1 4.0 EXCEPTION TO POLICY ................................................................................................. 2 5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAM ..................................................... 2 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM ........................................................................... 2 7.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS ......................................... 2 7.1 SITE GEOLOGY .................................................................................................. 2 7.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS .................................................................... 3 8.0 SCOUR EVALUATION .................................................................................................... 4 9.0 CORROSION EVALUATION ........................................................................................... 4 10.0 PRELIMINARY SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 4 10.1 SEISMIC SOURCES .............................................................................................. 4 10.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA .............................................................................. 5 10.3 SEISMIC HAZARDS/LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ........................................ 6 11.0 AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA ................................................................................... 6 12.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 7 12.1 FOUNDATION ...................................................................................................... 7 12.2 APPROACH EMBANKMENT/MSE WALL ........................................................ 7 13.0 ADDITIONAL FIELD WORK AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................... 9 14.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATION .................................................................................... 12 PLATES Project Location Map ................................................................................................................... Plate 1 Proposed Project Plan ................................................................................................................... Plate 2 Geologic Map ............................................................................................................................... Plate 3 Fault Map ...................................................................................................................................... Plate 4 ARS Design Curve ........................................................................................................ Plates 5A & 5B Liquefaction Susceptibility Map .................................................................................................. Plate 6 APPENDIX A: As-built and readily available Log of Test Borings for Adobe Creek PTC Page 72 of 183 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT HIGHWAY 101 OVERCROSSING & REACH TRAIL AT ADOBE CREEK/PALO ALTO BAYLANDS SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Preliminary Foundation Report provides preliminary foundation information for the proposed Highway 101 Overcrossing & Reach Trail at Adobe Creek/Palo Alto Baylands in Santa Clara County, California, hereinafter referred to as “PROJECT”. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work performed for this investigation includes a review of geologic literature pertaining to the project site including available as-built plans; site reconnaissance; performed engineering analyses; preliminary foundation recommendations, and preparation of this report. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the general geology and geotechnical conditions at the project site and to provide preliminary foundation design recommendations for the proposed project. The approximate location of the project site is shown on Plate No. 1, Project Location Map. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing Project involves construction of a year-round, grade-separated, shared bicycle and pedestrian bridge over Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads. The new overcrossing would provide improved access between the communities and businesses on the west side of the highway with those to the east, as well as the trails and open space recreational opportunities within the Baylands. The new overcrossing would replace an existing seasonal underpass at Adobe Creek, which currently provides access under the highway via a Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance road. The proposed structure is assumed to be a box girder that is approximately 250 to 280 feet long and 18 feet wide. A cast-in-place concrete bridge, prefabricated bridge or a signature bridge is proposed for the main span and concrete slabs are proposed for the ramps. The ramp can retain fill on either side by retaining walls or if adequate space is available, grading. Standard retaining walls or mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls may be used for the ramps up to a maximum suggested height of 10 to 15 feet. PTC Page 73 of 183 Alta Planning & Design Hwy 101 OC & Reach Trail Project No. 2012-138-PFR April 1, 2014 Page 2 The City is presently evaluating the degree to which various alternatives meet the project’s primary purpose and need. Three action alternatives, shown on Plate 2, have been identified as feasible. Construction for the overcrossing spanning Route 101 will be built in two stages. 4.0 EXCEPTION TO POLICY For preliminary design, normal procedures were assumed for the construction of the bridge structure throughout our analyses and no exceptions to Foundation Report guidelines are requested. The recommendations of the proposed foundations have followed Caltrans policy. 5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROGRAM No field exploration has been performed to support the preliminary foundation recommendations as of the date of this report. Field exploration which has been proposed is discussed in Section 13 below. 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM No laboratory testing has been performed to support the preliminary foundation recommendations as of the date of this report. Laboratory testing which has been proposed is discussed in Section 13 below. 7.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS 7.1 Site Geology General geologic features pertaining to the site were evaluated by reference to the “Geologic Map and Map Database of the Palo Alto 30'x60' Quadrangle, California” by E.E. Brabb et al. Based on the publication, the project site is located in an area mapped as Historic Artificial fill (af), Holocene Bay Mud (Qhbm), Pleistocene Alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qpaf), and Historic Artificial stream channels (Qhasc). Historic Artificial fill (af)--Loose to very well consolidated gravel, sand, silt, clay, rock fragments, organic matter, and man-made debris in various combinations. Holocene Bay mud (Qhbm)--Water-saturated estuarine mud, predominantly gray, green and blue clay and silty clay underlying marshlands and tidal mud flats. Pleistocene Alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qpaf)--Brown, dense, gravelly and clayey sand or clayey gravel that fines upward to sandy clay. PTC Page 74 of 183 Alta Planning & Design Hwy 101 OC & Reach Trail Project No. 2012-138-PFR April 1, 2014 Page 3 Historic Artificial stream channels (Qhasc)--Modified stream channels; in most places where streams have been straightened and realigned. A majority of the structure is situated in Artificial fill. The west ramps are situated in Artificial stream channels and Alluvial fan and fluvial deposits and the east ramps are situated in Bay Mud. We have also reviewed the as-built Log of Test Boring for Adobe Creek and readily available log of test boring for the Adobe Creek Bridge (Widen) (Br. No. 37-0174, 04- SCL-101, PM 50.66, EA 4A3301) prepared by URS Corporation, which appears to be consistent with the geology. A geologic map of the general project area is shown on Plate 3. 7.2 Subsurface Soil Conditions As mentioned in the previous section, the subsurface soil conditions are evaluated based on the as- built log of test boring for Adobe Creek and readily available log of test boring for Adobe Creek Bridge (Widen). This data was made available through Caltrans District 4 files from the Route 101 project. Based on the readily available log of test borings, Boring R-09-004 was drilled at the northwest side of Adobe Creek and CPT-09-003 was explored at the southeast side of the proposed project and Adobe Creek. Based on Boring R-09-004 drilled by URS, the subsurface condition consists of approximately 10 feet of medium stiff sandy lean clay with gravel (fill). High plasticity clays, such as soft to stiff lean/fat clay, known locally as Young Bay Mud underlie the fill and is interbedded with medium dense to dense well-graded sand with silt. Well-graded sand with silt was encountered at depths ranging from about 18 to 26 and 45 to 48 feet below ground surface. The findings are consistent with the “Geologic and Engineering Aspect of San Francisco Bay Fill (Special Report 97)” by the California Division of Mines and Geology, which consists of Younger Bay Mud, sand deposits, and Older Bay Mud. The map shows the subject project site as having Young Bay Mud thickness of approximately 10 feet, which is consistent with the current boring log. We have also compared this with Caltrans as-built log of test boring, which is located approximately 50 to 100 feet east of the project. Based on the Caltrans as-built Boring B-4, clayey sand and gravelly sand material in the upper 20 feet (up to Elev. 5 feet), which could be fill material. This is underlain by interbedded layers of very soft to stiff clay and loose to medium dense sand up to Elev. -55 feet overlying medium stiff to stiff clay. PTC Page 75 of 183 Alta Planning & Design Hwy 101 OC & Reach Trail Project No. 2012-138-PFR April 1, 2014 Page 4 Groundwater in this area is commonly encountered within the upper 10 feet and is influenced by tidal fluctuations. It is noted that auger drilling was switched to rotary wash drilling at a depth of 9 feet (Elev. 4 feet) on the readily available log of test boring. Therefore, it is assumed that groundwater was encountered close to where drilling method was switched from auger to rotary wash. A design groundwater level of Elev. 4 feet was used in Boring R- 09-004. Groundwater was measured at Elev. 0 feet in the as-built log. It is anticipated to vary with the passage of time due to seasonal groundwater fluctuations, variations in yearly rainfall, water elevations in the bay, surface and subsurface flows, ground surface run-off, and other environmental factors that may not be present at the time of the investigation. 8.0 SCOUR EVALUATION Foundations are not proposed within the creek. Therefore, scour should not be an issue. 9.0 CORROSION EVALUATION Chemical tests will be performed during the design phase, on soil sample obtained from the proposed field exploration to evaluate the corrosion potential of the subsurface soil. 10.0 PRELIMINARY SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 Seismic Sources The project is located in a seismically active part of northern California. Many faults exist in the regional area. These faults are capable of producing earthquakes and may cause strong ground shaking at the site. Maximum moment magnitudes (Mmax) of some of the closest faults in the area are based on the Caltrans ARS Online Tool (V2.0.4). These maximum moment magnitudes represent the largest earthquake a fault is capable of generating and is related to the seismic moment. The earthquake data of the active faults in the project vicinity are summarized in the following table. PTC Page 76 of 183 Alta Planning & Design Hwy 101 OC & Reach Trail Project No. 2012-138-PFR April 1, 2014 Page 5 EARTHQUAKE DATA Fault Fault ID Fault Type Maximum Moment Magnitude (Mmax) Approx. Distance From Site (Rx/Rrup, miles) Cascade 153 Reverse 6.7 3.2/3.5 San Andreas (Peninsula) 2011 CFM 134 Strike Slip 8 7.6/7.6 San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mts) 2011 CFM 158 Strike Slip 8 8.1/11.1 The Caltrans Fault Map is shown on Plate 4. 10.2 Seismic Design Criteria The design spectrum shall be designed in accordance with the 2012 Caltrans Fault Database and the Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS) Online web tool (Version 2.3.06). The design methods incorporate both deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazards to produce the Design Response Spectrum. The probabilistic response spectrum to be used for design of bridge structures is based on data from the 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Map for the 5% in 50 years probability of exceedance (or 975 year return period). Preliminary average shear wave velocity (Vs) for the top 30m (100 feet) at the sites was estimated by using established correlations and the procedure provided in the Caltrans Design Manual (November 2012). The site locations and the relevant parameters are summarized as follows, and the recommended design curves are presented in Plate 5A. 1. Site Location: 37.4321ºN/122.1054ºW 2. Estimated VS30m = 220 m/s 3. Peak Ground Acceleration = 0.59g 4. The recommended ARS curve is governed by the Caltrans ARS Online probabilistic method. 5. An adjustment factor for near fault effects were applied to the calculated spectral acceleration values. The increase of 20% to the spectral acceleration values corresponds to periods longer than 1-second and linearly tapers to zero at a period of 0.5-second. 6. No adjustments were made for basin effect. The shear wave velocity should be refined during the design phase. PTC Page 77 of 183 Alta Planning & Design Hwy 101 OC & Reach Trail Project No. 2012-138-PFR April 1, 2014 Page 6 10.3 Seismic Hazards/Liquefaction Potential Potential seismic hazards may arise from three sources: surface fault rupture, ground shaking and liquefaction. Since no active faults pass through the site, the potential for fault rupture is relatively low. Based on available geological and seismic data, the possibility of the site to experience strong ground shaking may be considered high. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary but essentially total loss of shear strength under the reversing, cyclic shear stresses associated with earthquake shaking. Submerged cohesionless sands and silts of low relative density are the type of soils, which usually are susceptible to liquefaction. Clays are generally not susceptible to liquefaction. The Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California (Witter et. al., 2006) indicates the potential for liquefaction to occur is high to very high. Refer to Plate 6 for Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Based on our review of the existing boring data available for the project, the project site generally consist of clay with interbedded layers of sand. Potentially liquefiable sand were encountered at approximately 18 to 26 feet and dense sand at 30 to 33 feet below grade in Boring R-09-004 and 36 to 42 feet and 58 to 63.5 feet in Boring B-4. Liquefaction hazards are most severe in the upper 50 feet of the surface as mentioned in Special Publication 117A (CGS, 2008). Post-liquefaction may be anticipated and the down drag force may be induced. Pile capacity contribution should be neglected within and above the liquefiable soil layer, and down drag force from the layers above the liquefiable soils should also be considered. Future exploration is recommended to verify the potential for liquefaction. 11.0 AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA The proposed project will consist of a new structure, therefore, there are no as-built foundation plans. We have referred to the readily available LOTBs from previous studies done by URS Corporation for the Adobe Creek Bridge Widening in 2009. The proposed bridge is adjacent to the Adobe Creek Bridge. The as-built Log of Test Boring for Adobe Creek (circa 1960’s) was provided, but is not legible. Therefore, we have not included in the report. PTC Page 78 of 183 Alta Planning & Design Hwy 101 OC & Reach Trail Project No. 2012-138-PFR April 1, 2014 Page 7 12.0 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 12.1 Foundation The project appears feasible with current civil and geotechnical engineering design practice and construction technology. Caltrans standard design (including standard specifications and any special provisions) and construction methods are assumed at this time but site-specific boring data and detailed studies are needed for final design. In our opinion, precast/prestressed concrete driven piles (Caltrans Standard Alt. “X”) or open ended steel pipe piles (Caltrans Standard Alt. “W”), may be used for the proposed structures. Lateral capacity of steel pipe piles may also be increased, if required, by using Cast-In-Steel- Shell (CISS) piles. Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) concrete piles may not be preferred due to the presence of medium dense granular material and groundwater conditions. However, if oscillator casing construction method is used, it may reduce caving issues to protect existing conditions and to improve pile integrity. The following table shows preliminary lengths for the recommended piles: PRELIMINARY DESIGN LENGTHS Pile Type Design Load (Tons) Preliminary Length (ft) 14" Alt. X 70 70 100 85 14" dia. Alt. W 70 80 16" dia. Alt W 100 90 5' dia CISS 500 (Ult.) 75 750 (Ult.) 90 Should the loads for the CISS piles be greater, the pile length may increase and can exceed 100 feet. As discussed above, the pile type is dependent on subsurface conditions and design requirements. Future field explorations will be required to verify the subsoil conditions so that foundation type and groundwater information could be evaluated properly. The foundation design criteria should also consider lateral demand, and corrosion potential of on- site soils. Pile Data Tables will be developed once the size and type of pile and the design loads at each support location are established. 12.2 Approach Embankment/MSE Wall Based on the readily available boring data, the project site consists of soft to stiff lean/fat clay with interbedded layers of sand. As mentioned previously, the site consists of 10 feet of fill, PTC Page 79 of 183 Alta Planning & Design Hwy 101 OC & Reach Trail Project No. 2012-138-PFR April 1, 2014 Page 8 underlain by relatively thick layers of native Young and Old Bay Mud. The Geologic Map of the San Francisco Bay Region and the Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill also indicate that there may be Young Bay Mud in the upper depth (on the order of 10 feet), which is soft and highly compressible. The Bay Mud will continue to settle under its own weight for many years. If new loads are applied, it will restart the settlement process for a long period. For areas outside the Mechanically Stabilized Embankments (MSE), project design should include limited fill on the site to reduce the amount of long-term settlement. Additional fill weight or other loads beyond what the site has experienced will induce settlement underlying Bay Mud. Therefore, consolidation settlement and stability analysis of the new fill at the abutment locations will need to be evaluated. A waiting period will need to be recommended after embankment construction prior to commencement of the pile construction at abutments. The amount of settlement and waiting period will be determined once the geometry has been determined. However, the settlement period would be long term and cannot be incorporated into the design unless ground modifications are considered. Therefore, mitigation measures such as staged construction, implementing waiting periods, surcharge fill, use of light weight fill and ground improvement techniques such as Geopier soil reinforcement or installation of wick drains prior to the fill placement may be required. It may also be necessary to construct the wall panels after the embankments have settled. These mitigation measures are for addressing only settlement and not liquefaction or ground stability issues. Settlement monitoring will be required during the construction period. Some of these mitigation measures might impact the project schedule and should be addressed early in the PS&E phase. Stability of Mechanically Stabilized Embankments (MSE) MSE walls are generally flexible to allow the settlements resulting from soft subsurface conditions. However, due to relatively weak clays that would be supporting large embankments, the height of the MSE walls could be restricted by the shear strengths of the clays. In our experience, such heights are limited to 10-15 feet and should be confirmed with site specific investigations. In addition, ground modifications such as Geopiers, wick drains, and use of geogrid reinforcement could be implemented to increase the strength of the soil and to improve global stability. PTC Page 80 of 183 Alta Planning & Design Hwy 101 OC & Reach Trail Project No. 2012-138-PFR April 1, 2014 Page 9 The embankment fill should be placed in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. These guidelines require structure approach embankment material to be compacted to a 95% Relative Compaction. This also reduces the potential for earthquake-induced settlement or slippage to occur. 13.0 ADDITIONAL FIELD WORK AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Exploration The proposed exploration program will depend on the type of design element such as bridge structures, embankments, MSE wall, trail, etc. The number of borings, which will vary by alternative, are proposed to provide supplemental information regarding subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, which are subject to traffic control and utility clearances. The following outline for the field exploration program is suggested for different design elements of the proposed project: • A soil boring permit has to be obtained from Santa Clara Valley Water District for the field exploration of both proposed borings. Traffic Control Plan will need be prepared if lane closure is required for the work. • Truck-mounted drill rig using hollow-stem auger (for boring less than 80 feet deep), rotary-wash drilling method (for boring up to 120 feet in this field exploration program) can be used. Modified California Sampler or Standard Penetration Test Sampler should be used for the soil sampling. Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) are recommended to supplement the soil borings. Pocket penetrometer tests (minimum of two) should be performed on each of the cohesive soil samples; • The classifications of the soil/rock materials in the field exploration should be according to Caltrans “Soil and Rock - Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual” (June 2010); • For the proposed structure, it is recommended to have one boring at each support (both abutments and bent(s)). The depth of the boring is anticipated to be between 80 feet to 120 feet; • For embankments, one boring is recommended in every 300 lineal feet. The depth of the boring should be approximately two to three times the height of the fill thickness with a minimum of 30 feet; • For the MSE wall, one boring in recommended in every 300 lineal feet. The depth of the boring should be approximately three to four times the height of the proposed retaining wall with a minimum of 30 feet; PTC Page 81 of 183 Alta Planning & Design Hwy 101 OC & Reach Trail Project No. 2012-138-PFR April 1, 2014 Page 10 • Depth of groundwater should be measured in every hollow stem auger boring, if present; • The borings will be drilled under the technical supervision of the field engineer or geologist, who will classify and continuously log the soils encountered during drilling and supervise the collection of soil samples at various depths for visual examination and laboratory testing. The soil samples will be visually classified in the field and then be transported to the laboratory for further evaluation and testing; • Upon completion of drilling and sampling, borings will be backfilled with cement grout. The following table is a summary of the preliminary proposed boring program for the design elements: SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY BORING PROGRAM Design Elements Location Proposed Borings Depth Pedestrian Overcrossing Crossing over Hwy 101 (One per support) Alternative 1- Approx. 13 borings Alternative 2- Approx. 15 borings Alternative 3- Approx. 12 borings 80 to 120 feet Embankments/MSE Walls Approach Embankment (One per 300 lineal feet) Approximately 2 borings 45 feet (Approx. 3 times the height of the fill thickness) Several underground utilities may exist at the site. The location of the utility lines should be verified prior to drilling. Laboratory Testing Based on a review of the field boring logs, a laboratory testing program will be developed. Laboratory tests will be performed on the selected soil sample to evaluate the physical and engineering properties for analyses required for the project such as evaluation of liquefaction potential, settlement, pile capacity, and corrosion potential. Anticipated laboratory tests include the following: • The laboratory tests anticipated to be performed on soil samples include moisture and density, Atterberg Limits, sieve analyses, consolidation, unconfined compressive strength, and corrosion test. PTC Page 82 of 183 Alta Planning & Design Hwy 101 OC & Reach Trail Project No. 2012-138-PFR April 1, 2014 Page 11 • Depending on the findings (specifically SPT blow counts) from the field exploration, gradation analysis should be performed on cohesionless soils to investigate the percentage of fine content which is required in the evaluation of liquefaction potential for loose to medium dense saturated sands. • Depending on the findings from the field exploration, appropriate tests such as moisture and density, Atterberg Limits and/or consolidation, should be performed on the soft to firm cohesive soil samples to investigate the engineering properties, which are required to evaluate the magnitude of consolidation settlement. • Corrosion tests, such as resistivity, pH value, percentage of sulfate content and chloride content, should be performed on selected soil samples to appropriate depths to investigate the corrosiveness at the bridge structures, and any proposed culverts (new or extension of existing). If formation is the same within the same structure, it may not be necessary to obtain samples from all borings. • Samples should be taken of the fill material as well as native soil, if appropriate. • One sample at or near the surface between 1 and 5 feet. • One sample at the water table (if water table is within the limits of the proposed pile foundation). • Take additional sample for each significant change in subsurface material to a depth of 3 feet below the lowest anticipated groundwater level (if water table is within the limits of the proposed pile foundation). • For concrete piles, take an additional sample for each significant change in subsurface material within the limits of the proposed pile foundation The actual number of each test will be determined based on the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings. PTC Page 83 of 183 Alta Planning & Design Hwy 101 OC & Reach Trail Project No. 2012-138-PFR April 1, 2014 Page 12 14.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATION Please be advised that we are performing a professional service and that our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions only. All work done and all recommendations made are in accordance with generally accepted Geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, of merchantability or fitness, is made or intended in connection with our work. Very truly yours, PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC. Lam Tran Cruz, P.E. 78164 Gary Parikh, P.E., G.E. 666 Project Engineer Project Manager T:\Ongoing Projects\2012\2012-138-PGR Alta Planning POC over Adobe Creek, Palo Alto\PDF PTC Page 84 of 183 PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS MATERIALS TESTING JOB NO.: 2012-138-PFR PLATE NO.: 1 HIGHWAY 101 OVERCROSSING & REACH TRAIL AT ADOBE CREEK/PALO ALTO BAYLANDS SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SITE MAP Approximate Project Location PTC Page 85 of 183 PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS MATERIALS TESTING JOB NO.: 2012-138-PFR HIGHWAY 101 OVERCROSSING & REACH TRAIL AT ADOBE CREEK/PALO ALTO BAYLANDS SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PLATE NO.: 2 PROPOSED PROJECT PLAN PTC Page 86 of 183 PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS MATERIALS TESTING JOB NO.: 2012-138-PFR PLATE NO.: 3 Source: Brabb, E.E. et al.; 2000; Geologic Map and Map Database of the Palo Alto 30'x60' Quadrangle, California Legend: af - Artificial fill (Historic) Qhbm - Bay mud (Holocene) Qpaf - Alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Pleistocene) GEOLOGIC MAP Approximate Project Location 0 1 mi. Qhasc PTC Page 87 of 183 PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS MATERIALS TESTING JOB NO.: 2012-138-PFR HIGHWAY 101 OVERCROSSING & REACH TRAIL AT ADOBE CREEK/PALO ALTO BAYLANDS SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PLATE NO.: 4 FAULT MAP Approx. Project Location Source:Caltrans ARS Online v.2.0.4 Web Site http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/index.php Legend 134 - San Andreas (Peninsula) 2011 CFM (Mmax=8.0) 154 - Monte Vista-Shannon (Mmax=6.4) 153 - Cascade Fault (Mmax=6.7) 148 - Silver Creek(Mmax=6.9) PTC Page 88 of 183 Site Information Recommended Response Spectrum Latitude: 37.4321 Longitude -122.1054 VS30 (m/s) =220 0.0 0.589 1 1 0.589 Z 1.0 (m) =N/A 0.1 1 1 1 1.000 Z 2.5 (km) =N/A 0.2 1.256 1 1 1.256 0.3 1.281 1 1 1.281 11.7 0.5 1.165 1 1 1.165 1.0 0.855 1.2 1 1.026 2.0 0.54 1.2 1 0.648 Governing Curve:3.0 0.363 1.2 1 0.436 4.0 0.264 1.2 1 0.317 5.0 0.214 1.2 1 0.257 Source: 1. Caltrans ARS Online tool (V.2, http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/index.php) 2. USGS Deaggregation 2008 beta (http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/index.php) Project No.: 2012-138-PFR Plate No.: 5A 3. Caltrans Methodology for Developing Design Response Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design Recommendations, November 2012 Near Fault Factor, Derived from USGS Deagg. Dist (km) = Caltrans Online Probabilistic ARS HIGHWAY 101 OVERCROSSING & REACH TRAIL AT ADOBE CREEK/PALO ALTO BAYLANDS SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Period (sec) Caltrans Online Probabilistic Spectral Acceleration (g) Adjusted for Near Fault Effect Adjusted For Basin Effect Final Adjusted Spectral Acceleration (g) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Sp e c t r a l A c c e l e r a t i o n , S a ( g ) Period (sec) RECOMMENDED ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM (5% Damping) 1/21/2014 Acceleration_Response_Spectrum_V2 2.xlsx T:\Ongoing Projects\2012\2012-138-PGR Alta Planning POC over Adobe Creek, Palo Alto\ARS\ARS\ PTC Page 89 of 183 Site Information Latitude: 37.4321 0.0 0.348 0.589 0.554 Longitude -122.1054 0.1 0.515 1.000 #N/A VS30 (m/s) =220 0.2 0.651 1.256 #N/A Z 1.0 (m) =N/A 0.3 0.683 1.281 1.199 Z 2.5 (km) =N/A 0.5 0.652 1.165 #N/A 1.0 0.634 1.026 0.939 11.7 2.0 0.446 0.648 #N/A 3.0 0.304 0.436 0.431 4.0 0.223 0.317 #N/A 5.0 0.176 0.257 #N/A Source: 1. Caltrans ARS Online tool (V.2, http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/shake_stable/v2/index.php) 2. USGS Deaggregation 2008 beta (http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/index.php) Project No.: 2012-138-PFR Plate No.: 5B Near Fault Factor, Derived from USGS Deagg. Dist (km) = HIGHWAY 101 OVERCROSSING & REACH TRAIL AT ADOBE CREEK/PALO ALTO BAYLANDS SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 3. Caltrans Methodology for Developing Design Response Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design Recommendations, November 2012 Period (sec) USGS Deaggregation Final Adjusted Spectral Acceleration (g) Caltrans Probabilistic Final Adjusted Spectral Acceleration (g) Deterministic Final Adjusted Spectral Acceleration (g) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Sp e c t r a l A c c e l e r a t i o n , S a ( g ) Period (sec) ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM COMPARISON (Deterministic & Probablistic Curves) (5% Damping) USGS Deaggregation Final Adjusted Spectral Acceleration (g) Deterministic Final Adjusted Spectral Acceleration (g) Caltrans Probabilistic Final Adjusted Spectral Acceleration (g) 1/21/2014 Acceleration_Response_Spectrum_V2 2 T:\Ongoing Projects\2012\2012-138-PGR Alta Planning POC over Adobe Creek, Palo Alto\ARS\Wd/WĂŐĞϵϬŽĨϭϴϯ PARIKH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS MATERIALS TESTING JOB NO.: 2012-138-PFR HIGHWAY 101 OVERCROSSING & REACH TRAIL AT ADOBE CREEK/PALO ALTO BAYLANDS SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PLATE NO.: 6 LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY MAP Source: Witter et. al.; 2006; Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California. Approximate Project Location PTC Page 91 of 183 APPENDIX A PTC Page 92 of 183 Weak Moderate Strong Criteria CEMENTATION Description Will not crumble or break with finger pressure. Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure. Crumbles or breaks with handling or little finger pressure. CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS Field Approximation Readily indented by thumbnail 1 to 2 2 to 4 Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard < 0.25 0.25 to 0.50 0.50 to 1.0 > 4.0 1 to 2 2 to 4 < 0.25 0.25 to 0.50 0.50 to 1.0 > 4.0 < 0.12 0.12 to 0.25 0.25 to 0.50 > 2.0 0.50 to 1.0 1.0 to 2.0 Description UnconfinedCompressiveStrength (tsf) PocketPenetrometerMeasurement (tsf) TorvaneMeasurement (tsf) Readily indented by thumb but penetrated only with great effort Indented by thumbnail with difficulty Easily penetrated several inches by fist Easily penetrated several inches by thumb Penetrated several inches by thumb with moderate effort Size Size Siz e Si z e PLASTICITY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS A 1/8-inch thread cannot be rolled at any water content.Nonplastic Low Medium High CriteriaDescription The thread can barely be rolled and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit. The thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit. It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit. UUMUW i ROTARY BORING Description of material Hole I.D. 3" Field & Lab Tests Material change Estimated material change Soil/Rock boundary SPT N-Value (per ASTM 1586-99), P = push sample, or as noted Casing driven Top Hole El.Lo c a t i o n 16 1.4 Date measured Elev. GWS Boring Date Hammer Energy Ratio (ER ) = % Top Hole El. P 60 500 (S) (S) Date measured 30 P GWS Elev. Lo c a t i o n Hole I.D. 1" Pulled Pipe Ground watersurface materials Sample taken Description of Refusal Boring Date HAND BORING GWS NC P 24 4 61037 1756 9158 656043113154 Lo c a t i o n Top Hole El. Elev. 100 180/0-9 200 Date measured Hole I.D. DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION BORING Pushed Boring Date No count recorded CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPT) SOUNDING 2 on tip element Hole I.D. Lo c a t i o n Top Hole El. Boring Date Friction Ratio (%)Tip Bearing (MPa) 0246 302010 2 Pressure measuredalong sleeve friction element (34.88 in area) divided by pressure measured on tip element. Pressure measured (2.33 in area) Dynamic Cone Penetration Boring Auger Boring Rotary drilled boring Rotary percussion boring (air) Rotary drilled diamond core Other Cone Penetration Test (ASTM D 5778-95) Hand driven (1-inch soil tube) Hand Auger Note: Size in inches. Symbol Description R P A D R CPT HD HA O Hole Type BOREHOLE IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE: CALTRANS SOIL & ROCK LOGGING, CLASSIFICATION, AND PRESENTATION MANUAL (JUNE 2007) Terminated at Elev Terminated at Elev Blows per 12" (Using 28 lb hand hammer with a 12"drop or as noted)Driving rate inseconds per 12" (using a Stanley MB 156 percussion hammer and a 2.2" cone, or as noted) Size of Sampler (inches) 11 LOG OF TEST BORINGS 1 OF 5 04 CU EA BRIDGE NO. EARLIER REVISION DATESDISREGARD PRINTS BEARING SHEET OF US E R N A M E = > s1 1 7 0 DA T E P L O T T E D = > 14 - J U TI M E P L O T T E D = > 10 : 0 2 REVISION DATES POST MILES FOR REDUCED PLANS 0 1 2 3 ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES FILE =>37-0174- PROJECT ENGINEER PREPARED FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAWN BY CHECKED BY SIGN OFF DATE DESIGN OVERSIGHT FIELD INVESTIGATION BY: DATE: DIST COUNTY ROUTE SHEET TOTAL PLANS APPROVAL DATE NoTOTAL PROJECT SHEETS The State of California or its officers or agents shall not be responsible for the accuracy or POST MILES DATE completeness of scanned copies of this plan sheet. GEOTECHNICAL PROFESSIONAL No. Exp. STATE OF CAL I F O R NIA OGS GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF TEST BORINGS SHEET (ENGLISH) (REV. 06-01-09)4A3301 37-0174 50.66 RE GISTE RED P R O F ES S I ONA L ENG I NEER CIVIL S. HUANG A. CHEUNG Stephen Huang C 42289 03/31/12 SCL 101 URS Corporation55 S Market Street SUITE #1500San Jose, CA 95113 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY3331 N FIRST STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95134 04235 03/23/09 M. SELVENDRAN 11-20-09 Walt LaFranchi 3-22-10 158-20-10 7/13/11 ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE (WIDEN) 9-14-10 7-13-11 7-14-11 Emil A. Vergara Jr. PTC Page 93 of 183 REFERENCE: CALTRANS SOIL & ROCK LOGGING, CLASSIFICATION, AND PRESENTATION MANUAL (JUNE 2007) ORGANIC SOIL ORGANIC SOIL with SAND ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL SANDY ORGANIC SOIL SANDY ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC SOIL GRAVELLY ORGANIC SOIL with SAND SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY with SAND SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL SANDY SILTY CLAY SANDY SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY with SAND SILT with SAND SILT with GRAVEL SANDY SILT SANDY SILT with GRAVEL Group Names Group Names GROUP SYMBOLS AND NAMES GRAVELLY SILT GRAVELLY SILT with SAND SILT ORGANIC SILT with SAND ORGANIC SILT with GRAVEL SANDY ORGANIC SILT SANDY ORGANIC SILT with GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT with SAND ORGANIC SILT COBBLES and BOULDERS BOULDERS SAND (or SILTY CLAY and SAND) (or SILTY CLAY and SAND) SILTY GRAVEL CLAYEY GRAVEL SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL SILTY SAND CLAYEY SAND PEAT SILTY, CLAYEY SAND (or SILTY CLAY) (or SILTY CLAY) SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL SILTY SAND with GRAVEL GRAVEL (or SILTY CLAY and GRAVEL) (or SILTY CLAY) (or SILTY CLAY and GRAVEL) COBBLES SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND SILTY GRAVEL with SAND (or SILTY CLAY) SM SC GW GW-GM PT SC-SM GW-GC GP-GM GP-GC GM GC GP GC-GM SP-SC SW SP SW-SM SW-SC SP-SM Graphic/Symbol OL OL CH MH OH OL/OH OH CL CL-ML ML Graphic/Symbol SANDY lean CLAY with GRAVEL SANDY lean CLAY GRAVELLY lean CLAY with SAND SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND GRAVELLY lean CLAY ORGANIC lean CLAY ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY GRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND SANDY fat CLAY SANDY fat CLAY with GRAVEL GRAVELLY fat CLAY GRAVELLY fat CLAY with SAND ORGANIC fat CLAY ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVEL ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND ORGANIC elastic SILT with GRAVEL SANDY ORGANIC elastic SILT SANDY ORGANIC elastic SILT with GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT GRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND ORGANIC elastic SILT SANDY elastic SILT GRAVELLY elastic SILT with SAND SANDY elastic SILT with GRAVEL GRAVELLY elastic SILT Well-graded GRAVEL with CLAY and SAND Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT Well-graded SAND Well-graded SAND with SILT Well-graded GRAVEL with CLAY Well-graded GRAVEL Well-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL Well-graded SAND with CLAY and GRAVEL Well-graded GRAVEL with SAND Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL Well-graded SAND with CLAY Poorly graded GRAVEL with SAND Poorly graded GRAVEL with CLAY and Poorly graded GRAVEL Poorly graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND Poorly graded GRAVEL with SILT Poorly graded SAND Poorly graded SAND with SILT Poorly graded SAND with CLAY Poorly graded SAND with CLAY and Poorly graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL Poorly graded SAND with GRAVEL Poorly graded GRAVEL with CLAY Lean CLAY Lean CLAY with GRAVEL Lean CLAY with SAND Fat CLAY Fat CLAY with SAND Fat CLAY with GRAVEL Elastic SILT with SANDElastic SILT with GRAVEL Elastic SILT PERCENT OR PROPORTION OF SOILS MOISTURE APPARENT DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS PARTICLE SIZE Description Very loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Criteria Damp but no visible water Description Dry Moist Wet Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Visible free water, usually soil is below water table Criteria 5 to 10% 15 to 25% 30 to 45% 50 to 100% Trace Few Little Some Mostly Description Particles are present but estimated to be less than 5% Size Boulder Cobble Gravel Sand Description Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine No. 10 to No. 4 No. 40 to No. 10 No. 200 to No. 40 60 0 - 4 5 - 10 11 - 30 31 - 50 > 50 CP C UU CU CR EI UC PI Pocket PenetrometerPP TV M OC SE UW VS DS SG PL SL CL R SW PA P PM Pressure Meter Pocket Torvane FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING Consolidation (ASTM D 2435) Collapse Potential (ASTM D 5333) Compaction Curve (CTM 216) Corrosivity Testing (CTM 643, CTM 422, CTM 417) Consolidated Undrained Triaxial (ASTM D 4767) Direct Shear (ASTM D 3080) Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829) Moisture Content (ASTM D 2216) Organic Content-% (ASTM D 2974) Permeability (CTM 220) Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422) Plasticity Index (AASHTO T 90) Liquid Limit (AASHTO T 89) Point Load Index (ASTM D 5731) R-Value (CTM 301) Sand Equivalent (CTM 217) Specific Gravity (AASHTO T 100) Shrinkage Limit (ASTM D 427) Swell Potential (ASTM D 4546) Unconfined Compression-Soil (ASTM D 2166) Unconfined Compression-Rock (ASTM D 2938) Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial (ASTM D 2850) Unit Weight (ASTM D 4767) Vane Shear (AASHTO T 223) > 12" No. 4 to 3/4" SPT N (Blows / 12 inches) 3/4" to 3" 3" to 12" LOG OF TEST BORINGS 2 OF 5 12 04 CU EA BRIDGE NO. EARLIER REVISION DATESDISREGARD PRINTS BEARING SHEET OF US E R N A M E = > s1 1 7 0 DA T E P L O T T E D = > 14 - J U TI M E P L O T T E D = > 10 : 0 2 REVISION DATES POST MILES FOR REDUCED PLANS 0 1 2 3 ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES FILE =>37-0174- PROJECT ENGINEER PREPARED FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAWN BY CHECKED BY SIGN OFF DATE DESIGN OVERSIGHT FIELD INVESTIGATION BY: DATE: DIST COUNTY ROUTE SHEET TOTAL PLANS APPROVAL DATE NoTOTAL PROJECT SHEETS The State of California or its officers or agents shall not be responsible for the accuracy or POST MILES DATE completeness of scanned copies of this plan sheet. GEOTECHNICAL PROFESSIONAL No. Exp. STATE OF CAL I F O R NIA OGS GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF TEST BORINGS SHEET (ENGLISH) (REV. 06-01-09)4A3301 37-0174 50.66 RE GISTE RED P R O F ES S I ONA L ENG I NEER CIVIL S. HUANG A. CHEUNG SCL 101 URS Corporation55 S Market Street SUITE #1500San Jose, CA 95113 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY3331 N FIRST STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95134 04235 03/23/09 M. SELVENDRAN 11-20-09 C 42289 Stephen Huang 03/31/12 Walt LaFranchi 3-22-10 158-20-10 7/13/11 ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE (WIDEN) 9-14-10 7-13-11 7-14-11 Emil A. Vergara Jr. PTC Page 94 of 183 R-09-004CPT-09-003 A D O B E C R E E K WEST BAYSHORE Rd AD O B E C R E E K ROUTE 101 ROUTE 101To San Francisco To San Jose "C" LINE 4-8 7" 611543211109876105432 BENCH MARK: 1. This LOTB sheet was prepared in accordance with the caltrans soil and Rock logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (June 2007) NOTE: 2. Groundwater depth was not measured; dry to 9 feet before switching auger to rotarywash method. 3. Design groundwater level at Elev. 4 ft. B. M Elev.: 7.541 US Survey Feet Northing: 1985636.542 Easting: 6094153.352 Vertical Datum: NAVD88 Horizontal Datum: CCS83/Zone 3 Mag nail & Shiner - Northbound shoulder of US101 approximately 0.5 mile southeast from Embacardo Road overcrossing LOG OF TEST BORINGS 3 OF 5 13 PLAN 1"=50’ 4 115 6 EAST BAYSHORE Rd 04 CU EA BRIDGE NO. EARLIER REVISION DATESDISREGARD PRINTS BEARING SHEET OF US E R N A M E = > s1 1 7 0 DA T E P L O T T E D = > 14 - J U TI M E P L O T T E D = > 10 : 0 2 REVISION DATES POST MILES FOR REDUCED PLANS 0 1 2 3 ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES FILE =>37-0174- PROJECT ENGINEER PREPARED FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAWN BY CHECKED BY SIGN OFF DATE DESIGN OVERSIGHT FIELD INVESTIGATION BY: DATE: DIST COUNTY ROUTE SHEET TOTAL PLANS APPROVAL DATE NoTOTAL PROJECT SHEETS The State of California or its officers or agents shall not be responsible for the accuracy or POST MILES DATE completeness of scanned copies of this plan sheet. GEOTECHNICAL PROFESSIONAL No. Exp. STATE OF CAL I F O R NIA OGS GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF TEST BORINGS SHEET (ENGLISH) (REV. 06-01-09)4A3301 37-0174 50.66 RE GISTE RED P R O F ES S I ONA L ENG I NEER CIVIL S. HUANG A. CHEUNG SCL 101 URS Corporation55 S Market Street SUITE #1500San Jose, CA 95113 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY3331 N FIRST STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95134 04235 03/23/09 M. SELVENDRAN 11-20-09 C 42289 Stephen Huang 03/31/12 Walt LaFranchi 3-22-10 158-20-10 7/13/11 ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE (WIDEN) 9-14-10 7-13-11 7-14-11 Emil A. Vergara Jr. PTC Page 95 of 183 11 2 + 5 0 10 7 + 5 0Elevation, feetPROFILE -1 0 -1 5 -2 0 -2 5 2015 10 -3 0 -3 5 -4 0 11 0 + 0 0 -5 5 -6 0 -6 5 -7 0 -7 5 -8 0 -8 5 -9 0 -9 5 -1 0 0 5 0 -5 -4 5 -5 0 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -1 0 -1 5 -2 0 -2 5 -3 0 -3 5 -4 0 -4 5 -5 0 -5 5 -6 0 -6 5 -7 0 -7 5 -8 0 -8 5 -9 0 -9 5 -100 Elevation, feet Oc c a s s i o n a l c o b b l e s . At 1 4 f t , b e c o m e s g r e e n i s h g r a y ; t r a c e S A N D . At 1 5 f t , b e c o m e s s t i f f . At 2 5 f t , b e c o m e s l o o s e t o m e d i u m d e n s e . At 3 2 f t , w i t h t r a c e G R A V E L . At 5 5 f t , b e c o m e s s t i f f . mo i s t ; f i n e S A N D . At 8 5 f t , b e c o m e s s t i f f . Ha m m e r E f f i c i e n c y R a t i o ( E R i ) = 7 6 . 2 % 03 - 2 3 - 0 9 Te r m i n a t e d a t E l . - 8 8 . 5 ’ 2. 0 2833 2. 0 UC PA UW MM UW UC 2. 0 17 M UW UC 2.0 3235 M UW UC UC PI UW M 2. 0 26 2. 0 22 2. 0 M UW UCUC UW M 2. 0 23 2. 0 23 M UW UC 13 2. 0 M UW PI UC UC UW M UW UC 2. 0 1313 1. 42. 9 pu s h 7 2.0 M UW UC 14 2. 0 M UW UC UW PA M 2. 0 35 5 1.42. 0 22 M UW PA 10 2. 0 M UW UC 2. 9 pu s h 7 2. 0 M UW UC 2. 0 22 4- " EL . 1 3 . 0 ’ ~ 91.5’ Lt Sta ~ 109+32 R- 0 9 - 0 0 4 da r k b r o w n ; m o i s t ; c o a r s e G R A V E L ; F I L L . SA N D Y l e a n C L A Y w i t h G R A V E L ( C L ) ; da r k b r o w n ; m o i s t ; l i t t l e S A N D ; F I L L . Le a n C L A Y w i t h G R A V E L ( C L ) ; SA N D Y l e a n C L A Y w i t h G R A V E L ( C L ) ; me d i u m s t i f f ; d a r k b r o w n ; m o i s t . Fa t C L A Y ( C H ) ; m e d i u m s t i f f ; ve r y d a r k g r e e n i s h g r a y ; m o i s t . We l l - g r a d e d S A N D w i t h S I L T a n d GR A V E L ( S W - S M ) ; m e d i u m de n s e ; g r a y i s h b r o w n ; m o i s t ; me d i u m t o c o a r s e S A N D . Fa t C L A Y w i t h S A N D ( C H ) ; m e d i u m s t i f f ; ol i v e b r o w n m o t t l e d w i t h r e d d i s h b r o w n ; mo i s t ; f i n e S A N D . We l l - g r a d e d S A N D w i t h S I L T ( S W - S M ) ; de n s e ; v e r y d a r k b r o w n ; m o i s t ; fi n e t o m e d i u m S A N D . Le a n C L A Y w i t h S A N D ( C L ) ; st i f f ; l i g h t y e l l o w i s h b r o w n ; m o i s t . Fa t C L A Y ( C H ) ; m e d i u m s t i f f ; gr a y i s h b r o w n ; m o i s t . Le a n C L A Y ( C L ) ; s t i f f ; da r k g r a y i s h b r o w n ; m o i s t ; t r a c e S A N D . Fa t C L A Y ( C H ) ; m e d i u m s t i f f ; da r k g r a y i s h b r o w n ; m o i s t ; t r a c e S A N D Po o r l y g r a d e d S A N D w i t h S I L T ( S P - S M ) ; me d i u m d e n s e ; v e r y d a r k g r a y i s h b r o w n ; mo i s t ; m e d i u m S A N D . Fa t C L A Y w i t h S A N D ( C H ) ; v e r y s t i f f ; da r k g r e e n i s h g r a y ; m o i s t . SA N D Y S I L T Y C L A Y ( C L - M L ) ; s t i f f ; ve r y d a r k g r e e n i s h g r a y ; Fa t C L A Y ( C H ) ; s t i f f ; da r k g r e e n i s h g r a y m o t t l e d wi t h b l u i s h g r a y ; m o i s t ; t r a c e S A N D . At 7 5 f t , s a m e a s a b o v e ex c e p t n o m o t t l e s . . At 8 0 f t , b e c o m e s me d i u m s t i f f . At 8 9 f t , b e c o m e s ve r y d a r k g r a y i s h b r o w n . At 9 5 f t , b e c o m e s v e r y s t i f f ; ve r y d a r k g r a y i s h b r o w n mo t t l e d w i t h b l u i s h g r a y . 8 6 4 Fr i c t i o n R a t i o ( % ) 0 2 10 0 20 0 Ti p B e a r i n g ( t s f ) 30 0 Te r m i n a t e d a t E L . ~ - 8 7 . 0 ’ 03 - 2 3 - 0 9 ~ 7 5 . 2 ’ R t S t a ~ 1 1 0 + 1 9 EL . ~ 1 3 ’ CP T - 0 9 - 0 0 3 M BE N C H M A R K : 1. T h i s L O T B s h e e t w a s p r e p a r e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e c a l t r a n s s o i l a n d R o c k l o g g i n g , C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , a n d P r e s e n t a t i o n M a n u a l ( J u n e 2 0 0 7 ) NO T E : "C " L I N E 2. G r o u n d w a t e r d e p t h w a s n o t m e a s u r e d ; d r y t o 9 f e e t b e f o r e s w i t c h i n g a u g e r t o r o t a r y w a s h m e t h o d . 3. D e s i g n g r o u n d w a t e r l e v e l a t E l e v . 4 f t . B. M E l e v . : 7 . 5 4 1 U S S u r v e y F e e t No r t h i n g : 1 9 8 5 6 3 6 . 5 4 2 Ea s t i n g : 6 0 9 4 1 5 3 . 3 5 2 Ve r t i c a l D a t u m : N A V D 8 8 Ho r i z o n t a l D a t u m : C C S 8 3 / Z o n e 3 Ma g n a i l & S h i n e r - N o r t h b o u n d s h o u l d e r o f U S 1 0 1 ap p r o x i m a t e l y 0 . 5 m i l e s o u t h e a s t f r o m E m b a c a r d o R o a d o v e r c r o s s i n g HOR. 1"=50’ VER. 1"=5’ 14 LOG OF TEST BORINGS 4 OF 5 04 CU EA BRIDGE NO. EARLIER REVISION DATESDISREGARD PRINTS BEARING SHEET OF US E R N A M E = > s1 1 7 0 DA T E P L O T T E D = > 14 - J U TI M E P L O T T E D = > 10 : 0 2 REVISION DATES POST MILES FOR REDUCED PLANS 0 1 2 3 ORIGINAL SCALE IN INCHES FILE =>37-0174- PROJECT ENGINEER PREPARED FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAWN BY CHECKED BY SIGN OFF DATE DESIGN OVERSIGHT FIELD INVESTIGATION BY: DATE: DIST COUNTY ROUTE SHEET TOTAL PLANS APPROVAL DATE NoTOTAL PROJECT SHEETS The State of California or its officers or agents shall not be responsible for the accuracy or POST MILES DATE completeness of scanned copies of this plan sheet. GEOTECHNICAL PROFESSIONAL No. Exp. STATE OF CAL I F O R NIA OGS GEOTECHNICAL LOG OF TEST BORINGS SHEET (ENGLISH) (REV. 06-01-09)4A3301 37-0174 50.66 RE GISTE RED P R O F ES S I ONA L ENG I NEER CIVIL S. HUANG A. CHEUNG SCL 101 URS Corporation55 S Market Street SUITE #1500San Jose, CA 95113 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY3331 N FIRST STREETSAN JOSE, CA 95134 04235 03/23/09 M. SELVENDRAN 11-20-09 C 42289 Stephen Huang Walt LaFranchi 3-22-10 03/31/12 158-20-10 7/13/11 48.7/52.0 ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE (WIDEN) 9-14-10 7-13-11 7-14-11 Emil A. Vergara Jr. PTC Page 96 of 183 ClibPDF - www.fastio.com PTC Page 97 of 183 ATTACHMENT C – SAMPLE AGREEMENT CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this day of , , (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and , a , located at ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall PTC Page 98 of 183 not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Dollars ($ ). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Dollars ($ ). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C- 1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. PTC Page 99 of 183 SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign as the to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and as the project to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work PTC Page 100 of 183 on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City’s project manager is , Department, Division, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: . The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. PTC Page 101 of 183 SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in PTC Page 102 of 183 full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such PTC Page 103 of 183 materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure PTC Page 104 of 183 documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. PTC Page 105 of 183 SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. WdWĂŐĞϭϬϲŽĨϭϴϯ This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.10 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney CONSULTANT By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ PTC Page 107 of 183 PLS-CADD Drawing -2+ 5 0 0+ 0 0 2+ 5 0 5+ 0 0 7+ 5 0 10+ 0 0 12+ 5 0 15+ 0 0 17+ 5 0 20+ 0 0 22+ 5 0 25+ 0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 P I 0 ° 0 0'00 " P I - 0 ° 00' 3 0 " P I 0 ° 4 7'5 4 " P I 0 ° 0 0'0 0 " PPPPPPP 1 b h - d e.0 0 0 sta = 0 + 0 1 . 1 6 ht= 8 4 . 0 2 e l e = 7 . 0 4 TW R 2 1 / 1 3 0 2 a h . 0 0 0 sta = 8 + 6 1 . 4 6 ht= 1 1 3 . 9 2 e l e = 8 . 8 8 TW R 2 1 / 1 2 9 3 a h . 0 0 0 sta = 1 6 + 9 1 . 6 9 ht= 7 9 . 6 2 e l e = 6 . 3 0 TW R 2 1 / 1 2 8 4 b h - d e . 0 0 0 sta = 2 5 + 2 2 . 5 5 ht= 8 7 . 4 2 e l e = 5 . 9 2 TW R 2 0 / 1 2 7 D E 74.60 64.60 54.60 104.00104.0094.0094.00 84.0084.00 69.71 78.00 59.71 68.00 49.71 58.00 860.29 830.23 830.86 55 5 55 10 10 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 555555 10 10 10 10 10 10 101010 10 10 10 10 10 10 TWR 21/128 TWR 21/129 TWR 21/130 POLE POLE POLE POLE TWR TWR 55 5 55 10 10 5 55 55 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 555555 10 10 10 10 10 10 10101010 10 10 10 10 10 ELWELL COURT Set Nail 300 PP P PPP P P1 2 3 4 PI 0+00.00 0°00'0 0" P I 8 + 6 5.6 9 -0° 0 0 ' 3 0 " PI 16+91.69 0°47'54" PI 25+27.61 0°00'00" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10FOL D FOL D FOL D E E FOLD A B C D D SHEETS REV1REV DATE DESCRIPTION JOB NO SUPVDSG/DWN APVD DATE APVD APVD SUPV CHKD DWN DSG REVISION 1 SHEET NO SUPSD BY SUPSDS DWG LIST BILL OF MATL MICROFILM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10FO L D FO L D FO L D 1 0F 1 FOLD C SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING CHKD 1 COOLING LANDING_MODEL3/6/2014Page 1/1 SAG AND ROW STUDY FOR PALO ALTO ROAD PROJECT PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY U S 101 COOLEY LANDING-LOS ALTOS 60 KV NOT OFFICIAL DRAWING 3-6-2014 MIN GRND CLEARANCE LINE= 28` 115kV, Tension 2375 (lbs) at 60 (deg F) Initial, Displayed HOT185°F, (Vert Cl) Creep 1798 (lbs) Vert. Scale Horiz. Scale 40.0 ft. 100.0 ft. North Wd0SWĂŐĞSSϭϬϴSŽĨSϭϴϯ 5 5 5 55 10 10 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 1 0 10 10 1010 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 TWR 21/128 TWR 21/129 TWR 21/130 POLE POLE POLE POLE TWR TWR 5 5 5 55 10 10 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 1 0 10 10 101010 10 10 10 10 10 10 ELWELL COURT Map LegendTREEELECTROLIERELECTRIC BOXEXISTING POLEGUY ANCHORELECTRIC VAULT ELECTROLIER POLETEL BOX TEL VAULT WATER VALVEGAS VALVEFIRE HYDRANTSEWER DRAINSEWER CLEANOUTSTROM DRAINVAULTCABLE TV VAULTGAS LINE MARKERFENCE CORNER FACE OF CURBFENCE AS NOTED Set Nail 300 1 2 3 MAXIMUM CONDUCTOR BLOW OUT@60°F, 8# WIND, FINAL. X Y Z Pacific Gas & Electric, Project: "cooling landing_model.pfl" PLS-CADD Version 12.50, 4:24:22 PM Thursday, March 06, 2014 Line Title: 'g' WdU0WĂŐĞ00ϭϬϵ0ŽĨ0ϭϴϯ HIGHWAY 101 DESIGN COMPETITION PROPOSALS COMMENTS MATRIX PROS CONS PROS CONS PROS CONS 1 Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) Excellent division of pedestrians and cyclists; addressed all questions posed in the competition; Arc on west side gives nice symmetry; and colors were environmentally friendly Need large staging area and closing of the freeway & frontage roads; refelctive disks coud be distracting to motorists; and need additional structure modeling for Caltrans approval process Imaginative design No clear separate path between pedestrians and bikes; maintenance issues for bridge and path; bird safety concerns; need specialty contractor to build the bridge; need extensive Caltrans evaluation & testing Good separation between pedestrians & bikes; thoughtful approach to bird safety, plantings and environment; may be easier to get approval from Caltrans than other submissions. Lighting may be distracting to freeway drivers;plaza has hardscape which may not be best environmental solution 2 JURY Signature design; integrated art; separate path for pedestrians and bicyclists On‐site constructability and closing freeway duration Is a concern; costs; possible glare from reflective disks Beautiful design; in‐line with the comuunity values in Palo Alto On‐going maintenance issues; wood structure durability and constructibility concerns Elegant design; environmentally friendly Too subtle; not enough redundant support for bridge structure; structure could look substantially different than presented 3 PUBLIC Graceful; user friendly; opens up on the baylands side; and less construction impacts on Highway 101 Look expensive; Arch is tall; bridge is too wide; bird deterrent disks are not appealing Nice deisgn; Kayak images inspire as a gateway to the Baylands; and thoughful design Looks expensive; maintenance issues; and Sides of bridge obstruct views Simple; elegant; environmentally integrative; and less construction impacts on Highway 101 Just an elevated pathway; not enough structural supports; less visusally developed 4 PABAC Clear separation of paths between cyclists and pedestrians, wood is a "forgiving" material for pedestrians and joggers Path lights may distract motorists,fence between the pedestrians and cyclists should be more defined, may cost more Good turning radiuses for cyclists railings visually distracting and seem too far removed from the fence; Ramp on east side directs users to the north, narrow deck Raised seating to enjoy views; Easy access to S.F. Bay Trail on east side; bird friendly design, turning radiuses for cyclists Delineated path between cyclists and pedestrians and curb is not desirable; cyclists may ride on seating areas 5 ART COMMISSION 6 PTC 7 PRC Moffat & Nichol, SGA, Lutsko, JIRI, & MTC SUBMISSION A SUBMISSION B SUBMISSION C EndreStudio, OLIN, SBP, & BiohabitatsHNTB, 64North, Bionic Landscape, & Ned Kahn ATTACHMENT F ATTACHMENT F HIGHWAY 101 DESIGN COMPETITION PROPOSALS COMMENTS MATRIX PROS CONS PROS CONS PROS CONS 1 Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) Excellent division of pedestrians and cyclists; addressed all questions posed in the competition; Arc on west side gives nice symmetry; and colors were environmentally friendly. Need large staging area and closing of the freeway & frontages roads for at least one day; refelctive disks coud be a hazard to motorists; and need additional structure modeling for Caltrans approval process. Imaginative design No clear separate path between pedestrians and bikes; maintenance issues for bridge and path; bird safety concerns; need specialty contractor to build the bridge; need extensive Caltrans evaluation & testing. Good separation between pedestrians & bikes; thoughtful approach to bird safety, plantings and environment; easier to get approval from Caltrans than other submissions. Lighting may be distracting to freeway drivers; bright light affects nocturnal animals; plaza uses hardscape which is not the best environmental solution. 2 JURY Signature design; integrated art; separate path for pedestrians and bicyclists On site constructability and closing freeway duration Is a concern; costs; glares from reflective disks Beautiful design; in line with the comuunity values in Palo Alto. On going maintenance issues; wood structure durability and constructibility concerns Elegant design; environmental friendly; Too subtle; not enough redundant support for bridge structure; 3 PUBLIC Graceful; user friendly; open up on the baylands side; and less construction impacts on Highway 101. Look expensive; Arch is tall; bridge is too wide; birds deterrent disks are not appealing. Nice deisgn; Kayak images inspire as a gateway to the Baylands; and thoughful design. Looks expensive; maintenance issues; and Sides of bridge obstruct views. Simple; elegant; environmentally integrative; and less construction impacts on Highway 101. Just an elevated pathway; not enough structure supports; less visusally developed. 4 PABAC Well separated paths between bicyclists and pedestrians; Path lights may distract motorists; Birds deterent reflective disks may not work if there is no wind. Good turning radius for bicyclists. Visually distract railings; Ramp on east side is inconveneience. Raised seatings to view Baylands; Easy to exit ontot he Baylands trail on East side; birds friendlier. Not well delineated path between bicyclists and pedestrians; Bicyclists can access seating areas. 5 ART COMMISSION 6 PTC 7 PRC Moffat & Nichol, SGA, Lutsko, JIRI, & MTC SUBMISSION A SUBMISSION B SUBMISSION C EndreStudio, OLIN, SBP, & BiohabitatsHNTB, 64North, Bionic Landscape, & Ned Kahn Wd WĂŐĞ ϭϭϭ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ Page 1 of 6 Report of Technical Advisory Panel Adobe Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Bridge December 15, 2014 Report of Technical Advisory Panel (Panel) to Adobe Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Bridge Competition Jury 12/10/2014 Participating Panel members: Lauren Ledbetter - Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager; Ann Calnan, - VTA Senior Environmental Planner Angel Torres, PE, QSD/Construction Management Firm - review of constructability and cost Fariba Zohoury, P.E., Regional Project Manager, Caltrans Santa Clara County Nick Saleh, P.E. District Division Chief, Division of Project /Program Management – Caltrans Chris Metzger, P.E., Hatch Mott MacDonald consultant Others in attendance: City of Palo Alto staff: Elizabeth Ames, Brad Eggleston Hung Nguyen Margie O'Driscoll, Competition Advisor, AIA California Council Technical Advisory Panel Purpose and Overview The Technical Advisory Panel was convened to evaluate 3 proposals for the Adobe Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Bridge, based on materials submitted by the teams. The panel was asked to specifically consider the following criteria: Potential constructability challenges and opportunities of each design, including environmental impacts of construction Expected costs for design and construction of proposed design Description of materials and maintenance issues (if any) Evaluation of design proposal's plan to resolve design construction challenge of an approach ramp of 5% with design speeds of up to 20 mph (cyclists) on the east approach and 15 mph on the west approach? The commentary is provided as an advisory to the design competition jury meeting on December 17. PTC Page 112 of 183 Page 2 of 6 Report of Technical Advisory Panel Adobe Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Bridge December 15, 2014 Submission C - Moffatt and Nichol, Steven Grover and Associates, Lutsko Associates, JIRI Strasky, Mark Thomas and Co. Design Team Panel comments in general Good separation between pedestrians and bikes. Some panelists thought lighting might be distracting to freeway drivers. Design is a thoughtful approach to bird safety, plantings and the environment, however, the plaza uses hardscape which is not the best environmental solution but is popular. Color scheme was environmentally thoughtful. Having no columns on the east side of the bridge is a beneficial design for birds and bats. Additional panel comments and questions by category Constructability Design approvals by Caltrans would be easier relative to the other submissions. Steel construction helps to minimize staging. If steel is manufactured offsite, there will be minimal impacts to public (one night to put in-place) and then another day for other the ramps at the frontage roads. This would reduce impacts to traffic, etc. Not having a berm or other soil structure will eliminate the risk of settlement in the Baylands and is a cost effective, constructible design. Cost estimate Cost estimate may be low due to foundation depth required for this bridge type. Temporary central support falsework for the bridge during construction didn't seem to be included in construction estimate. Steel design minimizes staging time, but may need a much larger staging area than described. All steel structures require additional design review by Caltrans. Construction costs are usually higher per square foot especially with long spans resulting in high loads on columns. A temporary support in the center of the freeway will need more work and associated costs with closing the freeway and restriping. Also, staging for temporary construction impacts will have costs. This fairly generic square foot costs ($350 and $500 per square foot is probably not sufficient. Bay mud will require more costly foundations than normal. The cost may be on the low end but is likely the closest of all submission to the $8 million construction budget The cost may be reasonable given the PTC Page 113 of 183 Page 3 of 6 Report of Technical Advisory Panel Adobe Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Bridge December 15, 2014 recent Mary Avenue Bridge’s steel construction making it quick to assemble which saved money. Environmental The low profile design for birds and bats is helpful along with the color integration with the natural environment. The bird friendly fencing with mesh and railing works, so birds can’t fly into or perch on it. Native plantings with sycamores, zone appropriate plantings, and no columns in the Baylands and is acceptable for this sensitive area. The plaza’s hardscape on the east side eliminates the potential for habitat restoration. Concerns were expressed about nocturnal animals and the bright lights. Also there is a concern about changing lighting when cyclists and pedestrians move along the pathway. The non-glare low profile lighting is acceptable. Panel Questions Is the west side railing open to the creek? If yes, this might be a safety hazard. Separate cyclist and pedestrian use is helpful to avoid conflicts and is part of the perception of safety. Is the delineation for cyclists and pedestrians a pavement stripe or is it an elevation change like a raised curb and sidewalk for pedestrians? What geotechnical information was available to the design teams? A preliminary foundation report was available indicating columns would be at least 120 feet deep. How much space will these structures require during the construction staging? Submission B - Endrestudio, OLIN, SBP and Biohabitats Design Team Panel comments in general A separation between cyclists and pedestrians was unclear; panel thought it was important to have a clear separation for safety reasons. The bridge siding and timber covered decking with epoxy materials, the panel had concerns about, especially in terms of maintenance. The "flaring out" of the sides could be a design challenge. This bridge would require a very large staging area during construction.. The materials and building system would require specialty contractors which are likely to increase construction costs. Concern about the bird safety of this design, one panelist thought birds might be encouraged to nest in sides PTC Page 114 of 183 Page 4 of 6 Report of Technical Advisory Panel Adobe Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Bridge December 15, 2014 Possible high light emissions will not be advantageous to wildlife. Panel was unclear as to whether the team answered the design question about design at 20 mph and a 5 percent ramp slope; concern was raised about bridge width. The panel estimated this to be 10-14 feet wide and considered that this is too narrow for safe use by pedestrians and cyclists. Panel concluded that design and materials would require strenuous evaluation and testing by Caltrans. Additional panel comments and questions by category Constructability Constructability is a concern as to how to place bridge’s structural members that require a large construction staging area. The challenge is to have enough room to put wood members together. It’s not clear how they plan to do the lighting. Epoxy sand surface materials might be good in inclement weather. Railings may not be ADA compliant. Bridge deck width is too narrow and needs to be above 10 feet. A minimum of 14 to 16 feet should be adequate for separation of cyclist and pedestrian activity. Caltrans may allow this type of structure; however, the quality of material and design needs testing and evaluation. This is a very challenging design to get approved by Caltrans structural division as it is a steel suspension bridge with wood members. Costs There does not seem to be any contingency. The project would require a specialty contractor and would increase the construction cost. Only a few may bid this project and this increases the cost because fewer contractors can bid. The lifecycle costs to replace materials could be very expensive. Environmental The nooks and crannies of the siding may attract and encourage birds to nest on the bridge. Quite a lot of light emission at night is a concern for nocturnal species. A detention basin in Baylands could create habitat; however it could be maintenance problem when it fills in with sediment. Planting a riparian forest is helpful for many species. Panel Questions Have they built a structure with these materials before and how did maintenance work? There seems to be an issue of the angle of siding in relation to the location of the handrail. Is the siding too far out from the rail? How will safety be addressed between the fence and railing? PTC Page 115 of 183 Page 5 of 6 Report of Technical Advisory Panel Adobe Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Bridge December 15, 2014 What is lifecycle of cedar and other materials? Submission A -HNTB Engineering, 64North, Bionic Landscape Architecture, Ned Kahn Design Team Panel comments in general Excellent division between bikes and pedestrians, bridge is the right width for balance of pedestrian and cyclist traffic Arc on west side gives nice symmetry Concern that art piece could be a reflection hazard for motorists but thought it was an excellent solution for bird safety Boardwalk could include space for interpretive signage which panel though was positive Questions were raised about how staging for the assembly of this bridge work. Bridge design would require very large adjacent staging site and closure of the freeway for at least a day for installation. The design is efficient but will require extensive modeling (which will add to costs) Mixed opinions on lighting- some though it was "cool" others thought it was distracting to motorists Colors were environmentally friendly There appears to be no contingency in the budget nor is the cost of foundations identified for this bridge. This bridge may be expensive to construct and the steel structure will require extra review by Caltrans. This bridge will require a large staging area for construction and will require closure of the freeway and the frontage roads for at least one day. The design optimizes the separation and width needed for cyclists and pedestrians more so than the other submissions. Also, this proposal clearly addressed all the questions posed in the competition. Additional panel comments and questions by category Constructability It is doubtful that constructing this would be one night. Closing the freeway and frontage roads on both sides at a time would be difficult. The structure is so large that it would be difficult to stage and assemble on site. The wood deck treatment seems unusual for this type of structure. PTC Page 116 of 183 Page 6 of 6 Report of Technical Advisory Panel Adobe Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Bridge December 15, 2014 Cost This is an efficient structure and requires a structural model for a cable-stay bridge. This adds considerable cost to the design assuming the bridge is approximately 95 feet high by scale. The same issues are with submission A in that there are only a few columns with foundations. Spanning the freeway in bay mud requires deeper foundations. There is no cost for construction staging and work to remove the freeway’s concrete median to move the structure in-place. Environmental The design is bird friendly with disks. Adding salt marsh habitat would be desired rather than providing a freshwater retention area. Lighting is fine along with the colors and sinuous context. The boardwalk with interpretive signage might require mitigation and increase costs. Supports in Baylands area are acceptable and much less than what is being analyzed now. Panel Questions What happens when sun reflects into drivers’ eyes when they see the reflective disks? How will this bridge height be situated so close to the high-voltage power lines? How much space will these structures require during the construction staging? To construct this, how would you shut down the whole highway? How will safety be addressed between the fence and the railing? PTC Page 117 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 1 =============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26============= Wednesday, December 17, 2014, Special Meeting 4:00 PM, Council Chambers Call to Order Roll Call: Chair Randy Popp absent, Vice Chair Robert Gooyer; Board Members Alexander Lew, Kyu Kim, Catherine Ballantyne Jury: Chair Judith Wasserman; Jurors Steve Burrows, Cathy Deino Blake, Susan Chin, Sam Lubell Staff: Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works; Elizabeth Ames, Senior Project Manager; Russ Reich, Senior Planner; Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate III Oral Communications: Chair Wasserman: Because this is a public meeting of the City of Palo Alto, I have to say that members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; 3 minutes per speaker. We reserve the right to limit oral communications to 15 minutes. Is there anybody here who wants to speak to an item besides the bike bridge? Oh, good. Anybody who wants to speak later in the public comment period for the bike bridge, please fill out a card and get them to Elizabeth, so we know how many speakers there are and we can call you in turn. There are cards in the back and there are cards on the table, and everywhere. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions: The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Wasserman: Are there any agenda changes or deletions? No. Thank you. Minutes Approval: Chair Wasserman: We do not have any minutes, because this is not that kind of meeting. PTC Page 118 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 2 Public Hearing Items: 1. Consideration of Bridge Design Entries for the Highway 101 Bike and Pedestrian Bridge. Chair Wasserman: Margie, would you please tell the world how this went? Brad Eggleston: If I could jump in for a moment first. I'm Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works. I'd like to wish everybody a good afternoon and welcome the competition jury, the members of the Architectural Review Board, our design teams in the competition and all the communities who are here in attendance today. I wanted to say we're very excited to reach this stage in a process that we are expecting is going to result in an innovative and engaging new bicycle-pedestrian bridge across Highway 101. This project really began back in 2010 with a feasibility study the City did that identified the Adobe Creek area as being the best location for a new bridge to replace the current undercrossing we have, which is closed for about half of every year because of wet weather. The project then became a top priority in the City's 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Since that time, we've been working on conceptual bridge alignments and environmental assessment, working with Alta Planning and Design. In the past year, thanks to a great suggestion from our City Council and in particular from Council Member Karen Holman, who I think is in attendance with us here this evening, we've been working on this process with the American Institute of Architects California Council to get this design competition underway. In addition to that, we are very fortunate to have received $8 million in grant funding for this project which with the City's commitment of $2 million to the project gives us our $10 million budget. The bridge designs we'll be learning about this evening are pursuing four guiding design principles that we spent a lot of time working with the City's boards and commissions to develop and that were ultimately adopted by the City Council for the competition. Those are innovation, versatility, interconnectedness, and conservation. Following the process today, which Margie's going to speak to you some more about, we'll be sharing the recommendations that come from the jury with our City boards and commissions in January and then with the City Council in February. Our goal is to award a design contract to complete the design and construction documents that are needed for the bridge so that we'll be able to begin construction in early 2017. With that, we have a lot to do so I'll turn it over to Margie to talk about our process this evening. Margie O'Driscoll: I'm from the City of San Francisco which really likes process. I think that was a really wonderful thing for me to come here and work with the people in Palo Alto. We started this process of thinking about a competition as how best to engage the public in the work going forward and their ideas. There has been, as Brad and Elizabeth Ames who's been managing this project as well and Hung Nguyen as well, an awful lot of public dialog that has gone into the creation of the ideas behind this bridge. What was very intriguing to me when I first began talking with them about a competition 2 years ago was this idea of actually marrying art and engineering and architecture. There had always been from the very beginning of my conversations with the City of Palo Alto a passion for both design excellence as well as PTC Page 119 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 3 structural excellence which is really quite remarkable and really exciting. We began this process with the City of Palo Alto by drafting a design brief that was distributed to about 50 engineering and architecture firms who had all completed a bridge within the last 10 years. That was the minimum threshold from the City. From that outreach to 50 firms, we had 20 firms respond with their qualifications. From that group of 20, we convened the jury about a month ago, maybe 5 weeks ago. The jury members are sitting among the ARB members. The jury members can be identified by the white placards; the ARB members have the beautiful embossed ones. The jury met and had a long afternoon, a long day, of whittling down a list to three finalists. What was interesting to me is the firms who submitted were internationally acclaimed. All of the firms chosen by the jury, and this was blind jurying, all had a very strong local messaging and content in their presentations. The process today is that you're going to hear the three design teams present their ideas for the bridge. Then you as sitting members of the ARB and the jury will have about a 20-minute period in which to ask questions. Then we'll go to the next presentation and then they'll have 20 minutes to present, then 20 minutes for Q&A, then we'll take public comment following that. The important thing to consider throughout this process is that the ARB's role is advisory in nature. The final decision will be a vote by the jury. The jury is being asked to rank the final submissions in rank order for the City Council. That's how they will be presented to the City Council along with the commentary that you make today. I just want to also, because we had a couple of people come in late, remind you that this is being televised, so you have a wider audience than those sitting here. We really look forward to working with you and having questions. I think you're going to see three amazingly different and exciting proposals going forward. Chair Wasserman: I would like to point out that for anybody who has looked at the website, at the videos and stuff on the website, the presentations will be in reverse order. We will see Submittal C first and Submittal A last. Just for those like me who are easily confused. Let's get going. This is the design team of Moffatt and Nichol, Steven Grover and Associates, Lutsko Associates, Jiri Strasky, Mark Thomas and Company. Are you going to do a can-can or something? MOFFATT AND NICHOL, STEVEN GROVER AND ASSOCIATES, LUTSKO ASSOCIATES, JIRI STRASKY, MARK THOMAS AND COMPANY Gary Antonucci: I have a scintillating presentation all ready to go for you. Chair Wasserman: Go for it. Mr. Antonucci: All right. Good afternoon, members of the jury. My name's Gary Antonucci with Moffatt Nichol. I have the privilege of being the project manager for this very outstanding team that we've assembled. My role is two-fold: orchestrate the efforts of the very talented lead individuals that I have and also take on the responsibility to deliver this project for you. That's something that I've spent 35 years in the industry doing, delivering infrastructure projects. Just a couple of points about our team. We're very much a local team, all located PTC Page 120 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 4 here in the Bay area. As a result, we have intimate knowledge of this particular environment. More importantly, we've got an established record of delivery of projects locally with Caltrans and other agencies that will be involved in the ultimate approval of this project. The other point is that the core of our team is working together right now on two other high-profile bridge projects, pedestrian bridges, right here in the Bay area. I'll introduce some of our key team members. Steven Grover has a very prime role as our lead designer. Steven is unique in that he's both a registered engineer and registered architect. He's also a member of the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Lead bridge engineer will be Tony Sanchez with Moffatt Nichol. Most of Tony's work has been on Caltrans facilities, but he also has a very strong background in design of signature bridges. Laura Jerrard with Lutsko Associates will be our landscape architect lead. She's got a lot of public project experience including experience right here in the City of Palo Alto. A couple of other team members, Jiri Strasky will be our technical adviser. Jiri's internationally recognized for signature bridge design, particularly pedestrian bridges. He brings really an international influence to our team. Mike Fisher with Mark Thomas is here with us as well. He's our Caltrans expert. He's going to make sure that we follow the process and deliver our project through the Caltrans approval mechanism. We've got some really great ideas to share with you. I'm going to turn it over to Steven to start doing that. Steven Grover: Hi, everybody. Thank you for your time today. Kudos, by the way, on the competition format. You really made us work. You really made us engage our creativity and our expertise. You made us stretch, and we appreciate that. We enjoyed it. I'd like to talk to you about the project in three different ways today: the functional role that it plays in Palo Alto or that it will play in Palo Alto; the character that the project should have; and then how do you actually realize something like this. The functional roles that we see for this project are first, primarily, fundamentally making the connections between places. Secondly, creating places and, finally, inviting and inspiring people. Connecting is about creating a travel conduit with excellent safety characteristics. It's not just about connecting the, as you see here, the urban to the natural. It's also about creating pathways that have, as I said, excellent safety characteristics, highly transparent materials, mode delineation so people feel comfortable, people feel safe with a ratio of 10:1 of different speeds that can occur on these facilities; large radius curves, we have 90-foot radii on our curves; appropriate lighting that lights the traveled way but doesn't create glare. When there's a connection made, there's also mixing that occurs, there's an intermingling that happens. The vocabulary of one place, in this case the Baylands, is carried into another environment, in this case the urban environment. This sharing of a design vocabulary is an aspect of the project that we consider extremely important. We think it's especially important because the flowing forms, the colors, the plants and the vast horizontality of the Baylands is so rich a vocabulary, but has been relatively untapped in terms of bringing it into the urban context. Symbolically there's also resonance with other things that are happening at this site. There's a confluence of creeks, and there's a mixing zone, an ecotone, between the riparian and the marshland habitats. We've tried to take these colors and these forms and use them to inspire our design and make our design evocative of the context. You can see we've tried to carry the native plants that we're using on PTC Page 121 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 5 the Baylands side into the urban plaza side; the same trees, the same plants. We're trying to use colors, flowing forms. We're also taking local plants and using them as inspiration for an art element that's integrated into the paving. We've tried to take some other ideas, like these Bayland colors and, as you can see on the left in the pedestrian portion, we've started to play with the idea of how could you work with concrete colors working from the colors of the context. Another very important functional role that this project will play in the City of Palo Alto, aside from creating connections, is creating places. We think that a successful bicycle and pedestrian project must create places, as you can see I've circled here in red, places to learn about the context, places to stop and pause, places to watch people, places to view the Baylands from, places where both bicycles and pedestrians can pause easily, pull off the pathway; places to watch birds. Hopefully we've really done our homework and designed this structure so that there are no perching spots for raptors and other predatory birds, so that they can get the endangered mice below. Similarly, watching birds not colliding with a high-profile or a structure with hard-to-see fence elements or cables. We've worked very hard to take seriously this idea of a bird friendly design. One of the places that we've tried to create is the east touch-down plaza. Rather than just having the pathway from the bridge intersect with the Bay trail here, we think it's important, yes, that bicyclists could pass through quickly but that there is a place, a mixing zone, at the base, at the touch-down, where people can stop if they want to. If they want to look at the Baylands, if they want to pause there, if they want to meet their friend, get a drink of water, what have you. Finally, an important function of this project, as I said before, is to invite and to inspire. We need to encourage people to walk and bike as well as experience and celebrate the Baylands. What character fundamentally should a design have, yet also remain respectful and appropriate for this context? To think about this, I thought back to my days living in Palo Alto, attending Stanford, having a design/build business here, and then working on other bicycle and pedestrian projects in the City. To me, the character of Palo Alto, it's places, it's community, it's climate, the adjectives that come to mind for me are multidimensional, warm, refined, smart, respectful, beautiful. More, if you will, like a cello with warm tone and rich overtones, rather than like a trumpet that calls attention to itself in a brash way. In keeping with these fundamentally, we tried to work with a very low profile form that would be appropriate to this context, yet subtle, beautiful, innovative, and interesting. Something that would say Palo Alto. One of the things that inspired me as I was thinking about how to create a structure that would float very, very lightly over the Baylands. This system that Strasky, our collaborator, uses, what he does is he puts a cable and a railing element on the bridge. By having a curved bridge and pulling on that cable, you're actually able to take out the torsional forces on the bridge. The cable acts in concert with the arch. In our case, the idea is to use the cable in the same way to take out torsional forces, but to have it work with a girder. On the side spans, we have these beautiful, curving, floating forms that are assisted by the cable. The aha moment for me was that we could take this single tension element that takes the torsion out of the side spans and use it also on the main span to create a suspension structure. What you have is a very simple, elegant, and completely unprecedented structural solution. Yet, every aspect of it is proven, tested, we know how to build it. We understand that you don't just want great design ideas. You also want to realize this project. As we worked through the design process, we thought very hard about how to PTC Page 122 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 6 make this really, really realizable. It needs to be economical. It needs to be buildable. It needs to be approvable. It needs to be maintainable. It needs to be durable. Yes, it should be innovative. We think it can be very innovative without creating a lot of risk. I'd like to turn this over to Tony now to say a few more words about how we can actually realize this project. Chair Wasserman: Tony, you have 8 minutes. Tony Sanchez: Thank you, Steven. I'm the bridge structural engineer here, and I want to talk about how the structure works. As Steven said, our bridge is unique and innovative, but it's also practical and very easy to build. We're using conventional materials. We're using steel beams, concrete deck, and our suspension cable is actually prestressing strand inside of a steel pipe. All the local contractors that build standard bridges know how to work with these materials. We're able to clear span the freeway, no support in the median of the freeway. The girder can carry its own weight. That's really the beauty of our system, the girder can carry its self-weight. We don't need any false work over the freeway. We don't need any false work over the habitat. We add the cable at the end to provide the stiffness we need and to give us the strength that we need to carry the pedestrian live loads. We've analyzed this. We have a structural model. Structurally the system is very simple and elegant. We've checked stresses; stresses are all within allowed limits. We've also checked the flexion and vibrations. This is very important for a pedestrian structure. A light pedestrian structure, you need to verify that you're not going to have vibration issues. We've done this. Vibrations are all within desirable limits. This will show you how the structure works. It's a girder and a suspension cable system working together. The cable relieves some of the load from the girder. You can see here in the top right, this shows you the stresses in the girder before we tension the cable. In the lower left, you can see how the stresses are greatly reduced once we tension the cable. The cable is really helping us create this thin structure, span the 210 feet over the freeway. It's very easy to build this structure. This is how we would build it. We shop fabricate segments offsite just big enough that we can fit them on a truck. Then we put them on a truck, deliver them to the site. We set up a staging area onsite where we would field weld those sections together. Once we have large enough sections, then we would erect those on our substructure. Once the girder is in-placed, we would place our deck maybe using concrete over the freeway. Lastly we stress the cable and then the structure is complete. An important part of this process is that we can get the bridge approved by Caltrans. This is something our team is experts at. Mark Thomas, Moffatt and Nichol, this is what we do. We're a California- based firm, and we build structures dealing with Caltrans. We're crossing Caltrans' right-of- way; we need to process it through Caltrans. The bridge will go through headquarters in Sacramento. We'll be following all the Caltrans codes and all the appropriate Caltrans manuals. I'd like to turn it over to Laura now. Chair Wasserman: You've got 4 minutes. Laura Jerrard: Thank you. My name is Laura Jerrard. I'm with Lutsko Associates landscape. We're a firm that's been based in San Francisco for 30 years. We have an extensive PTC Page 123 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 7 background in native plants and in environmental horticulture. Our specialty is a practice that is focused on illustrating the natural environment with succinct and contemporary landscape designs. The site for this bridge is an extraordinary place right now. It's this vortex where all of these systems come together. Right now the man-made systems, the freeway and the concrete channel for Adobe Creek, really dominate the landscape design. The opportunity that this overcrossing provides is really going to allow us to bring back the presence of the landscape and to bring back and emphasize the presence of water, this connecting element that ties urban Palo Alto out to the Bay. We propose to sculpt the landforms on the site, carving out spaces on the creek side of the bridge where we can pull the riparian landscape into the site, and carving out spaces on the Baylands side where we can recreate or pull the salt marsh into the site. This sculpting of the topography will also allow us to create higher spaces around the pedestrian gathering space so we can create a continuum of native plantings, that not only demonstrate the ecotone in succession but also will provide for pedestrian spaces and landscape transition over time with sea level rise. Bands of plantings will flow down the spaces, taking the stylized forms of the bridge and the creek running through the urban spaces and gradually transitioning to a more natural patterning that's based on the salt marsh and the form of the creek. The plant pallet, we'll use native species that would historically have been present, creating a low-maintenance, low-water-use, visually appropriate and seasonal landscape. The architectural forms and plants that we establish on the east side of the freeway will be brought over to the west side. I think, given our timeframe, I'm going to scroll quickly through some of the plants that we propose. Some grass species for the higher elevations, flowering sages stepping down the hillside. In the lower elevations a combination of Carex, a plant that can tolerate water conditions, and a native sunflower that flowers when the Carex is dormant. Plants for habitat and that take inundation, and the salt marsh plants. With that I'm going to turn things over to Steven. Thank you very much. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Mr. Grover: Just to conclude, I just want to say ... Chair Wasserman: You've got 30 seconds. Mr. Grover: ... we would really like to do this project for you. We think we've developed an exceptional design solution that meets all your goals and criteria. Safe, comfortable, innovative and context appropriate. We think it could be a Silicon Valley landmark. Thank you very, very much. Chair Wasserman: Thank you and thank you for staying on time. You are within nine seconds of perfection. I'm going to start this with Susan, and I'm going to go back and forth. We have 20 minutes for questions and answers which is not really enough, because there are nine of us up here. If everybody could be as brief as possible, that would be very good. Susan, can you start questions and comments for this team? PTC Page 124 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 8 Susan Chin: Sure. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Ms. Chin: You talked about having a light structure. Your system of steel and concrete, they are standard elements or are you developing a new system? Have you used this before? You've talked about the cable and prestressed. I was just a little concerned about the large girder that you had. I think it was your proposal that had the large girder supporting it. I have to say I really did like your proposal. I just had that question. Mr. Grover: You're asking if the system is well understood, is it easily constructible? Ms. Chin: Yes. Mr. Grover: The synthesis of the different structural components is innovative, but each aspect of it is relying on very standard construction techniques and detailing. The construction method, as Tony described, would be very typical for a steel structure, where you just weld it together onsite and lift it into place with minimal traffic disruption. As far as the lightness of the structure, it's hard to get something lighter physically in terms of mass than a steel structure. Visibly, because we're using the cable, one side of the structure on the curved spans is actually completely open. There's no girder on that side. It's only over the main span where you have this out-of-phase interplay. On one side you always have a low, and the other side you have rising to about this level. It's a comfortable pedestrian, human-scale level. Ms. Chin: I guess I was misunderstanding from the section that was in your board. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Let's try to do one question per person, because other people may have your questions. Sam, you have questions or comments? Sam Lubell: I enjoyed the presentation. One question. It's probably something I'm going to have for all these projects, which is the issue of bridging the freeway with that many lanes of traffic and pollution and noise. I'm just wondering if there are any strategies for minimizing those effects, noise effects, pollution effects, anything along those lines. Mr. Grover: Do you mean during construction? Mr. Lubell: No, when the bridge is complete, for users of the bridge. Mr. Grover: Pollution coming from the freeway? Mr. Lubell: Yeah. Mostly sound pollution, and it may be something that's impossible. I'm just curious if that's something that's been considered. PTC Page 125 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 9 Mr. Grover: Yes. Laura, you may recall. When we were thinking about, in particular the east touch-down area, we thought a lot about how, in fact I think in our video we showed the noise contours. We were thinking about how the noise level drops as you get further from the freeway and at what point we're getting to levels where people are going to be comfortable sitting there and contemplating the landscape. We also tried to sculpt the forms in a way that will give some shelter, some direct shelter from the noise in certain areas. Of course the girder itself, if you're up on the lookout, something this high, if you're sitting on the bench on the other side, you're going to get some sheltering effect from that. Yes, we did think about noise. As far as air pollution ... Mr. Lubell: Yeah, I didn't think that would be possible. Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Alex. Alexander Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I am very sympathetic to the low profile nature of the design. When I'm out in the Baylands, most of the time I want to see the Baylands and I'm really not looking for a monumental structure. My main question for you is the structure. I think you mentioned that the underside would not be clad. I don't think I saw any images. If I'm from 101, what do I see? Is it just the exposed steel as on some other overcrossings? Mr. Sanchez: Let's see if we can get a good picture of this. I'm just going to flip through the slides. Bear with me. This gives you an idea of what it looks like. This also addresses the first question about the lightness. On this curved ramp, it's incredible how light this structure is in appearance. It almost looks like it's floating in air. You could barely see the supports. That's because we have the girder that's doing all the work only on the inside of the curve. The outside of the curve comes to almost a point. In terms of the underside, that could either be a flat surface like it's shown here or you could actually leave the floor beams exposed and you would see exactly how the framing works. From the freeway perspective, that would be slightly different. Let me see if I can find a good shot of that. This gives you an idea of what it would like from the freeway. It has an undulating beam. The beam on the south side is highest at the supports where the cables also rise high and very thin at the mid-span. On the opposite side, it's the reverse so we have a larger beam there. From the perspective of the user, it's very nice. There's always one side that's very open, where the girder would come up. The girder never comes up more than about 2 feet from the desk. There's never a tunnel effect. It's always a nice, open effect on the deck. It also gives a very interesting effect with the curves. You've got two curves that are out of phase similar to the natural, organic curves of the landform. That was Steven's inspiration for this. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Mr. Lew: Thank you. PTC Page 126 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Wasserman: Steven. Steve Burrows: First of all, I envy all the teams and the opportunity you've got to do something creative here. I really admire the solution you've come up with. I'm going to ask you a lot of questions in a really short space of time, so you might need a pen. I'm sort of interested in a few things. I can see echoes of Millennium Bridge in London. I can see echoes of High Line in this design. I really like the structural solution. I don't really like the fences that separate the deck from the freeway. A few technical questions, because we care a lot about maintenance and how things are done. Those low, shallow cables need to be anchored. Where are they anchored? How are you going to do that especially in the nature reserve area? That's one question. Secondly, how do you drain it when it's so flat? How is the drainage of the deck dealt with? The Millennium Bridge suffered from a lot of horizontal acceleration. I'm sure you've checked vertical acceleration. Looking at the design, I think I'd be concerned about torsional and horizontal acceleration. Finally, thermal movement without any joints. How do you deal ... Chair Wasserman: Not too many questions at once please. Mr. Burrows: How do you deal with the thermal movement? I'm pretty sure those are very connected. That's a pretty connected set of questions, but I'm sort of interested. Mr. Sanchez: Let me go through that again. Mr. Burrows: Cable anchorage. Mr. Sanchez: Okay, yeah, I got it. Mr. Burrows: Drainage, thermal, and horizontal acceleration. Mr. Sanchez: This is a self-anchored system. In that sense, it's very economical. We don't need to anchor the cable forces into the ground and put in a separate foundation to carry those forces. It's anchored into the deck ... Mr. Burrows: Okay, from the deck. Mr. Sanchez: Anchored in the deck. We've done this before. Jiri Strasky and I worked together on the Harbor Drive Bridge in San Diego, where we had a similar ... Mr. Burrows: And the Bay Bridge, I guess. Mr. Sanchez: The Bay Bridge as well, but the Bay Bridge is different because you needed false work. This is going to be much more economical obviously than the Bay Bridge. That also is a self-anchored system. In terms of the drainage, we can carry all of the water off the PTC Page 127 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 11 bridge. We have enough longitudinal slope to drain the bridge, and then that would go into a biological filtration system off of the bridge. Laura can speak to that more, if you'd like. Horizontal acceleration and torsional. This is stuff we'll evaluate and address when we get into final design. For this preliminary design, we looked at vertical vibrations, but we'll be checking the torsional modes too. We have Jiri Strasky on our team, who is a specialist. He's one of the best pedestrian bridge designers in the world. Of course, we're going to make sure we design a bridge that doesn't have vibrational issues. Thermal, the curves really help us on the thermal. The problem with thermal loading on a long bridge is it bends the columns. The way we address that here is we have thin columns that are flexible and then the curves really help, because on a circular curve it's not bending a column a large distance. We don't see thermal as going to be a difficult issue to design for. Chair Wasserman: Great. Thank you very much. There'll be more chances, I hope. Kyu. Kyu Kim: Thank you for your presentation. I'll keep it short and just ask one question. I'm curious to find out what your take was on the west Bayshore side of the pedestrian bridge. I realize that it's the bridge to the Baylands, but I feel that the connection at west Bayshore is almost equally as important. I noticed that the stair is a separate element from the bridge. Just kind of curious what your thoughts were, why it was designed that way, and so on and so forth. Thank you. Mr. Grover: The stair is envisioned as a, I'm going to try and find an image for you, as an integral, smooth flowing, formal part of the structure. The west plaza, I heartily agree. I think this is one of the most important parts of the project, because it's where the Bayland environment needs to intersperse. We're very interested in working with SCVWD about how little we can break that fencing and how much we can plant that driveway so that we create a landscape buffer on both sides of this plaza and create seating areas in it. Of course you can see here the integral stairs to the structure. Ms. Jerrard: We were trying to express a lot of complicated ideas in a short period of time. One of the very strong connections between Palo Alto and the Baylands is of course Adobe Creek itself. One of the prime components of the landscape design is really expressing Adobe Creek on both sides of the freeway. Taking down some of the eucalyptus, planting native sycamores that are riparian plants, they can get very large, can be very striking, to form a link both to the Baylands and also on the other side, because it's used as a street tree immediately adjacent, the same genus, not the same species, can really begin to use the vegetation to begin to tie these places together. These trees are of a scale that though the freeway dominates, you can't pretend that it isn't a huge barrier, but they're of a scale and they have a dramatic form and color, so they will be perceived on both sides. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Cathy. PTC Page 128 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 12 Cathy Blake: Hi. Again, thank you for your great presentation. We've already asked a lot of questions. I will ask the one question that I'm most concerned about. This is definitely the quiet scheme. This is the kind of low, elegant, minimal intrusion. I'm really worried about the railings. I want to know more about the system that separates the pedestrian from the freeway. I have a feeling those are going to end up being cages. I have a feeling by the time we're done they're going to be taller than a person. Right now they're shown as a lovely little bridge that you cross over a nice creek and they're below shoulder height. I'd like to hear a little bit more about what really is happening and what we might really end up with when it goes through safety and other kinds of concerns. Mr. Grover: You've struck a chord that's very near and dear to my heart, because this is something that I deal with on every bicycle and pedestrian bridge that goes over a freeway. I would invite you to look in particular at our solution for the American Tobacco Trail Bridge in North Carolina. In this project, we used some very innovative techniques, I think, to achieve a 16-foot-long panel to create maximum transparency and visibility. Rather than having your eyes interrupted every 8 feet, we've doubled that span. We tried to select a mesh which is both very transparent yet still able to be seen by the birds. That's a balance we're trying to find. In terms of the sense of openness, I think you will unavoidably on any of these have more of an enclosed feeling as you pass over the freeway. This is an area that we have explored extensively, and I think we have come up with techniques both in terms of warping perspective so that you're not seeing through a very steep angle of the fencing at different locations and also maximizing the clear span between the vertical supports for the fencing. Those are some of the techniques that we bring to play on this. I'm pretty confident that we can make it a nice place to be. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Catherine. Catherine Ballantyne: Three pieces. First, I'm really glad that I'm not a voter in this particular project, because I have a vested interest and I would have to recuse myself. I live right in that neighborhood and I would be one of the primary users of this bridge. I have to say that I love the form. This would be a slam dunk. This is the other reason why it's a good thing I'm not a voting person on this project. A couple of things that I was wanting to mention. I really feel strongly about Cathy's comment about safety. The last thing that I think this community needs is another easy way to commit suicide. We have Caltrain; that's sufficient. We need to make sure that we don't have a repeat of the Woodside Road situation, where the Woodside graduate jumped over onto 280. Nothing's going to fly unless that's slam-dunked. The second thing that I was wondering is, also echoing Lee's comment about the underside of the bridge. Is it unclad steel? It's orange. Are we inspired by the Golden Gate? I'd love to know something about this color that you've chosen. The last thought that I had was—this idea of lightening the bridge, I'm not sure that we need to have seating looking over a marshland. Even when those sycamores are big and gorgeous, I'm not sure if we would want necessarily to go up onto a bridge and sit there and look at the marshland and those industrial buildings in that view perspective. If we had to lighten, I was thinking, unless there's some huge PTC Page 129 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 13 development over there and there's a rush, I'm not sure we need to have such a wide bridge. If the bridge was sufficiently generous, you could have the pedestrians and the cyclists coexist. I don't think you have to dedicate a whole lane to the pedestrians. The thing that struck me though is that you have only stairs heading to the north on the west side. If I'm a jogger and I have a twin jog stroller, I want some way to not have to go all the way around to the south side entrance. Typically this is sometimes with gutters, treated so that I can push up my jog stroller and take the north entrance instead of having to go all the way around to the south. Those are some ideas. You can speak to any one of them. I'm sure that Judith will cut you off if you go too long, since I've already taken ... Chair Wasserman: I'll cut you off. Mr. Grover: First off in terms of the underside of the bridge, we represented it as a surface, frankly because that was easier to model and we had a very short timeframe. We are very interested in exploring an open framing system, but keeping in mind detailing it so that it's not a bird perching spot and not a place for water to accumulate. We want to detail this so it'll last 100 years. The COR-TEN steel that we've selected is a natural weathering steel that never requires any coating system. However, we do know that we need to do due diligence on checking air quality to make sure that it's going to be totally compatible at this place. As far as another ramp on the north side, that's a money thing. I think a rail solution as you suggested is probably the best we can do. Finally in terms of seating, our project manager for the City of Oakland for the bridge that we're designing for the City of Oakland recently told us that when her father was in his last year, he could not go into some places that he wanted to because he didn't have resting spots on some of these bridges that he wanted to go upon, on these pedestrian bridges. She specifically said, for that project, "I've got to have some benches." We took that to heart as well as what was in the guidelines regarding lookouts. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Robert. Robert Gooyer: I'll make this quick. I agree that was my initial main concern. I like the delicate nature of it, but invariably when you get Caltrans involved, they're going to want a cage there pretty much. I like the free-flowing form, but I'd like to see that sort of same approach taken to the barrier that you're going to need. Secondly, just a quick note. The seating that you have there, I have a feeling that is going to be a skateboarder's paradise. That's never going to fly the way it is. Chair Wasserman: Could you address the cage issue please? Mr. Sanchez: Yes, I can speak to the Caltrans cage issue. Like I said, most of the projects I've done have been with Caltrans, so I have a lot of experience building bridges over freeways and trying to get innovative ideas through Caltrans. I'm doing one right now in San Diego that's a bridge for UC San Diego. We have a beautiful railing design, but when we pitched it to Caltrans, they were concerned about suicide prevention. The way we addressed that is we PTC Page 130 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 14 use a 1-inch mesh so it's not climbable. It's very light gauge so you can see through it. Then what we do is we angle it outwards so it's not a confining effect. The fence is actually angled outwards. It gives you the lightness that you want. It eliminates the cage effect, the tunnel effect, but you can't climb it so it addresses the suicide prevention issue. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. I'm going to take a little liberty here since we're over time and ask my one question. What's it like under the approaches? Obviously when you're in the freeway, you're under the bridge. When you're out on those swoops especially on the west side, is there going to be sleeping territory? What is it underneath? Maybe that's a landscape question. Ms. Jerrard: It could be a landscape question, but I think it's also a bridge design question. The bridge is high enough and it's light enough so there are not dark gathering spaces created underneath the bridge. Where it is ramping up, we're supporting it with earth, so there's not a moment where you have this 6-foot gap between the bottom of the bridge and landscape space where there's a gathering spot. The planting will continue through, underneath the bridge in these locations. We're not creating necessarily gathering spaces and pedestrian spaces that will bring people underneath the bridge. It's more of a viewing spot. Chair Wasserman: Great. Thank you very much. Well, we did pretty well. Let's see how we do on the next one. The next team is—I've got to give their whole name which is really long. This would be Team B, EndreStudio, OLIN, SBP and Biohabitats. Twenty minutes, gentlemen and ladies. Thank you all up here on the dais for being short-spoken. They're going to set up. This is very interesting. We have a little IT thing going on again. Why don't I take this moment to tell everybody where the bathrooms are? Those of you in the audience, the bathrooms are out by the elevators. Those of us back here, we go behind the screen, through the door and keep making left turns until you find the loo. Are you hot to trot here? Are you ready to go? You look familiar. You came to our meeting, didn't you? Welcome back. Okay, 20 minutes, go. Paul Endres: I can't. Chair Wasserman: You're still not going. Mr. Endres: It's not advancing (inaudible). Chair Wasserman: Do we have anybody here from IT? Welcome Jim, City Manager. While we're waiting, I can welcome the two members of the City Council who are here, Karen Holman and Gail Price. Anybody else that needs to be acknowledged that I haven't recognized? Anybody here from—what is it? Payback? Any bicycle people here? Where? There you are. Hi. Welcome. Stick around, you're in for a show we think. Does the other team have a system that's working while these people try and get themselves up and running? PTC Page 131 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 15 Mr. Eggleston: They're going to manually advance (inaudible). Chair Wasserman: Okay. That's good enough for me. We need the mike. Brad, you can give the nice gentleman your mike from your table or they can double team us, either way. Are we ready? On your mark, no. Ready, set, go? Mr. Endres: I'm sorry. It's still not up. Chair Wasserman: That's not the project we're looking at. Those are not the drawings we're looking for. Could you please make this work? That looks right. It's the kayak project, right? Mr. Endres: Okay, we're ready. Chair Wasserman: All right. Mr. Endres: I apologize. Chair Wasserman: Hey, you know, we all understand. Go. ENDRESTUDIO, OLIN, SBP, BIOHABITATS Mr. Endres: Our project is really about the light touch on the land and using the principles of sustainability. Our project is a route for physical portage, meaning to carry over, linking humans to nature and also a spiritual portage going from an urban environment to a more natural setting. We have a ruggedly durable, wooden-framed kayak as our inspiration. The materials that we've chosen for the project are wood. Wood is the source of the project. Wood has a very warm feel to the touch. It grows naturally as it's produced, and we want to protect that and cover it with a membrane. Wood has also the lowest embodied energy of the common materials of construction, less than half of the embodied energy of steel. Wood also embodies the principles of lightness, that is, using the material for a very high strength for its weight and also embodying the principles of lightness is using the correct form of the structure, using it most efficiently. If we look at the overall specific strength, that is strength to weight ratio, of the material, if we look at the comparison of Douglas fir to structural steel, wood has five times the strength-to-weight ratio of steel. We can do a lot more with a lot less. We also look at the overall forms. We chose to use the shape of tension, because tension uses the material most efficiently of common forms. If we look at the overall section, we have a system that is protected by layers. There are layers of material that cover over the wood. We have an epoxy membrane on the skin and capped with a COR-TEN steel strap on the top. It's just high enough to provide enough stiffness, but far enough away from the deck that it provides a minimal amount of area. We use FSC certified Western Red Cedar lattice that is coated with a fire-resistant coating. On top of that is a polyurethane coating. The cross-laminated timbered deck, which is a very thick material, which is big enough to be a heavy timber, it has a fire rating on its own, is made of a very rot-resistant wood. If we look at the site, the site has a PTC Page 132 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 16 very high liquefying zone. The soil around the location is very, very poor. This informed us on the geometry of the structure. We chose to create a structure that was very, very light and one whose center of gravity was lower. As you can see, the overall form of our structure creates a very wide base, a very light structure. That reduces the forces on the liquefying soil. If you look at the overall cross-section, we have a 6-inch-thick deck section which minimizes the potential path of travel. If you look at the overall weight, we minimized the structural foundation which is 90 percent of the weight and above that substructure is only 10 percent of the weight, minimizing the forces on that liquefying soil. If we look at the overall structural elevation of the main span, the members for stability are highly redundant. One in eight are necessary for structural stability of the skin, giving us seven of the eight as far as redundant, allowing the members to be easily replaced for vandalism or rot. The overall structure was form found, so we found the shortest path that we could. The shape of the surfaces themselves were created by a process of optimization and form finding. That form also is opening up as you move towards the Bay. We did the typical analysis. Schlaich Bergermann, who's had hundreds of designs of bridges in Europe, did the analysis for this structure. You can see that it was a very stiff and light structure. If we look at the overall span over the erection procedure, one of the difficulties is that this has a center support in the crossing. We have a month and a half that's necessary to put that center support in place. You can see the staging on the top right, the staging for assembly of the pieces together. They come in modules. They're placed together in larger forms. Because the structure is so light, it's very easy with regular machinery to place it across the span. Those picks for the main span are done overnight, in one day. The rest of the structure can be added from that point. As we go from the main span to the left, there are smaller spans, and those spans are all glue-laminated timbers for economy. The overall structural goal was to provide a sustainable project. If you total up all of the weights, we have 45 tons of carbon emissions. Of that, 32 tons are sequestered for the wood that is used in this project, leaving us a total net carbon of 13 tons. We have a sustainable forest and that forest has 20 trees and that has 1/2 ton removal of carbon per year. In the lifetime of the project, that gives us a net of 23 tons carbon removal over its lifetime. We achieve carbon neutrality in 27 years. We also looked at the energy. We want to be an energy-neutral system, so we have net zero. All of the energy produced is supplied by solar panels on the site. We also modulate the lighting levels during migration season. If you look at the overall electrical demands of the pump and the lights both for lighting up the skin and also the walkways and the pump for restoring it, we have only 36 panels necessary for that electrical demand. It gives us this wide-splayed view. The walls can be lit up and provides a very safe, comfortable, exciting environment to cross during the night time. The walls also provide some protection for the cars that are passing by. Both visually, but also they reduce some of the impact from that. They direct your views towards the Bay. Looking across at the two ends, at certain locations the system drops down enough so that there are views at both the east and west landings and also at the center span. If we look at the overall budget, the original proposal that we worked on was one that had a clear span. It was a 280-foot span. If we look at the overall economy of the spans, the length of the main span, if we look at that versus cost, it is an exponential relationship. Our first estimates of this minimized structure was $10.8 million. By providing a center support at the freeway, across PTC Page 133 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 17 101, it was one that we considered very seriously, provided us a maximum span of 155 feet. That reduced the overall budget so that we could be within the project scope budget, giving us a savings by providing that center column of $3.6 million. If we look at the overall piles and piers, we minimized the piles and piers as well. We have six locations of support. The minimal length of a pile is 70 feet, that gives us 70 tons. Because the structure is light, we can span 70 feet. That gives us nine piles that are necessary; two at the embankments and seven across the span. We added three for seismic because of the weight. Giving us a total of 12 piles. If we look at the overall span, theoretically if the thickness of the deck had no thickness at all, the minimum length that you can travel from one side to the other in an accessible path is 900 feet. If you provide 90-foot turning circles on either side, that increases the length of the path to 960 feet. By decreasing those radii both on the left and right, we can get the path down to 920 feet, which reduces the cost and also creates this spiraling effect. Decreasing the radii decreases the speed of the bicycles as they approach the crossing on either side. If you look at the overall cost savings, increasing the length 40 feet is a cost savings of $0.6 million. The bicycle speed, if you project the path from one side to the other, we had those radii corners and bends in the pathway to produce the safest crossing for pedestrians or possible intersections with the pedestrians. Unknown: There are pedestrian accesses on the bridge. The pedestrian lane is the outside lane on the bridge, and the bicycle lane is the inside lane on the bridge. They cross in two locations, at the southwestern and southeastern entrances/exits. The two pedestrian access points are on either side of 101, the west and the east sides. Here we have the plan. The bridge form itself really makes and forms the landscape into a destination. Starting from the southwest we have the entry point. We move up to the viewing platform looking back to Palo Alto and the mountains. Just below that on Adobe Creek, we have an area for kayak rental and access points. We have a solar array adjacent to the bridge in the parking lot, which provides energy for the lighting at night. We have a bridge access, which is the red dot next to 101 on the northwest corner, which is a stairway for pedestrians. There's another stairway for pedestrians on the east side. Just above that is a lookout onto the Baylands Preserve. It's a great bird watching location. We have another area, those three brown lines, which are kind of theatrical seating embedded within the landscape to look out onto the Baylands Preserve. We have the blue circle which is formed by the landscape and the arc of the bridge, which is the eddy. That collects surface runoff from the bridge and actually collects water from Adobe Creek which is then filtered through the landscape through a sand filter underneath the bridge and then released back into the creek. There's another kayak launching point on Adobe Creek on the eastern side. For the hydrology, again water is collected from the surface of the bridge. It's also collected from Adobe Creek. It's pumped through an eddy, a water filtration system which is that blue circle, and then released as cleaner water back into Adobe Creek. The ecologies. We're extending the marsh from the Baylands Preserve, underneath the bridge and into the site. We're restoring the riparian corridor. We're creating with Ned Kahn a new eddy, which is a water filtration system. I'll show you in a few seconds what that looks like. We have four main ecologies. We have a high marsh, which is the existing marsh which is running through the Baylands Preserve. We're extending that into the site and restoring it. We have a PTC Page 134 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 18 fresh-water filtration marsh which is where the Ned Kahn eddy piece is. We have shrub landscape which arcs back up to the path in the middle and the riparian edge which will be restored. Those four ecologies have very distinctive planting conditions and topologies. With those are also bird species that live for the most part in those ecologies. Through the restoration of this landscape, we're providing restored habitat for a wide array of bird species. The fabric on the bridge is a translucent membrane. It allows light to come through it, but it's opaque enough to allow the bridge to read as a solid form so birds won't fly into it, which we feel the mesh and the clear membrane allow for that unfortunate conflict between bird and bridge. The translucent member's the best solution we feel. Here's the Ned Kahn piece in section. It's collecting the water, filtering the water from the bridge, from the landscape, forming a geyser in the center which is then pushing the water south back into Adobe Creek as filtered water. The bridge is, we feel, very natural, very fitting for the site, linking the industrial corridor, Palo Alto with the very natural Baylands Preserve to the east. Fitting for both, it's iconic but also well integrated. Mr. Endres: At the overlook we have a different topology of the bridge form, it is that of the glue-laminated beams. They're much lower and those glue-laminated beams form economical spans. I talked before about the spacing of the piers, but these glue-lams can span very easily between those piers at their maximum distance. The experience of these places is one you see here looking at the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creeks. A place to rest and enjoy the view out and to separate away from the path of travel. If we look at the overall cross-section, you can see the glue-laminated beams and then coming to the main span. We chose these for its cost effectiveness. We're moving across to the Ned Kahn cleansing area that cleans the water as it's pumped back into the land. We also can see in that view there is one pier location that is pulled very close to the sidewalk and the edge of east Bayshore, which gives an unencumbered view towards the Bay. We feel that this is a unique and identifiable landmark. It embodies the ideals of sustainability. It's a model for future growth and development, and it embraces the community's values of a sustainable icon that is understated and a model of growth for the future. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. You beat the clock. We're going to take questions from the panel. We're going to start where we ended. We're going to start with Robert and work backwards. Mr. Gooyer: The biggest concern I have is that—and guess the whole idea that because this is a public structure and maintenance on any public structure is not always as good as it should be, what's the longevity of the wood structure? How often does it have to be ... Mr. Endres: What we talked about is the multiple layers of support. The wood is a rot- resistant wood. It has a lifespan that is a good lifespan on its own even if it was unprotected. We have different coatings on it. We have the polyurethane coating which is quite thick that encapsulates it and provides a very strong resistance. Those two coatings should give it a PTC Page 135 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 19 very long life. We've also provided a couple of other layers on top of that to try to make the durability of this span much, much further. Mr. Gooyer: Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I'm afraid the thing's going to fall down in a year. Just an idea, does this thing need relatively substantial maintenance every 5 years or what are we talking about? Mr. Endres: I can say that we have structures like this that have been in place with no protective coating on them that have lasted decades. We have an encapsulated coating on top of that. There are structures worldwide that are built with this encapsulated coating and that is the only protection that they have. Mr. Gooyer: Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Thank you both. Catherine. Ms. Ballantyne: Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for the work and the design. You can see it's very well considered, especially the way that it integrates with the water. I had one question that was probably also brought up by the Technical Advisory Panel with respect to the lighting. In your night rendition, you had this beautiful Yosemite starscape which I've never seen in the decades that I've lived here. I'm wondering if there's been further thought on how this is going to be functional at night. Mr. Endres: First, all of the lighting is LED. It is all facing downward. It is all precluded from the night sky. As well, the main span will have a higher lighting level. We feel that the lighting that is contributing from the vehicles is much more detrimental to the night sky than the lighting of the surface of the skin. Ms. Ballantyne: These LED lights, are they motion sensory activated? Mr. Endres: The skin is not motion activated. We feel that we would like to modulate the lighting of it over the migration season to try to adjust to potential bird conflicts. We think for safety that the lighting, at least the ones from the handrails down on the walkway, should always be on for safety. The lighting of the skin can be modulated. There are also lights underneath the COR-TEN cap that will light up the wood. Those can be modulated and changed over time, but the lighting on the walkway should always be on for safety. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Nice and succinct. Cathy. Ms. Blake: Thank you again. You've explained a lot that I didn't catch when I looked at it the first time. I have a question about the solar panels. I feel like they seem out of place and wasn't quite sure where they would land. That kind of structure added onto the ground gives me pause. I have my biggest concern about the membrane and whether that can hold graffiti, PTC Page 136 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 20 whether it weathers with color, whether you'd feel unsafe going in when you can't see if somebody's up there or who's hanging out there. Just the whole opacity of it at different times gives me a little bit of concern. Mr. Endres: The membrane could be any material. We could have a variety of materials. We chose a translucent membrane that you could see light and shadow through, because of that. It's also coated with multiple layers in front of that to protect the membrane. Also, the membrane is quite easy to replace. It can be replaced in panels between the pieces of wood. There is a protective coating and on top of that there is also an anti-graffiti coating. If you look at the overall cross-section, there are multiple layers to combat that. That said, the membrane could be any material. It could be easily a transparent membrane or it could be the wire mesh as well. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Kyu. Mr. Kim: I guess I'll continue on from the last question. I'm kind of torn about this membrane and the translucency of the higher portions of the bridge. On one side you're saying that it's not translucent; it's opaque enough that birds won't fly into it. Does that work so that it would appear as opaque but at the same time when you're in the bridge it appears as translucent and transparent? Mr. Endres: This was a recommendation from our consultant, Biohabitats, who are experts in the field. It was their understanding or their guidance that gave us those parameters. We feel that the membrane is the best alternative for protection of the birds. We feel that it is solid. The bridge across the main span has areas that drop down, so it is not completely invisible to people that are passing by. Mr. Kim: One last question. I think it was answered before. I'm fine. Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Great. You only get one any way. Steve, one question. Mr. Burrows: You know me too well. I love wood. I think it's a great material to work with. The problem is when you have high forces, how do you connect pieces of wood together and how do you connect wood to steel and wood to concrete? The joints often get big and ugly. Have you had a look at that? Mr. Endres: First I should say that it is a composite structure. It's a composite structure made of steel and wood. The wood is the majority of the project. The high forces, the high concentrated forces are in the straps. We are transferring the sheer through the multiple members, so we have multiple layers of redundancy. You have multiple connections. You have double sheer connections in all of the connections that are there. All of this redundancy and additional members and also a very small load to transfer the sheer from one layer to the other allows this to occur. PTC Page 137 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 21 Mr. Burrows: So there's quite a bit of steel in the joints too, in the wood-to-wood joints? Mr. Endres: Yes. They're conventional wood-to-wood connections, so we have bolts as connections between there. Chair Wasserman: Alex. Mr. Lew: I very much like the thinking on your project. I think it's very in line with the community values in Palo Alto. I remember going out on the Baylands, you used to be able to walk on these very narrow, little, wood boardwalks up in the Baylands. I like the imagery, and the stuff that you're showing to me ties in with that thinking. My main question is really all of the coatings, like the intumescent coatings and stuff for fire resistance. What does that actually end up looking like? Mr. Endres: It's not an intumescent. It's something that is completely covered with the polyurethane coating. Mr. Lew: I see. It's underneath other coatings. Mr. Endres: Yeah. It's not an intumescent paint. Mr. Lew: Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Wow. Sam. Mr. Lubell: Thanks for the presentation. I'm excited about what we've seen so far. I was first concerned about the maintenance, but I think that's been answered. I'm also concerned about getting a little bit more detail about the construction of the bridge, actually putting it together. I know the last presentation was maybe a little bit more straightforward as far as building offsite and putting it together. This seems like it may have a little bit more complexity about what you're doing. Maybe you can just shed more light on that process and how long it might take and that sort of thing. Mr. Endres: I'll try to be brief in this. I think all of the concepts—the floor of the bridge is a CLT panel, so those CLT panels come in large chunks. They are placed on the site. They are connected together as a configuration that becomes stiff. There's a strap about 42 inches up that makes a very stiff structure. One of the things that we're looking at is the necessity of that strap and just using the strap above, so that the whole piece could be built into one piece. The overall weight of that main span is something like 55,000 pounds which is quite easy to erect in one pick and drop on place. It's brought in chunks. Those chunks are erected together just like any of the other concepts. Then this pick of the 155-foot is dropped into place. It is the smallest section of any of the concepts to pull up together in one piece. We feel because of PTC Page 138 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 22 the weight and the overall shape, it makes a quite rigid boat just like a kayak and very easily transportable. A three-step process: bring large pieces to the site, they're erected together in the final configuration, and then that's lifted up in one pick onto the site. Mr. Lubell: I think that was pretty good. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Susan. Ms. Chin: Thank you for your presentation. Intriguing concept about tying kayaks to the bridge. If you could just talk a little bit more about your glue-lams. You've talked a lot about the coatings and your other kind of latticework. It wasn't so clear to me how high they are and is there visibility. Those same concerns that some of the other panelists had in terms of the transparency also apply in the situation with the glue-lams. Mr. Endres: The glue-lams are a lot lower. If you look at the overall section and it is somewhat idealized, but we took the bending moment diagrams of forces across those spans, traced out the shape of the natural forces, and then that became the forces of the glue-lams. At their peak, because of the span, in one part they go up 8 feet at the glue-lams but it's only for a very short time, maybe 20 feet. Otherwise they drop down to almost 2 feet below the surface and then rise again. Most of the time they're somewhere in the range of 42 inches, which is about handrail height. They vary a great deal. There's topography across them. Only one time where we have the 100-foot span do they increase above that level. Ms. Chin: Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. There's been a lot of concentration on the way this bridge is built. I'm interested in what happens at the landing on the west side. Everybody's hot for the Baylands and how gorgeous it is. You have a plaza, I believe, on the west side that overlooks the confluence. The last time I looked at the confluence, it was a candidate for the ugliest spot in Palo Alto. Could you explain what you're going to do down there? Are you addressing the creek confluence down below the walkway at all? Mr. Endres: There will be landscape. Unknown: We are taking away the concrete embankments where we can and restoring that landscape, its ecology, to what it was as best we can. It won't be as unsightly as it is now. Chair Wasserman: You think that you can take away the concrete, is that what you're saying? Unknown: Yes. Chair Wasserman: Have you talked to Public Works about that? PTC Page 139 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 23 Unknown: No. Chair Wasserman: Hello, Public Works, are you here? In all seriousness, assuming you can do something with the confluence, what happens at the west end of this bridge? Unknown: It's a reconfigured parking lot. It's a kayak launch. With the proper approvals, it's a naturalized edge on the creek. It's that simple. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Mr. Endres: I'd like to interject. There will be landscape and planting on that edge. There are trees slated for that location. If you look directly at the confluence currently, it is not the most beautiful view. There are views beyond, there are trees beyond, there are mountains beyond. The views looking down those edges are still quite interesting. They are an urban edge that I think are quite important as well as the view towards the Baylands. Of course, the Baylands is the grand gesture. We have two overlooks there, but I still think at this point people that are traveling up should have the ability to look at the view. Chair Wasserman: I'm going to take a personal privilege since we haven't run out of time yet. Do you have any public art input into this project? Mr. Endres: The spiral eddy is by Ned Kahn, so yeah. The whole shape of the path as it comes back down. Ned Kahn's piece is all about the filtration. It is air pushing up through a pump. As the water comes down through the air, it has this kind of beautiful bubbling quality. As the water continues down, it goes through the sand and it cleanses the water. It's all about purification. It gives purpose to the pathway. We liken it to the eddy that's made by a paddle of a kayak going through the water. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Thank you for being timely. We will push on to presentation Number 3, which is the design team of HNTB Engineering, 64North, Bionic Landscape Architecture and Ned Kahn. Twenty minutes. You got an IT problem or are you good here? Unknown: While they're setting up, where do I get cards? Chair Wasserman: Anybody who wants to speak after the presentations should bring their cards up front to Elizabeth or anybody up front will take the card from you. How many cards have we got, Elizabeth? One. Great. At least we've got some participation. Are you ready? Wil Carson: We are. Chair Wasserman: Oh, very good. Go. PTC Page 140 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 24 HNTB ENGINEERING, 64NORTH, BIONIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, NED KAHN Mr. Carson: My name is Wil Carson; I'm with 64North. I'm joined tonight by Ted Zoli and Rick Phillips from HNTB Engineering, Marcel Wilson of Bionic Landscape Architecture, Geoff Smick our ecologist. Our team also includes local bicycle advocate Jeff Seltzer and the artist Ned Kahn. For us this project begins with the challenge of the 101. It's a challenge not only in terms of connectivity, but also in terms of noise, particulates, and emissions it creates; how we might manage them; and the philosophical challenge that comes with having constructed an infrastructure that begins with the culture of the automobile. Palo Alto is already at the forefront of a more multi-modal future, whether that's choosing bikes and walking or developing self-driving cars. The bridge's form, its iconography, was drawn from these extraordinary, sinuous curving figures, these waterways that trace the edges of the Bay as well as reflecting the trajectories that the cyclists and the pedestrians will make along the bridge. Importantly, the bridge is not a single path, but multiple lines that connect east and west, a gateway north and south and binding together the earth and the sky. Today we're going to share with you a bridge that is versatile in how it uses an innovative structural solution to address issues of safety, maintenance, and erection; a bridge that creates a new relationship to conservation, restoring the ecological character of the site and its historic origins; and also designing for the future and sea level rise; interconnected in how it choreographs the diversity of speeds, amenities and experiences of the multiplicity of user groups that will share; and finally innovative in each of these categories but also in how it brings them together as a synthesis, a confluence. Here art and engineering are not opposites, and technology is more than just a solution. It's an opening to a deeper relationship and understanding of our natural world. Ted's now going to begin with versatility. Ted Zoli: Thanks. To begin, a little bit about versatility. For us this idea of a crossing of a freeway, and particularly one that's so heavily traveled, begins with this idea of versatility not just from the perspective of the function of the bridge for bicycles and pedestrians, but also the realities associated with maintaining freeway traffic. For us this absolutely requires clear- spanning the freeway as well as Bayshore, and I'll get into a little bit why. This question about pedestrian bridges and the scale of pedestrian bridges and their supports, they're really ill- equipped to take vehicular impacts. There is actually some current work that's happening across the U.S. about how much trucks and vehicles project behind barriers. Nowadays we're actually taking piers and structures away from the edges of highways because of these growing safety issues. It's particularly troublesome with pedestrian bridges where you have much smaller-scale elements, and so they're frankly quite a bit more vulnerable. Of course, it's not just the highway. We have some of the most dense utility corridors along the highways. As I'm sure some of you know, we have Pacific Gas and Electric's trunk line here and an easement that we have to respect. In point of fact, we feel we can't put piers anywhere within essentially the Bayshore Drive or neither the median barrier nor the fascias. The troublesome part of this means you need quite a significant span. I think for us this idea of a long span is notional, and this question of how to do a long span in terms of the structural system informed a lot of our original ideas. Now, what we have here is a network arch, a technology that's PTC Page 141 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 25 gaining a lot of momentum. It's really an adaptation of covered bridges where the cables form a net. This gets you quite a rigid and very lightweight system. I agree with all the competition entries that minimizing weight here is an essential component of this project, mostly because of the difficulty with seismic and foundation design concerns. The magic of this structural system is that this functions like a beam. We have a 300-foot span and the beam here, the top flange of the beam is the top chord of the arch. The bottom flange of the beam is the bottom chord of the arch. This mesh, this really dense network of cables, is like the web of a beam. Imagine we're getting the efficiencies of a 60-foot beam, not a 6-foot beam. This is why it's so consequential as a structural system. You can't think about a project like this over a freeway without figuring out how to get the bridge there. This idea of building in pieces, frankly speaking, is enormously difficult in a highly traveled corridor. Our logic here is that the bridge should be built nearby offsite. This is the arch span itself. Then driven across the freeway with a rolling closure; a 20-minute outage so that we're driving across northbound and southbound in one move. This idea of building arch bridges which are designed to be supported at their ends, transporting them with SPMTs—this is a bridge we did abroad. It uses exactly this technique. Of course this is a vehicular bridge with a full deck in place. We need about two sets of wheels as opposed to twenty sets of wheels as required on this project. You get the idea. We simply closed the freeway on a rolling closure. It's, in a way, an event of bringing the bridge across. This structural system might seem expensive, so the question is how is this done cost effectively. Interestingly, all the teams have used this COR-TEN steel, this weathering steel. I think for us the same reason. This idea that the structural steel in this system is made of rolled sections, the most ubiquitous rolled beams right from the mill, the beam sections themselves are the same throughout. We're getting curvature both in the deck and in the arch with the same cross-section. Even the lateral bracing is the same cross- section cut in half. This is necessary when you use COR-TEN steel because you have minimum tonnage for rolled sections. This is simply a W14 section for the arch and a W7 section for the deck, so a WT7 of 14 cut in half. This reviews this technology or this strategy. The idea here is that the lateral bracing, the arch, and the deck can be transported to the site on a single truck. This is this idea for us about embodied energy, that we're using recycled material, steel beams are 80-90 percent recyclable. We're using a single truck to transport the entire superstructure. It's the difficulty of erecting the bridge and its impact to traffic which really drives embodied energy when you look at this project from the perspective of not just the built artifact but how to get it there. With that, I'm going to give it to Marcel to talk about conservancy. Marcel Wilson: Ted's just described a very large structure on what is really a very small site. We think that we can create a large impact despite that through a couple of insights. Both of those are about looking at this in a much larger frame. The first is that we are in a watershed. We're at the low point of a watershed. The public interaction here should be expressed not only in the way it works, but in the way you understand it and interpret it. That's a significant point. The second is about looking at this site historically. Many of you probably know this was all Baylands formerly. There it is, that light green. Dendritic channels that flowed to sloughs. Much of it would look like this, Bay mud. Bay mud is a critical and main ingredient in PTC Page 142 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 26 the food web of Bay ecology. At a microscopic level these are diatoms. Smaller organisms feed on these, which support the food web of the Bay. That mud is still there, and it's industrial activities that have covered it over time and put overburden on it In the '40s and later on in the decade. We now see it as an upland, but Bay mud is still sitting under there. We have a simple idea. The idea is to create the largest aquatic environment we can within the site, to peel back that overburdened material, reactivate the Bay mud, and allow it to bring life and a more diverse ecological niche back to the site. Water systems then become the question, how and where does water come from? A couple of sources. The bridge itself will generate water in the form of storm water. We have groundwater and potential influence of tides and time. Then we can also accept storm water from the frontage road, from the bike path as well. That goes into this basin which will act as a vernal pool. It will be very seasonal. In the winter months, it may be full and you'll be able to descend down and across that basin on a boardwalk. In the summer months, it would be dry or partially wet. In the bridge as a whole, there are also storm water measures and improvements on the west side. In that triangular space, there's a rain garden that will treat storm water from not only the parking lot, but also the bridge. On the east side, I already explained about the frontage road and the bike path. There's also another water system here, and that's a cultural water system. I want to zoom in on this detail of a gray water system. The abutment of the bridge is a very compact footprint. That is two green walls. Within the green walls there are tanks. There's the possibility of also locating a bathroom under there. The green walls are planted with pollinator species. In a very small footprint we're doing many things. Those green walls then are also irrigated by gray water. What we think is important about this is to say we're not placing fill in the Bay or in the Baylands in an earthen ramp to cut corners on cost. Actually the more valuable asset there is the Baylands themselves, that low area that you can't get more of. This is a very efficient way, and we're accomplishing many things with one move. After it's activated with water systems, plant communities are the next level. In the Baylands, plant communities are very specific to elevations. We would have a fringe zone with emergent plants, a transition zone and an upland. That would be the built condition today. We also all know these conditions are going to change over time. Both the physical improvements as well as the plant communities and the slopes, we're projecting to be able to change in time. With wetter soils and higher sea level, these will transition to where we would get a low marsh condition and a high marsh condition or a mud flat condition. In a future where sea level rise influences this site more profoundly, you'll see how we've used elements of the process to create bird islands for upland refugia for species that are endangered now. That's a critical component of this. The one thing that's limiting those species most and impacting them the most is the loss of habitat. The greatest thing that we can do is anticipate how and what they would need in the future to continue to survive there. Mr. Carson: For us interconnectivity is about experience; experience of the Baylands and experience of the multiple groups that share this public realm. I know this firsthand having lived in Palo Alto and running here in the Baylands. We've recognized the challenges that come with multiple user groups, pedestrians and cyclists, sharing these paths. We've structured the bridge to delineate and even physically separate circulation zones for cyclists PTC Page 143 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 27 and pedestrians as well as providing gentle ascent and descent with universally accessible slopes throughout. Talking with our local cycling advisor, it was really important that we modulate speeds of cyclists, especially because of young bicyclists using this bridge. We've done that through separation. We've done that through creating radii that are significant but not too large and through small details like rumble strips at the beginning of each descent to remind cyclists to modulate their speeds. For the approaches east and west, we've structured the pedestrian path with a wood decking that's organized perpendicular to direction of travel to provide a rumble strip. As users ascend on the west, we have the cyclists separated outboard by a structural member. As they come over the center span, we have them separated into a section with benches integrated for viewing. Here as we get to the Baylands, we have separated them in plan into two physically distinct paths, cyclists inboard and pedestrians importantly outboard; connected to the view with the path widening to incorporate benches and a place to bird watch. Structurally we've organized the bridge with an integrated girder on the inside rail allowing these outer edges to be quite thin, only 8 inches, and allowing us to span nearly 100 feet in-between the piers, touching as lightly as possible in the landscape. We've also included some key amenities, as Marcel alluded to, here on the east side including shortcut stairs on either side of the freeway, a place to gather, a place for bicycle repair, to fill up your water bottle, to fill up your tires, and the potential restroom. We thought a lot about this center span and how from a driver's perspective these cables really do disappear, given how small they are because there are a number of them. Here on the oblique, they become more present, creating almost a room, a cathedral-like space that gestures towards the sky. Recognizing the challenges of the barrier that some of you talked about earlier in some of the questions and the unsightly tall supports that come with these barriers, we've integrated the barrier into the cable net itself, doing away with those. We're able to use a very fine mesh which is actually smaller than 1 millimeter in cross-section. From a lighting perspective, we've thought both about environmental sensitivity and also energy use. We're illuminating the entirety of the bridge from the handrail with a low-level blue light, and then there's motion- activated sensors which trigger white light in relationship to users, allowing you a very safe experience so you can see the people who are oncoming. Quite an interesting one is this interplay between light and dark on the bridge. For us innovation is really about synthesis. It's something that's in all the things that we've presented, but it's most clear, I think, in art's role on this bridge. It's something that we've developed not just as an idea but, as you can see here, in physical, full-scale mockups. At the intersections of the cable net we've hung these stainless steel disks, developed with Ned Kahn, that turn in the wind, catch the light, and their brushed surfaces importantly eliminate any problematic reflections for drivers. We've also imagined that these are fixed, you can see Ned's sketch here, on the bottom side of the bridge to animate that surface especially at night in relationship to vehicle traffic. We took the mandate of the competition to engage cutting-edge bird science really seriously. All of these structures have significant impacts, especially as they relate to bird safety. Here we've capitalized on this tested method from agricultural production where you see Mylar tape moving in the wind on a vineyard. Here we've taken that same idea that birds won't normalize to, and we've applied it to infrastructure. This is art and science as a driver, not something that's tacked on as an afterthought, a synthesis of scientific knowledge that's also really PTC Page 144 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 28 profoundly beautiful and conveys an understanding of our natural world. Two things before we close. I want to touch on one thing that informed the design of the bridge from the outset that came from the local bicycling community, which was about the longevity of this bridge and how important that was to them. That's not just about maintenance or materiality, it's also about taking a broad view in terms of sustainability, understanding what it takes to erect this thing, not just to build it, not just to make it, but also the importance of flexibility in the long term. Whether that's avoiding the dividing line between Bayshore and the 101 for future widening or creating a structure that's flexible, that allows for change so the bridge can be as vibrant 50 and 100 years from now as it is today. This bridge is located, we also feel, at a really extraordinary moment. I want to go back for a second. As you come up the 101, it's really at a threshold where the urban condition south of San Antonio Road gives way to the Baylands. We think that the bridge really has a responsibility in this regard. Chair Wasserman: Finish up please. Mr. Carson: We think that Palo Alto has a similarly unique position in this regard. This bridge can be a model for a new kind of infrastructure, one that doesn't understand nature and culture as separate, but really as integrated together. Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. I'm going to go in a pattern. Let's see who can guess which way I'm going. I'm going to start with Steve. Mr. Burrows: The arch, can you just talk a little bit about the geometry of the arch? I thought I heard you say it's 60 feet high and 300 feet span. Mr. Zoli: Yes. Mr. Burrows: Obviously there's a range of shapes. What did you explore in terms of minimum height of that arch versus maximum? Why settle on 60 feet? Mr. Zoli: It's a fair question. There's lots of opportunity to change. When you change height, obviously you're changing forces. The 60 feet was about a right balance from our perspective in terms of managing the forces in a curved section and also getting an efficient cross-section. When you're using rolled sections a priori, you want to manage forces so that's where the 60 feet comes from for the 300-foot span. To be clear, the arch is in a plane itself, in a vertical plane so the arch is not curved. The deck is curved and the arch is curved only in its plane. Chair Wasserman: Kyu. Mr. Kim: Thank you for your presentation. I have a question on the path division. Am I correct in understanding that the path is actually divided all the way along the bridge? PTC Page 145 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 29 Mr. Carson: It's divided in terms of its materiality along the entire bridge, but it's only physically separated at three points. As you ascend from west Bayshore—sorry. We start on the west; the path is together until you start to make the turn and the turn is separated. Then the path comes back together before you go over the freeway. If you're a young bicyclist, you can get off your bike and decide to walk it at that point. Mr. Kim: The division between the two paths is pedestrian and bicycle? Mr. Carson: If you're going to run, you're going to run on the cyclist side probably. There's some choice allowed for the folks that are using it. There's ample opportunity for people to decide to switch paths if they decide to walk their bike or not. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Cathy. Ms. Blake: Thank you for the presentation. I really am taken with the idea that (1) it's not perpendicular to the freeway and (2) it's not straight as an arrow like the many functional crossings that we've all experienced. Can you say a little bit about how that works with you or against you to where you land on each side? I think you're limited. If you go straight, you may like where you're landing on the Bayside but not on the City side or vice versa. Did you end up with that shape by deciding where you wanted to come down to the ground? Mr. Carson: It was really an iterative process where we started with the starting and landing points, developed the radii that we thought were appropriate. Didn't like the result and then started to adjust. I think the important thing is that the takeoff point is as close to the creek as possible on the west side, and that over the Baylands that we're creating an overlook that's as close to Hawk Pond as possible. There was a question asked early, "Why would you go up?" I think the answer for us is that you have a relationship to Hawk Pond in a way that you otherwise don't in that area. Ms. Blake: Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Alex. Mr. Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I was wondering if you could elaborate on the design on the east side of 101. I think that you've got a couple of things that the other schemes don't have, like you're splitting the pedestrian and bikes, but also in this image here you're showing a boardwalk actually on the Bay. I was wondering if you would explain the thinking. Mr. Wilson: Is it east side or west side? Mr. Lew: East side. On this particular image, it's the east side, correct? Yes. PTC Page 146 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 30 Mr. Wilson: Yes, it is different. We think that by creating this piece of infrastructure anticipating growth, that you need to scale up the services that people need to not create a larger impact on the existing resources of the Baylands. What is that? The activities are biking and walking and birding. Also creating that awareness of what's around you. There's a component here which is a pit stop basically for bikes. There's a part of this that's about education and learning about the processes of the Baylands. You don't have to go a half mile into the Baylands to learn about them. There are basic human needs like water and a restroom and universally accessible slopes. It's really meant to anticipate how popular this would be. Mr. Lew: Could you just do maybe a quick walk-through of this diagram that you have here? The orange path is the nature path? Mr. Wilson: If you start at the bike path, there's basically a wider shoulder. There's a top of bank there where we're not actually in the Baylands. There are then two 5 percent ramps that ramp down. That's the orange path; that's a boardwalk. As you walk along the orange path, there are markers that show sea level rise projections from today to 2100. It's at that point that you can walk down to the level of the vernal pool. Under the abutment further south is potential space for a restroom and also those two green walls that also have tankage for their irrigation. Mr. Lew: Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Robert. Robert, that would be you. Mr. Gooyer: Actually I don’t have any questions at this point. Chair Wasserman: Well, thank you. Susan. Ms. Chin: Thank you for your presentation. I like how you integrated your art and your engineering. However, your solution has many more paths or it feels like more paths. Could you talk about how the underside works? We've talked about that with other teams. Because you have so many more or it feels like more surfaces, how are you treating it? Thank you. Mr. Carson: I think from a number of paths perspective, we have the same linear length potentially as one of the schemes. The deck is 18 inches deep in our scheme, because we were able to capitalize on the overall structural profile, so we're able to shorten it similar to the scheme you saw just before us. The widths, I think, are a little bit different. In certain places we've widened them to allow for this. In many cases, the base profile is 10 feet for bikes and 6 feet for pedestrians, which is plus a foot for the structure which is actually the same as the City's baseline 15 percent. Talking about the undersides, here on the east side and on the west it's a solid surface which is COR-TEN. Importantly over the freeway, it's COR-TEN and then we're adding the art elements in a series of rows that will pick up the light, especially in PTC Page 147 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 31 the evening, from car traffic and animate that surface. In our experience working on bridges, that surface is often really forgotten. That's a huge audience for this as much as all of these other elements that we're designing. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Sam. Mr. Lubell: Thanks very much for the presentation. From a point of view, all of these are supposed to be an iconic work and something that sort of symbolizes Palo Alto. What I was curious about was just getting a better idea of where that span and that height that you reach and certainly the art integrated into that gives a sort of iconic, something original. The shape of that span, can you go into any other detail? I'm just curious about where that design grew out of and a little bit more about how that came out. Mr. Zoli: As a system, a canted arch like that in a network configuration has never been done. That's maybe the most unusual characterization of the structural system. In terms of what that curvature does, I think from both the sort of cathedral space-making that you get when you use the bridge, but even as you pass under the bridge you really get quite a different. A little bit of curvature goes a long way in terms of giving you a real different sensibility and also a direction. I think this is something that the height of the arch and the space that the arch creates is the iconic element of it. Mr. Lubell: In regards to the artwork, something just popped into my head. Is there a chance that that could at all be distracting for people on the freeway driving there? Mr. Carson: We studied some of that actually in the full-scale mockup. We chose to use a specific Number 24 brush of the stainless so that's not a problem. They'll turn white in your view, but they won't have enormous glare. They're the size of a CD. We wanted it to be a really subtle effect. I think the effect is two-fold: one is to provide that kind of shimmer as there's wind, but also as trucks come underneath you're going to see the effects. When I was a kid, we would play with iron shavings and a magnet. You could see the way that those effects move across the surface of the bridge as a whole. Mr. Lubell: Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Catherine. Ms. Ballantyne: Thank you for thinking through the complexity of this. Obviously a very different design from the others. I was loving the bathroom idea, and I was also fascinated by the physical separation of the cyclists and the pedestrians on the radii. I had a question about that. As a gear head, I actually wanted to ask you how this bridge twists. Since I only get one question, I think I'm going to ask you to go back to that rendering on the radii that shows the separation of the cyclists and the pedestrians. I believe it was on the west side. Give you a scenario of a toddler keenly interested in observing the birds and the great white herons or a PTC Page 148 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 32 runner who's just finished a 5-mile loop. What prohibits me as that runner from pitching myself over the side into that glistening water on an unshaded, 90-degree day? Mr. Carson: I suppose technically nothing. It's not a very far fall. For here, we really wanted to create a direct relationship. We actually had this aspiration for the entirety of the bridge, even on the center span. We wanted to create as direct a relationship as we could between the world that's around you and the space that you're in. The rails themselves are canted inward; it's a strategy that we use a lot so that you can't climb them efficiently. It's only a 42- inch handrail, so technically if you wanted to jump in the pool you could. Chair Wasserman: I think that's probably true of most of the paths in the Baylands. They don't actually keep you out of the water. There are other things that might do that. I think we've had everybody. My question is again about the west landing. If you could describe what's going on, on the City side of this bridge please. Mr. Wilson: The west landing, there's a lot going on there. That's been established. Some of those things you can't change. What we're proposing on the west landing is for the approach. If you start at sidewalk level, that we keep a very compact footprint. We use the same green wall technique. It's very cost effective, and it allows us to get very easy grades. It really does improve the aesthetics. We imagine that planted with pollinator species, so we do the most good that we can with it. In that small triangular portion that you rise above and loop over, we think we can have the capacity to treat an area larger than the site in terms of improving storm water before it goes into Adobe Creek. You know, lead by action. That very small demonstration on a larger scale would mean so much more and address the real issues affecting the creek. Chair Wasserman: Do you have any plans for the creek beds themselves on that side, the concrete culverts? Mr. Wilson: The concrete culverts? Chair Wasserman: The euphemistic creek beds on the west side. Mr. Wilson: As they are, they're really dangerous. I think what you can best do is allow people to understand them, to explain that water system and keep people at a safe distance from them. We are at that spot where hard meets soft, on the east side. That's actually a teachable moment. It'd be great to be able to expose people to that and explain it in a safe way. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Elizabeth, is that confluence out of the scope of this project? Is that what I'm hearing? Elizabeth Ames: Yes. We were hoping to stay out of the confluence because of permitting issues that could delay the project, but it's not impossible. PTC Page 149 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 33 Chair Wasserman: It is pretty ugly. Thank you very much. We made it, folks. Very good timing. Thank you all very much, ladies and gentlemen. We are now supposed to hear from the Mayor, but the Mayor isn't here. I believe we're going to hear from our City Manager. Jim, are you going to speak to us? Where'd you go? Ms. Ames: He's gone too. Chair Wasserman: He's gone too, okay. Well, we can move the public comment up before the technical panel, do you think, so that people can go home if they want or do you want to do the technical panel report now? Ms. O'Driscoll: I don't think that we need a presentation on the technical panel. We've outlined the exact findings of that for each of you and there are copies in the back. I don't think there's a need for us to go into any more detail than what you've seen already. Likewise, for the summary of public comment. It's all available in the back for anyone in the public to see, and you have copies in front of you. I don't think we need to go into a long presentation on that, but that's up to you. Chair Wasserman: We have one speaker card, is that correct? Okay, terrific. We will hear from that speaker then, then we will take our break and have dinner. Kirsten Daehler, would you like to come and talk to us about Agenda Item Number 1? Public Comment: Kirsten Daehler: Congratulations for pronouncing my name correctly on the first try. My name is Kirsten Daehler, and I'm a homeowner at Loma Verde and Lewis. This is right in our backyard. I'm also a parent of middle schoolers. When I learned that this was right in our backyard, even though it was a busy time of year and I work full-time, I thought maybe I should take note and pay attention in part because we're a biking family. We have many friends that are biking families and that really enjoy the Baylands. That interplay between our neighborhood and access to the Baylands is really critical. When my kids were in elementary school, I was on the biking safety committee and we would do the third grade bike rodeo and what not. We found that many kids in third grade, even at that age, really don't have good biking skills on the streets. We've been encouraging parents to get their kids out, to ride with them. One problem is if you look at what's available in our neighborhood, you are pushed over to the Embarcadero Bridge. The bridge is okay, but not great on many fronts as we've seen. There's just incredible bridge options instead. To be able to take our kids at any age from kindergarten or the trailer on the back on up and take them from the urban setting without having to put bikes in the car and whatnot and go over a beautiful bridge is really important. When we looked at the different designs and I talked to different friends, and I said, "What do you think? Should I go and represent us?" They said a couple of things. One is that it's really important to think about this as useful for the neighborhood. How do we use the PTC Page 150 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 34 transportation? Do we like a system that has the separation of the pedestrians and the bikes? That felt critical, especially with younger kids, because they don't always know that they're supposed to stay on the right or how to do that and whatnot. There's good options for how to keep your kids safe while you're teaching them to bike. We also liked the facilities of the last presentation, the water, the bathrooms. If you've ever tried to bike with kids or yourself when you're out running, it's really nice to have that option to take care of your needs and to have the accessibility of the wetlands. You know how it is when you walk out of an urban place into a park or into an open setting? Some of the designs felt constricting. You felt like you were in a tunnel. I liked the third one because you had that sense of openness as you went out into an open area. If you imagined yourself in each of the different bridges, this one felt like I was going out into an open space. I was kind of like peeling back that city layer and going into the wetlands. It's the same reason that we go and hike in the Baylands. The amenities, the separation of the pedestrians, the feeling that you have on the bridge. I'm in the category of science/art geek myself, being a science teacher. I like the structural design of the last one, integrated with the art. One panelist, I think it was Steve, you asked what was the inspiration. When I looked at it, it looked like it was DNA, twisted across the top. That was just my interpretation. Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Our Mayor has arrived. We have you on the agenda, would you still like to speak to us? Mayor Shepherd: Yeah. Chair Wasserman: Well, stand up there and do it. Mayor Shepherd: I was snaking my way through the streets of Palo Alto tonight, which are wet and slimy and hard to see. It's just busy out there too. First off, welcome. I see some friendly faces along with our Architectural Review Board. Welcome to Palo Alto and to our design competition. You probably know some things about Palo Alto, like we're sort of the heart of innovation. We are interested in and we're always coming up with something that we want to challenge ourselves with and sort of the heart of Silicon Valley. In my opinion Palo Alto, and I've got a colleague here, likes to be eclectic too and likes to have something that can sort of surprise you as you come around a corner instead of being ordinary. We have a lot of everything in our community. It was funny. When I was driving around tonight, the streets just don't line up all the time. I was coming up from Willow Road and coming over and seeing where the old lines used to be, probably from the old Mexican land use, decisions that were made and different farms and fields that got incorporated into the next stage of Palo Alto. That goes all the way down to south Palo Alto. You can see the different eras of when America got built, in my opinion. Cul de sacs in south Palo Alto. This is a south Palo Alto bridge. Taking some of that spirit and bringing it forward in design is something that would be representative of Palo Alto. As you know, this is in our Baylands which is a portion of our City that we kind of have to drive to a lot. Our other bike bridge is very hostile. It's an old 1950s, maybe somebody knows, a pedestrian-style bridge. This one is going to be both. When I see bridges PTC Page 151 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 35 that have been designed, the Sun Dial Bridge. I saw the Rattlesnake Bridge in Tucson. People just want to get on them and be part of that. That's one of the reasons why Council Member Holman was the one that suggested us challenging ourselves to do a design competition. Being part of the art and architecture is a good experience to have for people. Also, as you know, there's going to be a lot of commuters on this bridge. There's a thirst for having that openness over to the Mountain View corridor at the tech sector corridor. I can't remember what they've decided to call it down there. It changes a bit. Even Google themselves have picked up seven or more of our bike build-outs of our Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan down there to do something nice for Palo Alto. Incorporating all of those elements together, I know this is going to be an extra-long bridge because it has to go over two surface streets on either side of the freeway, which will mean you will have a nice, long experience on this bridge. Just having that smile on your face and the inspiration that people would like to see as it goes across 101 freeway, which is becoming much more interesting as the bike bridges find their way across the freeway. I got to watch the one up there in San Mateo with the blue railing. Very interesting. I commuted under that while it got built. It was fun to see it kind of line itself up this way and that way. After they got everything together, it still wasn't done because they were going to paint the railing blue. I think that all of this is part of the elements of Palo Alto. I'm sure you'll help us capture our spirit and bring it forward into the next stage of how America commutes in the sharing economy and the emerging alternatives to auto that we're very passionate about. Thank you for letting me come and share my thinking. Does anybody have questions? Did you want people to ask me questions about ... Chair Wasserman: Does anybody on the dais want to ask our Mayor any questions? Thank you very much for coming and joining our team. Mayor Shepherd: Thank you. It's exciting to get this launched. Chair Wasserman: The time is now 6:30, and we have already had public comment. We're ahead of schedule a little bit. I would suggest that we take a little bit longer than 15 minutes. Let's say 20 minutes for a break. It says that we're going to reconvene to ask additional questions and begin to discuss. I would ask the teams, if they can stand it, to stick around because we might have additional questions as we begin our discussion, which is going to be relatively free form; although, I am going to call on people. I'm not going to call you in any order. Then we will come to some sort of conclusion. Because this is a public hearing and we will be eating in the other room, we will not be discussing this project while we're in there. It's verboten. Okay? We will come back at 10 minutes to 7:00. How's that? Everybody okay? Thank you very much. Video presentations of the three submissions were shown while the Architectural Review Board and Jury took a break. Chair Wasserman: In about 2 minutes we're going to reconvene. One of the first things we're going to do, I don't know how many applicant teams are still here, but we're going to see if you PTC Page 152 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 36 have any responses to the TAC review questions. You may have none or you may want to answer some of their questions or correct some of their misconceptions. I hate to break into this lovely quiet, but we have a lot of work to do tonight. We are going to end up ranking these three proposals as a recommendation to the City Council. This is how I would like to run this part of the meeting. I want to spend 10 minutes having the teams comment on the TAC report. Then I want to spend about 10 minutes each on the following four general subjects: cost, structure and materials, function and landings, and landscape and birds. Those are very loose categories, so that we weren't jumping all over the map, talking about cable stays in one minute and bird droppings the other minute. Then we will go and see if we can get everybody's opinion and see how the rankings come out. Ms. Chin: Judith, could you add to your list some safety concerns. I think we asked individual teams, but not all the way around. Chair Wasserman: Safety concerns I think you would put in under functional. Yeah, safety, okay. If I haven't mentioned something you're interested in, just stick it in. Don't wait on me. Have all the teams had a chance to read the TAC report? Okay. Let's start in backwards order. I always like to mix things up.. We'll start with the last team that presented, which was—who was that? Anyway, the people with the big bridge with the arch on top. Do you have any response to the TAC comments and questions? Do you think they were all false? What do you think? Mr. Zoli: Maybe I address the comments on constructability and the idea of staging this in one night or, as we suggested, perhaps faster. We have had experience and there's an enormous initiative across the United States to do accelerated bridge construction. In fact, there's a whole toolkit for accelerate bridge construction. Utah as a state does these installations with SPMTs and they're really measured in minutes and hours, not in days. The idea that an overnight closure at the maximum—you're literally driving the bridge across at the elevation. I want to highlight that we're not inventing technology with the use of SPMTs. This idea of driving a bridge across is something that's been done before at a much larger scale with much heavier and complex arches. We just don't see that as a barrier whatsoever. I'm happy to point the jury toward a body of work that they call ABC, accelerated bridge construction, and particularly Utah DOT. I would say now more than half of their bridges are installed this way. This is a kind of emerging technology. Ms. Chin: Could you talk about where you're driving it from? Mr. Zoli: That's a great question. I think this represents an enormous problem with the 60 kV lines next to the bridge. Crane activity around the site was something we were trying to avoid because of the high tension lines that are very proximate to the site. The bridge really can only be staged on one side. We've identified a few staging areas, but there are a number that are not necessarily within the project limits. Erecting the bridge on the Baylands doesn't make any sense. What we imagine is a right-of-way between the pedestrian facilities and Bayshore PTC Page 153 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 37 Drive. There's actually a couple of areas that are ideal for lay down and erecting this bridge and driving it. The typical rule with SPMTs is you want to be within half a mile of the site. Chair Wasserman: You're staging on the east side of the freeway? Mr. Zoli: Yes. And opening the barrier and then driving across. Chair Wasserman: South of your landing there are some commercial and industrial buildings that have big parking lots, so some place like that? Mr. Zoli: Yes. Chair Wasserman: You could stage there with their permission and whatnot? Mr. Zoli: That's within the construction easement. We actually think there's within Caltrans rights-of-way also opportunities that might not require an easement from a private owner. Part of that is it's not necessarily within the footprint. We typically wouldn't dictate this in the contracting environment. The contractor would obtain his own easement. The point is you want to be with this technology within a half a mile of the site. If you just google ABC, you'll see literally dozens of these videos of driving in bridges. Chair Wasserman: Did you have anything else you wanted to say about the TAC? Then we'll go on. Mr. Zoli: I just mentioned about cost and foundations. The idea of construction staging and how that impacts cost is exactly the point. For me, the idea that maintenance and protection of traffic—we've had a lot of experience with Mary Avenue over I-280. What really costs money is putting up traffic closures. The idea that we could do this with a rolling closure, meaning we're stopping traffic locally and driving over in minutes, I think that's really what is a game changer in terms of cost. The lay-down area's offsite as opposed to lay-down areas onsite. You really don't have a lot of room here. In my view, a lay-down area offsite and driving the bridge in is actually more cost effective, not less. Chair Wasserman: You had something? Unknown: On environmental, two items. There was a comment that adding salt marsh habitat would be desired rather than providing a freshwater retention area. I think we all agree with that. The problem is that area is actually cut off from the tides with a tide gate. Without the appropriate tidal influxes, it's not possible to actually do a salt marsh habitat. The habitat would probably be brackish, because there will be remnant salts in the Bay mud that's going to be exposed. One other item was that the boardwalk may require mitigation that would increase costs. Since this area is currently uplands, the regulatory agencies would not actually PTC Page 154 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 38 see it as an impact to wetlands. There's already a defined wetland line, and we're working well outside of that. The habitat would be created after the impact would occur. Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Mr. Carson: I just want to clarify two more things. The 95 feet in scale that it notes is incorrect. It's 60 feet in scale. Chair Wasserman: I'm sorry. Where? Mr. Carson: Under cost, it says 95 feet. Chair Wasserman: Yes. I mean scaling off those kinds of drawings is not allowed. That's ridiculous. Mr. Carson: It's understandable. Chair Wasserman: We don't even pay attention to things like that. Mr. Carson: (crosstalk) this big in the report I understand. Mr. Kim: For clarification, that 60 feet is from the walkway or from the highway finish level? Mr. Carson: From the walkway. Mr. Kim: If the bridge is elevated 35 feet, then that would be 95 feet. Is that not correct? Mr. Carson: No, no. The bridge is only elevated—we are providing 18'6" clear I believe. Mr. Kim: 18'6", okay. Mr. Carson: It's an 18-inch deck, so that puts you at 80. Sorry, I'm doing my math. There was a question about the drivers' eyes and the reflections. We thought that was a valid concern, and that was something we addressed in our Q&A. I think we answered that. Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Thanks. Now let's see if the kayak bridge people have any comments on the TAC report. Mr. Endres: We wanted to comment about the pedestrian there. We are assuming that there is a separation between pedestrians and bicyclists. It is in markings only. The surface is continuous from one side to the other. There is a designated location. It has not been rendered in the plan. In the location of bicycles and pedestrians in our pathways diagram, we PTC Page 155 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 39 show that the bicyclists are on the interior radius and pedestrians are on the outside radius of the plan. Chair Wasserman: Why is that? Since the bicyclists need more turning radius, why do you put the pedestrians on the outboard side? Mr. Endres: Two reasons. The first, I would question why is it that we want the bicyclists to be able to move so quickly across this span. When looking at these conditions, there are two conditions. The one that is most troubling is on the southwest corner. That condition will have some crossing between pedestrians and bicyclists. If the speed is unaided there or no direct way to slow them down. That is a point that we feel is a definite consideration. I would say if the design doesn't inherently have something in it to preclude them, I think the right-of-way should be to the pedestrian, not the cyclist. Chair Wasserman: That's a reasonable answer. Anything else that you wanted to comment on here? Mr. Endres: A couple of things. The first is the materials and the type of construction. Wood construction is probably the most common construction in the U.S. It might be slightly unusual for using a CLT connection, but wood has been tested. It's been used in many types of construction throughout the U.S. I don't find that it's that unusual. The staging materials, we don't consider that large. We have just a few of the spans. The maximum span is 155 feet, so that portion would be easier to erect. It's easier to stage them because you have three small pieces as opposed to one large piece that would be much more difficult to find a location on that site. Also the lightness of the structure makes it easier to work in a liquefying soil. Doing this construction on that site with the loads that are required, there's much less necessary to stage the construction for the weight. The overall width of the structure is 16 feet. As you move to the southwest, it's 10 feet wide. We can't change that corner. As I said before, we consider that a safety issue. I think the other ones we've already addressed, unless there are specific questions that you have for us. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Can we hear from the last panel, the unsupported bridge? Mr. Grover: Unsupported? Chair Wasserman: I've got to call it something. Mr. Grover: I hope it's getting support from you. Chair Wasserman: Self-supported. Ooh, that was a good one. Mr. Grover: There was one question in the TAC report about is there an actual elevation change in the mode separation. I want to clarify that and comment on that. Yes, there is an PTC Page 156 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 40 elevation different. Based on mockups that we prepared and informal focus groups with other projects that we've worked on, we've reduced that elevation change from what we introduced 17 years ago on the Berkeley Bridge and then the same 2 1/2 inches that we used on the Homer Avenue underpass that we designed here in Palo Alto. What we found is that the psychology of the street and sidewalk relationship really, really helps people. We've gotten a lot of comments from people using in particular the Berkeley Bike Bridge that that works for them. However, in the interest of maximizing safety of a bicycle riding up even on an angled curb, we've been very interested over the years in how much we could reduce that and still achieve. We found that a 1 inch over 5 inches seems to work as the right balance. I'd also like to add that it recently came before the Caltrans committee that I sit on, the issues that they're having on the west span of the Bay Bridge where there is a color difference, but there's no stripe and no actual grade change. Caltrans has requested that we look at solutions to improve the positiveness of that mode separation. In summary, we think mode separation is quite important and has been shown to be effective on projects that we've designed. Yes, there is a small elevation change. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Was there anything else you needed to add to the TAC thing? Okay. We're going to go to questions from the Board and panel. Karen Holman specifically asked me to ask about cost. Can we just have a brief summary, like a minute and a half, from each of you about what it is about your design that specifically addressed the cost and how far off from the target do you think you're going to be? I don't know how to start. We'll go backwards. We'll start with the guy who was standing up last. That being you. Anybody else from the panel who wants to ask specific questions to specific teams about the cost and constructability, now would be the time. Mr. Sanchez: The beauty of our floating bridge system is you don't need any substructure. The bridge levitates above the ground. Just kidding. That's a joke. Chair Wasserman: Okay, yes. It's a mag-lev bridge, right? Mr. Sanchez: Our bridge is a very simple, elegant structural system. It's the most straightforward to build. It's steel beam. You don't need any false work. We're using the cable to provide the stiffness and the strength that we need for live loads. We based our cost estimate on similar bridges that have been constructed. There's nothing exactly similar to this. This is completely unique, but parts of it are similar to other bridges. We have a good handle on the square foot cost. We applied that to different components of the bridge. We think that can hit the budget pretty close. We plugged in our numbers for the different parts of the bridge, and we did achieve a cost estimate for construction that was very close to the target. There's ways that we can economize if we need to. We're going to 20 feet in some places. As we get further into design and get a better cost estimate, there's always ways that we can make the structure more economical to fit within the budget. Chair Wasserman: Plan B. PTC Page 157 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 41 Mr. Endres: I would say that the overall cost of the project has to do with the overall span, the overall length, and the overall form. I would say that to this end, we ruthlessly optimized the form of this bridge not only in the foundation, trying to come up with the least amount of material below the deck and the least amount of material above the deck. To that end, whatever is above is a percentage that is required below. If you have a heavy structure above, you will require heavy foundations below. If you have very poor soil, that will require additional work. I would say the three things that we did is minimize the path, minimize the weight that reduces the overall impact, and the third thing is optimize the structural form. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. The plan with the big arch. Mr. Zoli: It may be useful to note that we've done similar network arches on tangent alignments of nearly identical spans in the Bay area. The arch cost for a 300-foot arch is on the order of $2 million in a straight arch. We feel very comfortable with the costs and maintaining the project budget. That's from direct experience in bad soil conditions and Bay area seismic. Chair Wasserman: We all understand that the soil conditions are wretched, right? We know that it's as bad as it can be. It has no support whatsoever. I'd like to open this up to the panel to ask structural questions. I'd like to start with Steve, because he is a CBE and he's a structural engineer and it'd be appropriate. Mr. Burrows: I'd like to actually just add to that cost question first, just to finish that. We all know first cost is only part of the equation. Maintenance is often much more expensive over the life of a structure than the first cost. I wonder if each of the teams could just talk through the maintenance program that would be required for their solution. Just give us some idea of what you think would be necessary over the life of the bridge. Mr. Grover: One of the advantages of a low-profile structure is that it's easier to maintain because it's easier to access all the components. If something needs maintenance, hopefully it's going to be easier. We have selected, as you know, materials which do not require any finishes to be redone after the finish life expires. If it's properly detailed, the COR-TEN steel should last many, many, many decades. The only elements that I would foresee requiring periodic maintenance would be the wood that we put as a skirt along the COR-TEN. That may be require some periodic maintenance. If people run into or mess with the mesh, in other words vandalism-related maintenance for the steel mesh. Aside from that, it's picking up trash and normal stuff that you would see for any public works project. Do you have something to add, Tony? Mr. Sanchez: No. Chair Wasserman: Any of the other teams want to respond to this? PTC Page 158 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 42 Mr. Zoli: The use of robust rolled sections of the minimum thickness we're talking about is 1 inch thick. Even in a COR-TEN steel environment where you have some section loss over time, we can't imagine that there's any maintenance required for the COR-TEN components. In terms of cables and given the redundancy of this sort of system, again we expect that the service life of the structural system itself will be 75 to 100 years with no maintenance. The advantage of a network system is that even if you need to replace a cable, there's no special false work or anything that needs to be done in cable replacement. We're using concrete deck and a Black Locust decking as a way of separating pedestrians and bicyclists. Black Locust, we've had a pretty good track record in terms of service life on the order of 50 to 60 years. This is untreated. I would say in a decking environment this would be a question, but this a low-cost and easily maintainable component. That, I think, speaks to the ideas about—yeah? Mr. Kim: What about the disks, if they were to fall off or do they need to be tightened? What if there's a storm or a bird hits one? Due to the leaning nature of the net, how easy is it ... Mr. Zoli: It's a fair question. Obviously the disk falling off would represent a significant risk to the traveling public and to pedestrians and bicyclists. That can happen. Systems like that typically we would make redundant, so you'd have a positive connection and then a redundant connection so that they couldn't possibly fall off. From the perspective of access and maintenance, typically in structures like this, this is why the 60 feet is a bit of a magic number. You can maintain the structure with a scissor lift on the structure itself. A lightweight structure, to get at maintaining any of these items or inspecting them. The idea behind the disk system itself is it has to have redundant supports. It's a fair question. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Mr. Endres: There are always costs and benefits. I would say that the wood structure, to have quite a longevity of it, will require some maintenance, but the maintenance will be quite easy. It's quite easy to access on the site. The surface area that would need to be maintained is quite small. If the budget is much lower for this overall span, there is more than enough to add to the maintenance of the project. We don't imagine that that would happen for decades. Wood structures have had lifespans over centuries. There's no reason that wood in itself would not, if it's property maintained, have a longevity that's quite a long time. Chair Wasserman: What exactly would have to be maintained and how? Mr. Endres: It would be the membrane, depending on what the membrane material is. There are many different types of surface that that could be. Some of them have different lifespans. If it's a PTFE membrane, that will probably have to be replaced in 20 years. The square footage of that membrane is quite small. The surface of the wood will have to be recoated in time. PTC Page 159 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 43 Chair Wasserman: Recoated with what? Mr. Endres: Polyurethane. It will have to be just like paint. It would have to be repainted. The benefit of this type of structure is the sustainability aspect. Still over its life even with the maintenance and the overall cost of that maintenance, it still is sustainably a better. Maintenance is less expensive because of all of the cost optimization even with doing these things at increments. I guess the big question is what are the values that are important. Is sustainability really that important to the community? If it is, this is a small price to pay for providing something that has a low embodied energy and a carbon-neutral footprint. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Anybody else on the panel have questions about the cost? Ms. Chin: Just in terms of maintenance. You all were talking about the structure and the fabrication. There is also the issue of the lighting and the PVs or those other systems that are supplying your night-time profile. Could you address that? Is there a routine maintenance cycle? I come from New York; there's a lot of vandalism. When people see things that are vulnerable, they mess with them. Mr. Grover: We've had good success with LED lights that are recessed within the railing or the railing supports, so that you can't actually hit the transparent surface easily. I have no knowledge of any vandalism of lighting on any projects I've worked on with that type of lighting. I honestly don't know what the lifespan of the LED fixtures themselves is, but I know that it's way better than anything we had before. Perhaps one of the other teams will know more about the lifespan of LED. I don't think we can do any better is all I could say about that. Ms. Chin: I would ask you, just as a follow-up, would your fixture be a standard fixture? I know that DOT and any of those agencies—unique things don't function well. I mean if you want to maintain them, so ... Mr. Grover: We're looking at an absolutely standard. The fixture that I have in mind is 1 1/2 inches in diameter and it would be used for both the lighting behind the wood on the girder side of our structure, so that would provide a soft, continuous light; as a vertical element, to provide more rhythm on the pedestrian side. It would be the same light fixture; it's a fixture we've used before and a detail that we've used. I don't really have particular concerns. Sometimes it's a question of just how you fit it in gracefully to the geometry. In terms of maintenance, I'm not aware of issues with that type of fixture. Chair Wasserman: I can't remember, but is yours the design that has the light that moves with the person? Mr. Carson: (inaudible) PTC Page 160 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 44 Chair Wasserman: That's yours. I wanted to ask you about that. I think there's concern among the public that that doesn't feel very safe. If you can't tell that the light is going to go on, maybe that light that you're coming up to is broken that night. How important is that concept to your design? Mr. Carson: This concept has been tested on other bridge. There's a major bridge in the U.K., the Infinity Bridge by Speirs and Major, lighting designers that we work with. They have tested this in a marine environment. Similar to Steven's answer, we would integrate these lights and the sensors in the upstands, so that they're out of view and out of harm's way. In that marine environment, they're performing really well and they're not having any issues. The other issue is that there's many in a series. They're not far apart. If one was to fail, you're not being lit by a single fixture at any point. As a result from a safety perspective, it's actually quite fantastic, because you're quite aware of anyone approaching. Even across the entire length of the bridge and because we have an open design, you can see everybody else on the bridge from any other point on the bridge. Chair Wasserman: Do you have anything to say about lighting, maintenance, on how your lighting design works? You guys could move close to the microphone, so you don't have to walk all over the room every time. Mr. Endres: I think it's already been addressed. All the lights are LED systems. They last longer than any other bulb. Fifty thousand hours is not unheard of. It should last in decades instead of short term. Replacing them should be quite easy. They're also much more vandal resistant. In the locations they are, they're above your reach and they're recessed into cavities so that they're quite hard to access. I would say that maintenance from them is pretty minimal. Definitely much less than other systems. Chair Wasserman: Any other questions about cost, structure? Steve, do you have more structural questions? Mr. Burrows: Yeah. I wanted to change things a little bit here. We've been asking a lot of questions. I want to give a little bit of feedback on the structural designs from my personal perspective. First of all, just taking the arch structure. I can see that using the height to span 300 feet creates something that's relatively low risk. I'm taking the view that you're at a very early stage of design. I'm trying to think through what problems you're going to find as you get deeper into the design. I can see that the arch is tried and tested. The Romans did it pretty well. The principle has been around a long time. I'm not really convinced about the economics of the twin ramps separating the cyclist away from the walkway and adding costs, extra barriers and things like that for no real value. I'd be interested in your sort of talking through the risks in your design. But let me talk about the other designs just before that. I'm going to ask the same question to each. On the kayak design, if I can call it that. I really personally don't like the column in the middle of the freeway. I can see why you do it, but I really think that that's a problem from constructability and from long-term safety and those sort of issues. I PTC Page 161 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 45 do think that as you develop the design, the joints are going to overwhelm the timber, the wood. You're going to find an awful lot of steel in those joints, and it's very difficult to make that work elegantly. For it being such a solid structure, it's going to pick up a lot of wind load. I would be very interested in a carbon footprint comparison between the bridges. I suspect it's probably not as sustainable a solution as it first appears. I'm worried about the risk that that design will not develop as elegantly as it currently stands. Finally, the single cable, the self- anchoring bridge. I think incorporating the barriers elegantly is going to be very difficult. I do think the design as it develops—300 feet with such a low profile is going to develop a lot of vibration, a lot of accelerations both laterally and torsionally. That means that you're going to have to add things to it. I think it's a high risk structural solution in that a vandal could remove the cable or some means of removal of the cable puts the structure in an unstable situation. It's got very low redundancy. I know that's a highly unlikely event, but in these days of security concerns, it's quite a vulnerable sort of structure. I worry that as the design develops are you really going to be able to keep the elegance in that structure. That's a bit of feedback. I'm really sort of interested in you answering the question. The designs you presented, as you develop them or right now, what keeps you awake at night about your design? Chair Wasserman: I love the question. Let's start with the kayak people. I'll mix it up a little bit. Mr. Endres: I'll say that the structure is very stiff and light. I think the biggest benefit to it is its lightness. It's also the biggest weakness. As far as the overall wind loads on the side of it, if you look at the overall design, we have these two large braces on either side of the freeway. The stair is incorporated into the brace. They have a quite large footprint; the footprint of the base is over 20 feet wide. The overall height of the structure that you see at those forms is almost the same width as the base. I would say those structures are quite safe. The thing that we are slightly concerned about is vibration. The way to modulate that vibration is by adding weight. We already have a very, very light structure, so adding weight to it is not an issue. One of the things that we've gone quite around and back about is whether the top of the structure is stiff or it's flexible and how those connections develop. I think the redundancy of them, if we're just looking at sheer transfer between the top plane and the bottom plane, I think there is a very low transfer between those two planes. You keep all of the force in the top chord and the steel strap, transfer the forces in the steel strap to the tower. You have smaller forces in the chord members. I would say that what concerns us most is trying to develop a structure that's flexible enough, that is redundant enough, to provide the stiffness that's necessary and then also have a form that's still quite elegant. I think we've looked at that quite a great deal. We still feel that it embodies all of those principles. We have a high degree of redundancy. We could remove a lot of those members and still have the form. I think we added all of those members to have a higher level of redundancy to account for possibilities of vandalism and decay. The biggest thing, I think, also that we worry about is keeping water off of the wood and having a surface on the bottom edge that allows the water to just float off, so that there are no pockets in the wood. Those are the biggest concerns we have. PTC Page 162 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 46 Mr. Kim: His question about the central column. Mr. Andres: Oh, central column. I would have to agree with you about the central column. In our early initial stages of the design, we had no initial column. Reviewing it repeatedly, over and over and over again, about half way through the design we gave into the central column mostly because of economics. This is a quite difficult span to do in the budget. If you look at the cost per square foot over the overall length and you're honest about the piles that are necessary for supporting the structure and the way that it's supporting—we have no retaining walls, we have one that's basically 3 feet high. Those retaining walls will have to be supported on piles. If you intend for all of your pathway to remain the same elevation, it is too big of an issue to ignore. As we showed you in the design, it's $3.6 million minimum. That cost is 50 percent of the design of the bridge. If you have a very tight budget, 50 percent is too hard to ignore. We put the central column in for budget considerations. The original design we had, we had a strap across the top and those two kayaks, a joint in the center. We had an intermediate post and put a strap across the top to enclose the truss. We looked at many different options removing that. In the end if we are true to making the budget of this project, I think the center post is a given. I don't see that happening if we look at a true budget. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Anybody else want to—okay. Let's get one of the other teams up here. This is a question of what keeps you up at night. Mr. Zoli: If we talk about the arch span itself, one of the challenges with even just a little bit of curvature and a network arch is tuning the cables. We've had some experience with this very type of cable spacing. That's one of the sort of intellectual challenges. In terms of the overall structural robustness, there's big advantages to it. A little bit about the approaches. In terms of the structure of the approaches, I think we spent most of our time and effort looking at the arch span. The structure of the approaches, in my view, needs to be looked at carefully because I think there's ways to use a pair of curved girders and still get the separation that I think has some advantages but also to do that more cost effectively. I quite frankly think there's work to do on the approaches to really gain some advantages in cost effectiveness. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. What keeps you up at night? Mr. Sanchez: Nothing. I sleep like a baby. We've put some effort into the modeling, and I feel very comfortable with our design. Initially I had some hesitations, but after we've figured out a good system, I'm very comfortable with it. There is a cable that's taking part of the load. There's also a steel girder that's taking part of the load. In that sense, it is a redundant system. Remember we don't need the cable for dead load. That's what makes it so economical to build. We don't need the cable in the end to provide the extra stiffness and the extra capacity for full live load. This is 90 psf of pedestrians which is pedestrians standing shoulder to shoulder completely covering the bridge. Without full pedestrian load, the girder ... Chair Wasserman: That's a demonstration live load, right? Protests and that kind of live load. PTC Page 163 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 47 Mr. Sanchez: It's in the code. They have pictures of what 90 psf looks like, and it's people standing like this. Chair Wasserman: Everybody out on the balcony having a dance, yeah. Mr. Sanchez: Which is what we designed for with load factors on top of there. I'm very comfortable with this system. If somehow we lost the cable, the girder would support dead load plus more. It's got reserve capacity beyond. We're designing it with safety factors in the Code. I don't see any issues with that. The cable is a very robust system though. It's prestressing strand, anywhere from 30 to 40 0.6-inch strands inside of a 7-inch outside diameter pipe that's stainless, that's got a 1/2-inch wall thickness. That space in between is filled with cement grout. To cut through that, I don't see that a vandal would even think to do that. There's a bridge that Jiri Strasky and I worked on in San Diego. It's called Harbor Drive Pedestrian Bridge. It's near Petco Park. It has a similar cable system, and it's performing beautifully. The bridge has been open for about 4 or 5 years. I never even thought of someone trying to vandalize that cable. It's that big, so I don't see that as being an issue at all. In terms of vibrations, this is something we need to work out. We've checked vertical. We're in the safety area or the desirable vibrations for vertical. We will also be checking torsional modes, horizontal modes. We'll be doing a detailed vibrational analysis when we get into design. We have Jiri Strasky on our team; he is the expert on pedestrian bridges and he's got a whole section in his book on vibration analysis. It's the Design of Stress Ribbon and Cable- Supported Pedestrian Bridges, if you're interested. It's published by Thomas Telford. We've got an excellent team; we've got excellent analysts in my office. We use the most sophisticated software specially made for bridges. I don't see any issues with getting the vibrations to work. If we need to increase the stiffness, we're only 14 feet tall on the cable off the deck, so we can make the cable higher. There's other things we can do. If we need to add dampers, we can add dampers inside the box. No, I sleep like a baby. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Does anybody else have any structural, material, maintenance questions? If not, we can move onto functional, landing, safety questions. We need to start talking about how we're going to rank these bridges pretty soon. Anybody have any questions at all that they want to ask anybody at this point or are we getting all tired? Mr. Kim: I have a question. Chair Wasserman: Go ahead. Mr. Kim: I noticed that all three of the schemes here on the west side approach the bridge from the south. I'm assuming that maybe that was kind of a generalized recommendation by Public Works or the City. I'm just curious to see if there's a reason for that or if that's the best solution. How come nobody's had a north-approaching ramp entry to the bridge? Maybe it just doesn't fit. I'm just curious to know. PTC Page 164 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 48 Chair Wasserman: That's an excellent question. Mr. Endres: I can answer that. That's mostly an issue about the high tension line. We looked at routes from the north. You're going to have somewhere around 370 feet, 340 feet for the minimum path to get up in the air. If you look at the site, it's quite hard to, even when starting at the north end of the parking lot at 3600 West Bayshore, to get to that location. Once you're there, you have to turn. To make a direct crossing, you're basically at Adobe Creek. Also if you're at that height, the lowest point that you can have a steel structure is basically 3 feet off the ground directly under the high tension lines. If you're at the south side of Adobe Creek, that is basically set at 3-foot elevation. You can almost do nothing with the path from there south. If you go north, then it's impossible to get enough length to be able to turn in the foot print and not cross Adobe Creek and to get across. The thing that that establishes, if you look at the paths, it starts a path that is 60 feet below, if you're looking south and north, 60 feet roughly below the creek. On the other side, you basically have to be above the creek to land. It sets up this asymmetry in the path. One side is low; one side has to be high. If you're going to cross in a straight path, then you have almost no land on the other side. If you're going to have the minimal path, it is almost that same path in all locations. There's just not enough room to do the alternative. Mr. Kim: Makes sense. I understand why all three schemes have addressed it that way. Thank you. Chair Wasserman: Good answers help the process. Anybody else have any other questions? I'm going to suggest, and I'm open to other suggestions, that everybody tells me what their ranking is now and kind of why they did it. We'll get a sense of the group. I need to distinguish between ARB members who have no vote and the jury panel which does. The ARB people can speak and I won't write it down, so to speak, and then we'll see. If we have a consensus, we're not going to have to go much further. If we are all over the map, we're going to have a conversation. Let's start at Susan's end. Mr. Gooyer: Can I just suggest something? Chair Wasserman: Yeah, go ahead. Mr. Gooyer: If that's the case, seeing as though there are five of you here that are going to have to vote, it may be beneficial if the ARB members go first in case we come up with a concept or something that maybe you hadn't thought of or something that would make your decision making easier. Chair Wasserman: Great idea. Then we get to start with you. PTC Page 165 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 49 Mr. Gooyer: All right. Let me start by saying they were all interesting designs. When I came in and actually saw the boards full-scale earlier today, I was quite impressed. I've juried on a couple of things before, and there are a couple of them that are like, "Oh, these are nice." There's a couple that are like, "Oh, my God. How could that have ever gotten as far as it did?" I think they're all very interesting. I do have my own pluses and minuses. I think things are beneficial for some and not others. I just have a real hard time accepting the wood structure, and I understand all the rationale behind it. It's just I go back to the idea that this is a municipality, and there are years where money is tight and the maintenance isn't quite as good as it should be. Let's say for sake of argument that the original cost of the project is half of what the other one is. You and I both know that no city's is going to go, "Oh, we'll just hang onto this $5 million and we'll stuff it in a piggy bank somewhere and we'll use that money just to maintain the bridge." It goes back into the general fund, and it's gone. I have to rate that one Number 3. The arch and I'll call it cable for lack of argument are both very interesting. I like the design on both, but part of it makes me think that all of this seems to be done to enhance the experience of the person going across the bridge, the local community. The way I understood this to be was that this represents Palo Alto and that it's noteworthy. The problem with the cable bridge is that it's too subtle. It is just too pristine, too subtle. If you're driving by at 70 miles an hour on the freeway, you go, "Oops, yeah. I think that was the new pedestrian bridge that I just went under." I think the City of Palo Alto would be interested in having something saying, "You know, Palo Alto is where you see the big arch across the freeway." That has nothing to do with the original design. It's just the perception of the average person driving down 101 at 70 miles an hour. I think that is also something that needs to be considered. Basically I would have to rank the arch first, the cable second, and the wood structure third. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Kyu. Mr. Kim: Thank you, all three teams, for presenting. They were all very, very good schemes. Like Board Member Gooyer was saying, I also felt the same way, that all three schemes were very valid and very well thought out. I'll just be frank. The arch in my mind is Number 1. It's Number 1 because I feel it does have that signature statement. I also thoroughly enjoy how the art aspect and the pop aspect is really incorporated into the bridge itself. Number 2 I would go with the kayak, the wood bridge. I think it's a very beautiful bridge. I also very much appreciate the use of wood and what that bridge might stand for. I think it's very relevant to what a lot of Palo Altans consider Palo Alto to be. The third bridge, the cable bridge, I also think is just too subtle. I was actually less fond of it before we began, but I actually grew an affinity for it because I can appreciate the engineering that's gone into it to make it so subtle. I just don't think that people would really recognize it, which is unfortunate. I think that's the bridge where you really have to walk across it to really enjoy the structural beauty of it. Having said that, my favorite scheme, the arch, I'm a little bit concerned about the price and how it's actually going to work. If cost isn't a factor and we're going strictly off of aesthetics, I really feel strongly that the arch scheme wins here, but we do have to be realistic about it. It's a public thing and Palo Alto is a little bit sensitive to its pricing and public structures and building, more PTC Page 166 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 50 so than ever. I think we need to be sensitive to that. Congratulations to all three teams and schemes. I'm think they're very beautiful, and I appreciate the amount of time and effort that's gone into thinking out each scheme and your presentations. On behalf of Palo Alto and the Architectural Review Board, thank you. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Alex. Mr. Lew: This is a very difficult decision. I do want to acknowledge many of my friends in the bicycling community here. Most of the ones that I've talked to really just want a bridge. They actually don't care that much about the design. They really want the access. If you look at Google and the number of users that use the Stevens Creek Trail to access the Bayshore area and Mountain View, it's huge. It's a major commute corridor. I would expect this one to be just as well used as the Stevens Creek Trail. On the other hand just in terms of design, the way that I'm thinking about it is just the classic way that architectural juries have weighed in the different schemes. I would say that typically they award first place to the one that's really resolved everything better than the other schemes. To me that is Scheme A with the arch. The second choice to me is the one that's always the most intriguing architectural idea, which for me is Scheme B, the kayak. Scheme C is the one that I like as a bicyclist and a user to the Baylands. That's actually my preferred scheme. It's very minimalist and subtle, and that's what I like about the Baylands. Palo Alto has been very careful in its stewardship of the Baylands compared to the other cities on the Peninsula. I think Scheme C actually does fit in with our Baylands Master Plan better than the other schemes. In the way that we have this jury competition, I would still put that one third; although, it's my personal preference. Chair Wasserman: Yeah. Ms. Chin: Alex, can you clarify? You said A, B and then C? Mr. Lew: Yes. Chair Wasserman: A is the bridge with the big arch. B is the kayak wood bridge. C is the self- supporting cable bridge. That's the way they went up on the website, and the way those of us who did any homework remember them even though they came backwards in the agenda. If you're still sorting out your thoughts, Susan, I'll go to the other end of the table. Are you ready to go? Ms. Chin: No, I think I'm ready to go. Chair Wasserman: Good. Ms. Chin: Actually I like the quiet scheme. It solved the problem very elegantly and it was ecological. It was very sensitive to the environment. I guess, Alex, I related to the biking community. I totally hear you, Robert, about iconic. The thing that first caught my eye was the PTC Page 167 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 51 arch and how you have the cable stays and that's what you see. Is it only about what you're seeing as a motorist or is it also what you see as a pedestrian and as a bicyclist? Just trying to be sensitive in connecting the preserve with the urban environment. I thought it was an elegant solution. The second would be, for me, the arch and bringing the art and the engineering together. I'm yin and yang going from the quiet to the more exuberant. On the third with the kayak, the portage, as a former public official I have real concerns about the maintenance, the membrane, the wood structure. No matter how well you detail something, I just really have concerns that it would continue to last. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Sam It's not easy, is it? Mr. Lubell: I think it's good that this is such a hard decision. It's a good sign. They're all really good schemes. I give everybody a lot of credit; I don't think you had very much time to come up with these. That's pretty impressive. It's really not an easy proposition to do something like this over the 101, having seen the challenges and the sort of demands it'll place on the bridge. To be honest, I don't know if I'm allowed to do this. I had two schemes tie for first. Chair Wasserman: At this point it's all up for grabs. Mr. Lubell: Okay. I'll tell you why. I'll go with the second place. I thought the kayak scheme was actually the most original and the most initially intriguing. It's a great idea. Unfortunately for me it just raises too many questions. If this were a pedestrian bridge over a small river or over a creek or over something a little bit less daunting than the 101, I would be a little bit more willing to go for it because I think it's a fascinating idea. I really like the design and it's sort of inspiring and to me the most original by far of all the schemes. It's just too many questions with that column and the wind load and the maintenance and the tunnel-like aspects. I just had too many questions. The other two, the reason it's really difficult for me right now—and we can still work this out. I thought the big arch was the most iconic which is what the City's looking for. The biggest question mark I have is how that's going to be carried out. Somewhat, I feel like there's some gaps, like that art piece. That arch is a beautiful arch and very dramatic, but I've seen it many times in many places. To me what really distinguishes that is the art piece, but I need something to show exactly how that's going to look. To me it's sort of guessing and that's the thing that will differentiate that scheme. It's almost like I don't have that and I need it to really know that that's the one. The floating scheme to me was lacking, as several people were saying, that iconic, really dramatic view. For me, it's the most of the place of any of the schemes. It feels of Palo Alto; it feels of that site more than any of the schemes which is why that's its strongest suit. It just needed a little bit more wow factor. It sort of had some of the suspension, mostly along closer to the landings. I wanted more of that, because the point of the iconic element was to be seen more from the freeway and there was almost the quietest point. To me that was antithetical to the idea. I don't think that's impossible to remedy. I don't know if they'd want to. I don't know if that's impossible to remedy because the bones of that feels like it's of the creek, of the area. It feels like if I were biking, I would be excited to cross that. The educational elements just felt of the place, which I PTC Page 168 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 52 liked. The arch, while it's the most iconic of my favorites, that arch is something I've seen. It didn't feel as much of Palo Alto. I feel like that art piece could change that, but I don't know exactly how that's going to be executed. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. I understand your dilemma. I was sort of at the "we could throw darts at this" point. Steve. Mr. Burrows: First of all I did do some research. I had to look at the designs on the website before I came this evening. I decided the order that I thought, the winner and who came second and who came third. You changed my opinion this evening. I think that's good really, because it just shows that design is also about conversation and understanding the logic. I also wanted to say it's easy to thank you for doing this work. I'm also full of admiration that, in the time that you had, you produced such wonderful work. It just made me feel great to be part of the design community and see so much talent in our business. I mean that bottom of my heart. Really great effort. Chair Wasserman: Hear, hear. Mr. Burrows: But we have to score them. I do think all three designs need quite a bit of work. You know that, but I'll point out some of the things and the reason why I put them in the order I put them. I put the kayak design in third place. For me, I couldn't get over the central column. I just don't think there should be a central column for the reasons I explained before. I love the idea of wood. I've done lots of wooden structures myself, and I'm a huge fan of using wood. I think we'll be building wood skyscrapers. I often say wood is the material of the future. I just couldn’t get over that central support and what did for the design. I felt it was inappropriate, and it sounded like you struggled with it too. I decided that the kayak design was third. I put the cable structure second, really because that was originally my first choice. I felt it was my first choice as an engineer, that it was a cool design. As I started to think about it, I wasn't as convinced that it was of the place. I thought the idea was to try and get a ribbon, but there was height when that sort of ribbon design was used. On the Millennium Bridge, it was because of St. Paul's Cathedral and the view corridors. I just didn't feel that that constraint existed here, and it didn't really feel iconic to anything but the bridge user. I thought far more people were going to see this as a (inaudible) user than as a bridge user. I agree with the comments that were made earlier, it was too subtle. I also think it's the design that will change the most as the design gets developed. I do think you're going to find torsional problems and lateral problems that are going to mean you've got to change it significantly. Change means time, means cost, means a different visual impression. I went with the classic design, the arch. It's deliverable. It looks great. I mentioned the approaches. I thought the split approaches were not cost effective, and you've said maybe you feel that way too. It needs some work on the approaches. I do think the 1 millimeter cables—I love the idea of incorporating the barrier with the bridge, with the 1 millimeter cables. I just wonder how Caltrans will deal with that. You're going to need a kick plate, and you're going to need to not be able to push a 6-inch ball through the gap. You're going to have to be really careful about how that develops, because PTC Page 169 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 53 you could ruin the bridge aesthetic with that barrier. You're going to have to be really thoughtful. I think for that you need Ned Kahn. It has potential to be a piece of art as well as a great bridge, and I think that could be absolutely fantastic. I don't think it's there yet. What a palette to work with. For me, it could be absolutely fantastic, so that's my choice. It could develop into something really wonderful, but you're going to have to work at it. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. Cathy. Ms. Blake: I will repeat what some of the others have said. I have a lot to say, too. I'm really impressed. I'm not an engineer, so I think, "Okay, a bridge across 101. How many solutions can there be?" Obviously, with three teams you're dramatically different, so I compliment you on that. There's many ways to do what seems like there might only be one solution from my simplistic point of view. In terms of rating the schemes, there's a number of things. I originally thought when I was asked to be on the jury that Palo Alto was going to want a bridge just like Scheme C; quiet, simple, understated, earthy, just a bridge. I've been over so many pedestrian bridges and I go over the one at Stevens Creek Trail. You just want to get from end to the other and keep going. It's not your destination. Then I said, "What are the requirements of this competition?" That it be a landmark; that it represent all the innovation in Silicon Valley; that it become a destination. I'm thinking, "Who wants to hang out over 101?" You guys have added places to it, and that whole idea makes me say, "Even if that's what I originally thought, that's not what the City was asking for." The City was asking for something a little more special. My eyesight isn't that great. I think a lot about scale. When you're driving and you look at something, so when I look at the boards from across the room, the only thing that pops is that arch. Everything else is invisible, you can't see it. You're not any closer to it when you're driving or moving along. Like you said, there is bike people who just want to get over it; they don't care. You have families in that neighborhood and people who are going for their Sunday walk with the dog or their bike ride to the Bay and they may not even want to go that far into the Bay. They may just want to go have lunch. I think a lot of the schemes gave you that opportunity to have the bridge actually be an event and to be something special from a distance. I've had the opportunity, not too long ago, to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge. Probably most of you have walked across the Golden Gate Bridge at one time or another. There is something cathedral-like about having the perspective as something rises over your head, about seeing it when you get under it. Everybody was taking their picture at a certain span of the Brooklyn Bridge. There's certain artists like Christo and Mary Miss that the design makes you perceive the environment differently. Here it makes you look at the sky. We don't have weather, but we have a great sky. You can kind of perceive the environment a little bit differently that way. I like the idea that the cabling and that somehow the walls are incorporated in the design of the bridge. I'm very concerned about the cable one, that I think will end up being a cage, that will look just like the one that crosses over at Moffat. I think that the one with the membrane really concerns me. That was my problem with the wood. I don't know about wood long-term or short-term. I'm worried about the membrane as being something you could write on. It's part of the bold idea; if it's a metal mesh, it's sort of a different thing. I just like the simplicity that it's fairly transparent. If you keep the members PTC Page 170 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 54 light, this thing is just a lightweight structure. It isn't a big heavy thing like some of our other Bay area bridges where you see all the members. I think this is a little different in our environment because you only really see one member of it and the flat and it is going over something rather large. One thing I want to compliment the arch team on is that I often walk in the Baylands and we go drive or ride to the end of San Antonio where you can enter the Baylands. It's an entrance to a park. It actually has restrooms; it has some visitor information; it has a water station. It's very inelegant and not very pretty. Nothing is integrated in. They're just here's the restroom, here's the service building, here's the drinking fountain, here's your trash, get your business over with and then go into the park. The arch team integrated that into something that makes a special place. It actually creates the new entrance for the whole neighborhood of Palo Alto and the commuters into the Baylands where you again can stop, catch your breath, tie your shoes, do whatever you're going to do, and then go take off on your journey. I think that was a really good thing. With all that being said, I ranked A as Number 1. I have to say B and C were a little bit tied. I think C is way too subtle. I think it would be invisible and something you pass through and never even notice you went by it. It's very flat. It's very transparent. I'm really worried about the boat scheme, about the membrane, and what the edges are. To me it's 1 and two 3s. I'm just not sure about either one of the last two. Chair Wasserman: Thank you very much. I'd like to say that I am very impressed by the depth of thought that went into these designs, and how all of you seemed to have been living on this bridge. We ask you a question, and you know exactly in your head what it's going to look like, how it's going to go together, what it's going to feel like when you go across it, what it's going to feel like when the wind blows. I thought we were going to get nothing out of this competition honestly. I thought it was over-prescribed. I thought it was under-budgeted. I thought it was public discussion. That nobody would submit. Getting 20 submittals I was very pleased. I thought, "What kind of presentation can you put together in 5 weeks on something so complicated?" I am just blown away. I looked at this on the website a couple of days ago, and my jaw dropped. I kept going, "Ooh, ooh" for about 20 minutes. No matter which one I looked at, I was astounded and I didn't know how we were going to make a decision tonight at all. You could close your eyes and throw darts and come up good. That said, I'm going to have to come to some sort of conclusion. I am really torn between the iconic business and the Baylands flowing business. I have a personal aversion to even the word iconic, much less the concept. I'm not sure that it's really important that we have something that is recognizable from a mile away. I'm not sure that that's the most important thing. There's something really appealing about that sinuous self-sustaining cable thing. The idea that there isn't a center support on either of those two bridges was astounding to me. I didn't think it was possible. I'm kind of in the tied place. I'm afraid that the kayak comes out third again. I'm sorry because it was such a poetic concept. I like the way it was discussed. I liked the way it was arrived at. I don't think as a final object that it reaches the same—I don't know. Somebody's got to come out at the end here. I'm kind of in Sam's position where he's got A and C and I've got C and A. I think we need to have a discussion about C and A. Nobody had B in the 1 or 2 place. Does that sound right to you? Anybody else been keeping track of this? PTC Page 171 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 55 Ms. Blake: Yeah, I have. I've actually tallied it up. Chair Wasserman: Among the ARB people, A plan came out high on everybody's list except Catherine who had to leave and had C in first place. Ms. Chin: No, I had C as well. Chair Wasserman: No, I mean among the ARB people. There were As and Cs in our group. I want to thank the team from the bottom of my heart. I think you really put your heart and soul into it. I think you will build that bridge eventually. It's a great idea. I think it may be for a smaller span a better idea than trying to get across umpty lanes of highway and two lanes of frontage road and then touch down. Let's take another round and see. It's almost even. We have one person that has C first. We have two people that have A first. We have two people that have them equal. From what I was hearing, it was the iconic issue. There's our Council Member. Karen, can you inform us just how significant was this iconic landmark business in the Council's thinking about this bridge? We have had problems with iconic landmark buildings in this town. Council Member Holman: You put me on the spot here to speak for the whole Council, and I really can't. Chair Wasserman: I know. Council Member Holman: I may have been guilty of using the word iconic myself in terms of this. By iconic, I don't think that necessarily means "look at me" or "gee, here I am a big landmark." Iconic could also mean subtle but very integrated to what Palo Alto stands for. It could be an iconic of what Palo Alto is about. You handed me this because what? Chair Wasserman: You mean it could mean something like symbolic or emblematic rather than standing out? Council Member Holman: Hang on just a second. Chair Wasserman: Is that from the Council minutes? Council Member Holman: No. It's from the presentation that Brad ... Mr. Eggleston: From the design competition (inaudible). Chair Wasserman: Oh, from the brief. Okay, thank you. Council Member Holman: Truly I think iconic could mean a number of different things. IT could mean, like I said, what Palo Alto stands for in addition to or as opposed to something PTC Page 172 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 56 that really is a landmark status, you might think of as some cutting edge design or something of that nature. Again, I can't speak for the whole Council. That's my personal view of it. While I have the microphone though, if I could just for a moment? I came to the first round of this where you narrowed it down from 20 to 3. I want to thank, now added to this group, the ARB members who have been a part of this but also the jurists. It's just very impressive, so impressive your commitment, your thoughtfulness and how you've thought about this through so many different ways and avenues. I especially want to think the competition teams, because Palo Alto will be better. I look forward to a brighter design future. I've been very critical of some of the designs we've gotten here, to be perfectly frank, in the last several years. What you've done is you've added something that's going to raise the level of design in our community in the future. Whichever one of you is chosen, I want to thank all three of the teams very, very much quite sincerely. Thank you very much. Chair Wasserman: Okay. Thank you, Karen. Are you guys going to read the brief to us? Brad, why don't you—did she walk off with it? Oh, no, there it is. Mr. Eggleston: As Council Member Holman was answering your question, I just wanted her to have in front of her the guiding principles so she could reference that. Since we're having this discussion, I could just read this first one. For one thing, I don't we used the term iconic. We did use landmark. Chair Wasserman: Oh, good. Mr. Eggleston: The innovation guiding design principle says, "Inspire and engage the community with a current-era design incorporating creativity, originality, functionality, technology and education that is also identifiable as a landmark in the heart of Silicon Valley." Chair Wasserman: You've just made it harder, didn't you? Ms. Blake: I do have ... Chair Wasserman: Go on. Ms. Blake: I do have one comment about you said you're not sure how the art piece would work. I don't how it would work either, but I was in downtown San Francisco and saw the Public Utility Building and said, "Wow, that's amazing" because it worked with the wind and found out later it is Ned Kahn. It's a high building and the panel goes all the way up to the top and it moves with the wind because it's in a wind tunnel, so it reflects what's going on. I thought that was absolutely phenomenal without knowing who the artist was. He has done this kind of thing. I do want to answer that. PTC Page 173 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 57 Ms. Chin: In full disclosure, I used to work at the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs and funded the aquarium project. Ned is working on that project as well, to look like fish scales. Chair Wasserman: Susan, you put the C one first. How did you read the landmark instruction? Ms. Chin: The landmark instruction for me represented more of the ecological. As I said earlier, it was really about how the landscape was connected to the experience that you had going across the bridge. Really getting somebody up quickly and how they addressed people walking from the north. To me, that was what was the important part. Looking at the economy of—I know, Steven, you're concerned about the economy of the structure. I was looking at economy of structure similar to the portage solution. Just thinking about how do you really solve this problem. My concern for A was that it's got so much structure and so many different components, that you wouldn't be able to achieve it within the budget that you have. I know that that's not mine to address but having been a public servant, you only get so much money. You may get some more; you may not. My question would be, if you went over budget, what piece or is there a piece that you could phase or cut out on A. Ms. Blake: Can I say something about that? I was going to say this and I forgot. To me it was a brilliant solution, like I said, to create an entrance and a destination. WE ought to think about that for all of the schemes. Even if you can't afford it in the initial, Palo Alto should look to hold the place to create an entrance to the Baylands there that has all the amenities. Like you say, it puts more pressure later in the park if you don't have those things. It's a great location. Whether it fits in your budget or doesn't, I think it should be a part of your program for any of the schemes. Mr. Burrows: On the cost, to misrepresent Mies van der Rohe, I think less might be more in that if you think about spanning 300 feet and you use a height of 60 feet, you have a ratio of 1:5. If you try to do it with a low rise structure that's 15 feet, you have a ratio of 1:20. You will find that that ratio is really important. You'll have to put a lot of structure in that 1:20 to make it work. Just because it looks bigger doesn't mean it costs more. You just have to realize that. You're making a very difficult (crosstalk). Ms. Chin: Yes, Steven, I was the daughter of an aeronautical engineer, thinking about less is more. Chair Wasserman: The thing that struck me about the cable self-supporting bridge was the self-supporting aspect. When I looked at that drawing that sort of swooped out over the Baylands without any vertical support, I thought, "How did they do that?" I think that's what would catch your attention as you went by. You might not have a chance to study it at 70 miles an hour, but you would see that, my God, there's nothing holding it up. That would be astonishing and that would be kind of the icon of innovation. Is this a Skyhook? Is this a mag- PTC Page 174 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 58 lev? What the hell have we got here? Subtlety is not something we're famous for in this town. That might be a good change of pace. I just made our lives harder, didn't I , Sam? What are you thinking? You and I are the two tied votes here, you know. Mr. Lubell: They're so close. Like I said, we're not going to get it but I want to see more. I want to see the approach to A from the freeway, maybe at a better angle. I want to see that art piece. Now it's sort of coming down to almost theoretical, and that's difficult. Your point about the self-suspending being a more subtle innovation is an interesting one. The question is, is it too subtle? That's been my question all along. Chair Wasserman: That is really the question, isn't it? Mr. Kim: We also have to think about it from the layperson's perspective. We're all somewhat architecture or design related. I can go around even in Palo Alto somewhere and if there's an exposed concrete detail and I think it's amazing and I tell my wife, she says, "What the hell? It's just concrete." Like I said, I've grown more fond of that structural cable, self-supporting design, but is the average person going to get it? Maybe we explain it and say, "You see how cool that is? How that works?" They're going to say, "Okay, but nobody else really notices it." Maybe if the other alternative was something where it was so whacky or just out there that it could be conflicting for public people to say, "I like the bridge " or "I don't," then maybe it's more of a controversy. The arch scheme is so poetic in its own sense and relates back to traditions in bridge and architecture even for a layperson to see that. I don't see the drawback in selecting A. Mr. Lubell: I'm kind of curious how the teams themselves would argue the average person would find their scheme like a landmark. Is it weird to ask them ... Mr. Kim: That's a good question, yeah. Mr. Lubell: ... to do one final—what do you call that? Chair Wasserman: It's 8:30. This whole process is so ridiculously unprecedented. I have to watch my language; we're on television. I don't see any reason why we can't ask them to defend themselves. What the hell, I mean, the heck. Mr. Lubell: Let's give them a time limit. Chair Wasserman: Let's hear the subtle guys first. Tell us why your bridge is recognizably wonderful from the freeway and how a layperson who is not architecturally trained would understand that your bridge is really extraordinary. Mr. Grover: I would urge you to look at the images that we presented tonight, because they included an element that was not on the board, which was these towers that support the cable. PTC Page 175 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 59 Those were not as developed as they are over the last several days. There's a sketch on the back of your handout that shows where they would go next. They become a very interesting formal element that frames the freeway point of view. They could be quite dramatic in their own right. Tony is pointing out to me, yeah, of course we can raise the cable height. We have latitude to do that. Finally I would argue that indeed, Judith, the drama of this swooping structure out over the Baylands draws your eyes to the Baylands, even if you're on the freeway. That's not a big angle to look out at, and that is quite a dramatic element that is very important. Obviously, this project is not just about the freeway experience. It's about crossing the freeway and it's about crossing to the Baylands. I think that that gesture is perhaps the most important. These tree-like columns that frame the freeway, I think it could be very dramatic especially with nice uplighting on those columns. Chair Wasserman: Do you have any space for a bathroom in your plan? Mr. Grover: Of course we can put a bathroom in. Chair Wasserman: Next. Mr. Sanchez: (inaudible) Chair Wasserman: Oh, you're going to add to that. Okay, fine. Mr. Sanchez: I just wanted to add in terms of the cost, it was pointed out that we have a low- rise structure which sometimes is not as efficient and needs more material. Our span is not 300 feet; our span is only 210 feet. That span length really adds to the cost. Also our cable's in a pipe. It's prestressing strand in a pipe which every contractor can do. There's going to be a lot of competition when it comes to bid time on ours. I don't see how anyone could that ours is not the most economical of the three. It really is so simple; it's a steel beam with a steel pipe. That's what I wanted to add. Chair Wasserman: Okay. Let's hear from the big arch bridge. Mr. Carson: (inaudible) Chair Wasserman: Anything you feel is important at this moment. Sell us your bridge. Mr. Carson: One thing to start with is that---I think this is one of the challenges of presenting a three-dimensional object in two dimensions. As you start to approach it, it looks like every other arch you've seen. Cinema, it's actually my background, we talked about this in our first RFP that we sent you. We were going to design this as an experience as much as an icon. As you move towards this, this is actually unlike any other arch in the world. This is the only one. As you move towards it, that curvature is going to reveal itself. AS you move under it, it's going to reveal itself. Certainly as you move along it, it's going to be quite meaningful. I think PTC Page 176 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 60 that that's important to us. The other thing I would say is that I'm an architect, but I think that this scheme and the way that you set up this criteria—there's four criteria. We really wanted to produce a synthesis from the outset, and we did that in how we built our team. We brought Ned and put him on the masthead. He's in Argentina today with his family. I apologize that he can't be here. He was involved in every conference call from the start, in terms of thinking about this bridge. The same thing with the landscape. Anybody can add a bathroom, right? I think that there is a thought process about this as a synthetic thing, which is what we said in our presentation, which I hope addresses those four criteria in a meaningful way as a whole. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Does that help anybody? Mr. Wilson: Can we add another comment to that? Chair Wasserman: Oh, go right ahead. Never say I'm anything but flexible. Mr. Wilson: The comment about the criteria is really important. We did take that to heart. We also really take the question of quality of life very seriously. We think about this in terms of what does this offer to the uninitiated, to the layperson. This has something for the 8-month- old and for the 80-year-old. It really goes down to the detail of the water bottle filler, the bathroom, explaining how this bridge relates to the eventuality of sea level rise in a 100-year timeframe, how we're anticipating species that live way over there now will live here one day and we're prioritizing that in present day. We're not only thinking about a bridge in 100 years; we're thinking about the growth of a population in that long time span. We're thinking about the evolution of habitats in that time span. These are all things that preserve the quality of life that is the very reason people really do live here and they're attracted to calling this home. Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Mr. Gooyer: Can I say something? Chair Wasserman: Oh, go right ahead, yes. We've got 20 minutes. Mr. Gooyer: It's getting to the point where we're sitting here discussing it with the candidates. The reality of it is this is a competition, which means you have to rank 1, 2, and 3. Those of you who are tied, pick one. I'm sorry. If two things are equal, you can't say, "Gosh, there'll be two first place winners." We're going to be sitting here until midnight ... Chair Wasserman: You can leave. We have to vote; you don’t have to vote. Mr. Lubell: It was helpful to get a little extra information. I think we're ready now. Mr. Gooyer: I understand that. I'm saying whether I'm here or not or any of my fellow ARB members are here or not, rolling around like this ... PTC Page 177 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 61 Chair Wasserman: We will come to a conclusion shortly. Mr. Gooyer: All I'm trying to say is is that you have to make a decision one way or the other. You make a gut decision. I've had things before where you think it's pretty darn close, but down deep somewhere there is a favorite. Chair Wasserman: Yes. The way that ... Mr. Gooyer: Whatever the reason is, you just have to throw that out and then you all have a number. Then you can say three vote for this, two vote for that or whatever. Mr. Lubell: I'd just argue that what they just gave us was very helpful for me, so I'm happy that we did it. Chair Wasserman: Okay, great. Why don't you tell us what conclusion you came to? Mr. Lubell: We could do either one. Either one is excellent and either one would be a good choice. I think my gut is telling me, just that argument about the way that the iconic one actually is quite different and actually will change as you drive along on the freeway. Looking at that view from the side, that was the one that first struck me. It's just something that will more than anything draw people to the area and draw people to want to go there. In my opinion, that last element that you were talking about, I knew it was different; I didn't know quite how it was different. That just ignites my imagination more so than the other one which I think is fantastic. I love the span, I love the floating element. I love how it connects to the environment. If I have to go with my gut and what's going to really answer all the questions, I'm going with the arch one. Chair Wasserman: We have ranked these A, C and B. The way that I deal with the way you were describing the dilemma is I say, "Flip a coin. If you don't like the way it comes up, change your mind." I didn't have to, because Sam did it for me. Thank you. Ms. Blake: (inaudible) register a vote. Chair Wasserman: I might not. I think I would tend towards Sam's decision as well, partly because I remembered that the arch is straight but the roadbed is curved, which suddenly changed the whole way I was looking at this thing. What I really like a lot about this design is the way it meets the ground on both ends. Mr. Lubell: We haven't talked that much about the landscape, but I think the landscape designs for all these were excellent. That's all I wanted to say for a while. PTC Page 178 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 62 Chair Wasserman: Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. All the amenities on the Baylands side for somebody who doesn't get them over there. There is a toilet at Byxbee Park, and that's the size of it. We have reached a conclusion everybody. I cannot tell you how grateful, surprised and relieved I was to see all these wonderful submittals. Thank you, Margie, for being such a good shepherd. It was great working with you. Elizabeth, do you have what you need now? Ms. Ames: Yes. We'll take these recommendations to the various boards and commissions in January, and then we'll have the final recommendations. Hopefully, they will concur with this ranking, and we'll take that to the City Council in February for a final recommendation. Chair Wasserman: At one point before the meeting, you said this was going to have verbatim minutes? Ms. Ames: Yes, I'm going to have verbatim minutes for this whole discussion. Yes. Chair Wasserman: That will be very helpful, because I'm going to be responsible for representing the jury on all these various boards and commissions. What is the approval process now? The City Council gets to choose one. Assuming they agree with us, it would be the one with the arch. Is there any further design review? Does this go to the ARB? Does it go to Parks and Rec? It hits the Baylands. It gets site and design. It goes to Planning Commission. Everybody gets to see it. Save your boards. Everybody's going to get a chance to chime in on various and assorted aspects of this thing. It doesn't go to historic preservation? Does it go to the Library Commission? Is there anything else you're going to want from us tonight or are we adjourned? Thank you all for hanging in. Is that a gentleman from the press back there by the way? You, you? Unknown: No. Chair Wasserman: No. You're on that team? You're from the press. Are you from the Weekly? Unknown: (inaudible) Chair Wasserman: Whatever you're from, you're going to write this up, give us a big spread, lots of pictures? Unknown: (inaudible) Chair Wasserman: Thank you. Good. Mr. Betts: From down here, we just wanted to add one more time, thank you very much to everybody for your time and involvement in this. PTC Page 179 of 183 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 63 Board/Staff Announcements, Updates, Reports, and Comments: Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). Adjournment. PTC Page 180 of 183 Public Comments ‐ Adobe Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Project Submission A ‐ HNTB Engineering, 64North, Bionic Landscape Architecture, Ned Kahn Date:Comment: 12/11/14 Tallest of the three, submission A is also the most graceful. It makes a strong statement while looking quite user friendly. I live not for from the site and would be happy to have it in my neighborhood. 12/14/14 Doesn't fit in that well with the environment. It looks like it might cost too much money. 12/14/14 The curves are nice, but the main span arch seems pretty traditional. This type of bridge is not unique and has been done many times at other sites. It also seems very tall and dominating, and not a pedestrian friendly scale. Is this large a structure appropriate for a pedestrian bridge? 12/12/14 This design is my favorite, with its separation of pedestrian and cyclist paths. It's light and airy and beautiful. I just hope it's not too expensive. Most of all I'm happy ANY bridge is being built in this location. I've endured that awful tunnel, or its closure, for years. 12/15/14 This design is graceful, simple and well‐integrated into the site. I can't wait to ride my bike over it! 12/17/14 I like the open look of this proposal. I am a fan of suspension bridges. In all the cases, I am worried that cost and complexity will slow the implementation of the design and limit funds for other projects. The city design shown as a starting point is only 16 feet wide, and that is wider than any other bike/ped bridge in the region, so I see no need to go wider than that. The double path design on the bayside in this design looks like an extravagance. On the West side, please consider both the bridge and the bridge access. It may be a better overall design to narrow the bridge to 10 feet (as in the 15% design) on the West side to allow better access from West Bayshore, expecting most cyclists to ride onto the sidewalk instead of sharing the lane going south on W. Bayshore. 12/19/14 Though I like elements of all 3 designs, this is my favorite. I especially like the way the designers elegantly and safely separated two tracks for different speeds of travel, and the way it opens up on the baylands side. I also like the low, motion‐activated lighting, which bike commuters will appreciate. The fluttering discs do not appeal to me, however. 12/23/14 The design is very beutiful, it has minimal affect to the US 101 during construction, it seems to me that the future widening of the US 101 has been considered. Looking forward to seeing the project going to construction. Good choice 01/05/15 Impressive bridge design. Good attention to details. Motion sensitive lights need to illuminate both the rider and his/her path so the rider can see the path ahead. Wd WĂŐĞ ϭϴϭ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ Public Comments ‐ Adobe Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Project Submission B ‐ Endrestudio, OLIN, SBP and Biohabitats Date: Comment: 12/15/14 It has a nice design, but might be a little too fancy. It looks like it would cost a lot to build. 12/14/14 How long will the wood last? What kind of maintenance would be required? Is the membrane transparent? How do the users see outside the deck where the membrane gets tall? How much would a bridge like this cost? Has something like this been built before? 12/14/14 A thoughtful sinuous structure, but one that takes sustainability to an illogical extreme. Wood is an excellent sustainable building material, but not when it is completely exposed to the elements. The beautiful covered bridges of New England were covered not to protect the users, but rather the wood structure. By ignoring the issue of longevity and durability, the bridge does not take sufficient account of the overriding importance of lifespan to sustainability. 12/12/14 This design would be my third choice, because it just seems overly fussy. 12/15/14 the kayak imagery that inspired this bride is carried through the design and structure. it sits lightly on the site and integrates well into the natural environment. Inspiring as a gateway to the baylands. 12/17/14 The biggest environmental benefit of this bridge is that it will allow and encourage travel by bicycle and foot instead of by private automobile. Compared to that, it does not matter how or what it is made of. I dislike the way the sides of the bridge obstruct views on most of the walk across the span. In all cases, the sound from the freeway will make most bikers and peds want to keep moving across the span, but still it would be nice to have open views, which should be fabulous. In Santa Clara County the road being crossed is "Highway 101" or just "101" In Santa Barbara Co. it is "The 101." In all the cases, I am worried that cost and complexity will slow the implementation of the design and limit funds for other projects. Wd WĂŐĞ ϭϴϮ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ Public Comments ‐ Adobe Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Project Submission C ‐ Moffatt and Nichol, Steven Grover and Associates, Lutsko Associates, JIRI Strasky, Mark Thomas and Co. Date:Comment: 12/10/14 After looking at the design and pics submitted, I felt that by far the most environmentally integrative, simple, and therefore in my opinion elegant was #3. 12/10/14 The landscaping and simplistic blend with nature is what the Badlands is all about. 12/11/14 This is by far the best design, it is simple and elegant and most of all user friendly. 12/14/14 Really nice design and looks like it wont cost much money. I like how simple it is and how it fits great in the environment. 12/14/14 not overbearing, fits well with the surrounding and still a signature structure. 12/14/14 The design is subtle, but unique and beautiful.The curves and materials are very nice. This one seems easier to build and less costly then the other two. 12/14/14 This is the weakest of the three. The bridge is minimal but inelegant, with fencing that appears like a public works solution to preventing suicide. Little thought to the differences between bikes and pedestrians. No creation of space or celebration of structure. It's just an elevated pathway. 12/13/14 I really like Submission C. The curvilinear structure really seems to float over the wetlands as opposed to being built right in the middle of them. I hope this one wins. 12/13/14 This bridge would be a great addition to the Palo Alto infrastructure. The low profile design blends in very nicely with the surrounding wetlands. 12/13/14 Looks beautiful. I vote for this one. Includes a clear aesthetic sensibility. 12/17/14 I like the open look and clean lines of this design. I'm impressed with the ability to span the freeway without a center support, and with without requiring an obvious superstructure. I appreciate the design boards including the sound environment, which will remind us that though any bridge may be pretty, it will not be pleasant to stay out in the center of any of these spans for long. In all the cases, I am worried that cost and complexity will slow the implementation of the design and limit funds for other projects. The city design shown as a starting point is only 16 feet wide, and that is wider than any other bike/ped bridge in the region, so I see no need to go wider than that. The extra wide section in the middle of the span looks to me like it will be an unused extravagance. On the West side, please consider both the bridge and the bridge access. It may be a better overall design to narrow the bridge to 10 feet (as in the 15% design) on the West side to allow better access from West Bayshore, expecting most cyclists to ride onto the sidewalk instead of sharing the lane going south on W. Bayshore. 12/18/14 By far the best design. Just a simple bridge across 101. The other two designs are way too garish and look more like ego art projects than functional designs. Sorry this wasn't the chosen design. 12/18/14 By far the best design. Just a simple bridge across 101. The other two designs are way too garish and look more like ego art projects than functional designs. Sorry this wasn't the chosen design. 12/18/14 yes. i like this one. it blends into the environment best and won't interfere with wildlife. the other 2 are ridiculous. 12/18/14 Extremely simply and elegant, and perhaps the most challenging structural concept. A low profile circular cable or stress ribbon configuration which seems to not clearly articulate the anchorages or the saddle hardware which could take up mass not shown. The elegance of simplicity may be undermined by the fencing which is more of an add on. Less developed visually, but ultimately could be a stunning structure: Backed by Jiri's expertise, very possible it can be done elegantly. 12/23/14 My preference is for Submission C. I think it is elegant, less obtrusive and more in line with how our highway systems presently look. I also like how birds would probably have less deaths associated with this bridge. 12/23/2014 Let's keep it simple and clean with this design. No need for the fancy suspenders and much more visible. Understated is best. Keep it simple and clean. Wd WĂŐĞ ϭϴϯ ŽĨ ϭϴϯ 0’ 10’ 20’50’100’ A C B CONNECTING EARTH & SKY / Central Span Over US 101 Provides Dedicated Pathways For Pedestrian & Cyclists INCREASED SAFETY & FUTURE FLEXIBILITY / Design Removes Temporary & Permanent Supports In US 101 & Between US 101 & Bayshore SITE PLAN / Allows for Generous 41’ and 65’ Turning Radii On West & East Approaches RESTORING THE BAYLANDS / Creating Connections Between The City, Bicycle & Pedestrian Pathways, & The Landscape Of The Bay CONFLUENCE HNTB | 64NORTH | BIONIC | NED KAHN For many years, the infrastructure of the automobile has created emissions, noise, and divisions in our communities. Palo Alto has instead embraced a more multimodal future, choosing walking and cycling, developing car sharing and even self-driving vehicles. Palo Alto’s Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge is an opportunity to create a more multifunctional, forward-looking infrastructure. Drawn from the trajectories of the cyclists moving along it and the sinuous waterways of the Bay, it is designed not as an icon but as an experience. Here, at the confluence of Adobe and Barron Creeks, we can create an opportunity for experience, for beauty, and a deeper understanding of our natural world. ADOBE CREEK PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST BRIDGE West of US101 the bridge ascends in a counterclockwise loop, arcing over the freeway before descending in a broad circle. To the east, a new gathering space provides a place to sit and take in the view, with amenities including bicycle repair. Encircled by the bridge is a new vernal pond and boardwalk, a new way to explore the Baylands. Recognizing the challenges of multiple users traveling the same route, the bridge creates dedicated zones for pedestrians and cyclists, lifting one above the other, and separating them in plan. Over the freeway the arch gestures to the sky, creating a cathedral- like space. More than a crossing, it is a space to pause and reflect. 0’100’200’ A C B 0’ 100’ 200’ A C B A NEW OBSERVATORY FOR THE BAYLANDS / Unprecedented Views of the Baylands and Its Wildlife A SYMPATHETIC MATERIAL PALETTE / Weathering Steel Lowers Cost, Is Corrosion-Resistant, & Blends With Baylands’ Natural Palette A DELICATE TOUCH IN A SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEM / Structural Approach Allows For Piers Nearly 100’ Apart The landscape recognizes its strategic place in the broader watershed, leveraging its small footprint for larger-scale change through hydrologic and symbolic connection. Storm water is captured from the bridge, bike path, and frontage road, treated and routed to a new basin. As the water mixes with seasonal ground water and residual bay mud salinity, this vernal pool creates a new ecological niche. Overflow and grey water from a possible bathroom and drinking fountains can be recaptured in tanks concealed in the bridge abutments, irrigating vertical gardens of pollinator species flanking their sides. This site, like the rest of the Bay, must address sea level rise: the design anticipates this change, enabling future ecologies and habitats and communicating the importance of resiliency. PLANT COMMUNITIES & Migration Given Rising Tides TRANSITION ZONE FRINGE Gum Plant (Grindelia camporum)Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata)Alkali Heath (Frankenia salina)Sea Lavender (Limonium sp.)Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) UPLAND POND Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis)California Sagebrush (Artemesia californica)Buckwheat (Erigonum nudum)Sticky Monkey Flower (Mimulus aurantiacus)San Pablo Vole (Microtus californicus)Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris)Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) FRESH WATER POND 21002015 2100 2015 BRACKISH MARSH MUD FLATS Leopard Shark (Triakis semifasciata), Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), Black Necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) LOW MARSHCordgrass (Spartina sp.), Egret (Casmerodius albus) HIGH MARSH Pickleweed (Salicornia), Alkali Bulrush (Scirpus maritimus)Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis). Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris),Salt Marsh Bird’s Beak (Cordylanthus maritimus) LOW MARSH MUDFLATS EXPERIENCE, AWARENESS, UNDERSTANDING UPLAND / TRANSITION ZONE HIGH MARSH LOW MARSH MUDFLATS Spike Rush (Eleocharis macrostachys)Bulrush (Scirpus californicus) + 2.75 - 4’ + 0’ + 2.75’ + 4’ + 12’ + 0 - 2.75’ + 4’ - 12’ + 5’ + 12’ UPLAND TRANSITION FRINGE MAX MHTL INTERPRETIVE CIRCUIT 11 11 10 9 8 7 6 10 9 8 7 6 5 5% 17 1 4 12 2 5 15 14 16 6 13 8 9 10 7 3 11 AMENITIES Furnishings, Interpretive, Infrastructure Bay Overlook Bridge Seating Sea Level Rise & Flora / Fauna Interpretive Loop Views over Low Upland Planting (24”) Plaza Seating 5% Universal Access Ramp Water Bottle Filling Station Pedestrian Bridge Stair Bike Racks Bike Fixit Station / Air Pump Plaza / Overlook / Textured Paving Bridge Seating Existing Bay Trail Interpretive Signage Pollinator Species Greenwall Restrooms Adobe Creek Overlook 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 15 7169 +4’+6’+8’ +2’+0’-2’-4’-6’ 210020502015 6 3 2 1 4 5 8 13 12 9 11 9 9 POND: SEA LEVEL RISE Brackish Marsh Creation & Upland Migration Aquatic Zone Emergent Fringe Transition Zone Upland Zone Bay Fill Bay Mud Fresh Water Fringe Plant Community Residual Salinity & Seasonal Groundwater Fill: Upland Habitat & Future Bird Island Transition Zone Planting Upland Planting Wetlands Delineation Line Existing Hawk Pond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Projected SeaLevel Rise 7 POND: SPRING Fresh Water Pond / Mud Flats & Plant Communities Aquatic Zone Emergent Fringe Transition Zone Upland Zone Bay Fill Bay Mud Fresh Water Fringe Plant Community Residual Salinity & Seasonal Groundwater Fill: Upland Habitat & Future Bird Island Transition Zone Planting Upland Planting Wetlands Delineation Line Existing Hawk Pond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 +4’+6’+8’ +2’+0’-2’-4’-6’ 210020502015 6 5 3 2 1 4 12 13 9 7 11 9 10 9 8 Projected SeaLevel Rise +4’+6’+8’ +2’+0’-2’-4’-6’ 210020502015 7 Projected SeaLevel Rise POND: WINTER Fresh Water Pond & Plant Communities 11 12 13 9 9 10 9 3 2 1 4 Aquatic Zone Emergent Fringe Transition Zone Upland Zone Bay Fill Bay Mud Fresh Water Fringe Plant Community Residual Salinity & Seasonal Groundwater Fill: Upland Habitat & Future Bird Island Transition Zone Planting Upland Planting Wetlands Delineation Line Existing Hawk Pond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8 6 5 WATER SYSTEMS Water Bottle Filling Station Stormwater Garden Storage Tanks Grey Water Treatment Restrooms Stream: Overflow, Floods, Fish Refugia Visual Access Floods Relationship to Habitats Sea Level Rise Water Use 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 Intepretive Topic Areas FRON T A G E R O A D GRO U N D W A T E R BAY T R A I L PLAZ A STORMWATER SYSTEM Grey WaterTreatment Storage Tanks IrrigateLiving Wall GREY WATER SYSTEM Sinks &Bottle Station VIEW S T O B A Y ADO B E C R E E K V I E W S 7 2 345 1 6 +11 +1 0 + 9 + 8 + 7 +6+5 10 9 8 11 On-Site Retention & Intrepretive Infrastructure POND: SPRING Fresh Water Pond / Mud Flats & Plant Communities Aquatic Zone Emergent Fringe Transition Zone Upland Zone Bay Fill Bay Mud Fresh Water Fringe Plant Community Residual Salinity & Seasonal Groundwater Fill: Upland Habitat & Future Bird Island Transition Zone Planting Upland Planting Wetlands Delineation Line Existing Hawk Pond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 +4’+6’+8’ +2’+0’-2’-4’-6’ 210020502015 6 5 3 2 1 4 12 13 9 7 11 9 10 9 8 Projected SeaLevel Rise WATER SYSTEMS Water Bottle Filling Station Stormwater Garden Storage Tanks Grey Water Treatment Restrooms Stream: Overflow, Floods, Fish Refugia Visual Access Floods Relationship to Habitats Sea Level Rise Water Use 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 Intepretive Topic Areas FRON T A G E R O A D GRO U N D W A T E R BAY T R A I L PLAZ A STORMWATER SYSTEM Grey WaterTreatment Storage Tanks IrrigateLiving Wall GREY WATER SYSTEM Sinks &Bottle Station VIEW S T O B A Y ADO B E C R E E K V I E W S 7 2 345 1 6 +11 +1 0 + 9 + 8 + 7 +6 +5 10 9 8 11 On-Site Retention & Intrepretive Infrastructure WATER SYSTEMS Hydrologic & Symbolic Connections to Larger Watershed 11 11 10 9 8 7 6 10 9 8 7 6 5 5% 17 1 4 12 2 5 15 14 16 6 13 8 9 10 7 3 11 AMENITIES Furnishings, Interpretive, Infrastructure Bay Overlook Bridge Seating Sea Level Rise Interpretive Loop Views over Low Upland Planting Plaza Seating 5% Universal Access Ramp Water Bottle Filling Station Pedestrian Bridge Stair Bike Racks Bike Fixit Station / Air Pump Plaza / Overlook / Textured Paving Bridge Seating Existing Bay Trail Interpretive Signage Pollinator Species Greenwall Restrooms Adobe Creek Overlook 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 15 7169 LANDSCAPE SPRING/SUMMER Vernal Pond & Mud Flats Plant Communitites WINTER Vernal Pond & Mud Flats Plant Communitites A RESTORED LANDSCAPE / New Vernal Pool Removes Added Fill, Restoring An Important Ecological Niche FUTURE Brackish Marsh Creation & Upland Migration AMENITIES Furnishings, Interpretive, Infrastructure PLANT COMMUNITIES Migration Given Rising Tides 11 11 10 9 8 7 6 10 9 8 7 6 5 5% 17 1 4 12 2 5 15 14 16 6 13 8 9 10 7 3 11 AMENITIESFurnishings, Interpretive, Infrastructure Bay Overlook Bridge Seating Sea Level Rise Interpretive Loop Views over Low Upland Planting Plaza Seating 5% Universal Access Ramp Water Bottle Filling Station Pedestrian Bridge Stair Bike Racks Bike Fixit Station / Air Pump Plaza / Overlook / Textured Paving Bridge Seating Existing Bay Trail Interpretive Signage Pollinator Species Greenwall Restrooms Adobe Creek Overlook 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 15 7169 A GATEWAY ABOVE US 101 / A New Icon For Palo Alto Bridging North & South LOW-ENERGY, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LIGHTING / Sensors Trigger Light In Response To Motion, Guiding Users Along Pathway MORE THAN A CROSSING, A SPACE / Integrated Missile Barrier Eliminates Unsightly Supports, Allowing Unprecedented View MAXIMIZING SAFETY WHILE KEEPING LIGHTING AT A MINIMUM / Above The Freeway, Lighting Tracks Movement, Animating The Bridge SYNTHESIZING TECHNOLOGY & NATURE IN AN EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIENCE / Integrated Art Deters Birds, Keeping Them Safe 0’ 10’ 20’50’ 0’ 10’ 20’50’ A large-scale artwork is integrated into the bridge, utilizing technology to engage the natural phenomena of the site. Brushed stainless steel disks are fixed to the cable net, weathervanes swaying in the wind, deterring birds and ensuring their safety. Undulating with each gust and passing vehicle, they sparkle in the sun, an ineffable experience of motion and light. ART ENGAGING NATURAL PHENOMENA / Art Elements Structured as an arch, the bridge leans northward, counterposed to the deck, a network of thin cables between. This innovative structure is slender, structurally efficient, and cost effective, with excellent seismic performance. It elminates supports in the median and between US 101 and Bayshore, increasing safety and future flexibility. Constructed of corrosion-resistant weathering steel, its warm hues are sympathetic with the Baylands’ natural palette. This innovative approach extends to construction: erected at a temporary location while foundation work is underway, the arch can be rolled into place with self-propelled modular transports, reducing traffic disruption to a single nighttime closure. STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION Sequencing & Methodology 1 SHIP Arch Shipped To Site In Prefabricated Pieces 2 ASSEMBLE Assembled At Temporary Staging Area While Foundations Constructed On-Site 3 TRANSPORT Self-Propelled Modular Transports Move Arch Into Place In Single Nighttime Weekend Closure 4 INSTALL Once Installed, Remaining Finishes Completed & Prepared For Use 5 COMPLETE Rapid Installation Allows Completion Outside Protected Nesting Window MINIMIZING TRAFFIC & ENVIRONMENTAL DISRUPTION / Innovative SPMT Approach To Construction Phasing Allows Only A Single Nighttime Closure of US 101 01 / AXIAL FORCE ANALYSIS 02 / MODAL ANALYSIS / DISPLACEMENT 03 / DECK STRESS ANALYSIS NORTH-SOUTH SECTION THROUGH CENTER SPAN / Separated Deck for Pedestrians & Cyclists SOUTH ELEVATION OVER US 101 / 18” Deck Allows for Maximum Visibility & Lowers Profile, Reducing Length & Cost0’ 10’ 20’50’0’ 10’ 20’50’ CONFLUENCE HNTB | 64NORTH | BIONIC | NED KAHN ADOBE CREEK PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST BRIDGE CONNECTING EARTH & SKY / Central Span Over Us 101 Provides Dedicated Pathways For Pedestrian & Cyclists For many years, the infrastructure of the automobile has created emissions, noise, and divisions in our communities. Palo Alto has instead embraced a more multimodal future, choosing walking and cycling, developing car sharing and even self-driving vehicles. Palo Alto’s Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge is an opportunity to create a more multi-functional, forward-looking infrastructure. Drawn from the trajectories of the cyclists moving along it and the sinuous waterways of the Bay, it is designed not as an icon but as an experience. Here, at the confluence of Adobe and Barron Creeks, we can create an opportunity for experience, for beauty, and a deeper understanding of our natural world. URBAN - NATURAL CONNECTION / Informed By The Geometries Of The Baylands The New Bridge Will Reconnect The City With Its Bay CATALYST / The New Pedestrian And Cyclist Bridge Becomes A Catalyst For Ecological, Social And Economic Growth 0’100’200’ A C B 0’ 100’ 200’ A C B SITE PLAN / Allows For Generous 41’ And 65’ Turning Radii On West & East Approaches 0’ 10’ 20’50’100’ A C B 0’ 10’ 20’50’ CENTRAL SPAN INNOVATIVE STRUCTURE / Arched Construction Allows For Minimal Supports, Reducing Environmental Impact Over Highway 101, the arch and its net of cable stays create a cathedral-like space, critically not only a crossing, but a place unto itself. Here, the bridge, its iconography, and its experience, gestures not only from east to west, but also to the sky. Integrating the required missile barrier with our cable net allows us to do away with unsightly large supports, and creates a space that is both safe and more fundamentally connected to the exceptional views north and south. As users pass between the arch ribs, this more enclosed space then opens to the extraordinary vista of the Baylands beyond. CENTRAL SPAN The bridge is constructed of weathering steel. With excellent resistance to corrosion, it is maintenance free and its hue is sympathetic with the Baylands’ natural palette. Pedestrian pathways are decked in rot-resistant Black Locust wood. The approach structures on either side are clad in vertical gardens of native species, constructed in an innovative method which combines coconut husks and geotextiles. These living walls buffer sound and absorb particulates, as well as enclosing important infrastructural elements for storm-water treatment. Finally, and critically, they embody and draw the natural character of the Baylands into a more direct engagement with the urban character of the west approach, creating a more direct dialogue between the Bay and City. MATERIALITY SYNTHESIZING TECHNOLOGY & NATURE IN AN EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIENCE / Integrated Art Deters Birds, Keeping Them Safe AN EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIENCE / By Separating Pedestrians And Bikes, Opportunities For Contemplation And Observation Are Created MULTIPLE USERS Recognizing the challenges that can arise when multiple user groups share the public realm, the bridge has been structured to delineate and even physically separate circulation zones for cyclists and pedestrians. As users first ramp up and down on the bridge approach, the pedestrian path is clearly delineated from the concrete cycling route through the use of Black Locust wood decking, oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel to create a rumble strip. As the pathway begins to curve to the west of the freeway, we have physically separated pedestrian and cyclist zones with a solid rail to minimize conflicts, with the cyclists oriented outboard to maximize their effective turning radius. Passing over the freeway, the two paths separate in section, with the cycling path raised slightly and separated with an additional handrail. Finally, as users climb or descend over the Baylands, the two paths separate in plan, with pedestrians outboard oriented toward the view. As a result of consultation with our team’s bicycle advocate, we have also included rumble strips at the beginning of the descent in both directions to remind cyclists to control their speed. MULTIPLE USERS Recognizing the sensitivity of the Baylands and the species which call it home, we’ve created a lighting design which is safe, low-energy and minimizes environmental impact. The bridge is illuminated at a very low level with blue energy- efficient LED fixtures, integrated into handrail supports, ensuing light is focused solely on the walk surface. Integrated motion sensors trigger localized white light in response to pedestrians and cyclists, guiding them down the pathway, maximizing safety while keeping lighting at a minimum. As a visitor pauses, they might see the light of a jogger approaching or from the freeway beneath, a comet’s trail arcing overhead with a passing cyclist. LIGHTING CONNECTING EARTH & SKY / Central Span Over Us 101 Provides Dedicated Pathways For Pedestrian & Cyclists SENSITIVE LIGHTING / White Light Follows Pedestrians As They Move Across The Bridge So As Not To Disturb Nesting Species A GATEWAY ABOVE THE US 101 / A New Icon For Palo Alto Bridging North & South STRUCTURE 01 / AXIAL FORCE ANALYSIS 02 / MODAL ANALYSIS / DISPLACEMENT 03 / DECK STRESS ANALYSIS We have sought to create a bridge whose structure communicates its essential character. The bridge is structured as an arch, leaning to the north, counterposed to the gentle southward curve of the deck as it arcs over Highway 101. A gateway over the freeway, the arch is elegant, highly efficient, and cost effective, performing exceptionally well in earthquakes due to its inherent flexibility and ductility. Through the use of rolled W-shapes oriented on their weak axis, this innovative design provides excellent lateral stability. It is further optimized for cost by standardizing connections using a limited number of commonly available sections and employing simple, industry-standard details. A net of exceptionally thin stainless steel cables links the arch and the deck below; this cable network approach both optimizes cable thickness for cost and can be maintained easily without disrupting overall stability. Finally, the continuation of the structural form of the arch onto the arch piers counterbalances thrust from the main span, minimizing the demand on foundations and likewise reducing their cost. This design eliminates the need for any permanent or temporary supports in the Highway 101 median as well as between Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore, maximizing roadway safety, eliminating disruption, and increasing flexibility for the future. It also avoids significant existing utilities along East Bayshore. This innovative structure also allows for an extraordinarily thin bridge deck, tapering over the freeway to a ribbon only 18 inches deep, maximizing desired visual continuity to the Baylands. This fine, delicate profile also allows us to effectively lower the bridge while maintaining the necessary clear heights, reducing the bridge’s overall length and its resulting cost. For us, this is an important kind of sustainability: doing the most with minimal means STRUCTURE MINIMIZING TRAFFIC & ENVIRONMENTAL DISRUPTION / Innovative SPMT Approach To Construction Phasing Allows Only A Single Nighttime Closure of US 101 CONSTRUCTION Sequencing & Methodology 1 SHIP Arch Shipped To Site In Prefabricated Pieces 2 ASSEMBLE Assembled At Temporary Staging Area While Foundations Constructed On-Site 3 TRANSPORT Self-Propelled Modular Transports Move Arch Into Place In Single Nighttime Weekend Closure 4 INSTALL Once Installed, Remaining Finishes Completed & Prepared For Use 5 COMPLETE Rapid Installation Allows Completion Outside Protected Nesting Window CONSTRUCTION Our team’s innovative approach extends beyond the bridge’s design to its construction. Just as Highway 101 represents a significant challenge for connectivity, it also represents a significant challenge for construction sequencing with the potential for significant disruption. The arch can be fabricated off site and shipped to a temporary erection site nearby. There, the arch can be assembled on falsework where the majority of work will be completed, including concrete, lighting, and architectural finishes. Meanwhile, foundation work will be underway on the project site. We will then utilize an innovative method to erect the arch in a single night. Sections of highway barrier will be replaced with temporary barriers, and during a weekend nighttime closure of Highway 101, the arch will be rolled into place via self-propelled modular transports, and tied together with standard bridge joints. This methodology minimizes overall construction time, critically important because construction may be limited during summer months given nearby nesting. And, through the use of SPMTs, this innovative approach poses little temporary and no permanent impact to the Adobe/Barron Creek confluence and can be erected with just a single weekend nighttime closure of Highway 101. CONSTRUCTION A NEW OBSERVATORY FOR THE BAYLANDS / Reduced Structure Allows For Unprecedented Views Of The Baylands And Its Wildlife MINIMIZE IMPACT / Innovative Structure Allows For Minimal Support Of The Looping Pathway DYNAMIC ECOSYSTEMS / New Vernal Pond Enhances The Already Vibrant Ecosystem Of The Baylands LANDSCAPE The bridge’s project site is importantly home not only to people. Working with our team’s biologists and ornithologists, the bridge is designed to minimize impacts on migratory and local birds well as other local species, including the protected Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Clapper Rail. On the arch span, integrated artwork by Ned Kahn serves not only an aesthetic function, but its continuously changing reflections serve as a deterrent, keeping birds safe and reducing maintenance. The bridge’s design also avoids any large-scale vertical elements near the Baylands, eliminating the opportunity for predatory bird species to perch and easily hunt harvest mice in the landscape below. As the bridge loops in parallel arcs over the Baylands, it is structured with large beams integrated into its inner rails, creating an effective depth of over six feet, enabling it to float over this sensitive ecosystem, its piers nearly 100 feet apart. Here, the structure does not intrude in the Baylands, instead delicately engaging the environment that surrounds it. In contrast to this more solid interior profile, the twin pathways’ outer profiles narrow to just 8 inches, creating an open, light edge above the landscape below. Here, the outermost walkway is dedicated to pedestrians, expanding to 10’ in width. Integrated benches and a deck which widens to 10 feet provide a perfect spot to birdwatch, rest, or take in the view toward Byxbee to the northeast. A similar structural approach enables the looping pathway to span over the parking lot of 3600 West Bayshore with minimal support. Twin access stairs allow users to shortcut up and over the span at either side of the freeway. LANDSCAPE PLANT COMMUNITIES & Migration Given Rising Tides TRANSITION ZONE FRINGE Gum Plant (Grindelia camporum)Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata)Alkali Heath (Frankenia salina)Sea Lavender (Limonium sp.)Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) UPLAND POND Coyote Brush (Baccharis pilularis)California Sagebrush (Artemesia californica)Buckwheat (Erigonum nudum)Sticky Monkey Flower (Mimulus aurantiacus)San Pablo Vole (Microtus californicus)Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris)Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) FRESH WATER POND 21002015 2100 2015 BRACKISH MARSH MUD FLATS Leopard Shark (Triakis semifasciata), Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), Black Necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) LOW MARSHCordgrass (Spartina sp.), Egret (Casmerodius albus) HIGH MARSHPickleweed (Salicornia), Alkali Bulrush (Scirpus maritimus)Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis). Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris),Salt Marsh Bird’s Beak (Cordylanthus maritimus) LOW MARSH MUDFLATS EXPERIENCE, AWARENESS, UNDERSTANDING UPLAND / TRANSITION ZONE HIGH MARSH LOW MARSH MUDFLATS Spike Rush (Eleocharis macrostachys)Bulrush (Scirpus californicus) + 2.75 - 4’ + 0’ + 2.75’ + 4’ + 12’ + 0 - 2.75’ + 4’ - 12’ + 5’ + 12’ UPLAND TRANSITION FRINGE MAX MHTL INTERPRETIVE CIRCUIT POND: SPRING Fresh Water Pond / Mud Flats & Plant Communities Aquatic Zone Emergent Fringe Transition Zone Upland Zone Bay Fill Bay Mud Fresh Water Fringe Plant Community Residual Salinity & Seasonal Groundwater Fill: Upland Habitat & Future Bird Island Transition Zone Planting Upland Planting Wetlands Delineation Line Existing Hawk Pond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 +4’+6’+8’ +2’+0’-2’-4’-6’ 210020502015 6 5 3 2 1 4 12 13 9 7 11 9 10 9 8 Projected SeaLevel Rise +4’+6’+8’ +2’+0’-2’-4’-6’ 210020502015 7 Projected SeaLevel Rise POND: WINTER Fresh Water Pond & Plant Communities 11 12 13 9 9 10 9 3 2 1 4 Aquatic Zone Emergent Fringe Transition Zone Upland Zone Bay Fill Bay Mud Fresh Water Fringe Plant Community Residual Salinity & Seasonal Groundwater Fill: Upland Habitat & Future Bird Island Transition Zone Planting Upland Planting Wetlands Delineation Line Existing Hawk Pond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8 6 5 SPRING/SUMMER Vernal Pond & Mud Flats Plant Communitites WINTER Vernal Pond & Mud Flats Plant Communitites PLANT COMMUNITIES Migration Given Rising Tides +4’+6’+8’ +2’+0’-2’-4’-6’ 210020502015 7 Projected SeaLevel Rise POND: WINTER Fresh Water Pond & Plant Communities 11 12 13 9 9 10 9 3 2 1 4 Aquatic Zone Emergent Fringe Transition Zone Upland Zone Bay Fill Bay Mud Fresh Water Fringe Plant Community Residual Salinity & Seasonal Groundwater Fill: Upland Habitat & Future Bird Island Transition Zone Planting Upland Planting Wetlands Delineation Line Existing Hawk Pond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8 6 5 11 11 10 9 8 7 6 10 9 8 7 6 5 5% 17 1 4 12 2 5 15 14 16 6 13 8 9 10 7 3 11 AMENITIES Furnishings, Interpretive, Infrastructure Bay Overlook Bridge Seating Sea Level Rise & Flora / Fauna Interpretive Loop Views over Low Upland Planting (24”) Plaza Seating 5% Universal Access Ramp Water Bottle Filling Station Pedestrian Bridge Stair Bike Racks Bike Fixit Station / Air Pump Plaza / Overlook / Textured Paving Bridge Seating Existing Bay Trail Interpretive Signage Pollinator Species Greenwall Restrooms Adobe Creek Overlook 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 15 7169 +4’+6’+8’ +2’+0’-2’-4’-6’ 210020502015 6 3 2 1 4 5 8 13 12 9 11 9 9 POND: SEA LEVEL RISE Brackish Marsh Creation & Upland Migration Aquatic Zone Emergent Fringe Transition Zone Upland Zone Bay Fill Bay Mud Fresh Water Fringe Plant Community Residual Salinity & Seasonal Groundwater Fill: Upland Habitat & Future Bird Island Transition Zone Planting Upland Planting Wetlands Delineation Line Existing Hawk Pond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Projected SeaLevel Rise 7 POND: SPRING Fresh Water Pond / Mud Flats & Plant Communities Aquatic Zone Emergent Fringe Transition Zone Upland Zone Bay Fill Bay Mud Fresh Water Fringe Plant Community Residual Salinity & Seasonal Groundwater Fill: Upland Habitat & Future Bird Island Transition Zone Planting Upland Planting Wetlands Delineation Line Existing Hawk Pond 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 +4’+6’+8’ +2’+0’-2’-4’-6’ 210020502015 6 53214 121397 11 910 9 8 Projected SeaLevel Rise 11 11 10 9 8 7 6 10 9 8 7 6 5 5% 17 1 4 12 2 5 15 14 16 6 13 8 9 10 7 3 11 AMENITIES Furnishings, Interpretive, Infrastructure Bay Overlook Bridge Seating Sea Level Rise Interpretive Loop Views over Low Upland Planting Plaza Seating 5% Universal Access Ramp Water Bottle Filling Station Pedestrian Bridge Stair Bike Racks Bike Fixit Station / Air Pump Plaza / Overlook / Textured Paving Bridge Seating Existing Bay Trail Interpretive Signage Pollinator Species Greenwall Restrooms Adobe Creek Overlook 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 15 7169 FUTURE Brackish Marsh Creation & Upland Migration AMENITIES Furnishings, Interpretive, Infrastructure 11 11 10 9 8 7 6 10 9 8 7 6 5 5% 17 1 4 12 2 5 15 14 16 6 13 8 9 10 7 3 11 AMENITIES Furnishings, Interpretive, Infrastructure Bay Overlook Bridge Seating Sea Level Rise Interpretive Loop Views over Low Upland Planting Plaza Seating 5% Universal Access Ramp Water Bottle Filling Station Pedestrian Bridge Stair Bike Racks Bike Fixit Station / Air Pump Plaza / Overlook / Textured Paving Bridge Seating Existing Bay Trail Interpretive Signage Pollinator Species Greenwall Restrooms Adobe Creek Overlook 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 15 7169 WATER SYSTEMS Water Bottle Filling Station Stormwater Garden Storage Tanks Grey Water Treatment Restrooms Stream: Overflow, Floods, Fish Refugia Visual Access Floods Relationship to Habitats Sea Level Rise Water Use 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 Intepretive Topic Areas FRON T A G E R O A D GRO U N D W A T E R BAY T R A I L PLAZ A STORMWATER SYSTEM Grey WaterTreatment Storage Tanks IrrigateLiving Wall GREY WATER SYSTEM Sinks &Bottle Station VIEW S T O B A Y ADO B E C R E E K V I E W S 7 2 345 1 6 +11 +1 0 + 9 + 8 + 7 +6 +5 10 9 8 11 On-Site Retention & Intrepretive Infrastructure WATER SYSTEMS Water Bottle Filling Station Stormwater Garden Storage Tanks Grey Water Treatment Restrooms Stream: Overflow, Floods, Fish Refugia Visual Access Floods Relationship to Habitats Sea Level Rise Water Use 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 Intepretive Topic Areas FRON T A G E R O A D GROU N D W A T E R BAY T R A I L PLAZ A STORMWATER SYSTEM Grey WaterTreatment Storage Tanks IrrigateLiving Wall GREY WATER SYSTEM Sinks &Bottle Station VIEW S T O B A Y ADO B E C R E E K V I E W S 7 2 345 1 6 +11 +1 0 + 9 + 8 + 7 +6+5 10 9 8 11 On-Site Retention & Intrepretive Infrastructure WATER SYSTEMS Hydrologic & Symbolic Connections to Larger Watershed WATER The landscape recognizes its strategic place in the broader watershed, leveraging its small footprint for larger-scale change through hydrologic and symbolic connection. Storm water is captured from the bridge, bike path, and frontage road, treated and routed to a new basin. As the water mixes with seasonal ground water and residual bay mud salinity, this vernal pool creates a new ecological niche. Overflow and grey water from a possible bathroom and drinking fountains can be recaptured in tanks concealed in the bridge abutments, irrigating vertical gardens of pollinator species flanking their sides. WATER A key element of the bridge’s design is a large integrated public artwork by our team member, Ned Kahn. Synthesizing the natural and the constructed, this work provides an important parallel to the overall goal of the bridge to link the two very different contexts to the bridge’s east and west, utilizing technology to engage the extraordinary natural phenomena that define the project site. Developed through the use of full- scale mock ups, this work consists of hundreds of thin brushed stainless steel disks attached to the crossing points of the cable net, able to sway and turn in the wind. Extended to the bridge’s underside, they might animate a surface that is often forgotten. Undulating as gusts move over the bridge or a large vehicle passes beneath, the disks will sparkle subtly in the sun, an extraordinary, ineffable experience of motion and light ART SYNTHESIZING TECHNOLOGY & NATURE IN AN EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIENCE / Integrated Art Deters Birds, Keeping Them Safe APPENDIX : ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DISCUSSION OF REQUESTED ISSUES DISCUSSION OF REQUESTED ISSUES How will pedestrians, cyclists and individuals with mobility challenges share the public realm? Recognizing the challenges that can arise when multiple user groups share the public realm, the bridge has been structured to delineate and even physically separate circulation zones for cyclists and pedestrians. As users first ramp up and down on the bridge approach, the pedestrian path is clearly delineated from the concrete cycling route through the use of Black Locust wood decking, oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel to create a rumble strip. As the pathway begins to curve to the west of the freeway, we have physically separated pedestrian and cyclist zones with a solid rail to minimize conflicts, with the cyclists oriented outboard to maximize their effective turning radius. Passing over the freeway, the two paths separate in section, with the cycling path raised slightly and separated with an additional handrail. Finally, as users climb or descend over the Baylands, the two paths separate in plan, with pedestrians outboard oriented toward the view. As a result of consultation with our team’s bicycle advocate, we have also included rumble strips at the beginning of the descent in both directions to remind cyclists to control their speed. How does the team plan to resolve the design construction challenges of approach ramp slopes of 5% with design speeds of up to 20 mph (cyclists) on the east approach and 15 mph on the west approach ramp? Current concept design does not meet AASHTO standards using 20 mph bicycle design speed. We have designed the approach ramps to better address the concerns of cyclists and other user groups. First, we have reoriented the west approach to allow users to continuously ascend in a gradual counterclockwise turn rather than have to rapidly turn left and then right. Secondly, as a result of our innovative structural approach, we have enlarged the radius of the west approach loop significantly, to a 41’ centerline radius for bicycles, separated them from pedestrians via an intermediate rail, and placed them outboard, all to ensure their safety. To the east, we are likewise providing a broad 65’ centerline radius loop as users descend or ascend from the Baylands. Here again we have separated the cyclists from pedestrians by physically separating the two user groups into two pathways divided in plan, and allow for clear lines of site around both approach loops, east and west, to insure bicyclists can appropriately anticipate anyone traveling at a different speed. Finally, for both initial approaches we have divided the pathway via the decking material, with a wood deck acting as a rumble strip for the pedestrian zone, but have left them open to one another so if younger cyclists are struggling as they first ascend they can elect to walk their bikes and step off the bicycle path. How does the team plan to address the landings of the bridge in two different environments, one industrial and the other a nature preserve? To the east, we have endeavored to create a landing in the Baylands that is as delicate as possible, touching gently on the surrounding landscape, and designed in a way that is sympathetic with this restored natural space. At the approach where the bridge first meets the ground, we have placed the bridge on fill, both to reduce cost and to ground it visually. Here, we have clad the flanks of the approach with innovative living walls planted in native pollinator species. Irrigated by filtered grey water and storm-water, they absorb sound and particulates, helping to shelter the natural spaces nearby. As the approach rises over the Baylands, it is structured with large beams integrated into its inner rails, creating an effective depth of over six feet, enabling it to float over this sensitive ecosystem, its piers nearly 100 feet apart. Here, the structure does not intrude in the Baylands, instead delicately engaging the environment that surrounds it. To the west, where we have a more urban landing, we have endeavored to instead draw the natural experience of the Baylands into a more direct dialogue with the City. Beneath the approach are again living walls, buffering the spaces beyond from noise and particulates, and again irrigated via storm-water. Here, we have also created a storm-water garden at the southernmost edge of the 3600 West Bayshore property, in a zone that cannot be used for parking, and instead serves to filter storm-water from 3600 West Bayshore before it is discharged into the creek, and further draws the natural language of the Baylands west. These landscape elements are constructed in a robust way that is sympathetic with the language of the bridge’s weathered steel, insuring they will last and are not out of place in the urban environment. Finally, there is an option to draw these natural elements both How does the team plan to include art in the design of the bridge? We have included Ned Kahn, a noted artist and McArthur Fellow whose work creates a unique synthesis of technology and natural phenomena, from the outset as an important, key member of our team. He has been involved in the conceptualization of the bridge from its beginnings, and has helped shape a synthetic design approach for the entirety of the project, as well as insure that art is not simply tacked on or placed within the project, but is instead integrated into the design. Developed through the use of full-scale mock ups, this work consists of hundreds of thin brushed stainless steel disks attached to the crossing points of the cable net, able to sway and turn in the wind. Extended to the bridge’s underside, they might animate a surface that is often forgotten. Undulating as gusts move over the bridge or a large vehicle passes beneath, the disks will sparkle subtly in the sun, an extraordinary, ineffable experience of motion and light. How will the team address accessibility for different populations? Universal accessibility is critically important to our design. First, we have created an overall bridge profile which never exceeds 5%, and is often more gradual, including the initial approach from the west, over the freeway, and on the pedestrian path over the Baylands (the bicycle path is designed at 5%; the wider radius of the pedestrian pathway is considerably less), in addition to the mandated 2% zones less than every 400’. By separating fast-moving cyclists and runners from the pedestrian pathway, we have further minimized conflict, while still providing opportunities where the two open to each other to allow users to walk their bike or resume jogging. Benches are integrated into the pedestrian pathway at regular intervals, including the west loop, over the freeway, and the east loop, and the east loop widens considerably as it passes over the Baylands, providing ample space for crowds to gather near the view or for wheelchairs to pull out and rest. What materials will be used? How will the bridge be maintained? The bridge is constructed of weathering steel, often known by the name Corten. With excellent resistance to corrosion, it is maintenance free and its warm hue is sympathetic with the Baylands’ natural palette. Pedestrian pathways are decked in rot-resistant Black Locust wood. Our team has done extensive research on projects both in New York and other cities worldwide on alternatives to Ipe for decking that has minimal cost and is resistant to rot; Black Locust is an excellent solution and will weather to a warm grey hue. The cable net, its fixings, and the art elements for the bridge’s center span are stainless steel; because of the innovative approach to the cable net which creates a denser net than typical, we can use smaller- gauge elements typically used in the aerospace industry which have significantly lower first costs. These elements are obviously resistant to corrosion; the network approach of cable stays also allows for individual cables to be easily changed out without affecting the overall structural stability of the bridge, a major weakness of most cable-stayed structures. Finally, the living walls at either approach are constructed via an innovative method developed by our team of geotextiles and coconut husks, allowing them to be built in a manner that is far more cost effective than most green walls and with minimal maintenance. BRIDGE ALIGNMENT WITHIN PROJECT BOUNDARY 18’-6” CLEAR MIN. OVER US 101 17’ CLEAR MIN. OVER BAYSHORE 0’ 10’ 20’ 40’80’ 9’ CLEAR UNDER BRIDGE 4% SLOPE 5% SLOPE 2% SLOPE 1%2%5% SLOPE2% BRIDGE PROFILE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTED COSTS SUPERSTRUCTURE / MAIN SPAN (ARCH) SUBSTRUCTURE / MAIN SPAN (ARCH) SUPERSTRUCTURE / APPROACH SUBSTRUCTURE / APPROACH ABUTMENTS & RETAINING WALLS FINISHES (RAILINGS, LIGHTING) & ART $2.4M $0.6M $1.0M $0.6M $0.6M $0.9M BRIDGE $6.1M SOIL OFFHAUL, PREPARATION, RESTORATION, DRAINAGE & IRRIGATION GROUNDCOVER, PLANTING, FINE EARTHWORK / FINE GRADING BOARDWALKS, RAILINGS, PAVING, FURNISHINGS, EDUCATIONAL ELEMENTS $0.2M $0.3M $0.6M LANDSCAPE $1.1M TOTAL $7.2M ESTIMATED DESIGN FEES ENGINEERING GEOTECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE LANDSCAPE ART & LIGHTING $500,000 $150,000 $250,000 $180,000 $100,000 $1.18M ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES & PUBLIC, GOVERNMENTAL, & REGULATORY REVIEW COSTS TO BE DETERMINED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH CITY Wil Carson, 64North / Architecture / California License No. C31806 Marcel Wilson, Bionic / Landscape Architecture / California License No. 5378 Matthew Paradis, HNTB / Engineering / California License No. 77080 Jim French, PE, GE, AMEC / Soils Engineering Towill / Surveying, Mapping, & GIS Geoff Smick, WRA / Biology, Ecology, Permitting, & Monitoring TEAM MEMBERS WITH CALIFORNIA LICENSES A link between places, and a place where different environments meet. Connecting with the BAYLANDS NATURE PRESERVE The Palo Alto Adobe Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Bridge will be a beacon for the Baylands Nature Preserve, drawing attention to this valuable environmental resource and the unique experiences it offers. As a link between a natural landscape and the human-made environment, the design’s natural undulating forms float over the Baylands and sweep over the highway, offering unprecedented views and carrying parts of the Baylands experience into the urban streetscape. The bridge structure is entirely unique, yet can be constructed economically using conventional construction methods. Materials are chosen for long term maintenance benefits and detailed to prevent bird collisions and predatory bird perching spots. Gentle geometry throughout means that all types of users with differing ability levels will enjoy a safe and comfortable experience. The result is a Silicon Valley landmark that is exciting yet respectful of the context, timelessly modern, and cost effective. BIRD’S EYE VIEW Riparian — Wetland Urban — Natural Residential — Commercial Still — Fast-Moving Wet — Dry ADOBE CREEKPALO ALTOPEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST BRIDGE DESIGN Byxbee Park Matadero Creek Adobe Creek Loop Trail Ad ob e Creek Re ach Trail AAddooobbbbeeeeeeeee CCCCrrrreeeeeeeekkk BBBaaarrrrroooonn CCrreeeeeeekk Hig h w a y 1 0 1 AAAAAA dddddd ooooo bbbb eeeeeeeeeeeeee CCCCCCCCCCC rrrrrrrrr eeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeee kkkkkkkkkkkkk East B a y s h o r e R o a d W e s t B a y s h o r e R o a d SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnccccccccccccccccccccccccciiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisssssssssssssssssssssssssccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllllll N330 W 300 240 210 S 120 E 60 30 150 60° 70° 80° 50° 40° 30° 20° 10° 8:33 p.m.JUN 05:48 a.m.JUN 6:54 a.m.DEC 4:54 p.m.DEC NNNW NW NNW W WSW SW SSW S SE ESE E ENE NE NNE SSE 25 20 15 10 5 0 83dBA 83dBA 79dBA 79dBA 77dBA 77dBA 75dBA 75dBA 73dBA 73dBA 70dBA 70dBA HIGHWAY 101 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCTNOV DEC 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 3.0 B a r r o n C r e e k Ad o b e C r e e k Adobe Creek San Fra n c i s c o B a y T r a i l Hi g h w a y 1 0 1 We s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Ea s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Project Boundry Baylands Overlook California Sycamore A B C D E Landscape Restoration Zones East Plaza We s t P l a z a North Staircase SC V W D A c c e s s Adobe Access Reach Trail Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve Creek Overlook Benches The dramatic curving east approach is a double propped cantilever; each half of the curve helps support the other half, allowing the bridge to soar over the marshland. The main span over the freeway is a hybrid beam system; the south edge functions as two cantilevers which meet in the middle, the north edge as a simple beam. The upper portion of the west approach is a double propped cantilever. Each half of the curve helps support the other half, allowing the bridge to span over the parking lot. The first section of the west approach utilizes a conventional center spine steel girder. Supports are located to avoid impacting parking spots and the SCVD channel. PALO ALTO ADOBE CREEK PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST BRIDGE DESIGN Gentle geometry and excellent sightlines are provided throughout. Pathways have slopes less than 5%, multiple resting spots, and curves meet the minimum 90 foot radius AASHTO requirement for a 20mph design speed. Mode delineation is integral to the design. Generous mixing areas are provided at both touchdowns, and pathway widths are slightly increased at curves. SITE PLAN BRIDGE PROFILE ENVIRONMENTAL SITE DATA FOR WIND, SUNLIGHT, RAINFALL, AND ACOUSTICS Responding to the site’s unique geometric constraints, the design seamlessly joins two innovative structural systems: propped curving cantilevers for the side spans and a hybrid beam system for the main span. To achieve initial and long term economy, this unprecedented bridge design is based on conventional steel girder construction. No special detailing or construction techniques are required and no surface finishes will require maintenance. The project is located at the juncture between fully- developed urban areas and the largest tract of undisturbed marshland in the Bay Area. It also straddles a major freeway and an important ecotone. Over the next century, this project location will be impacted by both drought and sea level rise. This project thus presents a unique opportunity to set a new standard for environmentally respectful and “smart” public infrastructure. HISTORY & SITE ANALYSIS SAFETY & MOBILITY The structural system was chosen in part due to its versatility. A variety of span and support location arrangements can be used without significantly affecting the architectural vision, allowing the design team and the City to identify optimal tradeoffs. The entire lightweight steel structure will be shop fabricated and trucked to the site in sections. Sections are field welded and lifted into place, minimizing traffic disruption and impacts on the nature preserve. STRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTION Section at Main Span Supports Section at Center of Main Span 19’ CLR 16’ CLR 5’-6” 2’-0” 5’-0”2’-0” A Woven Stainless Steel Mesh B Corten Steel Girder & Frame C Lightweight CIP Concrete D Hardwood Rubrails & Benches E Stainless Steel Rails Section at Baylands Overlook 20’ CLR 5’-0” A AA A B B B B C C D D E E E E B E E C D PALO ALTO ADOBE CREEK PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST BRIDGE DESIGN RENDERING OF THE EAST BRIDGE ENTRANCE ALONG THE BAY TRAIL RENDERING VIEW FROM THE HIGHWAY AT NIGHTNATIVE PLANT ETCHINGS USED BY ARTIST PATRICIA DREHER RENDERING OF WEST BRIDGE ENTRANCE ALONG W. BAYSHORE ROAD The team took into consideration two main factors when selecting the appropriate native plants for restoration: increasing drought conditions throughout the region, and the rise of average sea levels throughout the next century. The plants were selected and arranged to handle both drought and inundation relative to the elevation at which they are planted, while still allowing for flexibility in water level. The plaza areas and materials adjacent to the bridge are elevated and designed to protect from seasonal flooding. The artist Patricia Dreher specializes in color and patterns for walkable surfaces. Her representations of native plants will be applied to concrete plaza surfaces to designate areas for passive use and aid wayfinding for pedestrians and cyclists. Light is used as a tool for communication in this project. The lighting along the path varies in intensity as users pass to create delightful patterns. The color also shifts from warm to cool glows in response to daily or seasonal fluctuations in creek water level that affect the Bayland’s ecology, creating a higher level of engagement for nightime viewers and bridge users. MATERIALS Cor-ten steel Textured concrete by artist Patricia Dreher Wood surfaces at seating areas and rubrails Decomposed granite Stainless steel SMART LIGHTING DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE RESTORATION & WATER LEVEL ART & SMART LIGHTING LANDSCAPE RESTORATION ZONES ZONE C Helianthus “Sun Stone” ZONE A Calamagiastic foliosa ZONE B Salvia “Bee’s Bliss” Carex praegracellis ZONE D Muhlenbergia rigens Baccharis pilularis “Consanguinea” ZONE E Salt grass (distichlis spicata) CANOPY California Sycamore (Plantanus Racemosa) Franconia (Frankenia salina) Pickleweed (salicornia) Grindelia Cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) Amber tone during dry times Blue tone during high water Brighter area tracks in front of movement December 8, 2014 City of Palo Alto Purchasing and Contract Administration 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: John Montenero Reference: Contract 2014-25, Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge Competition Phase 2 Dear Selection Committee, We appreciate your invitation to submit deliverables for the Adobe Creek Pedestrian and Cyclist Bridge Design Competition. The project has engaged our creativity and we are excited to share our detailed vision for a Silicon Valley landmark. This letter serves as our transmittal for the following deliverables: 1. DVD with video 2. Three 24x36 design boards delivered to Palo Alto City Hall, 250 Hamilton, 6th Floor, Attention Elizabeth Ames 3. List of team members (see attached) 4. Construction sequence diagram (see attached) 5. Plan, section, night elevation, and various renderings (see design boards) 6. Bridge alignment within Project Boundaries (see design boards) 7. Discussion of items listed in item 7 of Exhibit B of the competition agreement (refer to design boards and narration of video for all items except discussion of expected costs, which is attached) 8. Design boards and this letter submitted electronically to john.montenero@cityofpaloalto.org Sincerely, Gary Antonucci, P.E. Steven Grover, Architect & P.E. 1300 Clay Street, Suite 550, Oakland, CA 94612 | P: (510) 645-1238 | F: (510) 645-1010 | www.moffattnichol.com Construction Sequence 1. Establish temporary staging areas at 363 West Bayshore Road parking lot and at east touchdown plaza. Supports and Side Spans Erection 2. Construct all foundations and supports outside of Caltrans right of way. 3. Bring in shop-fabricated sections by truck. Lift into place and field weld sections together. Main Spans Erection Bring in shop-fabricated sections by truck. Locate NB half of main span at east staging area, SB half at west staging area. 4. Construct temporary support at center median during nighttime closure of lanes next to median. 5. Lift SB half of main span into place during nighttime detour of SB traffic to NB side and field weld to west approach structure. 6. Lift NB half of main span into place during nighttime detour of NB traffic to SB side and field weld to east approach structure. Field weld main span sections to each other and remove temporary support at center median during nighttime closure of lanes next to median. Main Spans Alternate Bring in shop-fabricated sections by truck and field weld into single section. Lift entire main span structure into place during single 4hr nighttime closure of entire freeway. 12.8.14 Palo Alto Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge Design Moffatt & Nichol / SGA 12.8.14 Palo Alto Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge Design Moffatt & Nichol / SGA Design and Construction Costs The design vision we have created is extremely versatile; unlike many concepts this design can be refined in a number of ways to achieve the City’s desired balance of tradeoffs without completely transforming its visual, spatial, and safety/comfort characteristics. For example, we can explore different span arrangements and alternate structural approaches to achieve similar architectural results. Based on the materials, landscape design, and structural approach described in our submittal, we believe that the construction cost for the bridge would be approximately $8 million (see below), and the civil, architectural, and landscape components would add $1 to $1.5 million to that. For a project of this size and scope, design costs would likely be on the order of 20% of construction cost. ROM Estimate of Construction Costs Segment Description Bridge Type Length (ft) Width (ft) Deck Area (SF) Est. Cost/SF Est. Contr. Cost. 1 West approach spine girder on single columns 230 18 4,140 $ 350 $ 1,449,000 2 West approach curve Single steel edge beam, cantilever deck 136 20 2,720 $ 500 $ 1,360,000 3 Main Span over US101 Steel box edge girders each side, floor beams, top pipe section on one side to increase depth of beam. 204 20 4,080 $ 500 $ 2,040,000 4 East transition span Transition between 3 and 4 100 18 1,800 $ 500 $ 900,000 5 East ramp Single steel edge beam, cantilever deck 200 20 4,000 $ 500 $ 2,000,000 6 East ramp On fill 100 18 1,800 $ 150 $ 270,000 970 18,540 $ 433 $ 8,019,000 12.8.14 Palo Alto Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge Design Moffatt & Nichol / SGA TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS DATE: 1/27/15 SUBJECT: Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan RECOMMENDATION No action to be taken. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto has 37 parks and open space preserves covering approx. 4,500 acres of land as well as a wide variety of recreation programs that are offered to the community. A Capital Improvement Project for a Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PE-13003) was adopted by Council for the 2013 Fiscal year. The purpose of this project is to provide the necessary analysis and review of Palo Alto’s park and recreation system for the preparation of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Master Plan will provide the City with clear guidance regarding future renovations and capital improvement needs for all parks and open spaces. It will also include recommendations to meet demands for future recreational, programming, environmental and maintenance needs and will establish a prioritized schedule of future park renovations and recreation facility and program improvements. Currently MIG (Master Planning Consultant) is in the analysis phase of the project. As part of this first phase the consultants are reviewing the many components that make up the city of Palo Alto’s Parks and Recreation system. These components include: - Review of each park location, - Demographic review, - Sustainability and program review - Community input in the form of intercept groups, community works shops and community surveys. The next phase of the project will focus on the prioritization of recommendation which is just starting to get underway and will last until June, 2015. DISCUSSION Staff will review the following items with the commission and request input: - Sustainability Summary: The commission is requested to review the System Summary and provide feedback and input. This document summarizes the project/analysis elements in the first five phases of the plan. Park Commissioners are asked to focus on the description of the individual pieces to identify any that they are unfamiliar with or have remaining questions about. - System Summary: The commission is requested to review the Sustainability Summary and provide feedback and input. Park Commissioners are asked to focus on the recommendations that begin on page 8, keeping in mind that this is intended to provide a menu of opportunities to increase sustainability. - Community Meeting Summary: The commission is requested to review the Community Meeting Summary and provide feedback and observations about the participants’ input. - Recreation Program Summary: The commission is requested to review the initial draft of the Recreation Program Analysis and provide feedback and input. Park Commissioners are asked to focus on the elaboration of the program matrix, including the “Access to Recreation” discussion and the Key Findings. This document continues to develop between staff and the planning team. - Master Plan Report Plan Outline: The commission is requested to provide further input concerning the structure of the overall Master Plan Report. NEXT STEPS Community Survey Summary and the Community Prioritization Meeting Agenda at the February PRC Meeting. Stakeholder and Community Prioritization Meetings scheduled for March. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed CIP recommendations are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. ATTACHMENTS  Sustainability Summary  System Summary  Community Meeting Summary  Recreation Program Summary  Plan Outline PREPARED BY Peter Jensen Landscape Architect City of Palo Alto 1 SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW Introduction and Background The Sustainability Review builds on the physical and program inventory to identify opportunities to increase sustainable and resource-saving practices associated the operation and management of parks and open space, as well as recreational facilities within the City. Drawing on best practices from other cities and agencies, a site tour and inventory findings of Palo Alto’s parks and open space system and staff input, the Sustainability Review evaluates the City’s current policies, programs and practices and identifies opportunities to increase sustainability. The Sustainability Review considers the following indicators of sustainability:  Air Quality  Climate Change  Education and Training  Energy Efficiency  Equity  Green Building  Integrated Pest Management  Natural Resources / Habitat  Operations / Maintenance  Public Health and Safety  Transportation  Waste Management  Water Conservation  Water Quality Sustainability policies and practices are evaluated based on the definition of sustainability provided on the City of Palo Alto’s Sustainability Services website (www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/sustainability/default.asp): Sustainability is the capacity to endure, or as commonly also described, to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. For humans, sustainability is the long-term maintenance of well-being, which has environmental, economic, and social dimensions. Dialogue about this definition focused on the necessary aspects of sustainability that must be addressed known as the “Three E’s” – economy, environment, and social equity. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 2 Sustainability Indicators For the purpose of this analysis, policies, programs and practices are identified as furthering sustainability goals if they result in a positive change to one of the following indicators. Air Quality Air quality in Palo Alto, on the Peninsula and in the Bay Area is influenced by emissions from industrial and other stationary sources, but to a much larger degree it is influenced by vehicle emissions. Any policy or action that results in a reduction from either stationary or mobile sources is considered to be furthering sustainability goals. Climate Change Climate change issues are usually organized into two categories – mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation involves changing practices and behaviors to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Adaptation refers to adjustments in human systems and ecosystems that reduce the harm caused by climate change. Even with significant mitigation (GHG emission reductions) today, climate change is expected to have significant effects on California’s precipitation, temperature, sea level height and weather patterns that communities will need to adapt to. Resilience, a term usually associated with adaptation, is the ability for socio-ecological systems to absorb and recover from environmental stresses imposed by climate change. The following summarizes the anticipated changes Palo Alto is likely to experience.  Temperature – Based on Cal-Adapt, a repository for climate change data generated by California’s scientific and research community, temperatures are expected to increase between 3.2 and 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit over 1990 baseline levels by 2090. Related to the temperature change, the City can expect more frequent and longer term heat waves. These changes could threaten public health, affect the viability of native plant species, exacerbate wildfire incidence, decrease water availability, and alter habitats.  Precipitation – Because California already experiences variable precipitation, it is difficult to predict what impact climate change will have on precipitation trends in Palo Alto. Statewide predictions, however, suggest that Palo Alto will experience increasing variability, and potentially overall decline, in precipitation alternating between more extreme rain events and prolonged dry weather periods. Extreme rain events increase the frequency and magnitude of flooding. Drought events decrease water availability and alter habitats and vegetative health.  Sea Level Rise – California coastal waters have experienced an almost 8-inch rise in sea level in the last century. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) predict that the San Francisco Bay Area could experience an additional increase in sea level ranging from 10-17 inches at mid-century and 31-69 inches at the end of the century. Changes in sea level have the potential to impact eastern portions of Palo Alto adjacent to the Bay shoreline including the Golf Course, Baylands Athletic Center and Baylands Nature Preserve. Any policy or action that directly or indirectly results in a reduction in GHG emissions (or increase in sequestration), or increase the adaptive capacity or resilience of the community is considered to be furthering Palo Alto’s sustainability goals. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 3 Education and Training Any policy or action related to education and training is considered to further the sustainability goals if it results in a change in behavior that has a beneficial result for one or more of the sustainability indicators. Energy Efficiency Palo Alto’s Utility Department is committed to using 100% renewable electricity. Though the City of Palo Alto has implemented programs that have significantly reduced the non-renewable sources of energy in the City, energy conservation remains an important sustainability indicator. Energy efficient policies and design will allow the Palo Alto’s Utility Department to reduce its dependence on energy sources from outside the community. Park and recreation facilities need to be built and operated to maximize energy efficiency and use of renewable energy resources, including onsite generation. Equity Some Bay Area residents will be harder hit than others by the cost of resources (e.g., energy and water) and climate change impacts. Income, race, age, living conditions/location, and language barriers are among the challenges facing some members of the community. Policies and actions working to advance Palo Alto’s sustainability goals must be designed to involve all segments of the population and benefit the City's highly vulnerable and historically underserved communities. Green Building Any policy, action, or design strategy that promotes environmentally responsible use of resources throughout a building’s life cycle (e.g. siting, design, construction, operation, renovation, and demolition) is considered to be furthering Palo Alto’s sustainability goals. Integrated Pest Management Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a strategy that focuses on long term prevention of pest problems with minimum impacts on human health, the environment or non-target organisms. The City of Palo Alto adopted a reduced risk pest management policy in 2001. This policy requires that each City division that applies pesticides maintain an active IPM plan in order to reduce or eliminate chemical usage as much as possible. IPM techniques include encouraging naturally occurring bio-controls, using alternate plant species or varieties that are less susceptible to pests, using cultural practices that reduce pest problems and changing habitat to make it incompatible with pest development. Pesticides are only used as a last resort and only when pest monitoring indicates they are needed and the least toxic, most target-specific and effective pesticide must be used. There is no spraying allowed within 100 feet of any playground or any creeks at all City sites. Palo Alto has twice been honored for its citywide adoption, implementation, and expansion of IRM policies. Natural Resources / Habitat Policies or actions that lead to the protection or enhancement of the physical environment in and around an ecological or environmental area that is inhabited by plant and animal species of community importance, are considered to be furthering Palo Alto’s sustainability goals. These policies or actions should preserve or enhance biodiversity, soil fertility and other aspects of ecosystem heath. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 4 Operation / Maintenance Policies and actions that promote modifications in the operation and/or maintenance of equipment and facilities to result in a beneficial change to any of the other sustainability indicators are considered to be furthering sustainability goals. Public Health and Safety Policies and actions that are designed to prevent incidents or accidents that are hazardous or deleterious to the public well-being are considered to be sustainable. Similarly, where the policies, programs or projects result in improvements in the natural and built environment that improve the well- being of the community are considered to be furthering sustainability goals. Transportation Where policies or actions promote transportation alternatives that reduce GHG emissions, increase physical activity, strengthen community, and/or reduce the amount of land that gets converted from a natural state, they are considered to be furthering Palos Alto’s sustainability goals. Waste Management Waste management includes policies, programs and practices that reduce the amount of materials that get discarded. This can be accomplished through purchasing decisions that minimize the waste stream, reusing potential waste materials to extend their useable life and reduce the need for “new” potential waste, and/or recycling to convert potential waste into another form that is useable. Policies and actions that promote behaviors that reduce the waste stream (both internally from City operations and externally from park and facility users) are considered to further the City’s sustainability goals. Water Conservation and Quality Similar to waste management, water conservation includes reducing demand, re-using water for multiple purposes, and recycling water so that it may be reintroduced into the consumption cycle. Water conservation focuses on potable water as the most constrained resource and uses non-potable water primarily as a means for reducing “fresh” water demand. Policies and actions that reduce the use of potable water are considered to contribute to Palo Alto’s sustainability goals. In addition to managing water quantity, water quality is an essential aspect of sustainable water management. Chemical or organic fertilizers and organic inputs, such as dog waste or high quantities of plant debris can cause harmful levels of nutrient loading in stream and bay waters. Policies and actions that promote activities that support stormwater capture clean discharge are considered to further sustainability goals. Existing Conditions The Community Services Department (the Department) oversees the Open Space, Parks and Golf Division and the Recreation Division for the City of Palo Alto, including physical planning and operations as well as cultural and recreation programming. At present, there is no plan specifically governing the use, maintenance and operation of the 173.5 acres of urban parkland and 3,984 acres of open space within the City. Consequently, the Community Services Department relies on the Palo Alto SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 5 Comprehensive Plan and Baylands Master Plan to provide the policy framework for improvement, operation and maintenance of parks and open space that encourage sustainability practices. Separate from sustainable policies, the City has initiated a number of sustainable programs and practices that are available to support parks and open space. Existing sustainability related policies, programs and practices are summarized in Table 1. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 6 Table 1: Existing Policies, Programs and Practices by Sustainability Indicators = not identified or doesn’t exist = some policies and/or programs and practices in place = robust policies and/or programs and practices in place Issue Policies Projects, Programs and Practices Air Quality Climate Change Education and Training Energy Efficiency Equity Green Building Integrated pest Management Natural Resources / Habitat Operations / Maintenance Public Health and Safety Transportation Waste Management Water Conservation Water Quality * For specific policies, programs and practices see Appendix A. Guiding Policies The following are high-level policy objectives that can guide the projects that improve sustainability within specific operations. 1) Develop a sustainability strategy or plan for parks, recreation and open spaces in Palo Alto. - The strategy should emphasize implementation and establish specific performance metrics to evaluate success, or in lieu of measures, a process by which targets will be established and evaluated. - Consult Department staff to identify key issues, barriers to implementation and opportunity for improvement. 2) Align Community Services mission statements, budgets and operations with City sustainability goals. 3) Plan and budget for the long-term maintenance required to support a sustainable park system in Palo Alto. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 7 Program and Practice Recommendations The Community Services Department has a role to play in addressing every sustainability indicator. However, the Department is better equipped to focus on indicators that align with its mission. These indicators are referred to as the Department’s primary indicators. The Department can rely upon and support other departments that are better positioned to address the indicators that are not aligned with its mission. These are the Department’s secondary indicators. For example, Climate Change and Air Quality could be considered secondary indicators for the Department. Parks can help reduce vehicle travel and improve trip efficiency by providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities (e.g. connections to bike paths, bike lockers, etc.) and facilities to accommodate electric vehicle charging stations. In this example the Department supports efforts to address transportation while other organizations with transportation as a primary function (e.g. the Public Works Department or Transportation Division of the Community Environment and Planning Department) deploy the sustainable facility. Applying this approach to all of the sustainability indicators, Table 2 below identifies primary (P) and secondary (S) sustainability indicators for the Department. Table 2: Existing Policies, Programs and Practices by Primary and Secondary Consideration Ai r Q u a l i t y Cl i m a t e C h a n g e Ed u c a t i o n / T r a i n i n g En e r g y E f f i c i e n c y Eq u i t y Gr e e n B u i l d i n g Na t u r a l R e s o u r c e / H a b i t a t Op e r a t i o n s / M a i n t e n a n c e Pu b l i c H e a l t h / S a f e t y Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Wa s t e R e d u c t i o n Wa t e r C o n s e r v a t i o n Wa t e r Q u a l i t y Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Time Horizon Community Services Department S S P P S P P P P S P P S P 2015-2020 P = Primary Consideration S = Secondary Consideration Because open space preservation, facility management and program administration are primary functions of the Department, it is well positioned to actively implement sustainability practices in the following areas:  education/training  energy efficiency  green building  natural resources  operations/maintenance  waste reduction  water conservation SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 8 The remaining sustainability indicators (air quality, climate change, equity, public health and safety, transportation, and water quality) are more effectively managed or led by other organizations and supported by Community Services’ practices and are identified as secondary considerations. Following are recommendations for sustainable programs and practices for Palo Alto’s park system. These recommendations include best practices from park systems around the country, including the National Park Service; Oregon State Parks Department; New York City, NY; Seattle, WA, Sacramento, CA; and El Cerrito, CA. For a summary of the issues being addressed by these cities and agencies, see Appendix B. The following recommendations are crafted for Palo Alto’s unique context. Climate Change and Air Quality 1) Reduce GHG emissions produced by park equipment and fleet and support reduced vehicle use in the city. a. Expand City trails to provide bicycle and pedestrian access to all City urban parks and connect to the regional trail network. b. Reduce emissions from Department equipment and vehicles, including enforcing a “No Idle” program with vehicles and other gas-powered equipment. 2) Expand Palo Alto’s urban canopy. a. Add additional trees to parks as appropriate (following “Right Tree, Right Place” guidelines), track park tree loss and gain, and maintain trees for 100+ year permanence. b. Implement relevant recommendations in the 2015 Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) when adopted. 3) Reduce the urban heat island effect in Palo Alto. a. Reduce the use of asphalt and concrete except where necessary. b. Use pervious surfaces in place of pavement where feasible. c. Consider using drought-tolerant native plants in sidewalk and median planting areas. d. Increase tree canopy consistent with UFMP. 4) Develop and implement guidance on adapting the location, structure, or function of park facilities in anticipation of climate change, including severe weather impacts. a. Give special consideration to facilities in the Baylands Preserve and Palo Alto Golf Course in respect to predicted sea level rise. b. Design adaptive green infrastructure along creeks where increasingly unpredictable levels of precipitation and sea level rise will impact adjacent properties and ecosystems. 5) Demonstrate actions being taken to adapt to anticipated climate change and improve the resilience of park facilities. 6) Develop long range plans to adapt parks and open space to shifting climate regimes. Education and Training 1) Implement park facility-based outreach efforts to combine and promote sustainability practices (e.g., energy and water conservation, solid waste reduction, public health, etc.) at park facilities and at home. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 9 2) Create “Green Ambassadors” within the Department to support sustainability initiatives and/or ensure the Department has a representative on the City’s Green Team. 3) Create interpretive exhibits addressing sustainability issues appropriate to the site (e.g., alternative modes of transportation, green building techniques, adaptation planning near shoreline facilities, etc.) a. Interpretive signage should be added to better promote the educational value of demonstration gardens at Rinconada, Bol and El Palo Alto Parks b. Create additional demonstration landscape projects in neighborhood and regional parks c. Provide education and outreach materials about low-water and native landscaping in multiple languages (especially Spanish, Chinese and Russian) and encourage homeowners to share with private landscaping staff. d. Provide transparent and timely reporting of progress toward these goals. 4) Expand nature and sustainability education/interpretation opportunities via programs, classes and volunteer opportunities. 5) Consult Department operations and maintenance staff in the development of new practices, policies and programs to ensure they are feasible, implementable and sustainable. 6) Educate Department staff on practices to reduce GHG emissions and conserve water and other resources. Energy Efficiency 1) Conduct energy audits for all facilities, establish an energy baseline for operations, benchmark energy performance against comparable facilities, and implement energy tracking and management systems for all park facilities and operations. 2) Retrofit facilities for energy efficiency where feasible. Include items such as increased insulation, green or reflective roofs, and low-emissive window glass. 3) Select energy-efficient products for Park equipment purchases. 4) Expand the collection and use of solar power (parking lots, roofs) and other renewable energy sources at parks and facilities (e.g. pools). Equity 1) Improve and expand public involvement in Palo Alto’s parks and recreation plans and projects. 2) Balance and improve access to recreation and nature opportunities through connections to public transit and safe bike and pedestrian paths. 3) Focus education and outreach and programming on under-served neighborhoods and communities within Palo Alto. Develop policies about universal access to playgrounds and other park amenities. Green Building 1) Retrofit and upgrade Parks and Recreation facilities to improve aesthetics and functionality while improving green practices (e.g. solar orientation, renewable building materials, energy efficiency, indoor air quality, etc.). 2) Coordinate with Development Services to implement green building standards. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 10 3) Strengthen dialogue between park designers and park maintenance staff to generate sustainable park and facility design solutions. Case Study: Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility This facility in Palo Alto’s Arastradero Preserve is off- the-grid and uses no energy. It relies on passive solar design with seasonally adjustable solar panels. The building was constructed with strawbale and recycled timber. Used for education and interpretation and the stand-along buildings can be expanded by shifting sliding barn doors. The facility received an Energy Efficiency Integration Award (EEIA) in 2007. Integrated Pest Management 1) Implement the UFMP’s recommendations on addressing Sudden Oak Death. 2) Evaluate and consider expansion of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan to additional parks and open spaces to reduce use of non-organics in landscape maintenance. Natural Resources / Habitat 1) Avoid disturbance of sensitive biological resources in conjunction with park operations or construction activities. 2) Develop a planting palette and maintenance framework that contributes to a healthy ecosystem while establishing a sustainable maintenance workload. 3) Connect open spaces and contiguous vegetated areas as wildlife corridors; plant with species that support pollinators. 4) Actively support eliminating harmful invasive flora and fauna. 5) Program recreational activities in areas that are appropriate for the activity and for the environmental context to avoid impacts to sensitive resources and habitat. 6) Explore planting of economically productive species (e.g., food, timber, etc) as appropriate. Operations 1) Coordinate the Department’s sustainability efforts with other City Departments and the community to form an active partnership and maximize efficiencies and effectiveness of sustainability actions. 2) Work with park maintenance and operations staff as well as volunteer groups to develop and implement a sustainable maintenance plan. 3) Include applicable sustainability requirements in all new contracts. 4) Track and report progress on sustainability goals on an annual basis. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 11 5) Consider true-cost pricing and climate-change-related externalities when evaluating costs of materials, design and approaches to maintenance consider true-cost pricing (consistent with City Resolution No. 9013). Public Health and Safety 1) Improve access to fresh, healthy food by further developing the urban agriculture program in select parks including fostering partnerships with community groups to create and maintain additional community gardens and food-bearing trees. 2) Focus urban gardening spaces in parks near low-income neighborhoods and multi-family residences that do not have access to private open spaces and/or spaces with adequate sunlight to grow food. 3) Provide education and outreach regarding emergency preparedness in parks facilities and programs. 4) Consider implementing a fresh-food policy or preference for concessionaires in parks sites at Department events. 5) Quantify, report, reduce and eventually eliminate the presence and generation of hazardous waste and toxins in park facilities. Transportation 1) Install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at park facilities with parking lots. 2) Work with Public Works to replace the vehicle fleet with hybrid and/or electric vehicles. 3) Coordinate with the new City Transportation Management Association (TMA) to implement TDM programs that includes improvements such as bike parking, showers for employees, shuttle and rideshare services. 4) Support alternate work schedules to avoid travel peaks, encourage telecommuting and other practices that reduce auto trips. Support the implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to increase connectivity to parks for bicyclists and pedestrians. 5) Encourage alternative transportation by providing directions or routes for transit and bike access to recreation program and community meeting locations. Waste Management 1) Reduce the amount of waste produced at park facilities and by park operations. a. Provide convenient and well-marked compost and recycling receptacles throughout the park system, in recreation facilities and at special events. b. Review purchasing policies and improve employee education to reduce overall consumption of materials throughout the system. c. Procure environmentally preferable products (as required by the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy) as the “default” purchasing option. d. Initiate composting of green waste within the park system. 2) Establish Green Event policies that reduce waste generation for Department-sponsored events and events in City parks and facilities. 3) Implement Materials Flow Management, a tool that is used to evaluate the efficient use of materials and material streams. Materials Flow Analysis is the quantitative analysis of the inputs SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 12 and outputs of production and consumption cycles, and accounts for both the material and economic requirements of those cycles. 4) Implement a program to reduce construction-generated waste and utilize sustainable materials in construction and maintenance operations, 5) Encourage the re-use of existing buildings where feasible. Case Study: Malibu’s Legacy Park The Park includes 19-acres of public gathering space, natural areas and walking trails. It also cleans stormwater and urban run-off. Stormwater and urban runoff are known sources of water quality degradation in Malibu Creek and Santa Monica Bay. Legacy Park treats and reuses water that would otherwise discharge into Malibu Creek, local beaches and Santa Monica Bay. The park’s design incorporates a system of bio-filtration devices and an 8-acre vegetated detention pond. The collected water is sent to the nearby Civic Center Stormwater Treatment Facility for ozone disinfection. The treated water is then sent back to the park and dispersed through a subterranean irrigation system. The park includes an outdoor classroom where students learn about the importance of preserving and protecting local watersheds and habitats. Water Conservation and Water Quality 1) Conduct water audits for all parks and recreation facilities and park operations. 2) Install high-efficiency urinals, toilets, sinks and showers in all facilities. 3) As infrastructure expansion allows, extend recycled water use to more park sites. 4) Ensure any irrigation systems on public landscapes are run by a smart controller and/or sensors and that staff are trained in programming them. 5) Link all Parks facilities to a centralized irrigation management system to maximize water use efficiency. 6) Adopt a planting approach that focuses on transitioning to native and/or drought-tolerant plants, and also provides ecological services such as improving water quality. 7) Reduce the overall percentage of turf in the parks system. 8) Convert aesthetic turf to mulch, native plantings, or hardscape. 9) Design stormwater improvements throughout the park system to incorporate low-impact development systems to treat pollutants in stormwater runoff (e.g., through rain gardens, bio- retention areas and living roof systems) a. Site and implement treatment wetlands where they will provide the highest return on investment, e.g., adjacent to creeks or other wetlands). b. Naturalize creek edges adjacent to parks and open spaced where feasible. 10) Increase the use of permeable pavements in parking lots with filtration systems for pollutants. Case Study: Marin’s Hal Brown Park SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 13 The Hal Brown Park at Creekside and Corte Madera Creek Multiuse Pathway are beloved community amenities that were showing their age. Constructed in the mid 1970s, Creekside Park is a community recreation space that also provides habitat for sensitive native animal species and has helped mitigate flooding along Corte Madera Creek. Community outreach events helped to determine the renovation priorities for the project site. The project included:  Creation of a nature-based outdoor play environment with separate areas for preschool- and school-age children;  Restoration of upland marsh transition habitat areas;  New park plantings and irrigation systems, including a sensory garden in the children’s play areas and a healing garden for community members and Marin General Hospital patients, visitors and staff;  Improved gathering areas for picnicking, performances and quiet reflection at the marsh overlook; and  Accessibility upgrades at the restroom, park pathways, and dedicated accessible on-street parking spaces. Conclusions The Department is actively pursuing policies, programs and projects that improve the sustainability of the park system and the City as a whole. Working with administrative, operational, and capital projects staff, the Department should use the above menu of sustainability practices to formalize goals and policies that will govern operations, property management, and capital projects. Palo Alto sustainability policies should include provisions for the following:  Establish a baseline of operations;  Identify “sustainability targets” for each indicator (e.g., number of pesticide-free parks);  Establish an implementation strategy for accomplishing the target;  Monitor and report on results; and  Adjust goals, policies, programs and actions as needed to continue improving sustainability. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 14 Appendix A. Current Sustainability Policies, Projects, Programs and Practices Issue Policies Projects, Programs and Practices Air Quality None Identified None Identified Climate Change  The Land use and the Natural Urban Environment Elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan seek to reduce the urban “heat island effect” and increase GHG sequestration within the City by: o Increasing the urban forest (Policies N-17, N-18, and N-19) around paved areas; and o Encouraging parking alternatives (Policy L-70) to minimize the use of open land for parking.  The 2007 Climate Change Protection Plan includes recommendations for policies that could impact practices and policies in the City’s parks. These recommendations include: o Employ Urban Forest Opportunities to Reduce Energy Use and Increase Carbon Sequestration (Appendix II-4) o Propose Sustainable Gardening and Landscaping Policy and Implementation Plan (Appendix II- 5) o Improve recycling in public areas (Appendix II-5) o Integrate climate consciousness into City functions (Appendix II-5)  Sustainability / Climate Action Plan in development; to be adopted in 2015 None Identified SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 15 Education and Training None Identified  The City is using the Palo Alto Art Center to educate the public about the green features of the LEED silver building in a fun and informative way  Leading by example, the Palo Alto Art Center is intended to inspire the public to develop their own sustainability practices by displaying practices that are possible.  Using “On the Road” art exhibits and the “Artist in Residency” program the City is seeking to: o Decrease use of single-use plastic bags and plastic bottles. o Repurpose plastic bags and plastic bottles as an art material. o Increase understanding of impact of single-use plastic bags and plastic bottles on the environment. o Increase recycling practices.  Children’s fine art classes seek to: o Educate children about waste reduction; and o Inspire children to use existing materials in new ways. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 16 Energy Efficiency None Identified  Efficiency: Palo Alto Green has provided the city with renewable energy. For more than 10-years, the percent of energy provided by wind and solar facilities has increased with the ultimate objective of securing 100% of electric energy from renewable sources. The City of Palo Alto now enjoys carbon-neutral electricity.  Conservation: City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) offers SMART metering programs to make consumers aware of their energy use and provides energy retrofitting, lighting, and solar panel rebates to encourage energy efficiency in existing structures.  Retrofit: Through the Studio Lighting project, the City seeks to reduce energy consumption by installing energy efficient lighting in the Art Center studios. Equity None Identified None Identified Green Building  The City of Palo Alto requires compliance with the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen)  The City of Palo Alto has a local Green Building Ordinance with mandatory measures for both residential and commercial development.  The City’s Green Building program encourages all applicants to consider sustainable building practices  All new municipal structures are being designed to incorporate energy saving features to reduce GHG emissions, water conservation measures, waste reduction practices, pollution prevention measures, and the use of “green” materials that reduce impacts on constrained resources.  The City is working to make the Cubberley Community center as environmentally friendly as possible.  The Palo Alto Art Center will be a LEED Silver Rated Green Building  Golf courses are being reconfigured to incorporate sustainability improvements. The reconfiguration project is scheduled to begin March 2015.  The new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center is a LEED Certified building Natural Resources / Habitat  The Natural Urban Environment Element includes policies that protect and preserve sensitive habitats and wildlife (Policies N-1 and New Policies N1.6.1) through park and open space management practices.  Baylands and Acterra Native Plant nurseries grow more than 10,000 plants per year which are used for restoration projects in the baylands and natural systems in Palo Alto and adjacent areas. The objective is to sustain this effort. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 17 Operations / Maintenance  City of Palo Alto Resolution No. 9013 externalities costs resolution provides guidance on true pricing, in which true costs (hidden costs or externalities) are incorporated.  The 2014 CIP includes park and park related projects that will improve bicycle and pedestrian access, wayfinding, trail connections, accessibility to people with disabilities, and public health and safety. Public Health and Safety None Identified None Identified Transportation  Multiple Modes: The Land Use and Community Design and the Transportation Elements support, and seeks to expand multi-modal access (particularly bicycle and pedestrian access) to support transportation options that reduce vehicle miles traveled and reduce GHG emissions: o Policies L-23 and L-26 seek to improve pedestrian and transit connections at and around the Stanford Shopping Center. o Policy L-31 would improve multi- modal transit connections in the Cal-Ventura Area and California Avenue. o Policies L-33, 34 and 35 would make South El Camino Real more pedestrian friendly.  Trip Reduction: The Land Use, Community Services, and Business and Economics Elements include policies that could reduce travel by expanding neighborhood serving uses and community centers and supporting telecommuting: o Policy L-70 supports neighborhood parks as outdoor gathering places and centers of neighborhood activity. o Policies L-41, L-44, T-14 and T-19 encourage bicycle and pedestrian access within Palo Alto and to surrounding communities. o Policies C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, and C-19 encourage development of neighborhood child and/or senior care facilities. o Policy B-4 supports development of a fiber optic ring around the City.  The City of Palo Alto is forming a Transportation Management Association to coordinate TDM programs  The City of Palo Alto sponsors a free shuttle, provides information about bicycle and trail connections, and promotes use of public transit to reduce automobile travel to and within the City.  The Middle School Athletic Program provides over 1400 students the opportunity to play sports for their school. In order to get all the kids to away games, parents are strongly encouraged to set up car pool systems to limit the cars needed to travel from game to game. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 18 Waste Management  The Land Use and Community Design Element policy L-20 encourages the reuse of existing buildings. Through reuse, this policy will reduce demand for solid waste disposal.  The Zero Waste policy recommends that best practices to reduce costs and debris become phased-in requirements for public and private projects. (p. 61)  Zero Waste Palo Alto seeks to virtually eliminate waste being burned or buried through education about reducing waste as well as recycling and hazardous waste disposal programs. It includes recommendations for practices that can be incorporated into Palo Alto’s parks and recreation programming: o Sustainable Landscaping and Gardening: Education on best practices that will reduce maintenance costs and the amount of debris created and transported from their site. (p. 61)  Improve recycling in public areas. Provide recycling containers wherever trash receptacles are provided.  Compostable products should be used at Special Events.  Children’s fine art classes seek to reduce waste by re-purposing materials such as cardboard boxes, egg cartons, magazine, and plastic for art-making purposes. Water Conservation None Identified  The City of Palo Alto has a comprehensive water conservation program in partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District The City implements additional water use restrictions associated with drought and water shortage consistent with state, county and local policy  Through a water reduction program, the Parks are converting non-essential turf to mulched or landscaped areas to reduce water use.  The golf course water conservation initiative has been evolving and growing for several years. The desired outcome is reducing the amount of overall water use, and reducing the potable water use as much as possible while still providing the golfing experience that customer’s desire. Water Quality None Identified  The Palo Alto Storm Drain Utility offers rebates to residents, businesses and City Departments that implement measures that reduce the amount of runoff flowing into the storm drain system or improving the water quality of the runoff. SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW 19 B. Sustainability Plan Element Comparison Park Entity / Issue Areas Ai r Q u a l i t y Cl i m a t e C h a n g e Ed u c a t i o n / T r a i n i n g En e r g y E f f i c i e n c y Eq u i t y Gr e e n B u i l d i n g Na t u r a l R e s o u r c e / H a b i t a t Op e r a t i o n s / M a i n t e n a n c e Pu b l i c H e a l t h / S a f e t y Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Wa s t e R e d u c t i o n Wa t e r C o n s e r v a t i o n Wa t e r Q u a l i t y Ot h e r Im p l e m e n t a t i o n Time Horizon National Park Service P S P S P S P P P S P1 2012-20152 Oregon State Parks S S P P P P P P P P P P S P 2013-2017 Pierce County P S P P S S P P P P 2010-2015 New York City S P S P S S P S S P 2010-2012 City of Sacramento P P P P P P P P P S P 2008-2015 City of Seattle P P P P P P P P P3 On-going P = Primary Consideration S = Secondary Consideration Though most of the topical areas were discussed in each plan, only issues identified as a policy goal are identified as primary considerations. Secondary considerations represent issues that are described and discussed as important considerations but not as separate policies or programs. 1 The National Park Service plan includes a goal of meeting and exceeding the requirements of all applicable environmental laws and seeks to foster sustainability through inviting visitors to the parks to participate in sustainability practices. Implementation is discussed in their plan but will be accomplished at individual sites to reflect local conditions. 2 The NPS plan does not have a planning horizon but includes various implementation horizons depending on the goal. The shortest time horizon is 3‐years from adoption (2015). 3 Aesthetic and design improvement was among the top 10 sustainability goals in Seattle. To: Peter Jensen and Elizabeth Ames, City of Palo Alto From: Ryan Mottau and Ellie Fiore, MIG CC: Daren Anderson, Greg Betts and Rob DeGeus Re: Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Existing System Summary Memo Date: December 22, 2014 Over the past year, MIG has collected and generated a foundation of data, analysis, community input, best practices, and opportunities from which to build a comprehensive Palo Alto Parks Plan, Trails and Open Space Master Plan (the Plan or PTOSR Plan). The following memo describes the process and outcomes of tasks 1 through 5 of the scope of work guiding the planning process: Refining the Work Plan, Policy and Standards Review, Inventory and Analysis, Demographic Analysis and Community Needs Assessment. The work done to established overall direction for the plan and will inform the development of recommendations. This memo describes the approach and process and provides an overview of each of the work products delivered by the MIG Team for each task. The materials developed over the course of the past year have been provided to the City Staff Project Management team and Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and PRC Ad Hoc committees, in addition to update memos, and periodic presentations. The materials are posted for public viewing on the project website: www.paloaltoparksplan.org. 1. Refining the Work Plan The MIG team and City Project Staff Team kicked off the PTOSR Plan with a project initiation meeting in December 2013. We worked with staff to update the scope of work, public input plan and project timeline. 2. City Policy and Standards Review The planning process began with a review of City plans, policies and practices relevant to the Plan. The MIG team launched the policy and standards review with a facilitated interdepartmental Staff workshop, including representatives from several City departments. Staff discussed the role that parks, trails, open space and recreation services play in Palo Alto and identified past and current planning efforts relevant to the Plan. The MIG team submitted an information request and collected background materials. We assembled and reviewed all existing planning documents identified by the City to ensure compatibility with the final PTOSR 2 Plan recommendations. Using data provided by the City and other organizations, we assembled a base map, which revealed some gaps and inconsistencies in available GIS data. After compiling and reconciling the data, we created a base map that has been used throughout the planning process and can be utilized by the City moving forward. Work Product: Planning Environment Summary The findings of this task were summarized in the Planning Environment Summary, which includes a review of guiding documents, related plans and programs and city policies and practices. The Summary surfaces facility and program gaps identified by past planning efforts for consideration in the PTOSR planning process. The Summary was delivered to the City in June 2014. 3. Existing System Inventory and Analysis Building on the Policy and Standards Review, we assessed the physical and programmatic state of Palo Alto’s park system and provided a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the system. The MIG team began this phase with a tour of the park system led by the Community Services Department Staff. Several members of the maintenance and operations staff accompanied the tour or met the group at park sites to highlight key O&M issues. We also met with Palo Alto Unified Public School District representatives who provided insights about the District’s publically accessible spaces and the District’s relationship with the City. The MIG team launched an interactive online map-based questionnaire that collected data from community members about park usage and travel patterns to parks. With this foundation of data about the physical system, we conducted a geographic and network analysis. In addition to our analysis of the physical system, we reviewed programs offered by the Community Services Department and private community providers to determine overlaps and gaps in local recreation offerings and uses. We also reviewed policies and practices to identify opportunities to enhance the Park system’s sustainability. In addition to the tour, the MIG team made more extended field visits to each park site to evaluate conditions and consider possible interventions and enhancements. The MIG team provided a sample set of five site conditions maps to the City in December to obtain feedback about the information presented. The full results of the field work are documented in the Physical Inventory and existing conditions site maps (which will be delivered to the City in January 2015). Using the information gathered in tasks 2 and 3, MIG analyzed the mix and distribution of recreation opportunities, access parks and essential park elements, current practices, constraints on individual sites and the system and opportunities to expand the opportunities offered by the City of Palo Alto. This process generated several products, which are briefly summarized below. Work Product: Program Review and Analysis 3 MIG compiled an inventory table of programs offered by Palo Alto Community Services and private providers that was reviewed by the City Project Staff Team to ensure accuracy and completeness. The program inventory informed the Recreation Program Review and Analysis, which reviews the division of responsibility for recreation programs offered within the Community Services Department and by private and community providers. The Program Review and Analysis makes recommendations for high-level strategic directions and key findings about Palo Alto’s programming areas, populations and facilities, and identifies gaps and overlaps. The Program Review and Analysis was delivered to the City on December 2, 2014. Work Product: Physical Inventory The physical inventory includes an inventory table, detailed site analysis and a base map that has been reviewed and updated throughout the analysis. The inventory table quantifies the facilities at each of Palo Alto’s parks and provides each park’s acreage and quality rating, as defined by the City. The most recent version of the base map was delivered to the Staff Project Team on October 11, 2014. Work Product: Online Interactive Map Survey Summary Using the web-based Mapita application, more than 487 community members were able to answer a series of questions and provide geo-tagged comments on specific parks and locations throughout the City. This survey provided an opportunity for all park users (residents, visitors, employees, etc.) to share their on-the-ground knowledge about strengths and challenges in the park system and the transportation network that provides access to parks and open spaces. The Survey Summary includes site maps with participants’ comments on park quality, barriers to access, needs and opportunities for dozens of parks. Ideas and opportunities uncovered by the interactive map are informing recommendations for both specific park sites and the entire system. The survey data about park usage and travel patterns has been incorporated into our geographic analysis. The Interactive Map Survey Summary was delivered to the City on October 15, 2014. The Mapita survey data is Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based and fed directly into our geographic analysis. We produced maps that show survey participants’ park closest to home, route densities, which parks are mostly heavily used by respondents, and barriers to reaching parks. We delivered these maps to the City on October 30, 2014. Work Product: Geographic Analysis Building upon the base map, the MIG team analyzed the physical data gathered from our park tours and observations, meetings, research and the interactive map survey to produce maps of park service areas. This map illustrates park walksheds based on ¼ and ½ mile distances using the existing street and trail network (5 and 10 minute walks at average walking speed). We also generated maps showing access to indoor recreation facilities, off-leash dog facilities, and distance from parks that provide all essential activities. These activities were determined based on the community’s input that was gathered through intercept events and the online interactive mapping survey. 4  Play for children  Throw a ball  Gathering  Exercise and fitness  Relax and enjoy the outdoors Results were presented and provided to the City and PRC in late October 2014. Work Product: Sustainability Review The Sustainability Review builds on the physical and program inventory to identify opportunities to increase sustainable and resource-saving practices associated the operation and management of parks and open space within the City. Drawing on best practices from other cities and agencies, the site tour and inventory findings and Staff Project Team input, the Sustainability Review evaluates the City’s current policies, programs and practices and identifies opportunities to increase sustainability across 13 indicators. We delivered this document to the City on December 2, 2014. 4. Demographics and Trends To augment the analysis of the system and guide recommendations, MIG researched local and national trends in park use and interpreted these trends for Palo Alto’s spaces, facilities and programs. Trends include income inequality, aging baby boomers, and health, connecting kids with nature, the growing popularity of the outdoor lifestyle, technology, and universal design. We also researched local and regional population and demographic trends from the past several decades and projections for the coming decades. Work Product: Demographics and Trends Analysis Delivered to the City in September 2014, the Demographics and Trends Analysis includes Palo Alto’s demographic profile, key findings, and trends that have and will continue to inform the community outreach and the PTOSR planning process. The analysis highlights the city’s youth population and its residents with disabilities. It also acknowledges that less is known about Palo Alto’s low income residents. 5. Gather and Assess Community Needs The MIG team has implemented ongoing, multi-faceted community outreach throughout the planning process to meet the goal of fostering an accessible and community-driven PTOSR planning process. Community outreach is integral to the process and helps to determine how Palo Alto parks, trails, open spaces and recreation facilities can better meet the needs of the community. We launched the outreach process last summer (2014) with the first of three Stakeholder Advisory Group Meetings on June 25. 5 Last summer MIG also conducted six intercept events, with support from the Staff Project Staff Team and Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) members. The intercept activities were conducted in parks and at markets. Through this method, the intercept team asked community members to indicate their responses to questions about what they value about the parks and recreation system using dot stickers placed on large posters. These intercepts captured input from a large number of people and include many people who may not otherwise be involved in the process due to schedule conflicts or an unwillingness to attend traditional community meetings. A series of three community workshops provided residents with an opportunity to provide more specific input on design approaches and aspects of the system that they would like to preserved or improved. Most recently, an online community survey further drilled down into many of the issues that have emerged from previous outreach efforts and research and analysis. The online interactive map survey has also been an important community outreach tool and is summarized above as part of task 3. Work Product: Stakeholder Advisory Group Meeting Summary MIG convened the first of three Stakeholder Advisory Group Meetings. The MIG team provided facilitation and graphic recording of the meeting to ensure that all voices were heard. Twenty- four community members, representing a range of interests and organizations, were in attendance. Meeting participants identified issues, challenges and opportunities to be explored in the planning process. Work Product: Intercept Event Summary Intercept events at some of Palo Alto’s most popular parks, farmer’s markets and summer events engaged more that 200 community members who learned about the PTOSR Plan and provided input. Participants were also given the option to sign up for project updates through an e-mail list and directed to the website for more information and to stay engaged. The intercept questions asked participants which aspects of the parks system are most important to them, the reasons they choose recreation programs, and what they feel is most important to improve or add to the parks and recreation system. The summary provides the community’s responses to the questions in table and pie chart format, for an at-a-glance of the community’s perspective on their park system. The Summary also provides participants’ anonymous demographic data. Work Product: Community Workshops Summary We facilitated a series of three community workshops, on October 28, 29 and December 2, 2014 that engaged a total of 60 community members. The Community Workshop Summary provides the results of the visual preference survey and key themes from the small group discussions and comment cards. Work Product: Online Survey Summary MIG worked with the City Staff Project Team to launch an online community survey at the end of November, 2014. The survey was based on earlier input from the community and the analysis of 6 the system. The objective of the survey was to better understand community priorities. The PRC and Staff Project Team reviewed the survey and it was available online from November 17 through December 19. It was also available in hard copy in Spanish and in English. The results are being analyzed and a report will be delivered to the City and PRC in January. Work Product: City Council Update On November 17, we provided City Council with a review of work completed to date an overview of the current status of the project and a discussion of the next steps and project schedule. It is anticipated that this written update will be presented to Council in January 2015. Developing the Plan Document The MIG team is working to finalize the remaining items in Tasks 1-5 of the PTOSR Planning process. This includes the analysis and Summary of the Community Survey in Task 5 and the Revenue Analysis under Task 3. These will be delivered to the City Project Team in January 2015. The next phase of the planning process is focused on prioritization. Continuing to analyze the data and input collected in the first five project tasks, we will make recommendations and work with the City Project Team, PRC and the communities to establish priority policies and actions. In January, we will work with City staff to finalize the existing conditions maps and formulate preliminary recommendations and a project list. Dedicated prioritization meetings will be held with the stakeholder advisory group, PRC and broader community to inform the Draft Plan. In the spring, MIG will develop the elements of the administrative draft plan and the first draft of the document for internal review. A Public Draft Plan will be reviewed with several commissions and the City Council in study sessions as well as at a community workshop and revised in preparation for adoption in early summer. 1 COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS SUMMARY Introduction As part of the community outreach process for the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (PTOSR Plan), MIG facilitated a series of three community workshops, on October 28, 29 and December 2, 2014. A total of 65 people participated in the interactive polling, and 57 signed in for all workshops. The workshops are one of several community outreach activities in the PTOSR planning process, all meeting the goal of fostering an accessible and community-driven planning process The objective of the community workshops were to obtain feedback about the character and design of Palo Alto’s parks and to discuss priorities (what to keep and enhance, which features to add).. Input was collected through an interactive real-time polling activity, facilitated group discussions and comment cards. Intially, two workshops were planned and scheduled to occur in October, and rooms were booked. As the workshops approached, the San Francisco Giants made it to the World Series. The final two games of the World Series were scheduled on the same nights as the workshops, which had already been advertised. Palo Alto added a third workshop, in anticipation that the World Series might discourage participation. Because City meeting rooms are so heavily used, the earliest a suitable room could be scheduled was December 2. Following is a consolidated summary of the three workshops. Visual Preference Survey Results Community workshop participants were asked to indicate their preferences for a series of images in a PowerPoint presentation using an audience response system. This technology allows participants to use hand-held “clickers” to indicate their response to a question displayed in a presentation. The results of the poll are displayed instantly and anonymously in the PowerPoint presentation. The results of this exercise will inform recommendations at the park level and in developing design guidelines for the system. The images in the visual preference survey were selected to represent various design approaches for parks, open spaces and trails. Participants were instructed to vote based on how well they thought each approach would work in Palo Alto. The answer choices were “I really like it,” “I would consider it,” “No way,” and “I’m not sure.” On the following pages of this summary are the visual preference survey images displayed with the polling results. As previously noted, 2 Community Workshop Summary the results from all three meetings are aggregated. At each meeting, the facilitator prompted a brief discussion about some the images after participants’ votes to clarify responses. Each image is assigned a letter for reference purposes only. Figure A Figure B 3 Community Workshop Summary Figure C Figure D 4 Community Workshop Summary Figure E Figure F 5 Community Workshop Summary Figure G Figure H 6 Community Workshop Summary Figure I Figure J 7 Community Workshop Summary Figure K Figure L 8 Community Workshop Summary Figure M Figure N 9 Community Workshop Summary Figure O Figure P 10 Community Workshop Summary Figure Q Figure R 11 Community Workshop Summary Figure S Figure T 12 Community Workshop Summary Figure U Figure V 13 Community Workshop Summary Small Group Discussion: Priorities for the Future Workshop participants were asked to consider, record their responses to, and discuss the three questions below as a small group. 1. What features of Palo Alto’s parks, trails, open space and recreation system should be protected/preserved? (note the specific location/park if relevant) 2. Where do you see opportunities to improve or enhance features or programs that exist in the system? (note the specific location/park if relevant) 3. What new features or programs should be added to the system? (note the specific location/park if relevant) Highlights and themes from each discussion we graphically recorded by MIG facilitators during the group discussions and are summarized below. Community workshop participants at the October 29 workshop. Protect and Preserve Participants’ discussion about aspects of the park system that should be preserved and protected largely fell in two categories: protection of natural areas and features, and preservation of specific recreation facilities. There was also some discussion about preserving the community-designed or community-driven features in the system, such as Bol Park and the community gardens. Some of the specific suggestions and ideas within each theme are listed below: Open spaces and natural spaces  Rinconada – redwood trees  Habitats: birds/bird hot migration spots  Bol Park - Matadero Creek  Vegetation and stormwater management  Foothills park trails and fishing pond Recreation facilities and spaces  Sports fields and the quality of the fields  Baylands trail  Organized evening activities -- gyms in Cubberley, lighted soccer fields  User amenities – restrooms, water fountains, benches  Iconic play structures  Community gardens 14 Community Workshop Summary Enhance and Improve Workshop participants discussed aspects of Palo Alto’s park system that could be improved or enhanced. General comments included the desire for equitable maintenance across the parks as well as the need for universal design and improved accessibility. There were several comments expressing the need for new/more restrooms and one comment discouraging more restrooms. The comments fell under several themes ranging in scale and specificity. The comments below are categorized by themes. Recreation  Improve capacity for multi-sports  More space for basketball; basketball tennis court combo  A second community pool  More tennis court capacity  Fix shuffleboard at Mitchell  Activities for all ages  Improve Baylands athletic facilities  Baseball facilities  Rinconada tennis courts lights Park furnishings  More accessible and comfortable  Allows for flexibility  Locate closer to play places for supervision  Need more spaces for groups to gather throughout the system  Water fountains to allow for refillable water bottles Nature and habitat  More native species and habitat for pollinators  Wetlands/creek rehabilitation and connect with parks  Trees  Nature play  Environmental education: Improve interpretive centers (Baylands)  Shorebird habitat near old marines  Less intense lighting (Edgewood Plaza)  Pesticide/herbicide-free landscaping Dog parks  More dog parks throughout the city with water features – greener, bigger and more interesting  Post signs with rules about dogs  More dog supervision  Set times and spaces for dog access and assure habitats are protected Connectivity  Interconnectedness.  Combine bike, people, creek  Coordinate with shuttle and schools to get students from schools to after school activities  Palo Alto is part of 3 of the 4 regional trail systems – enhance to help get traffic off road Baylands o Need better art, layout – like San Carlos o Trail is dull, unprotected o Shelters/shade structures 15 Community Workshop Summary New Participants discussed the new features or programs that should be added to the system. The conversations were creative and thoughtful. Universal access, multi-generational facilities, flexibility and environmental education emerged as areas of opportunities for new programs and facilities. Participants also suggested new or multi-use facilities for a range of sports and recreation activities and suggested expanding the use of existing recreation facilities with longer hours. Outreach to school students was mentioned as important to designing and programming parks that meet student’s needs. Habitat  Plants in parking strips  Butterfly park – Ramos  Add islands for shorebirds  Habitat structures (non-plants)  Nature Play and hands-on experiences (e.g., . tadpole ponds)  Environmental education: demonstration gardens Recreation facilities for the following activities:  Cricket  Lacrosse facilities  Disc golf  Archery  Kite-flying  Pickleball  Baseball -- batting cages  Outdoor exercise classes (Mitchell)  Ping pong tables  Small tables for iPads, chess, etc.  More coexistence  Gym space  Tennis center at Rinconada  Water activities in the bay – kayaking, paddle-boarding  Space for kids and pick-up games that is not continuously reserved for leagues Meet the needs of multi-cultural and multi-lingual park users  Multi-cultural and multi-lingual outreach and input into process  Spaces for large family groups to gather Dog facilities  More dog parks, especially downtown  More off-leash areas  Better facilities for dog owners Maintenance  User group maintenance – especially for fields  Engage neighborhood association in care of local park Other  Add café at Byxbee  Food truck hubs  Memorial groves  Parklets  Solar panels  WiFi in parks: benefits and drawbacks  More restrooms  Light more fields, later at night 1 RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS Introduction The Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan (Parks and Recreation Plan) will address how the City is going to plan for, develop, and deliver recreation programming to the community in coming years. Recreation program offerings are dependent on a number of factors that warrant consideration such as cost, space availability, public interest, offerings from other recreation providers (to avoid duplication), and filling outstanding programming gaps within the system. An understanding of how these factors come into play will inform the City’s delivery of its recreation programming and will also enhance the City’s ability to knowledgeably plan for the community’s future needs and desires. The Recreation Program Analysis was developed to identify the division of responsibility for various recreation options offered within the Community Services Department as well as by private and community providers. The Recreation Program Analysis is part of a series of “white papers” that have been prepared during the Parks and Recreation Planning process. This document summarizes the project team’s understanding of Palo Alto’s recreation programs and is organized into the following sections:  Recreation Programming Guidance  Current Recreation Providers and Programming  Recreation Facilities  Other Important Facilities for Recreation Programming  Key Findings Recreation Programming Guidance Recreation programming in Palo Alto has been guided by the 2008-2011 Recreation Strategic Plan, which incorporated direction from the Community Services Department Strategic Plan as well as the California Park and Recreation Society’s “VIP” Plan. The Recreation Strategic Plan document established a planning framework, starting with values and including a vision, mission, core competencies and a set of six strategic initiatives. This framework Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Plan RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS has continued to guide recreation programming past the originally envisioned timeline (2011). Figure 1: Planning Framework, Recreation Strategic Plan 2008-2011 Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Plan RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS The strategic framework established in 2008 was forward-looking and remains on trend with the direction recreation service providers around the country are heading. Initial community input also suggest that the overall strategic direction is still relevant and appropriate. The Parks and Recreation Plan provides an opportunity to inform the update of this important guide based on current and robust analysis and community input. Current Recreation Providers and Programming An examination of Palo Alto’s recreation programs shows the City benefits from a mix of public, non-profit, and private providers, each working in distinct segments of the recreation marketplace. The Recreation Matrix on page 9 provides an at-a- glance overview of existing recreation opportunities in Palo Alto, the organizations and institutions through which they are offered, and the market segments whose needs are being met by these providers. Recreation Providers Below is a summary of the major providers of recreation programming in Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto  Art Center  Children’s Theater  Junior Museum and Zoo  Library  Recreation Services Public Agencies  Palo Alto School District  Public Utilities Other Providers include a range of private businesses and non-profit organizations including:  Abilities United  Ballet and Dance Studios  Brad Lozares Gold Shop at Palo Alto Golf Course  Community Sports Organizations (Little League, Soccer Club, Lacrosse, etc.)  Master Gardeners and Garden Shops  Martial Arts Studios  Oshman Family Jewish Community Center (JCC)  Palo Alto Family YMCA Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Plan RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS  Private Childcare Providers  Private Gyms and Fitness Centers  University Club of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Recreation Program Areas Palo Alto’s recreation programs provide the community with a wide range of activities offered at multiple venues across the city. To accurately account for all current offerings, program areas and related offerings have been defined below and incorporated in the Recreation Matrix.1. This first group of program areas is based on the City of Palo Alto’s offerings within the Recreation Services division. Other entities, both with and outside of the City, also provide programming in these areas. Aquatics programming includes swimming pool-based activities: learn-to-swim classes, training (e.g., lifeguard training), water-based exercise and fitness, as well as swim team and open swim sessions. Several of the largest recreation providers in the City offer aquatics programming including Recreation Services, Equinox, Oshman Family JCC, Palo Alto Family YMCA and the University Club. Camps for youth and teens are offered during summer and school breaks. In addition to day camps, overnight group camps are offered at Foothills Park. Camp programs in Palo Alto include options focused on specific interests, such as fine arts and athletics. Several recreation providers offer camps to residents:  The City of Palo Alto offers summer day camps  The YMCA of Palo Alto offers a summer overnight family camp  The Oshman Family JCC offers day camps during school breaks, and year-round “mini-camps” on single-day school holidays  The University Club offers day camps during school holiday breaks in the winter and summer, Health and fitness programs include aerobics and strength-building classes, yoga, Tai-Chi and meditation, among others activities. These classes are offered year-round by the City of Palo Alto, the YMCA, University Club, Oshman JCC and private gyms. Several private providers in Pal Alto offer personal training and wellness coaching. Martial arts encompass many popular styles that range in physical intensity and contact. The City of Palo Alto offers youth Karate and Tai-Chi for adults. The 1 For the purposes of this analysis, organizations are marked as providing a recreation program if they offer it consistently year‐round or seasonally, on an annual basis. One‐time events or workshops were not considered creation programs. Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Plan RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS YMCA offers Soo Bahk Do for youth and family groups and the Oshman JCC offers Goju Ryu Karate. Palo Alto is also home to many private martial arts studios that offer classes for youth and adults. Outdoor recreation programs include activities such as ranger-led hikes and bird watching. The City of Palo Alto offers outdoor recreation programs throughout the year. Other providers like the Palo Alto YMCA integrate outdoor recreation into summer camps. Several private outdoor recreation programs also provide environmental education opportunities. Performing arts programming includes theater and dance classes and camps. The City of Palo Alto offers year-round performing arts classes for youth as well as summer camps. Special events include family entertainment, festivals, outdoor concerts and other events. The City of Palo Alto as well as private providers host such events. Special interest classes range from cooking to robotics. The City of Palo Alto offers special interest classes for youth and adults through Parks and Recreation as well as the Palo Alto School District Adult School. Specialized/therapeutic recreation programs are designed to meet the needs of individuals with specific physical or developmental disabilities. Offerings include social and work skills classes and are provided by Recreation Services, Abilities United and the Oshman JCC. Sports classes provide instruction to introduce players to a sport or strengthen skills outside of a leagues or team setting. Recreation Services offers many sports classes including basketball, wrestling, volleyball and golf. Adult leagues are organized sports teams that compete at various levels of skill and intensity. The City of Palo Alto, the Oshman JCC and the YMCA have adult basketball leagues. The City oversees year-round adult basketball, softball and volleyball leagues. Youth leagues in Palo Alto exist for swimming, soccer, basketball, football, and baseball among other sports. They are offered through a variety of providers including league organizations such as the Palo Alto Knights football league, run by local volunteers. Golf programming is available at the Palo Alto Public Golf course and is provided by Brad Lozares Golf Shop. Classes and private lessons are available for youth and adults. First Tee of Silicon Valley is run through a non-profit and is Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Plan RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS held at the Palo Alto Public Golf Course. The organization uses golf to teach life skills to youth. Additional Recreation Program Areas The second group of program areas was identified based on research into the available programs across the community. This category captures program areas offered primarily by other divisions of Community Services as well as those that are unique to private or community providers. Crafts and visual arts programming spans ceramics, drawing, painting, photography and other visual arts. The City of Palo Alto provides the most robust offerings in this program area and the Palo Alto School District also offers arts and crafts courses through its Adult School. The YMCA offers youth arts and crafts classes and the University Club includes arts and crafts in its summer camp programming. Emergency preparedness refers to classes that train individuals on preparing for an emergency and how to assist their family and neighbors following emergencies. The Oshman JCC offers Red Cross first aid training. Lifeguard training is an intensive certification course to prepare adults and teens as lifeguards. Lifeguard training is offered by Recreation Services. Volunteer opportunities are offered through the City of Palo Alto, as well as many other organizations throughout Palo Alto. These opportunities range from youth mentorship and coaching to stewardship of Palo Alto’s open spaces. Environmental programming and education teaches Palo Alto’s residents about wildlife, landscapes and natural features in the area. Activities include ranger led hikes, birding walks and star gazing. Environmental programming and education is often incorporated into youth day camps and adult outdoor recreation programs. The Junior Museum and Zoo and Palo Alto Utilities offer environmental programming and education opportunities. Gardening classes help people develop the skills and knowledge they need to sustain a garden in their own yards or in a community garden. Recreation Services, garden shops and local Master Gardeners offer these classes to the general public. Preschool programs are educational programs with curriculum designed for pre-kindergarten age children. There is a licensed after-school child care program (managed by a private provider) at each Palo Alto elementary school Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Plan RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS site. There are many other providers throughout Palo Alto that also provide preschool programming. Before- and after-school programs vary by provider and program and typically include a recreation component, whether it is sports-specific programming or simply space, equipment and encouragement for supervised play. The Oshman JCC, the University Club and many private providers offer before and after school programs. Zero-waste/green lifestyle classes offered through the City of Palo Alto are focused on composting and reducing food waste with a focus on meeting Palo Alto’s zero-waste goal by 2021. Master Gardener instructors teach classes about managing gardens without pesticides and Palo Alto Utilities offers classes on green building, water efficient landscapes and greywater capture for landscaping. Youth and teen support services focus on the social and metal health of Palo Alto’s youth and teens. These services include programs such as Project Safety Net, Project Cornerstone (a YMCA collaboration), and the City of Palo Alto’s new Teen Center. Senior support services provide social, physical and cultural outlets and assistance to older adults in Palo Alto. Oshman JCC provides transit service to senior events, outings and activities. They also periodically host free lunch and social hours. The City of Palo Alto provides a shuttle service that is frequently used by seniors. Family support services include programs that assist and support parents in their role as caregivers. A referral service and the Family Resource Hotline are offered through the City’s Office of Human Services. Teen parenting classes are offered by the Police Department in partnership with the Palo Alto Unified School District. Oshman JCC also provides parental education and family therapy services. Populations Served Recreation market segments are the populations served in each program area and by each major provider in Palo Alto. The market segments were identified in the Demographic Analysis and include a range of age groups, physical abilities, and cultures. These market segments have distinct recreation programming needs given their diverse physical and social preferences and abilities. The market segments identified include:  Preschool (up to 5 years old) Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Plan RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS  Elementary School Age (6-11)  Middle School Age (12-14)  High School Age (15-18)  Young Adults (19-25)  Adults (26-55)  Seniors/Older Adults (55+)  People with Disabilities  People from Diverse Cultures 9 RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS 10 11 Recreation Facilities Palo Alto maintains both general and specialized indoor recreation facilities. The two largest facilities are the Cubberley Community Center and the Lucie Stern Center which offer a wide variety of program. However, neither was designed or built primarily as a recreation facility or to provide the current mix of programs. Other facilities focus on a narrower range of programming, representing a significant community investment in one area, such as the Palo Alto Arts Center, which hosts the visual arts programming provided by the City. Table 1 summarizes how Palo Alto’s facilities are generally grouped in terms of the programming category it serves. Table 1: Programming Categories and Facilities PROGRAMMING CATEGORY Facility Name Recreation and Meeting Space Bowling Green Park Clubhouse Cubberley Community Center Lucie Stern Community Center Mitchell Park Community Center Municipal Golf Course Peers Park Fieldhouse Rinconada Pool Ventura Community Center Performing Arts Children’s Theater Cubberley Community Center Science, Nature and Environmental Education/ Interpretation Junior Museum and Zoo2 Enid Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Nature Center Foothills Park Interpretive Center Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Library Children’s Library Main Library Mitchell Park Library College Park Library Visual Arts and Crafts Arts Center Palo Alto’s two major indoor recreation facilities, the Lucie Stern Center and the Cubberley Community Center are located on opposite ends of Middlefield Road and provide space for a wide range of programs, facility rentals and athletic events. The Lucie Stern Center also houses the City’s Recreation Services Division offices. 2 The Junior Museum and Zoo administers the City’s three nature and interpretive centers. RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS Each facility has unique strengths and weaknesses. The Lucie Stern Center is a historic building with a grand hall that can host formal events, but due to limited space the facility is used for storage and class space. While the building is a beautiful asset to the community, the design limits its flexibility for recreation programming. The Cubberley Community Center is a former high school campus, offering a huge amount of classroom space and some specialized indoor and outdoor facilities including a theater and substantial athletic fields. Like the Lucie Stern Center, this building was not designed for its current use. While adaptations have been made, the building is not ideal for many of the uses currently housed within it. The 2010 Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission Final Report includes a working paper on the Cubberley site, which provides background on the property, the costs of programs currently (2011) at the site and costs associated with various scenarios for the property’s future. The majority of the Cubberley site is owned by the Palo Alto School District, with the balance owned by the City. Future redevelopment concepts for Cubberley Community Center have been limited by the uncertain future need for the site as a high school location. The Cubberley Community Center Advisory Committee has made various recommendations for a future shared use facility on this site. However, the future of this site remains far from certain. Another significant recreation facility is the Rinconada Pool, located in the park of the same name. This outdoor pool facility includes a wading pool with spray and waterfall features, a small slide and a zero depth “beach” area. The second pool is a 14-lane lap pool with two diving boards. These facilities offer recreation swimming, lessons and private pool parties through the spring, summer and late summer and lap swimming year-round. Hours of Operation and Peak Use Table 2: Facility Hours of Operation and Peak Use FACILITY OPERATIONAL HOURS PEAK USE NOTES Lucie Stern Center 8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Use is steady throughout day, but tends to get busier as week progresses and when popular classes are offered. Cubberley Community Center 5:00 AM – 10:00 PM Consistently busy, but Sunday mornings are more so with church hosted events. Late afternoons and early RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS evenings are busy on weekdays, primarily due to after-school programs. Closing time exceptions are available with permission. Rinconada Pool 6:00 AM – 9:00 PM Recreation swim open spring and summer only. Lap swim is open year- round. User Groups and Partner Organizations A wide range of groups use Parks and Recreation facilities in Palo Alto. In particular, a large number of organizations are tenants of the Cubberley Community Center, providing a wide range of programs and services. Cubberley is currently Other organizations host events and meetings on both a regular and casual basis and support the system through financial, informational or service contributions. A sampling of these partner groups includes:  ACME : an organization teaching the Chinese culture and language  Acterra: an environmental stewardship and restoration organization with sites in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties  Audubon Society: an environmental conservation and restoration group  Bay Area Amphibian & Reptile Society: an education and conservation group  Bay Area Arabic School: an organization teaching Arabic language and Islamic religion  California Law Revision Commission: a branch office of the state commission responsible for reviewing California statutory and decisional law  Canopy: an environmental nonprofit organization dedicated to planting and protecting trees in parks, schools and along streets of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and neighboring communities  Cardiac Therapy Foundation: non-profit organization for those with cardiovascular disease and those at risk of developing it  Children’s Pre-School Center: a child-care organization  Commonwealth Club: a statewide public affairs forum  Dance Connection: an organization offering dance classes  Dance Visions: an organization offering dance classes RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS  Dutch School: an organization that teaches Dutch language and culture education  Earth Day Film Festival: the city of Palo Alto’s annual film festival  Foothill College: the Palo Alto extension campus of a Los Altos Hills community college  Friends of the Palo Alto Library: an organization supporting the Palo Alto Public Library  Friends of the Palo Alto Parks: an organization supporting parks in Palo Alto  Gideon Hausner Jewish Day School: a school for Jewish students  Good Neighbor Montessori: an educational organization  Grossman Academy Japanese Language School: a school for Japanese students  Hua Kuang Chinese Reading Room: a library that offers Chinese cultural programs  Kumon Math and Reading: after-school tutoring program  Museo Italo Americano: a museum offering language classes  Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra: a youth orchestra for regional string musicians  Palo Alto Menlo Park Mothers Club: a parenting organization  PAUSD Adult School: an adult school offering gardening classes  Peninsula Piano School: an organization that provides group lessons for piano students  Save the Bay: an environmental restoration organization that focuses on the health of San Francisco Bay’s ecosystems  SCC Registrar of Voters: the county-level voting and election office  Waldorf School of the Peninsula: a private school  Zohar Dance: an organization teaching dance classes Other Important Facilities for Recreation Programming In addition to the Lucie Stern, Cubberley and Rinconada Pool facilities, the City offers programming through other entities in the Community Services Department. The facilities associated with many of these additional services are located near the Lucie Stern Center, on the periphery of Rinconada Park. Libraries  The City’s public libraries include meeting space that can be reserved (in the Downtown branch), general programming, and tutoring/study space for youth. RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS  The Palo Alto Historical Association organizes and preserves materials about the history and heritage of Palo Alto. Although it is affiliated with the library, the city’s historic archives - the Guy Miller Archives - are housed at Cubberley Community Center. Additionally, the Lucie Stern Community Center hosts the Association’s regular programs and its Board of Directors meetings.  The new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center opened to the public in November 2014, and a grand opening is scheduled for early December. The library includes a large Children’s area, separate Teen room, computer lab, a 100-person meeting room, and quiet reading areas. The Community Center includes a large multi-purpose event room with kitchen, flexible classrooms, Teen Center, and a half-court basketball area. Palo Alto Art Center  The Art Center offers exhibits, educational opportunities, and classes for artists of all ages and skill levels. It is located on the opposite end of Rinconada Park from the Lucie Stern Center. Children’s Theatre  The theatre provides opportunities to attend and participate in theatrical productions, as well as classes in theatre, music and dance. It is located adjacent to the Lucie Stern Center. Junior Museum and Zoo  The museum and zoo offer hands-on science exhibits, live animals, science programs, classes, and summer camps. It shares a parking lot with the Lucie Stern Center. The Junior Museum and Zoo is also administrator of three nature/interpretive centers: o Enid Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Nature Center o Foothills Park Interpretive Center o Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center Access to Recreation Understanding and accounting for the reasons people do not or cannot readily access recreation opportunities is an issue the City should consider. Residents that “pay into” the system through taxes, levies, etc. should generally find recreation offerings convenient, affordable and culturally relevant, but this isn’t RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS always the reality. While the Palo Alto community at large does not face the same economic challenges to accessing recreation as many other cities of comparable size, low-income groups are present and income inequality is a factor due to the exceptionally high average income in the community. Moreover, conflict may exist with respect to program scheduling, overcrowding of popular programs/classes, and overall cultural relevancy. Making Palo Alto’s most popular programs more accessible and convenient may mean adding additional sections at new locations, and being able to do so with relative ease. Ensuring that financial hardship does not prevent an access to recreation may mean ensuring availability of scholarship/grant funding and an easy application process. As a city with a large international population due to the presence of Stanford University and other high tech headquarters/employers in Silicon Valley, Palo Alto has a significant opportunity to design culturally relevant recreation programming that includes cultural awareness, traditions and diversity. Regular revisiting of these and other questions will be an important step towards expanding recreation access and minimizing barriers. Key Findings The following key findings should be further considered in both the immediate and longer-term planning recreation programming in Palo Alto. These will be incorporated into the Parks and Recreation Plan. Strategic Directions  The existing core values and strategic initiatives in the 2008-2011 Strategic Plan are still relevant and should continue to guide Recreation programming.  The implementation items that are in progress or have been completed under the strategic initiatives should be revisited to develop recommendations and actions that further the division’s strategic direction and goals.  It will be important to identify the appropriate role for Recreation in addressing current recreation trends, such as reconnecting children with nature, which have a “home” in another division. Programming Areas and Populations  Palo Alto’s organizational structure separates what, in many cities, would be part of a recreation department into several semi-independent entities. RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS This allows for focus on program areas that are important to Palo Alto but also creates a potential to miss opportunities to work together on events, programs and services that bridge the program areas. Notable areas include reconnecting children with nature and active transportation.  Special events, while provided by a variety of City entities, have been limited in recent years by budgetary reductions in the staffing support.  Some program areas, such as emergency preparedness and gardening, are called out separately (rather than included in special interest classes) to reflect the relatively high visibility of these programs. Based on the input received this appears to be a positive move, following the recreation needs of the community.  Many of the specialized divisions (Art Center, Junior Museum and Zoo, Library, etc.) have used outside funding to extend the unique and high quality services beyond the city limits of Palo Alto. This could present an opportunity for Recreation to expand services and events to the broader regional community as well.  There is a gap in programs and services targeted at young adults, ages19 to25. Facilities  Cubberley Community Center is a major asset, yet the facility is showing signs of its age and is not optimized for modern recreation programming. The split ownership between Palo Alto Unified School District (27 acres) and the City of Palo Alto (8 acres) does not guarantee enough space for the large mix of recreation offerings and field space if the site is used for a future high school. Finding a replacement venue for the most important of Cubberley’s program offerings should be a priority.  Lucie Stern Center will continue to be a major asset to the City, but the facility should limit programming to the kinds that best utilize the limited space and fit with the historic character. In the longer term, it may be more productive as a more specialized facility serving a smaller segment of the marketplace and playing to the strengths of the existing facilities.  The City of Palo Alto’s other facilities – Mitchell and other libraries, Art Center, Children’s Theatre, and Junior Museum and Zoo – provide a range of recreation opportunities in Palo Alto that are not available in most communities. The diversity of programming is amplified by efforts of RECREATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS private and nonprofit partners who fill gaps and provide additional recreation opportunities in Palo Alto.  The new Mitchell Park Library and Community Center will help ease the programming burden from existing recreation venues and provide a slate of new services for teens. The relationship between this facility (combining community center and library), Mitchell Park and the three nearby public school facilities creates unique opportunities for youth- focused programming. Gaps/Overlaps  The Oshman JCC, YMCA and University Club each offer aquatics, camps, health/fitness classes, and before/after school programs. Although these programs overlap, it should be noted these providers serve a distinct market segment of Palo Alto’s recreation users. o The JCC primarily serves the surrounding community’s Jewish population. o The YMCA caters to families and children and provides financial assistance when needed. o The University Club of Palo Alto is not accessible to the general public. Rather, it is a members-only, space-limited organization with a selective application process.  In many cases, programming overlaps are not an indication of over availability. Rather, they confirm that these are popular, in-demand programs. PLAN OUTLINE Front Matter Includes cover, acknowledgements, table of contents. Executive Summary High-level summary of direction and key messages boiling down the plan for the public and for City Council. This section will be prepared following the completion of an initial full draft of the plan and review by staff. Introduction Description of what this plan is and why it is important  Integrating the planning context from the Planning Environment Summary  Overview of planning process and schedule Palo Alto’s Parks, Trails, Natural Spaces and Recreation Programs Summary of the system, including a description of parks and recreation programs in Palo Alto and highlighting the constraints of property value and limited space to expand the system. Includes key content drawn from the following products  Park Inventory  Site Visits/Evaluations  Program Analysis  Revenue Analysis Needs, Opportunities and Challenges Description of the analyses completed at the system-wide and site-specific levels, highlighting key topics the plan addresses.  Opportunities and challenges, including the most important park features, functions and activities, drawn from public and stakeholder input 2 PALO ALTO PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN  Results of analyses including gaps in parks and programs, and unmet community demand  Needs analysis and essential park elements  Responses to demographic changes and trends, drawing on the Demographics and Recreation Trends product.  Need for flexibility and mix of uses Goals and Objectives A set of goals (long-term directions for change) and objectives (measurable desired results) for the system. As a whole, this chapter will describe what the City is working toward. These goals and objectives will be informed by the directions indicated in the Community Survey, Park and Recreation Commission goals and the prioritization process. Recommendations Policies, strategies and actions recommended as a result of the community input, system and site level analysis. Recommendations can be organized into the following categories:  System-wide recommendations  Park-by-park recommendations, including conceptual park plans  Recommendations for system expansion  Recommendations for programs and services  Maintenance and operations enhancements  Organizational and administrative enhancements Implementation A description of the process used to prioritize recommendations to create an actionable plan for the next five years as well as a process to update that plan into the future. Conclusion A call to action for any key directions necessary to advance this plan. Appendices  Outreach summary  Physical and program and essential function inventory tables  Site analysis maps  Prioritization matrix and process 3 PALO ALTO PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN Discussion Questions  Should we change the title: Parks, Trails, Recreation and Natural Spaces?  Are there ideas or issues that don’t seem to fit in this structure?