Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3455 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3455) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/4/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Cal Ave Roadway Design and Lighting Options Title: Update of California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvements Project Roadway Design and Consideration of Street Lighting Options From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review and provide direction on whether to include street lighting improvements for the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Project. Executive Summary The proposed California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Improvements project provides for streetscape improvements along California Avenue between El Camino Real and the California Avenue Caltrain Station, including place-making identity markers, traffic calming treatments, streetscape elements, parking enhancements, and improvements to the Park Boulevard Plaza. The project includes sidewalk replacement in many areas to accommodate wider pedestrian walking and dwelling areas. A number of community (primarily merchant) requests for improvements as part of the project have been included in the project, including preferences for specific streetscape furniture placement. The primary outstanding request for improvement not included within the current project includes the replacement of (or supplement to) street lighting. Street lighting is not required for the project and was not an original component of the project, but if Council is interested in including street light improvements, this is an appropriate time to provide that direction to both take advantage of construction activities for the project and to avoid future disruption of new improvement to accommodate later construction. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The addition or replacement of street lighting can more easily be accommodated from a financial and construction standpoint during sidewalk replacement, rather than when sidewalk reconstruction is complete. However, the street light improvements costs were not included in the original budget (or grant) as they are not a necessary improvement, and therefore would require additional funding to respond to community interest. The California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Improvement is on schedule for design completion this Spring and consideration for Council Authorization to Bid by Summer. Policy approval for the addition of street lighting is required now to ensure this schedule is not delayed. Construction of the project is anticipated in Fall. Staff has developed two conceptual street light design options in response to community requests: 1) full replacement, or 2) addition of pedestrian-scaled street lighting for sidewalks with retention of the existing streetlights for the roadway. These options are discussed in more detail in the Discussion section of this report. Background The City initiated the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Project in the Fall 2010. The design contract was then awarded to the RBF/David Gates & Associates consultant team in the Spring 2011. Sidewalk widening and additional landscaping opportunities were requested by the City Council during initiation of the project and a preferred street alignment was approved on July 23, 2012. In Fall 2012, a total of five community outreach meetings were held, focusing on the alignment and on placement of streetscape furniture such as seat walls, bicycle parking facilities, newsracks, trash/recycle bins, commercial loading zones, etc. Four of the five community outreach meetings were merchant-focused meetings, including a day-long workshop at Mollie Stone’s Market. Several minor street alignment modifications were made as a result of the community outreach meetings to help respond to merchant requests for improved customer access and overall corridor circulation. On January 30, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the street lighting options at a study session and appeared supportive generally of the replacement lighting option, but were concerned about the increased costs at this juncture. Discussion A copy of the updated California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Improvement Project – Street Alignment Plan is provided in Attachment A. The Plan balances Council’s request for increased sidewalk and streetscape opportunities, while also responding to community requests received over the Fall for additional outdoor dining space, preservation of on-street parking, and City of Palo Alto Page 3 corridor circulation. The street alignment design blends the street with elements included in the Park Boulevard Plaza to ensure a continuous pedestrian experience from end-to-end of the project. The proposed placement of streetscape furniture such as seating walls, benches, bicycle racks and corrals, tree and planting species, media racks and color palette selection are included in Attachment B for reference. The palette of streetscape furniture was also reviewed by the reviewed Architectural Review Board (ARB) on February 21, 2013 as a Study Session item. Staff will continue to provide opportunities for public review and input as the streetscape palette design and placement is finalized through the Formal ARB process. The Council’s decision regarding street lighting improvements would allow street light standards and lighting design, if desired, to also be finalized concurrent with other streetscape features. Street Lighting Improvement Options Throughout the project outreach phase, business owners and some community members have repeatedly requested that street lighting enhancements be included in the project budget. Street light replacement is not required for the project, however replacement of the streetlight is best accommodated during sidewalk reconstruction. Because of the strong community interest for replacement of street lighting with more pedestrian-scaled lighting treatments, staff has developed these options and policy direction is being requested. If policy direction is received to include street lighting as an element of the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Improvement Project, staff will continue to pursue outside funding source opportunities. Although these outside funding sources could potentially be obtained, funding would still need to be advanced from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – Infrastructure Reserve program in the short term. If no additional outside funding is found before the award of the project, the street lighting improvements would remain funded from the CIP Infrastructure Reserve Program. The existing street lights on California Avenue were built in the 1970’s and are reflective of major arterial street lighting design with tall streetlight pole standards spaced widely apart. In the early 1960’s California Avenue was blocked off at the Caltrain tracks to accommodate construction of the Oregon Expressway corridor. The underground conduits and wiring of the streetlights are aged but can be left alone and remain in place to accommodate the current streetscape design. Staff does not believe that there is a safety concern with the existing lights, however the aesthetics of the streetscape would be enhanced with a more pedestrian-scaled lighting approach. Replacement and installation of new pole foundations, if desired, can be best accommodated while sidewalk reconstruction is taking place. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Street Lighting Design Options Staff has developed two conceptual street light design options for consideration (a third option is to leave the existing lighting as is): Option 1 – Retrofit Existing Streetlight Fixtures & Add Pedestrian-Scaled Lighting A retrofit of the existing street lights can be accomplished by adding new lamp fixtures onto the existing streetlight pole standards. Under this option, existing conduits and wiring would remain in place but pedestrian-scale streetlight poles would be added in between the existing streetlight poles. A total of 37 pedestrian-scaled pole standards would be added, not including 12 streetlights planned at the Park Boulevard Plaza. There are 37 existing street light pole standards. Therefore, under this option, up to 72 street lights would illuminate the California Avenue corridor. The existing streetlight poles would be painted to match the color of the new pedestrian-scaled streetlight poles to help blend the two pole standards together. The color and style of the proposed pedestrian scale lights are shown in Attachment C. If directed by Council, staff would work with the Architectural Review Board for their review and input on the style and photometric requirements for both the streetlight and pedestrian scale lights. The proposed cost for this option is up to $800,000. This option would not provide for receptacles to support festive lighting treatments at existing street lights. Option 2 – New Streetlight and Poles Construction Option 2 would include removing and replacing all existing street lights with new decorative street light poles and replacing all underground conduits and wiring. A combination of standard-height roadway height poles and pedestrian-scaled light standards would be used. The total cost for this option is up $1,200,000 depending on whether the existing street light spacing is maintained ($1,000,000) or narrowed to better illuminate the street ($1,200,000). Staff believes the existing spacing works best to meet the objectives of the improving sidewalk illumination but additional poles may be required ensure a consistent illumination so a budget of up to $1,200,000 should be specified if this option is desired by Council. This option includes elements for receptacles at all streetlight poles to accommodate festive lighting or special event uses. Proposed decorative street light standard types are provided in Attachment C. Staff recommends that, if Council authorizes new lighting, then approval of Option 2 – New Streetlight Construction is preferred. Replacing all of the existing street lighting ensures the best roadway illumination for California Avenue and ensures that costly repairs do not damage the new streetscape. Replacing the street lights also ensures that pole standards on the City of Palo Alto Page 5 roadway comply with current wind load rating requirements by the State of California – Department of Transportation (Caltrans) at 100-MPH. The existing poles, built in the 1960’s include a lower wind rating that does not meet current design standards, when older poles are replaced they must be replaced to current design standards. Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Recommendations: Staff presented the street lighting options to the Planning and Transportation Commission on January 30, 2013, for their review and input. Minutes of this meeting are included in Attachment D of this report. The P TC generally supported staff recommendation that full replacement of street lighting should be pursued as part of the project and that the appropriate streetlight spacing be identified as part of the design process. There were concerns expressed, however, as to how the lighting would be funded and why this item was not identified earlier in the process. Construction Staging and Business Marketing Plan Upon policy direction of the street lighting improvements, staff will hold additional community outreach meetings to develop construction staging plans. An initial meeting with the Business Association of California Avenue was held on Thursday, February 14th. The City’s Economic Development Manager will work with merchants to develop an Advertising and Marketing Plan to help encourage patronage to the California Avenue Business District during construction activities. The project budget currently includes a $30,000 allocation for a business protection plan through construction, including use of the City Shuttle Program to accommodate off-site parking for customers. Additional mitigation plan strategies may include banner advertising and online advertising, sponsoring events during construction, phasing and hours of operation, and extensive signage to direct customers to stores and restaurants and drivers to parking lots. The City anticipates both daytime and nighttime construction activities to expedite the construction schedule and to minimize business impacts from the project. The City plans to maintain vehicle and pedestrian access to the project area at all times during construction. Policy Implications The City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City enhance the California Avenue streetscape by upgrading the visual quality of the street to attract additional business and visitors to the area. Consistent with those Comprehensive Plan goals, the proposed streetscape and place-making improvements along California Avenue should ensure continued vitality of the California Avenue Business District. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages a mix of residential and non-residential uses at a scale of development that is comfortable for pedestrian use. The Plan encourages improving the appearance of the street while preserving its “hometown” character. Also, Program L-18 specifically calls for street improvements that City of Palo Alto Page 6 could make a substantial contribution to the character of Commercial Centers, including narrowing travel lanes. Resource Impact Project Funding Status City staff has identified several funding sources for the California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Improvement Project from outside grant and from local funding sources. Currently, the estimated project design and construction cost is $3,442,000, not including the optional streetlight improvements. Table 1 California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Cost Estimate No. Fund Source Amount 1 Original Construction Project Estimate $1,375,000 2 RBF Design Contract $350,000 3 Street Resurfacing $550,000 4 Preliminary Sidewalk Widening Estimate $700,000 5 Revised Sidewalk Widening Estimate $317,000 6 RBF Design Contract Amendment $150,000 $3,442,000 The updated cost for Sidewalk Widening Treatments includes additional work requested as part of the community outreach process over the Fall and updated cost estimates prepared through the design process, which resulted in a $317,000 increase above the original staff estimate of $700,000 from last summer. Council will also consider a design contract amendment for RBF Engineers in April that includes additional design work related to the enhanced sidewalk treatments since the initiation of the original RBF contract; the contract amendment will also include the cost of design of the street lighting improvements. Table 2 California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Fund Sources No. Fund Source Amount 1 VTA CDT Grant* $1,100,000 City of Palo Alto Page 7 2 Initial City Grant Local Match $550,000 3 Street Resurfacing $550,000 4 VTA Vehicle Registration Free (VRF) $700,000 Total Project Construction Funding: $2,900,000 *The VTA Grant has been lowered from $1,175,200 to $1,100,000 because of the delays resulting from the litigation. With the street alignment improvements added in as part of the recent community outreach meetings, the project currently is estimated at $3.4M, including a 10% construction contingency. The current project budget is $2.9M, resulting in a $542,000 gap. The City has retained an outside construction management firm, Ghirardelli & Associates, to conduct a value engineering analysis of the current design starting this Spring to identify construction methods and material cost-savings opportunities. Both the CIP – Infrastructure Reserve and the new One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) – Guaranteed Funds Program are potential fund sources to close the current $542,000 gap. If streetlight improvements are included as part of the project, up to an additional $1,200,000 will be required. The City may also continue to pursue outside funding for the project, including developer funding opportunities as community benefit improvements. Currently, the balance in the Infrastructure Reserve (IR) is $14,003,570. Staff is in the process of developing the FY 2014 Proposed Capital Improvement Program. Preliminarily, the estimated drawdown on the IR for 2014 projects is $4,106,098. The expected remaining balance at the end of FY 2014 is $13,645,257. This information is provided as context for Council’s decision on streetlight improvements and given the City’s numerous infrastructure improvement challenges. Timeline The City anticipates continuing the detailed design phase of the project through the Spring 2013, to allow opportunities for community feedback and allow for formal review by the Architectural Review Board and Parks & Recreation Commission for the design of the Park Boulevard Plaza. Project design should be completed by the Spring 2013. Staff will return to PTC and Council late spring for final approval prior to advertising the project for bids. The City anticipates advertising the project for competitive bids in the Summer 2013 with construction beginning in the Fall 2013. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Environmental Review A preliminary Initial Study and the Negative Declaration - CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) checklist for the project were completed, circulated for public review in December 2010 and approved by Council on February 14, 2011. The Negative Declaration concluded that the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts and may be reviewed online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/calave. Litigation challenging the timing of that review was filed shortly thereafter, and the Santa Clara County Superior Court ruled in Fall 2011 that the City should have completed CEQA review prior to submitting the application for VTA grant funds. The City corrected this by rescinding and reapproving the environmental review and associated approvals in the proper order. In February 2012, the Court found that the City complied with CEQA. The trial court’s decision is currently pending before the Court of Appeal. The replacement of street lights will have no additional environmental effect as the new lights will simply replace the existing lighting. In addition, the pedestrian scaling of the lighting is in line with the overall streetscape elements discussed in the Negative Declaration. Attachments:  Attachment A: California Avenue - Street Alignment Plan (PDF)  Attachment B: California Avenue Proposed Streetscape Elements (PDF)  Attachment C: Proposed Decorative Street and Pedestrian Lighting (PDF)  Attachment D: January 30, 2013 Draft PTC Minutes (PDF) CALIFO RNIA A VEN UE TRANS IT HUB PAL O ALTO , CA DECEMBER 2O12 PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN 0 10 20 40 SCULPTURAL ELEMENT WITH SEAT ROCKS SURROUNDING HOLIDAY TREE LOW COLOR PLANTING BENCHES EX. TREES TO REMAIN SEATWALLS SEATWALLS FLOWERING TREES WITH BOLD FOLIAGE & COLOR PLANTING AS UNDERSTORY BIKE RACKS INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE PAVING PANELS WITH CONTRASTING BANDS CARPINUS BETULUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHT GREEN SCREEN AT K RAIL POTENTIAL BIKE SHARE CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS BIKE ROUTE EX. TUNNEL POTENTIAL SHADE CANOPPY El C a m i no Rea l te e r t S h s A te e r t S h c r i B dra v e l u o B k r a P dra v e l u o B k r a P te e r t S h c r i B Mollie Stone's Market Montage Jewelry Beauty Spa By Ereeda Farmer's InsuranceTrueSalon Heshmat Pain Management California Avenue Norge Village Cleaners Keeble & Shuchat Photography (Vacant)Blossom Birth Printers Cafe Copy America Culture Frozen Yogurt La Jolie Nail Spa Cigar House Avalon Art & Yoga Center Accent Arts Palo Alto Sol La Bodeguita del Medio Palo Alto Central BaumeCho's Dim Sum Restaurant Kinkos'/ FedEx Solid Electric Inc. Illusions Dining & Entertainment Keeble & Shuchat Photography Village Stationers StarbucksThe Counter Tandoori Oven Palo Alto Baking Company Szechwan Cafe Bank of the West Joanie's Cafe Know Knew Books Subway Vin, Vino, Wine Cafe Brioche Country Sun Natural Foods Hairshaper's ClubChristian Science Reading Room Izzy's Brooklyn Bagels California Avenue OptometryRadio Shack Techcu Citibank Legar Salon Zen Garden Nail Spa Leaf & Petal Bistro & Bakery (vacant)Jinsho Eye Works Plaza Antonio's Nut House Menlo Equities Bookshare Benetech Lee Aldinger Inc. Ivy Tutor Center European Cobblery Massage Therapy Center Gallery House Palo Alto Acupuncture & Herbal Medicine California Print Co. Mahin & Co. Zara Restaurant Vincent Sevely Attorney at Law Pacific Casulty GroupMomentum for Mental Health Taqueria Azteca California Cleaners Hotel California Building Avenue Florist Bargain BoxMedite- rranean Wrap Lotus Thai Bistro Zombie Runner Fine Arts Building Uzumaki SushiCampus Barber Shop LEGEND New Standard Grey Sidewalk Special ColorConcrete Paving Crosswalk 3’ Textured Band Existing News Rack Alley Access to Parking Art ElementNew Tree Existing Tree New Planting Single Bike Rack Granite Seat Pad Seatwall Trash Receptable Pot on Plinth Existing Planting 0 10'20'40' PEDESTRIAN LIGHT PISTACIA CHINENSIS TO MATCH EXISTING EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN Bicycle Corral Bench Plaza Light New/Relocated News Rack T T T T T T T TT TT T T T T ENHANCED CROSSWALK, TYPICAL EX. BRICK WALL TO REMAIN WITH NEW GRANITE SEAT BOULDER OR NEW WOOD BENCH AL L E Y W A Y AL L E Y W A Y AL L E Y W A Y AL L E Y W A Y AL L E Y W A Y AL L E Y W A Y RELOCATED NEWS RACK TRASH RECEPTACLE EX. ART TO REMAIN EX. ART TO REMAINRELOCATED NEWS RACK LOW WALL WITH STREET NAME GROUP OF NEW TREES TEXTURED BAND EX. BRICK WALL TO REMAIN WITH NEW GRANITE SEAT BOULDER OR WOOD BENCH BIKE CORRAL TRASH RECEPTACLE NEW CONCRETE SEAT WALLS NEW CONCRETE SEAT WALLS TRASH RECEPTECLE 30” RAISED CONCRETE CURB RAISED CONCRETE BLOCK (+18”) SPECIAL COLOR CONCRETE PAVING CUT-OUT FOR NEW STREET TREE EX. TREE TO REMAIN SINGLE LOOP BIKE RACK TRASH RECEPTACLE NEW STANDARD GREY CONCRETE SIDEWALK NEW BRICK WALL SEAT PADS NEW CONCRETE SEAT WALLS SINGLE BIKE RACKS NEW CONCRETE SEAT WALLS DECORATIVE BOLLARDS TRASH RECEPTACLE SINGLE LOOK BIKE RACK SINGLE LOOP BIKE RACK SINGLE LOOP BIKE RACK RELOCATED NEWS RACK SPECIAL COLOR CONCRETE PAVING SPECIAL COLOR PAVING NEW CONCRETE SEAT WALL SPECIAL COLOR CONCRETE PAVING BIKE CORRAL SPECIAL COLOR CONCRETE PAVING EXISTING BRICK WALL AND DRINKING FOUNTAIN TO REMAIN SPECIAL COLOR CONCRETE PAVING RELOCATED NEWS RACK NEW TREES EX. TREES TO REMAIN EX. BRICK WALL TO REMAIN WITH NEW GRANITE SEAT BOULDER OR BENCH SPECIAL COLOR CONCRETE PAVING RELOCATED NEWS RACK EX. BRICK WALL TO REMAIN WITH NEW GRANITE SEAT BOULDERS NEW CONCRETE SEAT WALL EX. NEWS RACK TO REMAIN EX. TREE TO REMAIN SINGLE LOOP BIKE RACK NEW CONCRETE SEAT WALL TEXTURED BAND GROUP OF TREES PARKING COUNT: Existing Parking: 111 Proposed Parking: 116 Parking Gain: 5 TEXTURED BAND RELOCATED NEWS RACK GROUP OF NEW TREES POT ON RAISED CONCRETE PEDESTAL SPECIAL COLOR CONCRETE PAVING EX. STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN EXISTING BRICK WALL AND HANGING BASKETS TO REMAIN SINGLE LOOP BIKE RACKS TRASH RECEPTACLE RELOCATED NEWS RACK NEW CONCRETE SEAT WALL RELOCATED EX. GRANITE BOULDERS KIOSK PLANTERS TO SEPARATE OUTDOOR DINING AREA FROM PARKING BIKE CORRAL EX. STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN BIKE CORRAL EXISTING ART BENCHES TO REMAIN BIKE CORRAL NEW CONCRETE SEAT WALL OUTDOOR DINING AREA NEW CONCRETE SEAT WALL BIKE CORRAL EXISTING BRICK WALL AND GRANITE SEAT BOULDER TO REMAIN IN PLACE EX. STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN POT ON RAISED CONCRETE PEDESTAL WITH COLOR PLANTING EX. STREET LIGHT TO REMAIN POT ON RAISED CONCRETE PEDESTAL KIOSK OR DIRECTORY LOW WALL WITH STREET NAME 1 California Avenue ‐Site Elements Single Loop Bike RackTrash and Recycle Combo Receptacle Concrete Paving – A: Medium Broom B: Sandblast C: Integral Color A B C Bike Corral Color Asphalt at  textured band Tumbled Glass  Aggregate in  White Concert Tumbled Glass  Aggregate in  Gray Concert Seat Pads 2 Pot on Raised PedestalKiosk/Directory Decorative Bollard Option 1 Blade of Metal Bench at Existing Brick Wall Concrete Seatwall California Avenue ‐Site Elements News Rack Decorative Bollard Option 2 Stone Cube in  Carnelian Color 3 Plant Palette ‐Trees Specimen Tree: Southern Live Oak Accent Tree: Freeman Maple New Street Trees Specimen Tree: Valley Oak Accent Flowering Tree: Crape Myrtle Street Tree: Silver Linden 4 California Avenue ‐Plant Palette Pot Planting: Phormium and Million Bells Meidiland Rose Phormium Blue Oat Grass From El Camino to Ash St Azure Bush Germander Hakone Grass Fortnight Lily Salvia/Sage Carpet Rose From Ash St to Park Blvd 5 Plaza ‐Site Elements Alternative Wood Bench with Armrest and Intermediate Arm Rests Drinking Fountain Wood Bench with Back and Intermediate Arm Rests 6 Plaza – Plant Palette Carpinus betulus Pistacia chinensis Chitalpa tashkentensis 7 Salvia Red Buckwheat Rosemary Plaza – Plant Palette Phormium Carpet Rose Coffeeberry Catmint California Fuschia Achillea C A L I F O R N I A AV E N U E T R A N S I T H U B PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 2013 LIgHTINg L-16 PEDESTRIAN LIgHT OPTIONS DMS55-SG-LM DMS55-SG-NM DMS55-SG-SMD-CRM6DMS55-SG-RMDOMUS 55SERIES Simplicity. Refinement. Elegance. / The Domus Series of products – Domus, Domus 55, and Domus Small – are all designed to complement each other and bring balance to any environment. Their charm is undeniable. Simplicity, refinement, and elegance, all fuse together to create harmonious beauty through designed equilibrium.>> Printed in USAAVU111437 Cooper Lighting, LLC1121 Hwy 74 SouthPeachtree City, Georgia 30269P: 770-486-4800www.cooperlighting.com Cooper Lighting, Invue, Mesa, SustainabLEDesign, LightBAR and AccuLED Optics are valuable trademarks of Cooper Industries in the United States and other countries. You are not permitted to use the Cooper Trademarks without the prior written consent of Cooper Industries. MESA LED OPTIONS + ACCESSORIES [Must be listed in the order shown and separated by a dash]OPTIONS 4PC=Button Type Photocell [Specify Voltage]R=NEMA Photocontrol Receptacle2L=Bi-Level Switching 5LCF=LightBAR Cover Plate Matches Housing Finish7060=70 CRI / 6000K CC 68030=80 CRI / 3000K CC 6ICB= Integral Cold Weather Battery Pack [Specify 120V or 277V] 7 ORDERING INFORMATIONSAMPLE NUMBER: MSA-B06-LED-E1-T3-BK PRODUCTFAMILYMSA= Mesa [Slip-fits Over 3" OD Tenon] NUMBER OFLIGHTBARS 1, 2B01=[1] 21 LED LightBARB02=[2] 21 LED LightBARsB03=[3] 21 LED LightBARsB04=[4] 21 LED LightBARsB05=[5] 21 LED LightBARsB06=[6] 21 LED LightBARsC01=[1] 7 LED LightBARC02=[2] 7 LED LightBARsC03=[3] 7 LED LightBARsC04=[4] 7 LED LightBARsC05=[5] 7 LED LightBARsC06=[6] 7 LED LightBARs LAMP TYPELED= Solid State Light Emitting Diodes VOLTAGEE1= Electronic[120-277V]347= 347V480=480V DIMENSIONS MOUNTING OPTIONS DISTRIBUTIONT2=Type IIT3=Type IIIT4=Type IV5MQ=Type V Square Medium5WQ=Type V Square Wide5XQ=Type V Square Extra WideRW=Rectangular WideSL2=Type II w/Spill ControlSL3=Type III w/Spill ControlSL4=Type IV w/Spill ControlSLL=90° Spill Light Eliminator LeftSLR=90° Spill Light Eliminator Right FINISH 3BK=BlackAP=GreyBZ=BronzeWH=WhiteDP=Dark PlatinumGM=Graphite Metallic OPTIONS + ACCESSORIES[see below] VA6028-XX=Dual Mount ArmVA6029-XX=Wall Mount ArmOA/RA1016=NEMA Photocontrol - Multi-TapOA/RA1027=NEMA Photocontrol - 480VOA/RA1201=NEMA Photocontrol - 347VMA1253=10kV Circuit Module Replacement LIGHTBARTM TECHNOLOGY NOTES: 1 Standard 4000 K CCT and nominal 70 CRI. 2 21 LED LightBAR powered at 350mA, 7 LED LightBAR powered at 1A. 3 Custom and RAL color matching available upon request. Consult your customer service representative for further information. 4 Add as suffix in the order shown. 5 Low-level output varies by bar count. Consult factory. Requires quantity two or more LightBARS. 6 Consult customer service for lead times and lumen multiplier. 7 Available with B01 - B04 or C01 - C04 configurations only. Specify 120 or 277V. LED cold weather integral battery pack is rated for minimum operating temperature -4°F (-20°C). Operates (1) lightbar for 90 minutes. Not available in all configurations, consult factory. Rated for use in 25°C ambient. 8 Order separately. 9 Specifications and dimensions subject to change without notice. 28-1/4" [717 mm] 6-7/32"[157 mm] 21-1/2"[647 mm] 38" [965 mm] 4"[101 mm] 8-3/16"[207 mm] 19" [482 mm] 4"[101 mm] 8-3/16"[207 mm] 3" [76 mm] 3" [76 mm]Dual Mount Arm [EPA 1.36]Mesa [EPA 1.1]Wall Mount Arm SUPERIOR EFFICIENCY + CONTROLWith efficiencies as high as 95%, patented AccuLED Optics™ systems are as much as 30% more efficient than traditional HID optical systems. Available in twelve [12] beam distributions, AccuLED Optics™ systemsprovide the flexibility and performance required for any outdoor application. Each patented LED LightBAR™ optic renders the entirety of the pattern. As the number of LightBAR™ elements increase so does the application illuminance, allowing lumen and energy output to be scaled and optimized per application. Obtrusive spill light and glare is replaced by uniform, application specific illumination. Lighting Designers, Architects and Specifying Engineers have long preferred light sources which provide a balanced spectral power distribution and warm white light. Typical LED solutions standardize on a cold blue 6000-6500K correlated color temperature [CCT] to maximize lumen output. Mesa LED provides warm white light at a standard 4000K CCT with no sacrifice in lumen output. ENERGY SAVINGS + ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP The simplest and most effective way to reduce a lighting fixture’s impact on the environment is to minimize its energy consumption. By incorporating Cooper Lighting’s patented LED LightBAR™ technology, Mesa LED provides energy savings between 40-72% over standard HID and CFL sources. LONG LIFEWith a 50,000+ hour rated life at 70% lumen maintenance, Mesa LED operates six [6] times longer than traditional Metal Halide sources. 4000K nominal 2700K High Pressure Sodium[2000K] Metal Halide [Quartz, Ceramic] Cooper LED LightBARTM[4000K] Cold LED[6000-6500K] 3000K 4500K 6500K SCALABLE ILLUMINATION WARM WHITE COLOR COOPER LIGHTING’S PATENT PENDING LED LIGHTBAR LIGHT ENGINE BRINGS NEW MEANING TO THE WORD SCALABILITY Mesa LED Decorative Area Luminaire PATENTS PENDING Ambient Lumen Temperature Multiplier10°C 1.0415°C 1.0325°C 1.0040°C 0.96 AMBIENT DATA Approximate Net Weight1-6 Bars 50 [22.73 kgs.] SHIPPING DATACERTIFICATIONSUL and cUL ListedISO 90012G Vibration RatedIP66 LightBARsLM79 / LM80 CompliantAARA Compliant Electronic LED Driver>0.9 Power Factor<20% Total Harmonic Distortion120-277V/50 & 60Hz, 347V/60Hz, 480V/60Hz40°C Ambient Temperature Rating-30°C Minimum Temperature ENERGY DATA ACCESSORIES 8 25% PCRF Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Light Pole Accessories Pole with Receptacle Domus series by Lumec Pole Height: 12’ to 14’ Pole with Banner or Hanging Basket Beacon Product Pole Height: 12’ INVUE MESA LED by Cooper Lighting Pole Height: 12’ Lumec Domus 50 LED Height: 12’ for Ped Light Option 1 Option 2 Lumec CTM YC4-1A ATR74V-25 Pole Height: 25’ Lumec Domus 50 LED Height: 30’ for Street Light Lumec HBM DC8-1A SSM8V-25 Pole Height: 25’ Option 3 Option 4 RoadStar Pole Height: 25’ C A L I F O R N I A AV E N U E T R A N S I T H U B PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 2013 LIgHTINg L-17 STREET LIgHT OPTIONS 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 January 30, 2013 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 NEW BUSINESS. 7 8 California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Improvements Project - Update on 9 California Avenue Street Alignment and Request for Planning and Transportation Commission 10 Input on Street Lighting Options for California Avenue 11 12 Chair Martinez: We are going to move onto our first agenda topic and that is the 13 recommendation by Planning Department to implement a ground floor overlay on the… no, isn’t 14 it the other first? Oh, I apologize. Ok. Sorry. I will stop there. We’re going to hear from staff 15 regarding the status of the California Avenue Street Improvement Projects and related topics. 16 17 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Thank you and good evening honorable Chair and Planning 18 Commission. Before I turn the project over to Transportation staff I wanted to go over several 19 reasons why the Planning Commission, the Planning and Transportation Commission is looking 20 at this item tonight. So if we go to the first slide I think there’s three primary reasons that you’re 21 here tonight. The first is just to get a general background and get up to speed on where we’re at 22 in terms of the Cal Ave Streetscape Project and we’re going to highlight a lot of the progress that 23 has been made since July of last year. The second thing is to highlight some of the minor street 24 alignment issues that have been resolved and that are ongoing within the Cal Ave area. 25 26 And the third and probably where most of the discussion will be tonight is around introducing 27 street lighting upgrades to this project. And this is something that has come up in numerous 28 times which Transportation staff will get into, but why it’s important; I think it’s important for 29 both the planning and the transportation aspects of the Commission. From a planning standpoint 30 looking at lighting is, asks the question whether lighting is an important aspect to a vibrant 31 downtown type area. And given where the lighting conditions are, will adding additional 32 lighting, improving the lighting area make it a more vibrant area consistent with the Comp Plan 33 policies that we have. And then from a transportation standpoint it’s primarily a pedestrian 34 transportation issue in that is the current level of street lighting safe for pedestrians in the area 35 and if not is improved lighting going to improve the situation consistent with the various Comp 36 Plan policies? 37 38 If we go to the next slide, these were included in there. I won’t go over all of them because there 39 are in front of you in writing and up on the screen right now, but as you can see these are just a 40 handful that we picked out from our Comp Plan that relate to vibrant areas as well as 41 transportation issues so I would encourage you to look at those. So with that I will turn it over to 42 Jaime for continuing this presentation. 43 44 Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you very much Aaron. Tonight’s the 45 remainder of the presentation will actually be provided by our consultant team. We’re going to 46 have David Gates & Associates and Candy from RBF to talk about the next set of slides. And as 47 we begin the lighting element Shahla Yazdy who is the Project Manager for Transportation on 48 2 the California Avenue Streetscape Project will actually discuss for us the lighting. So with that 1 I’m going to hand it over to David Gates to kind of walk you through kind of the background and 2 kind of where we’ve been over the last several months in relation to the design of the California 3 Avenue Streetscape Project. 4 5 David Gates, Consultant: Good evening, good to see you again. So since we last saw you we 6 had several schemes. Those schemes have been coalesced into what we call the “modified 7 hybrid.” The modified hybrid has since gone through a series of meetings in the community 8 soliciting input and basically rearranging the pattern of that modified hybrid. So what I want to 9 do tonight is kind of walk you through some of the, what I’ll call an evolution of that particular 10 plan. Actually there are rather minor changes so that the large idea of traffic calming, road diet, 11 pedestrian vitality, places to sit, outdoor uses is still very much intact. 12 13 So reminding you the nature of the site, working our way from El Camino Real over and every 14 time I hit this it’s going to bring on another element. Keep in mind the darker color trees are 15 existing; the lighter colored trees are proposed. The enhanced paving is kind of in that beige 16 tone. You’ll see the red dots which is art that has been kept in place in almost all cases. You’ll 17 see existing lights; you’ll see existing walls and all of those elements really basically are intact. 18 So what happens is, the bike corrals we were a little short on bikes on the north side so we’ve 19 added bike corrals in this location. We’ve added accessible parking. So again that particular 20 spot we could create an accessibility and good access for it. The bus stop has been relocated so 21 we pulled in the curb line at that point which allowed the bus to pull in. Sorry this is a little 22 slow. The other bus stop is a key one right at the El Camino. So those elements are all part and 23 parcel, subtle changes to that particular piece of the street. 24 25 So the Joanie’s Café requested a little bit of additional outdoor eating so we took the special 26 paver, pulled it across and created a nice larger node sitting out at that corner. Moving then to 27 the next strip and reminding you this is sort of the central area so that it will become the readily 28 blocked off zone so that the striping in the middle of Cal Ave is to demark an area that will be 29 pedestrian on many occasions as well as a traffic zone. Again all the same criteria; see the same 30 patterns. So we got a sidewalk widening by the nature of how we took the curb line, pulled it 31 south. It reduced the crossing distance at the crosswalks. Bus relocation right at that zone. New 32 planting island, again with a pop out so we can get a new tree and again we’re matching the 33 species of trees that are there now with one exception. We’re adding the colorful Crepe Myrtle 34 to bring theatre. So you can see the addition of those. Another bike corral, which is a grouping 35 again of the bike parking areas. We took the crosswalks and reordered the geometry so they 36 weren’t random angles across the street so that they were more architecturally aligned with the 37 patterns of the street. 38 39 Moving on to Birch to Park Street, again more of the same. You see the existing conditions 40 pretty much intact. Another bike corral, another nice grouping. Keeping in mind we still have 41 isolated bike parking along; this is just a new location for it. The existing brick walls we had an 42 opportunity by reorganization of our patterns to keep the brick walls which are there now some 43 of which have artful granite stone sitting in front for seating, also retained. Another bike corral. 44 Accessible parking again. 45 46 The final leg, which is the Park Boulevard to the Plaza, again minor changes. We relocated the 47 loading zone. This is, and again these comments and changes are coming with a lot of time spent 48 with the community a lot of direct inputs, folks with direct knowledge about how the service was 49 3 actually happening out there and they had some very good advice. So this was relocated onto 1 Park. The motorcycle parking was added. Angle parking changed as partly result of getting the 2 bicycle movement, but angle parking was transformed into parallel parking and the bike route 3 which changed the width of the street allows the bike moving in the westerly direction to stay in 4 the plaza. Bikes moving easterly toward Caltrain would stay in a sharrow on the street. And 5 then there’s an opportunity for a bike share location, which would be a grouping of bikes sitting 6 at the far end where the bike lockers actually sat before. At this point I’m going to turn it over 7 to Shahla unless you have questions at this point. We’d like to get into the lighting component. 8 9 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 10 11 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, could you go back to the previous slide? Yes, it looks like where 12 it says, “Relocated loading zone,” I assume that that’s Park Boulevard in the southerly direction. 13 Is that right? 14 15 Mr. Gates: Yes, it’s on the easterly side, so it would be the northerly direction. 16 17 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: And what I’m wondering is, is there a left, a dedicated left turn lane 18 from westbound California Avenue onto southbound Park Boulevard? Or is that, it’s hard to 19 read what’s going on there. So I know there’s a dedicated turn lane going at the northbound Park 20 Boulevard, but I’m wondering if there’s dedicated turn lane onto southbound Park Boulevard. 21 22 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Commissioner Keller. On California Avenue today there isn’t an 23 existing dedicated left turn lane to turn you onto Park. It’s an all-way stop intersection so you 24 turn onto southbound Park from the one lane and this configuration is maintained through this 25 alignment here. And the approach on Park and also again is one lane, an all-way stop that you 26 can then once you’re stopped have right of way you can turn left or turn right. 27 28 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: So what I’m wondering is the dedicated, you have the dedicated left 29 turn lane onto northbound Park Boulevard, which is a short street that only goes for two blocks 30 before it’s blocked off. Is there a reason that that left turn lane is there? 31 32 Mr. Rodriguez: As part of the early on community outreach with the residents and the merchants 33 in the area they identified that left turn lane as an important element to help sustain operations 34 into the Mollie Stone’s Market. I keep saying Mollie Stumps, I got to correct myself here; the 35 Mollie Stone’s Market. And so we maximized the length of that left turn lane to get you from 36 California onto Park Boulevard North, onto Park Boulevard to the north of that. That was 37 actually a community requested element that we felt was appropriate to include in the project. 38 39 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Alright, thank you. 40 41 Chair Martinez: Can you describe the, not the bicycle parking, but the circulation enhancements 42 that are part of this plan? 43 44 Mr. Rodriguez: I’m sorry Commissioner, can you repeat the question? 45 46 Chair Martinez: Yeah, I didn’t hear or can find the description of how bicycle circulation along 47 California Avenue has been improved over what it is today and I’d like you to just review that 48 for us. 49 4 1 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Commissioner for clarification. So California Avenue today again is 2 a four lane roadway and one of the elements of the project includes a lane reduction down to two 3 lanes. And so the proposed project includes wider, wide lanes, but one lane per approach of 4 California Avenue for approximately 15 feet travel lanes. And the concept for the operation, 5 bicycle operation of California Avenue is that there will be a share the road or sharrow roadway 6 markings to encourage bicyclists to ride kind of in a certain kind of path on the roadway and also 7 then to remind motorists that they’re sharing that right of way with vehicles. The 15 foot lane is 8 again a very, very wide, fairly comfortable lane and so that is something that we do feel is an 9 enhancement over the existing condition that exists today where the lanes vary in width from 10 about 9 to 10 feet. 11 12 Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. Anybody else? Ok, let’s go on to the proposed lighting. 13 14 Shahla Yazdy, Transportation Engineer: Good evening Chair Martinez, Commissioners. My 15 name is Shahla Yazdy. I’m here to present the lighting element for the project. So one 16 consistent comment that we kept hearing from the community and the business merchants along 17 California Avenue was the need for additional lighting on California Avenue. The street lights 18 provide, that were recently upgraded to LED’s and they do provide lighting for the street, but 19 what’s lacking is the sidewalks where there’s businesses and so pedestrians can walk safely. 20 21 The lighting for this project is an unfunded element. It was never included in the grant proposal, 22 but again we’ve been hearing from the community and we, this is something that we feel that it 23 would be good to include as part of the current project that we’re proposing. The existing 24 streetlights are over 40 years old. They are older and it is again the lighting, they don’t provide 25 adequate lighting for the sidewalks and the pedestrians. And again the luminaries were recently 26 upgraded to LED’s in 2012. And the photo that you see on the right is just a snapshot of the 27 current streetlights out there. 28 29 So the California Avenue lighting we want, the proposal tonight is to request that we consider 30 adding lighting to the current project scope. We do have options that I’d like to, I’ll go over 31 next, but as part of including the lighting with the current project scope would reduce disruption 32 if we were to go in and do this at a later time. The first option, Option 1 would be to paint the 33 existing street poles and just basically leave the streetlights as they are, maybe change the 34 luminaries and the heads on the lights and also to add a pedestrian scale lighting in-between. 35 Second option would be to replace the existing poles with a combination street light and also 36 pedestrian light, which I have a photo that I’ll be showing to you next. The third option, 2B that 37 we call it, is to replace the existing poles, but at a more tighter spacing so the streetlights are 38 about 100 feet apart currently so we probably move them to 75 feet. 39 40 The Option 1 to the left is you’ll see the snapshot of the existing streetlights and we’d keep those 41 and again paint them to match the proposed pedestrian scale lighting that you see on the right 42 side. So that would be kind of placed in between strategically between the existing streetlights. 43 And the Option 2 would be the proposed streetlight that has the combination of the street and 44 again the pedestrian that would be lighting the sidewalk. 45 46 So this is to show you the existing streetlight configurations. So the orange, this is the layout 47 that we have now, the existing streetlights. There’s about 35 lights currently on California 48 Avenue. And the option now to keep the existing streetlights and to add the pedestrian lights in 49 5 between, we’re estimating for it to be a cost about $800,000. And this would include design and 1 construction of the light poles. The second option that we have is to replace the existing 2 streetlights as they are in the same location and replace them with the combination of the 3 pedestrian and streetlights. A cost with this, for this would be up to about a million dollars and 4 the total count would be 37. The third option would be to replace the existing lights but at a 5 tighter spacing so you’ll see that there existing streetlights would be placed as you see them so 6 we could let 75 feet apart. And the cost would be about $1.2 million. This just, this slide shows 7 you the options that we’d have with the street pole. We would have receptacle lighting so we’d 8 have the opportunity to hang banners and hanging baskets. These are decorative elements that 9 would be available as an option for the streetlights. 10 11 Also I’d like to go over the next steps for the project. Following tonight’s meeting we are 12 scheduled to go to the City Council meeting for March 4th. On February 21st we are scheduled to 13 go to Architectural Review Board (ARB) as a preliminary review to go over the streetscape 14 elements and the landscaping for the project. Through the spring we are committed to go over 15 the construction staging and the business preservation plan development with the merchants. 16 That will be an ongoing discussion once we have finalized the project scope. And we’re 17 scheduled for final approval and authorization to bid to come back to both Planning Commission 18 and also the Council in June with going out to bid in the summer of 2013 with construction to 19 begin in the fall. 20 21 So tonight the recommended lighting option is to, we’d like the Planning Commission to forward 22 a recommendation to the City Council to include street lighting elements into the current project 23 for the California Avenue Streetscape Project. And the option that we’re recommending is 24 Option 2A, to remove and replace the existing streetlights at a cost of $1 million. And I will 25 open it up to questions and comments. Thank you. 26 27 Chair Martinez: Can you clarify, to remove and replace Option 2A is to replace them at 100 foot 28 spacing? 29 30 Ms. Yazdy: It would be the exact same locations which are about 100 foot spacing. 31 32 Chair Martinez: And the height of them would be identical, or? 33 34 Ms. Yazdy: That’s something that I think we would be working with the design, the electrical 35 designer on and also going through the ARB process to make sure that we have enough lighting. 36 So it all depends, so if we go with the lower height we can maybe have spacing that’s further 37 apart, but the current I believe the street pole that we have shown can be at a lower height, yes. 38 39 Chair Martinez: And do you have any idea what the spread of the light is at the 100 foot spacing? 40 41 Ms. Yazdy: I believe we had some proposed numbers. If you have the current lighting I’ll bring 42 Kandee Bahmani with RBF Engineers can go over kind of lighting that we’ve… (trailed off) 43 44 Chair Martinez: Thank you. 45 46 Kandee Bahmani, RBF Consulting: Good evening Chair Martinez and Commissioners. We are, 47 we have made some assumptions based on the minimum requirements by the IES. So we’re 48 using the one foot candle average and we’re using a 4:1 average to minimum ratio as a 49 6 maximum. And the sidewalks we’re using .3 for the candles. And the 100 foot spacing works 1 and the height that we’ve assumed right now is about 25 to 30 feet for the street lighting and 2 about 10 to 12 for the pedestrian lights. 3 4 Mr. Rodriguez: Chair Martinez, if I could just add. I think that as we continue to work on the 5 design if we get that support from the Commission and the City Council, I do think we’ll 6 probably end up with the existing poles again they’re at 30 feet today. They are definitely 7 standard highway type of pole. We are probably something that might be a little lower at about 8 25 feet that can be our preference that’s a consistent comment that we kept hearing from the 9 community as well that one, the lights are older, but also that they’re just so high and so we do 10 feel that with this project is that we have an opportunity to reduce that pole to about 25 feet, but 11 also again add that lower pedestrian scale that really lights up the sidewalk and at that 100 foot 12 spacing we were pretty confident that we could get a good light distribution to make those kind 13 of sidewalk environments very comfortable for the community. 14 15 Chair Martinez: Ok well thank you for that. We’re going to open the public, why don’t we hold 16 and open the public hearing. Do we have any members of the public to speak on item one? 17 18 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, the first speaker is Herb Borock to be followed by Terry Shuchat. 19 20 Herb Borock: Good evening Chair Martinez and Commissioners. This proposal on the street 21 lighting is a segment of a larger project, the California Avenue Streetscape Project, and as such 22 discussing it separately is a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that 23 prohibits segmenting a project for environmental review. That project, the segment of the 24 project that the Council had previously seen and approved is currently before an appellate court. 25 It was fully briefed as of October 18 of 2012. So far there’s been no further progress other than 26 the best guest of the Court at this time is that they’ll be returning the file to the superior court on 27 March 7th. So this proposal to come before the City Council on the current schedule would seem 28 to indicate to me that it’s trying to get it to the Council before they get the ruling from the 29 appellate court on the Streetscape Project minus this segment. 30 31 But regardless of what happens at the appellate court level, staff is just inviting another lawsuit 32 for violating the California Environmental Quality Act by segmenting the project in this way. If 33 the Council had the street lighting proposal before it at the same time as it was reviewing the rest 34 of the project it may very well have made a decision differently than the one it would make by 35 doing them separately and it certainly would have a different budgetary decision before it than it 36 had at that time. At that time it clearly did not have any money lined up to do the entire project 37 and both of its segments, which is probably an indication of why it was segmented. Once again 38 it is going after the money that has motivated the staff and the Council to violate the California 39 Environmental Quality Act. And I suggest since this project does violate that law that you 40 should take no further action on it. Thank you. 41 42 Chair Martinez: Thank you Mr. Borock. 43 44 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Terry Shuchat to be followed by Robert Moss. 45 46 Terry Shuchat: Hi, I’m Terry Shuchat; I’m a property owner and a business owner on California 47 Avenue. I’m one of hundreds of people who were totally opposed to this project, but it appears 48 to be going before the City it’s going to progress, it’s probably going to happen and even though 49 7 we have hundreds of people who are opposed to it, I’ve heard of absolutely no one who’s 1 opposed to changing the lighting. The lighting on California Avenue is very, very old fashioned. 2 It’s referred to as “freeway lighting.” It looks old. It’s way too high and it seems that since the 3 City has great plans on redoing the street, making the street look beautiful that it only makes 4 sense to change the lighting also. To bring the height of that lighting down and to make the 5 sidewalk safer certainly seems to make a lot more sense now. 6 7 Jaime hasn’t brought up, but I’ve heard at some meetings we’ve had that the reason for also for 8 doing the lighting now is that the sidewalks are going to be pretty well torn up and the lighting 9 conduit is old on California Avenue and this would be just an excellent opportunity while the 10 sidewalks are already being torn up to in turn replace the conduits for the lighting. So I and I’m 11 sure, as I said I’ve heard absolutely zero objections to redoing the lighting and there again as a 12 property owner, a business owner, I think that it would be safer with new lighting and would 13 certainly definitely improve the looks of the Streetscape Project. 14 15 Chair Martinez: Thank you. 16 17 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: And our final speaker is Robert Moss. 18 19 Robert Moss: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. The thing that’s bothering me 20 about this project is the way it seems to keep escalating and the cost keeps going up and up and 21 up. When it was originally proposed one of the selling points was that the $1.175 million dollar 22 grant from Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) was going to be most of the cost 23 of the project and now we’re talking about $3.4 million without the cost of the lampposts, which 24 brings us up close to $4.5 million. Also, I’m not convinced that all of the costs are included 25 because when the City Council moved to widen the sidewalks Steve Emslie told me that because 26 of the relocation of the sidewalks the curbs and the gutters the entire street would have to be 27 reconfigured because you’d be destroying the gutters, the storm drains, and the slope between the 28 crest of the street and the drains, which makes water drain. He thought that would cost at least 29 $800,000 to $1 million dollars. And I don’t see that as one of the expenses on here. 30 31 So we’re probably approaching $5 million for this project and staff is talking about half a million 32 dollars of the existing costs not including the streetlights not being funded by anything and then 33 going to the Capital Improvement Fund and taking out that money. About $1.5 million. As you 34 know we have a backlog of Capital Improvements in Palo Alto a minimum of $250 million 35 depending on how you look at it they could be closer to $300 million and this just adds to it. 36 And taking away from the Capital Improvement pot to do additional decoration on California 37 Avenue strikes me as an unwise use of City funds. 38 39 So what could we do with $5 million? Well that would pay most of the cost of rehabilitating the 40 two fire stations which are in serious need of upgrading. And given the choice between making 41 the fire stations safe and more useable or making California Avenue look nice, I would vote for 42 the fire stations. So I think you ought to go back and take another very careful look at all of the 43 costs for the California Avenue Project and all of the funding options and make sure that we’re 44 not just keep on building up the cost and building up the expenses and having no place to go 45 except taking it out of our very, very sick Capital Improvement Fund. 46 47 8 Chair Martinez: Thank you Mr. Moss. Commissioners let’s keep the public hearing open for a 1 bit. I may have some questions of our speakers. Ms. City Attorney can you talk a bit about sort 2 of the legal side of this project? 3 4 Cara Silver, Sr. Assistant City Attorney: Yes, thank you. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City 5 Attorney. And I did want to respond to Mr. is it? I think it was Mr. Borock who made the issue 6 about, who made the point about the CEQA segmentation. And there is currently a Mitigated 7 Negative Declaration (MND) that was approved for this project by the City Council. That 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration is currently the subject of some litigation. It, the adoption of the 9 MND was found to be sufficient by the trial court, but now the issue is on appeal and until the 10 appellate court or unless the appellate court sets aside the trial court’s decision the MND is 11 currently operative and it’s operative as of this time. The MND did discuss various streetscape 12 improvements such as street furniture and that type of thing. It did not specifically address 13 streetlights, but staff has analyzed this issue and since this is just a simple replacement of an 14 existing streetlight we have not determined that there are any environmental effects that would 15 give rise to additional environmental analysis and so the MND for the overall project is sufficient 16 for moving forward. 17 18 Chair Martinez: Can I ask you a question about that? If we are going to replace streetlights 19 someplace in another part of the City, another three blocks, would that require an environmental 20 review of any kind? 21 22 Ms. Silver: Typically those types of replacements are categorically exempt. Almost all of our 23 streetlight replacements and street paving projects and sidewalk projects are always categorically 24 exempt. 25 26 Chair Martinez: Ok and then one last question on this. Does this street lighting project have to 27 be, I know the, I understand the, you don’t want to rip up the sidewalks a second time, but does it 28 necessarily have to be part of this? Because it makes it more complicated. Can it be a separate 29 project? 30 31 Ms. Silver: It certainly could be a separate project. I think there are some economic and 32 construction issues that I’ll defer to Jaime on. 33 34 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Cara. Yes Commissioner, Cara’s actually correct here in this 35 particular case we’re actually trying to just make sure we’re providing the project to the City in a 36 timely manner in this specific case concrete for sidewalks is very expensive to reconstruct and 37 you can’t get the same look and finish if you have to go and saw cut it later to re-allow for the 38 new conduits to be reconstructed. And so we’re trying to actually just make sure that we are 39 capitalizing on the work that’s already going to be taking place and as Mr. Shuchat mentioned 40 earlier as part of his public comments is, the sidewalk will already be destroyed, meaning it will 41 be ripped up already, the ground will be expelled it’s a very simple cost savings measure for the 42 City to offer this as an element of the project now versus later. 43 44 Chair Martinez: Mr. Chief Transportation Official, I don’t think we can call this project timely, 45 so I beg to differ. Commissioner Panelli had a comment or question. I’m going to let him go 46 first. 47 48 9 Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr. Chair. My question, well the overarching question I have 1 is what problem are we trying to solve with this project? I think I heard maybe three or four 2 different objectives and so I want to be clear that I understand what they are. One is pedestrian 3 safety, would that be accurate? 4 5 Mr. Rodriguez: Yes Commissioner Panelli. The specific recommendation to add lighting would 6 be specifically to help illuminate the pedestrian zone of the roadway. 7 8 Commissioner Panelli: Ok, but it sounds like also there were some other driving forces behind 9 what the community, the community’s reason for asking for some of this. Some of it is 10 marketability to make it a more pleasant place. It seems like and the reason I’m asking this 11 question is what were the other options that were considered beside the 1, 2A, and 2B? For 12 example, smaller but more frequently placed lighting standards or planter box lighting because 13 now we’re adding so much more vegetation. So maybe you could give a little bit of color behind 14 the thinking there. 15 16 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Commissioner. I’ll try and answer that question and if I stray please 17 reel me back in. So there’s definitely a lot of elements to a streetscape project and lighting is a 18 great opportunity to compliment all the other work that is already happening with the project to 19 allow that roadway element to be more visible during the evening hours, to highlight those 20 streetscape elements that have been added. Street lighting is not just the pole; it’s the type of 21 light that’s added onto the roadway that provide the effects that we might be looking for within 22 this corridor. It’s the illumination of the roadway, it’s the illumination on the sidewalk, and we 23 really are just trying to be responsive to the community in this case. That’s why we’re here 24 tonight, is the community has been very clear to us saying we just want to make sure that it is 25 clear we have heard them every time and this is really our last opportunity. 26 27 And if we don’t add the lighting in now we definitely can’t meet our design date. Well, basically 28 like if we don’t add it we’ll meet the design date, but if we were asked to then add lighting say in 29 April we definitely won’t meet our design date. So we really need to get, to make that 30 determination kind of now early into this calendar year so that RBF and Gates have an 31 opportunity to finish that civil plan correctly so we can bid it out rather than trying to do this as 32 an addendum after we award the project we would pay a lot more money later. And so that’s the 33 driving force here, just trying to take advantage of the design, make sure it’s part of that so we 34 get a price for the community. 35 36 Commissioner Panelli: Ok and let me just follow that part up because one of the things that I 37 highlighted in the report is that because you’re going to be cutting up the sidewalks and the 38 existing underground conduit and wiring of the streetlights are aged, right? So the idea is hey, 39 we’re going to tear these up, we may as well replace while we have, while we’ve opened it up so 40 we don’t have to go back and do it again. And my question for you is if we didn’t replace any 41 of the lighting how much longer would that conduit, underground conduit and wiring last before 42 it would have had to been replaced anyway? 43 44 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Commissioner. Street light facilities usually have a useful life of 45 about close to 50 years. In this particular case the conduits that are on California or under 46 California Avenue in this case are already 40 years old. They are rigid steel conduits smaller 47 than two inches, about an inch and a half conduit size. The conductors that are in those conduits 48 are also aged. We actually did look at whether or not those conduits could be reused such as just 49 10 pull out the old cables, put new ones in, and we actually can’t do that in most cases. We also 1 have a design standard in the City where we try to put new conduits in at about 18 to 24 inches 2 depth below before the sidewalk. In this case they are as shallow as eight inches so we actually 3 do run the risk even with demolition of the existing sidewalk that we actually may damage the 4 existing conduits as well. 5 6 Commissioner Panelli: Ok and let me just, I’ll summarize it here, but I just want to make sure 7 I’m drawing the right conclusion here, which is as part of this between $800 and $1.2 million 8 proposed spend, there’s some percentage of that that if we didn’t entertain deferred maintenance 9 we’d have to replace, we’d have to spend in the next 10 years anyway. Is that a fair way to 10 characterize it? 11 12 Mr. Rodriguez: Yes it is, and if I may just take advantage of the opportunity to have the mike 13 again, when we looked at the various options of lighting configurations we did analyze two. 14 Again one is just leaving those existing pole standards in place and repainting them to get them a 15 little bit of a different look and simply just adding additional lights in between, but one of the 16 reasons why we did recommend against that first option is because one of the consistent 17 community comments that we do hear from the community, specifically the merchants and 18 property owners along California Avenue was that they wanted to preserve the storefront 19 visibilities within the corridor. There was a lot of concern about having pole clutter on the street 20 and we didn’t highlight it as part of the presentation but there’s again 35 existing lights and if we 21 add in just lights in between that with all the other furniture now the sidewalk does begin to look 22 very busy and you get to have a little more of a fence like effect kind of looking down the 23 corridor because you see pole, pole, pole, pole and although that would definitely achieve the 24 benefit that we would be looking for with this project, which is the pedestrian sidewalk lighting 25 then that would have a different impact even though it’s a cheaper solution. 26 27 Commissioner Panelli: Yeah it starts looking like a bunch of parking meters, right? 28 29 Mr. Rodriguez: You said that, not me. 30 31 Chair Martinez: Certainly. Before we go on, Assistant Director Aknin do you want to talk a bit 32 about sort of the rest of what’s going on? Like for example the California Avenue Concept Plan 33 and how would the progress of that and how that fits into the overall development here. Just 34 give us a brief update. 35 36 Mr. Aknin: Sure, and I haven’t been intimately involved with this, but I could give you kind of a 37 broader overview. As you know concept, there’s two concept plans that are going to become 38 part of the General Plan. And the California Avenue Concept Plan is one of those and what 39 we’re doing tonight even though the California Avenue Concept Plan has not been adopted yet 40 there has been a community input process and nothing that’s proposed tonight is inconsistent 41 with what’s been heard during that community input process. Now the environmental review of 42 the California Avenue Concept Plan is going to be go hand and hand with the general, with the 43 Comprehensive Plan and that environmental review will start over the next few months. So I 44 think the short story of it is everything that’s being proposed as part of the streetscape alignment 45 is consistent with what’s shown within that Concept Plan at this time, but the Concept Plan even 46 has greater and more broader type improvements for the area. 47 48 11 Chair Martinez: Thank you for that. And before we go forward with comments and questions, 1 Ms. Yazdy? Did I say that right? Can you just give us a summary of the preferred Option 2A 2 not only the replacement of the light standards, but the other parts of the lighting plan that will be 3 part of this million dollars or whatever the number’s going to be as part of the lighting part of 4 this? Do you have that? 5 6 Ms. Yazdy: Sure, yes. Let me just I’ll bring back the layout that kind of shows the, so the 7 bottom option, Option 2 we’re calling it, is that we would replace the existing streetlights with 8 basically the new combination pedestrian/streetlights. So they would pretty much go exactly 9 where they are and again, the same spacing as they are now and in addition to lighting up the 10 street the pedestrian, the sidewalks would also be lightened up as well. And the street we have a 11 couple of street pole, street lights options that we’ve picked out. Again they will have to go 12 through ARB review and we will be doing that February 21st. And I can show you the photo. 13 It’s to the right where you see the combination pedestrian and streetlight option that would also 14 have the opportunity to hang banners or hanging baskets from them also as a streetscape feature 15 if we choose to. 16 17 Chair Martinez: And the total number of those light fixtures is again? 18 19 Ms. Yazdy: I’m sorry. 20 21 Chair Martinez: The total number of light fixtures that are part of that package is? 22 23 Ms. Yazdy: 37. 24 25 Chair Martinez: 37. And they’ll be no… I’m saying it, but a question, like bollards or street 26 lighting or lighting at people, places, gathering places or anything like that? 27 28 Ms. Yazdy: That’s a very good question. Thanks for bringing that up. In addition to providing 29 street lights for the pedestrians and also the street the poles will have power outlets for additional 30 lighting during events for the central plaza location, festive lighting, so it will provide that 31 additional pole power to do so. Also the one important element of the fact that we’re widening 32 the sidewalks, the current streetlights are with the widened sidewalks the current streetlights 33 would be in the middle of the sidewalk. So with, if we do replace the streetlights what we can do 34 is actually move the streetlights out closer towards the curb, which would give more space for 35 the sidewalk for tables and benches and streetscape elements to be placed. 36 37 Chair Martinez: And Mr. Landscape Architect how does that fit with your plan? 38 39 Mr. Gates: Sorry, could you repeat that? 40 41 Chair Martinez: Oh I just wanted to know whether in your landscape design whether you’ve had 42 thought about the lighting and this placement of lighting and does that work adequately with the 43 landscaping plan? 44 45 Mr. Gates: Yeah, actually it’s a vast improvement if we bring the lighting down those species 46 will grow above so the lower the light in the future it will be much more efficient for us and we 47 have actually got the trees spaced based on the lighting and as she mentioned if the light poles 48 get pulled out to the street that’s going to help us separate the pedestrian lighting from the street 49 12 lighting and pull it away from the trees again. And I believe we do have some limited number of 1 niche lights that will sit in the walls, in the new walls, which will actually create some limited 2 pools of light at crossing areas as well. So it’s a big help from a landscape point of view. 3 4 Chair Martinez: Good. That’s what I was looking for. Sorry to bogart the time Commissioners. 5 Commissioner Tanaka. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, so first of all it sounds like this is some good forward thinking. So 8 thanks for bringing this forward. A couple of quick questions; first question is, of the three 9 different options can staff talk about in terms of light on the sidewalk and street which option 10 gives us the most light on the sidewalk and street? Do we know that? 11 12 Ms. Yazdy: That would be the option that we’re recommending. They are I guess the spacing 13 that we have right now and some of the really basic studies that we’ve done with the lighting we 14 feel that this option, the combination streetlight and pedestrians would provide adequate lighting 15 for the sidewalk. And anything more would be really just provide extra clutter and definitely not 16 enough, I mean the lighting could be satisfied with this option. 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. The only reason I was asking is if I just do the math on wattage, 19 now wattage not equal to lumens, but let’s just use watts as an example. The first option is like 20 40, almost 5,000 watts, right? And then the second option is 37,000 watts, 3,700 watts. And so I 21 just in terms of like pure wattage the first one is, by far the most light, but I was just trying to 22 understand why the second option would be more light. I just, I don’t know if staff could talk a 23 little more about that? 24 25 Ms. Yazdy: I guess, I’m sorry I misunderstood. It wouldn’t provide more light; it would be 26 adequate light to light the sidewalk I must have I misunderstood your question. So the second 27 option would provide enough lighting for the sidewalk. The first option is to just provide, it 28 would be just a lot of lighting in between the existing. 29 30 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, and is there also plans to run communication to these lights as well 31 in case you wanted to have finer control or is that… where you’re laying your conduits and 32 cable? 33 34 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Commissioner Tanaka. I think you’re referring to like data cables, is 35 that what you’re referring to? It isn’t something that we’d actually planned. We actually are 36 pretty familiar with the cities that have done similar things and actually have not found very 37 specific uses for them. I know that downtown Gilroy did that. They wired up their whole 38 downtown and they have never once been able to use that option. 39 40 Commissioner Tanaka: I see. Ok. Great, thank you. 41 42 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck, further questions, comments? 43 44 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I want to start by saying that I feel like your presentation does 45 make the case that this is an ideal time to improve the lighting on Cal Ave. I want to highlight 46 that according to the staff report the project is half a million dollars over budget and you’re 47 talking about adding another million two. So we’re talking about nearly two million dollars over 48 budget and I wasn’t involved in this project in any capacity because I came, I’m so new, but I 49 13 don’t often criticize our Planning Department, but I really want to stress that I think that in this 1 business budgeting is a very important skill. I just, I mean we’re actually not talking about 2 Option 1 versus Option 2 versus no option. Really, no matter what we’ll have to spend it looks 3 like $800,000. There is no option where we don’t do anything, which really means that the cost 4 differential is potentially $200,000 or $400,000 because there is no zero thousand dollar option. 5 Am I right? There’s no decision that the City Council could make that nothing would happen. 6 7 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Commissioner Alcheck. That actually is an option. If we don’t want 8 to do lighting, we definitely don’t have to do it. We just didn’t present that as an option for you, 9 but it is an option on the table so thank you for clarifying (interrupted) 10 11 Commissioner Alcheck: Would those lights still have to move or they could stay where they’re 12 at? 13 14 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you. If we don’t add lighting to the project lights would just stay where 15 they are and the point that Shahla was trying to make is in the areas where we’re doing the 16 majority of the widening, specifically at that first block of California between El Camino Real 17 and Ash that’s where the largest amount of widening does occur along the south side of the street 18 so if we don’t move the poles, the poles then end up that are existing end up being more in the 19 middle of the sidewalk. And they’ll do a great job of lighting up the sidewalk at that point until 20 the trees get a little bigger, but then we might light up the roadway. That’s actually a point that a 21 lot of the merchants have been making to us and again it just hasn’t been an element of the 22 project for us to be able to add in. 23 24 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah so if I could just follow up, that just, I mean to be honest your 25 answer just further frustrates me because if it’s such a no brainer I cannot imagine that they 26 wouldn’t have discussed this at the time they were making the decision about this project as a 27 whole. And that’s sort of my broader point. From outside this Commission as just a citizen of 28 Palo Alto when this project was being discussed it sounded wonderful to me. But at what cost, 29 right? Everything has a cost. And if we’re talking about $6 million streetscape improvement or 30 $3 million streetscape those are decisions obviously the City Council has to make, but it just sort 31 of seems like how is it possible that this project go this far along without the discussion of street 32 lighting and now that essentially the project’s been approved and for good reason now you’re, 33 now we’re coming to a point where we’re talking potentially a million and a half dollars or a 34 million dollars. And it just, I can’t comprehend a scenario where anybody’s sort of happy with 35 that kind of decision making. 36 37 So again, I do think it’s an ideal time to deal with this lighting. It sounds to me like ripping up 38 concrete 10 years from now would be a mistake and obviously we can’t leave them where 39 they’re at because they are going to inefficiently light this new wonderful area. That being said I 40 am a little disappointed because I would like, I think the City Council should make these 41 decisions with all the information and what you’re telling me is it’s a no brainer and it seems so 42 obvious; at the same time no one was discussing this when they were making this decision that 43 seems like a failure on the part of the Planning Department. So I think in general you guys do an 44 excellent job, but this is an important skill and I think that we should learn something from this. 45 46 Chair Martinez: We’re kind of reversing roles here because I want to defend the Planning 47 Department, but I’m going to put that on hold for now. Commissioner Panelli do you have 48 14 further comments? Well we’re going to wrap it up pretty soon so… Yes, Acting Vice-Chair 1 Keller, please. 2 3 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So I was going to ask a question first about CEQA. So 4 let me follow that up. There’s a question that was answered earlier that was raised by the Chair 5 was the issue of segmenting, but one part that was brought up by a member of the public was the 6 issue of budget and although Commissioner Alcheck is right that the Council sort of made a 7 decision that to fund some of it and then sort of like the camel’s nose and more of the camel 8 winds up under the tent in the morning, the whole camel winds up under the tent in the morning. 9 But the, but to what extent is that a CEQA question? Does the Council not having studied the 10 degree of the budget of the overall project is that, is budget at all a CEQA question? 11 12 Ms. Silver: Commissioner Keller CEQA is triggered by any discretionary action, so the 13 budgeting does trigger CEQA and then you need to look at whether that budgetary action will 14 have environmental impacts. So in this case a budgetary action is discretionary so CEQA is 15 invoked, but our analysis is that the Mitigated Negative Declaration already covers the overall 16 project and that the addition of or the replacement of streetlights does not trigger any other 17 environmental impacts that haven’t already been studied in the MND. 18 19 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: I think I didn’t phrase my question in a clear enough way. To the 20 extent that the project cost $3 million or $30 million, which it hopefully doesn’t cost $30 million, 21 but just as an example, does the cost of the project is that effect the CEQA analysis? 22 23 Ms. Silver: No, it typically doesn’t. 24 25 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So therefore the fact that the City Council didn’t know 26 the total cost of the whole project that somehow increased, that’s not a CEQA question? 27 28 Ms. Silver: That’s generally correct unless the cost of the project increased because additional 29 elements that would have significant environmental impacts that weren’t analyzed were the 30 cause of the increase. 31 32 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: So would it be fair to say that it’s the elements themselves that trigger 33 whether or not there’s a CEQA question, not the cost? 34 35 Ms. Silver: Right. That’s correct. 36 37 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. The next question is with respect to the interaction of the 38 trees and lights. So when the trees were cut down on California Avenue and then they were 39 replaced, they were replaced basically in the same spots and now the curb is being extended. 40 And when the curb is being extended with the light fixtures being placed at the new curb will 41 there be shadows behind the trees that are inset further from the, in other words where the inward 42 tree wells are? 43 44 Mr. Gates: The photomatic metric patter will certainly change, but one of the reasons we’re 45 going for a high/low is that you come below the canopy for the pedestrian to put it on the 46 sidewalk and you go ultimately below the canopy but in the middle of it for the first 7 years to 10 47 years so that ultimately in mature form we’re getting very good distribution of streetlight which 48 is [brighter] different than pedestrian light which is lower and more in character. So the ideal 49 15 position is next to the street but low, close to the sidewalk. So we’ll be in a better position than 1 leaving them where they are now. 2 3 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: So you won’t get shadows behind on the sidewalk lighting behind the 4 trees that are set inward? 5 6 Mr. Gates: The trees that are there now will be inset, but a 12 foot high light in the very short 7 time your existing trees are going to be canopy above that, so that’s why the lower pedestrian 8 scale will give us a very good foot candle on the sidewalk even though they’re upward a little 9 more than what the trees are today. 10 11 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. The next question is with regard to in terms of the cost 12 and I’m not asking you to answer this for now, but when you go to City Council it would be 13 helpful to distinguish between the cost of replacing the conduit with modern conduit, which 14 arguably is a accelerated maintenance job as opposed to deferred maintenance from the cost of 15 replacing the lighting which is more of an improvement. So in some, just for discussion’s sake 16 say about $600,000 to replace the conduit and $400,000 for the new lighting then really that’s 17 $600,000 of accelerated maintenance and $400,000 is the actual improvement. And that might 18 affect how the budget is considered. 19 20 In, it was also mentioned by a member of the public about storm drains as not being included. 21 Are the relocation of the storm drains and how they feed into the storm drain system, is that 22 budgeted for or is that something that will have to be added on as an addition? 23 24 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Commissioner Keller. The design does actually include today 25 protection of the existing storm drains say from rooftops that currently spill out into the gutter 26 today and there are several locations where we actually need to relocate storm drains to maintain 27 flows and actually be able to get that water into the storm drain system. So that is budgeted as 28 part of the project. 29 30 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you and I assume that also includes an analysis of where the 31 roadway goes in and out and the curb goes in and out that there’s not going to be ponding of 32 water with no place to go. 33 34 Mr. Rodriguez: Yes, that’s correct Commissioner. 35 36 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. One thing that was in the staff report that wasn’t in the 37 diagram that you have up there on the screen in page, is that one of the choices was something 38 that looks like a bell and I would just discourage use of that particular design because that’s a 39 motif for El Camino Real’s bell and we don’t, I don’t think we want to use that motif on 40 California Avenue because it’s not El Camino Real. If we were redoing lighting on El Camino 41 that would actually be a good idea, but on California I would not use that design off of El 42 Camino Real. 43 44 As a side issue Mountain View when they redid they apparently did not relocate the lights, the 45 streetlights and theirs are shorter though, but on the other hand there’s some situations where you 46 wind up with a light pole in the middle of the sidewalk which is odd and sometimes people bump 47 into them so this is actually a good thing that we’re relocating them. As, on slide 12 you 48 16 mention Options 1, 2, and 3, but in the staff report I think they’re 1, 2A, and 2B. So Option 2 is 1 really Option 2A so I assume that when this goes to Council you’ll correct that. 2 3 And finally let me get to the Comp Plan process. So the, what I understand is that when the 4 Comp Plan is evaluated for CEQA we’re going to take the whole Comp Plan and bring it to 5 CEQA analysis. Excuse me? 6 7 Mr. Aknin: You take the entire Comp Plan and analyze it within a CEQA document. 8 9 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Or are we going to analyze parts of the Comp Plan and parts later? 10 How are, are we going to segment the Comp Plan analysis for Environmental Impact Report 11 (EIR)? How’s that process going to work? 12 13 Ms. Silver: For the updated, updates to the Comp Plan we are planning on doing one single 14 CEQA analysis. However the Concept Plan for California Avenue is on a more quick schedule 15 and it is also relevant to another project in the pipeline, 395 Page Mill. And so our current 16 thinking is that we will do a joint EIR for 395 Page Mill and the California Avenue Concept Plan 17 in advance of the overall Comp Plan EIR. 18 19 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: So when would the Comp Plan EIR happen? What’s the timing of 20 that? 21 22 Mr. Aknin: It’ll kick off within a few months. The EIR scoping portion of it. And then the EIR 23 process will go through the remainder of this year and into early next year. 24 25 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: And how does that affect our process for getting our Housing Element 26 approved because that’s I think part, the important thing that’s part of the Comp Plan, right? 27 28 Mr. Aknin: Well the Housing Element is for the previous housing cycle, correct? So, yeah, so 29 that’s being done with the Negative Declaration as a stand-alone document. 30 31 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Ok, that’s useful to know. And that means that all of our work on the 32 various elements of the Comp Plan either have to happen as part of this, either they have to 33 happen in advance of the Comp Plan review, the Comp Plan EIR or they don’t happen this cycle. 34 Is that the idea? 35 36 Mr. Aknin: So repeat that again? 37 38 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Sorry. We are doing a bunch of elements of the Comp Plan, redoing a 39 bunch of elements, updating a bunch of elements. Either those elements get finished and are 40 included in the EIR for the Comp Plan Update or they miss the boat and don’t happen at this 41 cycle. 42 43 Mr. Aknin: Correct or you’d have to amend the Comp Plan later and review those 44 environmental, review it environmentally at the same time. 45 46 Chair Martinez: Can I add my two cents here? It’s my understanding we only are doing an EIR 47 for the mandated elements and not Governance, Business, Community Services I think. So not 48 all of the elements of the Comp Plan are subject to the EIR. Ms. Silver, is that correct? 49 17 1 Ms. Silver: Some of the elements like Governance probably don’t have any environmental 2 impacts so that’s probably something that doesn’t need to be included in the EIR. 3 4 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So, but the important thing is that the Cal Avenue 5 Concept Plan is going to be studied separately from the rest of the Comp Plan. 6 7 Ms. Silver: Given the current schedule that appears to be the case. That may change over time, 8 but that’s staff’s current thinking. 9 10 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. I’ll just say one thing, I don’t know if the new member of 11 the public came in and wishes to speak before… 12 13 Chair Martinez: I think we’re just going to move on. We’re running out of time. It seems to me 14 that this project came before the Commission in a timely manner. When I was a young 15 Commissioner Alcheck, full head of hair, no grey… and to kind of address some of the criticisms 16 that the Commissioner raised about Planning it was presented as a project that was going to be 17 funded by a VTA grant, but I think the Council chose this opportunity of leveraging that grant to 18 make it a more important project for the public by widening the sidewalks and I think that it is 19 also now at this point asked us to really look at the lighting as part of that project too. I think one 20 thing if I’m not mistaken that the new Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) standards, 21 which are going to be the federal standards, which are going to be incorporated into the new 22 update to the California Building Code are not going to permit lighting standards in the middle of 23 sidewalks. As was mentioned those are things that people with limited vision walk into, 24 especially at night. So I think we’re in a situation where this is a great idea to do it. The 25 reasoning to do it is correct and if that weren’t enough we have no choice. 26 27 So Commissioners, really quickly now taking a minute or two we’re supposed to give a 28 recommendation on staff’s recommendation of the option and if any of you have anything further 29 to say about that I’d like to limit it to recommendations for what’s been offered and not further 30 questions or comments about the Comp Plan or anything else. Commissioner Panelli I trust you 31 to start that discussion. 32 33 Commissioner Panelli: Yeah, thank you and by the way as I predicted, as I predicted 34 Commissioner Keller brought up what my last follow up point was going to be. So thank you. 35 36 I’d like to echo the sentiments that I’ve heard from several of the other Commissioners, which is 37 the project makes sense. The option that you’re recommending makes sense. I think the 38 frustration that I’ve heard voiced here and I will echo it, is the cost overruns. And when I hear 39 about a million here, a million there and after having served on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon 40 Commission (IBRC) I know how much deferred maintenance we have. I know what our catch 41 up is. I know what our keep up is and I get very, very concerned because I know that this 42 million dollars is coming from somewhere else. I just don’t know what’s not getting done to 43 make this project happen. So that’s my simple comment. 44 45 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka, any recommendations? 46 47 Commissioner Tanaka: Yes. I’m also in favor of having the lighting, I’m just thinking about 48 Option 1, 2, and 3, or 2A, 2B. I’m not sure which way to call it. And I actually go to Cal Ave 49 18 quite a bit. I bike along Cal Ave quite a bit and I actually find it kind of dark now so the current 1 lighting, I hate this use, “watts,” but the current lighting’s I think is 7,500 watts. And so even 2 though Option 3 is a little more expensive I’m leaning that way because it seems to be brighter 3 versus this Option 2. So that’s my thoughts. 4 5 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck. Commissioner Alcheck any last comments or? 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah. In case I wasn’t clear, I think this is an ideal time to do this 8 project and I just can’t imagine a scenario where we devote the resources we are to this 9 improvement and then replace wonderful brand new light posts in the location that’s not ideal. 10 So I think that when you have the opportunity to do something you should do it exactly the way 11 you want it to be done and the way you think it’s perfectly suited. So I actually think that this 12 more expensive option, which would essentially mean removing and replacing the existing 13 streetlights in a slightly different but more preferred location is the option that we should 14 encourage the City Council to choose because after they’ve approved that project ideally this will 15 be a perfected street. So that being said, that’s all I have to say. 16 17 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 18 19 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, so firstly let me say that I’m opposed to the do nothing option. 20 And secondly I’m opposed to the, to the stay at Option 1. Whether we go with Option 2A or 2B 21 or not to be… or Option 2 or 3 should depend on the lighting study that’s done and see whether 22 there’s adequate lighting on the street and on the pavement, on the sidewalk. And if there is 23 inadequate lighting then it’s not clear whether it should be 37 or 48 or but actually design it 24 where you need the more lighting based on where it’s short and understanding where the trees 25 are and that. So I’m not going to choose between Option 2 and 3 because that should be a choice 26 based on the particular lighting that exists. And we have been successful in identifying grant 27 funding from the VTA for this project. We’ve identified funding for improvements based on the 28 vehicle license tax, vehicle license fee revenue. And I’m hoping that the City Council will 29 somehow identify some grant funding to do the rest of this project and that would be a good 30 thing for the City Council to identify so that we don’t rob from Peter to pay Paul. 31 32 Chair Martinez: Thank you. I would be willing to bet, not much, but I’d be willing to bet that 33 somewhere in the CIP list that there’s a project to replace street lighting here. So I don’t think 34 we’re robbing anyone I think we’re just moving it ahead on the scale. My theme for tonight for 35 both of our items is the streets are for the people. This is going to be a huge street improvement 36 for the people, for the business. You visit any other small city in California and across this 37 country that has done a project like this and it has made a huge difference. Next time that this 38 project comes before us I’d like to see not Transportation reasons for doing it from the Comp 39 Plan, but things from our Complete Streets and sitting places and the Land Use Element or 40 sustainability policies that really underscore the importance of doing projects like this. 41 42 I support 2A. I think that I would ask you to look at perhaps even lowering these lights down 43 from 25 feet and I wanted to comment on Commissioner Tanaka’s question about the amount of 44 wattage or that when the lights are lowered you’re not comparing apples with apples anymore. 45 That you’re going to get substantially better light from even 25 feet and I think 22 feet might be 46 even better and closer to a better lighting situation for the pedestrians using California Avenue. 47 48 19 I want to thank staff, thank our consultant. Great job. I like the plan and personally I support it 1 going forward. Thank you. Let’s take about a 10 minute break. Oh yes, let’s close the public 2 hearing and thank you all for coming tonight. About a 10 minute break. 3 4 Commission Action: No Commission action, directed staff to pursue lighting. 5