Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-01-31 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto Manager’s Repo t TO: FROM:, DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER JANUARY 3i, 2000 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING CMR:II6:00 EMBARCADERO ROAD PEDESTRIAN/BIKE BRIDGE AND BIKE PATH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT -19310 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council take the following actions with respect to the Embarcadero Road Pedestrian/Bike:Bridge and Bike Path Project~ Confirm the Council’s intent, in principal, that staff continues taking the necessary steps toward completion of the project, along with the underst,anding that additional funding in an estimated amount of $32,000 may need to be authorized when the construction contract is awarded. Direct staff to file an application with California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for approval of the Bicycle Path encroaching on the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) railroad right-of-way. Direct staff to execute an agreement between the City and the law firm of Sevron & Werson, to provide the services necessary to file an application with the PUC. Approve an amendment to the consultant agreement with HMH, Inc. to provide additional design and limited construction phase services in an amount not to exceed $97,000, as well as authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the consultant agreement with HMH, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $15,000 (Attachment A). BACKGROUND On September 22, 1998, Council considered a staff report (CMR:362:98, Attachment B), identifying several problems related to completion of this project, including a lack of sufficient funding and objections to the project from the railroad unions. Council did not accept staff’s recommendation to cancel the project, and instead voted to refer the item back to staff to explore alternatives and return to Council with options, including identifying the costs associated with each option. CMR:116:00 Page 1 of 6 TheCity has been developing a project to construct a bike/pedestrian path along the west side of the Caltrain tracks, from .Churchill Avenue to the Uni.versity Avenue Caltrain Station, including a pedestrian/bike bridge over Embarcadero Road. This has been a long-planned completion of a key segment of the City’s adopted bikeway system. The path passes through property owned by the Palo Alto Unified School district (PAUSD), Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). The path will also eventually connect to the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard via a planned undercrossing at Homer Avenue (a project high on the Valley Transportation Authority’s draft FY 2000-2001 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) funding list). Since the project initiation, work has proceeded through the various stages of design, and the necessary agreements have been executed with all of the affected parties including the JPB and PAUSD. The project was bid in May 1996, but the bids were 50 percent higher than the available funds, and over the engineer’s estimate. Since the new bridge was the only item of sufficient cost consequences, to reduce the~ overall, cost-of the project subsequent steps were taken to postpone construction of the new. bridge. Instead, ~ a, temporary connection through Palo Alto High School was proposed. However, this connection.was seen as problematic by the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), the PAUSD Board, and the City Council. Therefore, Council directed staff to pursue with the JPB the possible development of an alternative temporary connection using the existing railroad bridge. The JPB accepted the City’s proposal in March 1997 (Attachment C). However, shortly after obtaining JPB approval, the PUC objected to the temporary use of the existing railroad bridge, in particular, and the entire path, in general. The JPB then acceded to the PUC’s position and withdrew its approval (Attachment D). Subsequently, staff agreed not to pursue the temporary use of the existing bridge and offered to modify the project in several ways that were intended to address concerns raised by the representatives of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, United Transportation Union, Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the PUC. Those changes included the following (Attachment E): In place of the proposed 6-foot high steel tubular fence, the City would substitute an 8-foot high vertical, 2-inch x 6-inch, 450 Typhoon Welded steel mesh fence. The City would add a 6-foo_~t chain link fence between the tracks and Alma Street. The lighting along the path would be vandal-proof. CMR: 116:00 Page 2 of 6 4.Upon completion of the path, Palo Alto police officers would provide additional enforcement and issue citations, if necessary, under Penal Code Sections 369i and 555. The JPB has already posted "No Trespassing" signs along the railroad tracks and is responsible for providing enforcement. With the proposed modifications, the PUC staff no longer opposes the. project, but representatives of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Union have stated that it opposes the project and would file a formal complaint with the PUC should the project proceed (Attachment F). In the event that a complaint was filed, the PUC staff would stop the project until a hearing could be conducted before the Commission. DISCUSSION The cost to design and construct the project, including a new bridge over Embarcadero Road, additional items, and construction management services is estimated to be $1.516 million. The current budget is $716,770 from a variety of federal,, state and local funding sources. In view of the Council direction, staff filed an application in April 1999 for federal TEA-21 .funds in the amount of $800,000 to fund the shortfall. The TEA-21 funding in the amount of $800,000 has been approved and is included in the 1999-00 State TransportatiOn Improvement Plan (TIP) and the 2000-2001 CIP. Caltrans must encumber the funds by September 2000, This means that the City must complete final plans and specifications and submit them to Caltrans for approval by August 2000. Availability of additional funds eliminates two of the major obstacles to implementing the project. The additional funds would allow construction of the new proposed bridge over Embarcadero Road, and eliminate the need to use a temporary connection through the Palo Alto High School, which is considered problematic. Staff has further discussed with the PUC staff the use of the JPB railroad right-of-way. The City needs a final ruling on the right-of-way use before it lets any contracts. The path is considered a "longitudinal encroachment" on the right-of-way. The PUC does not ordinarily rule on such encroachments. However, if the City does not file the application, it runs the risk that when the contract to construct the project has been let, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers may file a complaint with the PUC that the project is unsafe. In that case, the PUC, under its safety regulation powers, could stop the project until a hearing could be conducted before the Commission. This would delay the project while the complaint was heard. At that point, the City might face financial penalties payable to its contractors for the delay. A potential disadvantage of such an application is that it suggests that the PUC has jurisdiction over a matter that has been considered a private concern of the City of Palo Alto and the JPB. The PUC staff has advised staff that an application can be filed with the PUC requesting approval of the project. Because staff does not have expertise in dealing with railroad safety and the PUC related issues, the City Attorney’s Office has-recommended retention of special counsel. The cost of legal services for the PUC proceeding is estimated to be approximately $30,000. CMR:116:00 Page 3 of 6 Prior to filing the application, the existing design drawings would be modified by HMH, Inc., which is the firm that prepared the original set of drawings and specifications, to include the project modifications as stated earlier, and any other necessary adjustments suggested by legal counsel. The total cost of modifying the drawings, appearance at the PUC hearing by the consultant, and limited construction phase services, is estimated to be $97,000. Staff is also requesting $15,000 (approximately 15 percent) for change orders related to the consultant agreement. This is due to possible changes as a result of the PUC review, possible complications with shoring the existing bridge, construction of the new bridge, and the presence of fiber optic cables, which may require additional technical support during design and construction. These additional consultant services have the following net cost increase consequences: Total amount of existing contract, including Amendment 1 and change order authority ($160,403 +.$23,100) Total paid to HMH ($115,408 + $14,100 in change orders) . ~ Total amount remaining ($44,995 + $9,000 in change order authority) $183,503 <$129,508> $53,995 Requested Increase ($97,000 -- $44,995 + $15,000 -- $9,000 in change order authority) $58,005 Total Available Funding for Design $112,000 In addition, a safety study may be required as part of the application, to determine safety aspects of the path and show that the construction of the bike path would not deteriorate safety conditions in the area. The safety study is estimated to cost approximately $25,000, which is already included in the available budget. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION An alternative to staff’s recommendation’ could be for the Council to direct staff to proceed with the project. However, there would be the risk of having to suspend the contract and shut down work in the early part of construction, if a formal complaint were filed with the PUC. This would delay the project while the complaint was being heard. At that point, the City might face financial penalties payable to its contractors for the delay. Additionally, the City might be required to adjust the project design, which could result in expensive change orders to the contractor. CMR:116:00 Page 4 of 6 RESOURCE IMPACT Sufficient funds are currently available to cover the additional amount to amend the consultant agreement with HMH, Inc., execute an agreement with for legal services in connection with filing the application with the PUC, and conduct a safety study. The total funds currently budgeted for this project are $716,770, of which $183,500 was budgeted for design and $533,270 for construction. Project funding, is from State Transportation Development Act funds ($195,510), State Transportation Systems Management ,funds ($46,000), Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds ($320,000), Holiday Inn mitigation fees ($37,000), and the City’s Street Improvement Fund ($118,260). At the time of applying for TEA-21 funds, the total cost of the project, including design and construction, _a safety study,-construction management services, and contingencies, was estimated to be $1,516,000, leaving a gap of approximately $800,000. Therefore staff filed an application in April 1999 for federal TEA-21 funds in the amount of $800,000, to fund the shortfall. The TEA-21 funding in the amount of $800,000 has been approved and is included in the 1999-00 TIP, although it has not yet been included in the City’s CIP budget. Staff will, however, include $800,000 in the 2000-01 CIP budget to be reimbursed later from the TEA-21 federal grant. While the total available and approved TEA-21 funds do not include the legal cost of $30,000 to file the application,, staff is hopeful that a favorable bidding climate might be sufficient to cover all or a portion of the estimated legal costs. If.additional funding is required, staff will submit a Budget Amendment Ordinance to Council, in conjunction with the award of a construction contract. Implementation of this project together with other projects, continues to incrementally add to the regularly required need for maintenance within ~the Public Works budget. In addition, maintenance of some of the project components, such as chain link fencing, may require services that are not available within current staffing, and may need to be done through contract services, for which funding is not available in the Public Works Department budget. The Public Works Department would monitor this and other projects for cumulative maintenance impacts and pursue additional resources through the 2001- 2002 budget process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Council in its meeting of August 1, 1994 approved an environmental assessment (94- EIA- 16) for this project. CMR:116:00 Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENTS A. Amendment to HMH, Inc. Agreement ¯ 13. CMR:362:98, Recommended Cancellation of Embarcadero Bike Road... C. JPB letter accepting proposal to use existing railroad bridge D. JPB letter rescinding its approval E. Staff letter to PUC regarding modifying project to address its concerns F. Locomotive Engineer’s Union letter regarding filing a formal complaint G. PUC letter regarding filing an application requested PUC approval of project PREPARED BY: Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer DEPARTMENT -HEAD: G. EDWARD~A~ Director of Planning and ~:~ .Comrn~/,y Enviro~.nrn, ~ent CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ¯~City Manage(] cc:Hin King, Caltrans, Local Assistance Program Public Utilities Commission (Paul King, Kenneth Ross) Joint Powers Board (Walt Stringer, Jerry Kirzner) PAUSD (Auggie Lavagnino, Don Phillips) HMH, Inc. (Linda Guevera, Mike Morsilli) Palo Alto Medical Foundation (David Jury). Stanford Management Company (Bill Phillips) Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee Town & Country Village (Ron Wilson, Jim Williams) CMR: 116:00 Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT A AMENDMENT NO. TWO TO CONTRACT NO. C4044185 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND HMH, INCORPORATED This Amendment No.Two to Contract No. C4044185 ("Contract")-is entered into , 2000 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city ant! a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY"), and HMH, Inco~rporated, a California corporation, located at 1570 Oakland Roa4~,<~ Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95161-1510 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T-A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the pa~ties in 1993 for~ the-provision of professional consultant services for the design~of a bikep~hfroM Churchill Avenue to the southern-end of the Joint Powers Boa~@ ("JPB") parking lot and a pedestrian/bike bridge over Embarcader~~ Road; and WHEREAS, in 1996 the City modified the project (to delete that portion of the project between Encina Avenue and the JPB parking lot .which would be constructed by private developers) and entered into Amendment No. One to the Contract to include additional design services, bridge inspection services, and technical support services; and WHEREAS, City now wishes to further modify the Contract to obtain additional professional services in connection with the review of the project by the California Public Utility Commission, and to delete the bridge inspection services which are not needed at this time; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, .conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION I. Services Provided to Date. The parties agree that CONSULTANT has performed and has been fully paid for all Basic Services as described in the Contract and as modified by previously issued change orders. Certain construction support services could not be performed and no payment was due or received for them. ~. Supplemental Basic Service~. In consideration of the performance of the Basic Sergices described in the ~Supplement to Exhibit A - Supplemented Scope of Basic Services and Time Schedule" attached as Attachment 1 to this Amendment No. Two, City agrees to pay CONSULTANT an additional fee not to exceed NINETY-SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($97,000.) All provisions of the Contract governing Basic Services shall apply to these services. 00112 syn 0090418 ~, ~ SECTION 3. Extra Work or Changes. Following execution of this Amendment No. Two, CITY may order and CONSULTANT shall perform such Extra Work and Changes as authorized by the Project Manager, provided that payment for such extra work and changes may not-exceed FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15;000.00). All provisions of the Contract governing extra work and change brders shall apply to these services. SECTION 4. NO Further "Additiona!~ and Reimbursable’[ Work Authorized. The parties agree that CONSULTANT has performed and has ,been fully paid for all Additional Services and Reimbursable Services as described in ~Revised Exhibit C - Additional and Reimbursable Services" attached to this Second Amendment as Exhibit 3. No further work may be.aDthorized under Sections 6.1.2 Or 6.1.3 of the Agreement. SECTION ~5. The following exhibits to the Contract are hereby amended as follows: a. Exhibit "A" is supplemented by "Supplement to Exhibit A--Supplemented Scope~of Basic Services and Time Schedule" attached to this Amendment No. 2 as Attachment i. This Supplement to Exhibit A is in addition to, and does not.replace Exhibit A t9the Contract. b. Exhibit "C", (as amended by the Amendment No. Two to the Contract,) is replaced in itsentirety with "Revised Exhibit C- -Additional and Reimbursable Services" attached to this Amendment No. Two as Attachment 2. // // // // // // // // // // // 00112 syn 0090418 2 SECTION 6o Except as herein modified,other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. ~ ATTEST: City°Clerk APPROVED AS TO FgRM: Senior’A~st. City Attorney CITY~.OF PALO ALTO Mayor HMH, INCORPORATED By I t S : ~h~ ~~7~/ APPROVED: City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment By: Its: Taxpayer I.D. No.: Director of Admin. Services Risk Manager Attachments: ATTACHMENT 1 - Supplement to Exhibit "A" -- Supplemented Scope of Basic Services and Time Schedule ATTACHMENT 2 - Revised Exhibit "C" -- Additional and Reimbursable Services 00112 syn 0090418 3 CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT (Civil Code § 1189) STATE OF COUNTY OF ) ) ) On ~o~\7~o~,~ before me, the undersigned, a notary public in anu for said County, personally appeared personally known to me ,~4~r-_~~t ’ to be the perso~9+ whose name,s@- is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/~y executed the~.sam~ iF his~ ~..au~orized capacity~, and that by his/~ signature~s-~, on the instrument the perso~3@-, or the entity upon behalf of which the person~acted, exeGuted.the*instrument.. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 00112 syn 0090418 C~.RTTF~CAT~. OF ACKNOWLEDgMeNT (Civil Code § 1189) STATE OF__ -(o.\’~o~ ~-) ) On ~~ k]~ZE~O, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in< and ~ for said County, personally appeared personally known to me (G~X~m~ to ,,t~ on th~---~f sa~-i-s~acLuzy evider~ce9 to be the person~s? ~whose name~-E7 is/~r~ subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/~~~ executed the same in hi~’~^-~^~~, ~, ~- authorized capacity~s@-, and, that. by his/~ signature~s~ on the instrument the person~-~, or the entity upon behalf of which the personator-acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal.. 00112 syn 0090418 6 ATTACHMENTI Supplement to Exhibit A - Supplemented Scope of Basic Services and Time Schedule PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project includes the design of a bike path which lies just west of the Caltrain roadway tracks and runs from Churchill Avenue in Palo Alto to the south end of the Joint Powers Board (JPD) parking lot at the Palo Alto Caltrain Station. The pathway route includes a bridge crossing of Embarcadero Road and runs through properties belonging to the Palo Alto Unified School District, Stanford University, and the Joint Powers Board fight-of-way. The scope of services include project management, obtaining field topography to supplement the City’s Survey Sheets, preparation of plans, specifications and estimates, for bike path alignment, drainage, safety lighting, fencing, bridge, and construction services as outlined.in the scope of services below. I.SCOPE OF SERVICES A.PROJECTMANAGEMENT ’~’~ I.Management and Coordination Project Coordinator Linda Grevera will provide overall project management. Sh~ will assign tasks to appropriate projeet personnel, monitor progress, conduct project reviews, provide liaison with the City and the other interested agencies including Caltrans, Joint Powers Board (JPB), Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), Stanford University and fibre optics companies. Dave Sehott of Advanced Engineering Design and other members of the Consultant team will assist in the management of the project by Coordinating technical details of bridge staging and utility adjustments with the JPB, rail operators and utility companies. 2.Project Meetings The Project Coordinator will conduct the project meetings at appropriate intervals. A maximum of six (6) meetings are included in this scope of services. HMH will distribute an agenda to all attendees with notes of the previous meeting approximately one week prior to each meeting. 3.Public Hearings In addition to the periodic projeet meetings, the Project Coordinator and appropriate project staff will be available to attend two (2) public hearings, one at the Administrative Law Judge hearing, and one at the PUC hearing. A maximum of sixteen (16) person hours are budgeted. Consultant will provide colored renderings of project for PUC hearings. SURVEYS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY Field Surveys Field suaweys for topographic features, utilities, and ’existing fights-of-way will be conducted to supplement survey data already acquired and that provided, by ’the City. The following specific surveying tasks are contemplate& Obtain details of existing-control shown on 1" = 40’ topographic mapping provided by the City. bo perform supplemental field topographic surg_ey along the bike path_. corridor to locate the following: 2) 3) 4) Existing.fencing between the Railroad ~and. Alma Street Caltrain platform limits on west side of railroad tracks Utility poles, signage.that has. recently been installed Conform area topographic features. at Encina Avenue and southerly PAMF bike path, connection. Prepare topographic mappingin AutoCad format for use wi~ existing data provided by the City. Right-of-Way Plats & Legal Descriptions Right-of-way requirements will be determined and submitted to the City for approval.. Right-of-way activities will include: Collect and review existing fight-of-way for purposes of constructing a 6’ high chain link fence between the tracks and Alma street, from Churchill Avenue to the existing new fence located approximately 400 feet north of the north terminus of the bike path. Based on the PAMF bike path as provided by the City, determine fight-of-way / easements necessary to conform to the PAMF bike path improvements. After City approval of right-of-way, prepare plats and legal descriptions for easementsto be acquired by the City. Consultant will provide copies of draft plats and descriptions to the City for review and then incorporate City comments and provide e~opies to the City: REVISE PRELIMINARY PLANS This Task will include updating the previously prepared plans to effect the following ~hanges: Ch~mge 6’ high steel tubular access control fence to an 8’ high 2" x 6" steel mesh fence (Steel 450 Typhoon Welded Mesh). o Add a 6’ high chain link fence (replace existing 4’ high fence where applicable) between the tracks and Alma Street, and connect to existing wire mesh fence located approximately 400 feet north of the north terminus of the bike path. ’" Add vandal protection to proposed lighting fixtures.~ v, Realign bike path between PAUSD northerly pr6~erty line and th~0pedestdan bridge to achieve 18’ clear from the South Bound track centerline. The Bridge plans will be reviewed and updated to effect any code changes that may have occurred since the original plans were prepared. The plans for the PAMF bike path (provided by City) will be made to conform to the PAMF improvements. The plan set will consist of the following~plans: Title Sheet 1 Layout, Utilities 2 Construction Details 3 Detour/Traffic Handling Plan 1 Signing and Striping 1 Planting Plan 1 Irrigation Plan 1 Planting/Irrigation Details 1 Lighting/Electrical Plans/Details 4 Bridge Plans 4 Log of Borings 1 Cross Sections 2 Total number of drawings 22 These plans will be furnished to the agencies and utilities identified by the City for the purpose of coordinating any required adjustments, relocations, or potholing. They will also be submitted to the Joint Powers Board with the necessary applications in order to begin processing of any required Encroachment Permits (Total twelve (12) sets). FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES (PS&E) 1.Final Project Plans The Revised Preliminary Plans will be upgraded to final form based on comments received so that~e City and Joint Powers Board may review the complete details of the project. Changes in design direction, such as alignment changes or bridge type changes are not included, and if requested after review of Revised Preliminary Plans, will have an impact on the project schedule and will be considered as extra services. 2.,Final Specifications The.specifications previously prepared will be revised to reflect changes in. scope of work, state requirements, and materials in conformance with the plan revisions. 3.Engineer’s Estimate An Estimate of Probable Construction Cost will be,revised and updated for use in the Bid Documents using standard City and/or Caltrans items. Estimated unit prices will be determined based on the quantities involved for the various items, our experience with similar local project, and engineering judgement. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES Services During Bidding During the bidding period, (from advertisement through contract award) key members of the Consultant team will be available to attend the pre-bid meeting and answer design questions. The Consultant will prepare addenda clarifying the bid documents and the design as directed by the City. Construction Support Services a.Attend the pre-construction meeting. Visit the project site on aregular basis (approximately semi-monthly) to review that the work is in general conformance with the design intent. This item does not include detailed or extensive observation or inspection or construction, administration services. Review shop drawing and submittals which are required by the project specifications. Review will consider only general III. conformance with the Consultant’s design concept and general compliance with the contract documents. d.Review requests for information and change orders. e.Provide record drawings based on marked-up plans provided by the City. DUTIES OF THE CITY City will provide the following services, information and reports to the consultant. A.Current preliminary title reports. B.Copies of all available plans, exl;tibits, records, data and information pertinent to the project. C.Permission to enter City property as necessaryto perform the services. D.Assist Consultant in obtaining necessary rights of entry tO enable Consultant to enter public and private property as needed to perform the services. E.Pay the cost of all fees, permits and other charges not specifically included in this Agreement as a Consultant responsibility. F.Negotiate and obtain easements and fight-of-way as required to complete project. G.Provide construction supervision, inspection, administration and coordination, except for bridge as provided above. documents as provided by Consultant at milestoneReproduction of original submittals. SPECIAL PROVISIONS Services for the following items are specifically not included in the Scope of Services. This is not intended to represent a complete list, but is inelhded for additional clarity. A.Any services related to soil contamination or soil contamination mitigation. B.Subsurface water drainage, dewatering facilities and pumping stations and force mains for storm drainage and sanitary sewer. C.Certifications to any entity as to quality or completeness of construction. D.Uncovering or potholing existing underground facilities. E.Reproduction of plans and specifications at milestone submittals. Payment Schedule RATE AND PAYMENT SCHEDULES The fee for Supplemented Scope of Basic Services shall not exceed $97,000~ as per breakdown below: Description Estimated Fees Item A Item B Item C Item D Item E -Project Management -Surveys & Right-of-Way -Revise Preliminary Plans -Final PS&E -Construction Phase Services $18,600 $14,400 $22,300 $23,800 $17,900 $97,000 REVISED SCHEDULE FOR DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION Field Surveys Revise Preliminary Plans Submit Final Plans and Specifications PUC Hearing Advertise for Bids Bid Opening .... ~ ~’~ ~ Council Award Pre-Construetion Meeting Contractor’s Notice to Proceed Projected Construction Completion March 2000 April 2000 July 2000 T.B.D. June 2001 July 2001 August 2001 September 2001 September 2001 June 2002 The timeline for completion of any phase of work may be extended by written instructions signed by the City Manager. REVISED EXHIBIT C ATTACHMENT 2 Additional and Reimbursable Services Additional Services Task i.* Modify final PS&E to delete Bike Path, lighting, and fencing from JPB lot to approximately station 10+50. Refer to Exhibit A, Section I.--H. ~"Final plans, Specifications and Estimate. Cost: $13,469 ~ Task 2.* Task 3.* Provide up. ,to three (3) additional architectural perspective drawing, s showing the ,new bridge design and thee relatlon to the~ exis~.tlng~,.b~idge. ~($!,ooo @ach) Provide up to One Hundred-~d FZfty.’(150)’ sets~of bid documents. (Cost approximately $25.00 ~p~rset..) * These tasks were completed by Consultant prior to execution of the Second Amendment to the Contract and payment in full has been received by Consultant for this work. 00112 syn 0090418 4 ATTACHMENT B TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATEi CITY MANAGER ,September 22, 1998 DEPARTMENT: Planning CMR:362:98 SUBJECT:RECOMMENDED CANCELLATION OF THE EMBARCADERO ROAD PEDESTRIAN/BIKE BRIDGE AND BIKE PATH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT 19310 REPORT IN BRIEF - , , ’.~, For the past several years, staff has been de~eloping a project to Construct a bike/pedestrian path along the Caltrain right-of-way, fi’om Chua’chill Avenue to Palo Alto Avenue, including a pedestrian/bike.bridge over Embarcadero Road. The project was bid in May 1996, but the bidding process resulted in bids that.were more than 50 percent over the engineer’s estimate and the available fimding. Subsequently, the bids were rejected and steps were taken to postpone the construction of the pedestrian/bike bridge over Embarcadero, until funding became available. It was decided, however, to construct the path portion of the project, including working with the Joint Powers Bova’d (JPB) to use the existing railroad bridge on an interim basis. The JPB accepted the City’s proposal in March 1997. However, shortly after obtaining JPB approval, the Public Utilities Commission, (PUC) objected to the temporary use of the existing railroad bridge, in particular, and the entire path, in general. The JPB then acceded to the PUC’s position and withdrew its approval. After meeting with JPB and PUC staff and representatives of the railroad unions, staff substantially modified .the project to address the concerns raised. With the proposed modifications, the PUC staffno longer opposes the project, but representatives of one of the unions has stated unequivocally that it opposes the project and would file a formal complaint with the PUC should the project proceed.. In which case, t.he PUC staff would stop the project until a hearing could be conducted before the Commission. In addition, the Palo Alto Bicycle Adviso13, Committee (PABAC), Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board and the Council raised several concems regarding the temporary connection through Palo Alto High School, which appears to be the only solution to connect the two ends of the path on either side of Embarcadero Road. The proposed changes are estimated to cost $232,000, and the project has a current shortfall of $380,000. In view of the above, staffis recommending that Council direct staffto cancel the project and take other related, appropriate actions. CMR:362:98 Page 1 of 8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council take the following actions with respect to the Embarcadero Pedestriart/Bike Bridge and Bike Path Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 19310. Direct staff to cancel the project and not proceed with further design of the project and subsequent construction at this time. Direct staff to cancel the existing consultant agreement (C4044185) with HMH, Inc. for design and construction services. Direct staff to acknowledge the easement from Palo Alto Medical Foundation and affirm the intent to construct the bike path on PAMF property in the event that the bike path south of the PAMF property is constructed. ~ Direct:staff to inform the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority that the City has suspended the project and, therefore, will not need the approved Federal and State funds for the project. " _ i, ., ~ .... ~,~ ,, [[;,~ ~~, ,, Require PAMF to consta’uct the designed and approved bicycle path from the Caltrain station to a point southeast of the landscaped area known as the Building D site (northerly connection), for travel to and from the north(Attachment I), including all related improvements, such as retaining walls, landscaping, lighting and fencing. Agree that PAMF will not be required to construct or pay for construction of the remaining bicycle path or related improvements that the City may, in the future, decide to build (south of the northerly connection). Agree that PAMF will not be required to install lighting and fencing along that portion of the bicycle path that is not being constructed, at this time or later. Direct staffto retain the currently dedicated easement from PAMF for the bike path along the railroad frontage on its property. (In the event that the City finds it feasible to consmact the remainder of the bicycle path, including related improvements such as retaining walls, fencing and lighting, at some future date, the City will be obligated to consta~act them at its own cost.) The landscaping and lighting plans for the area where the bicycle path is not being constructed will be revised to reflect the change in use of the area as mutually agreed upon by City staff and PAMF. 10.The planned PAMF southern connection to the bike path will not be constructed at this time, as the City bicycle path will not exist at that location. However, PAMF CMR:362:98 Page 2 of 8 will be obligated to allow this oi~-a similar connection when the-remaining portion of the bicycle path is constructed in the future. Staffhas discussed the above recommendations with PAMF’s representative, who concurs with ~taff’s recommendations (Attachment J). BACKGROUND For the past several years, staffhas been pursuing the development of a bike/pedestrian path along the Caltrain right-of-way, from Churchill Avenue to tlie Palo Alto train station. In February 1993, a feasibility study to determine potential allgnment(s) for the path Was completed. This study concluded that a bike path through this area was feasible, but would be very complex because it would involve the interests of several entities, including Stanford University, the JPB,(~AU,S,D, MCI, Sprint, and Wiltel, and it would be more costly than originally anticipated. Siri~ ~tlq.,en, ne~gessa~y agreements were negotiated and executed with all of the affecte~d parties,, and the Scope of work of the project evolved and chaiaged, as a result of review and comments by the interested paa~ies, as well as construction of the PAMF project. As a condition of the PAMF project approval, PAMF was required to build a segment of the bike path from Encina to University Circle. The design of a~-portion of the project, from Churchill Avenue to Encina (to be constructed by the City), was. completed in Spring 1996 (Attachment A), and the project was bid for construction in May 1996. However, the bidding process resulted in bids that were more than 50 percent over the engineer’s estimate and the available funding, and the bids were rejected. After considering several alternatives including canceling the whole project, it became evident that the only item of sufficient cost consequence to make a substantial difference was to delete the new bridge over Embarcadero Road from the project. Subsequently, steps were taken to postpone the construction of the pedestrian/bike bridge over Embarcadero, until funding became available, and to use a temporary connection through the Palo Alto High School site, between the path and the pedestrian traffic signal crossing Embarcadero Road, subject to the City and PAUSD reaching an agreement (CMR:509:96). However, at its meeting of December 16, 1996, Council found the proposed temporary connection thi’ough Palo Alto High School unsatisfactory, and directed staff to pursue with the JPB the possible development of an alternative temporary connection using the existing railroad bridge. In February 1997, the Mayor sent a letter to the JPB requesting that the JPB allow the use of the existing Caltrain bridge for an interim period of time, to temporarily connect the two ends of the main path (Attachment B). The City’s proposal for use of the existing Caltrain bridge was accepted by the JPB in March 1997, subject to the City agreeing to: Install a seven foot high solid wooden fence between the path on the existing bridge and the tracks, CMR:362:98 Page 3 of 8 o Construct approximately 350 feet of high-level concrete platform to replace platform lost through Caltrain locomotives stopping on the bridge, o Erect signs on the path and bridge crossing advising pedestrians and bicyclists that this is a temporary connection, that trains may pass at any time, and that extreme caution is mandatory. Carry the post-construction liability coverage as stipulated in the recorded Grant of Easement, between the JPB and the City. However, shortly thereafter staff was advised by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that it objected to the temporary use of the existing railroad bridge. After multiple phone calls and several meetings, staff learned that one or more railroad unions had filed an informal complaint with the PUC regarding the use of the bridge, in particular, and the entire path, in general. The unions oppose construction of any bicycle paths on Caltrain right-of-way due to safety concerns. They see too many accidents involving trains hitting objects, people, and animals. Caltrain operators say that they live with these thoughts and memories and believe that construction of a bike path on Caltrain right-of-way in proximity to a very active rail corridor will add to and/or createmore safety problems. In view of this, the JPB acceded to the position of the PUC and withdrew its approval for the temporary use of the existing Caltrain bridge (Attachment C). Subsequently, staff agreed not to ptu’sue the temporary use of the existing bridge and offered to modify the project in several ways that were intended to address concems raised by the representatives of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, United Transportation Union, Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the PUC. Accordingly, staff sent a letter to the PUC (Attachment D) modifying the project in the following ways: Instead of using the existing raih’oad bridge as a temporary connection, the existing traffic signal on Embarcadero Road would be used. In place of the proposed 6-foot high steel tubular fence, the City would substitute a vertical, 2 inch x 6 inch steel mesh fence, 8 feet high (Steel 450 Typhoon Welded Mesh), such as the type being used in similar situations by MetroLink in the Los Angeles area and proposed for use by the JPB along critical sections of the Caltrain right-of-way. The City would add a 6-foot chain link fence between the. tracks and Alma Street, (where there is already heavy vegetation obsta~acting ready access to the tracks), which will further impede any access. 4. The lighting to be added along the path would be vandal-proof. CMR:362:98 Page 4 of 8 Upon completion of the bike path, Palo Alto police officers would provide additional enforcement and issue citations if necessary, under Penal Code Sections 369i and 555. The JPB has already posted "No Trespassing" signs along the railroad tracks and is responsible for providing enforcement. DISCUSSION PUC andUnion Position The current situation is one wherein, while the PUC staff has concems about increased traffic the path may bring to the vicinity of the lracks, with the proposed modifications to the project they no longer oppose the project (Attachment E). However, one of the unions has stated unequivocally that it continues to vigorously oppose the project or any such project in this location (Attachment F). It is staff’s understanding that union has the right to file a formal complaint with the PUC. In that situation, the PUC staff would stop the project until a hearing could be conducted before the Commission. There would then be a formal investigation, hearing, and. determination by an administrative law judge and/or the PUC itself, which could take up. to a year or two in lapsed time, and additional staff and f’mancial resources. Staff believes that until the City actually proceeds with construction, the union has no reason to file a formal complaint and the PUC has no procedure to settle such issues on a pre-complaint basis. Temporary Connection Through Palo Alto High School Council approved an approach earlier that would restructure the project into two stages. The first stage included construction of the path with the deletion of the new bridge, because the new bridge was the only item of sufficient cost consequences to reduce the overall cost of the project. The second stage involved pursuing funding to build the new bridge. Between the time that the path is completed and the new bridge is constructed, the use of a temporary connection through the Palo Alto High School site appears to be the only possible solution. In December 1996, staff had negotiated a conceptual connection and a set of possible conditions as a basis, for preparation of an easement agreement with PAUSD staff (Attachment G). Those negotiations would have to be restarted. In addition, the PABAC the PAUSD Board, and the City Council had raised several operational and safety concerns regarding this alternative, including the length of the detour, narrowness of the path, and the possibility of bike/pedestrian conflicts. The temporax~ connection through the Palo Alto High School site, in.corporation of additional items that were intended to address concerns regarding the use of the railroad corridor, inflation, and risk assessment are estimated at $232,000:$60,000 to construct the temporary connection through the school, including constructing an area to replace lost parking; $70,000 for additional fencing; $20,000 for risk assessment; and $82,000 for inflation, which amounts to a total construction cost of $913,000 (Attachment H). Path from Encina to University Circle As a condition of approval of the PAMF project, PAMF was required to construct a CMR:362:98 Page 5 of 8 bicycle/pedestrian path from its property line just north of Encina to University Circle. A portion of this segment is located on PAMF’s property, behind the PAMF project; the remainder of the path from the PAMF campus to University Circle runs parallel to the Urban Lane Extension. A bicycle connection between the PAMF campus and destinations such as the Caltrain station, the downtown area and the City’s bicycle network accessible from University Avenue and University Circle was seen as a necessary part of a multi-modal access between the PAMF campus and destinations north of it. Since the City had also proposed the bicycle/pedestrian path along the JPB corridor, it was considered essential to require PAMF to build a path on its property connecting it to the bike path proposed by the City. As shown in Attachment A, two connections to .the path on the PAMF property were planned, one at the southeast comer of the PAMF site for travel in the southerly direction, and another connection immediately to the southeast of the landscaped area known as the Building D Site, for travel in the northerly direction: Since_the,City_~ s pgth from Churchill to Encina will not be built, there is no present need to provide a connection to..the~Cjty!s path for travel to and from the south. Therefore, staff believes that under these circumstances there is no need for PAMF to build the portion of the path on. its property south of the northerly connection. A path north of the northerly connection on the PAMF property will continue to provide a bike/pedestrian, connection to points north of the PAMF property, including the Caltrain station and downtown. Staff has discussed this issue with PABAC. While PABAC would like to see the City’s bicycle/pedestrian path project completed, PABAC understands the reasons for not proceeding with the project. In addition, if the project does not proceed, PABAC supports deleting PAMF’s obligation to construct that portion of the path south of the northerly connection on PAMF’s property. RESOURCE IMPACT The total fimds currently available for this project are $716,770, of which $183,500 was budgeted for design and $533,270 for construction. Project funding is from State Transportation Development Act funds ($195,510), State Transportation Systems Management fimds ($46,000), Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds ($320,000), Holiday Inn mitigation fees ($37,000), and the City’s Street Improvement Fund ($118,260). The engineer’s estimate for construction of the project and related costs is $913,000, which reflects a current shortfall of approximately $380,000. Should the Council approve the staff recommendation, the City would not incur additional costs and time in redesigning and constructing the project, and negotiating with PAUSD for an easement agreement. The City would forego $592,316 of State and Federal funds that have been approved, on a reimbursement basis, for this project and are, as yet, unspent. These funds cannot be used for any other projects in Palo Alto. CMR:362:98 Page 6 of 8 ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION An alternative to staff’s recommendation could be for the Council to direct staff to proceed with the project. The City would incur an additional cost of $380,000 for design and construction, as well as time for plan revision, bidding the project and awarding the construction contract. Staff would also incur additional time in complex negotiations with PAUSD for a temporary connection through the Palo Alto High School site, a solution which is perceived, at best, as less desirable. In addition, there would .be the risk of having to suspend the contract and shut down work in the early part of construction, if a formal complaint were filed with the PUC. The City could prevail at the PUC heating, but that is not certain. However, it would take more time and resources to prepare for a PUC heating and a year or more delay in proceeding with the construction, which could result in contractor claims for additional money. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An enyironmental assessment (94-EIA-t 6) for this project was approved by theCouncil in its meeting Of August 1, 1994. Suspension of a project, however, does not require an environmental assessment .... ~ ATTACHMENTS A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Project Diagram Letter to JPB requesting use of existing bridge Letter from JPB rescinding approval to use existing bridge Letter to PUC modifying project to address concerns raised Letter from PUC stating it no longer opposes project Letter from Rail Road Unions opposing project Conceptual design of bike path connection ttu’ough Palo Alto High School Estimated cost of the project Diagram of the portion of the bike path PAMF will not constnact Letter from PAMF regarding revising its portion of bike path project CMR:362:98 Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: Ashok Aggarwal, Acting Chief Transportation Official DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ANNE CRONIN MOORE Interim Director of Planning and -iommunity Envir~t /K ~ FLEMING""/ / Q~Manager I~’ Hin Kung, .Caltrans, Local Assistance Prdgram Tom Davids, Joint Powers Board : HMH, Inc. .David Jury, Palo Alto Medical Foundation Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee Rosemarie Bednar, Palo Alto Unified School Distric.t Bill Phillips, Stanford Management Company Ron Wilson, Town & Country Village Jim Williams, Town & Country Village CMR:362:98 Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENT A PAMF’s Porlion of Bike Path JPB ’Caltra~n’ Packing Lot,Bike Path Project Recommended to be Cancelled Not to Scale Embarcadero Bike Path Project City of Palo Alto Transportation Division Recommended ~o be Cancelled o:lashoMCorellPAMF_~ke,cdr 8119198 February 18, 1997 Office of the Magor a~ ~d Cit~/ Council ~ , ; ATTACHMENT B Emilio Cruz, Chair Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board P.O. Bo~ 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 Dear Mr. Cruz: During the past several months, staff’members of the Joint Powers Board (’JPB) and the City have discussed several options for addressing the need l~or~.:a temporary pedeStrian/bike path across the CalTrain bridge at Embarcaderd Road, ifi Palo Alto. Circumstances have necessitated that the proposed new pedestrian/bik’6 bridge across Embarcadero Road be postponed to a later date, when additional fun~ling is secured. The City remains committed to pursue alternative fUnding sources for the construction of the new bridge, as soon as possible. In the interim, between the time that the path is completed and the bridge is completed, a temporary connection is needed. The enclosed proposal outlines a plan to use a portion of the existing CalTrain bridge for a temporary path, so that this important pro, ject can proceed and not jeopardize the funding that has already been approved. The support of the JPB has been an important factor in the planning and development of this project to date, and we hope that the JPB will agree to this additional step which is critical to proceeding with the entire project. On behalf of the Palo Alto City Council, I would like to request that this issue be included on a JPB agenda fQr discussion and possible action, at the earliest practical date. Thank you for your ’time and consideration, as well as the considerable efforts that your staff has already devoted to this project. City staff is available to provide additional information at any time. Gerald Haugh Tom Davids Ashok Aggarwal ayor Enclosures (2) cc:city Council June Fleming, City Manager Ken 8chreiber, Dir., Planning/Community Envir’mnt Marvin Overway, Chief Transportation Official,," PROPOSAL TO USE THE EXISTING CALTRAIN BRIDGE AT EMBARCADERO ROAD AS AN INTERIM PEDESTRIANIBIKE PATH The City of Palo Alto is proceeding wiih the development of a project to construct a pedestrian/bike path along the west side of the CalTrain tracks, from Churchill Avenue to the southerly end of the CalTrain parking lot at the Palo Alto CalTrain Station. The development of the project has been dependent upon, and has benefited substantially from, significant cooperation from the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and the Palo Alto Unified School District. The design of the project was fully completed in spring 1996, witl~ the intent to construct the project during the summer and fall period of this year. However,.the bidding process resulted in bids that were well over (50 percent +) the engineer’s~stir~ate, aS well as the available funding. After considering several alternatives, including the possil~ility of canceling the whole project, it became evident that the only item of sufficient cost consequence to make a substantial difference is the deletion of the Embarcadero Road pedestrian/bike bridge from the project. While this is clearly not a preferred solution, it is a workable interim approach. Therefore, the City decided to restructure the project into two stages. The first stage would include construction of the pedestrian/bike path, essentially as proposed (e.g. lighting, steel fencing, etc.), but with deletion of the proposed new bridge. The second stage would involve pursuing sources for sufficient funds to build the proposed bridge structu)e. The construction of the path would proceed in the spring of 1997, while the construction of the bridge would proceed when funding is secured. While there are currently no funding source opportunities for this bridge project, historical precedent strongly suggests that there will be new and renewed funding programs at the federal, state and local levels. At such time that such opportunities materialize, this br!dge project would likely be highly competitive since the design is complete, the cost is established, and the environmental review is approved. Securing funding for the bridge may occur within a one to two year time frame, but could take as long as five years or more. Between the time that the path is completed and the new bridge is constructed, there is a need to find a interim solution for crossing Embarcadero Road. Two options have been explored. One is to use the existing CalTrain bridge and one is to use a connection through the Palo Alto High School site, between the path and the pedestrian traffic signal crossing at Embarcadero Road. City staff has pursued the possibility of using a connection through the Palo Alto High School site on an interim basis, but has not been able to satisfactorily resolve fundamental safety, service and campus access issues. Page 1 ’,+. 25"..55 47: .-11.g5 " INSTALL AT EX C(NC i GATE : PYLON ADVANCED ENGINEERING DE,SIGN ~o~ ~ ,.~ ~,.(~,"o ,./,~,’~.,, P../-’,4 I I i SECTION Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Ave., P.O. Box 3006, San Carlos~ CA 94070-1306 (415) 508-6269 1i~x(415) 508-6281 April 22, 1997 ATTACHMENT C The Honorable Joseph H. Huber City of Palo Alto: 250 HamiltoffAWnue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear May6fHuber: SUBJECT:EMBARCADERO ROAD INTERIM PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATH On March 4, 1997, we wrote to ydu wi’th ~empora~y approval for the City to locate a portion of tile prc~posed Churchill/Uniw~’sity bicYCle path over the Embarcadero Road CalTrain Rail Bridge. Since thenl we have been contacted by ther California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which opposes use of the Embarcadero Bridge for the bicycle project.~ The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Region,7 Administrator shares this view. We further UnderStand that the PUC reiterated its opposition to the project during a meeting with City staff on April 17. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate to accede to the position of the PUC as transmitted in its letter dated April 9, 1997, and withdraw our approval for the Embarcadero Road Bridge as a portion of the bike path project. We presume that if the bike path is constructed, users will be directed to a signalized crossing on Embarcadero, and that appropriate fencing will prohibit cyclists or pedestrians from the Embarcadero Bridge. It is our hope that the City will be successful in attracting funding to underwrite a dedicated crossing for bicyclists as an ultimate solution to the Embarcadero problem. Executive Director GTH/JAG/dr C~JPB Members Howard Goode Jerry Kirzner Tom Davids Gary Mello Cityof Palo Alto D_epartm~.. t ofPla_nning and Community Environment July 17, 1997 ATTACHMENT D Transp orkation Divisioh Paul W. King Public Utilities Commission Safety and Enforcement Division Railroad Safety Branch 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear Paul: ¯ The purpose of this letter is to thank you for arranging the meeting on May 12 to discuss the Embarcadero Bike Path Project, and also to follow up on the discussions that occurred at that meeting. We felt that :the meeting was very helpful in ¯ developing a better common understanding of all aspects of the project, among all participants. While we continue to believe that the project has substantial merit and a number of positive benefits to existing problems, we also take very seriously the concerns that were expressed and propose to modify the project to respond positively to those concerns. The project is to construct a pedestrian/bike path along the west side of the CalTrain tracks, from Churchill Avenue to the parking lot at the southerly end of the Palo Alto CalTrain Station. The proposed project will complete a critical missing gap in the bikeway and provide a continuous bike route from the south city limits with Mountain View, to the north city limits with Menlo Park: In so doing, it will serve and facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel to a number of important destinations, including the Palo Alto CalTrain Station/Transit Center. This project has a broad base of support including local businesses, the Palo Alto Unified School District, Stanford University, the bicycle community, and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB). The total length of the project is approximately 4600 feet, of which only 1000 feet (20 percent) will be on JPB right-of-way. The other 3600 feet (80 percent) will be on the property of the Palo Alto Unified School District and Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Our agreement with the JPB includes a provision that we will relocate that portion of the path off the JPB right-of-way as soon as an opportunity arises, and/or upon ~ notice that the JPB needs the right-of-way for other purposes. As you know, the project calls for a new bridge across Embarcadero Road. When we previously bid the project, the costs were such that we have decided to temporarily delete the bridge, until suitable funding is available. As an interim measure, we investigated two options, one being the temporary use of the existing 150 Harnilton Avenue P.O.Box10250 PaloAlto, CA94303 415.329.1520 415.329.2299Fax Paul W. King July 17, 1997 Page 2 railroad bridge and the other being a temporary use of the-pedestrian signal.on Embarcadero Road..In response to concerns that have been expressed through the Public Utilities Commission, we have decided not to pursue the temporary use of the existing bridge. In the meantime, we will pursue the use of a temporary connection via the existing pedestrian traffic signal. However, it appears that we have a near-. term opportunity to secure funding for the new bridge. That funding opportunity means that we want, and will need, to rebid the project within the next month. ¯ Since our May 12 meeting, we have spent considerable time and effort to investigate and consider ways that we could modify the project to address ’the concerns that were.raised at the meeting, and still maintain a viable project. As a result, we intend to modify the proj,,e, ct in the following ways: So The temporary use of the existing railroad bridge will not be considered further. Instead, we will use a temporary connection via "the existing traffic signal on Embarcadero Road, Do In place of the 6-foot high steel tubular fence that was-proposed, we will substitute a vertical, 2 inch x 6 inch steel mesh fence, 8 feet high (Steel 450 Typhoon Welded Mesh), as is being used in similar situations by MetroLink in the Los Angeles area, as well as proposed for use by the JPB along critical sections of the CalTrain right-of-way. We will add a 6-foot chain link fence on the other side of the train t~acks, between the tracks and Alma Street. As you know, this area has heavy vegetation that already obstructs ready access to the tracks. The additional fence will further impede any access. d. The lighting that Will be added along the path will be vandal proof. The JPB has already posted "No Trespassing" signs along the railroad tracks and is responsible for providing enforcement. Upon completion of the bike path, Palo Alto police officers will provide additional .enforcement and issue citations, if necessary, under Penal Code Sections 369i and 555. Each of these changes is in direct response to the concerns that were raised at the meeting. While we do not necessarily agree with the need for all such actions, we share andrespect the concerns expressed and want to be as responsive as possible. I would als0 like to share with you the fact that Ashok Aggarwal visited MetroLink and had a very productive meeting with John Tandy, to review what MetroLink is doing, as well as to share information concerning our project. They have examples of similar types of paths, and are optimistic about developing more. They appear to Paul W. King July 17, 1997 Page 3 have the support of, or at least lack the opposition of, all interests responsible for railroad safety. John volunteered to talk with anyone who wished to learn more ¯ about their projects. He can be reached at (213) 452-0276. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that this project is very important, it enjoys a broad spectrum of support, it will directly resolve the current trespassing problem, which is of concern to everyone, and fencing on both sides will make it very difficult t5 trespassand/or place objects on the tracks. I must also emphasize that we share the concern for safety. We always have and will continue to do so. Our project to .build a Pedestrian/bike path parallel and adjacent to the existing railroad bridge crossing San ’Francisquito Creek is but one example whereby, we have been proactive in addressing safety~ concerns. We believe that the Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Path project will solve some basic, existing safety issuers and provide a much needed additional service, in a safe manner. We are prepared to move forward with the construction of this project, with the above modifications. We would appreciate it if you would share this information with the other representatives at our May 12 meeting and provide any comments or feedback as soon as possible. We will be in touch with you shortly regarding this matter. Thank you for your help in arranging the meeting and other efforts to reach an acceptable solution. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact either Ashok Aggarwal or myself. Sincerely, bcc: Marvin L. Overway Chief Transportation Official Gerald Haugh, Joint Powers Board Tom Davids, Joint Powers Board Jean McCown John Tandy, MetroLink June Fleming Ken Schreiber (oeTlo,~) NOT "TO REGULAR WIRE MESH (STEEL 4,50 TYPHOON WMF) NOTES: FENCE MESH SHALL BE 13/64" HARDENED STEEL WIRE CONSISTING OF 2"x6" RECTANGLES. FENCE POSTS SHALL BE 2 3/8" x 2 3/8" RECTANGULAR TUBING WITH WALL THICKNESS OF 3/32". POST TOP SHALL BE COVERED WITH A 1/16" ALUMINIUM CAP.’ POSTS SHALL BE SPACED AT I0’ APART. 3.POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS. MESH SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE POST BY FOUR (4) 1/8" STAINLESS STEEL FASTNERS (TYPE YRI). o REFER TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURTHER DETAILS. PCJPB PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD REGULAR WIRE MESH FENCING DETAILS DESIGNED BY SM DRAWN SM I CHECKED APPROVED BY IDATE 05107197 SCALE NOT TO SCALE PLAN SHEET NO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 October 17, 1997 Marvin Overway Chief Transportation Official City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTACHMENT E PETE WILSON, Governor RECEIVED @ 0C[ 2 1997 DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION Dear Mr. Overway, This refers to discussions between our staff (Staff), the City of Palo Alto, and other parties regarding the City of Palo Alto’s plans to construct a bike or multi- use path parallel to the Caltrain tracks in PaloAlto. Thank you for your recent letter describing new protections added to the cons;[ruction plans for the path. We understand these additions include a taller fence, fencing the opposite side of the tracks to provide further deterrent to trespassing in the area, a rerouting of the path away from the existing railroad bridge, and vandal-proof lighting. While the staff still has concerns about increased traffic the path may bring to the vicinity of the tracks, with your added improvements at this time we have insufficient evidence to indicate overall safety will be decreased as a result of the installation of the path. Therefore we do not oppose the construction as planned. As you know, we have informal complaints opposing the path’s construction. As one of the cQmplainants may still oppose the path, please note that they have the right to petition the Commission to conduct a formal investigation, While the Commission relies on Staff for advice, only formal Commission action is binding. This letter is advisory only, but does reflect Staff’s opinion with the information currently available. If you proceed with the construction, it will be imperative to work closely with the railroad to ensure all necessary safety procedures are followed. Additionally, we urge you to work closely with the railroad and its operating employees to monitor safety in this area. It will be particularly helpful to objectively assess risk factors before and after the installation. For example, it will be important to establish a current base line of risky behaviors such as trespassing for comparison to the incidence of risky behaviors after the installation is complete. Very truly yours, Kenneth L. Koss Director, ’Rail Safety and Carriers Division Brotherhood Locomotive ng|nee¢ SAN JOSE DIVISION 65 - AMTRAK SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT F RECEIVED SEP 0 9 1997 DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer City of PaiD Alto P.O. Box 10250 PaiD Alto, California 94303 September 3, 1997 Dear Mr. Aggarwal, The members of Division 65, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers vigorously .opposes any bicycle trails on or near the active Caltrain right of way from the PaiD Alto .(University Avenue Station) to Churchill Street. We believe that in the interest of safety to people riding the trains, people using any proposed bicycle path for whatever reason, and the train crev~s and equipment, that the proposedbicycle path poses some extremely dangerous opportunites for major incidents to occur. Although we support and encourage alternative methods of transportation including bicycles, we sincerely hope that a better bicycle path can be planned away from the railroad tracks. 808 Grovewood Court San Jose, California 95120 Sincerely, James R. Barry, Legisla.tive Representative Mr.Paul King, Public Utilities Commission Mr.Emelio Cruz, Chair, Caltrain JPB Mr.Paul Morrison, CSLB Chairman, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Mr.Don Saunders, General Manager, Amtrak (Caltrain) AFFILIATED WITH A.F.L.-C.I.O. AND C.L.C. Serving Since 1863 © Conditions under which tentative approval of a temporaD" exclusive easement will be recommended by PAUSD Staff. Enclosures for December 17 Board meeting must be submitted in Draft form n01at~i~,’~n Friday, December 6. Response ~rom Citv to these condltlons must be submitted to PAUSD not later than noon, December5. 1.The temporary exclusive easement for a pedestrian bike path along the existing driveway would be for a maximum of 5 years. The term for which the easement wou|d be granted mav be extended at’ the District’s discretion. o 4~ At City’s cost, replacement par’king in the amount of __ different from the area now designated as a fire lane. ¯ spaces would be provided by the City at a location At City’s cost, a chain link fence would be installed along the driveway to separate the path from the vehicular travel lanes. Two-way traffic would be maintained with two lO-foot travel lanes. The City would be responsible for constructing the interim path to an acceptable standard as well as ma.intain£ng the fence and path during the period of use. .~:, ,. ~., The City would erect appropriate signing that would direct people between the new path and the pedestrian traffic signal, and not into the school campus. -,- The City would connect the existing llghts along this segment of the roadway ~to a City electric meter and consult with PAUSD regarding future lighting schedules. ~ Within (30) days after conclusion of use, the City shall remove all fencing and signage, repair asphalt, restore speed humps and reconnect lighting to District’s satisfaction. Insurance Clause to be included in any grant of easement: "During the period that the easement is in force and until such time as the fencing is removed and the pathway is restored, City shall keep in force, at City’s expense, and City shall cause District to be named as ’additional insured’ thereunder, liability insurance for coverage up to $5,000,000 per person and $5,000,000 per accident, and property damage of S1,000,000 combined single limit. The City’s insurance shall be primaD" and any coverage _maintained by the District shall be excess to the coverage required to be provided by the City and not contributive to City’s insurance. Copies of said certificate with endorsement shall be deposited with the District and the City shall obtain the written agreement of insurers to notify the District in writing 30 days prior to any termination or non-renewal of insurance. City may satisfy such insurance requirements by endorsement to ex.ist-ing policies. Should the City choose not to purchase insurance, coverage will be provided by either the City’s self-i.nsuring for the required amounts or the City’s entering into a pooling program with applicable coverage. Coverage in excess of the City’s $1,000,000 self-insured retention may be provided by the City’s participation with the ACCEL Joint Powers Agreement. Coverage by ACCEL must be approved by said board of directors. City shall inform .District within (30) days of any change relating to specific lines of coverage." o Indemnification Clause to be include in ahy grant of easement: "City shall indemrfi.fy, defend and hold Palo Alto Unified School District harmless from any liability or expense including attorney fees and other costs of defense, on account of suits, verdicts, judgments, costs or claims of any nature or kind arisi.ng out of, in or any way connected with operations on, possession, use, management, i-,’nprovement, alteration or control of the bike path easement including but not limited to condition of bike path surface and lighting of the easement." Othercosts ~l.,,,c_k ~-es/- ,,g¢..ad,.z "~,.n’- a--Kc.a.~ $" City shal! reimburse district for incidental costs’assodated with processing the easement grant, including but not necessarily limited to attorney fees’and leg~ publication of the resolution of intent in the newspaper. 11/26/96 ATTACHMENT H Lowest Base Bid received in 1996 ....................$810,000 .’ Minus all:the new ped/bike bridge items ...............$<258,000> on Embarcadero Road items ......................$552,000 Inflation 15% .........................$ 82,000 School District Construction ..............60,000 Fencing ........,., .......: ...............70,000 Risk Assessment ............~ .........20,000 sub-total ....................$784,000 Construction Management- .. i:. ..........~39,000 Contingencies ..........................80,000 Testing .............................10,000 TOTAL .....................$913,000 Note:Estimate assumes that field surveying for School District Work, construction staking, and inspection will be provided by Public Works. C:~a, LLDATA\CMRS~EMBARC 10A1 ATTACHMENT I Bike Palh to Parallel Urban Lane Extension __ Bike Path on PAMF Campus PAMF to Build Bike Path As Designed Norlherly Connection Path Roject Recommended to be Cancelled Southerly Connection PAMF Not to Build Bike Path, But Maintain Easement for Future Construction By City Not to Soak Embarcadero Bike Path Project City of Palo Alto Transportation Division of Bike Path Built By PAMF _ 8/~9198 ATTACHMENT J JUL o 6 1998 Health Care Division June 18, 1998 DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION Ms. Anne Moore - Planning Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Anne: via fax 329-2240 Original to follow A Sutter Health Affiliate During the planning proces~ for the795 El Camino Real project we were reqifired to provide access for pedestrians and bicycles to and from fhe CalTraln ’station. BeCause of the city bicycle path being constructed along the railroad tracks, the City Staff’rbquired that the access be provided along the railroad tracks and in effect that we would construct that port. ion of the city bicycle path running behind our project and the JPB Parking Lot, No other method:of p[oviding that access (sidewalk along street and parking lot) was considered appropriate by the City Staff as our access had to be a part of and connect to the remainder of the city bicycle path. As a consequence, we have designed a portion of a very expensive Bicycle/Pedestrian Path that meets City of Palo Alto and Joint Powers Board requirements. This pathway was designed to handle commute traffic from south Palo Alto. As a result of our recent meeting we now understand that City Staff is making a recommendation to the City Council to abandon the City Bike Path Project due to issues related to (1) use of the JPB right-of-way, (2) the cost of the project and (3) temporary crossing of Embarcadero Road. In view of the above we feel it is fair to revise the portion of the path on our property. We propose the following: 1.We will construct the bicycle path as designed and approved from the CalTrain station to a planned point of connection to the new campus circulation system shown on our site plan immediately to the Southeast of the landscaped area known as the Building D site. We will allow the currently dedicated easement for the bike path to remain along the railroad frontage of our property in the event that the City desires to construct the rest of the bicycle path, including related improvements such as retaining walls, fencing and lighting, at some future date. o ° We will not be required to construct or pay for construction of that remaining bicycle path or related improvements that the City may in the future decide to build. Landscaping, lighting and fencing along the portion of the bicycle path that we will construct will be installed as planned and approved. Lighting and fencing along that portion of the bicycle path that is not being constructed will not be installed by PAMF at this time or later. Palo Alto Medical Clinic 300 Homer Ave. Palo Alto CA 94301 6..Landscaping along that portion of the bicycle path that is not being constructed will be revised to reflect the change in use of the area as mutually agreed upon by City Staffand PAMF. The planned bicycle connection to the bike path at the extreme southeast comer of our site will not be constructed a~ this time, as the bicycle path will not exist at that location. PAMF is willing to allow this or a similar connection when the remaining portion of the bicycle path is constructed. This is, in our opinion, a fair and equitable solution to the bike path issue. Clearly, we were required to plan more elaborate facilities than necessary due to the City’s plans for a much more ¯ extensive bicycle path. To re-design bicycle/pedestrian access to rma along the Urban Lane extension is possible and would result in less costly construction but would, at this late date, cause very costly delays in construction. As we see it, this proposal will have us construct what is necessary now and the City is free to constructwhat it desires in the future. It is imperative that this issue be addressed soon as our construction is progressing and some preparatory work is necessary soon. A significant delay will cost a great deal of money. I look forward to your response. Real CC:Nick Sica Ashok Aggarwal Peninsuia Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Ave., P.O. Box 3006, San Carlos~ CA 94070-1306 (415) 508-6269 fax (415) 508-6281 ATTACHMENT C March 4, 1997 Hon. Joseph H. Huber City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 OFFIC~E OF. THC- 01"17 SUBJECT: EMBARCADERO ROAD INTER.IM PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATH Dear Mayor Huber: JPB Chair Emilio Cruz has asked staff to respond to your letter of February 18, 1997, regarding the temporary location of the proposed Churchill/University bicycle path over the Embarcadero Road CalTrain rail bridge. We are prepared to accept the City’s prdposal foi: an interim location on the existing rail bridge, subject to construction of a ~olid fence along the east side of the temporary path to separate the bikeway from the railroad tracks.’ This fence should be at least seven febt high¯ and of solid material, such as wood, so that users of the path are protected from dust and debris kicked up by passing trains. It is my understanding that Palo Alto staff has agreed that the cost of the fence will be included in the project budget and, as such, installation and subsequent maintenance will be accomplished at no cost to the JPB. Other provisions in the preliminary agreement, as we understand them: The City will construct approximately 350 feet of high-level concrete platform to replace piatform lost through CalTrain locomotives stopping on the bridge. The City will erect signs on the path and bridge crossing advising pedestrians and bicyclists that this is a temporary connection, that trains may pass at any time, and that extreme caution is mandatory. Post-construction liability coverage will be carried by the City as stipulated in the recorded Grant of Easement and Agreement dated July 29, 1994. Consistent with previous staff discussions, the J)B encourages the City to continue its efforts to secure funding for a permanent bridge adjacent to the rail bridge as stipulated in the original construction plans. Similarly, we would advise coordination with the California PuNic Utilities Commission’s Rail Safety and Carriers Division as the project progresses. Letter to Mayor Joseph Huber March 4, 1997 Page Two Tom Davids, the JPB property manager, is the staff coordination resource for formulation of an ultimate operations and maintenance agreement. We will endeavor to provide prompt and consistent cooperation throughout the project. Executive Director GTH/JAG/dr c~Howard Goode Jerome Kirzner Sherry Ullom Tom Davids Gary Mello Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Ave., P.O. Box 3006, San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 (415) 508-6269 fax(415) 508-6281 April 22, 1997 ATTACHMENT D The Honorable Joseph H. Huber City of Palo Alto % 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Huber: SUBJECT:EMBARCADERO ROAD INTERIM PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATH On March 4, 1997, we wrote to you with temporary approval for the City. to locate a portion of the proposed Churchill/University bicycle path over the Embarcadero Road CalTrain Rail Bridge. Since then; we have been contacted by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which opposes use of the Embarcadero Bridge for the bicycle project. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Region 7 Administrator shares this view. We further understand that thePUC reiterated its opposition to the project during a meeting with City staff on April 17. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriat.e to accede to the position of the PUC as transmitted in its letter dated April 9, 1997, and withdraw our approval for the Embarcadero Road Bridge as a portion of the bike path project. We presume that if the bike path is constructed, users will be directed to a signalized crossing on Embarcadero, and that appropriate fencing will prohibit cyclists or pedestrians from the Embarcadero Bridge. It is our hope that the City will be successful in attracting funding to underwrite a dedicated crossing for bicyclists as an ultimate solution to the Embarcadero problem. ’ald T. Haugh Executive Director GTH/JAG/dr C:JPB Members Howard Goode Jerry Kirzner Tom Davids Gary Mello Cityoi ?alo Alto E2q.~artment of Planning and Community Environment : July 17, 1997 ATTACHMENT E Transportation Divk~ion Paul W. King Public Utilities Commission Safety and Enforcement Division Railroad Safety Branch 505 Van Ness Ayenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear Paul: The purpose of this letter is to thank you for arranging ihe meeting on May 12 to discuss the Embarcadero Bike Path Project, and also to follow up on the discussions that occurred at that meeting. We felt that the meeting was very helpful in developing a better common understanding of all aspects of the project, among all participants. While we continue to believe that the p.roject has substantial merit and a number of positive benefits to existing problems, we also take 9e~y seriously th~ concerns that were expressed and propose to modify the project to respond Ibositively to those concerns. The project is to construct a pedestrian/bike path along the west side of the CaITrain tracks, from Churchill Avenue to the parking lot at the southerly end of the Palo Alto CalTrain Station. The proposed project will complete a critical missing gap in the bikeway and provide a continubus bike route from the south city limits with Mountain View, to the north city limits with Menlo Park. In so doing, it will serve and facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel to a number of important destinations, including the Palo Alto CalTrain Station/Transit Center. This project has a broad base Of support including local businesses, the Palo Alto Unified School District, Stanford University, the bicycle.community, and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB). The total length of the project is approximately 4600 feet, of which only 1000 feet (20 percent) wil! be on JPB right-of-way. The other 3600 feet (80 percent) will be on the property of the Palo Alto Unified School District and Palo AltoMedical Foundation. Our agreement with the JPB includes a provision that we will re!ocate that portion of the path off the JPB right-of-way as soon as an opportunity arises, and/or upon notice that the JPB needs the right-of-way for other purposes. As you know, the’project calls for a new bridge across Embarcadero Road. When we previously bid the project, the costs were such that we have decided to temporarily delete the bridge, until suitable funding is available. As an interim measure, we investigated two options, one being the temporary use of the existing 250 Hamihon Avenue P.O. Box10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 415.329.2520 415.329.2299Fax Paul W. King July 17, 1997 Page 2 railroad bridge and the other being a temporary use of the pedestrian signal.on Embarcadero Road. In response to concerns thai have been expressed thr.ough the Public Utilities Commission, we have decided not to pursue the temporary use of the existingi..bridge. In the meantime, We will pursue the use of a temporary connection via therexisting pedestrian traffic signal. However, it appears that we have a near- term Opportunity to secure funding for the new bridge. That funding opportunity means that we want, and will need, to rebid the project within the next month. Since our May 12 meeting, we have spent considerable time and effort to investigate and consider ways that we could modify’ the-project to address the copcerns that were raised at the meeting, and still maintain a viable project. As a result, we intend to modify the project in the following ways: a. The temporary use of the existing railroad bridge will not be considered further. Instead, we will use a temporary connection via the existing traffic signal on Embarcadero Road. In place of the 6-foot high steel tubular fence that was. proposed, we will substitute a vertical, 2 inch x 6 inch steel mesh fence, 8 feet high (Steel 450 Typhoon Welded Mesh), as is being used in similar situations by MetroLink in the Los Angeles area, as well as proposed for use by the JPB along critical sections of the CalTrain right-of-way. We will add a 6-foot chain link fence on the Other side of the train tracks, between the tracks and Alma Street. As you know, this area has heavy vegetation that already obstructs ready access to the tracks. The additional fence will further impede any access. d. The lighting that will be added along the path will be vandal proof. The JPB has already posted "No Trespassing" signs along the railroad tracks and is responsible for providing enforcement. Upon completion of the i~ike path, Palo Alto police officers will provide additional enforcement and issue citations, if necessary, under Penal Code Sections 369i and 555. Each of these changes is in direct response to the concerns that were raised at the meeting. While w~ don0t necessarily agree with the need for all such actions, we share and respect the concerns expressed and want to be as responsive as possible. I would also like to share with you the fact that Ashok Aggarwal visited MetroLink and ’had a very productive meeting with John Tandy, to review what MetroLink is doing, as well as to share information concerning our project. They have examples of similar types of paths and are optimistic about developing more. They appear to Paul W,. King July 17, 1997 Page 3 have the support of, or at least lack the opposition of, all interests responsible for railroad safety. John volunteered to talk with anyone who wished to learn more about their projects. Fie can be reached at (213) 452-0276. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that this project is very importa, nt, it enjoys a broad spectrum of support, it will directly resolve the current trespassing problem, which is of concern to everyone, and fencing on both sides will make it very difficult to trespass and/or place objects on the tracks. I must also emphasize that we share the concern for safety. We always have and will continue to do so. Our project to build a pedestrian/bike path parallel and adjacent to the existing ~ailroad bridge crossing San Francisquito Creek is but one example whereby we have been prc~achve ir~ addressing safety concerns.. We believe that the Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Path project will solve some basic, existing safety issues and provide a much needed additional service, in a safe manner. We are prepared to move forward with tl~d construction of this pr6ject, With {he above modifications. We would appreciate it if you would share this information with the other representatives at our May 12 meeting and provideany comments or feedback as soon as possible. We will be in touch with you shortly regarding this matter. Thank you for your help in arranging the meeting and other efforts to reach an acceptable solution. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact either Ashok Aggarwal or mys-’elf. Sincerely, bcc: Marvin L. Overway Chief Transportation Official Gerald Haugh, Joint Powers Board Tom Davids, Joint Powers Board ~lean McCown John Tandy, MetroLink June Fleming Ken Schreiber NOTES: REGULAR WIRE MESH (STEEL 450 TYPHOON WMF) FENCE MESH SHALL BE 13/64" HARDENED STEEL WIRE CONSISTING OF 2"x6" RECTANGLES. FENCE POSTS SHALL BE 2 3/8" X 2 3/8" RECTANGULAR TUBING WITH WALL THICKNESS OF 3/32". POST TOP SHALL BE COVERED WITH A 1/16" ALUMINIUM ~CAP. POSTS SHALL BE SPACED AT i0’ APART. 3.POSTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS. MESH SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE POST BY FOUR (4) 1/8" STAINLESS STEEL FASTNERS (TYPE YRI). REFER TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURTHER DETAILS. PCJPB PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD REGULAR WIRE MESH FENCING DETAILS DESIGNED BY SM SM I CHECKEDDRAWN APPROVED BY IDATE O5107/97 SCALE NOT TO SCALE PLAN SHEET NO, 1 ’09/05/1997 18:42 9972152 ’~~ Bro herhooc! of Locomo :ive Enginee ’ $AN JOSE DIVISION 65 t AMTRAK SAN JOSE, OALIFORNIA’ ATTACHMENT F September 3, 1997 Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Oity Traffic Engtneer City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 Dear Mr. Aggan~al, The ’members of Division 65, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers vigorously opposes any bicycle trails on or near the active Caltrain right of way from the Palo Alto (University Avenue Station) to Churchill Street. We believe that in the interest of safety to people riding the trains, people using any proposed bicycle path for whatever reason, and the train crews and equipment, that the proposed bioycle path poses some extremely dangerous. opportunites for major incidents to occur. , Although we support and encourage alternative methods of transportation including bicycles, we sincerely hope that a better bicycle path can be planned away from. the railroad tracks. Sincerely, James R. Barry, Legislative Representative 808 Grovewood Court San Jose, California 95120 Mr.Paul King, Public Utilities Commission Mr.Emelio Cruz, Chair, Oaltrain JPB Mr.Paul Morrison, CSLB Chairman, Brotherhood of Locomotive Enginee[s Mr.Don Saunders, General Manager, Amtrak (Caltrain) AFFILIATED WITH A.F.L.-C.I,O. AND C.L.C,, Se~ina Since 1863 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Govemor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 , ~ May 6, 1999 ATTACHMENT G VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer City of Palo Alto Dept. of Planning & Community Development 250 Hamilton Avenue ’ P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 Oi ,t Re:.Embarcadero Road Pedestrian/Bike Pa’th Project D~ar Mr. Aggarwal~, This letter is in response to your r(cent telephone inquiries to the staff of the Rail S~ifety & Carriers Division (Division) of the C0mmission, and your February 3, 1999 letter to me. I understand that the City of Palo Alto (City) desires to construct a pedestrian/bike path using approximately 1,000 feet of Joint Powers Board (JPB) railroad right-of-way and that the JPB is amenable to this joint use. I also understand that the City has agreed not to pursue joint use of a JPB railroad bridge based on the safety concerns of the Division’s staff. Finally, I understand that with the City’s removal of the joint use of the bridge, the Division’s staffhas withdrawn any reservations it may have had with respect to the project. In telephone discussions and in your letter you mention the possibility of filing an application with the Commission for approval of the project. You also mention that you are concerned that certain railroad unions may oppose the joint use of the railroad bridge a.nd, perhaps, the project in general. Please note that any approval of the project by the Commission must be voted on by a majority of the Commissioners and the proceeding must be open to all interested parties including the railroad unions. All sides must be provided an opportunity to be heard and the decision to approve the pi:oject will rest with the Commission. I am advised by the Legal Division that an application should be filed with the Commission requesting approval of the project. A final decision by the Commission would probably be issued after a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at the Commission’s headquarters in San Francisco. The application filing and hearing rules may be found in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Title 20 of the Letter to the City of Pal6 Alto re Bike Path May 6, 1999 Page 2 California Code of Regulations which may be found at http://ccr.oal.ca, gov/. These suggestions to file a formal proceeding at the Commission represent the opinion of the Commission’s Legal Division and are not binding on the Commission which renders decisions only on a formal vote of a majority of its appointed members. Very truly yours, Kenneth L. Koss Director, Rail Safety & Carriers Division PSB:cdl Paul W. King, PURA V Lionel B. Wilson, Assis. Gen. Counsel Patrick S. Berdge, P.U. Counsel III