HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-08 City Council (5)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS 4
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 8, 2002 CMR:198:02
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
APPROVE AND MANAGE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTS TO THE
MASTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF
.CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR THE
HOMER AVENUE CALTRAIN UNDERCROSSING PROJECT;.
ADOPTION oF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
PROJECT APPROVAL; AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE AND
FUNDING STATUS FOR THE HOMER AVENUE CALTRAIN
UNDERCROSSING, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT 10121
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the City Council:
Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Homer Avenue
Caltrain Undercrossing Project (Attachment A) finding that, on independent
review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and any public comments, there is
no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment in consideration of the environmental mitigations and the program
for reporting on or monitoring these mitigation measures contained in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration;
Adopt the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the Program
Supplements to the Master Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans
for federal-aid project, relating to theHomer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing
Project, CIP 10121 (Attachment B);
Approve the skewed alignment, Alternative A, as identified in the 30% design cost
estimate and Site Plan (Attachment C).
BACKGROUND
In November 1998, a feasibility, study by Steven Grover and Associates evaluated three
railroad-crossing alternatives in the vicinity of Homer Avenue. The alternatives were:
(A) an at-grade crossing, (B) a bridge and (C) an undercrossing.The preferred
CMR:198:02 Page 1 of 6
alternative was an undercrossing, which provided the necessary accessibility and safety
while offering the best reduction in time travel for cyclists. In March 2000, the City
Council adopted the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan that identified
specific policies relating to bicycle and pedestrian circulation in and around the study
area. In December 2000 (CMR:441:00), the City Council accepted $2.3 million in
federal and state grant funds for the Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing project. In
April 2001 (CMR:205 :01), the City Council approved the Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) program that provides eligibility to accept this funding, administered
by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In May 2001, the City
received authorization from Caltrans to begin the preliminary engineering phase of the
project. In July 2001 (CMR 298:01), the City Council approved a consultant contract
with Nolte Associates, Inc. (Nolte) for 15% design services and directed staff to refine
the project cost estimate before proceeding further with the project. In December 2001,
the City was awarded an additional $150,000 in grant funds for the project from the
VTA. In January 2002 (CMR107:02), the City Council approved an amendment to the
Consultant contract with Nolte to complete the design, right~of-way and construction
documents for the skewed alignment with an easterly portal at the Homer Avenue and
Alma Street intersection and the westerly portal centered on the "star plaza" landing
developed by the Palo alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). The project is on an
accelerated timeline in order to safeguard the funding. State grant funding must be
obligated for the construction phase no later than June 30, 2002. Federal funding must be
obligated by September 30, 2002.
DISCUSSION
In January 2002, the City Council was asked to proceed or not to proceed with the project
due to the grant funding time constraints, funding shortfall and possible delays caused by
outside agency approvals. The City Council directed staff to proceed with the project and
provide a status report on the schedule and funding. Staff is reaffirming the Council’s
action to proceed with the project by recommending the City Council to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the project.
During the 15% design phase, the cost estimates for the alternatives ranged from
$4,059,858 to $4,814,658. The ’costs varied due to the method of construction and type
of structure used. At that time, staff and Nolte preferred the least expensive option that
included precast concrete units, stairways, ADA-compliant ramps, landing areas, portal
treatments, lighting and landscaping. During the development of the 30% design, Nolte,
staff and the Penninsula Corridor Joint .Powers Board (PCJPB) agreed that "the cut and
cover" method (Alternative C) was extremely difficult due to the complexity of utility
relocations, staging of the construction equipment, the large excavation needed to provide
access for the precast units and removal and replacement of the railroad tracks to be
completed in a 40 hour window allotted during the planned Caltrain weekend shutdowns.
Since the funding requires an accelerated project schedule and due to the difficulties of
the approval process by the different agencies involved, staff and Nolte agree that the
overall project schedule can not be met if a precast "cut and cover" construction method
is used. Therefore, the secant pile construction method is recommended.
CMR: 198:02 Page 2 of 6
Staff had design review meetings with the Planning & Transportation Commission,
Public Art Commission, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), and the
Architectural Review Board (ARB). The board and commission comments and ideas
generated as part of the 30% design focused-on the safety, lighting, tree placement, art
and circulation. During the ARB public hearing, one speaker from the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation wanted to be notified in advance of pile driving construction. Notification
will be required and provisions will be included in the construction documents. To
mitigate the visual impact of removing trees along Alma Street, the ARB specified that
plans for art, architecture, .lighting and landscaping/reforestation plans are included as a
mitigation measure and the plans be incorporated into the final design.
Public art will be integrated into the architecture and any enhancements beyond the basic
(safe and functional) design will be identified. Lighting and miscellaneous items will
provide a safe and functional facility. In July 2002, Council will have the option to select
additional enhancements beyond the basic (safe and functional) design as recommended
by the ARB and Public Art Commission. Council would then need to-authorize funding
for any shortfalls between the project cost and the grant funds already committed.
The proposed undercrossing calls for the installation of crosswalks on Alma Street
between the undercrossing plaza and the sidewalks on Homer Avenue, and on Homer
Avenue. In addition, the traffic signal will be modified to include pedestrian walk lights
and pedestrian push buttons, and a new eastbound signal phase for pedestrians and
bicyclists. The Transportation Division and the Police Department have identified
important circulation issues based upon the existing conditions of the intersection and the
proposed improvements. As part of a traffic signal modification project, the traffic signal
design will be developed further in the final design phase and will be coordinated through
the Transportation Division and Police Department. Ramping and stairways will need to
be developed further in this final design phase. Also, the raising of the tracks by
approximately 1-foot is preferred to reduce the ramp length and to provide a safe, inviting
and a more visible undercrossing. The total estimated project costs would increase to $4.9
million due to the cost of raising the railroad tracks and the decision to use the secant pile
construction method.
Status of Funding and Timeline
There is currently a funding shortfall of approximately $1.4 million. This is due to: 1) the
original funding request being based on construction cost only and thus being insufficient
to cover design and other project costs; 2) the PCJPB proposing a fourth track (elongating
the original tunnel structure by 20 feet) to accommodate the future electrification of the
rail lines; 3) the change from a precast structural system to a secant pile system. During
the months of February and March 2002, staff obtained an additional $675,000 in grant
funds. This increases the total federal and state grant funding accepted for the project to
$3.1 million, and another $350,000 is committed from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation
and Sheraton Hotel mitigation fees upon commencement of construction for a total of
$3.5 million.
CMR: 198:02 Page 3 of 6
The committed funding sources and deadlines for this project are as follows:
$2,035,000 Federal Transportation Equity for the 21st Century (TEA-21) grant
funds, with deadline for approval of plans, specifications and right-of-way
agreements of September 30, 2002
o $263,810 State Transportation Improvement Program-(STIP) funds, with
deadline for Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) authorization to
proceed with construction of June 30, 2002
3.$300,000 PAMF and $50,000 Sheraton Hotel local development mitigation
fees payable upon commencement of construction of the project.
4.$325,000 Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program Manager funds
from VTA
5.$500,000 Tier 1 bicycle plan funds from VTA Federal Transportation
Enhancements (TEA) program
Staff has identified possible funding sources for the City to significantly reduce or
eliminate the $1.4 million shortfall. The City will need to commit its own funds of
$167,280 in order to leverage the significant level of TLC grant funds noted below. Staff
is pursuing the grant funding as follows:
o
o
$200,000 Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds from VTA (in
progress)
$1,291,130 Transportation Fund for Livable Communities (TLC) from MTC
stipulating that a City local match contribution is 11.5% ($167,280).. Grant
application was submitted to MTC in March 2002.
Funding through the Governor’s economic stimulus package and State Bicycle
Transportation Fund monies available upon adoption of the Bicycle Plan
City made a request through its congressional representatives for an $800,000
earmark in the FY 2003 Federal Transportation Appropriations Bill under the
Transportation and Community and Systems Preservation Account (TCSP)
According to VTA and MTC staff, the first funding source is highly probable, the second
is highly competitive, the third and fourth are speculative.
An extension request for the committed state funds would be possible, since this would
allow state and federal deadlines to coincide with the September 30, 2002 deadline. Staff
must request an extension from the California Transportation Commission; the extension
would be justified due to design for an additional track not previously considered at the
time of the grant request. No funding extensions are available on the committed federal
CMR: 198:02 Page 4 of 6
funds for this project. To date, MTC has maintained a strict "no extensions" policy with
every recipient of federal TEA-21 funds.
Completing design of the project by the September 30, 2002~ deadline represents a
significant challenge for the City. Caltrans must approve plans, specifications and, right-
of-way certification for the project by September 30, 2002. Caltrans has requested final
documents eight weeks instead of six weeks ahead of the deadline or approximately
August 1, 2002. Approvals are needed from Caltrans, the PCJPB, California Public
Utilities Commission, Union Pacific Railroad and telecommunication companies. The
project also involves the relocation of two fiber optic duct banks with cables owned by
four separate telecommunications companies. Staff and Nolte .will meet with the
telecommunication companies next month and provide additional design work as needed
for these entities to review and approve plans for the project. Design work will be
completed on schedule using the secant pile system, thus allowing review and approval
by outside agencies is more certain. Caltrain staff is assisting and facilitating the City’s
efforts to obtain these approvals.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The resolution will allow staff to begin the reimbursement of federal and state funds by
Caltrans through a Program Supplement Agreement. Reimbursement will commence
after certification of the environmental review, Future financial impacts are unknown but
could be $1.4 million, since there are financial risks for unmet deadlines and the potential
for.additional grant funding not being secured.This is a new infrastructure project
without predetermined internal funding.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This project is consistent with existing City policies, including the Comprehensive Plan
the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan, and the draft bicycle plan..
TIMELINE
The City will include additional design details and project requirements into the final
contract documents after the public review process in June and will provide a project
update to the City Council in July 2002. To date, the City remains on schedule to
complete the following milestones:
Milestone
ARB, Art Commission, PABAC and Planning Commission
Review of 30% Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E)
Complete CEQA process
ARB, Art and PABAC Review of 80% PS&E
Council review 80% PS&E, project status & funding update
Right-of-way Certification by Caltrans
Submit 100% PS&E to Caltrans
NEPA Environmental Certification by Caltrans & FHWA
Final Caltrans Certification of Project Plans
Award of Construction Contract
CMR:198:02
Timeline
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
July 2002
July 2002
July 2002
September 2002
February 2003
Page 5 of 6
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For NEPA, a Preliminary
Evironmental Study and supplemental studies requested by Caltrans were submitted to
Caltrans in January 2002. Caltrans and FHWA review and approval is now expected to
be complete by the end of July 2002. The CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration was
circulated for a 30-day review period beginning February 27 and ending March 29. The
notice for this review period included a statement that only written comments would be
accepted in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Written comments received prior to the
end of the review period are attached to and commented on in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Attachment A).
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
ATTACHMENTS
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resolution
30% Cost Estimate and Site Plan
PREPARED BY:
ELIZABETH AMES
Senior Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
JOSEPH KOTT ¯
Chief Transportation Official
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER
EMILY HARRISON
Assistan~ City Manager
cc:Chamber of Commerce
SOFA Working Group
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
Darryl Maxey, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
David Jury, Palo Alto Medical Foundation
City School Traffic Safety Committee
David Neuman, Stanford University
CMR:198:02 Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing
PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Palo Alto
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Contact: Elizabeth Ames
(650) 329-2502
2.NAME OF PROJECT
Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing
3. ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
120-32-031
4.PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located on the Peninsula Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) rail corridor south of the
Palo Alto Caltrain Station at the intersection of Homer Avenue and Alma Street near downtown Palo
Alto. Figures 1 - 4 in the Initial Study identify the site location on maps of various scales.
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing of the Caltrain. railroad corridor
approximately 67 feet long and 17 feet wide that would be constructed beneath the existing railroad
embankment between Alma Street at the end of Homer Avenue and the Urban Lane Bike Path
adjacent to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation campus, in the City of Palo Alto.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City of Palo Alto, ~ublic Works Department Engineering Division published an Initial Study
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter referred to as CEQA) on the
proposed Undercrossing Project on February 27, 2001. The report was submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for circulation to State Agencies, a Notice of Availability was published in the Palo
Alto Daily, and posted at the Santa Clara County Clerk’s office. Responsible Agencies were mailed
copies of the Initial Study and Notice of Availability.
Written comments on the Initial Study were due on March 28, 2001. One written comment was
received. It wasa letter from Caltrans.indicating they were satisfied that the project would not
have a significant impact to State highway facilities.
Page 1 of 12
7. FINDING
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s policies regarding implementation of CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines, the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the Homer Avenue
Caltrain Undercrossing may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study,
the City hereby finds:
That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described below have been added to the project. These mitigation measures
will reduce the potentially significant effects identified in the Initial Study to a less-
than-significant level.
8. MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures are identified in the Initial Study dated. February 27, 2002 and
are hereby adopted by the Project Sponsor, the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department
Engineering Division:
1. Mitigation, Visual Quality. Prior to completion of final design, the City shall.
prepare and approve Architecture, Public Art, Lighting, Landscaping and
Reforestation Plans for the project. The Landscaping and Reforestation Plan shall
specify tree replacements consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation and
Management Regulations and shall specify the ground covers and shrubs
incorporated into the tunnel portals and approaches.
2. Mitigation, Nesting Birds. A qualified ornithologist shall inspect the project site
between February 15th and late June immediately prior to construction. If no nests
are identified in the trees to be removed or near the project site in this pre-
construction survey, no further mitigation is required.
If nests are discovered, the project ornithologist shall prepare a report and submit it
to the City Department ’of Planning and Community Environment. The City and/or
project ornithologist shall forward the report to the California Department ofFish and
Game (CDFG) or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Appropriate CDFG and
USFWS protocols for nest relocation shall be implemented. If relocation of
occupied, viable nests is not feasible, construction shall be delayed or the tree or site
shall be left undisturbed until completion of the nesting activity.
Page 2 of 12
To avoid the nesting season ofrapt0rs and sensitive songbirds, tree removals
shall not take place between February 15 and June 30, or as determined by
the CDFG or project ornithologist.
Exclusion zones shall be established around the active nest. The radius of the
¯ exclusion zone will be determined by consultation with a qualified
ornithologist and the appropriate resource agencies who together will
consider each nest site on a case by case basis. Construction-related
activities, especially vehicle activity and equipment storage, will be
prohibited within the exclusion zone until the nestlings have fiedged.
3. Mitigation, Soil Erosion: The project Plans and Specifications shall require contractors
to employ best construction methods to reduce soil erosion and the potential for silt to enter
the storm water collection system. These methods may include the scheduling of major
excavation work during the dry season; covering stockpiles of soil with impermeable
tarpaulins to reduce water and wind erosion; watering exposed soils prone to wind erosion;
placement of straw rolls or other sediment traps at the base of exposed slopes and the
planting of landscape plants and ground covers as early as practicable in the construction
process.
4. Mitigation, Construction Noise:
a) Pile Driving. The construction contract shall require that pile driving equipment used on
the project shall not generate noise in excess of 110 dBA at 25 feet, as required in the Noise
Ordinance. If this is not feasible, the contractor shall be required to design and build
temporary noise barriers that shield the pile driving equipment and reduce the noise
generated to less than 110 dBA at the edge of the construction zone. All pile driving must
occur between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm. The construction contract shall require that all property
owners, businesses and residents within a 500 foot radius of the construction zone be notified
at least 2 weeks in advance of any pile driving.
b. Night and Weekend Construction. Nightime and weekend construction shall occur only
if mandated by the PCJPB. If it is to occur, the contractor shall obtain a noise exception
permit from the City, as per section 9.10.070 of Noise Ordinance, and shall comply with all
conditions specified therein. It is also recommended that City provide notices to all property
owners, businesses and residents within a 500 foot radius of the construction zone at least
2 weeks in advance of construction weekends, so that people could choose to avoid the area
during the construction, if desired.
Page 3 of 12
5. Mitigation, Traffic Safety. The final design plans for the Undercrossing project
should incorporate features to provide a greater separation between moving vehicles
and the curb line and give appropriate warnings to bicyclists and pedestrians
approaching Alma Street from the tunnel. This could be accomplished with a
combination of lane widening through restriping (which might necessitate removal
of some parking spaces on the easterly side of Alma Street), the creation of a small
shoulder area in front of the Undercrossing plaza, the installation of railings near the
curb line, special signage, or other safety measures.
Page 4 of 12
HOMER AVENUE CALTRAIN UNDERCROSSING
MITIGATION MONITORING
AND
REPORTING PLAN
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APRIL 2002
Page 5 of 12
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Project Title: Homer Avenue Caltrain Undercrossing
Date Prepared: April 11, 2002
Prepared by: Doug Donaldson, Donaldson Associates
Approving Body: City Council, City of Palo Alto
Project Sponsor: City of Palo Alto, Public Works Department Engineering Division
Monitoring Coordinator: Project Manager, Public Works Department Engineering Division
The following plan is designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures proposed in the Initial
Study for the Homer Avenue Caltraln Undercrossing Project in the City of Palo Alto. The Initial Study
was prepared in February 2002. It concluded that the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment but that there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures that have been prepared will reduce the potential, environmental effects to a less-than-
significant level. All of the mitigation measures included in the Initial Study are addressed in this
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
Responsibilities
The monitoring Coordinator is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the monitoring and
reporting plan. The monitoring coordinator may request support from other City staff and/or use the
services of project consultants to assist with the implementation of the monitoring and reporting plan.
Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures developed in the Initial Study related to the design and construction of the
Homer Avenue Undercrossing Project are listed in the following Summary Table.
Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring compliance with the mitigation measures will be performed as specified in the Summary
Table. Monitoring will occur during the final design/preliminary engineering stage, construction and
post-construction stage, as appropriate.
Monitoring Compliance Reports shall be produced to verify the progress of compliance with the
mitigation measures and to indicate, if necessary, the need for follow-up or corrective measures. The
monitoring coordinator shall determine the frequency of the monitoring compliance report based on the
nature of the mitigation measures.
Reporting Requirements
Page 6 of 12
The monitoring coordinator shall submit a Status Report at the end of the construction to the Planning
Department staff. The Status Report should discuss which mitigation measures were completed and
what compliance problems, if any, were encountered during the period.
The Status Report shall include a Master Checklist that indicates if there is compliance with the
mitigation measures and recommend follow-up or corrective actions if there is a lack of compliance.
The checklist should indicate when the requirements of a particular mitigation measure have been
completed.
Non-Compliance
If the Monitoring Compliance Report indicates a lack of compliance with mitigation measures, the
monitoring coordinator shall recommend appropriate follow-up or corrective measures to the Planning
Department. Lack of compliance and recommended follow-up or corrective measures shall be indicated
in the Status Report.
Page 7 of 12
o ~
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The checklist on the following pages was used to identify potential environmental impacts which
could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The numbers in the Sources column refer to
the information sources used to respond to the question. The sources uses are identified source
list at the end of the checklisL These have been supplemented as referenced in the footnotes
contained in hhe text of this report as well as by the professional judgement of the environxnental
professionals preparing the reporL
Detailed analysis of all potential impacts identified in the Checklist follows, in Section IV,
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. ’
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below (~’) would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist
on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Softs
H.azards & Hazardous .
Materials "
Hydrology/
Water Quality
Land. Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Tran~portati0n/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
M.andatory Findings of
Significance
Page 1 ! of 12
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could hive a significant effect on the envirol~nent,
there will not be a significant effect in this Case because revisions in the project have been made
by or agreed to by the project propor~ent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" ".~npact.on the environment, but at least or~e effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measure~ based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. -An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addre.ssed.
I find that although the PrOPosed project could have a significant effect o.n the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a).have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ~.IR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION‘ including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the ~Koposed project., nothing further is required.
Eliza~r’eth Ames, Project Manager Date
Director of Planning and
Environment
Date
Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAL0
ALTO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTS TO THE MASTER AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CALTRANS FOR
FEDERAL-AID PROJECTS, RELATING TO THE HOMER
AVENUE CALTRAIN UNDERCROSSING PROJECT (CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NUMBER 10121)
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto and the California
Department of Transportation (~Caltrans") have entered into an
agreement entitled ~Local Agency~State Agreement for Federal-Aid
~rojects," No. 04-5100, dated July 17, 1997 (the ~Master
Agreement"); and
.WHEREAS, the Master Agreement sets forth the general
terms and conditions under which all federal aid projects shall
be performed,-but provides that terms and conditions for each
specific federal aid project shall be set out in a ~Supplemental
Local Agency-State Agreemenn," also referred to as a "program
supplement," which is adopted by the City and approved by
Caltrans; and
WHEREAS, the City has requested federal funds to prepare
project plans and .specifications to construct the Homer Avenue
Caltrain Undercrossing Project (Capital .Improvement Program
Project Number 10121)~..(the "project"),~ which requires the City
Council to adopt One or more program supplements for the
project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires that necessary work be
done relative to the project, and to enter into Program
Suppl’ements for federal aid to that project.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION i. The City Council hereby authorizes the City
Manage~ to execute all Program Supplements to the Master
Agreement between the City and Caltrans for the Homer Avenue
Caltrain Undercrossing Project.
020327 cl 0044148 1
SECTION 2. Adoption of the Program Supplement does
constitute .a project for purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for which a. Mitigated’
Negative Declaration is approved by Council contemporaneously
with the adoption of this resolution.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Chief Transportation Official
020327 cl 0044148 2
ATTACHMENT C
HOMER AVENUE UNDERCROSSING
Project Cost Estimate
30% PS&E
Alternative A
Skewed Alignment
with
Precast Concrete Slab Bridge on Soil-Cement Piles
Ao
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Construction Costs
City Costs (soft costs)
15% Design (already allocated)
Final Design (already. allocated)
C0nst. Administration (10% of ’A’)
Project Contingency (10% of ’A’)
Total Estimated Project Cost
$3,534,350
$100,000
$157,000
$434,000
$353,435
$353,435
[:: $~932,2201
March 25, 2002
BEYOND ENGINEERING
Civil
ENGINEER’S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
FOR
HOMER AVENUE UNDERCROSSING
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
Structural
21
22
23
24
Remove AC Pavement
Traffic Control
Asphalt Concrete (Type A)
Minor Concrete - Street Curb
Aggregate Base (Class 2)
Roadwa)/Excavation
Storm Drain Inlet
Junction Box
12" RCP
18" RCP
Pump Station
Trench Drain
Control Panel
Electrical Connection (for pump station)
Pull Box (for pump station)
4" AWWA C900
4!’ Flap Gate
Remove Fence
Relocate Fence
Relocate Light Pole
SF
LS
TON
LF
CY
CY
EA
EA
LF
LF
LS
LF
LS.
LS
EA
LF
EA
LF
LF
EA
36
1
3
229
63
3,480
2
2
105
168
1
88
1
1
2
6
2;
256
114
3
$5.00
$15,OOO.OO
$100.00
.$15.00
$35.00
$25.OO
$5,OOO.OO
$5,000.00
$100.00
$100.00
$35,000.00
$65.00
$6,000.00
$10,000.00
$45O.O0
$150.00
$800.00
$5.00
$15.00
$2,000.00
Civil Subtotal =
$180
$15,000
$300
$3,435
$2,205
$87,0O0
$1o,ooo
$10,000
$10,500
$16,800
$35,O00
$5,720
$6,000
$10,000
$900
$900
$1,600
$1,280
$1,710
$6,00O
$224,530
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Soil Slurry Walls
Structural Steel
Bar Reinforcing Steel
Structural Concrete
--urnish Precast Concrete Slab
Erect Precast Concrete Slab
Structural Excavation & Backfill
Concrete Barrier
Barrier Railing
Furnish Precast Abutment Uniis
Erect Precast Abutment Units
Structural Concrete Approach Slab
Elastomeric Bearings
Waterproofing
SF
LB
LB
CY
EA
EA
CY
LF
LF
EA
EA
SF
EA
SF
13,675
406,250
42,700
215
13
13
160
20O
48O
12
12
7OO
26
1,785
$35.00
$o.5o
$1.50
$450.00
$5,000.00
$2,000.00
$45.00
$75.00
$75.00
$6,000.O0
$3,000.00
$2O.OO
$5O0.OO
$15.00
Structural Subtotal =
$478,625
$203,125
$64,050
$96,750
$65,00O
$26,000
$7,200
$15,000
$36,0O0
$72,00O
$36,000
$14,000
$13,000
$26,775
$1,153,525
Li~lhtinglElectrical
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Installation of Pedestrian Signal
=&l 3" Schedule 40 PVC conduit
F&I 2" galvanized steel conduit
F&I No. 5 Pull Box
F&I Pedestrian Signal (LED)
F&I Pedestrian Push Button (ADA)
F&I Conductors & Wirings
F&I Fluorescent Light Fixture
F&I Automatic Dimming Control
F&I Photoelectric Cell
EA
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
LS
EA
EA
EA
6
300
180
5
6
6
1
12
1
1
$600.00
$40.00
$30.OO
$450.00
$750.00
$350.00~
$8,000.001
$1,000.001
$1,000.00
$7o0.00
$3,600
$12,000
$5,4OO
$2,250
$4,500
$2,100
$8,O0O
$12,000
$1,ooo
$70o
N:\Sj078 l\Gen~Xls\30% Estimate\30%costestimate 1 of 3 4/1102
ENGINEER’S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
FOR
HOMER AVENUE UNDERCROSSING
Lightin~l/Electrical Subtotal =
$8,5OO
$60,050
Architectural
46 Architectural Slab Concrete
47 Ramp Curbs
48 Concrete Steps
49 3’-4’ Landscape Retaining Wall ¯
50 4’-8’ Landscape Retaining Wall
51 Vertical Concrete (Tunnel Interior Walls)
52 Vertical Concrete (Tunnel Portal Treatment)
53 Trash Cans
54 Benches
¯ 55 Trellis or Tunnel Ceiling Opening Railings
56 Tunnel Ceiling Treatment
57 Tree Grates-
58 Water Fountain
59 Monument Architectural Treatment
60 New Monument Foundation
61 Monument Epoxy Dowel Reinforcement
62 Monument Temporary Storage
63 Tunnel Handrail
64 Stair Railing
65 Ramp Railing
66 Retaining Wall Railing
67 Step Lights
68 Recessed Wall Fixtures for Ramps
69 Recessed Uplight Fixtures
70 Recessed Rds Uplights in Tunnel
71 Recessed Downlight in Tunnel
72 14’ Light Standards
SF
LF
LF
LF
LF
CY
LS
EA
EA
LS
LS
LS
EA
SF
LS
LF
EA
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
5,166
4OO
595
682
3OO
12
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
72
1
12
1
150
124
520
400
60
10
16
8
8
8
$11.00
$2o.oo
$48.o0
$170.00
$300.00
$600.00
$40,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$10.00
$5,000.00
$30.00
$2,000.00
$50.00
$175.00
$175.00
$100.00
$150.00
$1,000.00
$800.00
$1,400.00
$1,000.00
$4,O00.O0
Architectural Subtotal =
$56,826
$8,O0O
$28,560
$115,940
$90,000
$7,200
$8O,O00
$4,0OO
$4,800
$2O,000
$10,000
$15,000
$15,000
$720
$5,0O0
$360
$2,OO0
$7,5OO
$21,700
$91,000
$40,000
$9,0OO
$10,000
$12,800
$11,200
$8,000
$32,0OO
$706,606
Landscap=n~l and Irrigation
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
8O
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Test Soil
Prep Soil
Fine Grade
Import Engineered Fill and Compact
Mainline Piping
Lateral Piping
Backflow
Controller
Quick Coupler Valves
~emote Control Valves
Spray Heads
Drip Lines
Bubblers
Gate Valves
Valve Boxes
Irrigation Wiring
Sleeving
LS
SF
SF
CY
LF
LF
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
LF
LF
1
9,000
9,OOO
10
100
1,500
2
1
4
81
6O
3O0
4O
2
2
1,500
140
$50.00
$0.50
$0.20
$65.OO
$5.00
$4.0O
$1,000.00
$6O0.0O
$75.O0
$50.0O
$20.00
$5.00
$5O.0O
$75.OO
$50.0O
$2.O0
$5.00
$5O
$4,500
$1,800
$650
$5oo,
$6,0o0
$2,0o0
$6o0
$3o0
$4oo
$1,200
$1,500
$2,000
$150
$100
$3,OOO
$700
N:\Sj078 l\Gen~Xls\30% Estimate\30%costestimate 2 of 3 4/1/02
ENGINEER’S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
FOR
HOMER AVENUE UNDERCROSSING
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
IMiscellaneous
101
102
103
104
105 ¯
106
107
108
Filter Fabric
DG Aggregate
24" Box Tree
36" Box Tree
48" Box Tree
5 Gallon Shrub
15 Gallon Shrub
sF
CY
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
200
22
0
20
45
36
4
$0.50
$45.O0
$380.00
$476.00
$650.OO
$40.00
$75.00
$100
$990
$o
$9,520
$29,250
$1,440
$3O0
1 Gallon Ground Cover EA 1 800 $5.75 $10,350
1 Gallon Vines EA 70 $15.00 $1 050
Mulch CY 23 $30.00 $690
Maintenance for 90 Da~,s LS 1 $3,900.00 $3,900
Landscapin~l & Irrigation Subtotal =$83,040
Subtotal =$2,227,751
Mobilization (10%)$222,775
Contingency (20%)$445,550
Total =$2,896,100
Relocation of Overhead Lines
Steel Utility Pole
Track Raise
Track Segment Removal and Restoration
Railroad Flagging
Relocation of Fiber Optic Conduit (Sprint)
Relocation of Fiber Optic Conduit (AT&T))
Contin~]enc~/on Miscellaneous Items (15%)
LS
EA
LS
LS
Days
LS
LS
LS
1 $40,0b0.00
1 $6O,000.00
1 $250,000.001
1 $25,OOO.O0
10 $500.OO
1 $100 000.00
1 $75 000.00
1 $83,250.00
$40 000
$60,000
$25O,OOO
$25,000
$5 000
$100,000
$75,000
$83,250
Miscellaneous Subtotal =$638,250
Total Construction Cost =$3,534,350
N:\Sj0781\Gen~Xls\30% Estimate\30%costestimate 3 of 3 411/02