HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3951
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3951)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/5/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Federal One Bay Area
Grant funds
Title: Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for the
Federal One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Funding for the Adobe Creek/Highway
101 Bridge Project and Committing the Necessary Non-Federal Match and
Stating the Assurance to Complete the Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution to authorize the Santa Clara
Valley Transit Authority (VTA) to submit an application for the Adobe Creek/Highway 101
Bridge Project to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and to commit local
funding for the project.
Background
The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) released a call-for-projects for the One Bay Area
Grant (OBAG) program on November 5, 2012. Project proposals were due March 5, 2013. The
OBAG program includes two elements, a Countywide Guaranteed Fund element and a
Competitive Complete Streets element. In response to the Complete Street Competitive
Program the City submitted eight grant proposals on March 5, 2013.
Of the eight project submittals, the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bridge Project ranked high in the
OBAG Program scoring process. VTA Board of Directors approved this project on June 6, 2013
and has made a recommendation to MTC for Federal grant funding of the project.
Discussion
The Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge is the highest priority Across Barrier
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Connection (ABC) project within the City of Palo Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation Plan 2012. The project will provide a year round crossing across Highway 101
through a proposed bridge that replaces the existing Lefkowitz tunnel. The City anticipates
74,000 annual trips to the bridge given the future land uses proposed for the area and the
structure is a key link in the City’s Bay to Ridge trail network.
The City completed a Feasibility Study for the project in November 2011 and is in the process of
completing an Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design for the project. The City
anticipates the release of a design competition for the project in the summer/fall 2013.
The total project budget is estimated at $9.5 million and the grant from OBAG program would
comprise $4 million. In November 2012, the City received a $4 million grant award from the
County of Santa Clara –Alternative Mitigation Program for design and construction of the bridge
as part of the Stanford-Palo Alto Trail Program. Additionally, the City Council may consider
advancing approximately $1 million from the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) –
Sustainability Program to fund the construction. Approximately $350,000 in local match funding
has been allocated to support the Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment phases of
the project and another $1.1 million has been allocated for the design phase of the project as
part of the 2014 Capital Improvement Program utilizing infrastructure reserve funding.
The proposed resolution authorizes filing of the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bridge Project for
One Bay Area Grant Program managed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
with Federal funding from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
program and/or Transportation Alternatives (TA) Program.
Resource Impact
This action prioritizes Federal programming for Congestion Management Program Member
Agency projects. The resolution commits the City of Palo Alto to provide a local match of
$5,500,000 in order that funding may be considered by MTC. The local matching funds are
comprised of the County grant award of $4,000,000 combined with the infrastructure reserve
funding of $1,500,000 through the Capital Improvement Program funding allocation as follows:
Funding
Agency Amount
OBAG $4,000,000
County Of Santa
Clara/local match
$4,000,000
City of Palo Alto Page 3
SUMC, CIP/ local match $1,500,000
TOTAL $9,500,000
Project Costs
Feasibility Study/EIR $350,000
Design $1,000,000
Construction $8,150,000
TOTAL $9,500,000
Policy Implications
Adoption of the attached resolution is consistent with City policy doucments including the
Comprehensive Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The Adobe Creek/Highway 101
Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge is the highest priority Across Barrier Connection (ABC) project within
the City of Palo Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012.
Environmental Review
Adoption of this resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) nor the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Filing Application for OBAG Funding for Adobe
Creek/Highway 101 Bridge Project (PDF)
Attachment B: One Bay Area Grant Application for Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bridge
Project (copy only) (PDF)
Attachment C: City Council Minutes on 6-14-13 (DOC)
Attachment D: Public Comments (PDF)
NOT YET APPROVED
1
130709 jb 0131112
Resolution No. ______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of an
Application for Funding Assigned to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
for the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bridge Project and Committing any Necessary
Matching Funds and Stating the Assurance to Complete the Project
R E C I T A L S
A. The City of Palo Alto (herein referred to as APPLICANT) is submitting an application
to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $4,000,000 in funding assigned MTC for
programming discretion, including by not limited to federal funding administered by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) such as Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding, Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding and/or Transportation Alternatives (TA)
funding (herein collectively referred to as REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING) for the Adobe
Creek/Highway 101 Bridge Project (herein referred to as PROJECT) for the One Bay Area Grant
(OBAG) Program (herein referred to as PROGRAM).
B. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Public Law 112-141, July 6,
2012) and any extensions or successor legislation for continued funding (collectively, MAP 21)
authorize various federal funding programs including, but not limited to the Surface Transportation
Program (STP) (23 U.S.C. § 133), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
(CMAQ) (23 U.S.C. § 149) and the Transportation Alternatives Program (TA) (23 U.S.C. § 213).
C. State statutes, including California Streets and Highways Code 182.6 and 182.7
provide various funding programs for the programming discretion of the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA).
D. Pursuant to MAP-21, and any regulations promulgated thereunder, eligible project
sponsors wishing to receive federal funds for a project shall submit an application first with the
appropriate MPO for review and inclusion in the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP).
E. MTC is the MPO and RTPA for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region.
F. MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution
No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and use of federal funds.
G. The APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING.
H. As part of the application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, MTC requires a
resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:
1. the commitment of any required matching funds of at least 11.47%.
2. the sponsor understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING is fixed at
the programmed amount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected to be
funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING.
NOT YET APPROVED
2
130709 jb 0131112
3. the project will comply with the procedures, delivery milestones and funding
deadlines specified in the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution
No. 3606, revised).
4. the assurance of the sponsor to complete the project as described in the application,
and if approved, as included in MTC's federal Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP).
5. the project will comply with all project-specific requirements as set forth in the
PROGRAM.
6. the project (transit only) will comply with MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised, which
sets forth the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan to
more efficiently deliver transit projects in the region.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. The APPLICANT is authorized to execute and file an application for
funding for the PROJECT for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING under MAP-21 for continued
funding; and be it further RESOLVED that the APPLICANT by adopting this resolution does hereby
state that:
1. APPLICANT will provide $5,500,000 in matching funds.
2. APPLICANT understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the
project is fixed at the MTC approved programmed amount, and that any cost
increases must be funded by the APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT
does not expect any cost increases to be funded with additional REGIONAL
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING.
3. APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these funds and will
comply with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding
Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) and APPLICANT has, and will
retain the expertise, knowledge and resources necessary to deliver federally-funded
transportation projects, and has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact
for all FHWA-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and
with the respective Congestion Management Agency (CMA), MTC, Caltrans and
FHWA on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal
programming and delivery process for all FHWA-funded transportation projects
implemented by APPLICANT.
4. PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete application and in this
resolution and, if approved, for the amount approved by MTC and programmed in
the federal TIP.
5. APPLICANT and the PROJECT will comply with the requirements as set forth in MTC
programming guidelines and project selection procedures for the PROGRAM.
6. APPLICANT (for a transit project only) agrees to comply with the requirements of
MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan as set forth in MTC Resolution
3866, revised, and be it further RESOLVED:
SECTION 2. The APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY
FUNDING funded projects; and be it further RESOLVED:
NOT YET APPROVED
3
130709 jb 0131112
1. The APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY
FUNDING for the PROJECT.
2. There is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds.
3. There is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect
the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT.
4. The APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, or designee to
execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING
for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution.
5. A copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing
of the application.
6. The MTC is requested to support the application for the PROJECT described in the
resolution and to include the PROJECT, if approved, in MTC's federal TIP.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the
definition of a project under Public Resource Code Section 21065, thus no environmental
assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge | 1
ONEBAYAREA GRANT (OBAG) APPLICATION
Section One: Project Summary
Project Title Adobe Creek/ Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Brief Project Summary
The Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge is the
highest priority Across Barrier Connection (ABC), and one of
most important citywide projects, identified within the City of
Palo Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012.
The project will provide a year‐round overcrossing of Highway
101 to replace the existing Lefkowitz tunnel, which is a seasonal
underpass subject to repeated and unanticipated closures that
limit its use to less than half the year. The current undercrossing
also does not meet Class I trail standards. The closest adjacent
highway crossing (San Antonio Road) requires nearly 2 miles of
out‐of‐direction travel along busy arterials that lack bicycle lanes
and sufficient sidewalks.
The City anticipates 74,000 annual users of the bridge, which will
provide safe passage between the San Francisco Bay
Trail/Baylands Nature Preserve and the East Meadow
Circle/Fabian Way sub‐area adjacent to West Bayshore Road. This
project is a critical connection for the City’s Bay to Ridge Trail
Program, which has been supported at a regional level with
Stanford University, the City of Mountain View, and major
employers including Google.
With $5.5 million in local match secured/committed, the
requested OBAG funds would result in a fully‐funded project
that is expected to begin construction in 2015 and open by early
2017.
Program Component Agency Guarantee Project
Discretionary Complete Streets Project
OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Application
2 | Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Grant Funds Requested ($)
Check all that apply
Minimum Discretionary Grant
Requested $350,000
Surface Transportation Program (STP) Amount Requested
_______________
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
(CMAQ) Amount Requested $4,000,000
Transportation Alternatives (TA) Amount Requested
_______________
Grant Funds Fiscal Year 2015‐2016
Local Match (11.47% Min) $5,500,000 (58% match of total project cost)
Total Project Cost $9,500,000
Member Agency City of Palo Alto
Contact Person Jaime O. Rodriguez, Principal Transportation Planner
Address 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Email Address Jaime.Rodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org
Phone (650) 329‐2136
Fax (650) 329‐2154
Other Project Partners Caltrans, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge | 3
Section One: Project Summary continued
1. For the Complete Streets Competitive program, include a map that
clearly identifies the project’s location within a Priority
Development Area or proximate access to a PDA.
The Adobe Creek/ Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge project overcomes a critical
connection barrier for bicyclists and pedestrians between the City of Palo Alto and the
North Bayshore Priority Development Area in Mountain View. As shown in Attachment A,
the alternative crossing of Highway 101 is at San Antonio Road, which is challenging due to
lack of facilities and high automobile speeds and volumes.
2. Project Summary Sheet
Attachment B shows the project location, with connections to the East Meadow
Circle/Fabian Way employment area, the Baylands Preserve, and the San Francisco Bay
Trail.
The Adobe Creek pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing and Class I “reach trail” will improve the livability of
South Palo Alto and northern Mountain View by removing barriers to recreation and active commuting
OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Application
4 | Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Section Two: Project Narrative
Pre‐Screening Criteria
1. 2008 Complete Streets Act Compliance: An adopted Complete Streets policy resolution
no later than January 31, 2013 or proof of a General Plan compliant with the Complete
Streets Act of 2008.
2. A General Plan Housing Element adopted and certified by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development for 2007‐14 Regional Housing Need Allocation
(RHNA) prior to January 31, 2013.
NOTE: The City of Palo Alto has requested and received an extension of the deadline for
certification by HCD to January 31, 2014.
Screening Criteria
1. VTP 2040 Consistency
VTP 2040 Preliminary Financially Constrained Project List (Draft): 240509 US 101/Adobe Creek
Ped/Bicycle Grade separation
(VTP 2035) B59: US 101/Adobe Creek Pedestria/Bicycle Grade Separation—Grade separation
of US 101 for pedestrians and bicyclists in the vicinity of San Antonio Road and Adobe Creek.
2. MTC Complete Streets Checklist
Below are summary responses to each question included in the MTC Complete Streets checklist.
A more formal checklist will be prepared, if necessary, upon approval of the funding
application, although the nature of this project may make such a checklist unnecessary.
1. Existing Conditions – The project site includes a seasonal underpass with access issues,
which when closed requires significant out‐of‐direction travel along arterial roads
without dedicated bicycle facilities.
2. Demand – The Baylands Nature Preserve, San Francisco Bay Trail, large employment
centers including the North Bayshore PDA and East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way sub
area are key generators of non‐motorized demand.
3. Collisions – Yes. The 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan identifies at least
three non‐motorized collisions along the alternative access route via Fabian
Way/Charleston Road/San Antonio Road when the underpass is closed. Reliable grade
separation by building an overcrossing and related Class I trail extensions will be
utilized to avoid these arterials.
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge | 5
4. Plans ‐ The 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, 2008 Santa
Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan, and 2003 City of Palo Alto Bicycle Plan, among others,
all call for a grade‐separated crossing (Across Barrier Connection) of Highway 101 at or
near Adobe Creek.
5. Policies, Design Standards and Guidelines – All applicable Caltrans standards and VTA
Bicycle Technical Guidelines will be included with this project.
6. Review – This project has been extensively reviewed and approved by community
members, including the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, City commissions,
Stanford University, and local stakeholders including Google. These meetings have
identified strong support for the dedicated bicycle/pedestrian facility, as well as
improvements to local circulation in order to access the new bridge.
7. Scope – This project entirely consists of pedestrian and bicyclist accommodations.
8. Hindering Bicyclists/Pedestrians – Yes, the project will address several hindrances to
greater safety and comfort for non‐motorized users, including providing a new year‐
round, ADA‐accessible crossing of Highway 101 and development of a new Class I trail
to link the proposed highway crossing to preferred local bicycle and recreation routes.
9. Construction Period – Temporary traffic control will include safety signage and/or
detours for pedestrians and bicyclists consistent with applicable local guidelines and
best practices.
10. Ongoing Maintenance – The City of Palo Alto will responsible for the ongoing
maintenance of these improvements. Funding for the maintenance of local roadways
and bicycle facilities is included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
3. PDA and proximate access locations
See Attachment A.
OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Application
6 | Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Criteria
1. Safety
This project significantly improves safety
regardless of whether the existing
(seasonal) bicycle and pedestrian tunnel
under Highway 101 is open for use, or is
closed and users must travel to San
Antonio Road for the nearest alternative
crossing.
Lefkowitz Tunnel
When the Lefkowitz Tunnel is open six
months or less out of the year, the overpass
is narrow (7‐ft effective width), low
(overhead clearance of 7ft 6 inches), and
has poor visibility. These conditions
present operational safety challenges that require undesirable control measures, such as two
sets of barricades, place stress on seniors and people with wheeled devices, and deter use of the
facility altogether. Despite these challenges, an estimated 40,000 bicycle trips and 3,000
pedestrians use the seasonal underpass during its average half‐year operation period, with a
projected annual use of 74,000 people assuming a year‐round crossing option (based on existing
land uses).
West Bayshore Road/Fabian Way
Access to the existing underpass is provided exclusively by West Bayshore Road/ Fabian Way,
which is a designated arterial connection and truck route with Class II bike lanes and a posted
speed limit of 35mph. Based on repeated field observations and comments from the public, it is
known that actual vehicle speeds regularly exceed the posted limit.
The new overcrossing project includes a 0.12 mile Class I multi‐use “reach” trail along an
existing SCVWD maintenance road that is currently closed to public access. This new trail will
open up alternative routes to/from the Baylands that avoid high‐speed arterials such as West
Bayshore Road in favor of a grade‐separated trail access from local Class II and Class III (Bicycle
Boulevard) connections.
Despite being open only five or six months out of the year
due to seasonal flooding, the Lefkowitz Tunnel at Adobe
Creek carries an estimated 43,000 annual users.
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge | 7
San Antonio Road
When the tunnel is closed (which
has been the case for much of the
past 2 ½ years), the closest
alternative route is San Antonio
Road, which has a single narrow
sidewalk and no bicycle facilities.
San Antonio Road is an arterial
street that connects Foothill
Expressway, SR 82, and Highway
101 and includes a partial
cloverleaf interchange at Highway
101. Traffic counts indicate that
San Antonio Road between Charleston Road and East Bayshore Road experiences an average
daily traffic volume (ADT) of between 37,100 and 38,700 vehicles. The posted speed limit
within the City is 35 mph.
The San Antonio Road overcrossing accommodates pedestrians with an attached 5‐foot
sidewalk along the northwest side. Crosswalks exist at the San Antonio Road/East Charleston
Road and San Antonio Road /Bayshore Parkway/East Bayshore Road intersections. To access
the San Antonio Road overpass, users must navigate stretches of Fabian Way, Charleston Road,
and San Antonio Road that include at least 3 pedestrian/bicycle collisions within the last five
years of available data.
2. Project Benefits
The undercrossing of Adobe Creek at Highway 101 is a popular access point for the Baylands
and Shoreline Park levee trails and other destinations, including Twisters Sports Center. It is
also an important commuter route for many who live in southern Santa Clara County and
bicycle to work in Palo Alto and at Stanford University along the Bay Trail. Lastly, it provides
local access and recreational options for the existing mix of employees, seniors, and daycare
children who occupy nearby buildings. The overcrossing project will make this connection
permanent, reliable, and accessible 365 days per year for all users.
View of the San Antonio Road overcrossing facing northeast. A
sidewalk exists along the north side of the overcrossing.
OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Application
8 | Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Reliable Access for All Users
The current undercrossing path
surface is only one foot above the
average dry‐season water level, which
means it is regularly closed to flooding
and requires ongoing maintenance to
remove mud and debris from even
moderate storm flows. The City of
Palo Alto and SCVWD have stepped
up coordination efforts to keep the
tunnel open as long as possible
(weather permitting), but even with
these efforts significant closures can
occur. For example, in summer 2011 a
tidal flood gate malfunction forced the
closure of the facility for much of the
year.
Uncertainty of whether the tunnel is open (or not) has been a longstanding problem for the
many who rely on it for access to jobs, after‐school activities, and recreation – especially since
the alternative routes require significant out‐of‐the‐way travel on busy arterials. Existing tunnel
conditions can also serve to limit accessibility for more vulnerable and disabled users, who
might not ever consider the tunnel “open” for use. Since upgrades to the tunnel to withstand
greater flood events and meet trail design standards have proven to be infeasible, the only way
to provide a reliable, year‐round connection is with a new bridge overcrossing.
Active Commuting Infrastructure Where It Matters
This Across Barrier Connection project is located at the southernmost gateway to Palo Alto from
the San Francisco Bay Trail at a key transition between neighborhood‐serving local roadways
and office/industrial/commercial serving arterials. It connects two large employment areas (the
North Bayshore PDA in Mountain View and East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way sub area in Palo
Alto) that include major companies, such as Google and Space Systems/Loral, with robust
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies that support alternatives to solo driving.
As such, the project is poised to help solidify bicycling as a preferred commute mode for many
employees who are otherwise able to drive, in part by attracting similarly‐minded companies
The Bay Trail at Adobe Creek is used by many commuting and
recreational cyclists headed to/from the Shoreline at
Mountain View, as well by local seniors and daycare youth
who use the trail for passive and active recreation.
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge | 9
that seek a dynamic office setting accessible from both the highway and regional bicycle
network.
Enhancing a Regional Recreation Network
The Bay Trail is a recreational corridor that is intended to encircle San Francisco and San Pablo
Bays, with 500 miles of continuous off–street trails. Over half (250 miles) of the trail is currently
in operation. In Palo Alto, the Bay Trail is an off‐street path through the Baylands Preserve, one
of the largest remaining tracts of undisturbed marshland in the Bay and a popular area for
joggers, walkers, and other recreationalists. Beyond the City borders, the Bay Trail links to
regional open spaces to the north via the Friendship Bridge and East Palo Alto, and to the
Shoreline at Mountain View Park in the south. Despite its popularity and unparalleled setting,
the Baylands and Bay Trail in Palo Alto remain inaccessible to many who view Highway 101
and the adjacent major arterials as significant barriers.
The Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Overcrossing and Reach Trail will open up year‐round
recreational opportunities to the Bay Trail and Baylands as part of a core regional network of
facilities known as the Bay‐to‐Ridge Trails Program. This network includes the E Meadow
Drive/Arastradero Road, Matadero Creek,
and California Avenue/Stanford Avenue
corridors, and is meant to serve as east‐west
connectors between the Bay Trail and Bay
Ridge Trails. In between, these trails and
high‐quality bikeways feed access to over a
dozen City of Palo Alto parks as well as
Stanford University recreational facilities.
The Adobe Creek bridge and trail
connection will be a signature gap closure in
the Bay‐to‐Ridge Trails network, and may
also serve to strengthen more local
recreational loop opportunities when
considering the Permanente Creek and
Stevens Creek trails as well.
The Adobe Creek Reach Trail will provide a new
connection from the San Francisco Bay Trail, Baylands
Nature Preserve, and proposed Adobe Creek
Overcrossing to regional employment and recreational
destinations, including the Stanford Business Park,
along the Bay‐to‐Ridge Trail network.
OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Application
10 | Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
3. Gap Closure/Connectivity
As an eight‐lane freeway carrying 200,000 vehicles per day, with a partial cloverleaf interchange
nearby and limited alternative routes for non‐motorized users, Highway 101 at Adobe
Creek/San Antonio Road is a major physical and psychological gap in the regional and local
bikeway network, despite the existing underpass. The proposed signature overcrossing and
reach trail will provide connectivity from residential and commercial areas in Palo Alto to the
Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East Bayshore and San Antonio businesses, and the
regional San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail) network of multi‐use trails.
When the existing underpass is closed, non‐motorized travelers wishing to cross Highway 101
may have to go almost two miles out of their way along busy arterials. Establishing a
permanent overcrossing at Adobe Creek will eliminate these detours and close a major gap in
both the regional and City of Palo Alto bikeway networks. The proposed project will also
improve local connections for employees, students, and residents by establishing the Adobe
Creek Reach Trail and closing a gap in the sidewalk along West Bayshore Road.
The existing Benjamin Lefkowitz Tunnel is closed six months out of the year due to flooding (left), and is
only accessible via busy West Bayshore Road (right) which includes Class II bike lanes but lacks
sidewalks and grade‐separated trail connections.
4. Air Quality Improvements and/or Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Reduced
The Adobe Creek Overcrossing is identified in the 2012 Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation
Plan as one of the priority measures to promote a two‐fold increase in bicycle commuting to
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge | 11
Palo Alto (from 5% to 10% of all commute trips by 2020). See the “Active Commuting
Infrastructure Where It Matters” section above for more details.
Despite the emphasis on peak commuting periods, however, non‐work trip‐making (shopping,
recreation, school travel) by automobile accounts for the largest source of greenhouse gas
emissions in the City of Palo Alto (according to the City’s 2010 Climate Action Plan). By
making the crossing of Highway 101 at Adobe Creek a year‐round facility, nearly twice as many
trips are projected (74,000) than currently use the underpass when available from spring
through fall). While not all these trips would have been taken by vehicle, a significant number
can be expected to represent car trips removed from the arterial and highway system.
5. Documented Public Involvement/Support
The City of Palo Alto has invested substantially in evaluating and soliciting public input for the
alternative possibilities for this crossing. Key documents and planning processes include the
following:
City of Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Master Plan (2003)
Baylands Master Plan (2008)
Bay Access Master Plan (2008)
Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (2008)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Plan 2035 (VTP) (2009)
Draft East Meadow Concept Plan (2010)
City of Palo Alto Highway 101 Over/Undercrossing Feasibility Study (2011)
City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012)
City of Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Master Plan (2003)
The Bicycle Transportation Master Plan identified Highway 101 as a major barrier to bicyclists and
identifies the need for year‐round access along Adobe Creek. The Bicycle Transportation Plan
recommendations include: a new or improved all‐year Highway 101 under or overcrossing near
San Antonio Road (Table 4‐1: Recommended Additions to the Bikeway Network), bike lanes
and a sidewalk or path along San Antonio Road (referred to as Project 25), reconstruction of the
Adobe Creek/101 undercrossing (Project 64), and construction of a bike path along Matadero
Creek under Highway 101 (Projects 56 and 65). Matadero Creek is identified as an opportunity
for a Bay Trail connection to Greer Park. This Highway 101 Over/Undercrossing project is a
high priority project in the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Application
12 | Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Baylands Master Plan (2008)
The Baylands Master Plan’s Access and Circulation policies call for implementation of the
improvements to bicycle circulation identified in the Palo Alto Bicycle Transportation Plan and
the Comprehensive Plan, including improvements to pedestrian/bicycle access across Highway
101 at Adobe Creek, Matadero Creek, San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road.
Bay Access Master Plan (2008)
The Access and Circulation Policies element of the Bay Access Master Plan recommends
implementing the improvements to bicycle circulation in the Baylands described in the Palo Alto
Bicycle Transportation Plan and the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, including improving
pedestrian/bicycle access to the Baylands across Highway 101. The Plan states that “Use of the
flood basin would be compatible if…
access were limited to existing trails and those above the high‐water line with the
proposed flood plain mitigation project
most uses, including bicycle trails, were limited and encouraged only along the
perimeter levees of the flood basin
a portion or portions of the flood basin were closed to unguided access and reserved for
occasional educational use under supervision”
Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (2008)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) adopted the Santa Clara Countywide
Bicycle Plan (SCCBP) in 2008. The SCCBP identifies Cross County Bicycle Corridors and other
projects of countywide or intercity significance and with significance to major employers within
each city in the county. The SCCBP identifies the segment of Highway 101 between Oregon
Expressway and San Antonio Road in the City of Palo Alto, i.e., Adobe Creek, as a potential
cross‐barrier connection.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Plan 2035 (VTP) (2009)
The VTP is the long‐range vision for transportation in Santa Clara County. The Highway 101
Pedestrian/Bicycle Grade Separation project is listed in the Bicycle Expenditure Plan (BEP)
(Table 2‐8, p. 75).
During spring 2009, the BEP was reviewed and rescored, with the inclusion of requests for
revised allocation amounts for existing BEP projects and the addition of new projects. This
process created the new BEP project list for the 25‐year timeframe. The US 101/Adobe Creek
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge | 13
Pedestrian/Bicycle Grade Separation project is listed as VTP ID B59. The total project cost is
listed as $13.0 million (2008 dollars) and the VTP allocation is $10.4 million (2008 dollars).
Draft East Meadow Concept Plan (2010)
As part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
process, the City of Palo Alto has prepared a draft
Concept Plan for the East Meadow Circle/Fabian
Way neighborhood. The City has held three
public workshops that included discussion on
how to improve bicycle/pedestrian access to the
Baylands within the East Meadow Circle/Fabian
Way Concept Plan area. City staff, their
consultant and the workshop participants
discussed the possibility of 1) improving the
Adobe Creek underpass for year‐round access, 2)
constructing a new overpass near Adobe Creek
and 3) implementing minor or more extensive
bicycle and/or pedestrian facility improvements
along San Antonio Avenue. At the conclusion of
these discussions, it was determined that a new
overpass was the most likely solution to support
existing and new potential demand for Baylands
access.
City of Palo Alto Highway 101
Over/Undercrossing Feasibility Study
(2011)
The City of Palo Alto Highway 101
Over/Undercrossing Feasibility Study identifies a
pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing at Adobe
Creek as the preferred alternative for improving connections across Highway 101 from South
Palo Alto to the Baylands and Bay Trail. The Feasibility Study considered the potential
environmental, engineering, operational, and permitting issues associated with potential
alignments. Evaluation included public outreach and input at several key points during the
planning process.
The proposed highway overcrossing is
envisioned to support increased demand for
Baylands access as a result of intensified
Office/R&D development in the East Meadow
Circle/Fabian Way sub area.
OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Application
14 | Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Project stakeholders included the Santa Clara Water District (SCVWD), Caltrans, the Planning
and Transportation Commission, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), the Parks
and Recreation Commission, and Architectural Review Board. Project staff held two public
meetings to discuss interim deliverables and proposals.
City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP, 2012)
The City of Palo Alto recommends this project as ABC‐1 Adobe Creek Highway 101
Overcrossing. The BPTP involved considerable public outreach, including two public open
houses and an online survey to solicit input from the general public. The BPTP was also
developed in coordination with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), the
City/School Traffic Safety
Committee (CSTSC), and the
Planning & Transportation
Commission.
City of Palo Alto Highway
101 Overcrossing at Adobe
Creek – Preliminary Design
and Environmental
Analysis
Since June 2012, the City of Palo
Alto has continued to advance the
design and public involvement
for the Adobe Creek
overcrossing. In addition to an
environmental scoping public
workshop in September 2012
(attended by nearly 40
stakeholders), the project has undergone recent review by the City of Palo Alto Bicycle
Advisory Committee (PABAC), Parks & Recreation Commission, Planning & Transportation
Commission, Architectural Review Board, and City Council.
6. Local Match
Of the $9.5 million project cost, the local match will be $5.5 million, or approximately 58 percent
of the total project cost.
Postcards were mailed to residents as part of advance notice for the
environmental scoping meeting in September 2012. Nearly 40
residents attended to provide input on the project and its
assessment.
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge | 15
7. Project Readiness
Project timeline from The Stanford and Palo Alto Trails Program: Connecting the Bay to the Ridge
Environmental
The City completed a Feasibility Study for the project in 2011, and the project is separately
included under the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation
Plan (2012). Due to potential new impacts not considered in the MND, the City of Palo Alto has
entered into a joint agreement with Caltrans to complete a combined CEQA/NEPA assessment
for the project. The Draft EIR is in development, and a public hearing is anticipated for
scheduling in summer 2013.
Design
In June 2012 the City extended a consultant contract to advance the preliminary design of the
overcrossing project and select a preferred alignment alternative. In November 2012 the City
received a $4 million grant from the County of Santa Clara – Alternative Mitigation Program for
design and construction of the bridge as part of the Stanford‐Palo Alto Trail Program. The City
will be advancing $1 million from the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) –
Sustainability Program as part of the 2014 Capital Improvement Program to complete the
design. As part of this process, the City is planning an Architectural Design Competition to be
held in 2013, with the winning team to complete the project design.
OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Application
16 | Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
The City of Palo Alto has coordinated with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, local property
owners, PG&E, and others to ensure compatibility with nearby creek maintenance activities, overhead
power lines, property access, and other site constraints.
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge | 17
Right‐of‐Way
A Caltrans encroachment permit will be needed to construct the overpass over Highway 101,
including placement of a column in the center median of the highway. Caltrans design staff
have reviewed existing alignment concepts and have indicated they do not anticipate issues
related to right‐of‐way.
While a potential alignment is being assessed that does not encroach upon private property, the
tentative preferred alignment does impact approximately 1,700 square feet of a parking lot
corner associated with the 3600 West Bayshore Road commercial property. City of Palo Alto
staff have been briefing and coordinating with the property owners throughout the preliminary
design process, and there is a tentative agreement that a public use easement will be granted by
the property owner for this project.
The proposed Adobe Reach Trail, and portions of the west ramp of the overcrossing, will
require an encroachment permit for work within the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) right‐of‐way. A joint‐use agreement for operations with SCVWD will also be needed,
as would Architectural & Site Approval for work within the County’s jurisdictional boundary.
Depending on the final project design details, a grading permit also could be required.
8. Jobs Density
There are 24 jobs per acre within a half‐mile of the project corridor and within the ABAG‐
defined PDA. This density is expected to increase significantly as the nearby Google campus
and other large employers begin substantial expansions that are currently being planned.
Additional redevelopment and job densification of the East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way sub‐
area is expected and supported by City of Palo Alto planning.
9. Housing Density
There is less than one housing unit per acre within a half‐mile of the project corridor and within
the ABAG‐defined PDA.
10. Community of Concern and/or Community Air Risk Evaluation
This project is not in a COC or CARE designated location.
OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Application
18 | Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
11. Affordable Housing &/or Senior/Disabled‐Serving Facility
This project is within one‐mile of 60 HUD Subsidized Section 8 and Section 236 Family Units
located within Colorado Park Apartments (1141 Colorado Avenue).
The recently‐completed Sterling Park development on West Bayshore at Loma Verde Avenue
includes 96 housing units. Three recent residential developments; Echelon, Vantage and Altaire,
have generated 500 new housing units.
12. Proximity to Transit Station
VTA bus stops are within an eighth of a mile of the project, as shown in Attachment B. Bus lines
include 88L, 88, and the 120 Express Route, which provides a connection south to Fremont Bart
via Milpitas and Sunnyvale.
The Palo Alto Shuttle is a free shuttle that runs approximately hourly on weekdays to connect
residential neighborhoods, senior services, libraries, recreation centers, shopping districts, and
Caltrain. The Crosstown shuttle runs from the University Avenue Station through downtown to
the Stevenson House, an affordable elderly housing facility. A proposed new shuttle stop at
East Meadow and Fabian would serve the project area.
13. BEP Plan
The Bicycle Expenditure Program lists this project as B59: US 101/Adobe Creek
Pedestrian/Bicycle Grade Separation Project —Grade separation of US 101 for pedestrians and
bicyclists in the vicinity of San Antonio Rd. and Adobe Creek. $10.4 million is listed as the VTP
budget allocation for this project, in 2008 dollars.
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge
Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge | 19
Photosimulation of the overcrossing looking northwest along West Bayshore Road. The project is
anticipated to significantly improve pedestrian conditions along this highly travelled frontage road, and
provide a Class I trail linkage from the bridge to E Meadow Drive as part of the Bay to Ridge Trail
network.
Photosimulation of the bridge (Alignment A) from Highway 101, looking southeasterly toward San
Antonio Road.
ATTACHMENT B
PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET (OBAG)
PROJECT NAME:Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle Pedestrian Overcrossing
AGENCY NAME:(Agency with day‐to‐day responsibility for implementing PROJECT)
City/Town of:City of Palo Alto
PROJECT MANAGER: (Person who can answer questions about this PROJECT)
Name:Elizabeth Ames
Title:Senior Engineer
Phone:650.329.2502
email:Elizabeth.ames@cityofpaloalto.org
PROJECT SCHEDULE:
Project Phase: BEGIN ENVIRON BEGIN DESIGN BEGIN ROW CERT BEGIN CON
Phase Month/Year: 9/12 6/12 6/14 9/15
Funds Requested: $4 million
Local Match: $5.5 million
Match (xx.xx%): 58% of total
(Round dollars to nearest thousands)
CRITICAL TASKS:
(if applicable)APPROVAL DATES*
Expected Actual*
Field Review 4/13
Environmental 11/13
Design 10/14
ROW/Permits 3/15
E76 Packet1
1 Deadline: Feb 1 of programmed year
*Project manager will provide status updates
X PROJECT is a stand‐alone project.
PROJECT is part of a larger project. Describe larger project:
SUBMITTAL DATES
(Provide project title, identifying ID numbers, total project cost, larger project schedule and impact
on THIS project schedule.)
1
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
ATTACHMENT C
Page 1 of 4
Special Meeting
June 24, 2013
Highway 101 Bike and Pedestrian Bridge at Adobe Creek Project Update and
Direction on Design Competition.
Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works, reported the City was
ready to begin the design phase of the Highway 101 Bike and Pedestrian
Bridge (Bridge). If the Council chose to hold a design competition, then
Staff would work with the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and return
in August 2013 with details of the process. The goal of the Bridge was to
have a year-round grade-separated crossing over Highway 101. Staff
anticipated conducting preliminary design in 2013, proceeding with full
design in 2014, and beginning construction in fall 2015. In late 2011 the
Council directed Staff to begin the preliminary design of a Bridge and to
investigate options for a design competition. Cost estimates for the Bridge
were $5.4-$9.4 million and did not include the Adobe Creek Trail, which
could add $150,000-$200,000. A cost estimate of $5.4-$6.7 million would
provide a standard Bridge, 10 feet wide, and surrounded by chain link fence.
A cost estimate of $6.6-9.4 million would provide an enhanced Bridge, 20
feet wide, with fencing, railing and lighting, and possibly a viewing deck.
The City was required to perform a number of studies for environmental
review, which should be completed by early 2014. The City obtained a $4
million grant from Santa Clara County and a $4 million grant from the One
Bay Area Grant program; however, the City had to provide $1 million in local
matching funds. Staff would work with AIA to develop design criteria, which
included elements such as the type of Bridge, alignment, location of
landings, feel of the Bridge, compatibility with local environment, and a
budget. AIA would assist Staff with selecting approximately 20 experienced
firms to receive invitations to participate in the competition. A jury would
review firms' preliminary ideas and submissions, and select three or four
firms to develop designs. The City would then contract with the selected
firms and pay them a stipend of $10,000-$20,000 each. Firms would
develop and submit designs, and then the jury would review the designs and
determine a winner. Staff would present the final designs to the Planning
and Transportation Commission (PTC), Architectural Review Board (ARB),
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 2 of 4
City Council Special Meeting
Draft Excerpt Minutes: 6/24/13
and Council to determine which design would be constructed. The standard
design process would be slightly faster by a few months. A competitive
process would provide multiple concepts from different designers, cost
slightly more, and require a greater investment of Staff time.
Council Member Kniss felt standard bridges were not noticed. A stunning
bridge with attractive lighting would be an asset for Palo Alto; however, cost
would be a factor.
Council Member Klein believed a design competition was the first step to
improving the design of public infrastructure. He assumed the design
competition rules would clearly state that designs must meet a proposed
budget.
Mr. Eggleston indicated the rules would make that very clear.
Council Member Klein noted the Council could reject designs selected by the
jury.
Council Member Schmid was concerned about designs being too costly to
construct, and asked how the jury would consider cost in their deliberations.
Mr. Eggleston would set cost as a design constraint at the beginning of the
process.
Council Member Schmid assumed firms would design to the limit of the
budget.
Mr. Eggleston suggested the Council consider whether to state the budget
limit was $10 million.
Council Member Schmid inquired about Staff's ability to set a limit when
there was no design to consider in preparing a budget.
Mr. Eggleston would solicit assistance from AIA to develop design criteria.
Staff envisioned obtaining PTC and ARB comments and Council approval of
design criteria before beginning a competition.
Council Member Schmid noted that AIA, PTC and ARB would not be
responsible for creating a budget for the project.
Elizabeth Ames, Senior Engineer, explained that firms would provide a cost
estimate along with designs. Staff would then evaluate the cost of the
proposed designs.
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 3 of 4
City Council Special Meeting
Draft Excerpt Minutes: 6/24/13
Council Member Schmid inquired whether design and engineering experts
would review costs.
Mr. Eggleston replied yes.
James Keene, City Manager, suggested the design criteria could clearly state
an upper amount while allowing designers to include features that were
optional for construction.
Council Member Schmid added that the City had other important projects
that needed funding.
Mr. Keene noted the Council directed Staff to provide information about a
competition. Staff would provide more information related to design criteria
once the Council decided whether a competition would be held.
Council Member Burt suggested high value design be included in the criteria.
LED lighting, a new visual art medium, was both low cost and sustainable.
An integration of solar power and LED lighting would be interesting.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Council Member Klein
to: 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.
Council Member Price believed the Bridge was a tremendous opportunity to
develop a visible and significant landmark. A design competition could be
mindful of value engineering while blending artistic and technical elements.
Financial expectations should be clearly stated.
Council Member Klein felt Council Members' suggestions would be helpful in
guiding Staff.
Council Member Berman inquired whether the City had ever held a design
competition.
Mr. Eggleston noted only design competitions for art.
Council Member Berman indicated a competition was a good method to
solicit a broad spectrum of designs.
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 4 of 4
City Council Special Meeting
Draft Excerpt Minutes: 6/24/13
Vice Mayor Shepherd believed the location of the Bridge would have visual
impact.
Mr. Keene stated the experience of the Bridge would be a factor in design.
Council Member Berman applauded Staff for obtaining $8 million in grants.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Holman, Scharff absent
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Alternative Measures
Dear Edie,
CITY UF P,(\LO ALTO. CA
L.i 1 I LdJ\it j vPFiO[
neighborshelpingneig hbors2013 < neighborshelpilJ.9!leiQhbqr~2.0l3@gmail.com >
Sunday, July 28,2013 3:37 PM J 3 JUL JU rM I-I lit
Edie Keating
Wayne Douglass; Joy Sieizer; Katie Fantin; Lynn Huidekoper; mary.p.stuart@gmaiLcom;
Lois Salo; George Chippendale; Council, City; Judith Bhushan; Chris@streetsteam.org;
chuckjagoda; racheUindenberg; Norma Grench; Gail Thompson; Nick Selby;
t.ciampi@hotmaiLcom; Mary Colleen Klein; georgehmills@sbcglobaLnet; Aram James;
geoff.browning@stanford.edu; snug.bug@hotmaiLcom; roberta ahlquist; James Ows;
Mike Fischetti,MD-OCN
Re: Seeking comment on across 101 sites
We saw you on the 11 :OOpm TV news last night.
Good job!
Is STB Coalition thinking of crafting an Alternative Measures documents?
I think its a wonderful idea. It will help with "changing hearts & minds" speaches to the PACC Aug. 5th. And it
will provide good points for our friends and contacts personal emails to the council members this week.
I have afew concerns about 101 site(s),
1) Criminal Elements -the safety of VDs should be first. That is very easy access for criminals to rob our VDs
with a quick get away.
A. Security patrol -public/private maybe the solution. )
2) Unhospitable Conditions -it is bitterly cold and windy most of year.
3) What bathroom facilities would they have.
Just afew cursory thoughts.
Caryll-Lynn Taylor,
Exc. Dir. & Food Programs Chair
#650-283-0270
NeighborsHeipingNeighbors20 13@gmail.com
P.O. BOX 113 Palo Alto, CA 94302
On Jul28, 2013 3:19 PM, "Edie Keating" <edie.keatingl00@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone -first -thank you to everyone who helped with yesterday's event. We believe 75 to 80 people
were there, and there was a lot of conversation.
>
> I publicly stated yesterday some support for a car dweller site on the other side of 101. I think there are sites
over there that might have very little community opposition, in contrast to Cubberley, or the recent report about
Park Avenue.
53
>
> But across 101 is out ofthe way. Does this make it a bad suggestion? Please comment, especially car
dwellers. (Tony -can you forward to other cardwellers whose emails you know?)
>
> Also -the Santa Barbara model as I understand it has everyone leave the parking lots every morning. Is that
workable? Or a big problem?
>
> Thanks, Edie
54
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
["1'\1 Q' r: DJ~l n r~lTO, CA \J.' ~ I Ii'" l_ "'" . 61 (I [LERIt'S 8FFleE
chuckjagoda <chuckj agoda1@gmaiLcom,>3JUL "0' P~1 1: '4
Sunday, July 28, 2013 9:53 PM J
neighborshelpingneighbors2013
Edie Keating; Wayne Douglass; Joy Sieizer; Katie Fantin; Lynn Huidekoper;
mary.p.stuart@gmaiLcom; Lois Salo; George Chippendale; Council, City; Judith Bhushan;
Chris@streetsteam.org; racheUindenberg; Norma Grench; Gail Thompson;, Nick Selby;
t.ciampi@hotmaiLcom; Mary Colleen Klein; georgehmills@sbcglobaLnet; Aram James;
geoff.browning@stanford.edu; snug.bug@hotmaiLcom; roberta ahlquist; James Ows;
Mike Fischetti,MD-OCN
Re: Seeking comment on across 101 sites
Hi Lynn and Everyone,
I agree, alternatives are always a good idea.
Alternative parking sites are a good idea and work well in Santa Barbara. We have a lot to learn from
Santa Barbara and how they deal with unsheltered issues.
The City of Palo Alto is extremely limited in its views--probably about a lot of things--but most
definitely when it comes to those it considers undesirables. As others (Tony Ciampi, etc.) have
pointed out, there is similarity in the ways municipalities deal with those they consider undesireable-
the Sundown Laws, Jim Crow, Pass Laws, ghettoization, shunning, internment camps (WWII --the
Germans, the U.S., the Japanese), and death (CIA, warfare, drone killing). I left out torture. Torture
is very popular with those who have especially insatiable demons.
One HUGE difference between Palo Alto and Santa Barbara is that SB uses all resources to solve
problems. For example, the excellent parking lot uses city lots, county lots, state lots, and private lots
to house vehicles dwellers.
In Palo Alto there is widespread panic whenever officials of the City or members of the private sector
with an anti-homeless agenda think, talk, or hear about the homeless. They seem to have as their
greatest fear that someone (a homeless someone) might get to live in a neighborhood of million dollar
homes without paying a million dollars. Or live in a nice place like P A without buying a home or
paying rent.
They say they want to solve these and other problems but they are very attentive to NOT doing so with
public money.
SB doesn't impose such restrictions on their problem-solving and therefore get a lot more of it done a
lot better.
Palo Alto suffers from the penny wise; pound foolish type of paranoia and there are enough people
who agree in such paranoia to keep PA going down some mighty expensive rat holes. This ordinance,
for example, if those who are addicted to it (and that does seem to describe their behavior to a large
extent) if enacted will cost a fortune in lost time, effort, and legal fees, plus damages, perhaps.
Diversity is another issue, quite related. Smart citizens who care for their cities know that diversity is
much better than not having diversity. PA is inexorably being drawn into tighter, richer, and more
35
homogeneous dimensions. Eventually, there will be no one within easy commuting distance to do all
the menial jobs that need doing--restaurant prep, lawns, labor--then what?
I would love to have an animated presentation that shows people living in cars and then NOT living in
their cars. Where do they go? What do they do? Sleep on lawns? On the sidewalks? Get more and
worse diseases as they are more exposed to the weather? Get sick more often? Die at even younger
ages?
Have the City Council members who favor the ordinance thought this through? I find it hard to see
that they have. As near as I can see, they think that the dreaded ordinance will convince people to
move away to some more hospitable place and the chosen, anointed, and deserving winners of the
race of life can kick back and enjoy the undesireable-free rewards they deserve for the good decisions
they made.
I welcome any ADDITIONAL services or parking alternative the city can and does provide, contribute
to, or at least stays out of the way of. However, talk is cheap and actions speak. I'll believe the
marvelous services I've heard so much about when I see them.
The idea of giving up what we have now--the ability to find a place to hole up for the night and the
right to use it--for some half-baked possible parking program and some ill-defined, but well-intend,
and heavily-promised services is not something I'm in a hurry to do or would advise anyone else to do.
I believe manyin Palo Alto mean well, would like to see peace, and want to be fair to us. However,
none of that is any reason to give up what we've got or to believe in what "will" be.
I think we should hold on to what little we've got and try to improve our lots and the lots of those
children of the presently oppressive residents as well as some of those who are now unsympathetic to
us and will someday understand that they are not invulnerable to the forces that have befallen us.
I define the basic problem we have as lack of resources. I don't see how taking or giving away those
resources is any help.
There are MANY alternatives it would behoove the powers of Palo Alto to consider. So far, all I've
seen is lip services in aid of such consideration.
A partial list of alternatives not considered so far that I can see:
1. a tipi village operated by and for homeless people on some small part of Stanford's huge
holdings
2. use of present facilities to house homeless, at least at night. I include the post office on
Hamilton Street. San Diego converted a whole floor of their PO to this purpose. I believe this
has been successful
3. Stop chasing homeless from downtown parking garages. There is some disgraceful language in
the contracts that the city signs with the Downtown Streets Team and more disgraceful
treatment of homeless people. WE ARE NOT YOUR GARBAGE. We are your parents,
children, brothers and sisters.
36
Lynn. about a parking colony across 101. Transportation would be an issue, but not an
insurmountable one.
Bathrooms are not the big thing housed people think they are. Some of the lots in SB have
portapotties or access to regular bathrooms. Some do not. If a church was allowing the use of one of
their lots and it didn't have a bathroom, sometimes they raised the money to add one. Sometimes
not. Homeless people are pretty resourceful and can deal without having a bathroom handy if
necessary. It's not nearly the big issue for us that it is people who are concerned about us and whose
solution is for us to not be able to sleep in our cars.
I am sorry I could not get here for the dinner at Cubberley last night.
I look forward to meeting you all and will see you all at the next event--Aug 5th, I believe, if not
before.
Chuck
On Sun, Jul28, 2013 at 3:37 PM, neighborshelpingneighbors2013
<neighborshelpingneighbors20 13@gmai1.com> wrote:
RE: Alternative Measures
I Dear Edie,
We saw you on the 11 :OOpm TV news last night.
Good job!
Is STB Coalition thinking of crafting an Alternative Measures documents?
I think its a wonderful idea. It will help with "changing hearts & minds" speaches to the PACC Aug. 5th. And it
will provide good points for our friends and contacts personal emails to the council members this week.
I have afew concerns about 101 site(s),
1) Criminal Elements -the safety ofVDs should be first. That is very easy access for criminals to rob our VDs
with a quick get away.
A. Security patrol -public/private maybe the solution.
2) Unhospitable Conditions -it is bitterly cold and windy most of year.
3) What bathroom facilities would they have.
Just afew cursory thoughts.
Caryll-Lynn Taylor,
Exc. Dir. & Food Programs Chair
#650-283-0270
N eighborsHelpingNeighbors20 13@gmail.com
P.O. BOX 113 Palo Alto, CA 94302
37
On lui 28, 20133:19 PM, "Edie Keating" <edie.keating100@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone -first -thank you to everyone who helped with yesterday's event. We believe 75 to 80 people
were there, and there was a lot of conversation.
>
> I publicly stated yesterday some support for a car dweller site on the other side of 101. I think there are sites
over there that might have very little community opposition, in contrast to Cubberley, or the recent report about
Park Avenue.
>
> But across 101 is out of the way. Does this make it a bad suggestion? Please comment, especially car
dwellers. (Tony -can you forward to other cardwellers whose emails you know?)
>
> Also -the Santa Barbara model as I understand it has everyone leave the parking lots every morning. Is that
workable? Or a big problem?
>
> Thanks, Edie
38
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Friends,
CITY UF PJ\LD t\LTO. CA
Ci, I CEER?, S 6F riCE
NGrench@aol.com
Sunday, July 28; 2013 7:46 PM 13 JUl 30 PM I: 15
geoff.browning@stanford.edu; neighborshelpingneighbors2013@gmail.com
waynejdouglass@gmail.com; joy.sleizer142@gmail.com; katie@vcfp.org;
Iynn_huidekoper@hotmail.com; mary.p.stuart@gmail.com; Isa1o@aol.com;
grchippEmdale@yahoo.com; Council, City; Bhushans@aol.com; chris@streetsteam.org;
chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; racheLlindenberg@gmail.com; gailt1225@earthlink.net;
selbytelecom@gmail.com; t.ciampi@hotmail.com; marycklein@yahoo.com;
georgehmills@sbcglobal.net; abjpd1@gmail.com; snug.bug@hotmail.com;
robertaahlquist@yahoo.com; hobredo@gmail.com; drpesto@hotmail.com;
edie.keating100@gmail.com
Re: Seeking comment on across 101 sites
I have the very same concerns that my friend, Geoff Browning expresses here.
Norma Grench
hi a message dated 7/28/2013 6:47:25 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, geoff.browning@stanford.edu writes:
Dear All,
By s·uggesting a place on the other side of 101, are we not moving the VDs outside of
Palo Alto to EPA? And if so, does that amount to making this someone else's problem?
I'm unclear on where these other sites would be across 101.
Paz,
G.
'P't. ~
Pastor Geoff Browning
Campus Minister
Progressive Christians @ Stanford
United Campus Christian Ministry
PO Box 20149
Stanford, CA 94309
"Why are we violent and not illiterate? Because we are taught to read."
Student of Colman McCalthy in a 13-word essay
From: "neighborshelpingneighbors2013" <neighborshelpingne!ghbors2013@gmaiLcom>
To: "Edie Keating" <edie.keating100@gmaiLcom> .
Cc: 'Wayne Douglass" <waynejdouglass@gmaiLcom>, "Joy Sieizer"
<joy.sleizer142@gmaiLcom>, "Katie Fantin" <katie@vcfp.org>, "Lynn Huidekoper"
<lynn_huidekoper@hotmaiLcom>, "mary p stuart" <mary.p.stuart@gmaiLcom>, "Lois Salo"
<lsa10@aoLcom>, "George Chippendale" <grchippendale@yahoo.com>, "palo alto city
council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Judith Shushan" <Shushans@aoLcom>,
"Chris@streetsteam.org" <chris@streetsteam.org>, "chuck jagoda"
<chuckjagoda 1 @gmaiLcom>, "racheLlindenberg" <racheLlindenberg@gmaiLcom>, "Norma
47
Grench .. <ngrench@aoLcom>, "Gail Thompson" <gailt1225@earthlink.net>, "Nick Selby"
<selbytelecom@gmaiLcom>, Itt ciampi" <t.ciampi@hotmaiLcom>, "Mary Colleen Klein"
<marycklein@yahoo.com>, georgehmills@sbcglobaLnet, "Aram James"
<abjpd1@gmaiLcom>, "geoff browning" <geoff.browning@stanford.edu>, "snug bug"
<snug.bug@hotmaiLcom>, "roberta ahlquist" <robertaahlquist@yahoo.com>, "James Ows"
<hobredo@gmaiLcom>, "Mike Fischetti, MD-OCN" <drpesto@hotmaiLcom>
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 3:37:22 PM
Subject: Re: Seeking comment on across 101 sites
RE: Alternative Measures
Dear Edie,
We saw you on the 11 :OOpm TV news lastnight.
Good job!
Is STB Coalition thinking of crafting an Alternative Measures documents?
I think its a wonderful idea. It will help with "changing hearts & minds" speaches to the PACC
Aug. 5th. And it will provide good points for our friends and contacts personal emails to the
council members 'this week.
I have afew concerns about 101 site(s),
'1) Criminal Elements -the safety of VDs should be first. That is very easy access for criminals
to rob our VDs with a quick get away.
A. Security patrol -public/private maybe the solution.
2) Unhospitable Conditions -it is bitterly cold and windy most of year.
3) What bathroom facilities would they have.
Just afew cursory thoughts.
Caryll-Lynn Taylor,
Exc. Dir. & Food Programs Chair
#650-283-0270
NeighborsHelpingNeighbors2013@gmail.com
P.O. BOX 113 Palo Alto, CA 94302
On Ju128, 2013 3:19 PM, "Edie Keating" <edie.keating100@gmaiLcom> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone -first -thank you to everyone who helped with yesterday's event. We believe
75 to 80 people were there, and there was a lot of conversation~
>
> I publicly stated yesterday some support for a car dweller site on the other side of 101. I
think there are sites over there that might have very little community opposition, in contrast to
Cubberley, or the recent report about Park Avenue.
>
> But across 101 is out of the way. Does this make it a bad suggestion? Please comment,
especially car dwellers. (Tony -can you forward to other cardwellers whose emails you
know?)'
>
48
> Also -the Santa Barbara model as I understand it has everyone leave the parking lots every
morning. Is that workable? Or a big. problem?
>
> Thanks, Edie
49
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear All,
... -. r' Ll·O r''; . f' P Y 0 f-\.lJ\ l iJ M • v t',
Geoff Browning <geoff.browning@stanford~~f!py CLERK'S OFFiCE
Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:47 PM
neighborshelpingneighbors2013 13 JUL 30 P~1 t: 15
Wayne Douglass; Joy Sieizer; Katie Fantin; Lynn Huidekoper; mary p stuart; Lois Salo;
George Chippendale; Council, City; Judith Bhushan; Chris@streetsteam.org; chuck
jagoda; racheUindenberg; Norma Grench;Gail Thompson; Nick Selby; t ciampi; Mary
Colleen Klein; georgehmills@sbcglobaLnet; Aram James; snug bug; roberta ahlquist;
James Ows; Mike Fischetti,MD-OCN; Edie. Keating
Re: Seeking comment on across 101 sites
By suggesting a place on the other side of 101, are we not moving the VDs outside of Palo Alto
to EPA? And if so, does that amount to making this someone else's problem? I'm unclear on
where these other sites would be across 101.
Paz,
G.
'Pit. H
Pastor Geoff Browning
Campus Minister
Progressive Christians @ Stanford
United Campus Christian Ministry
PO Box 20149
Stanford, CA 94309
"Why are we violent and not illiterate? Because we are taught to read."
Student of Colman McCarthy in a 13-word essay
From: "neighborshelpingneighbors2013" <neighborshelpingneighbors2013@gmail.com>
To: "Edie Keating" <edie.keating100@gmail,com> ' .
Cc: "Wayne Douglass" <waynejdouglass@gmail,com>, "Joy Sieizer" <joy.sleizer142@gmail,com>,
"Katie Fantin" <katie@vcfp.org>, "Lynn Huidekoper" <Iynn_huidekoper@hotmail,com>, "mary p
stuart" <mary.p.stuart@gmail,com>, "Lois Salo" <lsa10@aol,com>, "George Chippendale"
c::grchippendale@yahoo.com>, "palo alto·city council" <city.council@cityofpa1oalto.org>, "Judith
Bhushan" <Bhushans@aol,com>, "Chris@streetsteam.org" <chris@streetsteam.org>, "chuck jagoda"
<chuckjagoda1 @gmail,com>, "rachel.lindenberg" <rachel.lindenberg@gmail,com>, "Norma Grench"
<ngrench@aol,com>, "Gail Thompson" <gailt1225@earthlink.net>, "Nick Selby"
<selbytelecom@gmail,com>, "t ciampi" <t.ciampi@hotmail,com>, "Mary Colleen Klein"
<marycklein@yahoo.com>, georgehmills@sbcglobal,net, "Aram James" <abjpd1@gmail,com>,
"geoff browning" <geoff.browning@stanford.edu>, "snug bug" <snug.bug@hotmail,com>, "roberta
ahlquist" <robertaahlquist@yahoo.com>, "James Ows" <hobredo@gmail,com>, "Mike Fischetti,MD
OCN" <drpesto@hotmail,com>
Sent: Sunday, July 28,20133:37:22 PM
Subject: Re: Seeking comment on across 101 sites
50
RE: Alternative Measures
Dear Edie,
We saw you on the 11 :OOpm TV news last night.
Good job!
Is STB Coalition thinking of crafting an Alternative Measures documents?
I think its a wonderful idea. It will help with "changing hearts & minds" speaches to the PACC Aug.
5th. And it will provide good points for our friends and contacts personal emails to the council
members this week.
I have afew concerns about 101 site(s),
1) Criminal Elements -the safety ofVDs should be first. That is.very easy access for criminals to rob
our VDs with a quick get away.
A. Security patrol-public/private maybe the solution.
2) Unhospitable Conditions -it is bitterly cold and windy most of year.
3) What bathroom facilities would they have.
Just afew cursory thoughts.
Caryll-Lynn Taylor,
Exc. Dir. & Food Programs Chair
#650-283-0270
NeighborsHelpingNeighbors2013@gmail.com
P.O. BOX 113 Palo Alto, CA 94302
On Ju128, 2013 3:19 PM, "Edie Keating" <edie.keating100@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone -first -thank you to everyone who helped with yesterday's event. We believe 75 to 80
people.were there, and there was a lot of conversation.
>
> I publicly stated yesterday some support for a car dweller site on the other side of 101. I think there
are sites over there that might have very little community opposition, in contr~st to Cubberley, or the
recent report about Park Avenue.
>
> But across 101 is out of the way. Does this make it a bad suggestion? Please comment, especially
car dwellers. (Tony -can you forward to otherJcardweliers whose emails you know?)
>
> Also -the Santa Barbara model as I understand it has everyone leave the parking lots every
morning. Is that workable? Or a big problem? .
>
> Thanks, Edie
51
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
CiTY OF PALO (.l.LTO, CA
Ci I I CLEhh 3 or r ICI!
Edie Keating <edie.keating100@gmaiLcom> pM I" 1"1
Sunday, July 28, 2013 3:19 PM 13JUL 30 n • 1
Judith Bhushan
Lynn Huidekoper; Katie Fantin; James Ows; snug.bug@hotmaiLcom; roberta ahlquist;
Council, City; geoff.browning@stanford.edu; Mike Fischetti,MD-OCN; Norma Grench;
George Chippendale; Mary Colleen Klein; georgehmills@sbcglobaLnet;
Chris@streetsteam.org; Lois Salo; Nick Selby; Joy Sieizer; Gail Thompson;
racheLlindenberg; Wayne·Douglass; neighborshelpingneighbors2013; chuckjagoda;
mary.p.stuart@gmaiLcom; t.ciampi@hotmaiLcom; Aram James
Seeking comment on across 101 sites
Hi everyone -first -thank you to everyone who helped with yesterday's event. We believe 75 to 80 people were
there, and there was a lot of conversation.
I publicly stated yesterday some support for a car dweller site on the other side of 101. I think there are sites
. over there that might have very little community opposition, in contrast to Cubberley, or the recent report about
Park Avenue.
But across 101 is out of the way. Does this make it a bad suggestion? Please comment, especially car
dwellers. (Tony -can you forward to other cardwellers whose emails you know?)
Also -the Santa Barbara model as I understand it has everyone leave the parking lots every morning. Is that
workable? Or a big problem?
Thanks, Edie
55
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
GiT Y UF PALO' :~LTO, CA Edie Keating <edie.keatinglOO@gmail,com> CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:02 PM
Judith Bhushan '3 JUl 30 PM f: 1&
Lynn Huidekoper; Katie Fantin; James Ows; snug.bug@hotmaiLcom; roberta ahlquist;
Council, City; geoff.browning@stanford.edu; Mike Fischetti,MD-OCN; Norma Grench;
George Chippendale; Mary Colleen Klein; georgehmills@sbcglobal,net;
Chris@streetsteam.org; Lois Salo; NiCk Selby; Joy Sieizer; Gail Thompson;
rachel.lindenberg; Wayne Douglass; neighborshelpingneighbors2013; chuckjagoda;
mary.p.stuart@gmail,com; t.ciampi@hotmail,com; Aram James
email list caution
Hi -we've been using each other's lists of emails, and I just used one that had palo alto city council
included. Oops. (and no big deal on what was sent -phew.) So as we chat, please make sure any list you reply
to does not include palo alto city council.
Thanks, Edie
On Sun, Ju128, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Edie Keating <edie.keatinglOO@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone -first -thank you to everyone who helped with yesterday's event. We believe 75 to 80 people were
there, and there was a lot of conversation.
I publicly stated yesterday some support for a car dweller site on the other side of 101. I think there are sites
over there that might have very little community opposition, in contrast to Cubberley, or the recent report about
Park Avenue. .
But across 101 is out of the way. Does this make it a bad suggestion? Please comment, especially car
dwellers. (Tony -can you forward to other cardwellers whose emails you know?)
Also -the Santa Barbara model as I understand it has everyone leave the parking lots every morning. Is that
workable? Or a big problem?
Thanks, Edie
52