HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6904
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6904)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/9/2016
Summary Title: Bike Blvd Concept Plans and Award of Contracts for Final
Design
Title: Approval of the Concept Plan for Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Along Amarillo Avenue, Bryant Street, East Meadow Drive, Montrose
Avenue, Moreno Avenue, Louis Road, Palo Alto Avenue, and Ross Road
(Continued from April 18, 2016); Approval of Professional Services Contract
Number C16163533 With Alta Planning + Design, Inc. In The Amount of
$824,542 for Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for the
Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-
Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects; and Approval of
Professional Services Contract Number C16161534 With Fehr & Peers in the
Amount of $544,509 for Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates
for the Bryant Street Extension, Maybell Avenue, and Park Boulevard-Wilkie
Way Bicycle Boulevard Projects. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council:
Adopt a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption and approve the
attached concept plans for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update,
Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects, directing staff
to move forward with the Final Design phase for these four bicycle boulevards projects;
Approve professional services contract C16163533 (Attachment H) with Alta Planning +
Design, Inc. in the amount of $824,542 for a period of one year for the preparation of
plans, specifications and estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant
Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road bicycle boulevard projects;
and
Approve professional services contract C16161534 (Attachment J) with Fehr & Peers in
the amount of $544,509 for a period of one year for the preparation of plans,
City of Palo Alto Page 1
specifications and estimates for the previously-approved Bryant Street Extension,
Maybell Avenue, and Park Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard projects.
Executive Summary
The Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (·͋ι͋ΊΣ̯͕χ͋ι ͞΄Μ̯Σ͟) ̯͇Ϊζχ͇͋ ̼ϴ CΪϢΣ̽ΊΜ ΊΣ 2012
identifies a network of bicycle boulevards throughout the city. This network includes the
Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and
Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects. As currently proposed, these four projects will:
Enhance the existing Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard from Palo Alto Avenue to East
Meadow Drive, where it connects to the proposed Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard
extension. This corridor provides a continuous bicycle route from Menlo Park to
Mountain View.
Construct the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard from Garland Drive, which is just north of
Oregon Expressway, to Louis Road, where it will connect to the proposed Louis Road-
Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard. The Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard provides a
second north-south on-street bikeway for Palo Alto residents.
Construct the Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard from Middlefield Road to
the proposed Adobe Creek US 101 Overcrossing. A portion of this route was identified
in the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, but was expanded with additional
funding from Google. This route connects the proposed Adobe Creek US 101
Overcrossing to the proposed Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard, providing a system of
connections within Palo Alto and, once the overcrossing is complete, to the San
Francisco Bay Trail and employment centers in the City of Mountain View.
Construct the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard from Middlefield
Road to West Bayshore Road. This route provides and east-west connection across Palo
Alto and enhances the system by connecting to the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard.
Α·Ίν ν͋χ Ϊ͕ ̼Ί̽ϴ̽Μ͋ ̼ΪϢΜ͋ϭ̯ι͇ν ζιΪϭΊ͇͋ν ̯ νΊͽΣΊ͕Ί̯̽Σχ νχ͋ζ χΪ ̯͇ϭ̯Σ̽ΊΣͽ ΄̯ΜΪ !ΜχΪ͛ν ϭΊνΊΪΣ χΪ
provide a system of neighborhood bicycle routes that provide continuous, low-stress on-street
bikeways with travel time and safety improvements to support healthy transportation. The
proposed improvements incorporate focused bicycle and pedestrian enhancements and traffic
calming measures to reduce motor vehicle speeds, as well as intersection modifications,
repaving, and improvements to arterial crossings to better serve a diversity of ages and
abilities.
The proposed improvements incorporate focused bicycle and pedestrian enhancements and
traffic calming measures to reduce motor vehicle speeds, as well as stop sign modifications,
repaving, and improvements to arterial crossings to better serve a diversity of ages and
abilities. The projects, as currently proposed, also incorporate many of the Safe Routes to
Schools improvements recently identified by Staff.
Funding currently exists for the Concept Plan Line and Environmental Assessment phases of
these projects. The approved Concept Plan Line will serve as the basis for establishing a
City of Palo Alto Page 2
contract for the Final Design Phase, helping to determine the level of effort for a contract to
construct these routes. Detailed cost estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue,
Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects
will be developed as part of the Final Design phase of work. As part of the approval of t·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν
Infrastructure Plan, the City Council allocated $20.0 million towards Bicycle + Pedestrian Plan
implementation. Alta Planning + Design, Inc. is the lead consultant for this project.
In March 2014, Council awarded an 18-month contract to Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for
planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard
update, Greer Road bicycle boulevard, Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue bicycle boulevard,
Ross Road bicycle boulevard, and Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue enhanced bikeway. The City
Manager Report for the contract award is included as Attachment I. In December 2015,
Amendment One was executed, which extended the term of the contract until March 2016 at
no costs to the city. On March 28, 2016, Amendment Two was approved, which extended the
term of the contract until March 2016 at no cost to the city.
Significant work has occurred under this contract since March 2014, and City Council is
considering the approval of the concept plans and environmental documentation for the Bryant
Street bicycle boulevard update, Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue Bicycle Boulevard, and Ross
Road Bicycle Boulevard tonight. Due to challenges around community engagement, traffic
circulation, and on-street parking, it is anticipated that concept plans and environmental
documentation for the Greer Road bicycle boulevard and Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue
enhanced bikeway will be brought to Council for approval in mid to late 2016.
Given the positive results to date, staff is recommending the approval of one-year contract for
$824,542 for preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-
Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle
Boulevard Projects. Alta Planning + Design, Inc. will build on their prior work along the
corridors, which has included significant public outreach, topographic surveying, lighting and
tree inventories and other data collection—and the City will avoid delay or disruption in the
progress of these important capital improvement projects.
Also in March 2014, Council awarded an 18-month contract to Fehr and Peers for planning and
preliminary environmental assessment of the Barron Park neighborhood Class III bikeways,
Bryant Street bicycle boulevard extension, Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio
Avenue Bicycle Boulevard, Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard, and Stanford Avenue Bicycle
Boulevard. The Staff Report for the contract award is included as Attachment J. In December
2015, Amendment One was executed, which extended the term of the contract until March
2016. On March 28, 2016, Amendment Two was approved, which extended the term of the
contract until March 2017 at no additional cost to the City.
Significant work has occurred under the contract since March 2014, and Council approved
concept plans for the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard extension, Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue Bicycle Boulevard, Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard, and
Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard in 2015. Due to challenges around community engagement,
traffic circulation, and on-street parking, the concept plans for Barron Park neighborhood Class
III bikeways have been put on hold indefinitely. The current contract was extended to March
2017 in order to complete the preliminary environmental assessment for the bicycle boulevard
projects and further refine the concept plan for the Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-
Del Medio Avenue bicycle boulevard.
Given the positive results to date, staff is recommending the approval of one-year contract for
$544,509 for preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the Bryant Street Extension,
Maybell Avenue, and Park Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Projects. Fehr and Peers will
build on their prior work along the corridors, which has included significant public outreach,
topographic surveying, lighting and tree inventories and other data collection—and the City will
avoid delay or disruption in the progress of these important capital improvement projects.
Background
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012
The Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted by the City Council in July 2012. The
Plan includes a proposed bikeway network of off-street multi-use paths, bicycle boulevards,
bicycle lanes, and enhanced bikeway facilities. The plan has stated goals of increasing bicycle
traffic for local and work commute trips by 100% by 2020 by providing improved facilities along
the proposed bicycle network, which facilitates both north-south and east-west connectivity
throughout Palo Alto. A copy of the Proposed Bikeway Network is provided in Attachment A.
Implementation of the Plan started in 2013 with City Council authorization of up to $1.2M per
year over five years as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). With this commitment of
funds, 18 projects are currently being studied and designed for implementation. Since award of
consultant contracts in April 2014, bicycle network implementation has focused primarily on
bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeways, although transportation staff has also been
coordinating with Public Works and Community Services staff to deliver transportation projects
through public works and parks contracts for street resurfacing and park improvements. Staff
has also been working to implement data-driven spot improvements in response to customer
requests, and seeks to ensure provide ongoing rehabilitation and maintenance of the bicycle
and pedestrian network and incorporation of green infrastructure and storm water treatment
where feasible. City staff recently provided City Council with an update on the bicycle and
pedestrian program at a Study Session on October 26, 2015.
Concept planning was initiated for these four corridors in 2014. Funding for concept plans was
provided by both the City of Palo Alto and Google, Inc., which requested that the City consider
bicycle boulevards in the southern part of Palo Alto where connections could be made to
Mountain View.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Bicycle Boulevards Purpose and Benefits
Α·͋ CΊχϴ ζΊΪΣ͋͋ι͇͋ χ·͋ ̽ι̯͋χΊΪΣ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ ͕Ίινχ ̼͞Ί̽ϴ̽Μ͋ ̼ΪϢΜ͋ϭ̯ι͇͟ – turning Bryant Street north of
East Meadow Drive, a residential street, into a street that prioritized bicycle safety and
circulation in 1982. The Comprehensive Plan defines a bicϴ̽Μ͋ ̼ΪϢΜ͋ϭ̯ι͇ ̯ν ̯ ͞ΜΪϮ ϭΪΜϢ͋
through-street where bicycles have priority over automobiles, conflicts between bicycles and
automobiles are minimized, and bicycle travel time is reduced by the removal of stop signs and
other impediments to bicycle travel. The removal of stop signs is especially important in Palo
!ΜχΪ ͇Ϣ͋ χΪ χ·͋ Μ̯ιͽ͋ ΣϢ̼͋ι Ϊ͕ νχΪζ νΊͽΣν ΪΣ ΜΪ̯̽Μ ̯Σ͇ ̽ΪΜΜ͋̽χΪι νχι͋͋χν΅͟
Key characteristics that make bicycle boulevards attractive and safer for people who bicycle
are:
• Low traffic volumes
• Low vehicle speeds
• Discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic
• Free-flow travel for people on bicycles by assigning the right-of-way to the bicycle
boulevard at intersections wherever possible
• Traffic control to help bicycles cross major streets
One important feature of bicycle boulevards that greatly improves cycling efficiency is
reduction in the number of stop signs; this measure improves travel time and reduces fatigue.
Reducing cyclist fatigue increases the feasible length of a trip by bicycle, and is especially
important to people who are hauling trailers, carrying children, groceries, and so forth, thereby
encouraging more trips by bicycle.
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. - Planning and Preliminary Environmental Assessment Contract
The City released the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards RFP on October 1, 2013. The RFP scope
included ten bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeway projects. On March 17, 2014, Council
awarded an 18-month contract to Alta Planning + Design, Inc. in the amount of $400,000 for
planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard
update (from Palo Alto Avenue to 100 feet north of East Meadow Drive); the Greer Road bicycle
boulevard (from Edgewood Drive to Louis Road); the Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue bicycle
boulevard (from Middlefield Road to West Bayshore Road); the Ross Road bicycle boulevard
(from North California Avenue to Louis Road); and the Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue
enhanced bikeway (from Alma Street to Guinda Avenue). On December 28, 2015, Amendment
One was executed, which extended the term of the contract until March 8, 2016. The amended
contract expired on March 8, 2016. On March 28, 2016, Amendment Two was approved, which
extended the term of the contract until March 2017 at no cost to the city. This extension was
required to complete the planning, community outreach, conceptual design, and preliminary
environmental assessment for the Greer Road bicycle boulevard and Homer Avenue-Channing
Avenue enhanced bikeway.
The existing contract outlines the process identified for the preparation of plans, specifications
and estimates in Task E of the scope of work:
City of Palo Alto Page 5
E. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES (PS&E)
Upon approval of the community-preferred concept plan line, CITY and
CONSULTANT will begin negotiations for the next phase of the projects including
Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E). CITY Council authorization for award
of additional contract will be required prior to the start of additional tasks. CITY
anticipates direct negotiations with the CONSULTANT for PS&E for the projects
identified in this contract opening the successful completion of the Planning &
Environmental phases discussed in this Agreement.
City Council is considering the approval of the community-preferred Concept Plan Lines and
environmental documentation for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update,
Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road bicycle boulevard projects tonight. Staff has
successfully negotiated a scoped of work and fee for the completion of plans, specifications and
estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-
Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road bicycle boulevard projects and recommended approval of the
attached contract with Alta Planning + Design, Inc.
Fehr and Peers - Planning and Preliminary Environmental Assessment Contract
The City released the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards RFP on October 1, 2013. The RFP scope
included ten bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeway projects. On March 17, 2014, Council
awarded an 18-month contract to Fehr and Peers in the amount of $450,000 for planning and
preliminary environmental assessment of the Barron Park neighborhood Class III bikeways,
Bryant Street bicycle boulevard extension (from East Meadow Drive to San Antonio Road),
Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (from Park
Boulevard to San Antonio Road), Park Boulevard bicycle boulevard (from Castilleja Avenue to
West Charleston Road), and Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard (from El Camino Real to Park
Boulevard). On December 11, 2015, Amendment One was executed, which extended the term
of the contract until March 8, 2016. The amended contract expired on March 8, 2016. On
March 28, 2016, Amendment Two was approved, which extended the term of the contract until
March 2017 at no additional cost to the City. This extension was required to complete the
preliminary environmental assessment for the bicycle boulevard projects and further refine the
concept plan for the Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue bicycle
boulevard.
The existing contract outlines the process identified for the preparation of plans, specifications
and estimates in Task E of the scope of work:
E. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES (PS&E)
Upon approval of the community-preferred concept plan line, CITY and
CONSULTANT will begin negotiations for the next phase of the projects including
Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E). CITY Council authorization for award
of additional contract will be required prior to the start of additional tasks. CITY
City of Palo Alto Page 6
anticipates direct negotiations with the CONSULTANT for PS&E for the projects
identified in this contract opening the successful completion of the Planning &
Environmental phases discussed in this Agreement.
City Council approved concept plans for the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard extension, Maclane
Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del Medio Avenue bicycle boulevard, Park Boulevard bicycle
boulevard, and Stanford Avenue bicycle boulevard in 2015. Staff has successfully negotiated a
scope of work and fee for the completion of Bryant Street Extension, Maybell Avenue, and Park
Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Projects and recommends approval of the attached
contract one year contract with Fehr and Peers.
Discussion
Approval of Concept Plan Lines is the first step in the design process for a project. A Concept
Plan Line identifies the type and approximate location of improvements but excludes focused
design details such as hardscape and landscape measures. The Concept Plan Line identifies the
locations of civil improvements that influence the amount of review required for California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance.
Development of a Concept Plan Line normally takes three to four community meetings to help
shape the location and types of improvements that each plan recommends. Due to the
challenges along the corridor, the Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project was discussed
at seven public meetings throughout 2014 and 2015. Focused traffic data collection is also
included as part of the Concept Plan Line development and the results are shared with the
community as part of the community outreach process. Following approval of the Concept Plan
Line by the City Council, staff will utilize a civil design team to complete the environmental
assessment and more detailed design. An implementation plan will be developed as part of the
design phase.
Community Outreach
Community outreach and participation has been instrumental to concept plan development
since the initiation of the bicycle boulevard projects. The development of the Concept Plan
Lines included community meetings and other events that helped shape the location and types
of improvements that each plan recommends.
Specific meetings included (a) four community bike-̯ΜΪΣͽν ΊΣ !ζιΊΜ ̯Σ͇ ͱ̯ϴ 2014 (̼) ͕̯ι͋ιν͛
market outreach on California Avenue in April and May 2014, (c) four rounds of community
meetings in May-June 2014, October-November-December 2014, April-May 2015, and March
2016 and (d) presentations to the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)
in September 2014, April 2015 and April 2016. The meetings were advertised through the
mailing of notification cards to all property owners and residents within one block of the
corridors, postings on the city website, e-mail notifications to the neighborhood leaders and
bicycle boulevard program e-mail list, and posts to social media. Sample outreach materials and
key comments received are enclosed as Attachment B. A public meeting was held on March 29,
City of Palo Alto Page 7
2016 at the Ohlone Elementary School to review the final drafts of the Concept Plan Lines for
these four corridors. Sixty-one citizens attended the meeting and provided written comments,
which are summarized and scanned in Attachment G.
This item was presented for review and comment to the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle
Advisory Committee on April 12, 2016 and to the Planning and Transportation Commission for
review and comment on April 13, 2016. Below is summary of the results of each meeting. Also,
based on the comments received from Planning and Transportation Commission and the
general public, an enhanced summary of the on-street parking impacts of these proposed
projects is attached for your review as Attachment L.
Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee - April 12, 2016
• PABAC members made several comments regarding the projects including:
STOP sign removal is worthwhile
Roundabouts are appropriate, however some specific locations need more thought
Standard green wayfinding signs are preferred over purple signs
Curb extensions may force bicyclists to weave in and out of on-street parking lane
Intersection design for Louis Road at East Charleston Road may not accommodate turns
by large buses
Planning and Transportation Commission - April 13, 2016
• Commission was unable to take action due to two conflicts along the Bryant Street
Bicycle Boulevard Update corridor; two recusals would have resulted in a lack of
quorum
• Commission voted to review and comment on all of the projects except the Bryant
Street Bicycle Boulevard Update without taking action
• Commissioner Waldfogel voted against reviewing the item without the Bryant Street
Bicycle Boulevard Update and instead recommended that the commission wait for a
ruling from the Fair Political Practices Commission on whether the commission can
hear all of the projects together as a network; he also expressed concern regarding
the tight schedule for council approval of this item and decided not to participate in
the review
• Commission made several comments regarding the projects including:
o The proposed on-street parking modifications need to be clarified and adjacent
property owners should be notified
o A summary of on-street parking impacts by block should be provided and the
͋χ·Ϊ͇ΪΜΪͽϴ Ϣν͇͋ χΪ ̯̽Μ̽ϢΜ̯χ͋ ͞χϴζΊ̯̽Μ ̯ϭ̯ΊΜ̯̼ΊΜΊχϴ͟ ν·ΪϢΜ͇ ̼͋ ΊΣ̽ΜϢ͇͇͋
o Future public notices for the final design meetings should include notice of
proposed on-street parking removal
o The arguments against these projects based oΣ ͞Ϣι̼̯Σ ̼ΜΊͽ·χ͟ ̯Σ͇ ̯͋νχ·͋χΊ̽ν ̯ι͋
not convincing
o The projects should always focus on safety over aesthetics
o Α·͋ ζιΪΖ͋̽χν͛ ι͋Μ̯χΊΪΣν·Ίζ χΪ χ·͋ ·͋νΊ͇͋ΣχΊ̯Μ ΄ι͕͋͋ι͋ΣχΊ̯Μ ΄̯ιΙΊΣͽ ζιΪͽι̯ ν·ΪϢΜ͇
City of Palo Alto Page 8
be clarified
o The proposed roundabouts should include landscaping
o Roundabouts should be used more judiciously and justification should be
provided
o Include sensor activated lighting where possible and program leading bicycle
intervals at traffic signals
o Include wayfinding signage along the bicycle boulevards that provide directional
information and mileage to attractions and adjacent jurisdictions
o Integrate green stormwater infrastructure into curb extensions and other
elements of the bicycle boulevard projects
Traffic Analysis
Traffic data collection for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis
Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects occurred in May 2014, using
video cameras to track bicycle and pedestrian demand and mechanical tube counters to collect
automobile speed and volume data. Highlights of the traffic counts and speed data are shown
in Table 1 below. The optimal conditions for a successful bicycle boulevard are <30 MPH or
<3,000 ADT (average daily traffic). All of the corridors meet the criteria for a successful bicycle
boulevard.
Table 1
Corridor (segment)
85th -percentile
Speed
Motor Vehicle
ADT
Bicycle
ADT
Amarillo Ave (Tanland -Greer) 30.2 MPH 1,261 82
Amarillo Ave (Greer -Louis) 27.7 MPH 1,412 73
Moreno Ave (Rosewood -Middlefield) 22.6 MPH 1,179 30
Ross Rd (Clara -Wintergreen) 25.5 MPH 2,063 121
Ross Rd (Ames -Stone) 28.2 MPH 2,703 116
Bryant St (Downtown North) 24.6 MPH 1,313 479
Bryant St (Downtown South) 26.2 MPH 1,565 643
Bryant St (Embarcadero -Oregon) 19.7 MPH 525 1,146
Montrose Ave (Seminole -Sutherland) N/A 141 46
Source: City of Palo Alto, May 2014
In February 2016, additional analysis was conducted to evaluate the traffic impacts of changing
intersection controls, where proposed by this project. As currently proposed, a total of 16
intersections will have their intersection control changed. Nine intersections will be changed
from an all-way stop to a roundabout, two from an all-way stop to a two-way stop; two from a
two-way stop to an all-way stop, and one each from a two-way stop to a roundabout, from a
three-way stop to one-way stop, and from traffic circle to a roundabout.
Intersections were analyzed using the Synchro software to determine intersection, motor
vehicle level of service (LOS). While an LOS analysis will no longer be required as part CEQA, it
City of Palo Alto Page 9
does provide a metric to understand if the extent of any impact on motor vehicle movements in
these corridors. The results of the LOS calculations show that under project conditions, all of
the study intersections would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the
proposed changes in traffic controls, most of the study intersection would experience less delay
than existing conditions. The delays at the following three intersections would be increased
slightly with the traffic control converted from all-way stop to two-way stop:
Ross Road and Clara Drive - all-way stop to two-way stop
Ross Road and Ames Avenue – all-way stop to two-way stop
Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - three-way stop to one-way stop
Future condition LOS results show that all the study intersections, except one, would still
operate with delays corresponding to LOS B or better with future traffic volumes. Only one
intersection operates at LOS C: Ross Road and Ames Avenue in the PM peak. The complete
traffic analysis report is provided as Attachment C.
Parking
The Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and
Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects were planned to optimize right-of-way for all roadway
users and minimize the impact on available on-street parking. To evaluate the potential impact
of parking removal on local residents, following the implementation of the proposed projects, a
parking occupancy study was conducted. Although implementation of the projects will remove
266 on-street parking spaces (14 percent of the total 1,865 parking spaces along the project
corridors), the study found that on average only 570 (31% of available parking spaces) of these
parking spaces are typically used at any given time. Table 2 summarizes current parking
utilization and the proposed changes to parking.
Table 2
Corridor Existing
Spaces
Spaces to be
Removed
Current
Utilization
Future
Utilization
Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue 224 65 31% 44%
Bryant Street Update 690 95 40% 47%
Louis Road-Montrose Avenue 370 22 27% 28%
Ross Road 580 85 21% 25%
Total 1,865 266 31% 36%
Reallocating a portion of these unused parking spaces for improved bicycle boulevard
ΊΣ͕ι̯νχιϢ̽χϢι͋ ϮΊΜΜ νϢζζΪιχ χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν ͽΪ̯Μν Ϊ͕ ι͇͋Ϣ̽ΊΣͽ ΪχΪι ϭ͋·Ίcle speeds in residential areas,
improving bicyclist safety, and encouraging more residents to bicycle. At the corridor level,
there is sufficient capacity to absorb these changes and the vast majority of residents and
visitors will not recognize a parking impact. A few specific blocks, however, may not have
availability to meet current parking demand, requiring residents and visitors to seek parking
one block from their desired destination. These impacted blocks are discussed below.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Bryant Street and Everett Avenue: Removing eight parking spaces at this intersection
means demand will surpass availability by three spaces, however eight spaces will
typically be available one block away.
Bryant Street east side (Poe Street to Hawthorne Avenue): Parking availability will not
change, however parking utilization is already high on this block. Eleven spaces will be
available across the street and 13 available one block away on Poe Street.
Bryant Street (Channing Avenue to Addison Avenue): Removing four spaces along this
block means parking need will be nearing capacity, however eight spaces will typically
be available one block away.
Ross Road west side (Stern Avenue to Allen Court - south side): Removing six spaces
along this block means parking need will slightly surpass capacity by one space, however
43 spaces should typically be available one block away.
East Meadow Drive north side (Fabian Way to Paloma Street): Parking availability will
not change, however parking utilization is already high on this block. Twenty-one spaces
will typically be available one block away.
Amarillo Avenue south side (Louis Road to Ohlone Elementary driveway): Removing
nine spaces along this block means demand will surpass availability by three cars.
Twenty-eight spaces will typically be available one block away.
Amarillo Avenue north side (West Bayshore Road and North Tanland Drive): Removing
five spaces along this block means demand will surpass availability by three cars. Five
spaces will typically be available one block away.
Detailed information about parking changes by street segment are provided in Attachments D
and L.
It is important to note that the vast majority of on-street parking proposed for removal is
located adjacent to intersections along the bicycle boulevards. Generally, at the impacted
intersections, one or two parking spaces on each approach would be removed to improve sight
lines for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. This is a well-established traffic engineering
ζι̯̽χΊ̽͋ ̯̽ΜΜ͇͋ ͇̯͞ϴΜΊͽ·χΊΣͽ͟ Ϯ·Ί̽· ΊζιΪϭes safety for all roadway users. The intersections
selected for daylighting were identified through site visits and feedback from the public during
the two-year planning process.
Several residents and commissioners have expressed a desire to better understand how these
projects relate to the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program. The Downtown RPP pilot
is scheduled to come to an end on March 31, 2017. These projects are currently scheduled to
start construction at about the same time. Prior to that, staff can assess the impacts of the
planned bicycle boulevard projects on the total supply of on-street parking within the various
employee zones and recommend adjustments to the number of employee permits available in
each zone (if City Council elects to continue the program beyond the pilot phase). This will
insure that the proposed reduction in on-street parking does not reduce the availability of
parking for neighborhood residents. Staff will be collecting occupancy data throughout the
Phase 2 pilot period and will be well-equipped to estimate the impacts of the proposed
City of Palo Alto Page 11
reduction in supply of on-street parking due to these projects.
Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment:
The following is a summary of the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project.
This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E.
Moreno Avenue from Middlefield Road to Louis Avenue
A new crosswalk and bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage at Middlefield Road will direct
bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Moreno Avenue and will enhance pedestrian
connectivity. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be added near every intersection along
this corridor. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and
identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users.
Existing speed humps near Middlefield Road and Coastland Drive will be replaced with a slotted
speed hump to reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and
fire trucks. Crosswalk markings, stop signs, and advance stop bars at side streets will enhance
walking and assign right-of-Ϯ̯ϴ χΪ χ·͋ ̼Ί̽ϴ̽Μ͋ ̼ΪϢΜ͋ϭ̯ι͇΅ Ί͇͋ νχι͋͋χν ϮΊΜΜ ̯ΜνΪ ·̯ϭ͋ ̽͞ιΪνν
χι̯͕͕Ί̽ ͇Ϊ͋ν ΣΪχ νχΪζ͟ νΊͽΣν added.
A mini roundabout at Ross Road will improve traffic flow, reduce motorist speeds, and improve
the corridor aesthetic by providing additional landscaping. High visibility crosswalk markings will
enhance walkability and raised diverter medians will improve roundabout operations and
create pedestrian refuges. A slotted speed hump near Fielding Drive will reduce motorist
speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and fire trucks.
Louis Road from Moreno Avenue to Amarillo Avenue
Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the
bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users.
The two offset intersections at Moreno Avenue and at Fielding Drive/Amarillo Avenue will
become raised intersections to reduce vehicle speeds and increase visibility of pedestrians and
bicyclists. Stop controls will be provided on all approaches of each raised intersection to reduce
conflicts between motorists and bicyclists. A five foot wide cycle track will be installed on each
side of Louis Road between the two offset intersections, raised to sidewalk level. This will allow
bicyclists to maintain level while traveling along the bicycle boulevard. Driveway access will be
maintained. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night.
Amarillo Avenue from Louis Avenue to Ohlone Elementary School
A new curb extension with landscaping, trees, and a Class IV separated bikeway that maintains
the existing sidewalk would be installed to accommodate two-way bicycle travel on the school
side of the street to minimize conflicts between motorists and children bicycling to school. A
bicycle boulevard pavement legend would also be continued through this segment, to
City of Palo Alto Page 12
accommodate bicyclists who prefer not to use a separated facility. New curb extensions with
trees or bioretention would be added in the vicinity of Ohlone Elementary School to reduce
vehicle speeds and improve aesthetics. New covered bicycle parking would be added at the
school.
Amarillo Avenue from Ohlone Elementary School to Bayshore
Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will be installed to help bicyclists navigate to destinations
and identify the bicycle boulevard route. Bicycle boulevard gateway signage alerts motorists
and bicyclists that they are entering the enhanced bikeway.
The existing midblock crosswalk near Ohlone Elementary School will be relocated to the south
side of the driveway, and replaced with a raised crosswalk. This will reduce conflicts between
pedestrians and motorists by placing the crosswalk in a location that does not require students
to cross the driveway entrance, and will increase visibility of pedestrian (especially elementary
school students) by raising them into view of motorists.
A new traffic circle with mountable apron at Greer Road will improve traffic flow while reducing
motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians.
Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night.
A slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Greer Road will reduce motorist speeds
while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will improve corridor aesthetics by
providing additional landscaping. Curb extensions with landscaping and trees at both Tanland
Drive intersections will enhance walking by reducing crossing distances and reduce motorist
speeds by narrowing the roadway. High visibility crosswalk markings at both Tanland Drive
intersections will increase visibility of pedestrians, and additional street lighting will increase
visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night.
Landscaped medians and planters near Bayshore Road will reduce vehicle speeds by narrowing
the roadway. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at
night.
Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment:
The following is a summary of the Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project. This
narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E.
Palo Alto Avenue to Everett Avenue
Bryant Street is an existing bicycle boulevard. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be
added near every intersection along this corridor (applies to all segments). Bicycle boulevard
wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard
route to all roadway users. The intersection of Bryant Street and Poe will include a landscaped
traffic circle with mountable apron. At Everett Avenue, curb extensions with landscaping will be
added to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Everett Avenue to Hamilton Avenue
Enhanced shared roadway bicycle markings and door zone markings will be added along this
corridor and within the intersections of University Avenue, Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue
to alert drivers of the possible presence of persons on a bicycle as they travel through the
intersections. This area will be further examined as part of the Downtown Mobility + Safety
Strategies Project.
Forest Avenue to Embarcadero Road
New raised intersections will be constructed at Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue to help
improve the safety of pedestrian crossings in the downtown area. This area will be further
examined as part of the Downtown Mobility + Safety Strategies Project. The intersection with
Addison Avenue will be reconstructed and a new mountable apron will be added to the traffic
circle to allow for ease of access for emergency vehicles. High visibility crosswalks and splitter
medians will be added on either side of the intersection ensure better visibility of pedestrians
as they cross Bryant Street. The intersection at Kingsley Avenue will include a new landscaped
traffic circle with a mountable apron, splitter medians and high visibility crosswalks. The
intersection of Embarcadero Road will include reconstruction of the center curbs into
mountable concrete median islands to create a bicycle pocket for bicyclists traveling straight
through the intersection and provide protection from vehicles turning right. Mountable curbs
allow for ease of access for emergency vehicles and an increase in bicycle safety.
Embarcadero Road to Oregon Expressway
New signs will be added to all side streets to indicate that all cross traffic does not stop on
Bryant Street. A new landscaped traffic circle and mountable apron and splitter medians will be
added to the intersection with North California Avenue with high visibility crosswalks added on
either side to slow vehicles as they enter the intersection and to ensure better visibility of pedestrians as
they cross Bryant Street.
Oregon Expressway to East Meadow Drive
New signs will be added to Colorado Avenue, El Dorado Avenue, Campesino Avenue, and El
Verano Avenue to indicate that cross traffic does not stop on Bryant Street. Bryant Street
crossing over Matadero Creek will be enhanced with striping for increased visibility. The
existing bollards will be replaced with mountable monolithic concrete islands with flexible post
channelizers for improved bicyclist safety. Optional short rubberized medians can be added to
the center of the Bryant Street approaches to El Carmelo Avenue intersection. A new
landscaped traffic circle with mountable apron and painted diverters will be added to the Loma
Verde Avenue intersection. A new landscaped traffic circle with mountable apron will be added
to the Campesino Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks added on either side to
slow vehicles as they enter the intersection and to ensure better visibility of pedestrians as they
cross Bryant Street. The existing bollard and raised planters to act as vehicle closures at El
Verano Avenue will remain. Between El Verano Avenue and E Meadow Drive, two slotted speed
humps will be added to slow vehicles while allowing for persons on bicycles to travel along the
street without needing to slow down or stop.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment:
The following is a summary of the Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project. This
narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E.
Montrose Avenue from Middlefield Road to Charleston Road
Yellow high visibility crosswalk markings at Middlefield Road and Montrose Avenue will
enhance walking and increase visibility for pedestrians. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage
near Middlefield Road will direct bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Montrose Avenue.
Bicycle boulevard markings along Montrose Avenue alert motorists that bicyclists may be
present. Crosswalk markings at Sutherland Drive and Seminole Way will enhance walking.
Improvements to Charleston Road are being made in conjunction with the Charleston-
Arastradero Complete Streets Project by the City of Palo Alto. These include diversion of
motorized traffic, green bicycle lane and conflict zone markings, and more.
Louis Road from Charleston Road to East Meadow Drive
bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to
other bicycle friendly routes. Green bicycle lane and conflict zone markings from Bibbits Drive
to Charleston Road will highlight potential conflicts between motorists and bicyclists and
increase visibility of bicyclists.
Bicycle lanes on Louis Road will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on the road, reducing
conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings will increase visibility of bicyclists
and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle lane. Crosswalk markings at Bibbits
Drive, Gailen Avenue, and Corina Way will enhance walking. A new traffic circle with mountable
apron at East Meadow Drive will improve traffic slow while reducing motorist speeds. High
visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians.
East Meadow Drive from Louis Road to East Meadow Circle
Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to
other bicycle friendly routes. Bicycle lanes on East Meadow Drive will provide dedicated space
for bicyclists on the road, reducing conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings
will increase visibility of bicyclists and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle
lane. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at East Meadow Circle will improve traffic slow
while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of
pedestrians. Additional street lighting will improve visibility for motorists and bicyclists at
night.
East Meadow Drive from Meadow Circle to Fabian Way
Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to
other bicycle friendly routes. Bicycle lanes on East Meadow Drive will provide dedicated space
for bicyclists on the road, reducing conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings
will increase visibility of bicyclists and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle
City of Palo Alto Page 15
lane. A future connection will be made at Adobe Creek, proposed site for the connection to the
US 101 overcrossing. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage at Fabian Way will assist bicyclists in
navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes.
Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment:
The following is a summary of the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is
supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E.
Garland Drive to Colorado Avenue
A new crosswalk and bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage near Garland Drive will direct
bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Ross Road. A County project is currently improving
the intersection of Oregon Expressway and Ross Road. A bicycle boulevard gateway marking
near Oregon Expressway will alert bicyclists and motorists that they are entering the enhanced
bikeway. These gateway markings are repeated along the corridor at all side street entrances to
the boulevard. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be added near every intersection
along this corridor (applies to all segments). Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help
bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users.
A new mountable traffic circle at Moreno Avenue will enhance the corridor aesthetics by
providing additional landscaping. Moreno Avenue is also being developed as a bicycle
boulevard (additional description below). Additional street lighting at Moreno Avenue will
increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. At Colorado Avenue, landscaped raised
medians on Ross Road and Colorado Avenue will reduce motorist speeds. Additional street
lighting at Colorado Avenue will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night.
Colorado Avenue to Loma Verde Avenue
A new slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Clara Drive will reduce motorist
speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will enhance the corridor
aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Removing the stop control on Ross Road will
assign right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard, while high visibility crosswalk markings will
increase visibility of pedestrians to motorists and bicyclists.
A new slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Stern Avenue will reduce motorist
speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will enhance the corridor
aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Landscaped curb extensions with trees near
Stern Avenue and Allen Court will reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway physically
and visually, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. A
slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Allen Court will reduce motorist speeds
while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and fire trucks.
At Loma Verde Avenue, additional street lighting at will increase visibility for bicyclists and
motorists at night, while new crosswalk markings and stop bars will enhance walking.
Landscaped raised medians will reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway and enhance
the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping.
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Loma Verde Avenue to Meadow Drive
Two new slotted speed humps and landscaped planters between Richardson Court and
Talisman Drive will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists,
and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Landscaped curb
extensions at Talisman Drive will enhance walking by reducing crossing distances and reduce
motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for
bicyclists and motorists at night. New high visibility crosswalk markings will enhance walking by
increasing pedestrian visibility.
East Meadow Drive has existing bicycle lanes. A new traffic circle with mountable apron will
improve traffic flow while reducing motorist speeds. Removing the stop control on Ross Road
will assign priority to the bicycle boulevard. Additional street lighting will improve visibility for
motorists and bicyclists at night. On the north- and southbound approaches to the traffic circle,
a bicycle ramp to the sidewalk will provide bicyclists with the option of navigating the circle via
the sidewalks and crosswalks if they prefer not to merge into the vehicle lane. The bicycle lane
marking on the southbound approach will be removed to clarify bicyclists should either merge
into the vehicle lane or move onto the sidewalk.
Meadow Drive to Louis Avenue
At Mayview Avenue, a raised intersection will enhance walking by reducing motorist and
bicyclist speeds, and by increasing visibility of pedestrians. A new stop sign for bicyclists at the
Ramos Park access point will assign right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard.
Crosswalk markings and landscaped raised medians at both sides of the intersections with
Corina Way will enhance walking, reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway, and
improve corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. High visibility crosswalk
markings will increase visibility of pedestrians.
A new traffic circle with mountable apron at Louis Road will improve traffic flow while reducing
motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians.
Additional street lighting will improve visibility for motorists and bicyclists at night.
This bicycle boulevard segment connects directly to the Meadow-Louis-Montrose bicycle
Boulevard, described below, and via that route to the proposed Adobe Creek US 101
overcrossing.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Policy Implications
The Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan identifies and prioritizes the development of the
bicycle boulevard network. The Plan objectives that are addressed by the development of the
Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and
Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects are:
Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by
2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively).
Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order
to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020.
Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed
streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces
to promote healthy, active living.
Objective 4΄ ΄Μ̯Σ ̽ΪΣνχιϢ̽χ ̯Σ͇ ̯ΊΣχ̯ΊΣ ·CΪζΜ͋χ͋ χι͋͋χν͛ that are safe and
accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities.
Objective 5: Promote efficient, sustainable, and creative use of limited public resources
through integrated design and planning.
In addition, the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that support the
development of the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-
Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects include:
Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles
Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs the Encourage and Promote Walking and
Bicycling
Program T-19: Develop, periodically update, and implement a bicycle facilities
improvement program and a pedestrian facilities improvement program that identify
and prioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and
civic facilities.
Program T-22: Implement a network of bike boulevards.
Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway
space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Policy T-34: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector
City of Palo Alto Page 18
residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include
traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures.
While it is difficult to estimate the impacts of individual bicycle boulevard projects, the City of
Portland, Oregon has recently completed and assessment of its bicycle boulevard program and
recorded counts of between 1,000 and 4,000 cyclists per day on its busiest corridors. Increasing
the number of cyclists using the bicycle boulevard network within Palo Alto to these levels
would meet many of the objectives and goals listed above and also help the City increase
bicycle traffic for local and work commute trips by 100% by 2020.
Resource Impact
There are sufficient resources in Capital Improvement Project PL-04010, Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan Implementation Project, to fund these two professional services contracts.
Detailed cost estimates for the bicycle boulevard projects will be developed as part of the
preparation of plans, specifications and estimates΅ !ν ζ̯ιχ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ ̯ζζιΪϭ̯Μ Ϊ͕ χ·͋ CΊχϴ͛ν
Infrastructure Plan, the City Council allocated $20.0 million towards bicycle and pedestrian plan
implementation. For Fiscal Years 2014 through FY 2020, $12.4 million has been budgeted in the
CIP for the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project (PL-04010). Of that
amount, $0.9 million has been spent to date and an additional $1.9M has been encumbered.
Staff actively seeks regional, state and federal grant funding to offset resources identified for
bicycle and pedestrian plan implementation. As grant funds are secured or low-cost project
improvements identified, Transportation Division staff will coordinate with the Public Works
Department for implementation as part of the street resurfacing program. Minor elements of
the Concept Plan Lines may be implemented opportunistically through the Transportation
DΊϭΊνΊΪΣ͛ν Ϊχ·͋ι C͜Ps for pavement markings, signs and traffic signals.
Timeline
Staff anticipates that the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the Amarillo
Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road,
Bryant Street Extension, Maybell Avenue, and Park Boulevard-Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard
Projects will take approximately one year to complete, with construction planned to begin in
mid- to late-2017.
Environmental Review
A Negative Declaration for the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted on
September 4, 2012. Each individual project is subject to environmental assessment after there
is agreement on a Concept Plan Line for further study.
As part of the current phase of work, an assessment was made of the potential environmental
impacts of this work and a Categorical Exemption is recommended under CEQA Guidelines
section 15301 for minor alternation of existing facilities. This project will make bicycle and
City of Palo Alto Page 19
pedestrian improvements to multiple existing roadways. Improvements include new bicycle
boulevard striping, wayfinding and safety signs, crosswalks, median and landscape islands, bulb-
outs, stop control modification, traffic circles within existing rights-of-way, new tree plantings,
speed humps, and raised intersections. No trees will be removed and all work will occur within
the existing public right-of-way. The project is limited to minor alteration of existing roadways.
The work will facilitate bicycle and pedestrian use and will not increase the roadway capacities.
The draft CEQA Notice of Exemption is attached as Attachment F. This exemption will be filed
upon approval by City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Maps of Proposed Bicycle Blvds from the BPT Plan and the Four Projects
Identified (PDF)
Attachment B - Outreach Materials from Public Meetings (PDF)
Attachment C - Traffic Analysis (PDF)
Attachment D - Parking Occupancy Study (PDF)
Attachment E - Concept Plans (11X17 reduced) (PDF)
Attachment F - CEQA Categorically Exempt Filing (PDF)
Attachment G - March 29 Public Meeting (PDF)
Attachment H: C16163533 Alta Planning Bicycle Blvd Contract (PDF)
Attachment I: City Manager Report 4372 Award of Contract for Bicycle Boulevard
Concept Planning (PDF)
Attachment J: Fehr & Peers Contract C16163534 (PDF)
Attachment K: CMR4372 Award of Contract for Bicycle Boulevard Concept Planning 3-
17-14 (PDF)
Attachment L - Parking Occupancy Update (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Attachment A -
Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and
Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards
Staff Report
Attachment A – Maps
Map 1 – Palo Alto Proposed Bikeway Network
Map 2 – Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike
Boulevards
Attachment B -
Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and
Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards
Staff Report
Attachment B – Public Meeting Advertising
Attachment C -
Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and
Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards
Staff Report
Attachment C – Traffic Analysis
DRAFT Memorandum
Date: February 26, 2016
To: Hugh Louch, Alta Planning + Design, Inc.
From: Gary Black
Ling Jin
Subject: Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto
Introduction
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a traffic analysis for the proposed bicycle boulevards along Bryant Street, Ross Road, Louis-Montrose, and Moreno-Amarillo in Palo Alto, California.
Bicycle Boulevard projects are on streets where bicycling is already appealing for many riders due to low traffic volumes and speeds, and good access to key destinations such as schools, parks, and connections
across key barriers. The City has identified potential improvements on these routes including revised traffic controls to promote cycling convenience, custom signage and wayfinding, additional traffic calming, and other
measures. The purpose of the project is to enhance bikeway facilities across the Palo Alto communities.
This memo documents the results of the traffic analysis to identify potential operational issues that could
occur as a result of the proposed changes along the bicycle boulevards. The following intersections would be affected by changes in traffic control (see Figure 1):
Bryant Street and Palo Alto/Poe – 4-way stop to Roundabout
Bryant Street and Addison Avenue - Traffic circle to Roundabout
Bryant Street and N California Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout
Bryant Street and Loma Verde Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout
Bryant Street and Kingsley Avenue - 2-way stop to Roundabout
Ross Road and Moreno Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout
Ross Road and Clara Drive - 4-way Stop to 2-way Stop
Ross Road and Ames Avenue – 4-way stop to 2-way stop
Ross Road and East Meadow Drive – 4-way stop to Roundabout
Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - 3-way stop to one-side stop
Ross Road and Louis Road – 4-way stop to Roundabout
Louie Road and E Meadow Drive - 4-way stop to Roundabout
E Meadow Drive and E Meadow Circle - 4-way stop to Roundabout
Moreno Avenue and Louis Road - 2-way stop to 4-way stop
Louis Road and Fielding Drive - 2-way stop to 4-way stop
Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road - 4-way to Roundabout
Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from new 2016 manual turning- movement counts. The new intersection count data are included in Appendix A.
Existing with Project Conditions. Existing with project conditions were evaluated using existing
traffic volumes and proposed changes for the intersection control type. The results were compared to existing conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on traffic operations.
Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016
Table 2 Roundabout Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Level of Service by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio *
Control Delay (sec/veh) v/c< 1.0 v/c>1.0
0-10 A F
>10-15 B F
>15-25 C F
>25-30 D F
>35-50 E F
>50 F F
* For approaches and intersection-wide assessment, LOS is defined by control delay.
Source: NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts, An Information Guide, Second Edition,
Washington, D. C., Transportation Research Board, (2010).
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from field observations. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from new 2016 turning-movement counts. The new traffic count data are included in Appendix A.
The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 3. The results show that all of the study intersections are currently operating with delays corresponding to level of service A or B during both AM and PM peak hours.
Page | 4
Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016
Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Study
Number Intersection
Peak Count Average Delay
Hour Date (sec) LOS
1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 02/09/16 13.0
PM 02/09/16 12.4
2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 02/09/16 11.8
PM 02/09/16 9.9
3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 02/09/16 9.4
PM 02/09/16 8.1
4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 02/09/16 8.6
PM 02/09/16 8.8
5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 02/09/16 11.0
PM 02/09/16 11.3
6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 02/09/16 12.2
PM 02/09/16 10.5
7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.9
PM 02/09/16 7.8
8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 02/09/16 9.0
PM 02/09/16 7.7
9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.7
PM 02/09/16 7.4
10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 02/09/16 7.7
PM 02/09/16 7.6
11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 02/09/16 8.5
PM 02/09/16 8.3
12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 02/09/16 9.6
PM 02/09/16 9.1
13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.7
PM 02/09/16 7.6
14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 02/09/16 8.4
PM 02/09/16 8.3
15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 02/09/16 9.3
PM 02/09/16 8.7
16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 02/09/16 8.1
PM 02/09/16 7.7
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay.
Existing with Project Conditions
The intersection levels of service were recalculated with the proposed changes to traffic control. The results
of the intersection level of service analysis with the project are summarized in Table 4. The results of the level of service calculations show that under project conditions, all of the study intersections would still operate with
delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the proposed changes in traffic controls, most of the study intersection would experience less delay than existing conditions. The delays at the following three
intersections would be increased slightly with the traffic control converted from 4-way stop to 2-way stop.
Page | 5
Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016
Ross Road and Clara Drive - 4-way Stop to 2-way Stop
Ross Road and Ames Avenue – 4-way stop to 2-way stop
Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - 3-way stop to on-side stop
However, even at these three intersections, the delays would be relatively short and would correspond with
LOS B. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
Table 4
Existing with Project Intersection Levels of Service
Study Peak Average Delay Average Delay
Number Intersection Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS
Existing Existing + Project
1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 13.0 B 9.1 A
PM 12.4 B 8.9 A
2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 11.8 B 8.7 A
PM 9.9 A 8.7 A
3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 9.4 A 5.6 A
PM 8.1 A 4.6 A
4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 8.6 A 3.3 A
PM 8.8 A 3.4 A
5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 11.0 B 4.3 A
PM 11.3 B 4.1 A
6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 12.2 B 4.8 A
PM 10.5 B 4.3 A
7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 7.9 A 4.4 A
PM 7.8 A 4.3 A
8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 9.0 A 5.5 A
PM 7.7 A 4.4 A
9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 7.7 A 4.1 A
PM 7.4 A 4.0 A
10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 7.7 A 10.4 B
PM 7.6 A 10.2 B
11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 8.5 A 14.1 B
PM 8.3 A 12.3 B
12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 9.6 A 5.6 A
PM 9.1 A 5.3 A
13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 7.7 A 10.1 B
PM 7.6 A 9.9 A
14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 8.4 A 4.9 A
PM 8.3 A 4.8 A
15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 9.3 A 5.5 A
PM 8.7 A 5.0 A
16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 8.1 A 4.7 A
PM 7.7 A 4.3 A
Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay.
Future (Year 2040) with Project Conditions
Future (Year 2040) conditions reflect traffic growth in the study area. The expected future traffic growth was estimated by applying a yearly growth factor to the existing AM and PM peak-hour volumes traffic for 34
Page | 6
Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016
years. The growth factors of 0.44% per year for the AM peak hour and 0.48% per year for the PM peak hour were developed by Hexagon based on the Palo Alto Travel Demand Model.
Future with project condition level of service results are shown in Table 5. The results show that all the study intersections would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS C or better with future traffic volumes. The
level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
Table 5
Future (Year 2040) with Project Intersection Levels of Service
Study Peak Average Delay Average Delay
Existing with Project Future (2040) with Project
Number Intersection Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS
1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 9.1 A 9.7 A
PM 8.9 A 9.5 A
2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 8.7 A 9.2 A
PM 8.7 A 9.1 A
3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 5.6 A 6.1 A
PM 4.6 A 4.8 A
4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 3.3 A 3.4 A
PM 3.4 A 3.5 A
5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 4.3 A 4.6 A
PM 4.1 A 4.3 A
6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 4.8 A 5.1 A
PM 4.3 A 4.6 A
7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 4.4 A 4.6 A
PM 4.3 A 4.6 A
8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 5.5 A 5.9 A
PM 4.4 A 4.6 A
9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 4.1 A 4.3 A
PM 4.0 A 4.1 A
10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 10.4 B 10.9 B
PM 10.2 B 10.5 B
11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 14.1 B 16.3 C
PM 12.3 B 13.5 B
12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 5.6 A 6.3 A
PM 5.3 A 5.8 A
13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 10.1 B 10.5 B
PM 9.9 A 10.3 B
14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 4.9 A 5.2 A
PM 4.8 A 5.1 A
15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 5.5 A 6.0 A
PM 5.0 A 5.5 A
16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 4.7 A 5.0 A
PM 4.3 A 4.5 A
Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay.
Page | 7
Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016
Conclusions
Based on the intersection level of service calculation results, all the study intersections are currently experiencing minor delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the proposed traffic control changes, most of
the study intersections would experience less delay than existing conditions except for three intersections along Ross Road, which would experience increases in delay, but would still operate at LOS B. In the future
year 2040 with expected traffic growth, all the study intersection would operate at acceptable level of service C or better with the proposed traffic control changes.
Page | 8
Appendix A
Traffic Counts
Appendix B
Level of Service Calculations
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10
Future Volume (Veh/h) 10
EBT
208
208
Free
EBR WBL
21 34
21 34
WBT WBR
165 8
165 8
Free
NBL
12
12
NBT
10
10
Stop
NBR
15
15
SBL
8
8
SBT
11
11
Stop
SBR
16
16
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
11
0.92
226
0%
0.92
23
0.92
37
0.92
179
0%
0.92
9
0.92
13
0.92
11
0%
0.92
16
0.92
9
0.92
12
0%
0.92
17
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
203
203 4.1
12.0 15
3.5 1
None
264
264 4.1
2.2
12.0 12
3.5 1
None
472
570 552 264 566 558 214
264 566 558 214 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 15
3.5 1
12.0 15
3.5 1
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1349
2.2 99
EB 1 WB 1
225
NB 1 SB 1
40 38
1281 97 382
570 7.1
3.5 97 414
552 6.5
4.0 97 754
3.3 98 387
3.5 98 410
4.0 97 803
3.3 98
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 23
260 11 9 37 16 13 17 9
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1349
1 0.4
0.03 1281
2 1.5
0.08 489 516
7 6 12.5
0.07
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.4 A 1.5 A 13.0
13.0 B 12.5 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
2.6 37.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 226
Future Volume (Veh/h) 226
EBR
5
5
WBL WBT
2 199
2 199
NBL NBR
4 6
6
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
246
Free
0%
0.92
5
0.92
2
0.92
216
Free
0%
0.92
4
4
Stop
0%
0.92 0.92
7
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
12.0 50
3.5 5
None
12.0 50
3.5 5
None
171
301
12.0 50
3.5 5
568 348
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free %
EB 1
251
WB 1 NB 1
218 11
1200
301 4.1
2.2 100 438
568 348 6.4 6.2
3.5 3.3 99 99 630
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 5 0 0 2 7 4
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.15 1700
0 0.0
0.00 1200
0 0.1
0.02 544
2 11.8
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 0.1 A 11.8 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B
A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
0.3 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
101
EBR WBL
48 15
WBT WBR
Stop
123 7
NBL
98
NBT
Stop
31
NBR
50
SBL
15
SBT
Stop
40
SBR
59
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
35
32
32
0.92
110
101
0.92
52
48
0.92
16
15
0.92
134
123
0.92 8
7 0.92 107
98 0.92 34
31 0.92 54
50 0.92 16
15 0.92 43
40 0.92 64
59 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
197
EB 1
35 52 -0.09 4.8 0.26
158
WB 1
16 8 0.02 5.0 0.22
195
NB 1
107 54 -0.02 4.9 0.27
123
SB 1
16 64 -0.25 4.8 0.16
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
690 9.6 9.6 A
663 9.4 9.4 A
677 9.7 9.7 A
677 8.8 8.8
Delay Level of Service 9.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 41.0% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4
Future Volume (Veh/h) 4
EBR
3
3
WBL WBT
17 2
17 2
NBL NBR
2 9
9
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
4
Free
0%
0.92
3
0.92
18
0.92
2
Free
0%
0.92
2
2
Stop
0%
0.92 0.92
10
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
12.0 11
3.5 1
None
19 66 30
66 30 6.4 6.2
12.0 12
3.5 1
None
12.0 12
3.5 1
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free %
EB 1
7
WB 1 NB 1
20 12
1579
19 4.1
2.2 99 908
3.5 3.3 100 99 1021
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 3 0 0 18 10 2
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1700
0 0.0
0.01 1579
1 6.6
0.01 1001
1 8.6
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 6.6 A 8.6 A
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
A
A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
6.0 21.0% 15 ICU Level of Service
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6
Future Volume (Veh/h) 6
EBT
26
26
Free
EBR WBL
15 13
15 13
WBT WBR
102 11
102 11
Free
NBL
5
5
NBT
52
52
Stop
NBR
6
6
SBL
9
9
SBT
48
48
Stop
SBR
12
12
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
7
0.92
28
0%
0.92
16
0.92
14
0.92
111
0%
0.92
12
0.92
5
0.92
57
0%
0.92
7
0.92
10
0.92
52
0%
0.92
13
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
134
134 4.1
12.0 11
3.5 1
None
54
54 4.1
2.2
12.0 13
3.5 1
None
255 222 59 254 224 139
59 254 224 139 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 10
3.5 1
12.0 11
3.5 1
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1435
2.2 100
EB 1 WB 1
137
NB 1 SB 1
69 75 10
1537 99 617
255 7.1
3.5 99 654
222 6.5
4.0 91 985
3.3 99 617
3.5 98 652
4.0 92 890
3.3 99
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 16
51 7 12 14 7 5 13
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1435
0 1.1
0.01 1537
1 0.8
0.10 674 679
9 9 11.0
0.11
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.1 A 0.8 A 10.9
10.9 B 11.0 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
5.3 24.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11
Future Volume (Veh/h) 11
EBT
41
41
Free
EBR WBL
1 6
1 6
WBT WBR
147 23
147 23
Free
NBL
1
1
NBT
11
11
Stop
NBR
2
2
SBL
71
71
SBT
12
12
Stop
SBR
12
12
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
12
0.92
45
0%
0.92
1
0.92
7
0.92
160
0%
0.92
25
0.92
1
0.92
12
0%
0.92
2
0.92
77
0.92
13
0%
0.92
13
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
208
208 4.1
12.0 16
3.5 2
None
64
64 4.1
2.2 100
12.0 23
3.5 2
None
310 310 86 310 298 212
86 310 298 212 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 18
3.5 2
12.0 23
3.5 2
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1333
2.2 99
EB 1 WB 1
192
NB 1 SB 1
15 103 77
1512 578
310 7.1
3.5 100 574
310 6.5
4.0 98 935
3.3 100 580
3.5 87 583
4.0 98 798
3.3 98
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 1
58 12 25 7 2 1 13
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1333
1 1.7
0.00 1512
0 0.3
0.02 605 601
2 15 12.2
0.17
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.7 A 0.3 A 11.1
11.1 B 12.2 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
4.3 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
78
EBR WBL
4 2
WBT WBR
Stop
27 24
NBL
0
NBT
Stop
59
NBR
17
SBL
49
SBT
Stop
40
SBR
7
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
14
13
13
0.92
85
78
0.92
4
4
0.92
2
2
0.92
29
27
0.92 26
24 0.92 0
0 0.92 64
59 0.92 18
17 0.92 53
49 0.92 43
40 0.92 8
7 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
103
EB 1
14 4 0.04 4.4 0.13
57
WB 1
2 26 -0.23 4.2 0.07
82
NB 1
0 18 -0.10 4.3 0.10
104
SB 1
53 8 0.09 4.4 0.13
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
777 8.1 8.1 A
801 7.5 7.5 A
798 7.8 7.8 A
768 8.1 8.1
Delay
Intersection Summary
7.9 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 30.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
3
EBR WBL
12 9
WBT WBR
Stop
1 5
NBL
7
NBT
Stop
168
NBR
5
SBL
5
SBT
Stop
240
SBR
14
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
29
27
27
0.92
3
3
0.92
13
12
0.92
10
9
0.92
1
1
0.92 5
5 0.92 8
7 0.92 183
168 0.92 5
5 0.92 5
5 0.92 261
240 0.92 15
14 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
45
EB 1
29 13 -0.01 5.0 0.06
16
WB 1
10 5 -0.03 5.0 0.02
196
NB 1
8 5 0.03 4.4 0.24
281
SB 1
5 15 0.01 4.3 0.33
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
654 8.3 8.3 A
643 8.1 8.1 A
798 8.7 8.7 A
818 9.4 9.4
Delay Level of Service 9.0 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 35.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
3 42
EBR WBL
3 15
WBT WBR
Stop
39 11
NBL
12
NBT
Stop
35
NBR
17
SBL
26
SBT
Stop
54
SBR
6
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
3
3
0.92
46
42
0.92
3
3
0.92
16
15
0.92
42
39
0.92 12
11 0.92 13
12 0.92 38
35 0.92 18
17 0.92 28
26 0.92 59
54 0.92 7
6 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
52
EB 1
3 3 0.01 4.4 0.06
70
WB 1
16 12 -0.02 4.3 0.08
69
NB 1
13 18 -0.08 4.2 0.08
94
SB 1
28 7 0.05 4.3 0.11
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
790 7.6 7.6 A
802 7.7 7.7 A
822 7.6 7.6 A
811 7.8 7.8
Delay
Intersection Summary
7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 23.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
4 102
EBR WBL
1 2
WBT WBR
Stop
96 9
NBL
1
NBT
Stop
0
NBR
5
SBL
22
SBT
Stop
2
SBR
8
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
4
4
0.92
111
102
0.92
1
1
0.92
2
2
0.92
104
96
0.92 10
9 0.92 1
1 0.92 0
0 0.92 5
5 0.92 24
22 0.92 2
2 0.92 9
8 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
116
EB 1
4 1 0.04 4.1 0.13
116
WB 1
2 10 -0.01 4.1 0.13
6
NB 1
1 5 -0.43 4.0 0.01
35
SB 1
24 9 0.02 4.4 0.04
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
852 7.8 7.8 A
863 7.7 7.7 A
838 7.0 7.0 A
760 7.6 7.6
Delay
Intersection Summary
7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 24.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
135
EBR WBL
5 21
5 21
WBT WBR
Stop
94 36
NBL
2
NBT
Stop
21
NBR
12
SBL
33
SBT
Stop
13
SBR
47
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
38
35
35
0.92
147
135
0.92
5
0.92
23
0.92
102
94
0.92
39
36
0.92
2
2
0.92 23
21 0.92 13
12 0.92 36
33 0.92 14
13 0.92 51
47 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
190
EB 1
38 5 0.06 4.5 0.24
164
WB 1
23 39 -0.08 4.4 0.20
38
NB 1
2 13 -0.16 4.7 0.05
101
SB 1
36 51 -0.20 4.6 0.13
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
775 8.9 8.9 A
783 8.5 8.5 A
703 7.9 7.9 A
725 8.2 8.2
Delay
Intersection Summary
8.5 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 35.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
88
EBR WBL
35 28
WBT WBR
Stop
51 9
NBL
73
NBT
Stop
115
NBR
19
SBL
12
SBT
Stop
160
SBR
14
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
12
11
11
0.92
96
88
0.92
38
35
0.92
30
28
0.92
55
51
0.92 10
9 0.92 79
73 0.92 125
115 0.92 21
19 0.92 13
12 0.92 174
160 0.92 15
14 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
146
EB 1
12 38 -0.11 5.0 0.20
95
WB 1
30 10 0.03 5.2 0.14
225
NB 1
79 21 0.05 4.8 0.30
202
SB 1
13 15 0.00 4.8 0.27
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
655 9.3 9.3 A
622 9.0 9.0 A
703 9.9 9.9 A
699 9.6 9.6
Delay Level of Service 9.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 45.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 12
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Sign Control Stop
EBR
39
WBL WBT
Stop
28 44
NBL NBR
26
26
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
95
87
87
0.92
42
39
0.92
30
28
0.92
48
44
0.92
47
Stop 43 43 0.92 0.92 28
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
137
EB 1
0 42 -0.15 4.0 0.15
78
WB 1
30 0 0.11 4.3 0.09
75
NB 1
47 28 -0.06 4.3 0.09
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
876 7.7 7.7 A
812 7.8 7.8 A
793 7.7 7.7
Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 28.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 13
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
2 2
EBR WBL
119 12
WBT WBR
Stop
4 2
NBL
47
NBT
Stop
89
NBR
2
SBL
0
SBT
Stop
156
SBR
1
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
2
2
0.92
2
2
0.92
129
119
0.92
13
12
0.92
4
4
0.92 2
2 0.92 51
47 0.92 97
89 0.92 2
2 0.92 0
0 0.92 170
156 0.92 1
1 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
133
EB 1
2 129 -0.54 4.1 0.15
19
WB 1
13 2 0.11 4.9 0.03
150
NB 1
51 2 0.09 4.5 0.19
171
SB 1
0 1 0.03 4.4 0.21
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
805 7.9 7.9 A
669 8.0 8.0 A
760 8.6 8.6 A
772 8.6 8.6
Delay Level of Service 8.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 39.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 14
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
126
EBR WBL
64 21
WBT WBR
Stop
63 22
NBL
41
NBT
Stop
89
NBR
15
SBL
9
SBT
Stop
93
SBR
17
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
22
20
20
0.92
137
126
0.92
70
64
0.92
23
21
0.92
68
63
0.92 24
22 0.92 45
41 0.92 97
89 0.92 16
15 0.92 10
9 0.92 101
93 0.92 18
17 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
229
EB 1
22 70 -0.13 4.7 0.30
115
WB 1
23 24 -0.05 4.9 0.16
158
NB 1
45 16 0.03 5.0 0.22
129
SB 1
10 18 -0.03 4.9 0.18
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
723 9.6 9.6 A
677 8.8 8.8 A
674 9.3 9.3 A
669 9.0 9.0
Delay Level of Service 9.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 34.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
0 10
EBR WBL
8 73
WBT WBR
Stop
48 64
NBL
13
NBT
Stop
19
NBR
85
SBL
20
SBT
Stop
10
SBR
0
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
0
0
0.92
11
10
0.92
9
8
0.92
79
73
0.92
52
48
0.92 70
64 0.92 14
13 0.92 21
19 0.92 92
85 0.92 22
20 0.92 11
10 0.92 0
0 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
20
EB 1
0 9 -0.24 4.2 0.02
201
WB 1
79 70 -0.10 4.2 0.23
127
NB 1
14 92 -0.38 4.1 0.14
33
SB 1
22 0 0.17 4.7 0.04
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
805 7.3 7.3 A
823 8.4 8.4 A
839 7.7 7.7 A
716 7.9 7.9
Delay Level of Service 8.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 34.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 16
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6
Future Volume (Veh/h) 6
EBT
204
204
Free
EBR WBL
16 10
16 10
WBT WBR
178 6
178 6
Free
NBL
27
27
NBT
5
5
Stop
NBR
22
22
SBL
8
8
SBT
2
2
Stop
SBR
4
4
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
7
0.92
222
0%
0.92
17
0.92
11
0.92
193
0%
0.92
7
0.92
29
0.92
5
0%
0.92
24
0.92
9
0.92
2
0%
0.92
4
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
210
210 4.1
12.0 10
3.5 1
None
249
249 4.1
2.2
12.0 9
3.5 1
None
472
488 486 250 508 492 216
250 508 492 216 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 10
3.5 1
12.0 10
3.5 1
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1348
2.2 99
EB 1 WB 1
211
NB 1 SB 1
58 15
1304 99 465
488 7.1
3.5 94 466
486 6.5
4.0 99 775
3.3 97 437
3.5 98 463
4.0 100 808
3.3 100
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 17
246 7 7 11 24 29 4 9
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1348
0 0.3
0.01 1304
1 0.5
0.10 557 502
9 2 12.4
0.03
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.5 A 12.2
12.2 B 12.4 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
2.0 27.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 233
Future Volume (Veh/h) 233
EBR
3
3
WBL WBT
2 181
2 181
NBL NBR
0 4
4
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
253
Free
0%
0.92
3
0.92
2
0.92
197
Free
0%
0.92
0
0
Stop
0%
0.92 0.92
4
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
12.0 11
3.5 1
None
12.0 14
3.5 1
None
171
270
12.0 14
3.5 1
480 282
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free %
EB 1
256
WB 1 NB 1
199 4
1276
270 4.1
2.2 100 531
480 282 6.4 6.2
3.5 3.3 100 99 736
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 3 0 0 2 4 0
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.15 1700
0 0.0
0.00 1276
0 0.1
0.01 736
0 9.9
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 0.1 A 9.9 A
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
A
A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
0.1 26.5% 15 ICU Level of Service
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
89
EBR WBL
13 3
WBT WBR
Stop
108 11
NBL
8
NBT
Stop
21
NBR
2
SBL
5
SBT
Stop
25
SBR
39
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
41
38
38
0.92
97
89
0.92
14
13
0.92
3
3
0.92
117
108
0.92 12
11 0.92 9
8 0.92 23
21 0.92 2
2 0.92 5
5 0.92 27
25 0.92 42
39 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
152
EB 1
41 14 0.03 4.3 0.18
132
WB 1
3 12 -0.02 4.3 0.16
34
NB 1
9 2 0.05 4.7 0.04
74
SB 1
5 42 -0.29 4.3 0.09
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
806 8.3 8.3 A
800 8.1 8.1 A
715 7.9 7.9 A
776 7.7 7.7
Delay
Intersection Summary
8.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 30.4% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1
Future Volume (Veh/h) 1
EBR
4
4
WBL WBT
22 4
22 4
NBL NBR
2 6
6
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
1
Free
0%
0.92
4
0.92
24
0.92
4
Free
0%
0.92
2
2
Stop
0%
0.92 0.92
7
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
12.0 16
3.5 2
None
26 92 45
92 45 6.4 6.2
12.0 21
3.5 2
None
12.0 21
3.5 2
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free %
EB 1
5
WB 1 NB 1
28 9
1556
26 4.1
2.2 98 863
3.5 3.3 100 99 984
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 4 0 0 24 7 2
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1700
0 0.0
0.02 1556
1 6.3
0.01 954
1 8.8
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 6.3 A 8.8 A
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
A
A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
6.1 23.1% 15 ICU Level of Service
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4
Future Volume (Veh/h) 4
EBT
34
34
Free
EBR WBL
8 18
8 18
WBT WBR
71 10
71 10
Free
NBL
8
8
NBT
51
51
Stop
NBR
7
7
SBL
4
4
SBT
28
28
Stop
SBR
12
12
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
4
0.92
37
0%
0.92
9
0.92
20
0.92
77
0%
0.92
11
0.92
9
0.92
55
0%
0.92
8
0.92
4
0.92
30
0%
0.92
13
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
107
107 4.1
12.0 26
3.5 2
None
77
77 4.1
2.2
12.0 31
3.5 3
None
257 228 104 258 226 128
104 258 226 128 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 31
3.5 3
12.0 19
3.5 2
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1457
2.2 100
EB 1 WB 1
108
NB 1 SB 1
72 47
1477 99 596
257 7.1
3.5 98 630
228 6.5
4.0 91 896
3.3 99 584
3.5 99 631
4.0 95 883
3.3 99
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 9
50 4 11 20 8 9 13 4
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1457
0 0.6
0.01 1477
1 1.5
0.11 647 680
9 6 10.7
0.07
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.6 A 1.5 A 11.3
11.3 B 10.7 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
5.4 28.4% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15
Future Volume (Veh/h) 15
EBT
23
23
Free
EBR WBL
1 3
1 3
WBT WBR
128 17
128 17
Free
NBL
0
0
NBT
2
2
Stop
NBR
3
3
SBL
6
6
SBT
3
3
Stop
SBR
9
9
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
16
0.92
25
0%
0.92
1
0.92
3
0.92
139
0%
0.92
18
0.92
0
0.92
2
0%
0.92
3
0.92
7
0.92
3
0%
0.92
10
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
185
185 4.1
12.0 27
3.5 3
None
61
61 4.1
2.2 100
12.0 35
3.5 3
None
285 284 96 278 275 203
96 278 275 203 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 35
3.5 3
12.0 28
3.5 3
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1353
2.2 99
EB 1 WB 1
160
NB 1 SB 1
5 20
1491 584
285 7.1
3.5 100 580
284 6.5
4.0 100 898
3.3 100 595
3.5 99 587
4.0 99 794
3.3 99
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 1
42 16 18 3 3 0 10 7
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1353
1 3.0
0.00 1491
0 0.2
0.01 737 679
1 2 10.5
0.03
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 3.0 A 0.2 A 9.9
9.9 A 10.5 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
A B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
1.8 29.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
45
EBR WBL
3 10
WBT WBR
Stop
31 43
NBL
2
NBT
Stop
80
NBR
19
SBL
39
SBT
Stop
24
SBR
10
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
13
12
12
0.92
49
45
0.92
3
3
0.92
11
10
0.92
34
31
0.92 47
43 0.92 2
2 0.92 87
80 0.92 21
19 0.92 42
39 0.92 26
24 0.92 11
10 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
65
EB 1
13 3 0.05 4.5 0.08
92
WB 1
11 47 -0.25 4.2 0.11
110
NB 1
2 21 -0.08 4.3 0.13
79
SB 1
42 11 0.06 4.4 0.10
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
765 7.9 7.9 A
814 7.7 7.7 A
805 7.9 7.9 A
769 7.9 7.9
Delay
Intersection Summary
7.8 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 30.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
4 1
EBR WBL
3 2
WBT WBR
Stop
0 0
NBL
2
NBT
Stop
28
NBR
8
SBL
6
SBT
Stop
145
SBR
3
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
4
4
0.92
1
1
0.92
3
3
0.92
2
2
0.92
0
0
0.92 0
0 0.92 2
2 0.92 30
28 0.92 9
8 0.92 7
6 0.92 158
145 0.92 3
3 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
8
EB 1
4 3 -0.09 4.3 0.01
2
WB 1
2 0 0.23 4.6 0.00
41
NB 1
2 9 -0.09 4.0 0.05
168
SB 1
7 3 0.03 4.0 0.19
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
802 7.3 7.3 A
746 7.6 7.6 A
881 7.2 7.2 A
894 7.9 7.9
Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 25.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
4 27
EBR WBL
7 6
WBT WBR
Stop
22 6
NBL
7
NBT
Stop
55
NBR
33
SBL
6
SBT
Stop
23
SBR
2
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
4
4
0.92
29
27
0.92
8
7
0.92
7
6
0.92
24
22
0.92 7
6 0.92 8
7 0.92 60
55 0.92 36
33 0.92 7
6 0.92 25
23 0.92 2
2 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
41
EB 1
4 8 -0.06 4.2 0.05
38
WB 1
7 7 -0.04 4.2 0.04
104
NB 1
8 36 -0.16 3.9 0.11
34
SB 1
7 2 0.04 4.2 0.04
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
831 7.4 7.4 A
825 7.4 7.4 A
883 7.5 7.5 A
831 7.4 7.4
Delay Level of Service 7.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 21.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
89
EBR WBL
3 3
WBT WBR
Stop
69 10
NBL
1
NBT
Stop
2
NBR
3
SBL
10
SBT
Stop
2
SBR
3
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
12
11
11
0.92
97
89
0.92
3
3
0.92
3
3
0.92
75
69
0.92 11
10 0.92 1
1 0.92 2
2 0.92 3
3 0.92 11
10 0.92 2
2 0.92 3
3 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
112
EB 1
12 3 0.04 4.1 0.13
89
WB 1
3 11 -0.03 4.0 0.10
6
NB 1
1 3 -0.23 4.1 0.01
16
SB 1
11 3 0.06 4.4 0.02
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
870 7.7 7.7 A
882 7.5 7.5 A
824 7.1 7.1 A
779 7.5 7.5
Delay
Intersection Summary
7.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 24.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
145
EBR WBL
9 5
WBT WBR
Stop
133 23
NBL
2
NBT
Stop
6
NBR
7
SBL
26
SBT
Stop
4
SBR
8
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
18
17
17
0.92
158
145
0.92
10
9
0.92
5
5
0.92
145
133
0.92 25
23 0.92 2
2 0.92 7
6 0.92 8
7 0.92 28
26 0.92 4
4 0.92 9
8 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
186
EB 1
18 10 0.02 4.2 0.22
175
WB 1
5 25 -0.05 4.2 0.20
17
NB 1
2 8 -0.22 4.5 0.02
41
SB 1
28 9 0.04 4.7 0.05
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
830 8.4 8.4 A
841 8.3 8.3 A
729 7.6 7.6 A
695 8.0 8.0
Delay
Intersection Summary
8.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 32.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
7 50
EBR WBL
63 19
WBT WBR
Stop
81 17
NBL
53
NBT
Stop
119
NBR
18
SBL
10
SBT
Stop
114
SBR
11
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
8
7
0.92
54
50
0.92
68
63
0.92
21
19
0.92
88
81
0.92 18
17 0.92 58
53 0.92 129
119 0.92 20
18 0.92 11
10 0.92 124
114 0.92 12
11 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
130
EB 1
8 68 -0.27 4.7 0.17
127
WB 1
21 18 -0.02 4.9 0.17
207
NB 1
58 20 0.03 4.8 0.27
147
SB 1
11 12 0.00 4.8 0.20
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
703 8.6 8.6 A
671 9.0 9.0 A
714 9.6 9.6 A
697 9.0 9.0
Delay Level of Service 9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 43.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 12
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Sign Control Stop
EBR
29
WBL WBT
Stop
10 65
NBL NBR
18
18
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
52
48
48
0.92
32
29
0.92
11
10
0.92
71
65
0.92
55
Stop 51 51 0.92 0.92 20
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
84
EB 1
0 32 -0.19 4.0 0.09
82
WB 1
11 0 0.06 4.2 0.10
75
NB 1
55 20 0.02 4.3 0.09
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
884 7.4 7.4 A
833 7.7 7.7 A
805 7.7 7.7
Delay Level of Service 7.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 24.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 13
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
3 3
EBR WBL
52 5
WBT WBR
Stop
1 0
NBL
78
NBT
Stop
114
NBR
10
SBL
0
SBT
Stop
111
SBR
1
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
3
3
0.92
3
3
0.92
57
52
0.92
5
5
0.92
1
1
0.92 0
0 0.92 85
78 0.92 124
114 0.92 11
10 0.92 0
0 0.92 121
111 0.92 1
1 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
63
EB 1
3 57 -0.50 4.2 0.07
6
WB 1
5 0 0.20 4.9 0.01
220
NB 1
85 11 0.08 4.3 0.26
122
SB 1
0 1 0.03 4.3 0.15
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
790 7.5 7.5 A
667 8.0 8.0 A
823 8.8 8.8 A
804 8.0 8.0
Delay Level of Service 8.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 30.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 14
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
89
EBR WBL
46 10
WBT WBR
Stop
101 10
NBL
45
NBT
Stop
51
NBR
28
SBL
10
SBT
Stop
71
SBR
22
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
22
20
20
0.92
97
89
0.92
50
46
0.92
11
10
0.92
110
101
0.92 11
10 0.92 49
45 0.92 55
51 0.92 30
28 0.92 11
10 0.92 77
71 0.92 24
22 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
169
EB 1
22 50 -0.12 4.6 0.21
132
WB 1
11 11 0.00 4.7 0.17
134
NB 1
49 30 -0.03 4.7 0.18
112
SB 1
11 24 -0.07 4.7 0.15
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
738 8.8 8.8 A
712 8.7 8.7 A
708 8.8 8.8 A
704 8.5 8.5
Delay Level of Service 8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 33.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
0 60
EBR WBL
20 50
WBT WBR
Stop
6 12
NBL
6
NBT
Stop
7
NBR
57
SBL
57
SBT
Stop
18
SBR
1
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
0
0
0.92
65
60
0.92
22
20
0.92
54
50
0.92
7
6
0.92 13
12 0.92 7
6 0.92 8
7 0.92 62
57 0.92 62
57 0.92 20
18 0.92 1
1 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
87
EB 1
0 22 -0.12 4.2 0.10
74
WB 1
54 13 0.07 4.4 0.09
77
NB 1
7 62 -0.43 3.9 0.08
83
SB 1
62 1 0.18 4.5 0.10
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
816 7.7 7.7 A
770 7.9 7.9 A
868 7.3 7.3 A
755 8.0 8.0
Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 30.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 16
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
208
EBR WBL
21 34
WBT WBR
Stop
165 8
NBL
12
NBT
Stop
10
NBR
15
SBL
8
SBT
Stop
11
SBR
16
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
11
10
10
0.92
226
208
0.92
23
21
0.92
37
34
0.92
179
165
0.92 9
8 0.92 13
12 0.92 11
10 0.92 16
15 0.92 9
8 0.92 12
11 0.92 17
16 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
260
EB 1
11 23 -0.01 4.3 0.31
225
WB 1
37 9 0.04 4.4 0.28
40
NB 1
13 16 -0.14 4.9 0.05
38
SB 1
9 17 -0.19 4.9 0.05
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
A
810 9.3 9.3 A
785 9.1 9.1 A
661 8.2 8.2 A
662 8.1 8.1
Delay Level of Service 9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 37.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Sign Control Stop
EBR
5
WBL WBT
Stop
2 199
NBL NBR
6
6
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
246
226
226
0.92
5
5
0.92
2
2
0.92
216
199
0.92
4
Stop 4 4 0.92 0.92 7
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
251
EB 1
0 5 0.02 4.2 0.29
218
WB 1
2 0 0.04 4.2 0.25
11
NB 1
4 7 -0.28 4.6 0.01
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
852 8.9 8.9 A
844 8.6 8.6 A
703 7.7 7.7
Delay
Intersection Summary
8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4
Future Volume (Veh/h) 4
EBT
102
102
Free
EBR WBL
1 2
1 2
WBT WBR
96 9
96 9
Free
NBL
1
1
NBT
0
0
Stop
NBR
5
5
SBL
22
22
SBT
2
2
Stop
SBR
8
8
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
4
0.92
111
0%
0.92
1
0.92
2
0.92
104
0%
0.92
10
0.92
1
0.92
0
0%
0.92
5
0.92
24
0.92
2
0%
0.92
9
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
128
128 4.1
12.0 13
3.5 1
None
120
120 4.1
2.2 100
12.0 14
3.5 1
None
264 260 134 266 255 136
134 266 255 136 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 8
3.5 1
12.0 14
3.5 1
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1438
2.2 100
EB 1 WB 1
116
NB 1 SB 1
6 35 24
1457 654
264 7.1
3.5 100 629
260 6.5
4.0 100 896
3.3 99 653
3.5 96 633
4.0 100 889
3.3 99
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 1
116 4 10 2 5 1 9
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1438
0 0.3
0.00 1457
0 0.1
0.01 844 699
1 4 10.4
0.05
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.1 A 9.3
9.3 A 10.4 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
A B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
1.7 24.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35
Future Volume (Veh/h) 35
EBT
135
135
Free
EBR WBL
5 21
5 21
WBT WBR
94 36
94 36
Free
NBL
2
2
NBT
21
21
Stop
NBR
12
12
SBL
33
33
SBT
13
13
Stop
SBR
47
47
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
38
0.92
147
0%
0.92
5
0.92
23
0.92
102
0%
0.92
39
0.92
2
0.92
23
0%
0.92
13
0.92
36
0.92
14
0%
0.92
51
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
194
194 4.1
12.0 53
3.5 5
None
187
187 4.1
2.2
12.0 52
3.5 5
None
539 500 236 522 484 228
236 522 484 228 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 35
3.5 3
12.0 53
3.5 5
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1310
2.2 97
EB 1 WB 1
164
NB 1 SB 1
38 101 36
1341 98 342
539 7.1
3.5 99 414
500 6.5
4.0 94 737
3.3 98 357
3.5 90 423
4.0 97 732
3.3 93
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 5
190 38 39 23 13 2 51
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.03 1310
2 1.8
0.02 1341
1 1.2
0.08 481 496
6 19 14.1
0.20
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.8 A 1.2 A 13.1
13.1 B 14.1 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
5.0 35.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87
Future Volume (Veh/h) 87
EBR
39
39
WBL WBT
28 44
28 44
NBL NBR
43 26
26
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
95
Free
0%
0.92
42
0.92
30
0.92
48
Free
0%
0.92
47
43
Stop
0%
0.92 0.92
28
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
12.0 8
3.5 1
None
145 240 131
240 131 6.4 6.2
12.0 7
3.5 1
None
12.0 8
3.5 1
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free %
EB 1
137
WB 1 NB 1
78 75
1426
145 4.1
2.2 98 721
3.5 3.3 93 97 905
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 42 0 0 30 28 47
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.08 1700
0 0.0
0.02 1426
2 3.0
0.10 781
8 10.1
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 3.0 A 10.1 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B
A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
3.4 28.7% 15 ICU Level of Service
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 Roundabout
3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.6 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 197 201 76 311 3.186 40 0.995 5.3 A
EB
Left
1 1 158 161 180 183 3.186 23 0.997 5.5 A
Left
1 1 195 199 164 113 3.186 40 0.995 5.9 A
Left
1 1 123 125 262 79 3.186 31 0.996 5.7 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 201 161 199 125 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1047 944 959 870 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.983 0.981 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 197 158 195 123 Cap Entry, veh/h 1020 925 936 853 V/C Ratio 0.193 0.171 0.209 0.144 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 5.5 5.9 5.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
3.3 A
WB NB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 7 7 18 4 3.186 11 0.998 3.3 A
EB
Left
1 1 20 20 2 14 3.186 12 0.998 3.4 A
Left
1 1 12 12 4 21 3.186 12 0.998 3.3 A
Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 7 20 12 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1110 1128 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.998 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 7 20 12 Cap Entry, veh/h 1096 1124 1124 V/C Ratio 0.006 0.018 0.011 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 Roundabout
5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.3 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 51 52 77 131 3.186 11 0.998 3.9 A
EB
Left
1 1 137 139 70 46 3.186 13 0.998 4.7 A
Left
1 1 69 70 46 83 3.186 10 0.999 4.0 A
Left
1 1 75 76 132 77 3.186 13 0.998 4.4 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 52 139 70 76 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1046 1054 1079 990 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.984 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 51 137 69 75 Cap Entry, veh/h 1033 1035 1060 975 V/C Ratio 0.050 0.132 0.065 0.077 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 4.7 4.0 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.8 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 58 59 99 177 3.186 16 0.998 4.1 A
EB
Left
1 1 192 196 25 127 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A
Left
1 1 15 15 137 21 3.186 18 0.998 3.9 A
Left
1 1 103 105 171 49 3.186 23 0.997 4.9 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 59 196 15 105 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1023 1102 985 952 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.979 0.984 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 58 192 15 103 Cap Entry, veh/h 1006 1075 967 929 V/C Ratio 0.058 0.178 0.015 0.111 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 5.0 3.9 4.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.4 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 103 105 100 38 3.186 13 0.998 4.5 A
EB
Left
1 1 57 59 79 159 3.186 9 0.999 4.0 A
Left
1 1 82 83 155 50 3.186 13 0.998 4.6 A
Left
1 1 104 106 32 106 3.186 13 0.998 4.2 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 105 59 83 106 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1022 1044 968 1094 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.973 0.985 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 103 57 82 104 Cap Entry, veh/h 1004 1015 951 1073 V/C Ratio 0.103 0.057 0.086 0.097 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.5 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 45 46 281 24 3.186 114 0.982 4.9 A
EB
Left
1 1 16 16 225 13 3.186 48 0.993 4.2 A
Left
1 1 196 200 38 289 3.186 114 0.979 5.2 A
Left
1 1 281 286 19 222 3.186 84 0.988 5.8 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 46 16 200 286 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 853 902 1088 1109 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.977 0.999 0.982 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 45 16 196 281 Cap Entry, veh/h 818 895 1046 1076 V/C Ratio 0.055 0.018 0.188 0.261 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 4.2 5.2 5.8 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6
HCM 2010 Roundabout
9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.1 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 52 53 105 63 3.186 3 1.000 4.1 A
EB
Left
1 1 70 71 55 94 3.186 4 0.999 4.0 A
Left
1 1 69 70 79 79 3.186 3 1.000 4.1 A
Left
1 1 94 96 72 54 3.186 4 0.999 4.3 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 53 71 70 96 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1017 1069 1044 1051 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.988 0.989 0.977 Flow Entry, veh/h 52 70 69 94 Cap Entry, veh/h 999 1056 1032 1027 V/C Ratio 0.052 0.066 0.067 0.091 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.8 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 146 149 221 152 3.186 15 0.998 5.7 A
EB
Left
1 1 95 97 220 132 3.186 13 0.998 5.1 A
Left
1 1 225 230 123 247 3.186 12 0.998 5.9 A
Left
1 1 202 205 168 149 3.186 15 0.998 6.0 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 149 97 230 205 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 906 907 999 955 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.978 0.980 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 146 95 225 202 Cap Entry, veh/h 886 886 978 937 V/C Ratio 0.165 0.107 0.231 0.215 Control Delay, s/veh 5.7 5.1 5.9 6.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8
HCM 2010 Roundabout
14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.9 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 133 136 186 57 3.186 16 0.998 5.3 A
EB
Left
1 1 19 19 153 4 3.186 13 0.998 3.9 A
Left
1 1 150 153 4 318 3.186 11 0.998 4.5 A
Left
1 1 171 174 69 103 3.186 16 0.998 5.0 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 136 19 153 174 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 938 970 1125 1055 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.978 0.996 0.981 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 133 19 150 171 Cap Entry, veh/h 915 964 1102 1032 V/C Ratio 0.145 0.020 0.136 0.165 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 3.9 4.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 0 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.5 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 229 233 136 133 3.186 19 0.997 6.1 A
EB
Left
1 1 115 116 167 166 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A
Left
1 1 158 161 172 197 3.186 13 0.998 5.5 A
Left
1 1 129 131 138 145 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 233 116 161 131 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 986 956 951 984 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.988 0.982 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 229 115 158 129 Cap Entry, veh/h 968 942 932 966 V/C Ratio 0.237 0.122 0.170 0.134 Control Delay, s/veh 6.1 5.0 5.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.7 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 20 20 114 67 3.186 20 0.997 3.8 A
EB
Left
1 1 201 205 35 127 3.186 17 0.998 5.1 A
Left
1 1 127 129 33 101 3.186 19 0.997 4.4 A
Left
1 1 33 33 148 92 3.186 20 0.997 4.0 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 20 205 129 33 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1008 1091 1093 974 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.980 0.981 0.993 Flow Entry, veh/h 20 201 127 33 Cap Entry, veh/h 995 1067 1070 965 V/C Ratio 0.020 0.188 0.118 0.034 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 5.1 4.4 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
6 204
EBR WBL
16 10
WBT WBR
Stop
178 6
NBL
27
NBT
Stop
5
NBR
22
SBL
8
SBT
Stop
2
SBR
4
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
7
6
0.92
222
204
0.92
17
16
0.92
11
10
0.92
193
178
0.92 7
6 0.92 29
27 0.92 5
5 0.92 24
22 0.92 9
8 0.92 2
2 0.92 4
4 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
246
EB 1
7 17 0.00 4.3 0.29
211
WB 1
11 7 0.02 4.4 0.26
58
NB 1
29 24 -0.11 4.8 0.08
15
SB 1
9 4 -0.01 5.0 0.02
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
815 9.1 9.1 A
794 8.9 8.9 A
679 8.2 8.2 A
644 8.1 8.1
Delay
Intersection Summary
8.9 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 27.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Sign Control Stop
EBR
3
WBL WBT
Stop
2 181
NBL NBR
4
4
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
253
233
233
0.92
3
3
0.92
2
2
0.92
197
181
0.92
0
Stop 0 0 0.92 0.92 4
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
256
EB 1
0 3 0.03 4.1 0.29
199
WB 1
2 0 0.04 4.2 0.23
4
NB 1
0 4 -0.57 4.3 0.00
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
861 8.8 8.8 A
848 8.4 8.4 A
753 7.3 7.3
Delay
Intersection Summary
8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 26.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11
Future Volume (Veh/h) 11
EBT
89
89
Free
EBR WBL
3 3
3 3
WBT WBR
69 10
69 10
Free
NBL
1
1
NBT
2
2
Stop
NBR
3
3
SBL
10
10
SBT
2
2
Stop
SBR
3
3
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
12
0.92
97
0%
0.92
3
0.92
3
0.92
75
0%
0.92
11
0.92
1
0.92
2
0%
0.92
3
0.92
11
0.92
2
0%
0.92
3
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
98
98 4.1
12.0 13
3.5 1
None
113
113 4.1
2.2 100
12.0 10
3.5 1
None
239 240 122 235 236 106
122 235 236 106 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 13
3.5 1
12.0 12
3.5 1
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1478
2.2 99
EB 1 WB 1
89
NB 1 SB 1
6 16 11
1458 676
239 7.1
3.5 100 639
240 6.5
4.0 100 909
3.3 100 683
3.5 98 643
4.0 100 926
3.3 100
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 3
112 12 11 3 3 1 3
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1478
1 0.9
0.00 1458
0 0.3
0.01 759 712
1 2 10.2
0.02
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 9.8
9.8 A 10.2 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
A B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
1.5 24.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17
Future Volume (Veh/h) 17
EBT
145
145
Free
EBR WBL
9 5
9 5
WBT WBR
133 23
133 23
Free
NBL
2
2
NBT
6
6
Stop
NBR
7
7
SBL
26
26
SBT
4
4
Stop
SBR
8
8
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
18
0.92
158
0%
0.92
10
0.92
5
0.92
145
0%
0.92
25
0.92
2
0.92
7
0%
0.92
8
0.92
28
0.92
4
0%
0.92
9
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
185
185 4.1
12.0 27
3.5 3
None
195
195 4.1
2.2 100
12.0 27
3.5 3
None
432 421 217 420 414 200
217 420 414 200 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 27
3.5 3
12.0 15
3.5 1
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1370
2.2 99
EB 1 WB 1
175
NB 1 SB 1
17 41 28
1343 477
432 7.1
3.5 100 495
421 6.5
4.0 99 781
3.3 99 489
3.5 94 499
4.0 99 808
3.3 99
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 10
186 18 25 5 8 2 9
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1370
1 0.8
0.00 1343
0 0.3
0.03 595 537
2 6 12.3
0.08
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.8 A 0.3 A 11.2
11.2 B 12.3 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
2.1 32.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48
Future Volume (Veh/h) 48
EBR
29
29
WBL WBT
10 65
10 65
NBL NBR
51 18
18
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
52
Free
0%
0.92
32
0.92
11
0.92
71
Free
0%
0.92
55
51
Stop
0%
0.92 0.92
20
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
12.0 17
3.5 2
None
101 195 95
195 95 6.4 6.2
12.0 10
3.5 1
None
12.0 17
3.5 2
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free %
EB 1
84
WB 1 NB 1
82 75
1467
101 4.1
2.2 99 763
3.5 3.3 93 98 937
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 32 0 0 11 20 55
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.05 1700
0 0.0
0.01 1467
1 1.1
0.09 802
8 9.9
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 1.1 A 9.9 A
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
A
A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
3.5 24.1% 15 ICU Level of Service
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 Roundabout
3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.6 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 152 155 36 171 3.186 20 0.997 4.6 A
EB
Left
1 1 132 134 74 106 3.186 25 0.997 4.7 A
Left
1 1 34 34 146 45 3.186 25 0.997 4.1 A
Left
1 1 74 76 131 77 3.186 22 0.997 4.4 A
Designated Moves LT TR LTR LR Assumed Moves LT TR LTR LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 155 134 34 76 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1090 1049 976 991 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.983 0.987 0.980 Flow Entry, veh/h 152 132 34 74 Cap Entry, veh/h 1066 1028 960 968 V/C Ratio 0.143 0.128 0.035 0.077 Control Delay, s/veh 4.6 4.7 4.1 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
3.4 A
WB NB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 5 5 24 6 3.186 16 0.998 3.3 A
EB
Left
1 1 28 28 2 8 3.186 21 0.997 3.4 A
Left
1 1 9 9 1 28 3.186 21 0.997 3.3 A
Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 5 28 9 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1103 1128 1129 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.996 0.997 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 5 28 9 Cap Entry, veh/h 1096 1121 1126 V/C Ratio 0.005 0.025 0.008 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 Roundabout
5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.1 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 50 51 55 101 3.186 26 0.996 3.8 A
EB
Left
1 1 108 110 69 50 3.186 31 0.996 4.4 A
Left
1 1 72 73 46 60 3.186 31 0.996 4.0 A
Left
1 1 47 48 108 71 3.186 19 0.997 4.0 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 51 110 73 48 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1069 1055 1079 1014 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.986 0.985 0.987 Flow Entry, veh/h 50 108 72 47 Cap Entry, veh/h 1050 1035 1058 999 V/C Ratio 0.048 0.105 0.068 0.047 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 4.4 4.0 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.3 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 42 43 13 152 3.186 27 0.996 3.6 A
EB
Left
1 1 160 163 18 35 3.186 35 0.995 4.6 A
Left
1 1 5 5 48 7 3.186 35 0.995 3.4 A
Left
1 1 20 20 145 36 3.186 28 0.996 3.9 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 43 163 5 20 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1115 1110 1077 977 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.983 0.992 0.997 Flow Entry, veh/h 42 160 5 20 Cap Entry, veh/h 1098 1086 1063 971 V/C Ratio 0.039 0.148 0.005 0.021 Control Delay, s/veh 3.6 4.6 3.4 3.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.3 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 65 66 81 48 3.186 40 0.995 4.1 A
EB
Left
1 1 92 94 104 114 3.186 23 0.997 4.4 A
Left
1 1 110 112 106 41 3.186 34 0.995 4.6 A
Left
1 1 79 81 48 150 3.186 40 0.995 4.1 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 66 94 112 81 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1042 1018 1016 1077 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.982 0.984 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 65 92 110 79 Cap Entry, veh/h 1021 997 996 1051 V/C Ratio 0.064 0.093 0.111 0.076 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.1 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.4 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 8 8 170 5 3.186 17 0.998 3.9 A
EB
Left
1 1 2 2 37 17 3.186 7 0.999 3.3 A
Left
1 1 41 42 12 166 3.186 17 0.998 3.6 A
Left
1 1 168 171 4 35 3.186 17 0.998 4.6 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 8 2 42 171 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 953 1089 1116 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.998 1.000 0.986 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 8 2 41 168 Cap Entry, veh/h 949 1088 1098 1102 V/C Ratio 0.008 0.002 0.038 0.152 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 3.3 3.6 4.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6
HCM 2010 Roundabout
9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.0 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 41 42 39 34 3.186 11 0.998 3.7 A
EB
Left
1 1 38 38 73 74 3.186 11 0.998 3.8 A
Left
1 1 104 106 41 40 3.186 11 0.998 4.3 A
Left
1 1 34 35 39 72 3.186 9 0.999 3.6 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 42 38 106 35 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1087 1050 1085 1087 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.988 0.979 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 41 38 104 34 Cap Entry, veh/h 1070 1036 1060 1070 V/C Ratio 0.039 0.036 0.098 0.032 Control Delay, s/veh 3.7 3.8 4.3 3.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.3 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 130 132 158 161 3.186 11 0.998 5.1 A
EB
Left
1 1 127 129 199 86 3.186 21 0.997 5.3 A
Left
1 1 207 211 74 216 3.186 21 0.997 5.4 A
Left
1 1 147 149 170 158 3.186 18 0.998 5.3 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 132 129 211 149 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 965 926 1049 953 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.986 0.983 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 130 127 207 147 Cap Entry, veh/h 948 911 1029 935 V/C Ratio 0.137 0.140 0.202 0.157 Control Delay, s/veh 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8
HCM 2010 Roundabout
14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.8 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 63 64 128 89 3.186 8 0.999 4.3 A
EB
Left
1 1 6 6 216 14 3.186 5 0.999 4.0 A
Left
1 1 220 224 6 186 3.186 8 0.999 5.1 A
Left
1 1 122 124 93 129 3.186 7 0.999 4.7 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 64 6 224 124 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 994 910 1123 1030 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.997 0.980 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 63 6 220 122 Cap Entry, veh/h 977 907 1100 1009 V/C Ratio 0.064 0.007 0.200 0.121 Control Delay, s/veh 4.3 4.0 5.1 4.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.0 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 169 172 101 186 3.186 10 0.999 5.2 A
EB
Left
1 1 132 134 128 141 3.186 18 0.998 4.9 A
Left
1 1 134 137 132 141 3.186 18 0.998 5.0 A
Left
1 1 112 114 173 89 3.186 16 0.998 5.0 A
Designated Moves LTR LR TR LT Assumed Moves LTR LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 172 134 137 114 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1021 994 990 950 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.984 0.977 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 169 132 134 112 Cap Entry, veh/h 1003 975 965 935 V/C Ratio 0.169 0.135 0.139 0.120 Control Delay, s/veh 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.3 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 87 88 138 15 3.186 13 0.998 4.5 A
EB
Left
1 1 74 75 15 192 3.186 19 0.997 3.9 A
Left
1 1 77 78 129 97 3.186 19 0.997 4.4 A
Left
1 1 83 84 69 21 3.186 17 0.998 4.2 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 88 75 78 84 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 984 1113 993 1055 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 87 74 77 83 Cap Entry, veh/h 968 1093 976 1035 V/C Ratio 0.090 0.068 0.079 0.080 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 3.9 4.4 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/26/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
242
EBR WBL
24 40
WBT WBR
Stop
192 9
NBL
14
NBT
Stop
12
NBR
17
SBL
9
SBT
Stop
13
SBR
19
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
13
12
12
0.92
263
242
0.92
26
24
0.92
43
40
0.92
209
192
0.92 10
9 0.92 15
14 0.92 13
12 0.92 18
17 0.92 10
9 0.92 14
13 0.92 21
19 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
302
EB 1
13 26 -0.01 4.4 0.37
262
WB 1
43 10 0.04 4.5 0.33
46
NB 1
15 18 -0.14 5.1 0.07
45
SB 1
10 21 -0.20 5.0 0.06
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s)
Intersection Summary
B
791 10.0 10.0 A
768 9.7 9.7 A
626 8.5 8.5 A
630 8.4 8.4
Delay Level of Service 9.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 41.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/26/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Sign Control Stop
EBR
6
WBL WBT
Stop
2 231
NBL NBR
7
7
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
286
263
263
0.92
7
6
0.92
2
2
0.92
251
231
0.92
5
Stop 5 5 0.92 0.92 8
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
293
EB 1
0 7 0.02 4.2 0.34
253
WB 1
2 0 0.04 4.3 0.30
13
NB 1
5 8 -0.26 4.8 0.02
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
844 9.4 9.4 A
825 9.1 9.1 A
670 7.9 7.9
Delay
Intersection Summary
9.2 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 32.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/26/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5
Future Volume (Veh/h) 5
EBT
119
119
Free
EBR WBL
1 2
1 2
WBT WBR
112 10
112 10
Free
NBL
1
1
NBT
0
0
Stop
NBR
6
6
SBL
26
26
SBT
2
2
Stop
SBR
9
9
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
5
0.92
129
0%
0.92
1
0.92
2
0.92
122
0%
0.92
11
0.92
1
0.92
0
0%
0.92
7
0.92
28
0.92
2
0%
0.92
10
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
149
149 4.1
12.0 15
3.5 1
None
139
139 4.1
2.2 100
12.0 16
3.5 2
None
306 302 154 310 296 158
154 310 296 158 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 9
3.5 1
12.0 16
3.5 2
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1411
2.2 100
EB 1 WB 1
135
NB 1 SB 1
8 40 28
1432 609
306 7.1
3.5 100 594
302 6.5
4.0 100 870
3.3 99 605
3.5 95 598
4.0 100 861
3.3 99
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 1
135 5 11 2 7 1 10
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1411
0 0.3
0.00 1432
0 0.1
0.01 826 653
1 5 10.9
0.06
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.1 A 9.4
9.4 A 10.9 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
A B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
1.8 26.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/26/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41
Future Volume (Veh/h) 41
EBT
157
157
Free
EBR WBL
6 24
6 24
WBT WBR
109 42
109 42
Free
NBL
2
2
NBT
24
24
Stop
NBR
14
14
SBL
38
38
SBT
15
15
Stop
SBR
55
55
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
45
0.92
171
0%
0.92
7
0.92
26
0.92
118
0%
0.92
46
0.92
2
0.92
26
0%
0.92
15
0.92
41
0.92
16
0%
0.92
60
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
226
226 4.1
12.0 62
3.5 6
None
219
219 4.1
2.2
12.0 62
3.5 6
None
628 584 278 610 564 265
278 610 564 265 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 41
3.5 4
12.0 62
3.5 6
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1263
2.2 96
EB 1 WB 1
190
NB 1 SB 1
43 117 41
1298 98 280
628 7.1
3.5 99 362
584 6.5
4.0 93 688
3.3 98 296
3.5 86 371
4.0 96 685
3.3 91
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 7
223 45 46 26 15 2 60
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.04 1263
3 1.9
0.02 1298
2 1.2
0.10 427 435
8 27 16.3
0.27
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.9 A 1.2 A 14.4
14.4 B C 16.3 Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B C
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
5.5 38.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/26/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 101
Future Volume (Veh/h) 101
EBR
45
45
WBL WBT
33 51
33 51
NBL NBR
50 30
30
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
110
Free
0%
0.92
49
0.92
36
0.92
55
Free
0%
0.92
54
50
Stop
0%
0.92 0.92
33
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
12.0 9
3.5 1
None
168 280 152
280 152 6.4 6.2
12.0 8
3.5 1
None
12.0 9
3.5 1
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free %
EB 1
159
WB 1 NB 1
91 87
1398
168 4.1
2.2 97 680
3.5 3.3 92 96 880
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 49 0 0 36 33 54
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.09 1700
0 0.0
0.03 1398
2 3.1
0.12 744
10 10.5
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 3.1 A 10.5 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B
A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
3.6 31.0% 15 ICU Level of Service
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 Roundabout
3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/26/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
6.1 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 228 233 88 360 3.186 48 0.993 5.7 A
EB
Left
1 1 182 185 207 212 3.186 28 0.996 6.0 A
Left
1 1 226 230 189 132 3.186 48 0.993 6.5 A
Left
1 1 144 146 302 90 3.186 36 0.995 6.2 A
Designated Moves LT TR LTR LR Assumed Moves LT TR LTR LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 233 185 230 146 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1035 919 935 835 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.983 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 228 182 226 144 Cap Entry, veh/h 1008 900 914 820 V/C Ratio 0.227 0.202 0.248 0.176 Control Delay, s/veh 5.7 6.0 6.5 6.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/26/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
3.4 A
WB NB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 8 8 22 4 3.186 13 0.998 3.4 A
EB
Left
1 1 24 24 2 16 3.186 14 0.998 3.4 A
Left
1 1 13 13 5 25 3.186 14 0.998 3.3 A
Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 8 24 13 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1105 1128 1124 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.998 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 8 24 13 Cap Entry, veh/h 1090 1124 1122 V/C Ratio 0.007 0.021 0.012 Control Delay, s/veh 3.4 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 Roundabout
5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/26/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.6 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 59 60 89 154 3.186 13 0.998 4.0 A
EB
Left
1 1 159 162 81 53 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A
Left
1 1 80 81 53 96 3.186 12 0.998 4.1 A
Left
1 1 87 88 155 88 3.186 15 0.998 4.6 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 60 162 81 88 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1034 1042 1072 968 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.984 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 59 159 80 87 Cap Entry, veh/h 1020 1023 1053 952 V/C Ratio 0.058 0.156 0.076 0.091 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 4.9 4.1 4.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/26/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.1 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 67 68 115 206 3.186 19 0.997 4.2 A
EB
Left
1 1 223 228 29 147 3.186 27 0.996 5.3 A
Left
1 1 17 17 159 24 3.186 21 0.997 4.0 A
Left
1 1 120 122 199 58 3.186 27 0.996 5.2 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 68 228 17 122 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1007 1098 964 926 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.979 0.984 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 67 223 17 120 Cap Entry, veh/h 989 1071 946 905 V/C Ratio 0.068 0.208 0.018 0.132 Control Delay, s/veh 4.2 5.3 4.0 5.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/26/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.6 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 120 122 117 44 3.186 15 0.998 4.8 A
EB
Left
1 1 66 68 92 186 3.186 10 0.999 4.2 A
Left
1 1 97 98 180 59 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A
Left
1 1 122 124 37 123 3.186 15 0.998 4.4 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 122 68 98 124 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1005 1031 944 1089 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.975 0.985 0.984 Flow Entry, veh/h 120 66 97 122 Cap Entry, veh/h 987 1004 928 1069 V/C Ratio 0.122 0.066 0.104 0.114 Control Delay, s/veh 4.8 4.2 4.9 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/26/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.9 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 52 53 327 27 3.186 133 0.973 5.3 A
EB
Left
1 1 19 19 260 17 3.186 59 0.992 4.4 A
Left
1 1 228 232 45 335 3.186 133 0.968 5.6 A
Left
1 1 327 333 21 258 3.186 98 0.987 6.4 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 53 19 232 333 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 815 871 1080 1106 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.999 0.982 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 52 19 228 327 Cap Entry, veh/h 777 863 1027 1072 V/C Ratio 0.067 0.022 0.222 0.305 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 4.4 5.6 6.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6
HCM 2010 Roundabout
9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/26/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.3 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 59 60 121 73 3.186 4 0.999 4.2 A
EB
Left
1 1 81 82 64 110 3.186 5 0.999 4.1 A
Left
1 1 82 83 91 90 3.186 4 0.999 4.2 A
Left
1 1 109 111 83 63 3.186 5 0.999 4.5 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 60 82 83 111 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1001 1060 1032 1040 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.988 0.989 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 59 81 82 109 Cap Entry, veh/h 983 1047 1020 1017 V/C Ratio 0.060 0.077 0.080 0.107 Control Delay, s/veh 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.5 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/26/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
6.3 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 170 173 258 176 3.186 17 0.998 6.2 A
EB
Left
1 1 111 113 257 152 3.186 15 0.998 5.5 A
Left
1 1 262 267 142 289 3.186 14 0.998 6.5 A
Left
1 1 234 238 196 174 3.186 17 0.998 6.6 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 173 113 267 238 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 873 874 980 929 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.980 0.982 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 170 111 262 234 Cap Entry, veh/h 855 855 960 911 V/C Ratio 0.199 0.130 0.273 0.257 Control Delay, s/veh 6.2 5.5 6.5 6.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8
HCM 2010 Roundabout
14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/26/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.2 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 154 157 216 67 3.186 19 0.997 5.8 A
EB
Left
1 1 22 22 177 4 3.186 15 0.998 4.0 A
Left
1 1 174 177 4 369 3.186 13 0.998 4.7 A
Left
1 1 198 202 81 118 3.186 19 0.997 5.4 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 157 22 177 202 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 910 947 1125 1042 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.996 0.982 0.980 Flow Entry, veh/h 154 22 174 198 Cap Entry, veh/h 890 940 1103 1019 V/C Ratio 0.173 0.023 0.158 0.194 Control Delay, s/veh 5.8 4.0 4.7 5.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/26/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
6.0 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 264 270 157 156 3.186 22 0.997 6.7 A
EB
Left
1 1 133 137 192 191 3.186 27 0.996 5.4 A
Left
1 1 182 185 198 228 3.186 15 0.998 5.9 A
Left
1 1 150 152 161 168 3.186 27 0.996 5.3 A
Designated Moves LTR LR TR LT Assumed Moves LTR LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 270 137 185 152 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 966 933 927 962 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.977 0.974 0.983 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 264 133 182 150 Cap Entry, veh/h 941 905 909 944 V/C Ratio 0.280 0.147 0.200 0.159 Control Delay, s/veh 6.7 5.4 5.9 5.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/26/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.0 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 23 23 132 78 3.186 23 0.997 3.9 A
EB
Left
1 1 233 238 40 148 3.186 20 0.997 5.5 A
Left
1 1 148 150 38 117 3.186 22 0.997 4.6 A
Left
1 1 38 39 172 106 3.186 23 0.997 4.3 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 23 238 150 39 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 990 1086 1088 951 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.978 0.984 0.968 Flow Entry, veh/h 23 233 148 38 Cap Entry, veh/h 976 1059 1067 918 V/C Ratio 0.023 0.220 0.138 0.041 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 5.5 4.6 4.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/23/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Sign Control
EBT
Stop
7 240
EBR WBL
19 12
WBT WBR
Stop
209 7
NBL
32
NBT
Stop
6
NBR
26
SBL
9
SBT
Stop
2
SBR
5
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
8
7
0.92
261
240
0.92
21
19
0.92
13
12
0.92
227
209
0.92 8
7 0.92 35
32 0.92 7
6 0.92 28
26 0.92 10
9 0.92 2
2 0.92 5
5 0.92
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
290
EB 1
8 21 0.00 4.4 0.35
248
WB 1
13 8 0.03 4.5 0.31
70
NB 1
35 28 -0.11 5.0 0.10
17
SB 1
10 5 -0.02 5.2 0.02
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
796 9.8 9.8 A
776 9.4 9.4 A
645 8.6 8.6 A
610 8.3 8.3
Delay
Intersection Summary
9.5 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/23/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Sign Control Stop
EBR
4
WBL WBT
Stop
2 213
NBL NBR
5
5
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Traffic Volume (vph)
Future Volume (vph)
Peak Hour Factor
298
274
274
0.92
4
4
0.92
2
2
0.92
232
213
0.92
0
Stop 0 0 0.92 0.92 5
Volume Total (vph)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x
302
EB 1
0 4 0.03 4.2 0.35
234
WB 1
2 0 0.04 4.2 0.28
5
NB 1
0 5 -0.57 4.5 0.01
Approach LOS
Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A
853 9.4 9.4 A
829 8.8 8.8 A
716 7.5 7.5
Delay
Intersection Summary
9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 28.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/23/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13
Future Volume (Veh/h) 13
EBT
105
105
Free
EBR WBL
4 4
4 4
WBT WBR
81 12
81 12
Free
NBL
1
1
NBT
2
2
Stop
NBR
4
4
SBL
12
12
SBT
2
2
Stop
SBR
4
4
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
14
0.92
114
0%
0.92
4
0.92
4
0.92
88
0%
0.92
13
0.92
1
0.92
2
0%
0.92
4
0.92
13
0.92
2
0%
0.92
4
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
115
115 4.1
12.0 15
3.5 1
None
133
133 4.1
2.2 100
12.0 12
3.5 1
None
282 282 143 278 278 124
143 278 278 124 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 15
3.5 1
12.0 14
3.5 1
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1454
2.2 99
EB 1 WB 1
105
NB 1 SB 1
7 19 13
1431 628
282 7.1
3.5 100 602
282 6.5
4.0 100 881
3.3 100 634
3.5 98 605
4.0 100 902
3.3 100
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 4
132 14 13 4 4 1 4
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1454
1 0.9
0.00 1431
0 0.3
0.01 740 673
1 2 10.5
0.03
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 9.9
9.9 A 10.5 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
A B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
1.6 25.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/23/2016
Lane Configurations
Movement EBL
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20
Future Volume (Veh/h) 20
EBT
170
170
Free
EBR WBL
11 6
11 6
WBT WBR
156 27
156 27
Free
NBL
2
2
NBT
7
7
Stop
NBR
8
8
SBL
31
31
SBT
5
5
Stop
SBR
9
9
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
22
0.92
185
0%
0.92
12
0.92
7
0.92
170
0%
0.92
29
0.92
2
0.92
8
0%
0.92
9
0.92
34
0.92
5
0%
0.92
10
0.92
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
217
217 4.1
12.0 32
3.5 3
None
229
229 4.1
2.2
12.0 32
3.5 3
None
510 498 255 496 490 234
255 496 490 234 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
12.0 32
3.5 3
12.0 18
3.5 2
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1329
2.2 98
EB 1 WB 1
206
NB 1 SB 1
19 49 34
1298 99 413
510 7.1
3.5 100 442
498 6.5
4.0 98 737
3.3 99 426
3.5 92 447
4.0 99 767
3.3 99
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 12
219 22 29 7 9 2 10
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.02 1329
1 0.9
0.01 1298
0 0.3
0.04 540 471
3 9 13.5
0.10
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 11.9
11.9 B 13.5 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B B
Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
2.3 36.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2/23/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd
Lane Configurations
Movement EBT
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56
Future Volume (Veh/h) 56
EBR
34
34
WBL WBT
12 76
12 76
NBL NBR
60 21
21
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
61
Free
0%
0.92
37
0.92
13
0.92
83
Free
0%
0.92
65
60
Stop
0%
0.92 0.92
23
Lane Width (ft)
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol
12.0 20
3.5 2
None
118 228 112
228 112 6.4 6.2
12.0 12
3.5 1
None
12.0 20
3.5 2
cM capacity (veh/h)
vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free %
EB 1
98
WB 1 NB 1
96 88
1442
118 4.1
2.2 99 724
3.5 3.3 91 97 913
Volume Right
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total Volume Left 37 0 0 13 23 65
Volume to Capacity cSH
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.06 1700
0 0.0
0.01 1442
1 1.1
0.11 766
10 10.3
Approach Delay (s)
Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 1.1 A 10.3 B
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
B
A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min)
3.6 25.7% 15 ICU Level of Service
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 Roundabout
3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.8 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 179 182 44 202 3.186 24 0.997 4.9 A
EB
Left
1 1 156 159 88 125 3.186 29 0.996 5.0 A
Left
1 1 39 40 173 53 3.186 29 0.996 4.2 A
Left
1 1 89 91 155 92 3.186 26 0.996 4.7 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 182 159 40 91 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1081 1035 950 968 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.983 0.986 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 179 156 39 89 Cap Entry, veh/h 1058 1013 934 947 V/C Ratio 0.169 0.154 0.042 0.094 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 5.0 4.2 4.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
3.5 A
WB NB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 6 6 29 7 3.186 19 0.997 3.3 A
EB
Left
1 1 33 34 2 9 3.186 25 0.997 3.6 A
Left
1 1 10 10 1 34 3.186 25 0.997 3.3 A
Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 6 34 10 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1098 1128 1129 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.997 0.968 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 6 33 10 Cap Entry, veh/h 1091 1088 1125 V/C Ratio 0.005 0.030 0.009 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.6 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2
HCM 2010 Roundabout
5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.3 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 58 59 65 117 3.186 31 0.996 4.0 A
EB
Left
1 1 126 128 81 58 3.186 36 0.995 4.6 A
Left
1 1 84 85 54 70 3.186 36 0.995 4.1 A
Left
1 1 56 57 125 84 3.186 22 0.997 4.2 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 59 128 85 57 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1059 1042 1071 997 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.986 0.985 0.987 Flow Entry, veh/h 58 126 84 56 Cap Entry, veh/h 1039 1022 1049 982 V/C Ratio 0.056 0.123 0.080 0.057 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 4.6 4.1 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.6 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 50 51 16 178 3.186 32 0.996 3.7 A
EB
Left
1 1 189 192 22 42 3.186 41 0.994 4.9 A
Left
1 1 6 6 58 9 3.186 41 0.994 3.5 A
Left
1 1 24 24 170 44 3.186 33 0.995 4.0 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 51 192 6 24 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1112 1105 1066 953 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.983 0.993 0.997 Flow Entry, veh/h 50 189 6 24 Cap Entry, veh/h 1094 1081 1053 946 V/C Ratio 0.046 0.175 0.006 0.025 Control Delay, s/veh 3.7 4.9 3.5 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.6 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 77 78 95 55 3.186 47 0.994 4.3 A
EB
Left
1 1 107 109 121 134 3.186 27 0.996 4.7 A
Left
1 1 128 130 125 48 3.186 40 0.995 4.9 A
Left
1 1 93 95 55 175 3.186 47 0.994 4.2 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 78 109 130 95 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1028 1001 997 1069 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.984 0.984 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 77 107 128 93 Cap Entry, veh/h 1006 981 976 1045 V/C Ratio 0.076 0.109 0.131 0.089 Control Delay, s/veh 4.3 4.7 4.9 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.6 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 10 10 199 6 3.186 20 0.997 4.0 A
EB
Left
1 1 2 2 44 19 3.186 8 0.999 3.3 A
Left
1 1 48 49 14 195 3.186 20 0.997 3.7 A
Left
1 1 197 201 4 42 3.186 20 0.997 4.9 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 10 2 49 201 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 926 1081 1114 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.998 1.000 0.985 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 10 2 48 197 Cap Entry, veh/h 922 1080 1095 1102 V/C Ratio 0.011 0.002 0.044 0.179 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 3.3 3.7 4.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6
HCM 2010 Roundabout
9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.1 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 49 50 46 40 3.186 13 0.998 3.8 A
EB
Left
1 1 44 45 86 87 3.186 13 0.998 3.9 A
Left
1 1 122 124 49 47 3.186 13 0.998 4.4 A
Left
1 1 39 40 46 85 3.186 11 0.998 3.7 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 50 45 124 40 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1079 1037 1076 1079 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.987 0.981 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 49 44 122 39 Cap Entry, veh/h 1062 1022 1053 1062 V/C Ratio 0.046 0.043 0.115 0.037 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.9 4.4 3.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.8 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 153 156 186 187 3.186 13 0.998 5.5 A
EB
Left
1 1 149 151 232 101 3.186 25 0.997 5.8 A
Left
1 1 242 246 87 255 3.186 25 0.997 5.8 A
Left
1 1 173 176 197 186 3.186 21 0.997 5.8 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 156 151 246 176 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 938 896 1036 928 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.986 0.984 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 153 149 242 173 Cap Entry, veh/h 917 881 1015 910 V/C Ratio 0.167 0.169 0.238 0.190 Control Delay, s/veh 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.8 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8
HCM 2010 Roundabout
14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.1 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 74 75 151 104 3.186 9 0.999 4.5 A
EB
Left
1 1 8 8 255 17 3.186 6 0.999 4.2 A
Left
1 1 259 264 8 218 3.186 9 0.999 5.5 A
Left
1 1 142 145 110 153 3.186 8 0.999 5.0 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 75 8 264 145 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 972 876 1121 1012 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.998 0.981 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 74 8 259 142 Cap Entry, veh/h 956 873 1099 991 V/C Ratio 0.077 0.009 0.236 0.143 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 4.2 5.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
5.5 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 199 203 118 220 3.186 12 0.998 5.6 A
EB
Left
1 1 155 158 152 166 3.186 21 0.997 5.3 A
Left
1 1 159 162 156 165 3.186 21 0.997 5.4 A
Left
1 1 131 134 204 106 3.186 19 0.997 5.4 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 203 158 162 134 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1004 971 967 921 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.984 0.980 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 199 155 159 131 Cap Entry, veh/h 981 952 944 900 V/C Ratio 0.202 0.163 0.168 0.146 Control Delay, s/veh 5.6 5.3 5.4 5.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10
HCM 2010 Roundabout
2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS
Approach
4.5 A
WB NB SB
Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS
Lane Left
1 1 103 106 162 17 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A
EB
Left
1 1 87 88 17 227 3.186 22 0.997 4.0 A
Left
1 1 90 91 153 115 3.186 22 0.997 4.6 A
Left
1 1 97 98 81 24 3.186 20 0.997 4.4 A
Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 106 88 91 98 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 961 1111 970 1042 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.976 0.987 0.987 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 103 87 90 97 Cap Entry, veh/h 936 1093 954 1024 V/C Ratio 0.111 0.079 0.094 0.094 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 4.0 4.6 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0
Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11
Attachment D -
Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and
Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards
Staff Report
Attachment D – Parking Occupancy Study
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Table 1: Bryant Street Bike Boulevard
# of Average ProposedFeet of Available Percentage Spaces ExpectedCars ParkingParking Space Parking of Use Lost UtilizationObserved SpacesSpacesBlock Segment
Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Palo Alto Ave (southside)
Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Hawthorne Ave (southside)
Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Everett Ave (southside)
Everett Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside)
Everett Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside)
Bryant St Everett Ave to 335 driveway (southside)
Bryant St Channing Ave to Addison Ave (southside)
Addison Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside)
Addison Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside)
Bryant St Addison Ave to Lincoln Ave (southside)
Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Kingsley Ave (southside)
Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside)
Kingsley Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside)
Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Embarcadero Rd (southside)
Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kellogg Ave (southside)
Lowell Ave Bryant St to Emerson St (westside)
Lowell Ave Emerson St to Bryant St (eastside)
Bryant St Santa Rita Ave to Washington Ave (southside)
Bryant St Washington Ave to California Ave (southside)
California Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside)
California Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside)
Bryant St California Ave to Oregon Expy (southside)
El Verano Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside)
El Verano Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside)
El Verano Ave Bryant St to South Ct (eastside)
El Verano Ave South Ct to Bryant St (westside)
Bryant St Oregon Expy to California Ave (northside)
Bryant St California Ave to Santa Rita Ave (northside)
California Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside)
88.00 4 0 0.0% 2 2 0%
487.00 22 9.25 41.8% 20 2 46%
274.00 12 8.25 66.2% 11 1 72%
112.00 5 5 98.2% 4 1 122%
139.00 6 6.25 98.9% 5 1 118%
196.00 9 7.5 84.2% 8 1 95%
256.00 12 9.75 83.8% 10 2 101%
157.00 7 3 42.0% 5 2 58%
181.00 8 3.5 42.5% 6 2 56%
335.00 15 5.75 37.8% 13 2 43%
387.00 18 7.25 41.2% 15 3 50%
207.00 9 3 31.9% 6 3 47%
165.00 8 0.75 10.0% 5 3 17%
253.00 12 3.25 28.3% 7 5 50%
264.00 12 5.5 45.8% 12 0 46%
424.00 19 8.5 44.1% 17 2 49%
370.00 17 10 59.5% 15 2 67%
362.00 16 5.5 33.4% 16 0 33%
105.00 5 1.5 31.4% 3 2 54%
176.00 8 0.5 6.3% 6 2 8%
206.00 9 0 0.0% 7 2 0%
432.00 20 5.75 29.3% 18 2 33%
215.00 10 1.25 12.8% 8 2 16%
192.00 9 1 11.5% 7 2 15%
211.00 10 2.25 23.5% 8 2 30%
204.00 9 0.5 5.4% 7 2 7%
513.00 23 6.25 26.8% 21 2 29%
1600.00 73 12.5 17.2% 71 2 18%
300.00 14 0.7 4.9% 12 2 6%
17
# of Average ProposedFeet of Available Percentage Spaces ExpectedCars ParkingParking Space Parking of Use Lost UtilizationObserved SpacesSpacesBlock Segment
California Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (westside)
Lowell Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside)
Lowell Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (westside)
Bryant St Kellogg Ave to Embarcadero Rd (northside)
Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kingsley Ave (northside)
Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (eastside)
Kinglsey Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside)
Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Lincoln Ave (northside)
Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Addison Ave (northside)
Addison Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (eastside)
Addison Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside)
Bryant St Addison Ave to Channing Ave (northside)
Bryant St mixed use building to Everett Ave (northside)
Everett Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside)*
Everett Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside)
Bryant St Everett Ave to Hawthorn Ave (northside)
Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Poe St (northside)
Poe St Bryant St to Palo Alto Ave (eastside)
Poe St Palo Alto Ave to Bryant St (westside)
Bryant St Poe St to Palo Alto Ave (northside)
387.00 18 8.3 47.4% 16 2 53%
421.00 19 4.3 22.6% 17 2 25%
415.00 19 3.3 17.7% 17 2 20%
255.00 12 1.75 15.1% 10 2 18%
237.00 11 2.5 23.2% 5 6 52%
425.00 19 15.25 78.9% 16 3 93%
410.00 19 13.25 71.1% 16 3 85%
332.00 15 5.25 34.8% 12 3 43%
313.00 14 6.75 47.4% 12 2 55%
400.00 18 7.5 41.3% 16 2 46%
334.00 15 7.5 49.4% 13 2 57%
340.00 15 12.25 79.3% 13 2 91%
166.00 8 5.75 76.2% 7 1 88%
177.00 8 12.5 155.4% 7 1 177%
346.00 16 11.75 74.7% 15 1 80%
250.00 11 9 79.2% 10 1 87%
371.00 17 14.5 86.0% 17 0 86%
388.00 18 4.75 26.9% 18 0 27%
281.00 13 2.25 17.6% 13 0 18%
131 6 0.5 8.4% 2 4 26%
TOTAL 15,190.00 690.5 279 40.4% 595 95 47%
Survey Times
Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 24, 2016 at 12:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Weekend as surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 12:00 pm (between 8am and 5pm)
Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am)
Daytime #1 for select locations were surveyed on March 1, 2016 at 10:00 AM
(California btwn Bryant and Waverely; Lowell Ave btwn Bryant and Waverley)
Notes
1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces.
2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas.
3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification.
4) California Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm.
5) *A high number of compact cars were observed on Everett Street (Bryant Street to Waverley Street - east side) which culminated in
more parkings spaces observed than typically available when estimated at 22 feet per space.
18
Table 2: Ross Road Bike Boulevard
# ofFeet of Average ProposedAvailable Percentage Spaces ExpectedParking Cars ParkingParking of Use Lost UtilizationSpace Observed SpacesBlock Segment Spaces
Ross Rd Oregon Expy to Moreno Ave (southside)
Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Rosewood Dr (southside)
Ross Rd Rosewood Dr to Colorado Ave (southside)
Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Randers Ct (westside)
Colorado Ave Randers Ct to Ross Rd (eastside)
Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Sutter Ave (southside)
Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Clara Dr (southside)
Ross Rd Clara Dr to Stern Ave (southside)
Ross Rd Stern Ave to Allen Ct (southside)
Ross Rd Allen Ct to Loma Verde Ave (southside)
Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Loma Verde Pl (westside)
Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Pl to Ross Rd (eastside)
Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Ames Ave (southside)
Ross Rd Ames Ave to Stone Ln (southside)
Ross Rd Stone Ln to Talisman Dr (northside)
Talisman Dr Ross Rd to bend in road (westside)
Talisman Dr bend in road to Ross Rd (eastside)
Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Christine Dr (southside)
Ross Rd Christine Dr to Meadow Dr (southside)
Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Mayview Ave (southside)
Ross Rd Mayview Ave to Corina Wy (southside)
Ross Rd W Corina Wy to E Corina Wy (southside)
Ross Rd E Corina Wy to Louis Rd (southside)
Ross Rd Louis Rd to Nathan Wy (southside)
Ross Rd Nathan Wy to Louis Rd (northside)
Ross Rd Louis Rd to Corina Wy (northside)
Ross Rd Corina Wy to Ramos Park Path (northside)
Ross Rd Ramos Park Path to Meadow Dr (northside)
Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Talisman Dr (northside)
Talisman Dr Ross to Arbutus Ave (eastside)
Talisman Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (westside)
Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Ames Ave (northside)
Ross Rd Ames Ave to Richardson Ct (northside)
Ross Rd Richardson Ct to Ross Ct (northside)
Ross Rd Ross Ct to Loma Verde Ave (northside)
Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Manchester Ct (eastside)
Loma Verde Ave Manchester Ct to Ross Rd (westside)
Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Wintergreen Wy (northside)
Ross Rd Wintergreen Wy to Clara Dr (northside)
Ross Rd Clara Dr to Sutter Ave (northside)
402.00 18 4.75 26.0% 16 2 29%
176.00 8 0.5 6.3% 5 3 10%
548.00 25 7 28.1% 23 2 31%
138.00 6 0.25 4.0% 5 1 5%
68.00 3 0 0.0% 1 2 0%
155.00 7 1.5 21.3% 5 2 30%
151.00 7 0.75 10.9% 5 2 15%
354.00 16 2.75 17.1% 14 2 20%
180.00 8 2.25 27.5% 2 6 103%
386.00 18 5.5 31.3% 15 3 38%
225.00 10 2.25 22.0% 8 2 27%
201.00 9 0 0.0% 7 2 0%
488.00 22 4 18.0% 19 3 21%
405.00 18 7.5 40.7% 13 5 56%
227.00 10 1.75 17.0% 9 1 19%
255.00 12 2.5 21.6% 11 1 24%
282.00 13 2 15.6% 11 2 18%
183.00 8 0.5 6.0% 7 1 7%
275.00 13 4.5 36.0% 12 1 39%
284.00 13 3.25 25.2% 13 0 25%
102.00 5 1.25 27.0% 5 0 27%
317.00 14 1.75 12.1% 13 1 13%
148.00 7 0.25 3.7% 4 3 7%
129.00 6 0.5 8.5% 6 0 9%
125.00 6 0.25 4.4% 5 1 5%
141.00 6 0.75 11.7% 3 3 22%
453.00 21 5.25 25.5% 20 1 27%
332.00 15 5.5 36.4% 14 1 39%
445.00 20 4 19.8% 19 1 21%
190.00 9 3.25 37.6% 8 1 43%
172.00 8 1.5 19.2% 7 1 22%
779.00 35 10.5 29.7% 32 3 32%
95.00 4 1 23.2% 3 1 30%
145.00 7 0 0.0% 7 0 0%
184.00 8 0 0.0% 6 2 0%
106.00 5 0 0.0% 3 2 0%
122.00 6 2 36.1% 4 2 56%
793.00 36 6.5 18.0% 30 6 22%
173.00 8 0.75 9.5% 8 0 10%
220.00 10 0.25 2.5% 8 2 3%
19
Block Segment
Feet of
Parking
Space
# of
Available
Parking
Spaces
Average
Cars
Observed
Percentage
of Use
Proposed
Parking
Spaces
Spaces
Lost
Expected
Utilization
Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Colorado Ave (northside) 177.00 8 0 0.0% 6 2 0%
Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Sevyson Ct (eastside) 432.00 20 0 0.0% 18 2 0%
Colorado Ave Sevyson Ct to Ross Rd (westside) 492.00 22 7.5 33.5% 20 2 37%
Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Marshall Dr (northside) 381.00 17 4.75 27.4% 16 1 29%
Ross Rd Marshall Dr to Moreno Ave (northside) 274.00 12 3.75 30.1% 10 2 36%
Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Oregon Expy (northside) 447.00 20 6.75 33.2% 18 2 37%
TOTAL 12,757.00 579.9 121.5 21.0% 495 85 25%
Survey Times
Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 23, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Weekend as surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am)
Notes
1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces
2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas.
3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification
4) Louis Road is no parking on the north side of street from 7 am - 7 pm.
5) Colorado Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm.
6) Loma Verde Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm.
20
Table 3: Moreno-Amarillo Avenues Bike Boulevard
# ofFeet of Average ProposedAvailable Percentage Spaces ExpectedParking Cars ParkingParking of Use Lost UtilizationSpace Observed SpacesBlock Segment Spaces
Moreno Ave Rosewood Dr to Ross Rd (eastside)
Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Marshall Dr (eastside)
Moreno Ave Marshall Dr to Ross Rd (westside)
Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Coastland Dr (westside)
Moreno Ave Coastland Dr to Rosewood Dr (westside)
Amarillo Ave Louis Rd to Ohlone Elem driveway (eastside)
Amarillo Ave Ohlone Elem driveway to Greer Rd (eastside)
Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Greer Park Pathway (eastside)
Amarillo Ave Greer Park Pathway to W Bayshore Rd (eastside)
Amarillo Ave W Bayshore Rd to N Tanland Dr (westside)
Amarillo Ave N Tanland Dr to S Tanland Dr (westside)
Amarillo Ave S Tanland Dr to Greer Rd (westside)
Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Louis Rd (westside)
Louis Rd Moreno Ave to Fielding Dr (southside)
Louis Rd Fielding Dr to Bruce Dr (southside)
Louis Rd Bruce Dr to Amarillo Ave (northside)
Louis Rd Amarillo Ave to Moreno Ave (northside)
357.00 16 1.25 7.7% 14 2 9%
172.00 8 0.75 9.6% 6 2 13%
162.00 7 0.5 6.8% 5 2 9%
217.00 10 2.25 22.8% 8 2 29%
113.00 5 0.75 14.6% 5 0 15%
206.00 9 2.75 29.4% 0 9 #DIV/0!
311.00 14 4.25 30.1% 13 1 33%
559.00 25 4.5 17.7% 24 1 19%
640.00 29 14.5 49.8% 18 11 81%
223.00 10 8 78.9% 5 5 160%
197.00 9 5.25 58.6% 7 2 75%
473.00 22 10.75 50.0% 20 2 54%
702.00 32 10.25 32.1% 16 16 64%
200.00 9 0 0.0% 0 9 0%
206.00 9 4.75 50.7% 9 0 51%
67.00 3 0 0.0% 3 0 0%
124.00 6 0 0.0% 6 0 0%
TOTAL 4,929.00 224 70.5 31.5% 160 65 44%
Survey Times
Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am)
Notes
1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces
2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas.
3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification
4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm
5) Amarillo from Louis next to Ohlone has one no parking space from 7 am to 4 pm M-F. A maintenance truck was parked in that spot Daytime #1
6) Amarillo north of Ohlone, the first house has a no parking sign from 7 am to 4 pm M-F.
21
Table 4: Meadow-Louis-Montrose Bike Boulevard
Feet of # of Available Average ProposedPercentage Spaces ExpectedParking Parking Cars Parkingof Use Lost UtilizationSpace Spaces Observed SpacesBlock Segment
Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Arbutus Ave (eastside)
Meadow Dr Ortega Ct to Louis Rd (westside)
Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Meadow Cir (eastside)
Meadow Cir Meadow Dr to Paloma St (eastside)
Meadow Cir Paloma St to Meadow Cir (westside)
Meadow Cir Meadow Cir to Loral Space Systems (1085) (northside)
Meadow Cir Loral Space Systems to Meadow Dr (southside)
Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Fabian Wy (southside)
Meadow Dr Fabian Wy to Meadow Cir (northside)
Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Louis Rd (westside)
Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Ortega Ct (eastside)
Meadow Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (westside)
Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Grove Ave (westside)
Meadow Dr Grove Ave to Ross Rd (eastside)
Montrose Ave Middlefield Rd to Sutherland Dr (westside)
Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Seminole Wy (westside)
Montrose Ave Seminole Wy to Charleston Rd (westside)
Louis Rd Charleston Rd to Bibbits Dr (westside)
Louis Rd Bibbits Dr to Charleston Rd (eastside)
Montrose Ave Charleston Rd to Sutherland Dr (eastside)
Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Middlefield Rd (eastside)
Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Corina Wy (southside)
Louis Rd Corina Wy to Meadow Dr (northside)
Louis Rd Aspen Wy to Meadow Dr (northside)
Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Aspen Wy (southside)
106.00 5 1.75 36.3% 4 1 46%
143.00 7 0.75 11.5% 6 1 14%
867.00 39 9.25 23.5% 38 1 24%
282.00 13 8.5 66.3% 13 0 66%
293.00 13 7 52.6% 12 1 57%
342.00 16 2.75 17.7% 16 0 18%
355.00 16 3.25 20.1% 15 1 21%
381.00 17 0.25 1.4% 17 0 1%
342.00 16 14.75 94.9% 16 0 95%
445.00 20 9 44.5% 19 1 47%
148.00 7 1.75 26.0% 6 1 31%
112.00 5 0 0.0% 3 2 0%
386.00 18 4 22.8% 17 1 24%
365.00 17 0.75 4.5% 15 2 5%
170.00 8 1.25 16.2% 8 0 16%
700.00 32 10.75 33.8% 32 0 34%
158.00 7 0.75 10.4% 7 0 11%
101.00 5 1.5 32.7% 4 1 38%
116.00 5 0 0.0% 0 5 #DIV/0!
736.00 33 11.25 33.6% 31 2 36%
170.00 8 2.75 35.6% 8 0 34%
106.00 5 0 0.0% 5 0 0%
139.00 6 0 0.0% 5 1 0%
584.00 27 0.25 0.9% 27 0 1%
596.00 27 6.5 24.0% 26 1 25%
TOTAL 8,143.00 370.1 98.75 26.7% 348 22 28%
Survey Times
Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am)
Notes
1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces.
2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas.
3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification.
4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm
22
Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and
Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards
Staff Report
Attachment E – Concept Plans
Attachment F -
C E Q A N O T I C E O F E X E M P T I O N
To: Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder From: City of Palo Alto
70 West Hedding Street, First Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue
San Jose, CA 95110 Palo Alto, CA 94301
Project Title: Bicycle Boulevards – Bryant Street, Moreno-Amarillo Avenues, and Ross Road
Project Location: Several streets throughout the City of Palo Alto, including Bryant Street (Palo Alto to East
Meadow), Moreno Avenue (Middlefield to Louis), Louis Road (Moreno to Amarillo), Amarillo Avenue (Louis to
West Bayshore), and Ross Road (Garland to East Meadow)
Project Location – City: Palo Alto Project Location – County: Santa Clara
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Palo Alto
Description of Project: This project will make bicycle and pedestrian improvements to multiple existing roadways.
Improvements include new bicycle boulevard striping, wayfinding and safety signs, crosswalks, median and
landscape islands, bulb-outs, stop control modification, traffic circles within existing rights-of-way, new tree
plantings, speed humps, and raised intersections. No trees will be removed and all work will occur within the
existing public right-of-way.
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Palo Alto
Exempt Status: Class 1, Section 15301, Existing Facilities: Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance,
permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical
equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time
of the lead agency’s determination.
Reasons why Project is Exempt: The project is limited to minor alteration of existing roadways. The work will
facilitate bicycle and pedestrian use and will not increase the roadway capacities.
Per Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that the project is not located on a hazardous
waste site, would not result in a significant impact due to unusual circumstances, damage scenic resources, affect a
historic resource, or result in a cumulative impact. For these reasons and those stated above, the project is exempt
from the provisions of CEQA.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Josh Mello Phone Number:
Signature: John Hesler Date:
Title: Senior Environmental
Specialist
Attachment G -
Bryant Street, Ross Road, Louis-Montrose and
Amarillo- Moreno Bicycle Boulevards
Staff Report
Attachment G – March 29, 2016 Public Meeting
Summary
On March 29, 2016, The City of Palo Alto staff with help from Alta Planning + Design (Alta), the consultant
team, held a public meeting to present the concept plans for four bicycle boulevards: Amarillo Avenue &
Moreno Avenues, Bryant Street, Louis Road & Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road. The meeting was held
at Ohlone Elementary School from 6:30-8:30 PM. 61 people were recorded in attendance. The meeting
began with a presentation by the City of Palo Alto and Alta staff. The presentation focused on why these
projects are important to the city, previous meetings held for this project, how the concept plans have
changed based on public feedback at previous meetings, some technical aspects of bicycle boulevard
treatments, and the comment cards available to record comments.
Participants were invited to ask clarifying and process questions, but save corridor specific questions and
comments for the individual discussions. Several questions were raised, many regarding the proposed
mini-roundabouts and their efficacy. City staff directed attendees to the Federal Highway Administration’s
website on proven safety countermeasures (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/) for data
and research to support the use of roundabouts in Palo Alto.
After the presentation, attendees were directed to the back of the room where the concept plans were
presented on tables by corridor. Comment cards and pens were available at each table for attendees to
provide feedback. The comments provided by participants were scanned as written and are attached to this
document. Several emails and a flyer that was distributed before the event are also attached. Common
themes expressed on the comment cards are below. General comments are presented first, followed by
corridor-specific comments.
General Comments
The proposed designs are great and thank you for listening to us (9)
The proposed roundabouts are welcome (10)
The proposed removal of stop signs in favor of roundabouts does not seem safe for pedestrians
(2)
Palo Alto should be more bold with these designs (2)
More education should be done for all roadway users on these treatments (3)
The proposed raised intersections are welcome and should be implemented elsewhere (3)
When implementing these plans, do not add too many signs. Signs are an urban blight and can
distract from the roadway (3)
The proposed slotted speed bumps are welcome (2)
Amarillo Avenue & Moreno Avenues
The increase in landscaping along Amarillo is welcome (4)
The removal of parking on Amarillo near Greer Park should be mitigated by adding more parking
to the parking lot nearby (2)
Two attendees mentioned the proposed mini-roundabout at Ross at Moreno. One was in favor and
one was opposed.
Bryant Street
The proposed roundabout at Bryant at California was a major topic for discussion. Some attendees
commented that a roundabout at this intersection is a safety concern and will not work as intended
(6). Other attendees were in favor of the design and noted that it will go a long way to make all
roadway users feel safe (5).
The proposed parking removal near the First Baptist Church is worrisome due to the large number
of Sunday and nighttime events (4)
Louis Road & Montrose Avenue
The proposed roundabouts are welcome (1)
Although not technically part of this project, the concept plans note to consider relocating the
existing crossing and bus stop from the driveway into Walgreens to Moreno as a potential future
project. One person was in favor of this and two were against
Ross Road
The proposed landscaping on Ross in front of the YMCA parking lot should be kept short for
maximum visibility (2)
The existing traffic signal at Ross and Oregon Expressway is not timed for bicyclists even though
bicyclists are the only ones that use the signal. This light should either be removed or retimed (2)
Keep the stop signs on Ross at Ames (2)
In addition to the comments received about the project corridors, there were two comments made about
other projects or policy issues. Specifically:
Charleston Road. Although not a part of this project, two comments were made about the markings
along Charleston Road needing to be reworked.
Trash Pickup Policy. The new policy regarding leaving trash cans in bike lanes is hazardous for all
roadway users as bicyclists must swerve out of the bike lane into the vehicle lane to not run into
them (2)
Event Photos
RE: Bryant street blvd
Mello, Joshuah to me, jonathanschuppert@altaplanning.com 4:19 PM
FYI
From: Annette Glanckopf [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 4:16 PM
To: Mello, Joshuah
Subject: Re: Bryant street blvd
Thanks again
White is better than green. The green marking are distasteful and and distracting.
Why do we need any markings at all? Drivers ignore signage. Bikers already know the street,
All of this signage gets ignored very quickly (almost immediately after it is installed) and is just - IMHO - urban blight.
The visual effect is unpleasant and it changes the character of suburban to urban
Annette
On 3/28/2016 3:48 PM, Mello, Joshuah wrote:
Ms. Glanckopf:
Those markings are white.
…
Regards,
JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP
Chief Transportation Official
PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Transportation
office: 650.329.2136 fax: 650.329.2154
Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the or click to make a service request.
From: Annette Glanckopf []
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 3:28 PM
To: Mello, Joshuah
Subject: Re: Bryant street blvd
Thank you for your reply
That is not what I see on plans.
annetteglanckopf@att.net
Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org
app here
mailto:annetteglanckopf@att.net
No biker has difficulty knowing this is a bike path. From the plans it looks to me like the green "gateway markings" will be at the
intersection of Colorado and Bryant as well as the intersection of El Dorado and Bryant.
The only problem I witness on a daily basis is the bike speeders who consider Bryant their own personal street. They are extremely rude
and just this weekend one came within
inches of hitting me as I was trimming my bushes,
I oppose the green markings. They are urban blight and do not belong on a residential street. Several of my neighbors agree with me.
If I am looking at the plans incorrectly, please let me know.
Annette
…
FW: Bryant Street emails
me to me 9:50 AM
…
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Brunicardi <>
To: Transportation <>
Cc:
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:59:28 +0000
Subject: Bryant/N. California Street(s) roundabout
Dear Mr. Mello,
I realize this is coming to you on the eve of a community meeting about changes to the Bryant Street Bike Blvd, but I wanted to get
in touch with you about the proposal for the Bryant/ N . California intersection.
Let me say up front that my family enjoys the "bikability" of Palo Alto and we bike to school and work every day. But we also live
within 150' of the above mentioned intersection and have some serious concerns about the proposed changes. My wife and I, as well
as every neighbor in the vicinity, feel that the roundabout idea is a poor one at best. From what I've seen at previous meetings, and
from the current drawing, it appears to merge bicycles and vehicular traffic into one lane, leaving very little room for error. Remember
this intersection is heavily used by young teens coming and going to Jordan Middle School and Palo Alto High School. If the city is
expecting them to abide by the rules of a roundabout 100% of the time they are deluding themselves. My wife and I have said
separately that the most dangerous section of Bryant street for a cyclist is the roundabout at Addison. Cars fly into it without looking,
or completely do not understand the right of way. I've had to lock up my brakes and veer out of the way several times. This would be
worse and Bryant and N. California because there is more traffic of every type.
The second issue regarding a roundabout at N. California and Bryant streets is the parking problem that will arise from the removal of
parking spaces at each corner of the intersection. If you take into consideration the size of the chicanes it seems feasible that we'd
lose sixteen in total. This is unacceptable because the First Baptist Church at that corner has become less of a church and more of a
community center. Without exaggeration, well over a hundred people come and go every afternoon. There is a large music school
comprising the entire top floor of the former church rectory. There are other businesses on site as well and they all need to park
somewhere. My family is rarely afforded the luxury of parking in from of our own home. Same is true for our neighbors. The loss of
any parking spaces would be detrimental to the flow of everyday life for the neighborhood.
In short this is a reckless proposal that has not been studied properly and it should not be allowed to proceed.
Thank you for your time.
All best,
David Brunicardi
2183 Bryant Street
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Miriam W Palm <>
To: Transportation <>
Cc:
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:58:30 +0000
Subject: Traffic circles
I don’t have an objection to circles per se, I actually like them. But I urge you to build and implement them as
they are intended to be, and as Stanford has done on campus: they should be a four way YIELD , and not have
stop signs on two sides, as the one at Bryant and Addison does. This defeats the purpose of the circle. If you
construct more in Palo Alto, please keep this in mind. And get rid of the stop signs on Addison.
Miram Palm
2185 Waverley St.
Miriam Palm
Librarian Emerita, Stanford University
Phone & Fax (650) 327-8989
david.brunicardi@gmail.com
Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org
mwpalm@stanford.edu
Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16163533 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this 18th day of April, 2016, (“Agreement”) by andbetween the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN, a California corporation, located at 100 Webster Street,
Suite 300, Oakland, California, 94607, Telephone Number (510)540-5008 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to develop the final construction plans and associated engagement
activities necessary for the successful completion of the Palo Alto Bike Boulevard design (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide services 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 at
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 June 30, 2017
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
not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of
CONSULTANT.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216 ATTACHMENT H
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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 Seven Hundred
Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Four Dollars ($749,584.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Eight Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred
Forty Two Dollars ($824,542.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at
Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “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 at 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.
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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 CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to 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 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. 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:
SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 636 9th Street
Oakland, California, 94607
(510) 590-3421
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 Brett Hondorp
as the Principal in Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services and Hugh Louch as the Project Manager to represent CONSULTANT
during the day-to-day work 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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.
CITY’s project manager is Joshuah Mello, Planning & Community Services Department, Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329-3126. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to
performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project
manager from time to time.
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”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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
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 Chief Procurement Officer 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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 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. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO
WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at 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 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 CCONSULTANT 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 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 CITY shall be purchased in
accordance with 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 Division’s office.
Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no
additional cost to 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,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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. 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 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
25.10 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
25.11 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
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN
Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK
EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Principal
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES
This scope of services provides details for the development of final construction plans and associated engagement activities necessary for the successful completion of the Palo Alto Bike Boulevard design for Bryant, Moreno-Amarillo, Ross, Meadow-Louis-Montrose Bike Boulevard Corridors.
Task 1: Project Initiation, Surveying & Mapping
1.1 Kick-off Meeting and Data Collection (CONSULTANT and Sub-Consultant) CONSULTANT will schedule and lead a project kick-off meeting with the CITY to confirm the
project goals, schedule, lines of communication and collect background information. The CITY will
provide the CONSULTANT Team with detailed direction and design standards including CITY
specific details for roundabout and landscaping configurations and material finishes, traffic control, wayfinding sign type and color, greenback or conventional sharrows, and other CITY Standards and preferences.
Deliverables:
Meeting Minutes 1.2 Topographic Surveys, Utility and ROW Investigation (Sub-Consultant) Topographic surveys will be performed by Sub-Consultant for the locations listed below:
Bryant Corridor
Bryant Street and Poe Street/Palo Alto Avenue
Bryant Street and Everett Avenue
Bryant Street and Homer Avenue
Bryant Street and Channing Avenue
Bryant Street and Addison Avenue
Bryant Street and Kingsley Avenue
Bryant Street and Embarcadero Road
Bryant Street and N California Avenue
Bryant Street at Matadero Creek (north of El Carmelo Ave)
Bryant Street and Loma Verde Avenue
Bryant Street and Campesino Avenue
Bryant Street and El Verano Avenue
Moreno-Amarillo Corridor
Moreno Avenue and Ross Road
Louis Road between Moreno Avenue and Amarillo Avenue
Amarillo Avenue (south side of street) between Louis Road and westernmost Ohlone
Elementary School Driveway
Amarillo Avenue Mid-block between center and easternmost Ohlone Elementary School Driveway
Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road
Amarillo Avenue and Tanland Drive (West) including south side of Amarillo
Avenue between westernmost Greer Park path and Tanland Drive (West)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Amarillo Avenue and Tanland Drive (East)
Amarillo Avenue and West Bayshore Road including approximately 165 feet west of the intersection
Ross Corridor
Ross Road at Garland
Ross Road and Moreno Avenue
Ross Road and Colorado Avenue
Ross Road and Clara Drive
Ross Road from Stern Avenue to approximately 250 feet south of Allen Court
Ross Road and Loma Verde Avenue
Ross Road and Ames Avenue
Ross Road and Talisman Drive
Ross Road and East Meadow Drive
Ross Road and Mayview Avenue
Ross Road and Corina Way
Ross Road and Louis Rd.
Locations with proposed landscaped planters as shown on 30% plans (approximately 450’ West of Stone Lane and approximately 130’ East of Stone Lane)
Meadow-Louis-Montrose Corridor
Montrose Ave. and Sutherland Dr.
Montrose Ave. and Seminole Way
Louis Rd. and Bibbits Dr.
Louis Rd. and Gailen Ave.
East Meadow Drive and Louis Rd.
East Meadow Drive and East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Drive and Adobe Creek
Areas surveyed for the intersections listed above will be from right of way line to right of way line
and will extend past the intersection to cover areas of proposed improvements shown on 30%
concept plans. Features to be mapped include: surface utilities, sidewalks, curb and gutter, signs, fences, walls, overhead utilities, street lights, structures, trees, pavement elevations, and street
monuments. Storm drain inlets, manholes and pipes will be shown and inverts and pipe sizes noted.
Additional survey points may be collected between intersections as needed to validate roadway
dimensions.
In addition to locating surface utilities at the locations listed above, Sub-Consultant will contact utility
companies operating in the project area and obtain as-built and system maps of existing underground
utilities. Existing utilities will be shown within areas where significant surface and drainage
improvements are proposed based on information obtained from utility companies and CITY.
Right of Way information will be collected for the entire length of the project from record maps, deeds
and other researched materials. Right of way lines, street centerlines and property lines will be provided
in the AutoCAD base map. CITY to provide maps, plans, and any other information available to help
locate existing right of way, easements and underground utilities.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
This scope of work does not include acquisition of any additional right-of-way that may be required, nor does it include any related surveying, certification, relocation, deed preparation and recording.
With the exception of adjusting covers to grade, this scope also does not include potholing or
relocating existing utilities. Such services can be quoted separately.
Deliverables:
Data files for use in developing AutoCAD base map as described in 1.3 below.
1.3 Base Map Preparation (Sub-Consultant and CONSULTANT)
Sub-Consultant and CONSULTANT will utilize GIS, aerial data, as-builts, ROW information and topographic survey to prepare base mapping in AutoCAD for the project corridor. The base maps will show site features including topography, right-of-way and adjacent streets, buildings, fences,
existing railroad tracks, utilities, significant vegetation, drainage facilities, paved areas, walls, and
other key features. Survey control and benchmark information will be included in the base map.
Deliverables:
AutoCAD base map
Task 2: 75% and 100% Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimate
Documents 2.1 Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates (CONSULTANT and Sub-Consultant) The Project team will prepare 75% and 100% Final Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) in
accordance with the latest edition of the Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications for the
CITY. The design plans will be prepared based on the approved preliminary design plans. Pavement marking and signing improvements will be prepared in CAD on the base sheets with special detail sheets to cover signing and pavement markings through intersections.
The plans will be signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer and will be prepared on
22”x34” sheets at a minimum scale of 1”=40’. Detailed intersection sheet (at 1” = 10’ or 1” = 20’) will be included for intersections that are non-typical and require specific details and grades of improvements. These drawings will include adjustments to existing storm drain system at locations
with proposed curb extensions, adjustment of utility covers to grade; no relocations of overhead or
underground utilities are anticipated for this project. Landscape design will be included for
roundabouts, curb extensions, landscaped planters and other areas identified on the 30% plans. A standard palette established by the CITY will be utilized by corridor and/or treatment. Preliminary Storm water Pollution Prevention, Erosion Control & Demo Plans will be included.
Bike boulevard and route wayfinding signage will be included in final plans and coordinated with
other projects in progress to facilitate a network of bicycle boulevard signing. A detailed wayfinding sign schedule will be included.
Project specifications will be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the Public Works
Standard Drawings and Specifications for the CITY. Line item unit price construction cost
estimates will be developed for each corridor.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
PS&E documents will be transmitted to the CITY for review and approval. The CONSULTANT will revise plans based on consolidated and internally consistent comments from the CITY.
With each submittal, CITY Staff will review and provide a consolidated and internally consistent set
of comments to be incorporated in the next plan set. Prior to making any changes, CONSULTANT
will review requested significant changes with the CITY and agree on next steps. It is assumed that CITY review time will be two (2) weeks per corridor per submittal.
After receiving final comments on the 100% PS&E, CONSULTANT will incorporate comments and
prepare the final Bid Documents for advertising and bidding the project for construction. The
proposed budget does not include additional revisions at this stage.
The following example are the anticipated sheets to be included in the sets for each submittal:
Bryant, Moreno-Amarillo & Ross & Meadow-Louis-Montrose Bike Boulevard Corridors Final
Design Plans
Sheet Names
Estimated Number of Sheets by Corridor
Bryant
Moren
o-
Ross
Meadow-
Louis-
Title Sheet 1
Key Map 1 1 1 1
General Notes 2
Storm water
Pollution
Prevention & Demo
7 6 8 3
Typical Sections 1 1 1 1
Layout Plans 11 7 7 4
Intersection Details 7 5 8 3
Grading and
Drainage Sheets
7 6 8 3
Utility Adjustment Plans and Details 6 6 8 3
Landscaping & Irrigation Plans and
Details
5 5 7 3
Lighting Plans 3 5 5 1
Signing, Wayfinding
and Striping Detail
Sheets
2
2
2
1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Geometric Detail Sheets 2 2 2 1
Deliverables:
● 75% PS&E - Five (5) sets of 11” X 17” plan documents, along with 8.5” X 11” specifications and estimates. One (1) CD with PDFs of the documents.
● 100 % Final PS&E - One (1) set of 22”x34” plan documents on reproducible bond, five
(5) sets of 11” X 17” plan documents, along with 8.5” X 11” specifications and
estimates. One
(1) CD with PDFs of the documents. 2.2 Project Engagement (CONSULTANT) Working with the CITY, the team will assist the CITY on engaging stakeholders who are critical to
the development of the final plan documents and identify those who should be communicated with
through the implementation. It is anticipated that the level of work effort may include preparing presentation boards, presentations, and informational flyers. Expected stakeholders include:
● Planning and Transportation Commission
● CITY Council
● Architectural Review Board
● City neighborhood/Advocacy groups
● Department Staff
● Schools
● Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Deliverables:
● Up to four (8) official meetings or presentations. This may include providing information
for the CITY to present for board meetings and neighborhood meetings.
● Meeting notes / summaries
Task 3: Project Management 3.1 Project Management (CONSULTANT)
Project team will manage activities with the CITY to provide a continual flow of information and coordination of activities and other active projects. The design team will achieve this through meetings with the CITY every two weeks throughout the duration of the project. These meetings may
be in person or conference calls. The goal of these meetings is to provide detailed information
regarding the community engagement, plan development or any special issues that arise on the
project. It is assumed that meetings will last no longer than one hour each.
Deliverables:
● Meeting minutes from client meetings for up to ten (10) meetings.
3.2 Project Administration (CONSULTANT) CONSULTANT will consolidate the invoices of the project team into one invoice that will be submitted monthly to the CITY. CONSULTANT will prepare and submit invoices as outlined in the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
contract language provided by CITY. The project team will provide task level descriptions of work
completed and percent of tasks completed. Deliverables:
● Monthly invoices with project updates
3.3 Quality Control (CONSULTANT and Sub-Consultant) For all submittals to the CITY, CONSULTANT will provide a two-tier quality control system
for written and graphic material that includes (1) peer review, and (2) independent review of
materials prior to submittal. CONSULTANT and Sub-Consultant will utilize each other’s
staff in QA/QC, as an example CONSULTANT will review the Grading & Drainage Plans prepared by Sub-Consultant and Sub-Consultant will review the Signing & Striping Plans prepared by CONSULTANT. The supervising engineer sealing the plans will guide review of
all work.
Deliverables:
● Documentation of project deliverable review process
Contingency
Included in the budget is a 10% contingency to cover unanticipated tasks such as:
● Parking survey
● Additional surveying
● Design contingency
● Additional community workshops and public meetings
● Additional project team meetings
● Final SWPPP plan and documents
● Traffic Control Plans
● Potholing and Utility Relocations
CITY and the CONSULTANT Team shall discuss each additional (contingency) task in writing and identify a cost for each service prior to commencement of work.
Exclusions
This scope of work is intended to cover the work identified above. It does not include any of the following:
● Environmental documents (CEQA or NEPA) or permits.
● Tree Survey
● Final SWPPP plan or documents
● Hydrologic calculations
● Soils or geotechnical testing or analysis
● Preparation of Traffic Control Plans or Specifications
● Bid and Construction Support
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
● Construction Management and Inspection
● Right-of-way acquisition or any tasks related to acquisition (i.e. plat preparation,
etc.)
● Any other services not explicitly stated above
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Days/Weeks
From NTP
1. Project Initiation Surveying & Mapping TBD
2. Final Plans, Specifications, TBD
& Estimate Docs 3. Project Management TBD
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed
in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the
budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set
forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $749,584.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including
reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional
Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $824,542.00. Any work performed
or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum
amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget
amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total
compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $749,584.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed
$824,542.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $80,570.00
(Project Initiation
Surveying & Mapping)
Task 2 $597,344.00 (Final Plans, Specifications,
& Estimate Docs)
Task 3 $63,670
(Project Management)
Sub-total Basic Services $741,584.00
Reimbursable Expenses $8,000.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $749,584.00 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $74,958.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
Maximum Total Compensation $824,542.00
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are
included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses.
CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost.
Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of
travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $1,000.00 shall be approved in
advance by the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s
request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of
services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum
compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum
compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project
Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for
additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY
YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED.
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS
SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS”
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL
LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A
TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED TO:
InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org
DocuSign Envelope ID: 64B40DEA-284F-4470-993E-89613DC59216
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 64B40DEA284F4470993E89613DC59216 Status: Completed
Subject: Please DocuSign this document: C16163533 Alta Planning Bicycle Blvd Contract.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 22 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto , CA 94301
chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org
IP Address: 199.33.32.254
Record Tracking
Status: Original
4/4/2016 12:43:38 PM
Holder: Christopher Anastole
chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Brett Hondorp
bretthondorp@altaplanning.com
Principal
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Using IP Address: 173.13.163.165
Sent: 4/4/2016 12:45:43 PM
Resent: 4/6/2016 1:32:01 PM
Viewed: 4/4/2016 5:34:48 PM
Signed: 4/13/2016 3:40:01 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID:
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Robin Ellner
robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org
Admin Associate III
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)
Sent: 4/13/2016 3:40:03 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 2/11/2015 9:51:24 AM ID: efb775a7-f39e-4c9f-817a-5ec939666ecf
Sherry N kzat
Sherry.N kzat@CityofPaloAlto.org
Sr. Management Analyst
City of Palo Alto
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)
Sent: 4/13/2016 3:40:04 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID:
Notary Events Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/13/2016 3:40:04 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 4/13/2016 3:40:04 PM
Signing Complete Security Checked 4/13/2016 3:40:04 PM
Completed Security Checked 4/13/2016 3:40:04 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure
CONSUMER DISCLOSURE
From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to
you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for
providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc.
(DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly,
and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms
and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of
this document.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available
electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the
DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you
through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such
documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies ofany such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You mayrequest delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any timechange your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures
only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and
disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures
electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the
speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to
you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format,
and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such
paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must
withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your
DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive
required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your
DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us
or to sign electronically documents from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide
electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures,
authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or
made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of
you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required
notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have givenus. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format throughthe paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as
described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes theconsequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures
electronically from us.
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 3:33:53 PM
Parties agreed to: Robin Ellner
have the right to withdraw your consent.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically
To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to
other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you
were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or
electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to
e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or
save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and
disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above,
please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below.
By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that:
• I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF
ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can
print it, for future reference and access; and
• Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from
exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations,
acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4372)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/17/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects
Title: Approval of Five Consultant Contracts Totaling $2,231,211 for Design
and Environmental Review of Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects and
Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $335,000
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment G) in
the amount of $335,000, transferring funds from the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Traffic
Impact Fee Fund to the Capital Improvement Project Fund, increasing the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) Project PE-13011 by $335,000, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute contracts with the following firms for design services and related actions necessary for
implementation of priority projects within the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan:
1.Alta Planning + Design (Attachment A) in the amount of $400,000 for planning and
preliminary environmental assessment of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update
(Palo Alto Avenue to 100-FT North of E Meadow Drive); the Greer Road Bicycle
Boulevard (Edgewood Drive to Louis Road); the Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue
Bicycle Boulevard (Middlefield Road to West Bayshore Boulevard); the Ross Road Bicycle
Boulevard (North California Avenue to Louis Road); and the Homer Avenue-Channing
Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Project (Alma Street to Boyce Avenue-Guinda Avenue).
2.Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (Attachment B) in the amount of $450,000 for
planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Barron Park Neighborhood
Class III Bicycle Facilities project; the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension (E
Meadow Drive to San Antonio Road); the Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del
Medio Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Park Boulevard to San Antonio Road); the Park
Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Phase (Castilleja Avenue to W Charleston Road); and the
Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (El Camino Real to Park Boulevard). This contract
ATTACHMENT I
City of Palo Alto Page 2
also includes online community outreach efforts for both the Alta Planning + Design and
Fehr and Peers Bicycle Boulevard projects.
3. Sandis Engineers (Attachment C) in the amount of $275,000 for design and
environmental assessment of the Churchill Avenue Improvement Project (El Camino
Real to Castilleja Avenue). This contract also includes a focused Caltrans study to help
procure encroachment permits for future construction.
4. Alta Planning + Design (Attachment D) in the amount of $369,446 for a feasibility study
and preliminary environmental assessment for the Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1
Midtown Project (Alma Street to Highway 101).
5. Mark Thomas & Associates (Attachment E) in the amount of $736,765 for preliminary
design and environmental assessment of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road
Corridor Plan (Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue).
Staff also recommends that Council concurrently authorize staff to coordinate with Google and
their transportation planning consultant, Alta Planning + Design, for the planning and
preliminary environmental assessment of the San Antonio Road Class III Bicycle Route project
(Highway 101 to Alma Street); San Antonio Road Class III Bicycle Route project (Byron Street to
Alma Street); the Alma Street Enhanced Bikeway (San Antonio Avenue to Charleston Road); and
the Cubberly Community Center – Bicycle Route.
Background
The Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted on July 9, 2012 and
includes a Proposed Bikeway Network (Attachment F) and associated priority projects by
project type including Bicycle Boulevards, Across Barrier Connections, Bike
Lanes/Sharrows/Enhanced Bikeways, and other project types. As part of the current year
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) the City made a significant commitment to help advance
the plan through the funding of several key projects, not including prior year or future year
funding:
CIP PL-04010, Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan $1,318,009
CIP PL-14000, El Camino Real & Churchill Ave Improvements $283,651
CIP PE-11011, Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass $1,396,168
CIP PL-14001, Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown $383,651
City of Palo Alto Page 3
CIP PL-00026, Safe Routes to School $169,536
The recommended consultant contracts in this report represent a major step forward in the
advancement of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. In addition to the proposed
projects, the City has other pending projects including:
Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass
This project is currently in the Environmental Assessment Phase and the City plans to
solicit design consultant proposals in this Spring.
Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard
This project is being designed using in-house resources and will be presented to the
Planning & Transportation Commission later this month. City Council consideration for
approval of a Final Plan is anticipated by Spring. The funding for this project will come
from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010).
Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard
This project is currently being designed through on-call consultant contracts by Fehr &
Peers Transportation Consultants. The City has already held two community outreach
meetings and a third is anticipated this Spring. Planning & Transportation Commission
and City Council approvals will be requested this Summer. The funding for this project
will come from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010).
Safe Routes to School – Phase 1 Safety Improvements
As part of the development of new Walk and Roll Maps for each of the city’s public
schools, the community assisted in identifying key intersections where minor safety
improvements were prioritized and implemented this winter. A total of 40 intersections
were upgraded with enhanced crosswalk markings or signage. A Phase 2 Safety
Improvements project is anticipated in the Fall 2014.
Bicycle Detection Improvements
The City procured microwave-focused bicycle detectors and installed them at key
bicycle crossing intersections for trial evaluation. The units were installed earlier this
month at the intersections of Bryant Street & Embarcadero Road, Charleston Road &
Wilkie Way, and Charleston Road & Carlson Drive. The units detected bicyclists up to
300-FT in advance of a signalized intersection and prioritize bicycle detection to help
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ensure an earlier “green” indication at the traffic signal.
Bicycle Marking Improvements
This year the City deployed its first green bicycle lane safety markings along the Park
Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard near Oregon Expressway and on the Channing Avenue
Enhanced Bikeway near Newell Road. Additional “greenback” Sharrow roadway
markings were also installed along Cowper Street between E Meadow Drive and St
Claire Drive.
The proposed design contracts allow for a continued and significant advancement in
implementation of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan with 17 new Bicycle Boulevard,
Enhanced Bikeway or Bicycle Routes projects.
Summary of Key Issues
Each of the recommended consultant contracts was developed based on proposals submitted
and evaluated in response to several Requests for Proposals (RFPs) released by the City in the
Summer and Fall of 2013.
Bicycle Boulevards
The City released the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards RFP on October 1, 2013. The RFP scope
included ten Bicycle Boulevard or Enhanced Bikeway projects. Each has been included in one of
the recommended contracts as indicated below:
Project Lead Consultant
1. Barron Park Neighborhoods Class III Bicycle Facilities Fehr & Peers
2. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update Alta
3. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Fehr & Peers
4. Greer Road Bicycle Boulevard Alta
5. Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Alta
6. Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Alta
7. Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Phase 2 Fehr & Peers
8. Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Alta
9. Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Fehr & Peers
10. Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Fehr & Peers
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The City received a total of five (5) proposals in response to the RFP and interviewed each of
the firms. Alta Planning + Design and Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants were identified
as the recommended firms to partner with the City in the completion of the projects. The ten
projects were divided between the two firms and identified above. Each of the firms
represented demonstrated strong skills and experience in the development of innovative
bicycle projects including bicycle boulevard facility design and community outreach &
engagement.
Community Outreach Strategy
During the interviews each of the firms interviewed expressed concern regarding “community
fatigue” from community outreach participation given that many of the projects overlap
neighborhoods. The projects were divided in such a manner that allows meetings to target
multiple neighborhoods and allow for discussion on various projects. Each of the consultant
work scopes also includes “bike-along” outreach events to help solicit community input in the
field to help residents better explain their areas of concern or suggested improvements directly
in the field. The City also consolidated online outreach for all of the projects onto the Fehr &
Peers work scope to take advantage of GIS-based outreach tools to ensure that the online
community involvement process appears seamless to all participants.
Technical Advisory Committee
The City is also exploring the development of a small Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that
will meet during normal business hours and include representatives from the Palo Alto Bicycle
Advisory Committee (PABAC), City-School Traffic Safety Committee, Planning & Transportation
Commission, and local business leaders. The TAC is intended as a forum where consultants
could share ideas and ensure consistency in project designs. The TAC will also help inform the
consultants regarding initial community interest areas to help prepare and advance design
concepts prior to community meetings. Having representatives from both the City-School
Traffic Safety Committee and PABAC will also help ensure preliminary feedback from each of
those bodies. Both the City-School Traffic Safety Committee and PABAC will continue to receive
on-going program updates for each project.
11. Churchill Avenue Corridor Improvements
This project includes the design of both bicycle & pedestrian facilities along Churchill Avenue
between Castilleja Avenue and El Camino Real as well as roadway capacity improvements for
vehicles through the addition of a westbound right turn lane at El Camino Real. The City
pursued grant-funds for this project as part of the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program last
year but was unsuccessful in receiving funds for the project. The proposed project has
synergies with the Castilleja Avenue-Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard project and the El
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Camino Real element of the Stanford Perimeter Trail. As part of the OBAG proposal review
process, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) also identified this project as having
opportunities to integrate with their proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program.
The City released an RFP for this project on July 6, 2013 and received only one proposal in
response to the RFP from Sandis Engineers. Sandis Engineers has extensive experience working
in the City of Palo Alto and was selected for the design of the project.
12. Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown Feasibility Study
This project includes the completion of a Feasibility Study to identify community-preferred
alignments for the project and Across Barrier Connection alternatives at each end of the project
segment, Alma Street and Highway 101. This project currently is eligible for $1.5 million in
dedicated grant-funding for the construction phase of the project via a grant from the County
of Santa Clara – Alternative Mitigation Program through the Stanford-Palo Alto Trail Program.
The grant is reimbursable and will be received upon completion of the project.
The City released an RFP for this project on May 20, 2013 and received two proposals in
response. Alta Planning + Design was selected to complete this project because of their
extensive community experience through the development of the Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan, work on the Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing project, and their
nationwide experience in developing innovative bicycle-pedestrian crossing solutions along trail
segments.
The successful completion of a Feasibility Study is required before the Santa Clara County grant
funding can be released to the City. The Feasibility Study will require approval by the both the
City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
13. Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Project
This project advances the Complete Street elements of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road
Trial Projects including: new landscaped median islands; intersection bulb-outs to help reduce
pedestrian crossing distances; enhanced bike lanes and bikeway facilities; new street trees; new
streetlights; and streetscape treatments. The current phase of the project is for the Preliminary
Design and Environmental Assessment Phases of the project to help build consensus around
community-preferred improvements before initiating final design.
The City has received partial grant-funding for the construction phases of this project including
a $450,000 grant from the State of California – Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Safe
Routes to School Program for the portion of Charleston Road between Middlefield Road and
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Alma Street; and a $1,000,000 grant from the VTA – VERBS Program for the portion of
Arastradero Road between Georgia Avenue and Miranda Avenue including an upgrade of the
Los Altos Trail between Arastradero Road and Los Altos Avenue.
The City released an RFP for this project on June 4, 2013 and received eight (8) proposals in
response. The Mark Thomas & Company design team was identified as the preferred
consultant for the project demonstrating strong civil experience in the design of enhanced
bikeway and streetscape facilities.
The recommendation includes a request for adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to
transfer additional funding in the amount of $350,000 from the Charleston Road-Arastradero
Road Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program to CIP Project PE-13011 (Charleston Road-Arastradero
Road Corridor Project.
Google – Bicycle Facility Projects
Google has its central headquarters in the City of Mountain View in the North Bayshore
Business Park. Google is in the process of completing tenant improvements for future
occupancy of the 200 San Antonio Avenue, the site formerly occupied by Hewlett-Packard. The
future Google facility is located on the Mountain View-Palo Alto border and is the southern
terminus of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard via Nelson Drive-Mackay Drive. Google places a
high priority in providing alternative transportation modes to its employees and contractors
and has requested the ability to participate in the Bicycle Boulevard program through the
funding of facilities identified in the Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Google
proposed to fund the planning and preliminary environmental assessment phases for the
following projects:
Project Lead Consultant
14. San Antonio Road Class III Route (Hwy 101 to W City Limit) Alta
15. San Antonio Avenue Class III Route (Byron St to Alma St) Alta
16. Alma Street (San Antonio Avenue to E Charleston Road) Alta
17. Cubberly Community Center – Bicycle Route Alta
Alta is the lead consultant for several of the proposed bicycle projects in this staff report. Staff
sees synergy opportunities in expanding this project to include these bicycle linkages. Inclusion
of the projects now also ensures consolidated community outreach opportunities. Google will
fund all consultant expenses for these projects directly; no city resources beyond staff costs for
coordination are anticipated.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Schedule of Design and Implementation
Each of the 17 projects provides for either preliminary planning to help identify concept plan
line alternatives that can then be advanced into final design and environmental assessment at a
later stage, or complete design for development of construction bid packages. Staff anticipates
each of projects to take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete. Concept plan line
development allows for development of more refined construction schedules, which depend on
the level of improvements requested by communities through which the projects pass. Final
design is generally undertaken upon Council approval of the concept plan line alternatives, and
results in more refined cost estimates. The City anticipates pursuing grants to support
construction of the projects and the use of available infrastructure funding to match or
supplement grant funding as needed.
Policy Implications
Each of the proposed project helps to implement the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportaiton Plan
and is consistent with the following Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal T-3 Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote
Walking and Bicycling
Policy T-14 Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local
destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space,
employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit
stations.
Program T-22 Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of
the southern end of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard to Mountain
View.
Resource Impact
A total of five consultant contracts are recommended through this staff report, each with a
different funding source:
1. Alta Planning + Design – Bicycle Boulevards
A contract in the amount of $400,000 from CIP PL-04010 (Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan – Implementation Project) is recommended allowing for a base
City of Palo Alto Page 9
project of $350,000 and an Additional Services budget of $50,000 to assist in grant
writing development and additional graphics development.
2. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants – Bicycle Boulevards
A contract in the amount of $450,000 from CIP PL-04010 is recommended allowing for a
base project of $390,685 and an Additional Services budget of $59,315 to assist in online
community outreach support, website development and maintenance, and grant writing
development.
3. Sandis Engineers – Churchill Avenue Improvements
A contract in the amount of $275,000 from CIP PL-14000 (El Camino Real & Churchill
Avenue Intersection Improvements – Design) is recommended allowing for a base
project of $250,000 and an Additional Services budget of $25,000 to assist in project
coordination with the Stanford Perimeter Trail and the VTA Bus Rapid Transit projects.
4. Alta Planning + Design – Matadero Creek Trail
A contract in the amount of $369,446 from CIP PL-14001 (Matadero Creek Trail) is
recommended allowing for the complete project. No Additional Services budget is
anticipated as part of this project as the current project phase include just Feasibility
Study and Prleiminary Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that the amount
of funding allocated for the entire design of this project in FY 2014 is $383,651. With
the funding for the feasibility study and environmental assessment anticpated to use
nearly all of the design funding, an alternative funding source will need to be pursued
for the remaining design costs. It is anticipated that the Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan Implementation Project will be funded in FY 2015 in the amount of
$1.2 million. The additional funding required for the design is expected to be allocated
to the FY 2015 appropriation for this project.
5. Mark Thomas & Company – Charleston Rd-Arastradero Rd Corridor Project
A contract in the amount of $736,765 from CIP PE-13011 (Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor Project) is recommended allowing for a base project of $669,765 and an
Additional Services budget of $67,000 to accommodate environmental assessment
studies that may be required for the project and to assist in grant writing development.
A budget amendment ordinance in the amount of $335,000 is recommended as part of
this report to increase funding in the project to accommodate the expense. The
increased expense would be supported by a transfer from the Charleston/Arastradero
Developer Impact Fee Fund.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Google is funding four proposed linkages directly with Alta Planning + Design as their lead
consultant. The City anticipates staff resources to help coordinate additional community
meetings but no direct costs for the design development of these Bike Plan projects.
Timeline
The City anticates that preliminary design and environmental assessment of each of the above
projects will take approximately one year to complete, although the level of effort and timeline
will depend on community participation and interest. Realistically, it will likely take two years
for all of the contracted work to be complete, however some projects will be ready for
construction in advance of that timeline if funding becomes available. Staff can provide a
regular update to the Council on these projects and overall implementaiton of the Bicycle &
Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
Environmental Review
The requested contracts would allow for environmental review of those projects requiring
further review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Alta Planning & Design Contract - Bicycle Boulevard (PDF)
Attachment B: Fehr & Peers Transportation Contract - Bicycle Boulevard (PDF)
Attachment C: Sandis Engineers Contract - Design & Environment Assessment - Churchill
Ave. Improvement Project (PDF)
Attachment D: Alta Planning & Design Contract - Matadero Creek Trail, Phase I (PDF)
Attachment E: Mark Thomas & Associates - Preliminary Design & Environmental
Assessment - Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan (PDF)
Attachment F: PABP 2012 - Proposed Bikeway Network (PDF)
Attachment G: Budget Amendment Ordinance - Charleston/Arastradero (DOC)
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 20111
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C14150694
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this 17th day of March, 2014, (“Agreement”) by
and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation
(“CITY”), and MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, a California corporation, located at 1960
Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95112 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to make streetscape and pedestrian/bicycle improvements along the Charleston
Arastadero Corridor (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide professional design
services 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 10/31/2015 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 not preclude recovery of
damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB ATTACHMENT E
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
2
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 six hundred and sixty-nine
thousand, seven hundred and sixty five Dollars ($669.765.00). In the event Additional Services are
authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed sixty
seven thousand Dollars ($67,000.00). 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.
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
3
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.
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:
- TJKM
- Gates - DJ Powers - Bicycle Solutions 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 Jimmy W. Sims, PE
as the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services and to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
3
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 Holly Boyd, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 250
Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-329-2612. 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.
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”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct of the 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,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
5
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 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
6
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 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
7
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 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.
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
8
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. 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 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
/ / / / 25.10 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.
25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
9
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 Asst. City Attorney
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY
Attachments:
EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK
EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Robert A. Himes
1/28/2014
President
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
11
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CHARLESTON & ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT
DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK
The Project scope of work shall consist of the following tasks:
TASK A Site Analysis and Field Survey
1. The Consultant shall attend a kick‐off Meeting with City staff to review the
project scope and general field conditions.
2. The Consultant shall review and analyze the existing data augmented by
discussion with City staff including review of City‐provided information.
3. Consultant shall provide a field survey of site for purposes of use as a base plan.
The survey shall contain the following: curb and gutter, flow lines, sidewalks,
edge of pavements, edge of sidewalks, edge of pavement way (gutter line),
drainage structures, street lights, signage, roadway delineation, traffic signal
standards, trees, railroad facilities, and visible utility boxes and valves within the
roadway and sidewalk zones in order to prepare improvements along the
Charleston Road‐Arastradero Road Corridor between Charleston Road and
Fabian Way, and Arastradero Road and Miranda Avenue. Field elements and
drainage information not collected by the Consultant during this task that may
be identified in future tasks as required for the completion of design plans for
the project will be completed by the Consultant without additional payment.
4. The Consultant shall provide a site investigation including observation and
research, identifying all utilities, easements, right‐of‐way and signage and
striping/ median lane geometry, lighting and soil and tree conditions.
5. The Consultant shall develop site plans and cross sections show existing and new
grades, topography, location of trees, utilities, lights and structures including
intersections, road frontages and medians, invert elevations and direction of
flow to storm drains in the project area.
6. Plans shall be in AutoCAD 2012 format. Consultant shall also provide 5 hard copy
sets of the field survey (1 DRAFT Set/1 FINAL Set upon City Approval of Survey) ‐
24” x 36” sheets of consecutive plan views of roadway, including center medians
and sidewalk frontage planning areas and all intersections of the project corridor
from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue at a scale of 1”=20’.
7. Consultant Survey and Base Mapping for the work described above will serve as
the Project Topographic Base Map. Survey Control will be provided to the design
team in both the hard copy and electronic version. Consultant will distribute
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
2
project base mapping to all design team members and make accessible readily
upon each design state. This topographic base map will be the uniform “x‐reference”
for all design work. Topographic base mapping will be updated for all
subconsultants at the beginning of each design phase.
8. Consultant shall provide a 2 page technical report summarizing findings.
TASK B Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations
1. The consultant shall prepare a new Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration. Relevant /
accurate information contained in the previously approved 2003 MND will be used much as
possible.
2. The City anticipates a Traffic Study to be required to allow for the consideration
of additional safety and roadway capacity configurations not included in the
original 2004 Corridor Study at the following intersections, the Consultant shall
be responsible for collecting peak‐hour turning movement count and 7‐day tube
count data to respond to the following design alternatives:
・ Charleston Road & Fabian Way
‐ Charleston Road Left Turn Signal Phasing Option
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
・ Charleston Road & Louis Road‐Montrose Avenue
‐ Reconfiguration of Median Island Access and Pedestrian Improvements
・ Charleston Road & Middlefield Road
‐ Reconfigure Bicycle Lanes and consider option for Dedicated WBRT lane
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
‐ Consider Bicycle Box Treatments
・ Charleston Road & Nelson Drive
‐ Bicycle Box or Intersection Bulb‐Out Improvements
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
・ Charleston Road & Hoover School Driveway
‐ Existing break in painted Median Island, validate Charleston Road Left
storage capacity requirements
・ Charleston Road & Carlson Court
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
‐ Bicycle Box or Intersection Bulb‐Out Improvements
・ Charleston Road & Mumford Pl
‐ Existing uncontrolled Crossing, consider Enhanced Crosswalk Improvements
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
・ Charleston Road & Wright Place
‐ Existing uncontrolled crossing with transit operations, consider Enhanced
Crosswalk Improvements
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
3
・ Charleston Road & Alma Street
‐ Existing adjacent Caltrain operations
‐ Evaluate opportunities to clearly designate bicycle lane facilities across intersection
and trackway
・ Charleston Road & Park Boulevard
‐ Evaluate opportunity for median islands across intersection providing limited right turn
only access from Park Boulevard
‐ Evaluate Enhanced Crosswalk Improvement opportunities across Charleston Road
・ Charleston Road & Ruthelma Avenue
‐ Existing uncontrolled crosswalk across Charleston Road, evaluate for
Enhanced Crosswalk Treatments
・ Charleston Road & Wilkie Way
‐ Existing traffic signal facility, evaluate for permitted left turn lanes on
Charleston Road or with exclusive left turn signal phasing
‐ Wilkie Way is a Bicycle Boulevard crossing, consider special intersection
improvements including exclusive microwave bicycle detection and
roadway markings
・ El Camino Real & Charleston Road‐Arastradero Road
‐ Caltrans maintained intersection; evaluate intersection for bicycle‐pedestrian
focused treatments including intersection bulb‐outs to
support future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operations planned by the VTA
‐ Consider removal of existing Free Right Turn “Slip Lanes” at intersection
・ Arastradero Road & Alta Mesa‐McKellar Lane
‐ Evaluate intersection for median island improvements to restrict left turn
access out of Alta Mesa‐McKeller but allow left turns off of Arastradero Road
‐ Evaluate Transit Shelter/Bike Station at westbound approach of intersection
・ Arastradero Road & Clemo Drive‐Suzanne Drive
‐ Existing Enhanced Crosswalk location, consider additional bicycle‐pedestrian
safety measures including widening of sidewalk widening at Briones Park
‐ Study alternative to provide permanent No Parking Restrictions along the
South side of Arastradero Road westerly from Suzanne Drive
‐ Protect fire station access at intersection and along Arastradero Road frontage
・ Arastradero Road & Los Palos Avenue
‐ Evaluate opportunities to improve left turn egress access from Los Palos Avenue to
westbound Arastradero Road
・ Arastradero Road & Coulombe Drive
‐ Evaluate options for Bike Box facilities at intersection
‐ Evaluate option for Cycle Track with Sidewalk Widening along the South
side of Arastradero Road westerly to Terman Drive‐Donald Drive
‐ Existing signal with permitted‐protected signal phasing, study appropriate
left turn capacity storage requirements
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
4
‐ Consider intersection bulb‐out treatments along North side of
intersection
・ Arastradero Road & Pomona Avenue‐King Arthur Court
‐ Evaluate opportunities left turn egress access from side streets onto
Arastradero Road
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
‐ Evaluate intersection bulb‐out treatments at Pomona Avenue
‐ Evaluate sidewalk widening along the South side of Arastradero Road
west of Pomona Avenue to Terman Drive‐Donald Drive
・ Arastradero Road & Donald Drive‐Terman Drive
‐ Evaluate opportunities for intersection bulb‐out treatments
‐ Evaluate Terman Drive operations and provide recommendations for
improvements to improve circulation out of Terman Drive
‐ Evaluate opportunity to provide dedicate EBRT movement at the
intersection
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
・ Arastradero Road – Georgia Avenue to Donald Drive‐Terman Drive
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements, protect two‐way left turn access for
side streets along North side of Arastradero Road
・ Arastradero Road – West of Georgia Avenue
‐ Evaluate options to provide Cycle Track or Improved sidewalk access along the north
side of Arastradero Road to Gunn High School
‐ Evaluate options to provide decorative guard rail and widened sidewalk treatments
along the South side of Arastradero Road to Miranda Avenue
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements to Georgia Avenue, Arastradero West
Apartments, and Alta Mesa Cemetery Driveway
‐ Evaluate trail integration options at Hetch‐Hetchy Los Altos Trail intersection on South
side of Arastradero Road; no trail crossing along the North side of Arastradero Road
・ Arastradero Road & Gunn High School Driveway
‐ Consider Bike Box treatments at intersection
‐ Evaluate left turn storage requirements at intersection and consider traffic signal
phasing improvements to improve intersection capacity
・ Arastradero Road & Miranda Avenue
‐ Evaluate opportunities to provide WBLT lane to Southbound Miranda Avenue
3. Provide required documentation for NEPA certification as required by Caltrans Local
Assistance including Traffic Assessment, Visual Impact Assessment, Technical
Memorandums for Air Quality, Biology, Hydraulic Study, Land Use and Cultural Impact,
Hazard Materials, Historical Resources, Temporary 4(f) Impact, Tree
Preservation/Removal, Construction Staging, etc.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
5
4. Consultant shall provide value engineering report to help determine project elements
and limits of work for each phase.
5. Consultant shall provide an arborist report per the City’s Tree Technical Manual
for trees in the public‐right‐of‐way along with corridor.
6. Consultant shall provide innovative storm drain study for water conservation
and irrigation design.
7. Coordination with Caltrans and prepare a Project Study Report (PSR) for traffic
signal/intersection modification at El Camino Real & Charleston Road‐
Arastradero Road.
TASK C Plan Line Development and Public Meetings
Immediately upon survey of the project area and collection of traffic data, the Consultant shall
begin development of Plan Line Alternatives for presentation to the community. The Consultant
shall develop up to five Plan Line Alternatives and begin an extensive public outreach process to
develop a Preferred Community Plan Line Alternative that will serve as the basis for the
development of Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates (PS&E) for the project. The Consultant
should allow up to six months of community outreach for the development of the Preferred
Community Plan Line Alternative.
The City anticipates the following community outreach meeting schedule for development of
the Preferred Community Plan Line:
・ General Community Outreach Meetings (3 Total)
・ Neighborhood Specific Focused Outreach Meetings (4 Total)
o Green Meadow/Walnut Grove
o Monroe Park/Charleston Meadows
o Barron Park
o Palo Alto Orchard/Green Acres I/II
・ Study Session with Planning & Transportation Commission
・ Study Session with Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
・ Study Session with City‐School Traffic Safety Committee
・ Study Session with City Council
・ Presentation Planning & Transportation Commission
1. Consultant shall prepare all outreach, notices and meeting and presentation
materials for stakeholder, community and public meetings. Each meeting should
be scheduled for four hours including travel time.
2. Deliverables:
o Community Preferred Plan Line Alignment for Charleston Road‐
Arastradero Road Corridor Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
6
TASK D Conceptual and Preliminary Designs
Upon approval the Community Preferred Plan Line Alignment, the Consultant shall begin
development of Conceptual and Preliminary Design to engage the community on the
identification of Streetscape Treatments along the corridor including development of
Community‐Preferred Landscape and Streetscape Furniture Palette’s.
1. The conceptual and preliminary design task includes selecting the locations of
the new crosswalks, signs, street lighting & traffic signal standards, and
intersection improvements, medians and curb bulb‐outs. Prepare presentation
boards for City staff to use at public meetings. Consultant to provide section and
elevation concept plans.
2. Prepare all noticing, presentation materials, plan sets copies, meeting summaries
for public meetings to present preliminary design proposals, and act as facilitator
of the meetings.
3. Meet and confer with City Staff to respond to and address City, stakeholder and
Community comments.
4. Present the plans to the stakeholder, community, Public Art Commission,
Architectural Review Board and to the Planning and Transportation Commission
and address comments. Each meeting should be scheduled for four hours
including travel time.
5. Collect comments received during Conceptual and Preliminary Designs to include
in project specifications.
6. Refined cost estimates based on value engineering.
Public Art Programming & Coordination
Provide consultation and technical input on the solicitation of offers for public art, the
selection of qualified artists and selection of public art proposals.
・ Coordination with Arts Commission during the early design stages
・ Work with City, users and design team in the selection art sites available within
the project area
5. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
Additional services may be required and services are subject to project manager
approval. Examples of services are as follows:
・ Additional meetings with ARB, Council and the public and associated materials
・ Additional plan drawings and revisions
6. INFORMATION and SERVICES PROVIDED BY the City of Palo Alto
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
7
The City will provide the following during the design phase:
・ Base Map from GIS for use in Identifying City‐Owned Utility Information
・ 2004 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan
・ 2004 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
・ AutoCAD title block
・ Plan line drawings submitted as part of the OBAG and VERBS Grant Applications
・ City standard construction details and technical specifications for irrigation work,
asphalt, concrete, sidewalk, curb and gutter, tree planting, landscaping and
median details in AutoCAD 2012;
・ Environmental documents;
・ City staff shall assist in obtaining design review comments from City staff;
The City will provide the following during the Bid and Construction phase:
・ City shall advertise, provide bidders list, assist in obtaining bid document review
comments and reproduce copies of bid and construction documents to
contractors.
・ City shall provide general and supplementary conditions and City’s boilerplate
specifications (work hours, duration, truck routes, etc.)
Consultant is responsible for reviewing and verifying all supplied information.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
1
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed.
TIMELINE:
Weeks from NTP
Task 1 – Site Analysis and Field Surveys
Field Surveys and Aerial Mapping 10
Task 2 – Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design
Considerations
Traffic Study 20
CEQA and NEPA 50
Caltrans PEER 50
Task 3 – Plan Line Development and Public Meetings 40
Task 4 – Conceptual and Preliminary Design 55
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
14
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached
as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$669,765. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the
maximum compensation shall not exceed $67,000. Any work performed or expenses incurred
for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation
set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic
Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $669,765 and the total
compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $67,000.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $71,588
(Site Analysis and Field Survey)
Task 2 $300,225
(Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations)
Task 3 $207,598
(Plan Line Development)
Task 4 $90,354
(Conceptual and Preliminary Designs)
Sub-total Basic Services $669,765
Reimbursable Expenses $0
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $669,765
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $67,000
Maximum Total Compensation $736,765
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011
18
EXHIBIT “C-1”
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Project Manager: $245/hr
Lead Civil Designer: $178/hr
Project Engineer: $178/hr
Utility Lead Designer: $178/hr
VA Lead Designer: $178/hr
Drainage Designer $140/hr Design Engineer III: $128/hr Design Engineer II: $113/hr Design Engineer I: $105/hr
Engineering Tech: $74/hr
Survey Manager: $158/hr
Field Surveyor: $116/hr
Right of Way Coordinator: $116/hr
1 person field survey crew: $160/hr
2 person survey crew: $215/hr
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011
19
EXHIBIT “D”
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES
WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY
YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL
INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS”
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011
20
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF
THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER
THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT
OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Recommended Facilities and Conditions | 6-3
Alta Planning + Design
Chapter 6
Map 6-1. Proposed Bikeway Network
ATTACHMENT F
6-4 | Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan
City of Palo Alto
Chapter 6
ORDINANCE NO.xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO
PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF $335,000 TO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER PE-13011,
CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT SUPPORTED
BY A TRANSFER FROM THE CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND TO THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on
June 10, 2013 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2014; and
B. In fiscal year 2013, the Council appropriated $250,000
for CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Project, for the design of the permanent reconfiguration
identified in the Council adopted Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor Plan. Also in fiscal year 2013, $210,505 was moved
from CIP Project PL-05002 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan
to CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Project to consolidate these two projects into one project;
and
C. Following a bid process, staff recommends that a
contract in the amount of $736,765 be awarded to Mark Thomas &
Company for conceptual and preliminary designs of the project;
and
D. Additional funding is also required for seven public
outreach meetings planned for FY 2014 at a cost of
approximately $5,500 per meeting; and
E. CIP Project PE-13011 has available funds of $440,368
requiring additional funding of $335,000 from the
Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund; and
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk
__________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Senior Assistant City
Attorney
__________________________
City Manager
__________________________
Director of Public Works
__________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16163534 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND FEHR & PEERS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this 18th day of April, 2016, (“Agreement”) by
and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and FEHR & PEERS, a California corporation, located at 160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose, CA. 95113, Telephone: (408) 278-1700 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to prepare construction documents for the Park Boulevard, Wilkie Way,
Bryant Street Extension and Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevards (“Project”) and desires to
engage a consultant to provide services 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 at 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 June 30, 2017
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
not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of
CONSULTANT.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB ATTACHMENT J
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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 Four Hundred
Ninety Five Thousand Eight Dollars ($495,008.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Five Hundred Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred Nine Dollars ($544,509.00.
The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at 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 at 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.
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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 CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to
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 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. 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:
NV5 Companies 200 South Park Road, Suite 350 Hollywood FL, 33012
(954)495-2112
Callander Associates
311 7th Avenue San Mateo CA, 94401
(650) 375-1313
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 Matt Haynes as the Principal in Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services and Ryan McClain as the Project Manager to represent
CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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 reasonable approval of the CITY’s
project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY reasonably 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.
CITY’s project manager is Joshuah Mello, Planning & Community Environment Department, Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone (650) 329-2136. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to
performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project
manager from time to time.
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”) that arise out of the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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
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 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 Chief Procurement Officer 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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 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. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO
WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at 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 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 CCONSULTANT 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 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 CITY shall be purchased in
accordance with 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 Division’s office.
Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no
additional cost to 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
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. 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
25.10 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. 25.11 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
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
FEHR & PEERS
Attachments:
EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK
EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES
EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
President/CEO
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK E 1 – PROJECT MANAGEMENT & KICK-OFF
CONSULTANT’S approach to project management shall ensure that both CITY staff and
the CONSULTANT’S team have real time project information to effectively manage project
staff and budget resources.
Task E1.2 Ongoing Coordination Calls
Scheduling opportunities for consistent, regular coordination with CITY staff and
CONSULTANT’S team members shall be an effective strategy to ensure project success. It provides an opportunity to set approach and direction on subtasks, discuss questions, and
review project deliverables. For this task, CONSULTANT will engage the CITY in biweekly
phone calls during key work periods. Deliverable: Biweekly phone calls during work periods; Meeting notes to be distributed after conference call.
TASK E 2 – COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Continued community outreach will be very important as the project continues into the design phase. CONSULTANT will build on the stakeholder relationships and work
completed through our work on the planning phase of bicycle boulevard projects to transition
the project from the conceptual design stage to full PS&E.
Task E 2.1 Community Outreach Meetings
CONSULTANT will lead up to six community outreach meetings, with support from CITY
staff and Callander. These meetings will be run as workshops similar to previous community meetings for these projects. The main focus will be to show how the previous planning work and community feedback has resulted in the various design elements included with the
project.
Deliverable: Draft and final Powerpoint presentations and boards based on one round of consolidated comments. Meeting preparation and attendance by CONSULTANT and Callander
Task E 2.2 Enhanced Outreach Coordination
The CITY is contracting to provide visualizations of potential improvements. The
CONSULTANT’S design team will coordinate with the contractor to provide requested CAD
files and other relevant materials.
Task E 2.3 Tactical Urbanism Demonstration Project
CONSULTANT will work with the CITY and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition to develop a demonstration project to be installed for a single day, such as Bike to Work Day.
CONSULTANT will develop a traffic control plan for each demonstration location, showing
temporary signing, striping, planters, and other materials to be used for the demonstration.
CONSULTANT will also develop quantities for items such as temporary traffic tape, spray chalk, signs and other material. This proposal does not include the cost of materials.
CONSULTANT will provide up to three staff members for each demonstration on the day of
the event, available to help with setup and cleanup. CONSULTANT shall assume that
volunteers will be available to assist on the day of the events (typically 10 to 15 volunteers is sufficient depending on size of the demonstration). CONSULTANT will attend up to two
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
meetings with CITY and/or Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition staff.
Deliverable: One site-specific traffic control plan illustrating the proposed demonstration
(draft and final) with quantities and implementation plan. TASK E3– SURVEY AND SITE RECONNAISSANCE
This task will develop base mapping to be used for construction plans as well as tree surveys.
Task E 3.1 Topographic Surveys, Utilities, Base Mapping
Topographic Survey: The control for the topographic survey will be performed using GPS methods, and processed through the National Geodetic Survey program OPUS (Online
Positioning User Service). Survey datum for this project will be tied horizontally to the
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), and vertically to the North American Vertical
Datum of 1988 (NAvD88). Topographic surveys for this project will be performed with both conventional surveying as well as terrestrial based scanning methods based off of
previously completed surveys.
NV5 will establish centerline and stationing for the length of the project along Wilkie Way
(between 2nd Street and Miller Court), Bryant Street/E. Meadow Drive to Mackay Drive/Calcaterra Place, El Camino Way, Maybell Avenue, Donald Drive, and Georgia Avenue. NV5 will create and furnish 1”=20’ scale detailed topographic base maps in Cadd, limited to
the street intersections areas with proposed improvements for design and construction of the
Park Blvd, Wilkie Way, Bryant Street Extension, and Maybell Bike Boulevards projects. A design survey was conducted as part of previous tasks for Park Blvd (between Castilleja Avenue and West Meadow Drive). CONSULTANT shall assume that no sheet mapping will
be required. The following key street intersections will be surveyed:
1. 2nd Street/Maclane St
2. Wilkie Way/W. Meadow Drive
3. Wilkie Way/James Road
4. Bryant Street/E. Meadow Drive
5. Bryant Street/Redwood Circle
6. Redwood Circle/South Court
7. Redwood Circle/Carlson Court
8. Carlson Court/E. Charleston Road
9. Ely Place Between Carlson Court & Duncan Place
10. Duncan Place at Adobe Creek Bridge Path
11. Creekside Drive at Adobe Creek Bridge Path
12. Nelson Drive/Creekside Drive
13. Nelson Drive between El Capitan Place & Nelson Court
14. Mackay Drive/Ferne Avenue
15. Mackay Drive/Calcaterra Place
16. El Camino Way/Maybell Ave (optional)
17. W. Meadow Drive/El Camino Way
18. James Road/El Camino Way
19. Amaranta Avenue/Maybell Avenue
20. Coulombe Drive/Maybell Avenue
21. Donald Drive/Maybell Avenue
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
It is anticipated that NV5 will perform topographic mapping based on detailed ground level
surveys. The survey data within the limits will include major topographic features such as
curbs, concrete and asphalt pavement, driveways, sidewalks, building, poles, signs, trees,
(6” or greater DBH), utility poles, fences, walls, striping and pavement markings, grade breaks, locations and rims of storm drain and sanitary sewer manholes, grates of inlets, other above ground utility facilities within the survey limits, and observed right-of-way
monumentation. Higher density of survey points will be taken at curb ramps, driveways
and other improvements that the project improvements will be conforming to, assuring viable
usable conforms. This task also includes the following:
Utility Identification and Locations: Facility base maps of the utility companies will be requested under this task. CONSULTANT will reconcile the facility base map information with the above-ground topographic survey information, i.e.
utility boxes, valves covers, manholes, etc., and plot our best estimate to actual
locations (plan view) of underground utilities and include in the project base
maps. Based on the current conceptual plans no underground utilities impact are anticipated hence locating underground utilities is not included in this scope.
Base Mapping: The above-described topographic survey and utility information
will be plotted in Cadd, creating a base map for the intersection areas listed above
at a scale of 1”=20’. The base maps will include right-of-way boundary (CITY–
furnished) and will be used for design and final project plans.
Deliverable: Utility and Base Mapping in AutoCAD format.
Task E 3.2: Site Reconnaissance and Tree Inventory
CONSULTANT will work with the CITY to gather all available record plans and drainage inventory plans within and adjacent to proposed intersection improvement areas and include them into the survey base map.
Callander Associates’ in-house arborist will conduct a detailed site reconnaissance with base
maps to document location, number, type, diameter at breast height (DBH) and condition of
existing trees within the existing median island near College, Chestnut, and Margarita
Avenues on Park Boulevard. A photo log will document each evaluated tree and the collected data will be summarized in a Tree Inventory Spreadsheet and Tree Locations Plan.
Deliverable: Draft and Final Arborist Report including Tree Inventory Spreadsheet and Tree
Locations Plan
TASK E4– PRELIMINARY DESIGN (35%) PLANS AND ESTIMATE
Based on the current Park Boulevard, Wilkie Way, Bryant Street Extension, and Maybell
Avenue conceptual plans, the CONSULTANT’S team will develop 35% plans and cost
estimate. The emphasis for the 35% level plans will be to prepare the proposed improvement
plan view and profiles (if appropriate), including proposed drainage modifications, driveway, path conforms, and ADA facilities (plan views). This also includes plans for traffic circles at
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
the Stanford Avenue/Ash Street and Stanford Avenue/Birch Street intersections. The
preliminary plans will also include a cycletrack on Park Boulevard between California Avenue
and Lambert Avenue as well as curb modifications at the Park Boulevard/California Avenue
intersections.
As part of this task, Callander Associates will prepare concepts to incorporate storm water
treatment areas into the Castelleja Avenue/Park Boulevard intersection and the Redwood
Circle/Bryan Street intersection, including development of 3D renderings. Callander will work
with Peers Park maintenance staff to identify potential irrigation tie-ins to the park.
The plans will be presented in 1”=20’ scale plots. The plans will include the Typical Sections, and Layout sheets (showing proposed improvements, drainage modifications if needed, driveway improvements if needed, ADA ramps).
A 35% estimate of probable costs will be prepared. Another key goal of the 35% design phase is to clarify and resolve issues that may impact schedule and budget.
Deliverables: 35% design plans, Engineer’s opinion of probable construction costs
TASK E5 – CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
CONSULTANT will prepare the plans, specifications, and cost estimates (PS&E) for
construction of the Park Boulevard, Wilkie Way, Bryant Street Extension, and Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevards.
Task E5.1 75% PS&E
The CONSULTANT’S team will prepare 75% signing and striping, civil, landscaping, and RRFBs plans. PS&E for the construction work will be developed using the applicable Caltrans
2010 Standard Plans and Specifications. CONSULTANT will consider existing drainage
patterns and new inlets and storm drain pipe that may be necessary where curb ramp pop-outs
are required and interfere with gutter flow. CONSULTANT shall assume that if
modifications to the existing drainage systems are required a drainage study or storm water control plan will not be necessary.
Deliverable: 75% design plans, draft technical special provisions, quantities; and construction
cost estimates.
Task E5.2 Final PS&E
After receiving a single, consolidated set of internally-consistent comments from the CITY,
CONSULTANT will develop Final PS&E. Plans will be stamped and signed by a registered
professional engineer. Deliverable: Final 100% design plans, quantities, and construction cost estimates and response to comments matrix based on one (1) round of internally-consistent, consolidated set of
comments on the 75% design
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion
No. of Days/Weeks
From NTP
1. Project Management TBD
2. Community Outreach TBD
3. Survey Site Reconnaissance TBD 4. Preliminary Design TBD
5. Construction Documents TBD
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed
in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the
budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the rate schedule
attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$495,008.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional
Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $544,509.00. Any work performed
or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum
amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget
amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total
compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed
$495,008.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $544,509.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $41,261.00 (Project Management)
Task 2 $42,163.00
(Community Outreach)
Task 3 $75,175.00 (Survey: Site Reconnaissance)
Task 4 $92,247.00
(Preliminary Design) Task 5 $242,163.00
(Construction Documents)
Sub-total Basic Services $495,008.00
Reimbursable Expenses $0.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $495.008.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $49,501.00
Maximum Total Compensation $544,509.00
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are
included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses.
CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost.
Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s
request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of
services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set
forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum
compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project
Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for
additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRE
D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES
YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY
YES
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED.
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
YES
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY
RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF COVERAGE
CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT FOR THE GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS”
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL
LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A
TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED TO:
InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org
DocuSign Envelope ID: B4E68824-9417-4929-808B-092812E1F1CB
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4372)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/17/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects
Title: Approval of Five Consultant Contracts Totaling $2,231,211 for Design
and Environmental Review of Bicycle Plan Implementation Projects and
Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $335,000
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment G) in
the amount of $335,000, transferring funds from the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Traffic
Impact Fee Fund to the Capital Improvement Project Fund, increasing the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) Project PE-13011 by $335,000, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to
execute contracts with the following firms for design services and related actions necessary for
implementation of priority projects within the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan:
1.Alta Planning + Design (Attachment A) in the amount of $400,000 for planning and
preliminary environmental assessment of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update
(Palo Alto Avenue to 100-FT North of E Meadow Drive); the Greer Road Bicycle
Boulevard (Edgewood Drive to Louis Road); the Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue
Bicycle Boulevard (Middlefield Road to West Bayshore Boulevard); the Ross Road Bicycle
Boulevard (North California Avenue to Louis Road); and the Homer Avenue-Channing
Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Project (Alma Street to Boyce Avenue-Guinda Avenue).
2.Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (Attachment B) in the amount of $450,000 for
planning and preliminary environmental assessment of the Barron Park Neighborhood
Class III Bicycle Facilities project; the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension (E
Meadow Drive to San Antonio Road); the Maclane Street-Wilkie Way-Miller Avenue-Del
Medio Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Park Boulevard to San Antonio Road); the Park
Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Phase (Castilleja Avenue to W Charleston Road); and the
Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (El Camino Real to Park Boulevard). This contract
ATTACHMENT K
City of Palo Alto Page 2
also includes online community outreach efforts for both the Alta Planning + Design and
Fehr and Peers Bicycle Boulevard projects.
3. Sandis Engineers (Attachment C) in the amount of $275,000 for design and
environmental assessment of the Churchill Avenue Improvement Project (El Camino
Real to Castilleja Avenue). This contract also includes a focused Caltrans study to help
procure encroachment permits for future construction.
4. Alta Planning + Design (Attachment D) in the amount of $369,446 for a feasibility study
and preliminary environmental assessment for the Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1
Midtown Project (Alma Street to Highway 101).
5. Mark Thomas & Associates (Attachment E) in the amount of $736,765 for preliminary
design and environmental assessment of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road
Corridor Plan (Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue).
Staff also recommends that Council concurrently authorize staff to coordinate with Google and
their transportation planning consultant, Alta Planning + Design, for the planning and
preliminary environmental assessment of the San Antonio Road Class III Bicycle Route project
(Highway 101 to Alma Street); San Antonio Road Class III Bicycle Route project (Byron Street to
Alma Street); the Alma Street Enhanced Bikeway (San Antonio Avenue to Charleston Road); and
the Cubberly Community Center – Bicycle Route.
Background
The Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted on July 9, 2012 and
includes a Proposed Bikeway Network (Attachment F) and associated priority projects by
project type including Bicycle Boulevards, Across Barrier Connections, Bike
Lanes/Sharrows/Enhanced Bikeways, and other project types. As part of the current year
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) the City made a significant commitment to help advance
the plan through the funding of several key projects, not including prior year or future year
funding:
CIP PL-04010, Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan $1,318,009
CIP PL-14000, El Camino Real & Churchill Ave Improvements $283,651
CIP PE-11011, Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass $1,396,168
CIP PL-14001, Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown $383,651
City of Palo Alto Page 3
CIP PL-00026, Safe Routes to School $169,536
The recommended consultant contracts in this report represent a major step forward in the
advancement of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. In addition to the proposed
projects, the City has other pending projects including:
Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass
This project is currently in the Environmental Assessment Phase and the City plans to
solicit design consultant proposals in this Spring.
Matadero Avenue-Margarita Avenue Bicycle Boulevard
This project is being designed using in-house resources and will be presented to the
Planning & Transportation Commission later this month. City Council consideration for
approval of a Final Plan is anticipated by Spring. The funding for this project will come
from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010).
Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard
This project is currently being designed through on-call consultant contracts by Fehr &
Peers Transportation Consultants. The City has already held two community outreach
meetings and a third is anticipated this Spring. Planning & Transportation Commission
and City Council approvals will be requested this Summer. The funding for this project
will come from the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010).
Safe Routes to School – Phase 1 Safety Improvements
As part of the development of new Walk and Roll Maps for each of the city’s public
schools, the community assisted in identifying key intersections where minor safety
improvements were prioritized and implemented this winter. A total of 40 intersections
were upgraded with enhanced crosswalk markings or signage. A Phase 2 Safety
Improvements project is anticipated in the Fall 2014.
Bicycle Detection Improvements
The City procured microwave-focused bicycle detectors and installed them at key
bicycle crossing intersections for trial evaluation. The units were installed earlier this
month at the intersections of Bryant Street & Embarcadero Road, Charleston Road &
Wilkie Way, and Charleston Road & Carlson Drive. The units detected bicyclists up to
300-FT in advance of a signalized intersection and prioritize bicycle detection to help
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ensure an earlier “green” indication at the traffic signal.
Bicycle Marking Improvements
This year the City deployed its first green bicycle lane safety markings along the Park
Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard near Oregon Expressway and on the Channing Avenue
Enhanced Bikeway near Newell Road. Additional “greenback” Sharrow roadway
markings were also installed along Cowper Street between E Meadow Drive and St
Claire Drive.
The proposed design contracts allow for a continued and significant advancement in
implementation of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan with 17 new Bicycle Boulevard,
Enhanced Bikeway or Bicycle Routes projects.
Summary of Key Issues
Each of the recommended consultant contracts was developed based on proposals submitted
and evaluated in response to several Requests for Proposals (RFPs) released by the City in the
Summer and Fall of 2013.
Bicycle Boulevards
The City released the Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevards RFP on October 1, 2013. The RFP scope
included ten Bicycle Boulevard or Enhanced Bikeway projects. Each has been included in one of
the recommended contracts as indicated below:
Project Lead Consultant
1. Barron Park Neighborhoods Class III Bicycle Facilities Fehr & Peers
2. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Update Alta
3. Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Fehr & Peers
4. Greer Road Bicycle Boulevard Alta
5. Homer Avenue-Channing Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Alta
6. Moreno Avenue-Amarillo Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Alta
7. Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Phase 2 Fehr & Peers
8. Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Alta
9. Stanford Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Fehr & Peers
10. Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Fehr & Peers
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The City received a total of five (5) proposals in response to the RFP and interviewed each of
the firms. Alta Planning + Design and Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants were identified
as the recommended firms to partner with the City in the completion of the projects. The ten
projects were divided between the two firms and identified above. Each of the firms
represented demonstrated strong skills and experience in the development of innovative
bicycle projects including bicycle boulevard facility design and community outreach &
engagement.
Community Outreach Strategy
During the interviews each of the firms interviewed expressed concern regarding “community
fatigue” from community outreach participation given that many of the projects overlap
neighborhoods. The projects were divided in such a manner that allows meetings to target
multiple neighborhoods and allow for discussion on various projects. Each of the consultant
work scopes also includes “bike-along” outreach events to help solicit community input in the
field to help residents better explain their areas of concern or suggested improvements directly
in the field. The City also consolidated online outreach for all of the projects onto the Fehr &
Peers work scope to take advantage of GIS-based outreach tools to ensure that the online
community involvement process appears seamless to all participants.
Technical Advisory Committee
The City is also exploring the development of a small Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that
will meet during normal business hours and include representatives from the Palo Alto Bicycle
Advisory Committee (PABAC), City-School Traffic Safety Committee, Planning & Transportation
Commission, and local business leaders. The TAC is intended as a forum where consultants
could share ideas and ensure consistency in project designs. The TAC will also help inform the
consultants regarding initial community interest areas to help prepare and advance design
concepts prior to community meetings. Having representatives from both the City-School
Traffic Safety Committee and PABAC will also help ensure preliminary feedback from each of
those bodies. Both the City-School Traffic Safety Committee and PABAC will continue to receive
on-going program updates for each project.
11. Churchill Avenue Corridor Improvements
This project includes the design of both bicycle & pedestrian facilities along Churchill Avenue
between Castilleja Avenue and El Camino Real as well as roadway capacity improvements for
vehicles through the addition of a westbound right turn lane at El Camino Real. The City
pursued grant-funds for this project as part of the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program last
year but was unsuccessful in receiving funds for the project. The proposed project has
synergies with the Castilleja Avenue-Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard project and the El
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Camino Real element of the Stanford Perimeter Trail. As part of the OBAG proposal review
process, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) also identified this project as having
opportunities to integrate with their proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program.
The City released an RFP for this project on July 6, 2013 and received only one proposal in
response to the RFP from Sandis Engineers. Sandis Engineers has extensive experience working
in the City of Palo Alto and was selected for the design of the project.
12. Matadero Creek Trail – Phase 1 Midtown Feasibility Study
This project includes the completion of a Feasibility Study to identify community-preferred
alignments for the project and Across Barrier Connection alternatives at each end of the project
segment, Alma Street and Highway 101. This project currently is eligible for $1.5 million in
dedicated grant-funding for the construction phase of the project via a grant from the County
of Santa Clara – Alternative Mitigation Program through the Stanford-Palo Alto Trail Program.
The grant is reimbursable and will be received upon completion of the project.
The City released an RFP for this project on May 20, 2013 and received two proposals in
response. Alta Planning + Design was selected to complete this project because of their
extensive community experience through the development of the Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan, work on the Highway 101 Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing project, and their
nationwide experience in developing innovative bicycle-pedestrian crossing solutions along trail
segments.
The successful completion of a Feasibility Study is required before the Santa Clara County grant
funding can be released to the City. The Feasibility Study will require approval by the both the
City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
13. Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Project
This project advances the Complete Street elements of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road
Trial Projects including: new landscaped median islands; intersection bulb-outs to help reduce
pedestrian crossing distances; enhanced bike lanes and bikeway facilities; new street trees; new
streetlights; and streetscape treatments. The current phase of the project is for the Preliminary
Design and Environmental Assessment Phases of the project to help build consensus around
community-preferred improvements before initiating final design.
The City has received partial grant-funding for the construction phases of this project including
a $450,000 grant from the State of California – Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Safe
Routes to School Program for the portion of Charleston Road between Middlefield Road and
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Alma Street; and a $1,000,000 grant from the VTA – VERBS Program for the portion of
Arastradero Road between Georgia Avenue and Miranda Avenue including an upgrade of the
Los Altos Trail between Arastradero Road and Los Altos Avenue.
The City released an RFP for this project on June 4, 2013 and received eight (8) proposals in
response. The Mark Thomas & Company design team was identified as the preferred
consultant for the project demonstrating strong civil experience in the design of enhanced
bikeway and streetscape facilities.
The recommendation includes a request for adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance to
transfer additional funding in the amount of $350,000 from the Charleston Road-Arastradero
Road Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program to CIP Project PE-13011 (Charleston Road-Arastradero
Road Corridor Project.
Google – Bicycle Facility Projects
Google has its central headquarters in the City of Mountain View in the North Bayshore
Business Park. Google is in the process of completing tenant improvements for future
occupancy of the 200 San Antonio Avenue, the site formerly occupied by Hewlett-Packard. The
future Google facility is located on the Mountain View-Palo Alto border and is the southern
terminus of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard via Nelson Drive-Mackay Drive. Google places a
high priority in providing alternative transportation modes to its employees and contractors
and has requested the ability to participate in the Bicycle Boulevard program through the
funding of facilities identified in the Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Google
proposed to fund the planning and preliminary environmental assessment phases for the
following projects:
Project Lead Consultant
14. San Antonio Road Class III Route (Hwy 101 to W City Limit) Alta
15. San Antonio Avenue Class III Route (Byron St to Alma St) Alta
16. Alma Street (San Antonio Avenue to E Charleston Road) Alta
17. Cubberly Community Center – Bicycle Route Alta
Alta is the lead consultant for several of the proposed bicycle projects in this staff report. Staff
sees synergy opportunities in expanding this project to include these bicycle linkages. Inclusion
of the projects now also ensures consolidated community outreach opportunities. Google will
fund all consultant expenses for these projects directly; no city resources beyond staff costs for
coordination are anticipated.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Schedule of Design and Implementation
Each of the 17 projects provides for either preliminary planning to help identify concept plan
line alternatives that can then be advanced into final design and environmental assessment at a
later stage, or complete design for development of construction bid packages. Staff anticipates
each of projects to take approximately 12 to 18 months to complete. Concept plan line
development allows for development of more refined construction schedules, which depend on
the level of improvements requested by communities through which the projects pass. Final
design is generally undertaken upon Council approval of the concept plan line alternatives, and
results in more refined cost estimates. The City anticipates pursuing grants to support
construction of the projects and the use of available infrastructure funding to match or
supplement grant funding as needed.
Policy Implications
Each of the proposed project helps to implement the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportaiton Plan
and is consistent with the following Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal T-3 Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote
Walking and Bicycling
Policy T-14 Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local
destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space,
employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit
stations.
Program T-22 Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of
the southern end of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard to Mountain
View.
Resource Impact
A total of five consultant contracts are recommended through this staff report, each with a
different funding source:
1. Alta Planning + Design – Bicycle Boulevards
A contract in the amount of $400,000 from CIP PL-04010 (Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan – Implementation Project) is recommended allowing for a base
City of Palo Alto Page 9
project of $350,000 and an Additional Services budget of $50,000 to assist in grant
writing development and additional graphics development.
2. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants – Bicycle Boulevards
A contract in the amount of $450,000 from CIP PL-04010 is recommended allowing for a
base project of $390,685 and an Additional Services budget of $59,315 to assist in online
community outreach support, website development and maintenance, and grant writing
development.
3. Sandis Engineers – Churchill Avenue Improvements
A contract in the amount of $275,000 from CIP PL-14000 (El Camino Real & Churchill
Avenue Intersection Improvements – Design) is recommended allowing for a base
project of $250,000 and an Additional Services budget of $25,000 to assist in project
coordination with the Stanford Perimeter Trail and the VTA Bus Rapid Transit projects.
4. Alta Planning + Design – Matadero Creek Trail
A contract in the amount of $369,446 from CIP PL-14001 (Matadero Creek Trail) is
recommended allowing for the complete project. No Additional Services budget is
anticipated as part of this project as the current project phase include just Feasibility
Study and Prleiminary Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that the amount
of funding allocated for the entire design of this project in FY 2014 is $383,651. With
the funding for the feasibility study and environmental assessment anticpated to use
nearly all of the design funding, an alternative funding source will need to be pursued
for the remaining design costs. It is anticipated that the Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan Implementation Project will be funded in FY 2015 in the amount of
$1.2 million. The additional funding required for the design is expected to be allocated
to the FY 2015 appropriation for this project.
5. Mark Thomas & Company – Charleston Rd-Arastradero Rd Corridor Project
A contract in the amount of $736,765 from CIP PE-13011 (Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor Project) is recommended allowing for a base project of $669,765 and an
Additional Services budget of $67,000 to accommodate environmental assessment
studies that may be required for the project and to assist in grant writing development.
A budget amendment ordinance in the amount of $335,000 is recommended as part of
this report to increase funding in the project to accommodate the expense. The
increased expense would be supported by a transfer from the Charleston/Arastradero
Developer Impact Fee Fund.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Google is funding four proposed linkages directly with Alta Planning + Design as their lead
consultant. The City anticipates staff resources to help coordinate additional community
meetings but no direct costs for the design development of these Bike Plan projects.
Timeline
The City anticates that preliminary design and environmental assessment of each of the above
projects will take approximately one year to complete, although the level of effort and timeline
will depend on community participation and interest. Realistically, it will likely take two years
for all of the contracted work to be complete, however some projects will be ready for
construction in advance of that timeline if funding becomes available. Staff can provide a
regular update to the Council on these projects and overall implementaiton of the Bicycle &
Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
Environmental Review
The requested contracts would allow for environmental review of those projects requiring
further review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Alta Planning & Design Contract - Bicycle Boulevard (PDF)
Attachment B: Fehr & Peers Transportation Contract - Bicycle Boulevard (PDF)
Attachment C: Sandis Engineers Contract - Design & Environment Assessment - Churchill
Ave. Improvement Project (PDF)
Attachment D: Alta Planning & Design Contract - Matadero Creek Trail, Phase I (PDF)
Attachment E: Mark Thomas & Associates - Preliminary Design & Environmental
Assessment - Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan (PDF)
Attachment F: PABP 2012 - Proposed Bikeway Network (PDF)
Attachment G: Budget Amendment Ordinance - Charleston/Arastradero (DOC)
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
Professional Services
Rev. Nov. 1, 20111
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C14150694
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this 17th day of March, 2014, (“Agreement”) by
and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation
(“CITY”), and MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, a California corporation, located at 1960
Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95112 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to make streetscape and pedestrian/bicycle improvements along the Charleston
Arastadero Corridor (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide professional design
services 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 10/31/2015 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 not preclude recovery of
damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB ATTACHMENT E
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
2
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 six hundred and sixty-nine
thousand, seven hundred and sixty five Dollars ($669.765.00). In the event Additional Services are
authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed sixty
seven thousand Dollars ($67,000.00). 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.
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
3
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.
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:
- TJKM
- Gates - DJ Powers - Bicycle Solutions 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 Jimmy W. Sims, PE
as the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services and to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
3
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 Holly Boyd, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 250
Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-329-2612. 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.
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”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct of the 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,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
5
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 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
6
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 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
7
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 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.
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
8
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. 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 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
/ / / / 25.10 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.
25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
9
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 Asst. City Attorney
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY
Attachments:
EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK
EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Robert A. Himes
1/28/2014
President
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
11
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CHARLESTON & ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT
DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK
The Project scope of work shall consist of the following tasks:
TASK A Site Analysis and Field Survey
1. The Consultant shall attend a kick‐off Meeting with City staff to review the
project scope and general field conditions.
2. The Consultant shall review and analyze the existing data augmented by
discussion with City staff including review of City‐provided information.
3. Consultant shall provide a field survey of site for purposes of use as a base plan.
The survey shall contain the following: curb and gutter, flow lines, sidewalks,
edge of pavements, edge of sidewalks, edge of pavement way (gutter line),
drainage structures, street lights, signage, roadway delineation, traffic signal
standards, trees, railroad facilities, and visible utility boxes and valves within the
roadway and sidewalk zones in order to prepare improvements along the
Charleston Road‐Arastradero Road Corridor between Charleston Road and
Fabian Way, and Arastradero Road and Miranda Avenue. Field elements and
drainage information not collected by the Consultant during this task that may
be identified in future tasks as required for the completion of design plans for
the project will be completed by the Consultant without additional payment.
4. The Consultant shall provide a site investigation including observation and
research, identifying all utilities, easements, right‐of‐way and signage and
striping/ median lane geometry, lighting and soil and tree conditions.
5. The Consultant shall develop site plans and cross sections show existing and new
grades, topography, location of trees, utilities, lights and structures including
intersections, road frontages and medians, invert elevations and direction of
flow to storm drains in the project area.
6. Plans shall be in AutoCAD 2012 format. Consultant shall also provide 5 hard copy
sets of the field survey (1 DRAFT Set/1 FINAL Set upon City Approval of Survey) ‐
24” x 36” sheets of consecutive plan views of roadway, including center medians
and sidewalk frontage planning areas and all intersections of the project corridor
from Fabian Way to Miranda Avenue at a scale of 1”=20’.
7. Consultant Survey and Base Mapping for the work described above will serve as
the Project Topographic Base Map. Survey Control will be provided to the design
team in both the hard copy and electronic version. Consultant will distribute
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
2
project base mapping to all design team members and make accessible readily
upon each design state. This topographic base map will be the uniform “x‐reference”
for all design work. Topographic base mapping will be updated for all
subconsultants at the beginning of each design phase.
8. Consultant shall provide a 2 page technical report summarizing findings.
TASK B Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations
1. The consultant shall prepare a new Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration. Relevant /
accurate information contained in the previously approved 2003 MND will be used much as
possible.
2. The City anticipates a Traffic Study to be required to allow for the consideration
of additional safety and roadway capacity configurations not included in the
original 2004 Corridor Study at the following intersections, the Consultant shall
be responsible for collecting peak‐hour turning movement count and 7‐day tube
count data to respond to the following design alternatives:
・ Charleston Road & Fabian Way
‐ Charleston Road Left Turn Signal Phasing Option
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
・ Charleston Road & Louis Road‐Montrose Avenue
‐ Reconfiguration of Median Island Access and Pedestrian Improvements
・ Charleston Road & Middlefield Road
‐ Reconfigure Bicycle Lanes and consider option for Dedicated WBRT lane
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
‐ Consider Bicycle Box Treatments
・ Charleston Road & Nelson Drive
‐ Bicycle Box or Intersection Bulb‐Out Improvements
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
・ Charleston Road & Hoover School Driveway
‐ Existing break in painted Median Island, validate Charleston Road Left
storage capacity requirements
・ Charleston Road & Carlson Court
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
‐ Bicycle Box or Intersection Bulb‐Out Improvements
・ Charleston Road & Mumford Pl
‐ Existing uncontrolled Crossing, consider Enhanced Crosswalk Improvements
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
・ Charleston Road & Wright Place
‐ Existing uncontrolled crossing with transit operations, consider Enhanced
Crosswalk Improvements
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
3
・ Charleston Road & Alma Street
‐ Existing adjacent Caltrain operations
‐ Evaluate opportunities to clearly designate bicycle lane facilities across intersection
and trackway
・ Charleston Road & Park Boulevard
‐ Evaluate opportunity for median islands across intersection providing limited right turn
only access from Park Boulevard
‐ Evaluate Enhanced Crosswalk Improvement opportunities across Charleston Road
・ Charleston Road & Ruthelma Avenue
‐ Existing uncontrolled crosswalk across Charleston Road, evaluate for
Enhanced Crosswalk Treatments
・ Charleston Road & Wilkie Way
‐ Existing traffic signal facility, evaluate for permitted left turn lanes on
Charleston Road or with exclusive left turn signal phasing
‐ Wilkie Way is a Bicycle Boulevard crossing, consider special intersection
improvements including exclusive microwave bicycle detection and
roadway markings
・ El Camino Real & Charleston Road‐Arastradero Road
‐ Caltrans maintained intersection; evaluate intersection for bicycle‐pedestrian
focused treatments including intersection bulb‐outs to
support future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operations planned by the VTA
‐ Consider removal of existing Free Right Turn “Slip Lanes” at intersection
・ Arastradero Road & Alta Mesa‐McKellar Lane
‐ Evaluate intersection for median island improvements to restrict left turn
access out of Alta Mesa‐McKeller but allow left turns off of Arastradero Road
‐ Evaluate Transit Shelter/Bike Station at westbound approach of intersection
・ Arastradero Road & Clemo Drive‐Suzanne Drive
‐ Existing Enhanced Crosswalk location, consider additional bicycle‐pedestrian
safety measures including widening of sidewalk widening at Briones Park
‐ Study alternative to provide permanent No Parking Restrictions along the
South side of Arastradero Road westerly from Suzanne Drive
‐ Protect fire station access at intersection and along Arastradero Road frontage
・ Arastradero Road & Los Palos Avenue
‐ Evaluate opportunities to improve left turn egress access from Los Palos Avenue to
westbound Arastradero Road
・ Arastradero Road & Coulombe Drive
‐ Evaluate options for Bike Box facilities at intersection
‐ Evaluate option for Cycle Track with Sidewalk Widening along the South
side of Arastradero Road westerly to Terman Drive‐Donald Drive
‐ Existing signal with permitted‐protected signal phasing, study appropriate
left turn capacity storage requirements
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
4
‐ Consider intersection bulb‐out treatments along North side of
intersection
・ Arastradero Road & Pomona Avenue‐King Arthur Court
‐ Evaluate opportunities left turn egress access from side streets onto
Arastradero Road
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
‐ Evaluate intersection bulb‐out treatments at Pomona Avenue
‐ Evaluate sidewalk widening along the South side of Arastradero Road
west of Pomona Avenue to Terman Drive‐Donald Drive
・ Arastradero Road & Donald Drive‐Terman Drive
‐ Evaluate opportunities for intersection bulb‐out treatments
‐ Evaluate Terman Drive operations and provide recommendations for
improvements to improve circulation out of Terman Drive
‐ Evaluate opportunity to provide dedicate EBRT movement at the
intersection
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements
・ Arastradero Road – Georgia Avenue to Donald Drive‐Terman Drive
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements, protect two‐way left turn access for
side streets along North side of Arastradero Road
・ Arastradero Road – West of Georgia Avenue
‐ Evaluate options to provide Cycle Track or Improved sidewalk access along the north
side of Arastradero Road to Gunn High School
‐ Evaluate options to provide decorative guard rail and widened sidewalk treatments
along the South side of Arastradero Road to Miranda Avenue
‐ Measure left turn storage capacity requirements to Georgia Avenue, Arastradero West
Apartments, and Alta Mesa Cemetery Driveway
‐ Evaluate trail integration options at Hetch‐Hetchy Los Altos Trail intersection on South
side of Arastradero Road; no trail crossing along the North side of Arastradero Road
・ Arastradero Road & Gunn High School Driveway
‐ Consider Bike Box treatments at intersection
‐ Evaluate left turn storage requirements at intersection and consider traffic signal
phasing improvements to improve intersection capacity
・ Arastradero Road & Miranda Avenue
‐ Evaluate opportunities to provide WBLT lane to Southbound Miranda Avenue
3. Provide required documentation for NEPA certification as required by Caltrans Local
Assistance including Traffic Assessment, Visual Impact Assessment, Technical
Memorandums for Air Quality, Biology, Hydraulic Study, Land Use and Cultural Impact,
Hazard Materials, Historical Resources, Temporary 4(f) Impact, Tree
Preservation/Removal, Construction Staging, etc.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
5
4. Consultant shall provide value engineering report to help determine project elements
and limits of work for each phase.
5. Consultant shall provide an arborist report per the City’s Tree Technical Manual
for trees in the public‐right‐of‐way along with corridor.
6. Consultant shall provide innovative storm drain study for water conservation
and irrigation design.
7. Coordination with Caltrans and prepare a Project Study Report (PSR) for traffic
signal/intersection modification at El Camino Real & Charleston Road‐
Arastradero Road.
TASK C Plan Line Development and Public Meetings
Immediately upon survey of the project area and collection of traffic data, the Consultant shall
begin development of Plan Line Alternatives for presentation to the community. The Consultant
shall develop up to five Plan Line Alternatives and begin an extensive public outreach process to
develop a Preferred Community Plan Line Alternative that will serve as the basis for the
development of Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimates (PS&E) for the project. The Consultant
should allow up to six months of community outreach for the development of the Preferred
Community Plan Line Alternative.
The City anticipates the following community outreach meeting schedule for development of
the Preferred Community Plan Line:
・ General Community Outreach Meetings (3 Total)
・ Neighborhood Specific Focused Outreach Meetings (4 Total)
o Green Meadow/Walnut Grove
o Monroe Park/Charleston Meadows
o Barron Park
o Palo Alto Orchard/Green Acres I/II
・ Study Session with Planning & Transportation Commission
・ Study Session with Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
・ Study Session with City‐School Traffic Safety Committee
・ Study Session with City Council
・ Presentation Planning & Transportation Commission
1. Consultant shall prepare all outreach, notices and meeting and presentation
materials for stakeholder, community and public meetings. Each meeting should
be scheduled for four hours including travel time.
2. Deliverables:
o Community Preferred Plan Line Alignment for Charleston Road‐
Arastradero Road Corridor Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
6
TASK D Conceptual and Preliminary Designs
Upon approval the Community Preferred Plan Line Alignment, the Consultant shall begin
development of Conceptual and Preliminary Design to engage the community on the
identification of Streetscape Treatments along the corridor including development of
Community‐Preferred Landscape and Streetscape Furniture Palette’s.
1. The conceptual and preliminary design task includes selecting the locations of
the new crosswalks, signs, street lighting & traffic signal standards, and
intersection improvements, medians and curb bulb‐outs. Prepare presentation
boards for City staff to use at public meetings. Consultant to provide section and
elevation concept plans.
2. Prepare all noticing, presentation materials, plan sets copies, meeting summaries
for public meetings to present preliminary design proposals, and act as facilitator
of the meetings.
3. Meet and confer with City Staff to respond to and address City, stakeholder and
Community comments.
4. Present the plans to the stakeholder, community, Public Art Commission,
Architectural Review Board and to the Planning and Transportation Commission
and address comments. Each meeting should be scheduled for four hours
including travel time.
5. Collect comments received during Conceptual and Preliminary Designs to include
in project specifications.
6. Refined cost estimates based on value engineering.
Public Art Programming & Coordination
Provide consultation and technical input on the solicitation of offers for public art, the
selection of qualified artists and selection of public art proposals.
・ Coordination with Arts Commission during the early design stages
・ Work with City, users and design team in the selection art sites available within
the project area
5. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
Additional services may be required and services are subject to project manager
approval. Examples of services are as follows:
・ Additional meetings with ARB, Council and the public and associated materials
・ Additional plan drawings and revisions
6. INFORMATION and SERVICES PROVIDED BY the City of Palo Alto
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
7
The City will provide the following during the design phase:
・ Base Map from GIS for use in Identifying City‐Owned Utility Information
・ 2004 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan
・ 2004 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
・ AutoCAD title block
・ Plan line drawings submitted as part of the OBAG and VERBS Grant Applications
・ City standard construction details and technical specifications for irrigation work,
asphalt, concrete, sidewalk, curb and gutter, tree planting, landscaping and
median details in AutoCAD 2012;
・ Environmental documents;
・ City staff shall assist in obtaining design review comments from City staff;
The City will provide the following during the Bid and Construction phase:
・ City shall advertise, provide bidders list, assist in obtaining bid document review
comments and reproduce copies of bid and construction documents to
contractors.
・ City shall provide general and supplementary conditions and City’s boilerplate
specifications (work hours, duration, truck routes, etc.)
Consultant is responsible for reviewing and verifying all supplied information.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
1
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed.
TIMELINE:
Weeks from NTP
Task 1 – Site Analysis and Field Surveys
Field Surveys and Aerial Mapping 10
Task 2 – Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design
Considerations
Traffic Study 20
CEQA and NEPA 50
Caltrans PEER 50
Task 3 – Plan Line Development and Public Meetings 40
Task 4 – Conceptual and Preliminary Design 55
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011
14
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget
schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached
as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$669,765. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable
expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the
maximum compensation shall not exceed $67,000. Any work performed or expenses incurred
for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation
set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts
between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic
Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $669,765 and the total
compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $67,000.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $71,588
(Site Analysis and Field Survey)
Task 2 $300,225
(Environmental Assessment and Traffic Design Considerations)
Task 3 $207,598
(Plan Line Development)
Task 4 $90,354
(Conceptual and Preliminary Designs)
Sub-total Basic Services $669,765
Reimbursable Expenses $0
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $669,765
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $67,000
Maximum Total Compensation $736,765
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011
18
EXHIBIT “C-1”
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Project Manager: $245/hr
Lead Civil Designer: $178/hr
Project Engineer: $178/hr
Utility Lead Designer: $178/hr
VA Lead Designer: $178/hr
Drainage Designer $140/hr Design Engineer III: $128/hr Design Engineer II: $113/hr Design Engineer I: $105/hr
Engineering Tech: $74/hr
Survey Manager: $158/hr
Field Surveyor: $116/hr
Right of Way Coordinator: $116/hr
1 person field survey crew: $160/hr
2 person survey crew: $215/hr
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011
19
EXHIBIT “D”
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES
WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY
YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE,
SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL
INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS”
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Professional Services Rev Nov. 1, 2011
20
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL
NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF
THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER
THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT
OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CC86598-C87E-47D5-8C4C-4EC8137A82BB
Recommended Facilities and Conditions | 6-3
Alta Planning + Design
Chapter 6
Map 6-1. Proposed Bikeway Network
ATTACHMENT F
6-4 | Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan
City of Palo Alto
Chapter 6
ORDINANCE NO.xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO
PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF $335,000 TO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER PE-13011,
CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO CORRIDOR PROJECT SUPPORTED
BY A TRANSFER FROM THE CHARLESTON/ARASTRADERO
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND TO THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and
determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on
June 10, 2013 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2014; and
B. In fiscal year 2013, the Council appropriated $250,000
for CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Project, for the design of the permanent reconfiguration
identified in the Council adopted Charleston/Arastradero
Corridor Plan. Also in fiscal year 2013, $210,505 was moved
from CIP Project PL-05002 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan
to CIP Project PE-13011, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor
Project to consolidate these two projects into one project;
and
C. Following a bid process, staff recommends that a
contract in the amount of $736,765 be awarded to Mark Thomas &
Company for conceptual and preliminary designs of the project;
and
D. Additional funding is also required for seven public
outreach meetings planned for FY 2014 at a cost of
approximately $5,500 per meeting; and
E. CIP Project PE-13011 has available funds of $440,368
requiring additional funding of $335,000 from the
Charleston/Arastradero Development Impact Fee Fund; and
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk
__________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Senior Assistant City
Attorney
__________________________
City Manager
__________________________
Director of Public Works
__________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
Table 1: Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard
Block Segment
Feet of Parking Space
Available Parking Spaces
Average Cars Observed
Percent Used (Current)
Proposed Parking Spaces
Spaces Lost
Percent Used (After removal)
Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Palo Alto Ave (westside)88 4 0.0 0%22 0%
Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Hawthorne Ave (westside)487 22 9.3 42%20 2 46%
Bryant St Poe St to Palo Alto Ave (eastside)131 6 0.5 8%2426%
Poe St Bryant St to Palo Alto Ave (southside)388 18 4.8 27%18 0 27%
Poe St Palo Alto Ave to Bryant St (northside)281 13 2.3 18%13 0 18%
Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Poe St (eastside)371 17 14.5 86%17 0 86%
Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Everett Ave (westside)274 12 8.3 66%11 1 72%
Bryant St Everett Ave to Hawthorn Ave (eastside)250 11 9.0 79%10 1 87%
Everett Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (northside)112 5 5.0 98%4 1 122%
Everett Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (southside)139 6 6.3 99%5 1 118%
Everett Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (southside)177 8 12.5 155%7 1 177%
Everett Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (northside)346 16 11.8 75%15 1 80%
Bryant St Everett Ave to 335 driveway (westside)196 9 7.5 84%8195%
Bryant St mixed use building to Everett Ave (eastside)166 8 5.8 76%7188%
Bryant St Channing Ave to Addison Ave (westside)256 12 9.8 84%10 2 101%
Bryant St Addison Ave to Channing Ave (eastside)340 15 12.3 79%13 2 91%
Addison Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (northside)157 7 3.0 42%5258%
Addison Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (southside)181 8 3.5 43%6256%
Addison Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (southside)400 18 7.5 41%16 2 46%
Addison Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (northside)334 15 7.5 49%13 2 57%
Bryant St Addison Ave to Lincoln Ave (westside)335 15 5.8 38%13 2 43%
Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Addison Ave (eastside)313 14 6.8 47%12 2 55%
Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Kingsley Ave (westside)387 18 7.3 41%15 3 50%
Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Lincoln Ave (eastside)332 15 5.3 35%12 3 43%
Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (northside)207 9 3.0 32%6347%
Kingsley Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (southside)165 8 0.8 10%5317%
Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (southside)425 19 15.3 79%16 3 93%
Kinglsey Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (northside)410 19 13.3 71%16 3 85%
Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Embarcadero Rd (westside)253 12 3.3 28%7550%
Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kingsley Ave (eastside)237 11 2.5 23%5652%
Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kellogg Ave (westside)264 12 5.5 46%12 0 46%
Bryant St Kellogg Ave to Embarcadero Rd (eastside)255 12 1.8 15%10 2 18%
Lowell Ave Bryant St to Emerson St (northside)424 19 8.5 44%17 2 49%
Lowell Ave Emerson St to Bryant St (southside)370 17 10.0 59%15 2 67%
Table 1: Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard
Block Segment
Feet of Parking Space
Available Parking Spaces
Average Cars Observed
Percent Used (Current)
Proposed Parking Spaces
Spaces Lost
Percent Used (After removal)
Lowell Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (southside)421 19 4.3 23%17 2 25%
Lowell Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (northside)415 19 3.3 18%17 2 20%
Bryant St Santa Rita Ave to Washington Ave (westside)362 16 5.5 33%16 0 33%
Bryant St California Ave to Santa Rita Ave (eastside)1600 73 12.5 17%71 2 18%
Bryant St Washington Ave to California Ave (westside)105 5 1.5 31%3254%
California Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (northside)176 8 0.5 6%62 8%
California Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (southside)206 9 0.0 0%72 0%
California Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (southside)300 14 0.7 5%12 2 6%
California Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (northside)387 18 8.3 47%16 2 53%
Bryant St California Ave to Oregon Expy (westside)432 20 5.8 29%18 2 33%
Bryant St Oregon Expy to California Ave (eastside)513 23 6.3 27%21 2 29%
El Verano Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (northside)215 10 1.3 13%8216%
El Verano Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (southside)192 9 1.0 11%7215%
El Verano Ave Bryant St to South Ct (southside)211 10 2.3 23%8230%
El Verano Ave South Ct to Bryant St (northside)204 9 0.5 5%72 7%
TOTAL 15,190 690 279 40%595 95 47%
Survey Times
Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 24, 2016 at 12:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Weekend was surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 12:00 pm (between 8am and 5pm)
Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am)
Daytime #1 for select locations were surveyed on March 1, 2016 at 10:00 AM
(California btwn Bryant and Waverely; Lowell Ave btwn Bryant and Waverley)
Notes
1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for counting instructions.
2) Parking Availability excludes driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and no parking areas.
3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use & functional classification.
4) California Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm.
Table 2: Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard
Block Segment
Feet of Parking Space
Available Parking Spaces
Average Cars Observed
Percent Used (Current)
Proposed Parking Spaces
Spaces Lost
Percent Used (After removal)
Ross Rd Oregon Expy to Moreno Ave (westside)402 18 4.75 26%16 2 29%
Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Oregon Expy (eastside)447 20 6.75 33%18 2 37%
Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Rosewood Dr (westside)176 8 0.5 6%5 3 10%
Ross Rd Rosewood Dr to Colorado Ave (westside)548 25 7 28%23 2 31%
Ross Rd Marshall Dr to Moreno Ave (eastside)274 12 3.75 30%10 2 36%
Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Randers Ct (northside)138 6 0.25 4%51 5%
Colorado Ave Randers Ct to Ross Rd (southside)68 3 00%12 0%
Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Sevyson Ct (southside)432 20 00%18 2 0%
Colorado Ave Sevyson Ct to Ross Rd (northside)492 22 7.5 34%20 2 37%
Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Marshall Dr (eastside)381 17 4.75 27%16 1 29%
Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Sutter Ave (westside)155 7 1.5 21%5 2 30%
Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Colorado Ave (eastside)177 8 00%62 0%
Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Clara Dr (westside)151 7 0.75 11%5 2 15%
Ross Rd Clara Dr to Sutter Ave (eastside)220 10 0.25 3%82 3%
Ross Rd Clara Dr to Stern Ave (westside)354 16 2.75 17%14 2 20%
Ross Rd Wintergreen Wy to Clara Dr (eastside)173 8 0.75 10%8 0 10%
Ross Rd Stern Ave to Allen Ct (westside)180 8 2.25 28%2 6 103%
Ross Rd Allen Ct to Loma Verde Ave (westside)386 18 5.5 31%15 3 38%
Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Wintergreen Wy (eastside)793 36 6.5 18%30 6 22%
Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Loma Verde Pl (westside) 225 10 2.25 22%8 2 27%
Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Pl to Ross Rd (southside)201 9 00%72 0%
Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Manchester Ct (southside)106 5 00%32 0%
Loma Verde Ave Manchester Ct to Ross Rd (northside)122 6 2 36%4 2 56%
Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Ames Ave (westside)488 22 4 18%19 3 21%
Ross Rd Ross Ct to Loma Verde Ave (eastside)184 8 00%62 0%
Ross Rd Ames Ave to Richardson Ct (eastside)95 4 1 23%3 1 30%
Ross Rd Richardson Ct to Ross Ct (eastside)145 7 00%70 0%
Ross Rd Ames Ave to Stone Ln (westside)405 18 7.5 41%13 5 56%
Ross Rd Stone Ln to Talisman Dr (eastside)227 10 1.75 17%9 1 19%
Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Ames Ave (eastside)779 35 10.5 30%32 3 32%
Talisman Dr Ross Rd to bend in road (northside)255 12 2.5 22%11 1 24%
Talisman Dr bend in road to Ross Rd (southside)282 13 2 16%11 2 18%
Talisman Dr Ross to Arbutus Ave (southside)190 9 3.25 38%8 1 43%
Talisman Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (northside)172 8 1.5 19%7 1 22%
Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Christine Dr (westside)183 8 0.5 6%71 7%
Ross Rd Christine Dr to Meadow Dr (westside)275 13 4.5 36%12 1 39%
Table 2: Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard
Block Segment
Feet of Parking Space
Available Parking Spaces
Average Cars Observed
Percent Used (Current)
Proposed Parking Spaces
Spaces Lost
Percent Used (After removal)
Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Talisman Dr (eastside)445 20 4 20%19 1 21%
Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Mayview Ave (westside)284 13 3.25 25%13 0 25%
Ross Rd Ramos Park Path to Meadow Dr (eastside)332 15 5.5 36%14 1 39%
E Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Grove Ave (northside)386 18 4 23%17 1 24%
E Meadow Dr Grove Ave to Ross Rd (southside)365 17 0.75 5%15 2 5%
E Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Arbutus Ave (southside)106 5 1.75 36%4 1 46%
E Meadow Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (northside)112 5 00%32 0%
Ross Rd Mayview Ave to Corina Wy (westside)102 5 1.25 27%5 0 27%
Ross Rd W Corina Wy to E Corina Wy (westside)317 14 1.75 12%13 1 13%
Ross Rd Corina Wy to Ramos Park Path (eastside)453 21 5.25 25%20 1 27%
Ross Rd E Corina Wy to Louis Rd (westside)148 7 0.25 4%43 7%
Ross Rd Louis Rd to Corina Wy (eastside)141 6 0.75 12%3 3 22%
Ross Rd Louis Rd to Nathan Wy (westside)129 6 0.5 9%60 9%
Ross Rd Nathan Wy to Louis Rd (eastside)125 6 0.25 4%51 5%
TOTAL 13,726 624 128 21%533 91 24%
Survey Times
Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 23, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Weekend as surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am)
Notes
1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for counting instructionss.
2) Parking Availability excludes driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas.
3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and functional classification.
4) Louis Road is no parking on the north side of street from 7 am - 7 pm.
5) Colorado Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm.
6) Loma Verde Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm.
Table 3: Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard
Block Segment
Feet of Parking Space
Available Parking Spaces
Average Cars Observed
Percent Used (Current)
Proposed Parking Spaces
Spaces Lost
Percent Used (After removal)
Moreno Ave Rosewood Dr to Ross Rd (southside)357 16 1.25 8%14 2 9%
Moreno Ave Coastland Dr to Rosewood Dr (northside) 113 5 0.75 15%5 0 15%
Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Coastland Dr (northside)217 10 2.25 23%8 2 29%
Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Marshall Dr (southside)172 8 0.75 10%6 2 13%
Moreno Ave Marshall Dr to Ross Rd (southside)162 7 0.5 7%52 9%
Louis Rd Moreno Ave to Fielding Dr (westside)200 9 00%09 0%
Louis Rd Fielding Dr to Bruce Dr (westside)206 9 4.75 51%9 0 51%
Louis Rd Bruce Dr to Amarillo Ave (eastside)67 3 00%30 0%
Louis Rd Amarillo Ave to Moreno Ave (eastside)124 6 00%60 0%
Amarillo Ave Louis Rd to Ohlone Elem driveway (southsid 206 9 2.75 29%0 9 N/A
Amarillo Ave Ohlone Elem driveway to Greer Rd (southsid 311 14 4.25 30%13 1 33%
Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Greer Park Pathway (southside)559 25 4.5 18%24 1 19%
Amarillo Ave Greer Park Pathway to W Bayshore Rd (south 640 29 14.5 50%18 11 81%
Amarillo Ave W Bayshore Rd to N Tanland Dr (northside)223 10 8 79%5 5 160%
Amarillo Ave N Tanland Dr to S Tanland Dr (northside)197 9 5.25 59%7 2 75%
Amarillo Ave S Tanland Dr to Greer Rd (northside)473 22 10.75 50%20 2 54%
Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Louis Rd (northside)702 32 10.25 32%16 16 64%
TOTAL 4929 224 70.5 31%160 65 44%
Survey Times
Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am)
Notes
1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces.
2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas.
3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification.
4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm
5) Amarillo from Louis next to Ohlone has one no parking space from 7 am to 4 pm M-F. A maintenance truck was parked in that spot Daytime
6) Amarillo north of Ohlone, the first house has a no parking sign from 7 am to 4 pm M-F.
Table 4: Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard
Block Segment
Feet of Parking Space
Available Parking Spaces
Average Cars Observed
Percent Used (Current)
Proposed Parking Spaces
Spaces Lost
Percent Used (After removal)
Montrose Ave Middlefield Rd to Sutherland Dr (northside)170 8 1.25 16%8 0 16%
Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Middlefield Rd (southside)170 8 2.75 36%8 0 34%
Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Seminole Wy (northside)700 32 10.75 34%32 0 34%
Montrose Ave Seminole Wy to Charleston Rd (northside)158 7 0.75 10%7 0 11%
Montrose Ave Charleston Rd to Sutherland Dr (southside)736 33 11.25 34%31 2 36%
Louis Rd Charleston Rd to Bibbits Dr (northside)101 5 1.5 33%4 1 38%
Louis Rd Bibbits Dr to Charleston Rd (southside)116 5 00%0 5 N/A
Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Corina Wy (westside)106 5 00%50 0%
Louis Rd Corina Wy to Meadow Dr (eastside)139 6 00%51 0%
Louis Rd Aspen Wy to E Meadow Dr (eastside)584 27 0.25 1%27 0 1%
E Meadow Dr Ortega Ct to Louis Rd (northside)143 7 0.75 12%6 1 14%
Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Aspen Wy (westside)596 27 6.5 24%26 1 25%
E Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Ortega Ct (southside)148 7 1.75 26%6 1 31%
E Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Meadow Cir (southside)867 39 9.25 23%38 1 24%
E Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Louis Rd (northside)445 20 9 44%19 1 47%
E Meadow Cir Meadow Dr to Paloma St (southside)282 13 8.5 66%13 0 66%
E Meadow Cir Paloma St to Meadow Cir (northside)293 13 7 53%12 1 57%
E Meadow Cir Meadow Cir to Loral Space Systems(eastside) 342 16 2.75 18%16 0 18%
E Meadow Cir Loral Space Systems to Meadow Dr (westside) 355 16 3.25 20%15 1 21%
E Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Fabian Wy (westside)381 17 0.25 1%17 0 1%
E Meadow Dr Fabian Wy to Meadow Cir (eastside)342 16 14.75 95%16 0 95%
TOTAL 7174 326 63.75 20%310 7 21%
Survey Times
Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm)
Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am)
Notes
1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces.
2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas.
3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification.
4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/27/2016 11:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 1:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike Lanes and Public Safety Buildings
$20M for bike boulevards when we still haven't spent one dime other than planning, on the new public
safety building, is ridiculous. Please skip the nice-to-haves until the truly critical needs are met.
Kathleen Goldfein
Attachment M