Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3572 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3572) City Council ^ƚĂĨĨ Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/24/2013 June 24, 2013 Page 1 of 8 (ID # 3572) Title: Highway 101 Bridge Competition Subject: Highway 101 Bike and Pedestrian Bridge at Adobe Creek Project Update and Direction on Design Competition From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1) Consider the relative advantages of the invited design competition process and the conventional design process; and 2) Direct staff to initiate an invited design competition process with management assistance from the American Institute of Architects for the design of the Highway 101 at Adobe Creek pedestrian/bicycle bridge, and to return to Council in August 2013 with a detailed process and schedule for conducting the competition. Executive Summary This staff report provides a project update and a description of the process recommended by staff for conducting a bridge design competition. A design competition is expected to provide a wider range of bridge options that could lead to the construction of a “landmark” bridge for Palo Alto, but is also expected to cost somewhat more than the conventional process of selecting a single designer through a Request for Proposals (RFP) solicitation. Background In November 2011, Council approved the Feasibility Study for a pedestrian/bicycle bridge spanning Highway 101 at Adobe Creek. At that meeting, Council directed staff to investigate using a design competition for the project to solicit innovative design concepts that could result in a “landmark” bridge for Palo Alto. At that time, staff indicated that information on a potential design competition would be provided to Council once the preliminary design was refined to determine the locations of the bridge alignments and approach ramps. June 24, 2013 Page 2 of 8 (ID # 3572) In June 2012, the City Council appropriated funds for staff to move forward with: 1. Amending the existing contract with Alta Planning and Design (Alta) to study and identify an environmentally preferred bridge alignment suitable to the site. 2. Studying three alternative bridge alignments and connections to the San Francisco Bay and Adobe Creek Trail network, including preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) considering community, stakeholders, boards and commissions, Caltrans and Santa Clara Valley Water District input. This process is expected to be complete by Winter 2013. 3. Evaluating the feasibility for a trail connection along Adobe Creek from East Meadow to West Bayshore (the “Adobe Reach Trail”) with a goal of improving off-road bike/pedestrian access to the proposed bridge site. The conceptual cost estimate for the pedestrian/bike bridge project remains approximately $6 to $10 million based on the bridge width, length of approach ramps, type of structure, railings, and other amenities. This estimate does not account for increases in construction costs when construction begins in 2015, and staff will be monitoring inflation in construction costs as the bridge design proceeds. The total project funding is $9 million, including the $4 million grant award from Santa Clara County, the $4 million grant award from One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), and a local match from the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) – Sustainability Fund or other local funding source as approved in concept by Council as part of the OBAG grant application review on February 11, 2013. Given the wide range of bridge options and configurations, the possibility of a bridge design competition provides a venue to vet many designs simultaneously in the least amount of time and funding. Invitations would be sent out to reputable design firms and a jury would be selected and ultimately a jury chair would be selected. The community, boards, commissions and council review and approvals will be necessary in coordination with the environmental assessment and bridge alignment alternatives being studied. With the draft conceptual alignments and associated environmental analyses expected to be completed this summer/fall, a design competition could begin this summer. If the City Council directs staff to pursue a competition, staff recommends entering into a contract with the San Francisco Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), to manage the competition process starting this summer with an anticipated design selection early next year. Contingent on the environmental review, competition results and the necessary design approvals and permits, construction is anticipated to begin in 2015. Discussion Project Update June 24, 2013 Page 3 of 8 (ID # 3572) A project update and activities undertaken since the last Council report in June 2012 include: 1. City entered into an agreement with Caltrans to review bridge alignments and perform an environmental assessment according to both the National (NEPA) and California (CEQA) environmental standards. The initial work has been completed by the City, Alta and Caltrans to develop a combined NEPA/CEQA initial study outline, a draft visual impact assessment, preliminary foundation and paleontological identification reports. A natural environment study, an archeological survey, and historic resources evaluation reports are underway in coordination with Caltrans and federal requirements. 2. Alta and City staff (design team) held an environmental scoping meeting in September 2012, and developed alternative alignments and connections to the existing trail system with consideration of community feedback. 3. A preferred bridge alignment (Alignment A) and other alignments developed by the design team were presented at study sessions with the Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board. The preferred alignment was selected by staff based on minimizing potential impacts and cost considerations. See Attachment A. 4. The City received a $4.0 million grant from Santa Clara County to fund construction of the bridge, subject to environmental review and community input. Santa Clara County has indicated that grant funds will be available to the City upon the completion of the design phase of the project. In authorizing staff to apply for the Santa Clara County grant, Council discussed allocating $1.0 million from the SUMC – Sustainability Fund to support the design phase of the project. Council has not taken a formal action with respect to the use of SUMC funds for the project. 5. City Council authorized staff in February to submit a grant proposal as part of the countywide competitive OBAG program, leveraging the $4.0 million by Santa Clara County to fully fund the construction of the project. The Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors approved the project on June 6, 2013 for $4.0 million in federal funding. 6. Staff continues to pursue additional funds through grants and public/private partnerships to supplement the project as necessary depending on the design selected. Options for Design Process Options in developing a bridge design include 1) selecting a winning design and an Architect and Engineering (A/E) firm through a design competition, or 2) selecting an A/E firm through a conventional Request for Proposal (RFP) process to develop a design. Both processes would have community, board, commission and Council selection of a design that meets the project schedule, budget, site constraints and goals/design criteria that will be established. Either process would result in an A/E design firm entering into a design services agreement with the City. The main difference between these options is the level of public outreach, the development and review of a wide variety of design concepts and how the design firm and winning design is selected. Attachment B contains a graphic representation of the possible steps for a bridge competition through an invited competition as compared to a conventional design selection using an RFP. June 24, 2013 Page 4 of 8 (ID # 3572) Invited Competition Design Process Should the Council direct staff to pursue a design competition, staff recommends to proceed with an invited design competition utilizing AIA to assist staff in managing the steps of the competition process noted below contracting through an Exemption from Competitive Solicitation procedure. See Attachment C for the scope, draft timeline and cost proposed for AIA to implement the competition. Step 1: Contract With AIA and Develop Design Criteria; July- September 2013 AIA’s expertise and approach in managing design competitions streamlines the process and AIA will establish a work plan to complete the process in approximately 10 months; AIA will draft design criteria addressing cost, site constraints, design type and vision; final development of the design criteria will be vetted through a community process (joint meeting or individual meetings with ARB and PTC). The AIA will recommend and recruit potential jurists. See jury and technical advisory committee information below. Step 2: Invitations to A/E Firms; October 2013 AIA will solicit proposals via an invitation from approximately twenty local, regional and national A/E design firms recognized within the design community as having the necessary expertise. The content of proposals will include the firm’s experience in bridge design and construction and provide insight into the design approach as it relates to the criteria established in Step 1. Step 3: Jury Selects 3-4 firms; November - December 2013 A jury will review all proposals and request several firms to be interviewed. The Jury will interview several firms and provide a short-listing of 3 to 4 top design firms invited to elaborate on their proposals. The City will contract with these firms in the amount of $10,000 to $20,000 each. These stipends will support the level of effort and design services necessary to develop bridge design concepts for further consideration by the jury. Step 4: Jury Reviews Designs & Determines Winners; January – February 2014 The jury’s short-listing of the 3 to 4 top design firms will result in receiving and reviewing 3 to 4 bridge design concepts. These firms will present architectural renderings, details and cost estimates that provide information on the vision of the project, how the project will be constructed and the cost of the project as it relates to the established design criteria. After the presentations, the jury will deliberate and recommend a preferred/winning concept and design firm. The designs will not be made public prior to and during the jury’s review of the proposals. This privacy will ensure the design teams have no knowledge of their competitor’s work. This provides for a fair competition and determination of a winter. An award ceremony and public display of the 3 to 4 bridge design concepts will complete the competition process. Step 5: Outreach & Design Review by PTC/ARB; March 2014 June 24, 2013 Page 5 of 8 (ID # 3572) The 3 to 4 Jury recommendations will then be forwarded to the community and to boards/commissions. The jury chair will summarize the jury findings and concepts would be reviewed and considered by PTC/ARB. The PTC/ARB will recommend a preferred design concept based on their review of the concepts and community input. Should the second, third or fourth place concept design, or any elements of them, be preferred by the community, boards and commissions, this recommendation will be conveyed to the City Council. The terms of the contracts with the design firms allows the City to combine elements of the designs from multiple firms if that was desired. Step 6: Council Award of Design Contract; April – May 2014 The winning design concept and design team may or may not be approved by the Council depending on cost and/or other factors as determined during the outreach, design review and contract negotiation process. Assuming the community, boards and commissions agree on a preferred design, Council could award the design contract to the desired firm at this step. As a requirement of the design competition, the design team must follow the City’s template design form with no material exceptions. Step 7: Design of Preferred Concept; Begins June 2014 The preferred concept design will be developed further in accordance with the environmental assessment/EIR conditions and other constraints as determined in the preliminary design phase of the project. The design documents will comply with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Caltrans requirements and the City’s Site and Design Review process. This is the final step to complete the design and construction documents for the project. Jury and Technical Advisory Committee Selecting a jury will require AIA to contact recognized designers within the design community that would attract design firms to submit proposals. Typically, the jury may be comprised of local or regional architects recommended by AIA. Final selection of a jury may be considered by boards, commissions and/or Council should Council wish to include an additional step into the process. The jury’s role would be to review proposals, interview A/E firms, and to select 3 to 4 qualified firms to develop concepts in more detail. These concepts would be judged based on established design criteria and goals. At this stage, a winning design would be chosen. The jurors could also receive assistance from a technical advisory committee comprised of staff, local bridge engineers and architects to draft technical memos providing commentary on the viability, cost and constructability of the 3 to 4 designs short-listed. Timeline: - 12 months including jury selection, developing design criteria, interviewing, developing multiple design concepts Cost: approximately $150,000 Costs for local and national competitions may range on the low end of $50,000 to $100,000 including extensive outreach, jury and design stipends. Stipends of $10,000 to $20,000 each for three to four firms should be provided to design firms under contract with the City to develop the bridge concepts. Outreach, printing and incorporation of a technical advisory committee June 24, 2013 Page 6 of 8 (ID # 3572) will require an additional $50,000. Conventional RFP Selection Process Selecting a design developed by an A/E design team through an RFP provides a means in selecting a qualified designer to develop only a few design concepts through the traditional board, commission and community process. Upon issuing an RFP and selection of an A/E firm, the Council would award a design contract to a firm to develop 2 or 3 design concepts. These concepts would be vetted through the community, boards, and commissions with a preferred design recommended to City Council. The preferred concept would then go through the Site and Design Review process after the EIR is certified. Timeline: 10 to 12 months including development of the RFP scope, design criteria, interviewing, developing a few design concepts Cost: approximately $75,000 Developing two or three designs by one design firm may cost approximately $75,000 for community, board, commission and Council review or half of the competition cost. Pros and Cons of selecting a design through either a competition or an RFP process include: 1) Invited competition - designs from qualified and reputable A/E design firms Pro: opportunities to receive multiple concept designs may provide the most pleasing, compatible and cost effective design within the same time frame as the conventional design process. Con: process requires additional costs to run a competition and to pay stipends for the development of detailed designs. 2) Issue Requests for Proposals/ no competition Pro: process realizes moderately lower costs in development of two or three concepts presented to community, boards and commissions. Con: using one A/E firm explores fewer design concepts and may have potential for redesign should concepts not be acceptable to the community. Resource impact Funds sufficient to implement a design competition are included in the FY 2014 Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Capital Improvement Program project budget (PE-11011). In FY 2014 proposed budget, this capital project includes a total of $1,310,000 for the design phase of the project. Policy Implications June 24, 2013 Page 7 of 8 (ID # 3572) Authorization of either a design competition or an RFP process does not represent a change in existing City policies including the Comprehensive Plan. The competition process will require careful review, planning, and execution of the City’s purchasing policies, rules and procedures. Environmental Review The project is subject to the requirements of the CEQA and NEPA. Through discussions with Caltrans’ and City staff, a NEPA/CEQA outline (Attachment D) was developed as a means to combine both analyses into one environmental assessment for this project. This process will allow the City and Caltrans to document impacts to identify an environmentally preferred alternative. The EIR includes common and unique design features that will allow for flexibility in selecting a design. Bridge alignment alternatives will be included in the EIR. An addendum or supplemental document to the EIR may include the winning design if the alignment and/or design selected are moderately different from the alternatives studied. Next Steps Upon direction from Council to initiate a design competition, staff will work with AIA to provide an update in August to include a process to establish design criteria, the jury and other associated competition details. A tentative project schedule is noted below. Start Design Competition/Develop AIA Work Plan July 2013 Invitations to Qualified A/E Firms & Jury Selection October 2013 Outreach to boards/commissions/community October-February 2014 Complete Preliminary Design October 2013 Complete Environmental Review January 2014 Announce Winning Design February 2014 Potential Award of Contract to the Winning Design Team OR Potential Award to Consultant via an RFP May 2014 Begin Design June 2014 Site and Design Review/Addendum to EIR for Winning Design Fall 2014 Complete Design and Construction Documents June 2015 Permits/Advertisement/Award Summer 2015 Start Construction (1 ½ years construction time frame) Fall 2015 The design, construction document and permit review process is complex involving multiple agencies such as Caltrans and SCVWD, so the proposed schedule may change depending on comments received. Attachments:  A - Three Alignments and Architectural Styles (PDF) June 24, 2013 Page 8 of 8 (ID # 3572)  B - Highway 101 Bridge Design Competition vs RFP (PDF)  C - AIA Proposal (PDF)  D - Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (DOCX)  E - 11-28-2011 CCM Excerpt Item 4 Bridge (DOC) *W. Bayshore Road G r e e r R o ad Louis R o a d Lo m a V erde A v e Ross Ro a d E M e a d o w D r i v e E. Bayshore Road Fa b i an W a y Palo Verde Elementary Ramos Park Baylands Nature Preserve S a n A n t o n i o Rd Adobe Cr e ek Sterling Canal (underground) SSaann AAnntttoonniioo RRdd Adob e Creek to Shoreline at Mtn. View Park o u i s R o a d o a d EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE MMMMMMMMMMM eeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaddddddoooowwww DD rive Ramos PR Adobe Ba r r o n C r e e k Water District maintenance roads planned crossing (unfunded) Bay Trail Overcrossing ProjectOvercrossing P r ojec t 555555500000000000 fffffeeeeeeffeeeeeettttt E M eadow C i rcle Map not to scale AAA E Bayshore Rd Highway 101 San Francisco Bay Trail W Bayshore Rd Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve Adobe Creek Barron Creek Adobe Creek 60 kV Line Overhead Utility LineII I E Bayshore Rd San Francisco Bay Trail Highway 101 W Bayshore Rd Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve Ado b e C r e e k Barron Creek Adobe Creek Parcel Adobe Creek Undercrossing Trail 60 kV Line Overhead Utility Line LEGEND I Adobe Creek Overcrossing Alignments A Highway 101 Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Project Location Existing Class I Path (Bay Trail) Existing Class II Bike Lanes Planned Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) Planned Class I Path Potential Class I Path Planned Shared Bikeway (Class III) ocation N Bay to Ridge Trail (adopted 2012)City of Palo Alto, CA Source: Base Data obtained from City of Palo Alto, MTC, Google Maps Date: 1/30/13 Highway 101 Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Alignment Alternative A I 0 10050 Feet BBB FF B RAMP OPTION 1B RAMP OPTION 1B RAMP OPTION 1 E Bayshore Rd Highway 101 W Bayshore Rd San Francisco Bay Trail Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve Barron Creek Adobe Creek Adobe Creek E Bayshore Rd Highway 101 San Francisco Bay Trail W Bayshore Rd Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve Adobe Creek Barron Creek Adobe Creek E Bayshore Rd San Francisco Bay Trail Highway 101 W Bayshore Rd Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve Barron Creek Adobe Creek Ado b e C r e e k Parcel Adobe Creek Undercrossing Trail 60 kV Line Overhead Utility Line LEGEND Adobe Creek Overcrossing Alignment B1 I t E Bayshore Rd San Francisco Bay Trail Highway 101 W Bayshore Rd Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve Ado b e C r e e k Barron Creek Adobe Creek Parcel Adobe Creek Undercrossing Trail 60 kV Line Overhead Utility Line LEGEND I Adobe Creek Overcrossing Alignment F City of Palo Alto, CA Source: Base Data obtained from City of Palo Alto, MTC, Google Maps Date: 1/30/13 Highway 101 Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Alignment Alternative B1 I 0 10050 Feet City of Palo Alto, CA Source: Base Data obtained from City of Palo Alto, MTC, Google Maps Date: 1/30/13 Highway 101 Overcrossing at Adobe Creek Alignment Alternative F I 0 10050 Feet 60 kV Line Overhead Utility LineII I 60 kV Line I I IOverhead Utility Line Contract with AIA and Develop Design Criteria Invitations To A/E Firms Jury Selects 3-4 Firms Outreach & Design Review By PTC/ARB Highway 101 at Adobe Creek Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Council Award Of Design Contract Jury Reviews Designs & Determines Winners Certify EIR City Contract With 3-4 Firms With Stipend Request for Proposal (RFP) Council Award of Design Contract 5/9/2013 11/7/2013 7/1/2013 10/1/2013 Outreach & Design Review By PTC/ARB Design of Preferred Concept Co n v e n t i o n a l Co m p e t i t i o n Design of Preferred Concept Certify EIR 6 Months 12 Months9 Months3 Months3 Months0 Months AIA San Francisco A Chapter of the American Institute of Architects Hallidie Building 130 Sutter Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Facsimile 415.874.2642 Telephone 415.362.7397 www.aiasf.org   10 April 2013    TO: Elizabeth Ames, Brad Eggleston  FR: Margie O’Driscoll, Exec. Director, American Institute of Architects, San Francisco  RE: Adobe Creek/ Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge    Summary:  AIA San Francisco has been approached by the City of Palo Alto with interest in conducting  a competition for the design of a new pedestrian bridge.  It is our understanding that the City seeks to  identify a “winner” of the competition by December, 2013, so the attached timelines reflect that  objective.  There are two possible types of competitions, an “invited” competition and an “open” competition.    Given time constraints, AIA San Francisco would recommend an “invited” competition, however, we  will describe two options below.  Note that this memo is provided as a courtesy to the City of Palo Alto and this memo should not be  construed as a formal proposal by AIA San Francisco.  Both kinds of competitions require jurors who are recognized leaders in the field and significant  outreach to achieve strong entries.  AIA San Francisco has significant experience in managing awards  and competitions, having conducted these processes over 100 times in the last decade.    Invited Competition  An invited competition of significant note was recently undertaken by the nonprofit, Fort Mason Center  in San Francisco, funded by local philanthropist, Ann Hatch and the Tin Man Fund. To achieve the goal  of developing design concepts to enliven and integrate the site, a select group of about 20 architects  and designers were invited to submit their qualifications. These teams were both local and  internationally based.  During this Phase I, design drawings were not required or considered.  The  competition jury selected three finalists to go to Phase II.  During Phase II, 3 teams of finalists were each awarded $20,000 to develop proposals for public  presentation to the competition jury and the broader Fort Mason community.  An exhibition of the  finalists work was held at Fort Mason.    The jury met a second time to choose a “winner.”  Note that  being selected as winner was not a guarantee of selection as the design team.  Jury members for the Fort Mason jury included: a prominent local landscape architect, urban planner,  architect/designer and the Superintendent of the Golden gate Recreation Area and also the Chair of  the nonprofit Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy.    Estimated timeline: 8 months  Possible Timeline for Invited Competition:  April‐ May   Write and finalize competition brief  June Develop list of 20 invited teams; include engineers, architects, others with  demonstrated bridge building expertise  July     Send call for qualifications to 20 teams  August     Follow‐up with invited list to gauge interest  September   Phase I jury meets.  Jury considers submissions and chooses 3‐4 firms to  award        stipend of $10,000‐$20,000 each          October‐November Teams finalize entries, prepare for presentation  December   Conduct Phase II jury; announce winners; public display of winning entries    AIA San Francisco can provide the following services:   Write and finalize competition brief (with input and final approval from City)   Develop list of 20 international teams with bridge building expertise   Invite teams; follow up to gauge interest   Recruit jurors and manage selection process of Phase I   Follow up with selected teams   Manage Phase II jury, awards announcement and display of winning entries at place TBD    Estimated project budget:  AIA SF management fee: $20,000    Juror stipends:     $ 5,000   (5 at $1000/each)    Jury travel/hotel:  $ 2,000     (5 jurors/ 3 local, 2 out of town)    Phase II stipends:  $30,000‐ 80,000 (TBD‐ 3 teams at $10K or 4 teams at $20K each?)    Misc:   $3000   (jury dinner with civic leaders; development of  written              materials, press releases, etc..)  Estimated total costs:  $65,000‐$110,000    Open Competition  An open competition is, as its name indicates, open to all.  An open competition can yield an amazing  design, but entrants are often those with more time than money.  This kind of competition inspires  students and sometimes professionals but it is a more time consuming jury process and may yield a  “winner” with little or no actual design experience‐ which can add significant time delays in the  implementation of the project.  Open competitions are popular with highly visible sites (like the World  Trade Center site in New York City) or with a competition that focuses on “educating the field” (like the  PGE Architecture at Zero competition) or with a purely theoretical competition (a competition for ideas  about what could happen in San Francisco if the 280 freeway was removed.)  In an open competition, the majority of competition time is spent on marketing to try to develop a high  level of submissions.  AIA San Francisco works closely with numerous professional groups in the Bay  Area and around the country to encourage entries.  For this type of competition, given the tight  timeline, one might expect 25‐40 entries.  Most entries would be purely theoretical since most entrants  would be unable to submit a proposal with an engineer as part of a “team.”    One important way to encourage entries is to offer a cash award to winning entries.  For example, for  the Architecture at Zero competition for PGE, $25,000 in awards are distributed.  Generally there are at  least two awards, for a student and professional entry and others given at the discretion of the jury.  Estimated timeline:  9 months (note this can be abbreviated but will result in fewer entries)      Possible Timeline for an Open Competition    April‐ May  Write and finalize competition brief  May‐ July Develop website and postcard to promote competition;   AIASF provides City of Palo Alto with draft press release to announce competition;   AIASF and City distribute press release to media lists, AIA and engineering  organizations around the world  AIASF finalizes jurors, transportation and hotels    August‐ Oct* Continue to market competition, answer entrant questions  November Prepare for announcement  December Convene jury, announce winners  Note that while the submission period of August‐ October accommodates this timeline, it is one of  the worst periods to encourage student participation since it does not correspond to academic  calendars.    Estimated project budget/ Open Competition:  AIA SF management fee: $50,000  Website/marketing   $15,000   Juror stipends:     $ 5,000   (5 at $1000/each)  Jury travel/hotel:  $ 2,000     (assumes 5 jurors/ 3 local, 2 out of town)  Awards prizes to winners: $25,000  Misc:       $ 3,000   (jury dinner with civic leaders; development of  written              materials, press releases, etc..)    Estimated total :    $100,000          Attachment D Highway 101 Pedestrian Overpass Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment Draft Annotated Outline Cover Sheet Title Sheet Summary Table of Contents . Chapter 1 – Proposed Project  Introduction  Purpose and Need  Project Description  Alternatives  Permits and Approvals Needed Chapter 2 – Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The discussion of each topic below will include the following subheadings:  Regulatory Setting This section describes the relevant laws and regulations that guide the analysis.  Affected Environment This section gives a concise description of the existing social, economic, and environmental setting for the area affected by all alternatives presented in the EIR/EA.  Environmental Consequences This section presents the impacts of each build alternative (or action alternative) and the no-build alternative. Construction-related impacts and cumulative impacts will be discussed in each resource section.  Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This section will be designed to satisfy both NEPA and CEQA requirements and will clearly differentiate between them. NEPA limits the use of “mitigation” and “mitigate”. These terms only refer to impacts that are adverse under NEPA. NEPA uses the framework of avoidance and/or minimization. For CEQA mitigation will be described as affecting impacts so that they are “significant” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated.” Human Environment  Land Use - Includes discussion of existing and future land use, consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs  Growth - Discusses in a qualitative manner the influence that the project could have on growth and development.  Community Impacts – Discusses community character and cohesion and Environmental Justice  Utilities/Emergency Services Includes discussion of existing utilities/emergency services and potential changes or impacts.  Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities – Includes a discussion of the project’s impacts on traffic and circulation, both during construction and after completion of the project operational impacts. This is a qualitative discussion. Modeling is not included.  Visual/Aesthetics – Includes discussion of the project setting and its viewshed. Key points are as follows:  Identify key views for visual assessment.  Analyze existing visual resources and viewer response.  Analyzes attributes such as line, form, color, texture, dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity. Visual quality is measured by vividness, intactness, and unity.  Depict the visual appearance of project alternatives.  Assess the visual impacts of project alternatives.  Cultural Resources - Includes discussion of all “built environment” cultural resources (structures, bridges, railroads, water conveyance systems, etc.) and archaeological resources (both prehistoric and historic) that could potentially be impacted. Physical Environment  Hydrology and Floodplain - Includes discussion of the potential risks of the project with regards to the floodplain, the potential impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values and if necessary measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any beneficial floodplain values impacted by the project.  Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff - Includes discussion of the potential water quality concerns such as applicable storm water regulations, receiving water bodies and their beneficial uses, existing water quality, project-related discharges, including storm water, and potential water quality and storm water impacts.  Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography - Includes discussion of the potential geology, soils, and seismic concerns as they relate to public safety and project design.  Hazardous Waste/Materials - Includes identification of potential sources of hazardous materials, waste and substances in, and adjacent to, the project area. Will describe results of a field inspection of the parcels in and adjacent to the project area to look for and document land use, disturbance, materials, or facilities that may indicate past or current releases or activities that may release or use hazardous materials. Biological Environment  Plant Species – Includes description of the dominant plant species in the biological study area.  Animal Species - Includes description of the dominant animal species in the biological study area.  Threatened and Endangered Species – If necessary, this section includes discussion of threatened or endangered (T & E) species that are formally listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA).  Invasive Species - Includes description of potential of the project to promote or inhibit the spread of invasive species. Chapter 4 – Comments and Coordination - Includes discussion of the scoping process including meeting dates, attendees, issues raised and comments received. Section will also describe consultation and coordination with public agencies Chapter 5 – List of Preparers - Includes all individuals, including consultants, that prepared or helped to prepare the environmental document and supporting technical studies. Chapter 6 – Distribution List APPENDICES Appendix A. CEQA Checklist - includes a checklist that is consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines on the Office of Planning and Research website. Appendix B. Section 4(f) Includes description of all archaeological and historic sites within the Section 106 area of potential effects (APE) and all parks, recreational facilities, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges within approximately one- half mile of any of the project alternatives to determine whether they are protected Section 4(f) resources. It is assumed that the project would result only in a de minimis finding, which would be documented in Appendix B. Appendix C. Glossary of Technical Terms Appendix D. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Summary – This section will summarize avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures or provide a mitigation monitoring report in the document. It will separate out measures required to mitigate significant impacts under CEQA versus measures taken to avoid or minimize other less than significant impacts. Appendix E. List of Acronyms List of Technical Studies CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL EXCERPT MINUTES Page 1 of 10 Special Meeting November 28, 2011 Transmittal of the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Over/ Undercrossing Feasibility Study; Recommendation of Adobe Creek Overcrossing as Preferred Option to Further Study and Approval of Amendment with Santa Clara Valley Water District for Extended Use of Adobe Creek Undercrossing. Mike Sartor, Interim Director of Public Works, explained there was $100,000 included in the 2010 Capital budget for a Highway 101 Crossing Feasibility Study. The contract was awarded to Alto Planning and Design to perform the Study in April of 2010. There was an additional $250,000 included in the 2011 Capital Budget for a future environmental assessment and initial design work. Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer noted the Feasibility Study had been reviewed in the past year with the goal of identifying a year-round crossing between Matadero Road and San Antonio Road; a stretch of approximately a mile and a half. Staff had met with the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC), and the community. The highest anticipated use was Adobe Creek which was the preferred alternative of an overcrossing; the cost was between $5 and $9 million. Alignment E – Adobe Creek Undercrossing (tube option) was a twelve foot wide; eight foot tall tube structure placed in the channel and was evaluated at a cost between $5 and $8 million. The less expensive option was Alignment E – Adobe Creek Undercrossing (stem wall option) which was a four foot tall, eight foot wide pathway but it did not meet the minimum height standard of eight feet. Alignment D – Adobe Creek Overcrossing (Standard) was a streamline crossing over Highway 101 tying into Adobe Creek on either side at a cost of between $5 and $7 million. Alignment D – Adobe Creek Overcrossing (Enhanced) was a structure twenty foot wide for a cost between $7 and $10 million. Staff had reviewed surrounding area overcrossings for a comparison. Deirdre Crommie, Vice Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission expressed the support of the PARC for the Highway 101 overcrossing at Adobe Creek. The PARC favored Staff recommendation Alignment D because it provided linkages to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Path alongside Adobe EXCERPT MINUTES Page 2 of 10 City Council Meeting Excerpt Minutes: 11/28/11 Creek, an east and side linkage to the Baylands Trails. The PARC had concerns of the cost for the project but hoped to maximize the design to ensure a cost effective approach. She noted the widening of the Highway would diminish the natural lighting of the Benjamin Lefkowitz Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing Tunnel and said an upgrade to add lighting should be considered. Sunny Dykwel, Commissioner on the Parks and Recreation Commission acknowledged the Adobe Creek project continued to be a priority for the PARC as it provided a continued year-round access to the Baylands. The bridge was a critical part of the proposed Bicycle, Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) and it would build on the network of trails linking the neighborhoods to each other as well as to the educational and recreational opportunities. Greg Tanaka, Commissioner on the Planning and Transportation Commission shared some points from the discussion regarding the overcrossing design options. The vote was a 3-2 because although it was clear there needed to be access to the Baylands they did not feel the cost was the most effective use for Palo Alto funds. If the cost could be defrayed or scaled back the overcrossing would be supported. John K. Abraham believed the City could save over $1 million from the Staff recommendation and proposed a design which would provide 70 to 90 percent access during most years and a large improvement over the current situation. The Benjamin Lefkowitz Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing was presently open 50 percent of the time and only at a cost of $21,400 annually to maintain. The Matadero Creek crossing was nearly usable with only a single creek to be concerned with and could be made user friendly with less than $100,000 which was open far more than Adobe Creek. Cedric de La Beaujardiere, Chair of the Bicycle Advisory Committee expressed their support for the Adobe Creek Overcrossing as it supported a higher number of users. An undercrossing would be partially open at best with a high maintenance cost. Council Member Burt asked if the Bicycle Advisory Committee evaluated the alternative mentioned by Mr. Abraham having Matadero Creek and Adobe Creek as under freeway accesses and what the pros and cons would be. Mr. de La Beaujardiere said he did not believe the Committee reviewed the option for having both creeks open simultaneously but there was support to see what could be done to open the Matadero Creek crossing longer. The goal was to have a year-round crossing available and from the discussions EXCERPT MINUTES Page 3 of 10 City Council Meeting Excerpt Minutes: 11/28/11 with the Santa Clara Valley Water District it was not a feasible option to have a year-round undercrossing. Irvin Dawid encouraged people to bike over San Antonio Road and although it was a frightening endeavor it was the best alternative without traveling further down to Mountain View. Council Member Price said Staff recommendation Alignment D-Standard mentioned a ten foot travel way while the Alignment D-Enhanced design spoke of a 20 foot travel way. She asked if the forecasted pedestrian and bicycle use of 104 thousand was referring to trips and not individual uses. Ms. Ames stated there were 104 thousand trips in the vicinity between Matadero Creek and Adobe Creek. There were 70 thousand trips over Adobe Creek alone. Council Member Price asked what the time period was for the basis of the analysis. Ms. Ames explained the projections were based on the development and were intended to be long term. Casey Hildreth, Associate, Alta Planning and Design said the seamless travel model took into account land use as well as Class 1 trail availability. The 104 thousand was a ball park figure for the entire stretch of land that was analyzed with approximately 55 to 70 thousand trips being generated by the Adobe Creek location. The figure was an annual estimation with a wide variability based on the lower volume of daily activity which could rise with the future growth. Council Member Price asked if the ten foot travel way was sufficient in size based on the projected future trip numbers. Mr. Hildreth noted a ten foot pathway would be the minimum width capable of handling the current estimated volumes. Council Member Price asked if there was a way to anticipate the issue of year-round availability versus partially limited availability in terms of criteria for funding potential. Was there a reason for concern in a rating criteria system for potential grant applications that the designation of year-round. Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official, said yes, the designation would be considered as a criteria measurement but Staff would pursue any available grant funding depending on the Council designation. EXCERPT MINUTES Page 4 of 10 City Council Meeting Excerpt Minutes: 11/28/11 Council Member Schmid supported the Highway 101 overcrossing and Staff’s preferred model seemed to have generated support from the various community groups and committees. He noted there were a large number of overcrossings being completed by other cities and he asked why Palo Alto was merely in the planning stages. Mr. Rodriguez felt the City was currently on the right track to pursue funding. In order to be competitive there was a lot of ground work that needed to be completed such as preliminary feasibility, feasibility study, and environmental assessments. The issue at hand was the funding available was for projects that were shovel ready not those in the planning stages. Council Member Schmid asked whether there was a strategic consideration in the cost that the City had proposed. Mr. Rodriguez stated yes, the more conservative the design the more competitive the funding was. Council Member Schmid noted the report reflected the Matadero Creek path was initially built to be a bike path. All of the necessary materials were in place and the creek water level was half of that of the Benjamin Lefkowitz Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing. He encouraged pursuing Matadero Creek as an option. Council Member Scharff asked what the expected timeframe was to receive grant funding. Mr. Rodriguez estimated within the next five years there would be substantial amounts of funding for these types of large scale bicycle projects. Council Member Scharff asked if the Matadero Creek Undercrossing would occur in the next couple of years if Council did not move forward with the current project. Mr. Rodriguez said if the feasibility study and environmental assessment were advanced through the design phase the City would be in a strong position for funding. Council Member Scharff asked for the estimated cost for the Matadero Creek Undercrossing to be feasible. EXCERPT MINUTES Page 5 of 10 City Council Meeting Excerpt Minutes: 11/28/11 Ms. Ames said the cost was estimated at just over $1 million as was Adobe Creek seasonal project. Council Member Scharff felt the Mary Bridge in Sunnyvale was a beautiful example of a crossing but his understanding from Staff was that type of architecture was out of date. Mr. Rodriguez said if the City wished to pursue that level of design detail in order to be competitive there would need to be a larger local funding match participation. Council Member Scharff asked if there was a figure Staff had in mind of a 10 to 20 percent local match. Mr. Rodriguez said with a project of that magnitude there would be a minimum of a 20 percent match but a larger number in the range of 35 to 40 percent would be more beneficial. Council Member Scharff asked if the Alignment D-Enhanced design was similar to the City of Belmont’s Highway 101 Overcrossing. Mr. Sartor confirmed the Palo Alto Alignment D-Enhanced design was more elaborate and wider than the Belmont Overcrossing. Council Member Scharff said the Alignment D-Enhanced design was between the Mary Bridge and the Belmont Overcrossing. Mr. Sartor agreed with the assessment. Council Member Scharff asked if the less expensive option was similar to the Ralston Avenue Overcrossing in Belmont or the utilitarian bridge in Sunnyvale. Mr. Sartor said it would be closer to the Ralston Avenue Overcrossing. Council Member Scharff asked if Council approved Staff recommendation, what the next steps were. Ms. Ames said Staff would return to Council with a Consultant Contract Amendment to initiate the design and the environmental assessment. Staff would review the options and the design features for the lightings and railings before having the design reviewed by the various Boards and Commissions for final approval. EXCERPT MINUTES Page 6 of 10 City Council Meeting Excerpt Minutes: 11/28/11 Council Member Scharff said Staff was not asking Council to make any design aspect decisions tonight. Mr. Sartor said that was correct and he added part of the increased cost to the Alignment D-Enhanced design was the configuration and the width of the structure itself. Council Member Scharff clarified Council was to accept the feasibility study and direct Staff to proceed with going forward with the overcrossing at Adobe Creek at a cost of $250,000. Mr. Sartor said that was correct. Council Member Burt asked for clarification on the differences in the widths between the Alignment D-Enhanced design and the Ralston Avenue Bridge. Mr. Sartor said the Alignment D-Enhanced design was at a width of 20 feet and he did not believe the Ralston Avenue was as wide. The Alignment D- Enhanced design had room for landing areas for viewing opportunities while the Ralston Avenue did not. Council Member Burt asked how critical the 20 foot width was and if Staff could break-out the cost difference for that portion. Mr. Sartor stated the cost estimated for the Alignment D-Standard design, at a ten foot wide structure, was from $5 to $7 million. The Alignment D- Enhanced design had several raised areas for pedestrians and ranged from $7 to $10 million. Council Member Burt said only a portion of the cost was attributed to the width. Mr. Sartor said that was correct and a portion of the cost was attributed to the shape and alignment itself. Council Member Burt asked for a breakdown of the cost for the width which was the utilitarian and safety aspect of the bridge. Mr. Sartor said Staff did not have that level of detail at this phase. Council Member Burt understood if there was a Matadero Creek Underpass for bicycles there would be a cost of $1 million. He asked what percentage of the year it would be able to remain open. EXCERPT MINUTES Page 7 of 10 City Council Meeting Excerpt Minutes: 11/28/11 Ms. Ames stated Staff would need to review the creek flow chart to determine the specifics; however, she felt it would be a seasonal crossing open approximately six months per year. Council Member Burt asked why only six months would be available if the time had been extended for the Adobe Creek. Ms. Ames said Adobe Creek had been expanded but without completing an analysis of Matadero Creek she was uncertain of the potential expansion period. Council Member Burt asked how many months Adobe Creek had been expanded. Mr. Sartor confirmed Adobe Creek had been able to remain open an additional six weeks in 2011 because there had not been significant rain fall to date. Council Member Burt asked for confirmation the intention for Adobe Creek was to expand the window in late winter and early spring. Mr. Sartor agreed the goal was to open the pass sooner as weather permitted. Council Member Burt asked if the anticipated open season range was from eight to nine months. Mr. Sartor felt eight months was an appropriate estimate. Council Member Klein asked how Staff viewed the practicality of the Public/Private Partnership ventures and had any other crossing involved private monies. Mr. Rodriguez felt there were opportunities to develop Public/Private Partnerships. It could range from a private development that occurred to locating public elements for the projects. There were larger employers near the crossing area that had shown interest in investment possibilities. Council Member Klein asked if Staff had spoken with Google or other companies regarding funding assistance. Mr. Rodriguez stated no, until Council directed Staff they would not approach the matter. EXCERPT MINUTES Page 8 of 10 City Council Meeting Excerpt Minutes: 11/28/11 Council Member Klein asked whether there was private money in any of the other bridges. Ms. Ames said the Homer Tunnel had a contribution of $250,000 provided by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Mr. Sartor clarified the funds were a part of the Development Agreement so they should not be considered as a donation. Council Member Klein asked about the funding cycle for similar projects in other cities. Mr. Rodriguez said the timeframe was dependent on the individual project; although, he knew the Mary Avenue Bridge was approximately four years. Council Member Holman said the Staff report mentioned improvements to the Benjamin Lefkowitz Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing but there was no mention for additional lighting to account for the widening of Highway 101. She asked if there was a cost estimate for adding lighting. Mr. Sartor was uncertain of the cost for additional lighting but the original lighting had been removed by the Utilities Department and was reinstalled as a preliminary step to the widening of Highway 101. He believed once the project was completed the lighting would be replaced as part of the new structure. Council Member Holman noted the Highway 101 overcrossing to the Baylands was going to be a landmark for identifying Palo Alto. She inquired as to whether Staff had given thought to holding a competition to create a design for the project. Mr. Sartor said if Council directed, Staff would explore that as an option during the design phase. Mr. Keene added a competition was an interesting idea and it could present architectural and functional values for the City. He mentioned a bridge created in Tuscan, Arizona where art and design were brought together to forge an award winning project. Council Member Holman felt opening up the design contest to broader than the known design pool may bring a stellar design at a reasonable cost. She agreed approaching Google may be worth while since a large portion of their staff would utilize the bridge. EXCERPT MINUTES Page 9 of 10 City Council Meeting Excerpt Minutes: 11/28/11 MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to accept Staff recommendations to: 1. Accept the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Over/Undercrossing Feasibility Study; 2. Direct Staff to proceed with the recommended option of an overcrossing at Adobe Creek; and 3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the attached amendment to the Lease (Joint Use) Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City to allow extended use of the current undercrossing and to execute further amendments with similar terms until the overcrossing is available. Council Member Shepherd appreciated the concept of a design competition, she felt it allowed people to rise to the occasion to take a municipality and transform it into something visionary. Palo Alto had a very high level of bicyclists and she felt this type of infrastructure improvement was greatly needed. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to investigate a bridge design competition. Council Member Holman asked at what juncture Staff would return to Council with the feasibilities for design. Mr. Sartor noted Staff needed to build the competition into the design contract with the architect and return to Council as part of the contract amendment for the environmental and design work. Council Member Holman stated her intent was not to invite a higher cost. She asked if there should be a dollar range included as part of the competition regulations. Council Member Price supported the Motion and offered to assist in the design award process since she was familiar with such arenas. Vice Mayor Yeh supported the design competition idea and thought it would be interesting to see how the outside designers saw Palo Alto. Mayor Espinosa was in support of the design competition and he was interested in a wider structure to support a major traffic overpass. He EXCERPT MINUTES Page 10 of 10 City Council Meeting Excerpt Minutes: 11/28/11 agreed there needed to be lighting added to the passes for the safety of the community.